Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?

[[email protected]]

I got an email response from the guys at Rocket Engineering about their
PT6A conversion of a P-Baron. He mentioned they're finishing STC work
for their turbine Duke conversion and I wondered which airplane might
make the better platform for conversion. Their preliminary numbers for
the -21 engined P-Baron are : Max climb rate 5000ft/min, useful load
2050, time to climb to 25,000 7min., high speed cruise of 300+ kts at
FL250 @ 64gph, long range cruise 250+ kts at FL250 @ 46gph which sounds
pretty impressive (to me, anyway) but I wonder if the Duke would be any
faster with the same power? I've read here previously that the Duke is
pretty draggy as airframes go and should/could be faster with its 380hp
Lycs. With a stated cost of $767k for the Duke with new -21 engines it
sounds like that a pretty cheap way to go fast (everything's relative,
right?)

Wooly

[Jim Macklin]

The Duke would be the way I'd go. The Duke was designed for
high altitudes and has a better panel, and cabin. The Baron
will be unstable at 300 TAS and twitchy...
For the same money, as the conversion, you could probably
buy a B or C90 King Air and have a real cabin class, but the
Duke is a nice flying airframe and it is very strong and
heavily built.

I would be most interested in prop/ground clearance issuers,
are they using 4 bladed props?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
|I got an email response from the guys at Rocket Engineering
about their
| PT6A conversion of a P-Baron. He mentioned they're
finishing STC work
| for their turbine Duke conversion and I wondered which
airplane might
| make the better platform for conversion. Their preliminary
numbers for
| the -21 engined P-Baron are : Max climb rate 5000ft/min,
useful load
| 2050, time to climb to 25,000 7min., high speed cruise of
300+ kts at
| FL250 @ 64gph, long range cruise 250+ kts at FL250 @ 46gph
which sounds
| pretty impressive (to me, anyway) but I wonder if the Duke
would be any
| faster with the same power? I've read here previously that
the Duke is
| pretty draggy as airframes go and should/could be faster
with its 380hp
| Lycs. With a stated cost of $767k for the Duke with
new -21 engines it
| sounds like that a pretty cheap way to go fast
(everything's relative,
| right?)
|
| Wooly
|

[[email protected]]

The spec sheet he included said 4 blade Hartzells.

Interesting point about the Baron's behavior at 300kts - at approx
50-60kts faster than the piston engined plane's cruise speed I'm
guessing trim might be a bit more critical. That alone might make the
plane twitchy, as it was never designed to go that fast.

A quick check on ASO found a bunch of C90 and E90s for the same dough,
although they wouldn't have new engines as the converted Barons and
Dukes.

[Jim Macklin]

High altitude. thinner air, stability become more critical.
Higher speeds can actually get into Mach problems. The Duke
is certified to 30,000 feet and the P58 Baron to only
25,000.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| The spec sheet he included said 4 blade Hartzells.
|
| Interesting point about the Baron's behavior at 300kts -
at approx
| 50-60kts faster than the piston engined plane's cruise
speed I'm
| guessing trim might be a bit more critical. That alone
might make the
| plane twitchy, as it was never designed to go that fast.
|
| A quick check on ASO found a bunch of C90 and E90s for the
same dough,
| although they wouldn't have new engines as the converted
Barons and
| Dukes.
|

[[email protected]]

I guess that would explain why the speeds are quoted at FL250 for the
Baron. I assume then the ASI must be replaced with a unit with a Vmo
indicator? If the Duke is cert up to 30k does that mean its cabin diff
is higher than the P-Baron?

[Jim Macklin]

I seem to remember they are all at about 5 PSI.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
|I guess that would explain why the speeds are quoted at
FL250 for the
| Baron. I assume then the ASI must be replaced with a unit
with a Vmo
| indicator? If the Duke is cert up to 30k does that mean
its cabin diff
| is higher than the P-Baron?
|

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I got an email response from the guys at Rocket Engineering about their
> PT6A conversion of a P-Baron. He mentioned they're finishing STC work
> for their turbine Duke conversion and I wondered which airplane might
> make the better platform for conversion. Their preliminary numbers for
> the -21 engined P-Baron are : Max climb rate 5000ft/min, useful load
> 2050, time to climb to 25,000 7min., high speed cruise of 300+ kts at
> FL250 @ 64gph, long range cruise 250+ kts at FL250 @ 46gph which sounds
> pretty impressive (to me, anyway) but I wonder if the Duke would be any
> faster with the same power? I've read here previously that the Duke is
> pretty draggy as airframes go and should/could be faster with its 380hp
> Lycs. With a stated cost of $767k for the Duke with new -21 engines it
> sounds like that a pretty cheap way to go fast (everything's relative,
> right?)
>
> Wooly
>

For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster with
a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems. I did see the turbine
Duke when it landed in Sandpoint and it looks great.

