Zitat

To see the 4000 in action we planned a flight from Beech Field in Wichita to Aspen and back. We had two passengers and 7,000 pounds of fuel to bring takeoff weight up to 30,950 pounds, well below the maximum of 39,500 pounds. Available payload with full tanks is 1,600 pounds, so all eight standard seats can be filled. However, the 7,000 pounds of fuel was plenty for a high-speed flight halfway across the country to Los Angeles from Wichita so it was actually a pretty typical fuel load. The fuel planning rule of thumb for the 4000 is to burn about 2,600 pounds in the first hour, 2,000 in the second and about 1,800 pounds an hour after that for an endurance of over seven hours at Mach .82 cruise with full tanks. The temperature in Wichita at 25° C made the required takeoff runway just 3,355 feet.

Zitat

The Pratt PW308A engines are rated at 6,900 pounds of thrust each, and have the capability to produce all of that thrust up to an air temperature of 37° C at sea level. That means you get full power on the hottest day, and a big chunk of rated power on a hot day at a high elevation airport. The engines are, of course, controlled by full-authority digital engine computers (fadec) so all starting and operating parameters are automatically controlled. However, the 4000 has an autothrottle system as standard -- another midsize first -- so pilot workload is further reduced because the autothrottle maintains the desired airspeed.

Zitat

For takeoff you engage the autothrottle and advance the levers about halfway, and then the system takes over to set the power. With the high bypass fan design of the PW308 engines, acceleration is very brisk and we were quickly at the 111-knot rotation speed. The pitch response of the airplane is totally predictable and it's easy to rotate to the desired target and hold it. The real challenge is to keep from blowing through the 200-knot airport area speed limit, but the autothrottle helps take care of that by bringing the power back in advance of leveling at the assigned altitude.

We had two brief level offs at lower altitude but at 15 minutes after takeoff the 4000 was climbing through 37,000 feet, despite air temperature that averaged 5° to 10° C above standard. With the autothrottles locked onto a Mach .78 climb speed, the 4000 was going up at 1,800 fpm through 40,000 feet, where the temperature had dropped to standard, and at 20 minutes after takeoff we were level at 43,000 feet despite the two intermediate altitude assignments. Acceleration from climb to high-speed cruise of Mach .82 took barely a minute and we settled on a true airspeed of 471 knots with total fuel flow of 1,800 pounds per hour.

Zitat

After a few minutes we asked the flight management system for max cruise and the 4000 accelerated to Mach .83 for 477 knots true on 1,900 pounds of fuel flow. Even at that speed the airplane was moving through the air .251 nm for every pound of fuel burned for a remarkably good specific range. The wing is so efficient at Mach .82 or .83 that very little range can be gained by slowing down, so I doubt many 4000 pilots will, unless they need to stretch for the last couple hundred miles of a very long trip.

The very smooth contours of the carbon fiber fuselage, and the way the windshields have been blended into the sophisticated canopy shape, makes the cockpit very quiet even at maximum indicated airspeeds. The same is true in the cabin where sound pressure levels measure well below that of many other jets. The cabin sound level is so low, in fact, that people from one company that went on a demonstration flight asked if an acoustic curtain could be installed between the fore and aft seating groups because normal conversation from each area could be heard by all. If there is such a thing as being too quiet, maybe the 4000 is approaching that level, but I'm sure most are going to be more than pleased with the very low sound and vibration levels.

Zitat

Pressurization controls are fully automated with the system consulting the database for both departure and arrival airport elevations. It was interesting to watch the system in action while approaching Aspen as it gradually raised the cabin altitude from the cruise level of around 5,000 feet to smoothly meet the 7,800-feet elevation at Aspen with no bumps in the pressure, nor intervention required by the crew.

For the return trip from Aspen to Beech Field we added fuel to bring the total up to 5,050 pounds so our takeoff weight was 28,845 pounds. It was a beautiful summer day in the Rockies with the temperature at 23° C, which is about 22° C above standard, so the density altitude was very high. Despite the conditions the 4000 needed only 5,060 feet of runway for a balanced field takeoff and we could have easily added enough fuel to fly to any point in the lower 48 states.

