B56TC

Boy, that's a neat article. I want one, but the idea that it almost burns as much gas in the climb to altitude as I'll burn in my Mooney going 1,000 miles is unsettling.
 
DavidWhite said:
Boy, that's a neat article. I want one, but the idea that it almost burns as much gas in the climb to altitude as I'll burn in my Mooney going 1,000 miles is unsettling.
Click to expand...

It's funny, 100LL was about $2 a gallon when that article was published, and just about every one of those owners kvetched about the fuel burn.
 
schmookeeg said:
It's funny, 100LL was about $2 a gallon when that article was published, and just about every one of those owners kvetched about the fuel burn.
Click to expand...

People complain about fuel burn no matter how much gas costs. Sure, if gas dropped to $2/gallon now we'd be jumping in the streets, but it represents a significant cost so people will always complain about it.

It's also something of a psychological thing. Seeing you burn 100 GPH combined just sounds like a lot.
 
DavidWhite said:
Boy, that's a neat article. I want one, but the idea that it almost burns as much gas in the climb to altitude as I'll burn in my Mooney going 1,000 miles is unsettling.
Click to expand...

Also depends on how you choose to fly it. You could choose to operate at a part power setting that would reduce your climb rate a bit but also allow leaning without overheating and save a bunch of fuel. If you could get that plane to run LOP, you could even do a LOP climb with how much power it has.
 
Dead Stick said:
Thanks for sharing. That article sure brought back a lot of memories.
Click to expand...

I actually picked up a good tip I've never heard anywhere else reading those owner stories. One guy said he used a canulla AND a face mask together off separate feeds at 320. I'll keep that one in mind if I ever venture above 250.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I actually picked up a good tip I've never heard anywhere else reading those owner stories. One guy said he used a canulla AND a face mask together off separate feeds at 320. I'll keep that one in mind if I ever venture above 250.
Click to expand...

Now I like that idea.

Hmm... Now how to get RVSM on the 310...
 
Uhhhh.... I think this type of plane has already been tried....


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Me163.jpg
    Me163.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 133
Alexb2000 said:
I actually picked up a good tip I've never heard anywhere else reading those owner stories. One guy said he used a canulla AND a face mask together off separate feeds at 320. I'll keep that one in mind if I ever venture above 250.
Click to expand...
Here's another quick tip is you ever plan on venturing above FL180... spend a little bit of quality time in an altitude chamber. It will be a real eye-opener - guaranteed. Bad things can happen to good people very quickly up there. ;)
 
Honestly? I don't know that I would take this for free... might be fun for a flight or two, but then the real sticker shock would set in.
 
onwards said:
Honestly? I don't know that I would take this for free... might be fun for a flight or two, but then the real sticker shock would set in.
Click to expand...

Oh, we'd take it for free. But then we'd have to decide what to do with it. The likely conclusion would be to scrap it.
 
I'm in the market for a nice travelling plane for my wife and I once she retires next year. A twin is a definite possibility, but since I still have use of most of my faculties I wouldn't consider this for an instant. 200hrs to go on engines notorious for shorter than published TBOs?? No thanks. A panel from the 60s-70s? No thanks. Plus I no longer will have any need to get anywhere at any specific time. That smells like a hangar queen.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I'm in the market for a nice travelling plane for my wife and I once she retires next year. A twin is a definite possibility, but since I still have use of most of my faculties I wouldn't consider this for an instant. 200hrs to go on engines notorious for shorter than published TBOs?? No thanks. A panel from the 60s-70s? No thanks. Plus I no longer will have any need to get anywhere at any specific time. That smells like a hangar queen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what else could you possibly get where your call to tower goes like this

"Wherever Tower, Baron 123A, holding short of 32 at Alpha.... WATCH THIS %^&*"
 
maybe buy it for the metal scrap weight or take it for free. these planes are in the salvage part of their lifes. And its probably a burden to the seller, he still has to pay an upkeep so it doesnt rot.
 
A surprisingly large percentage of owners will pay to let their planes rot vs selling it for cheap or scrapping it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A surprisingly large percentage of owners will pay to let their planes rot vs selling it for cheap or scrapping it.
Click to expand...

Hard to come to terms with scrapping it even if that is the right call.

Its like a mini-storage unit, easier to just keep paying the rent vs. dealing with all that crap piled up in there.
 
I was thinking of offering this dude 30, just to see what happened. All he can say is "F off" :D
 
schmookeeg said:
I was thinking of offering this dude 30, just to see what happened. All he can say is "F off" :D
Click to expand...

Assuming it's still out of annual and they had it priced looking for trades. $30K cash isn't that bad of an offer. If I was the owner I won't say F off, but I might try and bump you just a little.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Hard to come to terms with scrapping it even if that is the right call.