Mike
MU-2

[John Gaquin]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:m5Zmf.2241

>I did see the turbine Duke when it landed in Sandpoint and it looks great.

Which Sandpoint? Alaska?

[Newps]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:m5Zmf.2241
>
>
>>I did see the turbine Duke when it landed in Sandpoint and it looks great.
>
>
> Which Sandpoint? Alaska?

There's a Sandpoint in Alaska?

[Mike Rapoport]

Idaho.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:m5Zmf.2241
>
>>I did see the turbine Duke when it landed in Sandpoint and it looks great.
>
> Which Sandpoint? Alaska?
>

[[email protected]]

>>>>For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster with
a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems<<<<

How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've
heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on
Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent
accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training
issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did
years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional
aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure
why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?)

Wooly

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster
>>>>>with
> a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems<<<<
>
> How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've
> heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on
> Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent
> accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training
> issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did
> years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional
> aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure
> why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?)
>
> Wooly
>

The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS. What is the
accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are going to have the
same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown aircraft. The problem
is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad weather and often
don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually has the worst
accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who just paid over $2
million for their TBM get failed in initial training (zero). They get
signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could try flying Learjets
single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s and they would
all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers lose a few more
lawsuits this may change (hopefully).

There is no difference in handling between ailerons and spoilers except that
spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot crews of Beachjets
aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their airplanes. The
MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record is middle of the
turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political (the FAA
acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up landings and even a
crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole notion that an 18
month spike in accidents with no common cause could be attributed to the
design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is crazy since the
design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will be (again) that
the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator training have
accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my government wouldn't
waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the accidents whether
Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable
airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances and are often
flown for business where there is pressure to get there and back on time.
The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these increased risks but
no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance aircraft don't get
flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm complexes by tired
business people at the end of a long day. My own situation is that every
flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW where the weather
is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio at night and only
once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I *have* to get there.

Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed for turbines will
have better *everything* from structure to avionics to systems like heated
glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full dual-bus systems,
remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect.. It isn't just the
engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a whole host of
improvements.. They can incorporated these things because the airplane has
so much more power that some weight can be traded for better, higher
reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a piston airplane
with turbine engines. I am certainly not against conversions, I am
contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am thinking about it is
that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If there where, I
would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.

BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be radial engined
airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying boats and DC3s.
The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial
overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as
good....


Mike
MU-2

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Idaho.

Who-dah-ho?

Sorry! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

So a trucker picks up a couple o' broad driving past in Nevada,

"So... are you girls Navahos?"
"Ah... no, we're Chicago hoes."

:^)

[Thomas Borchert]

,

There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to
twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one flying.
See http://info.thielert.com/centurion/main/news_start.php?newsid=340

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Flyingmonk]

So a trucker picks up a couple o' broads driving past in Nevada,

"So... are you girls Navahos?"
"Ah... no, we're Chicago hoes."


:^)

[Jim Macklin]