This time the controllers kept clearing us higher with no steps and we were at 45,000 feet in 17 minutes after takeoff. Yes, we departed at nearly 8,000 feet, but that is still impressive. With temperatures a little below standard the 4000 quickly accelerated to Mach .82 for a true airspeed of 465 knots on just 1,640 pounds of total fuel flow. At that level we were covering .272 nm for every pound of fuel burned.

Zitat

Overall the flying qualities of the 4000 are precise and predictable at any altitude or airspeed. The speed brakes are linear, meaning they respond to the amount you move the handle, and can be used at any airspeed or altitude. I tried steep turns and found that with a little practice -- and by watching the flight path indicator -- I could hold altitude to the required stand-ard. Approach to stalls are a nonevent with loads of power to accelerate away from the stick shaker warning.

Learning to land the 4000 does, however, take a little practice. Unlike most jets, the deck angle on approach is level, or perhaps even a little nose down. To make a good landing you need to make a sort of round out 100 or so feet in the air, and then let the airplane settle. It's not really a flare, but more a leveling of the attitude. With the confusing visual illusions of the mountains and uphill runway at Aspen for my first landing, I didn't get it right and banged the airplane on. The automatic ground spoilers did their job and kept the airplane firmly on the runway for an easy rollout. Back on the level land at Wichita I got the hang of the sight picture on very short final and turned in a decent landing. With a little practice, and the long stroke trailing link landing gear, 4000 pilots will be rolling the airplane on. There was a 90-degree crosswind gusting to 18 knots for my last landing and it worked out just fine, so the airplane surely has the capability and control authority to handle demanding conditions.

Hawker Beechcraft has a dedicated team of service reps to smooth entry of the 4000 into service and plans to ramp up production gradually to a rate of about 30 per year. More than 130 are on order, and 2010 is the next available gap in the delivery schedule.

It's been a long road for the 4000 but in the end the airplane delivers. It was the first airplane to be announced in the super midsize category, and in terms of performance, cabin comfort and system redundancy the emphasis certainly ended up being on the "super." For everyone who has loved the Hawker and wanted more, the 4000 is the one.

Zitat

The airplane flown for this report was the first production model delivered. It was equipped with the optional six chairs and three-place divan instead of the double club seating for eight. The basic operating weight (BOW), which includes 400 pounds for the two pilots, and 300 pounds for cabin stores such as water, galley provisions and manuals, was 23,450 pounds, which is 50 pounds less than the expected typical BOW. The data below is from the aircraft manuals and reflects standard day conditions.

YouTube

Zitat

The 900XP's is a large round knurled knob that I had found awkward to manipulate during my recent demonstration flight, while the 4000's was more akin to tillers on large transport. The brake-by-wire carbon brakes were easily modulated by pedal toe pressure, keeping taxi speed moderate.
With equipment and one passenger weighing 227kg, our test day Hawker had a zero-fuel weight of 10,614kg, slightly less than the published basic operating weight of 10,659kg. The basic weight includes allowances for water and galley provisions as well as unusable fuel and oil. Weatherford computed take-off data using a paper look-up chart as an FMS-based capability is still under development.
TAKE-OFF
With 2,631kg of fuel, he computed a balanced field length of 971m. At an MTOW of 17,916kg and standard conditions, Hawker Beechcraft lists a take-off distance of 1,569m.
Once aligned on the runway, pushing the throttles forward allowed the armed auto-thottle system to engage at 60kt (110km/h) indicated irspeed and set take-off power at 95.3% N1.
Acceleration was quite rapid, given our light weight. Passing through an indicated air speed of 80kt, I moved my left hand from the tiller to the yoke, as the Hawker's NWS is not controllable with the rudder pedals. Rotate was called at 111kt and the Hawker leapt into the air after a ground roll of less than 800m.
The yoke-mounted electric pitch trim easily zeroed out the changing pitch forces as the gear and flaps were retracted and the indicated air speed accelerated to 200kt.
Once clear of the class C airspace (generally 4nm/7.4km), a climb speed of 250kt was established. The flight director's flight-level change mode provided good pitch guidance as the auto-throttle maintained climb power.
During numerous air traffic control-directed intermediate level-offs, the auto-throttle retarded power to maintain the desired speed, greatly easing the task of flying the Hawker. Passing 10,000ft, an indicated air speed of 280kt was held until Mach 0.80 was intercepted.
During the climb I engaged the autopilot, using the heading mode to comply with air traffic control vectors and flight-level change to maintain climb schedule.
Once cleared direct to a point on our flightplan, engaging the NAV lateral autopilot mode took the aircraft directly toward the point. Less than 23min after brake release and a fuel burn of 508kg, the Hawker levelled at FL430.
At MTOW, Hawker Beechcraft lists time to climb to an initial cruise altitude of FL370 as 14min, and FL430 as 25min. The Challenger 300 and Hawker 4000 have nearly identical thrust to weight ratios and wing loading, two key factors in defining climb performance. Given their similar attributes it should come as no surprise that the Challenger's time to climb to FL370 is also listed as 14min.
Level at FL430 the 12,700kg aircraft was accelerated to a high-speed cruise point, where 96% N1 and a total fuel flow of 826kg/h maintained M0.83, just below the MMO of 0.84.
At near standard conditions the Hawker's indicated airspeed of 235kt yielded 476kt true airspeed. The Hawker's M0.83 cruise capability is the highest in its class.
LINEAR TRADE-OFF
Slowing to a long-range cruise speed of M0.775 gave a true airspeed of 446kt and dropped total fuel flow to 762kg/h. With six passengers and baggage (544kg), the Hawker's NBAA IFR range at M0.78 is listed at 5,871km.
Pushing the speed to M0.82 with the same payload drops the range less than 6% to 5,537km. As that data shows, the trade-off between speed and fuel consumption in cruise conditions is nearly linear and most operators will operate at high-speed cruise for all but the most demanding stage lengths.
At an indicated air speed of 220kt, I accomplished a series of 45° and 60° angle of bank turns. At FL430 there was sufficient excess power to maintain altitude and airspeed with no apparent airframe buffet. Pitch and roll control forces were well harmonised throughout the manoeuvring.
With the autopilot engaged, Weatherford took control of the aircraft and accelerated it to M0.83 as I left the flightdeck to experience the 4000's plush cabin.

