British Aerospace (Handley Page H.P.137) Jetstream

I flew the BA-31 with Garretts for 8000+ hours in a period of 10.5 years. I can still hear but now at age 80 some things (wife's voice) are challenging. We were a 15,212 pound plane with Freon air conditioning. It was best not to fly an airplane that had been parked in the sun for a while on warm days unless the air was working. We had a not so good Collins Flight Director and no autopilot. We did not have neg-torque sensors or auto feather. Lots of complicated electrical issues that only an Englishman could devise and even with the Garretts, the engine /prop combination was far more complicated than anyone would like. Yes, a rugged plane that required your attention. I used to say that it was not hard to fly, just labor intensive, if that makes sense. The plane had decent range if you could carry the full 3,000 lbs of fuel. I once flew it 1,389 miles in 4:36 with enough fuel for another hour, easily. Like many planes you had your good times and bad. If you had owned English cars or motorcycles you could have the tolerance to love this plane. Otherwise, maybe not. It always brought me home and for that I love it.

reply

One of the reasons I'm so hard of hearing is from flying the Jetstream with Garretts. Flew as a corporate shuttle for large tech company in the Northwest for several years. Rugged no frills airplane that required your full attention especially when encountering icing which was prevalent where we operated. I think the Jetstream the basis for the old joke "they don't serve drinks on this aircraft because as soon as it hears your ice hit the glass it slows down". Lots of quirky British systems that had you scratching your head at times. Loved the experience of flying this one.

reply

I flew serial no.2 and, I think, serial #4. Both were owned by Charlie Pride and set for a long time in Texas. We had to open the cockpit windows going to Albuquerque because it got so hot, the ducts were packed with dirt and the air-cycle machines didn't work.

Once brought up-to-date they proved pretty bullet proof. We ran with two for almost two years and missed very few flights that I can remember.

Other then being louder then anything other then a Dart the Astazou was very simple to operate, push to go and it did the rest.

reply

I have heard that the Astazou had a bad habit of over-temping during start. Is this true?

reply

I flew Jetstreams with the RAF and RN from 1981 to 1988. The RAF Mk 1 Jetstreams built by Handley Page were powered by the Astazou turbo prop engine, as were the Navy's Mk2 version. The navy Mk 3 was a Jetstream 31 powered by a Garrett turbo prop and built by British Aerospace. The RAF used them at the METS (multi engine training squadron) at RAF Finningley, where they were advanced trainers for pilots detined for heavy multi engine aircraft in the RAF. The RN version was used for Observer (Navigator) training prior to flying Helicopters. I was a QFI on all 3 marks and also displayed all 3 aircraft. The Mk 1 and 2 were a bit of a handful on 1 engine especially with a failure on take-off if the auto feather did not work, but the negative torque that could be achieved at low power enabled an "interesting" display to be flown, with extremely steep approaches. The mk 3 Garrett powered had negative torque sensing which made an engine failure on take-off easier to handle. personally I had no problems with the electrics, but I did have several single engine landings due to engines failing to start after a practice in flight shutdown for training. The most memorable being when 1 engine would not start after a practice shutdown and the other started surging during the recovery to base. Luckily I was high enough to glide in for a dead stick (both engines out)landing. Also another hairy time when one prop had a pitch failure during a practice single engine go around (training a QFI in the other seat). The simulated failed engine (at idle) went into an uncommanded ground range and gave reverse thrust as we started the go around. I took control and quickly feathered it but we were already at about 85 degrees of bank at 50ft as I regained control I had a very close up view of the ground and as the tower controller said "that looked interesting"!

reply

17 ft 9 in = 5.41 m

reply

Interestingly the use of chemical milling was developed for the Jetstream because the first airframes were way too heavy for the available power and the 12,500 pound certification.

reply

The model pictured is the Handley Page, British Aerospace took over later, the HPs being built in the late 60,s early 70's and British Aerospace version in the late 70's and 80's. There was also the BA-31 & 32 that I also flew for a number of years. They had Garrett engines and and higher gross weights then the HP, limited to 12,500 pounds. Interestingly the use of chemical milling was developed for the Jetstream because the first airframes were way too heavy for the available power and the 12,500 pound certification.

Other then improved systems, inverters instead of AC generators for the windshields, there was little, if any airframe changes.

reply

I flew two of them in Albuquerque for a couple of years and the 31 /32 a few years later.

The Astazou's never caused any major problems, though other systems did. Electrics was a nightmare, the British have never understood electricity that well. No wimpy inverters, AC generators and a separate AC Bus.

reply