Its like a mini-storage unit, easier to just keep paying the rent vs. dealing with all that crap piled up in there.
Click to expand...

For some, anyway. I love getting rid of things I don't need - it feels like a weight off my shoulders. I also hate paying rent or other money that doesn't get me a tangible return and is just money out the window.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Assuming it's still out of annual and they had it priced looking for trades. $30K cash isn't that bad of an offer. If I was the owner I won't say F off, but I might try and bump you just a little.
Click to expand...

The question becomes what do you then do with it after purchase? For someone like you talking about wanting a twin upgrade and this fits your mission, you could make an argument for dumping $100-150k into the plane to get new engines, a great avionics suite, and a thorough annual and once over. Then you end up with a plane that is exactly what you want for what comes out to a relatively minimal investment compared to other options. Furthermore, more owners would probably be willing to sell it to you at a good price knowing that's your intent - at least I would.

On the other hand if you just try to fly it on the cheap, you'll find yourself with a plane that's back out of annual and requires a couple grand worth of repairs every time you fly it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
For some, anyway. I love getting rid of things I don't need - it feels like a weight off my shoulders. I also hate paying rent or other money that doesn't get me a tangible return and is just money out the window.
Click to expand...

Me too, but we have little say in it. Here's my theoretical formula:

Propensity of a woman to hoard=X (as a percentage)
Storage space=Y (sq. feet)
Time to collect "stuff"=T (years)
Man's desire to remove clutter= C (scale of 1-10)

X^y * T = ∞/C

Still just a working model, but so far tracking true.:D
 
Alexb2000 said:
Assuming it's still out of annual and they had it priced looking for trades. $30K cash isn't that bad of an offer. If I was the owner I won't say F off, but I might try and bump you just a little.
Click to expand...

Yup, the owner would do good not to tell anyone to F off. You can probably count the number of potential buyers not named Wentworth on one hand. Given Wentworths love of ripping avionics out then selling airframes on eBay as fixer uppers, I'm not even sure how interest they'd be. For this puppy to be fixed up and flown regularly, it's going to take someone with more money than sense who has a soft spot for this particular rig.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Me too, but we have little say in it. Here's my theoretical formula:

Propensity of a woman to hoard=X (as a percentage)
Storage space=Y (sq. feet)
Time to collect "stuff"=T (years)
Man's desire to remove clutter= C (scale of 1-10)

X^y * T = ∞/C

Still just a working model, but so far tracking true.:D
Click to expand...

Fortunately I married someone who doesn't like clutter, either. ;)
 
search
An STC'd 56TC? I have one !!!!!!!:eek:

YES, I HAVE THE ONLY ONE.

It's a 1969 56TC with an STC to use the IO540K1B5 @300hp.

The STC# is SA01270NY. The plane is currently flying and has been for ten years and fresh out of annual.

@9,000'

210 mph true @ 75% 27 gal /hr

G-weight 5,650

204 gal fuel

80" 3 blade Hartzells

max range @ 45% is 1,700 miles doing 180 mph true .............:hairraise:

fly's like a champ.



"Someone did it, they finally did it."

VG


questions??????:D
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure whether to say congratulations or I'm sorry. :)

But either way, welcome to PoA!
 
SCCutler said:
I love the way a 56TC rockets skyward.

Plus, it's a Beech.

Hubba!

Welcome to PoA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a Duke has way more style. Fuel burn of a 421 with speed of a 310 and interior of a 340. :)
 
Saw this thread and had to comment as my introduction.

I owned one for two years and put about 300 hrs on her. The best plane I have ever owned for two reasons:

Safety
Safety

Single engine rate of climb and stability with the small props. Lose an engine and it is a no brainer.

Took off from TPA and climbed above the building tstorms at 3k rate. Everyone else was scrambling. Only better time to climb is Cheyenne 400LS

Landing at SunNFun on final. Cut off by idiot in sky hawk. Had to go around and got shoved in behind a Grumman Albatross which promptly threw up the biggest wake turbulence known to mankind. On short final, 50' off threshold we were turned 90 degrees and the prompt application of io541 power and control brought us to level 30 feet in front of the poor ground controller watching the spectacle

These Barons are the best and I am sad that they are being killed by fuel prices
 
N5465u said:
Saw this thread and had to comment as my introduction.

I owned one for two years and put about 300 hrs on her. The best plane I have ever owned for two reasons:

Safety
Safety

Single engine rate of climb and stability with the small props. Lose an engine and it is a no brainer.

