Beech Duke Owners/ex-Owners ple help...

On 13 Feb 2004 13:30:10 -0800, (Stanley) wrote:

TC:

My experience w/ TC'd engine has been limited to 300hrs in B36TC. I
understand the "care and feeding" of these types of engines but have
no experience in the 380HP monsters on the Duke. I understand that
there are current issues surrounding the crankshaft and lifters... and
that there may be a fix re "weeping crankshafts" from Fire Forward.
Any insights on this?

Most of my experience with the 541 is with the geared variery a la
P-Nav. Did see one cam head south, but that engine was of dubious
origin. The lifter design is unlike anything else Lycoming has put
out there.

The intake port "outer" wall seems to be extraordinarily thin on these
cylinders, my SWAG is that it looks like they had to machine them off
for clearance to the adjoining cylinder. It was by no means an
uncommon occurence to see a fuel stain on the bottom side of the
intake port, 95% of the time this indicated a crack in the outer port
wall.

Have also seen the intake port cracks migrate to the spark plug hole.
This problem could also be attributed to the limited pool of
cylinders, have no idea what the actual cycles were on the failed
jugs.

I plan to fly 100-150hrs per year, primarily for personal use so
"dispatchability" is lesser of concern vs "what the heck did I buy" if
they are truely the hanger queen variety. I have no direct experience
in a Duke and am considering C340 and Duke (as dictated to me by ins
co). One alternative would be to try something else and self-insure
it, but that probably isn't the brightest move.

If you can stand a little down-time, it makes a big difference if you
have to wait on parts.

It's the day-to-day stuff that adds up. Had an alternator head south,
found out that the Lear/Siegler (sp?) alternator wasn't a real common
unit (have never seen any in service aside from the Duke install).
That means limited/no access to exchange units, and paying 2-3 times
what a more common unit can be purchased for.

Any aircraft of this type is going to have similiar systems and
complexity, and require a similiar amount of maintenance. But the
engine deal, and the great RAPID team just don't give me a warm fuzzy.

There is an experienced Duke maint facility around here w/ decade plus
trackrecord w/ 10's of them - they've been useful, but the reason this
post is to hear directly from other owners/ex-owners who would have
the least amount of bias. Also, others who have worked on it (e.g.
"watch out for the Magnesium Tail assembly and signs of corrosion")
have been extremely helpful. I'm tracking down couple of owners now...

You may find this hard to believe, but very few shops are going to try
and mislead you when you ask them direct questions. There is really
nothing to gain by giving you garbage numbers. I would look pretty
silly telling you that a typical annual is 30 hours and $400 for parts
before you buy it, and then hand you a bill for $15,000 for an
inspection.

If they still do some Duke maintenance, it is likely that they would
stock commonly needed parts, especially ones with a bad availability
history. In the late 80's/early 90's, we kept more of the
"consumable" Piper parts in stock than the factory/distributor chain
did.

The magnesium skin issue hits Bonanza's, Baron's etc., not just the
Duke. The primary issue is deterioration/improper application of the
original conversion coat/paint film, or improper
stripping/conversion/priming/re-painting. Have had a couple of older
(50's-60's) vintage Bonanza's with skins corroded to the point that
the trailing edge seam could be zippered off with a pair of pliers.
Any repair/painting of these parts must be done by someone familiar
with the problems inherent in magnesium parts.

Anyone w/ experience flying these in warm weather out of high altitude
fields (yeah, I don't plan to, but like to know first hand
experiences)?

My first take-off in one was off of 4,000 ft at 800 msl approx. 65 F
OAT. Had two hours of fuel and one other soul onboard.

Acceleration was scary slow, was definitely not happy with indicated
speed at the 2/3'rds point (compared to all the other twins I'd been
in), but hung in there. After rotation (and gear retraction) it
accelerated at a more "normal" rate, my gut feeling is that the slight
airspeed gain allowed those shortie props to get a bigger "bite".

I really don't want to think about the actual accelerate/stop
distance.

snip

TC

Originally Posted by

On 13 Feb 2004 13:30:10 -0800, (Stanley) wrote:

TC:

My experience w/ TC'd engine has been limited to 300hrs in B36TC. I
understand the "care and feeding" of these types of engines but have
no experience in the 380HP monsters on the Duke. I understand that
there are current issues surrounding the crankshaft and lifters... and
that there may be a fix re "weeping crankshafts" from Fire Forward.
Any insights on this?

