Beech Duchess?

[PoAdeleted5]

Walking around the ramp on a sunny afternoon, I look at the numerous planes that don't go anywhere and haven't for a long time.

One of them got me wondering, a Beech Duchess. It actually looked like a nice plane, under the dirt the paint was even shiny. But it has sat unused for a long time, with tires flat. A friend peered under the cabin cover and found it had a nice panel, HSI, RMI, GPS 430 and all King stack. Someone else mentioned that it had gotten overhauled engines maybe 3 years ago.

Just makes me wonder what happened. I know the Duchess is a popular multi-trainer. Is it good for anything otherwise?

 

[BruceAir]

Nope.

 

[bbchien]

Is it good for anything otherwise?

Nope. No useful load.

 

[Henning]

I know the Duchess is a popular multi-trainer. Is it good for anything otherwise?

If you need a plane to transport YOU around to meetings...whatever, and you want a twin, it's ok, just ok. Plus the one you're talking about is a ramp queen, Why? For a personal twin, pretty hard to beat a Travel Air, although Ron has that Cougar for sale, they're not bad either.

 

[gismo]

Nope. No useful load.

I did my initial multi training in a Dutchess. They are quite docile on one or two engines (counter rotating engines) and easy to fly, but as Bruce points out the useful load sucks especially if you have any desire to be able to continue a takeoff when one quits. With full fuel and just me and the CFI aboard it wouldn't climb on one at 2000-3000 DA. Might be OK for a solo pilot but you might as well remove the second row of seats to lighten the load a bit. IIRC the range with full tanks isn't anything to write home about either.

 

[sere]

I agree with all the other post about the duchess. Very easy to fly but not very fast either.

 

[gismo]

I agree with all the other post about the duchess. Very easy to fly but not very fast either.

Now that you mention it. I had forgotten about the speed. I think the POH claimed something like 155-160 KTAS, but IIRC 140 KTAS was more realisitic. I do remember that it was noticeably slower than my old 225 HP Bonanza.

 

[poadeleted20]

...although Ron has that Cougar for sale, they're not bad either.

It went to pre-buy inspection Friday, so if you want a shot at it, call Herb Hortman at Hortman Aviation ASAP. (215) 969-0311

 

[PoAdeleted5]

Nahh, I'm not buying. I was just kind of curious about them in general. Makes me wonder why people buy stuff like that, stuff it with a fantastic dream panel, leather seats and so, then let it rot on the ramp.

 

[sere]

Now that you mention it. I had forgotten about the speed. I think the POH claimed something like 155-160 KTAS, but IIRC 140 KTAS was more realisitic. I do remember that it was noticeably slower than my old 225 HP Bonanza.

Most of my time in the Duchess was also in the 140-145 range but if I would get serious I could get it up around the 155 kt area.

 

[poadeleted20]

Lance Fisher once said he was going to start the Future Ex-Light Twin Owners Association, and I was going to have membership #2. You buy one, and you love it -- for a while. Then you get to realizing how much WORK it is to fly compared to your old simple single, and eventually you find you only fly it when you have somewhere to go, not because you just want to fly. The way I see it, every pilot ought to own a light twin -- once. That one time will cure you for sure.

 

[Bonanza]

Lance Fisher once said he was going to start the Future Ex-Light Twin Owners Association, and I was going to have membership #2. You buy one, and you love it -- for a while. Then you get to realizing how much WORK it is to fly compared to your old simple single, and eventually you find you only fly it when you have somewhere to go, not because you just want to fly. The way I see it, every pilot ought to own a light twin -- once. That one time will cure you for sure.

Count me in as member #3 !!
I used to own a Beech Duchess. As many before have said it is not anything more than a multi trainer. It was great fun to fly with two up and was a very capable plane in which to get some multi experience.
I ferried it from New Zealand to California at 30% overweight and 1 1/2" aft CofG and it behaved impeccably with a climb rate in excess of 500' per minute.
It doesn't have any particular outstanding features, it isn't built to Beech's usual "Rolls Royce" standards, but it is a great trainer, very forgiving and a good first twin.
I don't miss it at all, my Bonanza does everything the Duchess did and more.
I hear it is up for sale again. If you want a good recently re-engined Duchess with a great paint job search on N808DJ.
Stephen.

