Hawker 1000A: More of a good thing
By Mark Huber - December 1, 2008
On paper, the Hawker 1000A looked like a winner. But after six years and anemic sales, Raytheon walked away from the program with only 52 built, even though it had orders for dozens more. “There must be a reason for this,” I hear you say.
Actually, about 2.7 million reasons, or rather, dollars. In 1995, that was the approximate price spread between the $12.695 million Hawker 1000A and the $9.95 million Hawker 800XP. Raytheon sold the two airplanes concurrently and the market voted decisively. Although the 1000A had true transcontinental east-west range (in other words, against the prevailing winds), flew 10 knots faster, drank 20 gallons an hour less fuel, had a longer cabin, offered more luggage space and had two more windows, there just were not enough buyers who thought those attributes were worth almost three million bucks.
During the six years the two models were built simultaneously, the 800 outsold the 1000 by better than two to one and the 1000’s production rate dwindled to fewer than 12 per year. Raytheon’s accountants pulled out their scalpels and the last 1000 rolled off the line in 1997. By then, Raytheon was immersed in developing a true super-midsize jet, the composite fuselage Hawker Horizon (rebadged the Hawker 4000); and comparatively cramped midsize models, with narrower and lower-ceiling cabins–even stretched ones–were losing appeal as true transcontinental haulers.
But back in 1989, when British Aerospace began work on the 1000, the jet seemed a natural for the U.S. market and its Beechcraft (later Raytheon) distributor and later parent. After all, the Hawker series had been popular since the 1960s and over the years had been updated with new engines, airfoils and amenities. Yet, the basic design philosophy–building an airplane with rugged and simple systems–remained unchanged. In the high-utilization charter world, Hawkers were the horses and they still are today.
On the outside, there are subtle differences between the 800 and the 1000. The 800 has six passenger windows per side; the 1000 has seven. The engine nacelles on the 1000 are slightly different as it is powered by a pair of larger, quieter and more powerful (5,225 pounds of thrust each) Pratt & Whitney PW305B turbofans, the same generation of engines on the Falcon 2000, Learjet 60 and Gulfstream G200. The PW300 series were some of the first engines to incorporate a technology called full-authority digital engine control, or FADEC. The system uses information from the aircraft’s air data computers to minimize fuel consumption and maximize thrust; basically, you get more puff for the buck, and pilots are spared the tedium of constant throttle jockeying. FADEC is the main reason the 1000’s engines burn less fuel, while pushing more weight at slightly faster speeds than the Garrett/Honeywell TFE731s on the Hawker 800.
Share This Article With Others