The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield
and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were
designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more
cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy
and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a
conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on
the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to
buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with
interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be
as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best
looking Beech aircraft built.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >>>>>For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi
Solitaire and go faster
| >>>>>with
| > a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems<<<<
| >
| > How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an
MU-2, but I've
| > heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB
reports on
| > Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking
into the recent
| > accidents with these planes. May very well be related to
training
| > issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the
Aerostar did
| > years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with
a conventional
| > aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems
reliability, not sure
| > why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?)
| >
| > Wooly
| >
|
| The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS.
What is the
| accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are
going to have the
| same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown
aircraft. The problem
| is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad
weather and often
| don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually
has the worst
| accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who
just paid over $2
| million for their TBM get failed in initial training
(zero). They get
| signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could
try flying Learjets
| single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s
and they would
| all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers
lose a few more
| lawsuits this may change (hopefully).
|
| There is no difference in handling between ailerons and
spoilers except that
| spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot
crews of Beachjets
| aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their
airplanes. The
| MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record
is middle of the
| turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political
(the FAA
| acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up
landings and even a
| crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole
notion that an 18
| month spike in accidents with no common cause could be
attributed to the
| design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is
crazy since the
| design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will
be (again) that
| the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator
training have
| accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my
government wouldn't
| waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the
accidents whether
| Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error.
The more capable
| airplanes get flown into more weather over longer
distances and are often
| flown for business where there is pressure to get there
and back on time.
| The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these
increased risks but
| no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance
aircraft don't get
| flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm
complexes by tired
| business people at the end of a long day. My own
situation is that every
| flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW
where the weather
| is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio
at night and only
| once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I
*have* to get there.
|
| Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed
for turbines will
| have better *everything* from structure to avionics to
systems like heated
| glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full
dual-bus systems,
| remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect..
It isn't just the
| engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a
whole host of
| improvements.. They can incorporated these things because
the airplane has
| so much more power that some weight can be traded for
better, higher
| reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a
piston airplane
| with turbine engines. I am certainly not against
conversions, I am
| contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am
thinking about it is
| that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If
there where, I
| would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.
|
| BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be
radial engined
| airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying
boats and DC3s.
| The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the
draggy radial
| overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they
don't sound as
| good....
|
|
| Mike
| MU-2
|
|

[Mike Rapoport]

Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with your statements
and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke. Piston twins
have some of the high reliability systems of the turboprops, but the factory
turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as to say that the
factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90, Conquest, Cheyenne
and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the airplanes that were
designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately airplanes are
flying sets of compromises between cost, weight, robustness and utility and
designers choose different compromises when the airplanes are powered by
turbines instead of pistons.


Mike
MU-2


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Dzfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08...
> The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield
> and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were
> designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more
> cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy
> and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a
> conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on
> the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to
> buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with
> interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be
> as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best
> looking Beech aircraft built.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> |
> | > wrote in message
> |
> oups.com...
> | >>>>>For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi
> Solitaire and go faster
> | >>>>>with
> | > a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems<<<<
> | >
> | > How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an
> MU-2, but I've
> | > heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB
> reports on
> | > Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking
> into the recent
> | > accidents with these planes. May very well be related to
> training
> | > issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the
> Aerostar did
> | > years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with
> a conventional
> | > aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems
> reliability, not sure
> | > why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?)
> | >
> | > Wooly
> | >
> |
> | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS.
> What is the
> | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are
> going to have the
> | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown
> aircraft. The problem
> | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad
> weather and often
> | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually
> has the worst
> | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who
> just paid over $2
> | million for their TBM get failed in initial training
> (zero). They get
> | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could
> try flying Learjets
> | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s
> and they would
> | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers
> lose a few more
> | lawsuits this may change (hopefully).
> |
> | There is no difference in handling between ailerons and
> spoilers except that
> | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot
> crews of Beachjets
> | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their
> airplanes. The
> | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record
> is middle of the
> | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political
> (the FAA
> | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up
> landings and even a
> | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole
> notion that an 18
> | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be
> attributed to the
> | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is
> crazy since the
> | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will
> be (again) that
> | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator
> training have
> | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my
> government wouldn't
> | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the
> accidents whether
> | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error.
> The more capable
> | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer
> distances and are often
> | flown for business where there is pressure to get there
> and back on time.
> | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these
> increased risks but
> | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance
> aircraft don't get
> | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm
> complexes by tired
> | business people at the end of a long day. My own
> situation is that every
> | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW
> where the weather
> | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio
> at night and only
> | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I
> *have* to get there.
> |
> | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed
> for turbines will
> | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to
> systems like heated
> | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full
> dual-bus systems,
> | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect..
> It isn't just the
> | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a
> whole host of
> | improvements.. They can incorporated these things because
> the airplane has
> | so much more power that some weight can be traded for
> better, higher
> | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a
> piston airplane
> | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against
> conversions, I am
> | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am
> thinking about it is
> | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If
> there where, I
> | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.
> |
> | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be
> radial engined
> | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying
> boats and DC3s.
> | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the
> draggy radial
> | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they
> don't sound as
> | good....
> |
> |
> | Mike
> | MU-2
> |
> |
>
>

