Huge negative for me. I wouldn't go there.

Let me add, once again, to the several expressions of thanks for the interaction!

Brian, What would it take to bring the Lightning to market?? It is essentially a 58P with a single turboprop on the nose.

The Lightning would be my dream airplane, 2 doors, pressurization, JetA, should be 200+kts.

Rick

To get me in a new plane, it would take:
A diesel engine.
A parachute. (Another debated subject on BT, and surprisingly well received for BT guys.)
A Beechcraft.

I would move faster if it was a four seater.

If that was available in the next three years, I would be knocking.

Honestly, the parachute is the only thing I can't duplicate in my V35B if the diesel technology becomes available. And I love my V! But I like to fly at night and in/over LIMC, and am highly motivated to have the added safety. Just not enough to fly the other alternative.

I just don't think diesel is the answer, 100ULL could be. I hope Beech doesn't spend a lot of money on it.

nm

nm

Welcome Brian

Great to have you as a resource for BT

You got it!

Brian, I've owned four Bonanzas and four Beech twins (3 Barons and a Twin Bonanza).

I don't want another twin. The best value (!) in speed, safety, maintenance, operating costs, ease-of-use, and several other areas is the single (in all brands).

It's GREAT that you are here, but I gotta say I'm disappointed in your quick, negative, answers to what we consider to be the very most important areas Beech needs to address.

Rather than explaining that planes have gotten heavier (believe me, we know that, and probably as well or better than most people working at Beechcraft), how about "Well, that presents challenges. How important is it to you?"

Useful load is the difference between a plane having value or zero value. If it won't carry the load we regularly carry, it's simply out of the running.

I'm also perplexed at the snap response that you don't support others who have gotten STCs for increased gross weight (sometimes 400 pounds increase). Just how much have you looked into this?

Okay, here's a serious suggestion that will make Bonanzas and Barons sell faster. Team up with Tornado Alley Turbo and GAMI to make the best planes ever. It would be the height of foolishness not to tap into the knowledge base in Ada, Oklahoma.

We will be rooting for you, and we are happy to help in any way we can.

What we are looking for, though, is some understanding of how people use Bonanzas and Barons.

Question: Do you have a pilot's certificate? How much do you pilot a general aviation aircraft? How many people in management at Beechcraft pilot PISTON aircraft regularly?

You see where this is going. It's quite difficult for someone to "get" what we are talking about without actually *using* a plane for business and pleasure, traveling completely across the country regularly, loading up four people and bags for a week and flying 1,000 miles (I don't think the current Bonanza will do that).

That's how we use the planes, and that's the utility we need to see.

Do that, and you are well on your way toward getting our attention.

Again, welcome. Buckle your seat belt!

How about bring back the BEST Beech ever built, that Gorgeous Staggerwing, but in an updated version, maybe with a PT6 or the new GE engine( Solves the 100LL issue.)

Maybe look into bringing an LSA to market, (Have your marketing dept. check out sales figures on the Carbon Cub)

Whatever you design for new to market I would suggest following Mr. Raisbeck's example and incorporate A&Ps into the design team. This way we can explain why you DON"T want to put that box onto the back of the firewall or shove the #2 battery up into never, never land behind the instrument panel anywhere. Maybe you could incorporate thumb latches into ALL inspection panels so we don't have to spend time removing and reinstalling all those screws for inspections, (Zlin Aircraft does this).

Basically make it easier to access high maintenance items, the less customer spend on labor the more plane they can afford.

Rewrite your Maintenance manuals somewhat similar to Air Force manuals. These are written at an 8th grade reading level with lots of pictures. (Cuts down on mistakes)

I.e picture on the left side of the manual, procedure on the right side.

Look hard at the prices on parts. $1600.00 for a hall effect sensor for rpm indication?. Yeah I know it's a CMI part...but maybe you guys should talk, I mean dang what is that .04% of the price of the engine, really?

Being the "old timer" that I am, I remember the "lightning". It was announced, by Beech, to be a pressurized single engine turbo prop costing about 500 AMU's. A lot of $$$ back then. I think the Duke at that time was sell for about 400 AMU's.

When Beech reached the necessary $1000 AMU sales price to break even, without profit, they dropped the project. Didn't have AutoCad or equivilant design technology back then including composite design and processes. etc.. But they did have the help and involvement from big brother, the Gov (FAA). I think they added the last 400 AMU's to the cost.

Welcome Brian. I'll bet you never saw this; I dearly hope that I'm wrong. I got only a nice reply from Don; never a call from any engineer.

