Multiengine Rating

The reputation of the Duke and the TSIO 541 engine was
damaged by a many retired USAF jet-jockey desk pilots being
hired by companies to get a "cheap" pilot. The Duke must be
flown carefully and the engine requires proper and gentle
care.

On a Beech 58, the IO 720 would be a more durable
replacement for the more complicated TSIO 520 for those
operations that happen below 10,000 feet.

The conversion to a turbine makes little sense, since the
same cost can get you a good used King Air and a cabin class
aircraft with full approval for ice and IFR.



"Kingfish" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim wrote:
| If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad
conversion... doors
| on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing
would be.
|
| I've seen a photo of an Aztec on floats. I first thought
it was a
| PhotoShop job but apparently not.
|
|
| If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies
very
| well and is as tough as nails.
|
| I've read the 541 engines were quite finicky, as I'd
expect from a high
| horsepower Lyc. in a close cowled airplane. IIRC the same
engine was
| rated at 425hp in the P-Navajo? I think Dukes are
tough looking
| planes; Rocket Engineering in Spokane does PT6A
conversions for Dukes
| (beats an IO-720 IMHO) and had one in the works for a
P-Baron, but
| there's not mention of it on their site.
|

Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control surfaces? I've read a few
horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not. The relative low
price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher maintenance cost per
passenger mile compared with other medium twins... anybody have first hand
knowledge and or numbers?
Jim

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
The reputation of the Duke and the TSIO 541 engine was
damaged by a many retired USAF jet-jockey desk pilots being
hired by companies to get a "cheap" pilot. The Duke must be
flown carefully and the engine requires proper and gentle
care.

On a Beech 58, the IO 720 would be a more durable
replacement for the more complicated TSIO 520 for those
operations that happen below 10,000 feet.

The conversion to a turbine makes little sense, since the
same cost can get you a good used King Air and a cabin class
aircraft with full approval for ice and IFR.



"Kingfish" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim wrote:
| If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad
conversion... doors
| on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing
would be.
|
| I've seen a photo of an Aztec on floats. I first thought
it was a
| PhotoShop job but apparently not.
|
|
| If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies
very
| well and is as tough as nails.
|
| I've read the 541 engines were quite finicky, as I'd
expect from a high
| horsepower Lyc. in a close cowled airplane. IIRC the same
engine was
| rated at 425hp in the P-Navajo? I think Dukes are
tough looking
| planes; Rocket Engineering in Spokane does PT6A
conversions for Dukes
| (beats an IO-720 IMHO) and had one in the works for a
P-Baron, but
| there's not mention of it on their site.
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
FAR 135 requires that gross weight be adjusted so the SE SC
is at or higher than the MEA or the aircraft must be flown
under the single-engine IFR rules with VFR descent always
possible.

So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
single engine operation is reached!!

"GDBholdings" wrote:

So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
single engine operation is reached!!

Well, thank goodness that being the pilot I am a required crew member. :-)

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
single engine operation is reached!!

So now watching "Survivor" on TV counts as pilot training?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It means pre-flight planning for the route and adjusting
payload or fuel so that the MEA can be maintained on one
engine.




"GDBholdings" wrote in message
news:4U9rh.677783$R63.473026@pd7urf1no...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| FAR 135 requires that gross weight be adjusted so the SE
SC
| is at or higher than the MEA or the aircraft must be
flown
| under the single-engine IFR rules with VFR descent
always
| possible.
|
| So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means
throwing the least
| liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill
gross weight for
| single engine operation is reached!!
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ...
:I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
: electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
: the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
: over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
: fuselage reduces performance.
: The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
: control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
: Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
: for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
: one engine, not many twins can say that.
:
: Can't speak for the DA-42, it looks interesting.
:
:
: --
: James H. Macklin
: ATP,CFI,A&P
:
:

Was talking to the folks at Diamond during OSH. They were held high during some IFR arrival while flying one of the
DA-42s. They just chopped power, dropped gear, and pushed the nose over to dump off the altitude. Apparently no issues
with shock cooling those diesels...

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ...
: Did mine in a Aztec.
:
: BTW, if you plan on getting a commercial, do that before or
: as part of the MEL, else you'll have to take the MEL again
: to get it on you CPL.
:
:
:

Yup, did my commercial high performance ride in the 310...

"Jim" wrote in message
Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control surfaces? I've read a
few
horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not. The relative low
price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher maintenance cost per
passenger mile compared with other medium twins... anybody have first hand
knowledge and or numbers?

I managed a Duke for a while. Maintenance was in line for a pressurized
piston twin (P-Navajo, P-Aerostar. C-414), until a crack was found on the
forward pressure vessel bulkhead. It was probably just an isolated event and
not indicative of the species. The biggest problem I had with the Duke was
that it is a ground loving hog. It uses a lot of runway.

D.

If you start the take-off in a Duke with the elevator back
and then when the nose starts to rise, fly the plane 's
attitude so it does not lift off before Vmc+5 it won't be
such a ground hog. The Duke sits nose down and the big nose
cone produces a lot of down force. A modified soft-field
procedure reduces the rolling load on the nose wheel and
reduces the take-off roll.


"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
news | "Jim" wrote in message
| Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control
surfaces? I've read a
| few
| horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not.
The relative low
| price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher
maintenance cost per
| passenger mile compared with other medium twins...
anybody have first hand
| knowledge and or numbers?
|
| I managed a Duke for a while. Maintenance was in line for
a pressurized
| piston twin (P-Navajo, P-Aerostar. C-414), until a crack
was found on the
| forward pressure vessel bulkhead. It was probably just an
isolated event and
| not indicative of the species. The biggest problem I had
with the Duke was
| that it is a ground loving hog. It uses a lot of runway.
|
| D.
|
|