[[email protected]]

>>>There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to
twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one
flying.<<<

I read the article - wow that's a huuuuge bump in range over the
gassers eh? Didn't know Lyc wasn't supporting the TIO-541 anymore (I
think the P-Navajo has the same engine?) but doesn't surprise me as
I've heard they're quite finicky and must be babied more than most high
HP turbo'd piston engines.

[[email protected]]

>>>What is the accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes?<<<

The obvious answer is there is no record as the first one is still
finishing the STC process.

Your point about training was well made, I kinda figured that factored
into many if not most accidents in owner-flown turbine aircraft. I
didn't realize the TBM was so high up on the list though - it's
reminiscent of a local guy I know of who recently traded back down to a
Bonanza after crunching his Malibu Jetprop twice as the result of two
completely boneheaded manuevers.

>>>The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as good...<<<

There's a lot to be said for round engines that leak oil and smoke on
startup - Character, I think it's called <G>

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to
> twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one flying.

> See http://info.thielert.com/centurion/main/news_start.php?newsid=340

(From the link)
"The Centurion 4.0 of the GmbH Thielert Aircraft Engines is a V8-engine with
state-of-the-art technology, and in the twin it replaces the initially
built-in Lycoming IO-541-E1C4 which is not produced anymore. Furthermore the
manufacturer discontinued the product support for the IO-541-E1C4.

In comparison the diesel conversion weighs 20 kilograms (50 lbs) less. The
entire consumption was 22 gallons of kerosene per hour, which sums up to 8
gallons less fuel consumption. For this reason the range of the Duke
increases from 1100 Nautical Miles to 2000 Nautical Miles."


Huh? So the Duke was getting 15 per side (30) and now gets 11 per side (22)?

30 gal x 6 lbs = 180 lbs fuel/hr ...Avgas
22 gal x 7 lbs = 154 lbs fuel/hr ...Diesel (Saving 26 lbs/hr fuel weight)

I don't see how that almost doubles the Nautical Miles? Six hours of diesel
flight gets you a free hour. (6 hrs x 26 lbs/hr (saved) = 156 lbs)

Add in the diesel conversion saving of 50 lbs? I still don't get it.

If there was an increase in speed, I would think Thielert would want that
little extra bonus fact front and center.


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

A lot of small businesses bought Dukes and hired the
cheapest high time pilot they could find, usually it seems
that was a retired B47/B52 Colonel who didn't know better
than to slam the throttles open - closed just like he did in
those other airplanes. The Dukes that I saw, that were
flown by civilian trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble
free to TBO. The ones that were flown by retired jet jocks
needed turbo replacement at 600-800 hours and new cylinders
at 1,000. They saved a buck on the salary and spent a ton
on maintenance.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| >>>There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion
of the Duke to
| twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's
got one
| flying.<<<
|
| I read the article - wow that's a huuuuge bump in range
over the
| gassers eh? Didn't know Lyc wasn't supporting the TIO-541
anymore (I
| think the P-Navajo has the same engine?) but doesn't
surprise me as
| I've heard they're quite finicky and must be babied more
than most high
| HP turbo'd piston engines.
|

[Jim Macklin]

My favorite turboprop is the 300 King Air because all of the
little hold over plumbing problems were fixed. It was
stable, the flight controls were smooth and well harmonized.
The CG range and gross weight were nearly impossible to
exceed unless you were flying lead or gold. It had the
ability to fill all the seats with grown men, top all the
tanks and fly 2,000 miles and be in the VG at take-off and
landing, don't try that in a Cheyenne 400.

The early A90 King Air used combustion heater just like a
Queen Air, and the operation of the fuel system involved the
pilot properly setting the system before take-off and
monitoring the operation. A Transport Canada King Air was
lost because the pilot was not setting the fuel boost pumps
to auto before take-off. When the fuel level in the nacelle
tank drops through the set level, the boost pump comes on to
refill the nacelle. On the early airplanes if you didn't
arm the system before the signal, it would not turn the pump
on automatically. Later airplanes fixed that silly design
flaw, the pump will come on anytime the level is low and the
pump is in auto.