Took off from TPA and climbed above the building tstorms at 3k rate. Everyone else was scrambling. Only better time to climb is Cheyenne 400LS

Landing at SunNFun on final. Cut off by idiot in sky hawk. Had to go around and got shoved in behind a Grumman Albatross which promptly threw up the biggest wake turbulence known to mankind. On short final, 50' off threshold we were turned 90 degrees and the prompt application of io541 power and control brought us to level 30 feet in front of the poor ground controller watching the spectacle

These Barons are the best and I am sad that they are being killed by fuel prices
Click to expand...

Great first post!

More stories. Please!
 
I got a chance to fly one of the 56TC's around here some years ago. I don't have much total Barron time so I really can't compare to any of the other Barron's and I only flew it a few times, but I enjoyed it.
Duke engines on a small Barron airframe, fun to fly but you had to keep on top of the fuel situation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
For some, anyway. I love getting rid of things I don't need - it feels like a weight off my shoulders. I also hate paying rent or other money that doesn't get me a tangible return and is just money out the window.
Click to expand...

+1. The more you have, the more you have to take care of. If you're not using it, sell it or give it away.
 
N5465u said:
Saw this thread and had to comment as my introduction.

I owned one for two years and put about 300 hrs on her. The best plane I have ever owned for two reasons:

Safety
Safety

Single engine rate of climb and stability with the small props. Lose an engine and it is a no brainer.

Took off from TPA and climbed above the building tstorms at 3k rate. Everyone else was scrambling. Only better time to climb is Cheyenne 400LS

Landing at SunNFun on final. Cut off by idiot in sky hawk. Had to go around and got shoved in behind a Grumman Albatross which promptly threw up the biggest wake turbulence known to mankind. On short final, 50' off threshold we were turned 90 degrees and the prompt application of io541 power and control brought us to level 30 feet in front of the poor ground controller watching the spectacle

These Barons are the best and I am sad that they are being killed by fuel prices
Click to expand...

Wait for the 350hp Diesel, it'll do pretty much the same job of it.
 
Owned a 56 tc for several years. Also a 55 Baron. The performance is unreal in take off, climb and high altitude. 96 gph during t/o. 60 in climb. Usually climbed at around 160 kts indicated. Slower speed and you need to watc temp in hot weather. Sounds bad but from brake release to 20000 ft was 15-17 min. So a little over a gallon per thousand. Would go on up to mid twentys easily. 240-250 kts at 42-50 gph. Engines were no issue for me. Take care and watch temp and adjust cowl flaps accordingly. Have seen these engines last 2000 +
On dukes and 56 tc's. These engines were built for turbocharging. They have oil cooled pistons and oil cooled valve guides. They should all be built this way. Also these engines have the camshaft below so it does not have the cam lifter galling problems. You think there upside down compared to most other lycomings. Very tough engines considering they turn 2900 rpm and 42' mp on takeoff and normally cruise at 2700. Awsome plane for cross country and bad weather. My B55 was a lot better at low altitudes and short landing distances. The 56 will takeoff fast but with the extra weight 3000 ft is about the shortest runway to stop safely.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Is this the elusive LearBaron?
Click to expand...

Yes lol. The 56TC is 760hp of hoot that flies and handles nice. TOC comes quick at 2500fpm. The props are ungodly expensive with the big paddle blades; forget overhauling the engines. For prop and engine you're probably over $120k a side. I got to fly one, heck I almost bought a nice one for salvage value until I looked at what I needed to spend on engines and props.:eek: The one I flew made my Travelair seem to climb like a 152 in comparison. I always wondered what it would be like to hang the TIGO 541s and get 850hp.:yes:
 
I owned 56 tc a few years back and yes fuel cost was high. But
The 56 tc has the highest power to weight of any general av plane.
A blast on takeoff and climb. To scrap theses would be crazy. I sold
Mine 8 years ago for $130000 with 1000 hr engine. It was loaded. Color radar
flight director, deiced, radar altimeter, dual instruments, dual transponders,
530, stormscope. Etc. To scrap these planes is crazy. They turn heads on the ground
wherever I went. At altitude it kept ATC asking what is a 56 Baron that does those speeds.
Would do 240-250 kts at altitude on 45-48 gph. Find an old c-90 that will outrun it
 
I owned a 55 baron and a 56tc just a few years ago. My 55 would push 190 kts at 10,000
ft. And burn just 22-23 an hour. It had 1780 # useful. The 56tc was equiped heavy. Lots of equipment, thick glass, soundproofing, radars, deiced erc. It weighd 4280 empty which left a useful of 1700. That was at 5990 gross. 1224 for fuel left about 500 payload after taxi. Yours would have less. Better off with a 55. I had almost 1000 payload with full fuel in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top