Beech 99, what is the purpose?

[MountainDude]

If I read it correctly, it's a turbo prop without pressurization. If you are carrying passengers (it was used for that), how do you fly above 12,500?

 

[Grum.Man]

Passengers aren't required to have oxygen until 15k. The justification is power and reliability. About the only engines with similar output were the big radials that were expensive to maintain and needed almost constant attention.

Caravan's aren't pressurized either, some planes just need the extra power to do what they were designed for.

 

[Sac Arrow]

There are a lot of unpressurized planes with service ceilings well above 12,500. Technically, you don't have to provide oxygen to pax until you hit 15K. Not that you wouldn't at lower.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If I read it correctly, it's a turbo prop without pressurization. If you are carrying passengers (it was used for that), how do you fly above 12,500?

Short distance flights.

 

[Groundpounder]

How many 99's are actually flying pax these days?

And to the OP, bet you didn't realize there was family of unpressurized 30 pax turboprops flying around too.

 

[Velocity173]

Same reason you have non pressurized turbine helos. More speed and more lifting capacity over pistons in the lower altitudes.

 

[weilke]

How many 99's are actually flying pax these days?

In the mainland US probably none left in revenue service. Bemidji Aviation has some to serve UPS feeder contracts.

 

[FormerHangie]

In the mainland US probably none left in revenue service. Bemidji Aviation has some to serve UPS feeder contracts.

Ameriflight has a potload of them, all in cargo service.

 

[Groundpounder]

Wiggins has a bunch too. But no one flies pax in them any more

 

[MauleSkinner]

How many 99's are actually flying pax these days?

And to the OP, bet you didn't realize there was family of unpressurized 30 pax turboprops flying around too.

It they DID do a lot of passenger ops when new. The purpose wasn’t freight.

 

[Zeldman]

The 99 made a good little bush plane. Cram in folks and freight, good for short trips, big door for loading and unloading, good for operations down to -48c, single pilot for operations up to 9 passengers, type rating not needed.

Not so great for really muddy landing strips......

 

[ktup-flyer]

Think C208

 

[Arnold]

If I read it correctly, it's a turbo prop without pressurization. If you are carrying passengers (it was used for that), how do you fly above 12,500?

The short answer is you don't. In earlier days of regional aviation these and other similar airplanes, like the EMB-110, were common. I rode on several trips to HPN (White Plains, NY) from BOS in BE-99s. My father rode often. I clearly recall how happy my father was when Command added Shorts 330s to their fleet. He was thrilled that he could stand up and it had a bathroom. I went on to fly SD-360s for a couple of thousand hours. The only time I went above 10,000 feet was to get above icing. Pilots also did not have O2 so our time above 10k was limited by 121 regs. Also note that air carriers with 19 or fewer pax seats are 135 not 121 and do not require flight attendants. Another workhorse of the era was the DHC-6.

 

[Ted]

On 135 service that limit is 10,000 ft, not 12,500 or 15k. I'm assuming 121 is the same.

As Arnold noted, the short answer is you don't fly that high, and they were planes primarily used for short hauls where you needed the size to have the capacity (and thus the power to move the size) but you didn't need pressurization. Another similar aircraft was the Shorts Sherpa. Pressurization adds weight and cost, and you're not going to fly that high on those short flights.

There are a lot of remote airports where this makes more sense than flying a regional jet, at least to me. When I lived in Pennsylvania, the one flight they had (going to PHL) was in -8s. Heading to PHL you flew at 7,000 ft. Coming home you'd go at 12,000, but really no reason why 10,000 wouldn't have worked fine as a limit if required. Pressurization really wasn't needed.

The Caravan and the Kodiak are pretty much what remains of that general type of market, although the Kodiak is really more of a rugged aircraft for use in unimproved areas.

The market has just moved away from turboprops almost entirely in favor of jets, for reasons I don't fully comprehend.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The market has just moved away from turboprops almost entirely in favor of jets, for reasons I don't fully comprehend.

“I’m not going to fly in anything with props...they’re dangerous.” -John Q. Public

 

[Ted]

“I’m not going to fly in anything with props...they’re dangerous.” -John Q. Public

Yeah, public perception is the issue of not liking propeller planes. However people have also proven very strongly that they'll fly whatever is cheapest and meets their schedule.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

On 135 service that limit is 10,000 ft, not 12,500 or 15k. I'm assuming 121 is the same.

Used to be 12,500 when I was doing 135.

The market has just moved away from turboprops almost entirely in favor of jets, for reasons I don't fully comprehend.

Image.

 

[Ted]

Used to be 12,500 when I was doing 135.

Learned something new!

Image.

Yeah, but people also fly Spirit, which indicates to me that image doesn't mean much vs. saving $5.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Yeah, but people also fly Spirit, which indicates to me that image doesn't mean much vs. saving $5.

This is true. Reminds me of a story I have told here before that is sort of but not quite related.

A lady was getting off a Cessna 207 one day and the person that was meeting her asked her how she felt about flying on a single engine airplane. She said, “If I had known it only had one engine, I would have never gotten on it.”

 

[alaskazimm]

How many 99's are actually flying pax these days?

Two or three at Lake Clark Air.

 

[MountainDude]

Thanks for the info! Makes sense.

 

[schmookeeg]

I flew the 99 last year for AMF for a bit. I can't fathom squeezing 15 pax into it, but I guess that's what they did. A pretty low ceiling in those too. Apparently a lot of them were used in south america, so I think creature comforts weren't as important as cramming it full of people.