The trick the CDOT pilot didn't know or forgot was to "test"
the boost pumps when he decided to manually refill his
nacelle tanks. Of course he was violating the operating
procedures and AFM, but what the Hell, all pilots are
perfect.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
| Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with
your statements
| and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke.
Piston twins
| have some of the high reliability systems of the
turboprops, but the factory
| turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as
to say that the
| factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90,
Conquest, Cheyenne
| and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the
airplanes that were
| designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately
airplanes are
| flying sets of compromises between cost, weight,
robustness and utility and
| designers choose different compromises when the airplanes
are powered by
| turbines instead of pistons.
|
|
| Mike
| MU-2
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Dzfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08...
| > The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot
windshield
| > and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems
were
| > designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot
more
| > cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is
heavy
| > and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But
doing a
| > conversion when there are a number of "better"
turboprops on
| > the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible
to
| > buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it
with
| > interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will
be
| > as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the
best
| > looking Beech aircraft built.
| >
| >
| > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
message
| >
nk.net...
| > |
| > | > wrote in message
| > |
| >
oups.com...
| > | >>>>>For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi
| > Solitaire and go faster
| > | >>>>>with
| > | > a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable
systems<<<<
| > | >
| > | > How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in
an
| > MU-2, but I've
| > | > heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of
NTSB
| > reports on
| > | > Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA
looking
| > into the recent
| > | > accidents with these planes. May very well be
related to
| > training
| > | > issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like
the
| > Aerostar did
| > | > years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable
with
| > a conventional
| > | > aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems
| > reliability, not sure
| > | > why you think there'd be an appreciable
difference(?)
| > | >
| > | > Wooly
| > | >
| > |
| > | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS.
| > What is the
| > | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They
are
| > going to have the
| > | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown
| > aircraft. The problem
| > | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad
| > weather and often
| > | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700
actually
| > has the worst
| > | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who
| > just paid over $2
| > | million for their TBM get failed in initial training
| > (zero). They get
| > | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots
could
| > try flying Learjets
| > | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them
F104s
| > and they would
| > | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training
centers
| > lose a few more
| > | lawsuits this may change (hopefully).
| > |
| > | There is no difference in handling between ailerons
and
| > spoilers except that
| > | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot
| > crews of Beachjets
| > | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on
their
| > airplanes. The
| > | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident
record
| > is middle of the
| > | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is
political
| > (the FAA
| > | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up
| > landings and even a
| > | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole
| > notion that an 18
| > | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be
| > attributed to the
| > | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs
is
| > crazy since the
| > | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion
will
| > be (again) that
| > | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent
simulator
| > training have
| > | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my
| > government wouldn't
| > | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the
| > accidents whether
| > | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot
error.
| > The more capable
| > | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer
| > distances and are often
| > | flown for business where there is pressure to get
there
| > and back on time.
| > | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all
these
| > increased risks but
| > | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance
| > aircraft don't get
| > | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm
| > complexes by tired
| > | business people at the end of a long day. My own
| > situation is that every
| > | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the
PNW
| > where the weather
| > | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the
Helio
| > at night and only
| > | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I
| > *have* to get there.
| > |
| > | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally
designed
| > for turbines will
| > | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to
| > systems like heated
| > | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates),
full
| > dual-bus systems,
| > | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings
ect..
| > It isn't just the
| > | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is
a
| > whole host of
| > | improvements.. They can incorporated these things
because
| > the airplane has
| > | so much more power that some weight can be traded for
| > better, higher
| > | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you
get a
| > piston airplane
| > | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against
| > conversions, I am
| > | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I
am
| > thinking about it is
| > | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance.
If
| > there where, I
| > | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.
| > |
| > | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be
| > radial engined
| > | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman
flying
| > boats and DC3s.
| > | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of
the
| > draggy radial
| > | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they
| > don't sound as
| > | good....
| > |
| > |
| > | Mike
| > | MU-2
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Montblack]

