R680 Powered Beech 18

"Ditch" wrote in message
...
It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?

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

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.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Ditch" wrote in message
...
It was clear to me. Anyone else have a problem with it?

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

If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the conversation.
Don't expect a complete historical and technical dissertation with every
post. That's what Juptners is for. In this case my guess is Volume 8
covers the subject aircraft but I am not going to look it up for you.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...
If the subject is beyond you maybe you should stay out of the
conversation.

The point of public discussion is so that others may participate and learn
from what others have to share.

Your comment made sense only to someone that already knows enough about the
airplanes in question that they would already know what you said. Why say
it at all, if you don't feel you should make your comment understandable to
folks not "in the know"?

Pete

On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

snip

Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
marginal at best.

Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
the serial number of this airplane?

snip

My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the
Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's.

There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that
are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc.
from the the Beech twin trainer.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm

TC

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

The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more
about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the Jacobs
powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an
interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless
Beech 18.




wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2003 08:02:58 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

snip

Where in the world have you found an R-680 powered Twin Beech? That
has got to be an incredibly rare beast. I thought only one or two of
the very first ones had other than Pratt and Whiskey R-985s. The
early ones were much lighter, but, still, the performance had to be
marginal at best.

Have you ben able to get your hands on a manual for the R-680 powered
model? Given that it would have been written in the 1930s when most
manuals were pretty basic, I'd be curious what it reported about
performance. Does the airplane even have feathering props? What is
the serial number of this airplane?

snip

My initial thoughts are that Beech made a twin trainer similar to the
Bamboo Bomber that was powered by 300 hp R680's.

There are quite a few Stearmans flying around with 300 hp 680's that
are an STC'd install using the modified engine mount, dishpan, etc.
from the the Beech twin trainer.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey23.htm

TC

"Robert Bates" wrote in message
news:EhXub.249932$HS4.2225277@attbi_s01...
The only one I saw was at Steve Wolfe's hanger in the early '90s and I
thought that it was interesting at the time but I didn't learn any more
about it than the engine installation. The performance specs for the
Jacobs
powered version would also work. What I am trying to accomplish is an
interesting, but affordable to fly classic by re-powering an engineless
Beech 18.

Do you think that in the long run R985s might be the best route? They would
give you better resale and are pretty near bullet proof. Fuel burn would be
a consideration and might eat up a lot of the increase in resale.

C-45 bird flew ok. Would fly on one engine after airborne an cleaned
up . Not any super performance of course. Max altitude on SE was
probably 5K or so (from memory).

I remember when I trained on the Beech-18 (E-18S...I think), the manual refered
to the installation of JATO pods to "assist in the event of an engine failure
or for short take-offs".
I wish we had them when I was taking off fully loaded with cargo over a high
population area. Fun fun fun...

Some are still flying today

There are quite a few still flying today. I can think of 5-6 cargo companies
off the top of my head that still use them and private ones are all over the
place.


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