Fun airplane to fly. I miss reverse thrust a lot!

I don't have many pics of the ones we flew at PDX but here are a few:

Front office:

These girls all had > 40,000 hours TTAF and it showed

One of my classmates in DFW for scale of the interior. He was about 5'10 and is seated on the seat track/platform:

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I never flew the 99 at AMF, skipped it for the 1900 after leaving the PA31, but I did get to ride in it. Not a bad airplane, just loud. Not much different than all the other un-pressurized turboprops of the same era, like the Irish Concorde (Shorts 330/360).

Wiggins has a bunch too. But no one flies pax in them any more

For what it's worth, Wiggins is part of Ameriflight now.

 

[FormerHangie]

Remember that when the 99 was designed and built, we were not too far from the propellerliner era, and standards were different then. For short haul use in the mid 60s, there were still airlines using piston powered equipment. The 99's turbines would have been smoother than the radial powered Convairs and Douglases in use at the time, and for short routes, staying under 10,000 feet wouldn't lose too much efficiency. Fuel was cheap back in the 60's.

Cape Air continues to fly unpressurized piston airplanes today.

 

[Liberty Flyer]

I never flew the 99 at AMF, skipped it for the 1900 after leaving the PA31, but I did get to ride in it. Not a bad airplane, just loud. Not much different than all the other un-pressurized turboprops of the same era, like the Irish Concorde (Shorts 330/360).


For what it's worth, Wiggins is part of Ameriflight now.

I have about 3,100 hours in AMF 99s. I flew them and the Twin Otters and moved into the Lear before they started operating 1900s and Metros. Alas, the Lears are gone along with the Otters, the PA31s, CE208s, PA32Rs, Aztecs, Cheyenne and MU-2.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I have about 3,100 hours in AMF 99s. I flew them and the Twin Otters and moved into the Lear before they started operating 1900s and Metros. Alas, the Lears are gone along with the Otters, the PA31s, CE208s, PA32Rs, Aztecs, Cheyenne and MU-2.

The PA31's lasted the longest of that bunch. They're all mostly still for sale these days.

 

[Liberty Flyer]

The PA31's lasted the longest of that bunch. They're all mostly still for sale these days.

When Armor Transport owned most of the company Gary would have the PA31s completely rebuilt and refurbished at 10,000 hours. I have probably 800 hours in those aircraft.

 

[Getonit]

I think the new twin turboprop Cessna is coming out with is unpressurized. Economics drives the decisions.

 

[Liberty Flyer]

I think the new twin turboprop Cessna is coming out with is unpressurized. Economics drives the decisions.

I expect so. The Sky Courier looks similar to the Twin Otter but I’ve read it has a longer wingspan, 72ft Vs the Twin Otter’s 65 ft.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

The mighty 99 had its place in aviation history. I flew both cargo (Ameriflight) and later passenger versions (Bar Harbor and Vally/Northeast Express).

As a freighter, it was cheaper to acquire than the new Cessna Caravans. FedEx owns their C-208 and has them on operational leases with their feeder carriers. UPS just subbed out for lift. AMF was buying in the late 1980’s Beech 99 for half the cost of a new Caravan.

As a passenger plane, the hay day was in the regulated airline industry where intrastate carriers could feed the airlines. The plane was ideal for short, thin hops. I flew the 99 all around Florida and the family islands in the Bahamas. In New England, it was a step up from the Cessna 402s flying Boston-Hyannis-Nantucket and short hops to Maine. They phased out and where never replaced when the flying public started demanding pressurization and bathrooms on every plane.

 

[Pilawt]

The PA31's lasted the longest of that bunch. They're all mostly still for sale these days.

About two dozen of them are stored at Buckeye, Arizona (KBXK)

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Those are Piper recips. PA-31-350.

This is a BE-99.

I'm sure he was very aware, but it had evolved into a side conversation about Ameriflight, as they're a large operator of the 99

 

[Liberty Flyer]

The 99 made a good little bush plane. Cram in folks and freight, good for short trips, big door for loading and unloading, good for operations down to -48c, single pilot for operations up to 9 passengers, type rating not needed.

Not so great for really muddy landing strips......

I flew 99s into some interesting places however and unfortunately, not in Alaska. I landed at Wonder Valley Ranch's one-way strip with the stone wall at the end of the runway in the Sierra Nevada foothills. I plopped into Santa Paula airport in the Los Angeles area when Oxnard went below minimums. I used to ferry them between Burbank and Peterborough, Ontario where AMF/Cal Air got a lot of their 99s from Ontario Aircraft. On one ferry flight I unfortunately had too much coffee before I left KBUR and had to find a place to land when it got too uncomfortable. That happened to be Kanab, Utah. I landed to the north, got out and there just happened to be bathrooms at the north end of the runway. (No terminal or other buildings existed then). Then I took off south and never saw a soul. Anyway, after nearly 4,000 hours in type, the 99 was a fun plane to fly. But then again, so was the Twin Otter.

 

[Busflyer]

Funny looking 99s.

 

[Tantalum]

They're using some fairly old King Airs to drop sterile flies, this one in particular was built in 1967: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...n-los-angeles-it-was-dropping-irradiated-bugs

 

[Doc Holliday]

They're using some fairly old King Airs to drop sterile flies, this one in particular was built in 1967: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...n-los-angeles-it-was-dropping-irradiated-bugs

Those are old Army U-21's.

 

[Pilawt]

Those are old Army U-21's.

The square (Queen Air style) windows are a giveaway that it's an unpressurized fuselage.