("Montblack" wrote)
> In comparison the diesel conversion weighs 20 kilograms (50 lbs) less. The
> entire consumption was 22 gallons of kerosene per hour, which sums up to 8
> gallons less fuel consumption. For this reason the range of the Duke
> increases from 1100 Nautical Miles to 2000 Nautical Miles."
>
>
> Huh? So the Duke was getting 15 per side (30) and now gets 11 per side
> (22)?
>
> 30 gal x 6 lbs = 180 lbs fuel/hr ...Avgas
> 22 gal x 7 lbs = 154 lbs fuel/hr ...Diesel (Saving 26 lbs/hr fuel weight)
>
> I don't see how that almost doubles the Nautical Miles? Six hours of
> diesel flight gets you a free hour. (6 hrs x 26 lbs/hr (saved) = 156 lbs)


Is it 30 gals ...per side? Turbo'd!

So now it's every "three" hours you get a bonus hour of fuel. Will that get
you an extra 900 Nautical Miles?

Does "entire consumption" mean per engine or ...entire, as in both,
combined? Now I don't know what "sum" means either. Oh well.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

>>>>The Dukes that I saw, that were flown by civilian trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble free to TBO.<<<<


Another BS hangar myth destroyed. I've heard the same of the Cessna 421
from a few guys who've owned/flown them. Most of what I'd heard
previously about that type was the turbo'd & geared Contis were a
complete pain in the arse and would never make TBO without new jugs or
worse. I guess ya gotta question just how qualified somebody is when
they start talking trash about airplanes & engines, huh?

Thanks,
Wooly

[Jim Macklin]

There is some truth in many stories, but with any
turbocharged aircraft engine, allowing the temperatures and
clearances to normalize is critical. A turbo may be at
70,000-100,000 RPM, at 1400 degrees on one end of the shaft
and just a few hundred on the other. The cylinder heads may
be at 375-425 degrees and when you cut the power to idle the
heads shock cool, the turbo cools and that includes the
housing which can shrink faster than the impeller. The next
thing is that the housing and impeller make contact and
grind away. The turbo may spin for some time after
shutdown, without any engine oil pressure or flow. If the
pilot lands on the far side of the airport or stops on the
ramp/taxiway to allow the turbo to spin down and more
importantly cool, the oil will flow and cool the turbo
bearings and the oil won't fail (coke) extending the turbo
life. From 40-to 30 inches you can move the throttle
smoothly, but I would never go below 20 inches in-flight and
then not until I'd flown a minute at 25 inches. I used the
cowl flaps to keep the engine warm on approach and opened
them for all ground and T..O/climb operations. I used full
rich in the climb and I made sure to observe the TIT limits
as well as oil and cylinder temps.
I rarely flew any single airplane more than a dozen times,
but I saw many airplanes that were flown thousands of hours
by one pilot.

One thing about the Duke, I always made a modified soft
field take-off, using full back elevator until I got to
about 50 kts, then I'd fly the nose down to prevent a
premature take-off. The Duke sits with a negative angle of
attack and the engines will drive the nose down unless the
pilot lightens the load on the nose wheel. Take-off
performance is much improved with this technique.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



> wrote in message
ups.com...
| >>>>The Dukes that I saw, that were flown by civilian
trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble free to TBO.<<<<
|
|
| Another BS hangar myth destroyed. I've heard the same of
the Cessna 421
| from a few guys who've owned/flown them. Most of what I'd
heard
| previously about that type was the turbo'd & geared Contis
were a
| complete pain in the arse and would never make TBO without
new jugs or
| worse. I guess ya gotta question just how qualified
somebody is when
| they start talking trash about airplanes & engines, huh?
|
| Thanks,
| Wooly
|

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-12-12, Mike Rapoport > wrote:
> Almost all the accidents whether
> Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable
> airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances

And with more people on board. When I bought my Comanche I read a lot
of NTSB reports looking for patterns. What I saw was a higher percentage
of weather accidents, and a MUCH higher typical number of people onboard
in an accident. I used to think that insurance rates were
disproportionately high for 6 place airplanes. The reality is that a
Cessna 172 is a "one and a half" seater as far as insurance claims go,
while a Lance or Bonanza is a "five and a half seater".

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/