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012
To:
Bill Crutchfield, Jr (a local pal here, owns a 550SHP C90);
Tom Clements (a well known King Air Person)
Cc: Don Mercer; Jim Holcomb (both Beech Execs)
Subject: Re: Hawker Beechcraft's marketing

Bill, Tom, did you get the survey on C90 Antiskid? My response was:

Ridiculous. The King Air 90 will use 1500-1700 ft with light braking, on grass or gravel. I do it all the time. You need to focus on important matters.

And then the survey asked for other suggestions: Mine (important matters to ME!) were:

Increase the Cabin Differential so that at FL280 we'd have a Cabin Alt of 7000; at FL310, cabin of 9000, max. This would be a huge improvement in SAFETY and comfort, less tiring (Safety) at altitude, almost surely quieter, ...etc. OFFER THIS AS A RETROFIT KIT.

Beech should offer a C90 STC update to add the engine driven boost pump that the identical-engined F90 has. That way, we'd use BOOST as standby pumps (so: rarely). OFFER THIS AS A RETROFIT KIT. Ask me why I flew home from Florida on one engine a month ago, with the "good side" shut down, running on high pressure pump suction ...balancing fuel and getting home perfectly safely. [ANSWER. Dead Boost Pump]. There isn't any way to transfer the fuel across...and that is a BAD design.

So is AutoCrossfeed. After this event and after a long conversation with Tom Clements, I'm gonna start leaving mine OFF. (If I had, I could have come home on two, but it took me a while to figure that out.) I now know that it is well proven (but not anywhere published) that it doesn't hurt to suck fuel for a few hours ....surely, well beyond the published ten.

Include simple AlphaSystem AoA instrumentation. SAVE LIVES!
See AOPA PILOT: http://www.ballyshannon.com/aoaarticles1.html
Good golly! If an old cattle breeder (I refer to MYSELF) can get the FAA to approve a simple AoA, what could Beech do? OFFER THIS AS A RETROFIT KIT.

RVSM? Maybe <shrug>. Not really critical, I think. I have wanted FL300 only thrice since I have owned the aircraft. but if you tighten the hull, you might as well offer that as a SEPARATE option. Tie them together and you’ll restrict sales.

[EDIT, added today] I have concluded that winglets are of little value to me in my Blackhawk C90A. They slow the max cruise very slightly and I can land short enough right now.]

Happy to chat with any engineer and/or decision-maker. My cell is 434 953-XXXX

The GOOD NEWS? I just got a mailing from Beech; the factory is selling the Blackhawk retrofits. THAT IS A VERY SMART MOVE! Bravo!

Fred

Welcome Brian! I too have had several Beech products: A-36; A-55; 58P and now a C90. It was difficult for me to stay with Beech as I upgraded. There was no logical step from the A-36. I had about every after market upgrade there was before finally going to a twin, then pressurized twin to fly in the manner my mission dictated. Pressurized single with more capability seems like a real hole that should be filled. There is also a big hole with no piston, pressurized twins available. Everyone can't afford a turbine.

I see you're getting some excellent suggestions. Rather than throw up all the hurdles to implementation, why not see what could really be useful and feasible and bring that upstairs? Almost everyone if not all on this list are avid Beech fans and wish you every success. Many have had to go elsewhere because the need was there and Beech's products weren't.

Best,

Dave

My suggestions are take a page from Piper and reinvent what you have. Stripped down four seat trainer, 4 seat cruiser 33, improve the G36 by increasing useful load, aerodynamic clean up via cowl mods and drag reduction. Either make a clean sheet design for a single engine 6 seat turboprop or take a Cessna play and buy the rights to the Kestral or Epic. I have no desire for a twin. If it flew twice as fast, maybe but I do not want 3x thecost and maintenance.

You're right about the FAA being the hard part.

We are always on the lookout to try to reduce costs without sacrificing quality.

Can't speak to the salespeople deal. I don't interface with them. I have some contact with the marketing people.

Just the other day we were discussing what we could do with different Al alloys. It's not really new but there are some out there that offer more strength for a given guage. The alloys we currently use just predate them and we haven't broken away from them. Can you imagine the effort required to substitute all the sheetmetal on a given airplane? It's not a small deal in effort or money. I would imagine we would have to do structural testing to substantiate it too. Figure $20m per type just for the structural testing...not counting all the production drawings and type design changes, and then recertifying it all...it could be huge. Someone has to decide if this is a good investment to make on a legacy airframe. Or would money be better spent on a clean sheet aircraft?