The test aircraft had an optional nine-place configuration that featured a three-place divan in the aft portion of the cabin, which was spacious with comfortable seating. The lavatory had an externally serviced toilet and pressurised hot and cold water.
A belted lavatory option is available, allowing seating for up to 10 passengers. The ambient noise level was quite low, allowing conversation at normal voice levels throughout the long cabin.
The pressurisation system has a maximum delta pressurisation of 665mbar (9.65lb/in2), giving a cabin altitude of 6,000ft at its 45,000ft ceiling. At FL430 on the test day the indicated cabin altitude was only 5,500ft.
Lower cabin altitudes are less taxing than higher ones, and the 4000's high pressure differential should allow travellers to arrive at their destinations less fatigued.
I returned to the cockpit to initiate a descent to intermediate altitude. The power was set mid-range and the aircraft accelerated to MMO.
The clacker sounded at M0.84. Had the autopilot been engaged it would have raised the pitch attitude to avoid an over-speed. Stable at M0.84, a sharp control input in each control axis showed resultant aircraft motion to be well damped.
Speedbrake deployment was announced by slight airframe buffet, and caused a nose-up pitching motion that was easily countered by forward yoke pressure. The throttles were retarded to idle after completing the high-speed investigation, and speedbrakes retracted for a further descent to 16,000ft AGL.
During the descent a number of bank to bank rolls were performed at airspeeds varying from 200-280kt. As was the case at FL430, I found the flight controls to be well harmonised showing the Hawker to be a joy to hand-fly.
DECELERATION RATE
Once level at 16,000ft MSL, the power was set to obtain a deceleration rate of 1kt/s as the 12,338kg Hawker was slowed for a straight ahead clean configuration stall.
At an indicated 118kt, the airspeed tape turned amber to indicate a low-speed condition. At 103kt, the stick shaker activated, prompting me to rapidly advance the power to fly out of the stall. Had the autopilot been engaged during the manoeuvre, it would have been automatically disengaged upon shaker activation.
The next two stalls were in the landing configuration, gear down and flaps set to 35°. Roughly 60% N1 was needed to maintain a deceleration rate of 1kt/s.
The low-speed warning occurred at 108kt and the shaker activated at 97kt for both landing configuration stalls. During the first event the power was advanced to fly out of the stall in level flight.
For the second event, I continued to hold aft yoke pressure after shaker activation and waited for the stick pusher to fire. At 92kt the stick pusher fired, the elevator autopilot servo generating a 27.2kg forward force at the yoke to break the stall.
With the power still set to 60% N1, yoke back pressure was reduced to allow the aircraft to descend and accelerate out of the stall. During the three stall manoeuvres there was no tendency to drop a wing or depart from controlled flight.
Response to control inputs in each axis at slow speeds was predictable, allowing for precise manoeuvring at elevated angle-of-attack conditions.
EXTRA VIGILANCE
After completing the medium-altitude manoeuvres, recovery to San Jose was initiated. During the recovery at 12,000ft MSL, a comfortable cruise indicated air speed of 280kt required a total fuel flow of 1.021kg/h.
The autopilot and auto-throttle were engaged, allowing both pilots to maintain extra vigilance in the crowded terminal area. Additionally, the Hawker's standard TCAS II helped us rapidly gain visual contact on proximate aircraft.
While ATC provided vectors for an approach to Runway 30L, I installed the instrument landing system 30L approach in the FMS. When the approach procedure was installed, the ILS frequency was automatically tuned, further easing pilot workload.
I disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand flew the aircraft during configuration for the touch-and-go manoeuvre. Due to conflicting traffic ATC kept us higher than normal, and the aircraft was configured landing gear down and flaps 35° in an idle power descent.
The flight display provided good lateral guidance, allowing me to capture and track the localiser. Passing 800ft AGL the glideslope was captured and the aircraft slowed to a VREF indicated air speed of 112kt.
Attitude on final was roughly level until a slight flare to 2° nose-up was initiated about 10ft above the runway. The trailing link landing gear made for a smooth idle power touchdown.
While tracking the centreline, Weatherford retracted the flaps to 12°. I slowly advanced the power to 90% N1 and rotated to a 12° nose-up attitude at 115kt indicated air speed. Once airborne at 150kt and passing 200ft AGL, Weatherford rapidly retarded the right engine to idle, to simulate an engine failure.
Unlike the 900XP, which has a bleed air based rudder bias system designed to reduce the adverse yaw caused by an engine failure, the 4000 lacks that handy safety feature.
While the 900XP's rudder is unpowered, the 4000's is driven by any one of three independent hydraulic systems. Rudder forces in the 4000 are defined by pedal springs, which I judged to be at most 40kg for maximum displacement, well under the certification maximum of 68kg.
With the right engine at idle, about 27kg of force and two-thirds of the available rudder displacement was needed to keep in co-ordinated flight.
While not at identical points, the rudder force required to maintain co-ordinated flight in the 900XP with the bias system turned off was more than double that - around 60kg.
Once cleaned up and at pattern altitude, available rudder trim was sufficient to compensate for the asymmetric thrust condition.
The simulated single engine approach was flown with flaps set to 35°, their maximum deflection. On final approach I centred the rudder trim, and was easily able to co-ordinate rudder deflection with the minor power adjustments needed to stay on speed, still an indicated 112kt. The trailing link main landing gear again made for a smooth touch down.
Once the aircraft had settled on to the ground, the three speed brake panels on each wing automatically deployed. I simultaneously lifted both thrust reverse levers and applied sufficient toe brake force to actuate wheel brake anti-skid protection.
Under moderate braking the aircraft had already slowed to a taxi speed by the time the thrust reversers were fully deployed. Estimated ground roll was less than 500m. Computed landing distance over a 15.24m obstacle for our 11,830kg gross weight was 751m.
At maximum loading weight (15,195kg), a landing distance of 913m is listed. Taxi back to the chocks and post-flight flows were notable only for their simplicity.
The Hawker 4000 represents real value in the super-midsize segment. Priced lower than its competition, its full fuel 726kg payload gives it a true load-and-go capability.
The five-screen fully integrated flightdeck offers standard auto-throttles and dual just about everything else. For over-water flights its dual IRUs, air conditioning packs and back-up hydraulic motor generator should give it near formalised ETOPS reliability.
Features on the horizon promise even more. E-charts will be a welcome addition when Honeywell fields the feature for its small display Primus Epic avionics system.
Planned FMS-based performance computation capability and electronic checklists will further cement the 4000's position as the value leader. It may not have the largest cabin in class, but when fully loaded it can go further than its pricier competitors.
Those who have awaited the arrival of the largest Hawker with bated breath will not be disappointed.