R680 Powered Beech 18

Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on one
engine?

"Robert Bates" wrote in message
news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
one
engine?

It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A
Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I
never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete


The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin
Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.


That seems way underpowered for Beech-18. Fully loaded, the R-985 Beech-18 is
interesting single engine.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:02:42 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:

"Robert Bates" wrote in message
news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
one
engine?

It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.

Pete wrote:
Isn't the "Bamboo Bomber" the nickname given the Cessna T50 Bobcat? I never
heard it used to describe a Beech 18.

Pete

Dave wrote:
The Bamboo Bomber is A Cessna T50 or UC78. I did not refer to a Twin Beech
as a Bamboo Bomber. Simply stated a BB with similar engines has trouble
staying in the air on one engine even though it is a considerably smaller
airplane.

Pete wrote:
Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

On 19 Nov 2003 15:27:40 GMT, ost (Ditch) wrote:
Sorry. I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned that the
Beech 18 "is a considerably smaller airplane". Or where you pointed out
that the two aircraft have similar engines. I guess you wrote those bits in
invisible ink.

It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?
-John

Pete wrote:
Probably because you are familiar enough with the airplanes.

If Dave wanted to reply in a way that was useful only to someone who already
knew all the facts then a) he should've sent email, and b) why bother
replying at all? If he's going to post to the Usenet, it makes no sense at
all to write something cryptic and nonsensical to people who aren't familiar
with the aircraft in question.

Pete

Pete, my take: Dave did not initially refer to the Beech 18 as the
Bamboo Bomber. He just tossed that in for comparison purposes because
the two airplanes had the same (at one time) engines, and he pointed
out that the Bamboo Bomber was smaller than the Beech 18. You
mistakenly thought he'd said that the Beech 18 was smaller. The "BB"
in Dave's sentence means "Bamboo Bomber" not Beech 18.

Hope that clears things up.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
[...] You
mistakenly thought he'd said that the Beech 18 was smaller. The "BB"
in Dave's sentence means "Bamboo Bomber" not Beech 18.

You are right that I miswrote my reply. However, the point remains the
same, regardless of which plane was being described as smaller. His
response was noninformative except to people who already knew the
information he conveyed.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:02:42 GMT
"Dave Stadt" wrote:


"Robert Bates" wrote in message
news:k4Cub.45679$Dw6.223691@attbi_s02...
Does anyone have time in a R680 powered Beech 18? If so, what sort of
performance numbers are they capable of and are they reasonably safe on
one
engine?

It must be extremely marginal on one engine with any kind of load. A Bamboo
Bomber won't hardly stay up with one running.


Aren't there more than one kind of R680? I thought there was 3 or 4 models.
What did they put into the Bamboo Bomber?

R. Hubbell