Most of my experience with the 541 is with the geared variery a la
P-Nav. Did see one cam head south, but that engine was of dubious
origin. The lifter design is unlike anything else Lycoming has put
out there.

The intake port "outer" wall seems to be extraordinarily thin on these
cylinders, my SWAG is that it looks like they had to machine them off
for clearance to the adjoining cylinder. It was by no means an
uncommon occurence to see a fuel stain on the bottom side of the
intake port, 95% of the time this indicated a crack in the outer port
wall.

Have also seen the intake port cracks migrate to the spark plug hole.
This problem could also be attributed to the limited pool of
cylinders, have no idea what the actual cycles were on the failed
jugs.

I plan to fly 100-150hrs per year, primarily for personal use so
"dispatchability" is lesser of concern vs "what the heck did I buy" if
they are truely the hanger queen variety. I have no direct experience
in a Duke and am considering C340 and Duke (as dictated to me by ins
co). One alternative would be to try something else and self-insure
it, but that probably isn't the brightest move.

If you can stand a little down-time, it makes a big difference if you
have to wait on parts.

It's the day-to-day stuff that adds up. Had an alternator head south,
found out that the Lear/Siegler (sp?) alternator wasn't a real common
unit (have never seen any in service aside from the Duke install).
That means limited/no access to exchange units, and paying 2-3 times
what a more common unit can be purchased for.

Any aircraft of this type is going to have similiar systems and
complexity, and require a similiar amount of maintenance. But the
engine deal, and the great RAPID team just don't give me a warm fuzzy.

There is an experienced Duke maint facility around here w/ decade plus
trackrecord w/ 10's of them - they've been useful, but the reason this
post is to hear directly from other owners/ex-owners who would have
the least amount of bias. Also, others who have worked on it (e.g.
"watch out for the Magnesium Tail assembly and signs of corrosion")
have been extremely helpful. I'm tracking down couple of owners now...

You may find this hard to believe, but very few shops are going to try
and mislead you when you ask them direct questions. There is really
nothing to gain by giving you garbage numbers. I would look pretty
silly telling you that a typical annual is 30 hours and $400 for parts
before you buy it, and then hand you a bill for $15,000 for an
inspection.

If they still do some Duke maintenance, it is likely that they would
stock commonly needed parts, especially ones with a bad availability
history. In the late 80's/early 90's, we kept more of the
"consumable" Piper parts in stock than the factory/distributor chain
did.

The magnesium skin issue hits Bonanza's, Baron's etc., not just the
Duke. The primary issue is deterioration/improper application of the
original conversion coat/paint film, or improper
stripping/conversion/priming/re-painting. Have had a couple of older
(50's-60's) vintage Bonanza's with skins corroded to the point that
the trailing edge seam could be zippered off with a pair of pliers.
Any repair/painting of these parts must be done by someone familiar
with the problems inherent in magnesium parts.

Anyone w/ experience flying these in warm weather out of high altitude
fields (yeah, I don't plan to, but like to know first hand
experiences)?

My first take-off in one was off of 4,000 ft at 800 msl approx. 65 F
OAT. Had two hours of fuel and one other soul onboard.

Acceleration was scary slow, was definitely not happy with indicated
speed at the 2/3'rds point (compared to all the other twins I'd been
in), but hung in there. After rotation (and gear retraction) it
accelerated at a more "normal" rate, my gut feeling is that the slight
airspeed gain allowed those shortie props to get a bigger "bite".

I really don't want to think about the actual accelerate/stop
distance.

snip

TC

I Love it! You guys have never owned one but you know all about them. I, on the other hand have owned one for 17 years and never had an annual over 10K (bladders) average 5K. Burns a lot of gas, looks cool, goes to TBO every time if operated right (mine went twice).

Don't listen to these clowns, Stanley. They no not what they are talking about.

Most mechanics have no problem with them, the ones that do probably shouldnt be in the fixit business.

Mark

I have same problem

http://www.asuszenfoneblog.com/
http://www.androidcourt.com/
http://harianhargahp.com/
http://reviewsnewspaper.com/