 

[bbchien]

Count me in as member #3 !!
I used to own a Beech Duchess. As many before have said it is not anything more than a multi trainer. It was great fun to fly with two up and was a very capable plane in which to get some multi experience.

Not me. A Turbocharged, K-Ice Seneca II is a capable aircraft. Redundancy, good load for 4 (950 in the cabin with 4.5 hrs' fuel), redundancy, etc.

But Seminoles, Duchesses, and BE95s are not worth the insurance. They are training aircraft.

I finally got the specs on the DA 42. 95% power at 10,000 is 164 kts on 14 gph. I'll be keeping the Seneca II for a while.

 

[gismo]

I finally got the specs on the DA 42. 95% power at 10,000 is 164 kts on 14 gph. I'll be keeping the Seneca II for a while.

Isn't it amazing how despite all the hype, manufacturers of "all new" designs seem to have to live with the same basic laws of physics.

 

[poadeleted3]

Isn't it amazing how despite all the hype, manufacturers of "all new" designs seem to have to live with the same basic laws of physics.

IIRC, all the hype was based on the diesel engines, which Diamond has apparently decided are not going to work here. The new U.S. engines are plain ole gas engines, though I can't for the life of me remember which ones.

 

[poadeleted20]

Isn't it amazing how despite all the hype, manufacturers of "all new" designs seem to have to live with the same basic laws of physics.

Well, 164 KTAS on 14 gph is a lot better than the 150 KTAS on 15 gph I got out of the Cougar. Now, it's doing that speed on 260 total HP, which isn't any better than the Cougar can do on the same HP, but that would be over 80% power for the Cougar, and would take nearly 20 gph for its O-320-D1D's to generate. There's definitely something to be said for the TwinStar's thermodynamics if not its aerodynamics.

 

[Henning]

Count me in as member #3 !!
I used to own a Beech Duchess. As many before have said it is not anything more than a multi trainer. It was great fun to fly with two up and was a very capable plane in which to get some multi experience.
QUOTE] Not me. A Turbocharged, K-Ice Seneca II is a capable aircraft. Redundancy, good load for 4 (950 in the cabin with 4.5 hrs' fuel), redundancy, etc.

But Seminoles, Duchesses, and BE95s are not worth the insurance. They are training aircraft.

I finally got the specs on the DA 42. 95% power at 10,000 is 164 kts on 14 gph. I'll be keeping the Seneca II for a while.

I don't know about that on the BE 95, at least not the turbo. Granted, it's big downfall is lack of K-Ice. I used to be able to go 4 people full fuel luggage and a dog. Even with 3 people an anchor and 150' of chain, it flew back level to LGB on a single engine 10 knots above blueline (120kts) at 25 squared on a single engine, so thats respectable enough. It would fly nicely at FL250 as well with the turbos. Oh yeah, It flys like a Beech, and with the BDS SS Windshield would fly 170 on 17.5 gph and 160 on 16.

 

[gismo]

Well, 164 KTAS on 14 gph is a lot better than the 150 KTAS on 15 gph I got out of the Cougar. Now, it's doing that speed on 260 total HP, which isn't any better than the Cougar can do on the same HP, but that would be over 80% power for the Cougar, and would take nearly 20 gph for its O-320-D1D's to generate. There's definitely something to be said for the TwinStar's thermodynamics if not its aerodynamics.

IIRC a BE95 Travel Air can get 160 KTAS on 15-16 GPH. Granted the DA42 is better, but not much better given that the design is almost 50 years newer. Too bad Moore's law doesn't apply to airplanes.

 

[Ghery]

Too bad Moore's law doesn't apply to airplanes.

Yeah, but we keep making them smaller. Would you want to cram yourself into something half the size of a C-150?

 

[gismo]

Yeah, but we keep making them smaller. Would you want to cram yourself into something half the size of a C-150?

Maybe, if it went Mach 5 on 2 GPH and cost $500, which is where we ought to be if ML were applied over the last decade or so.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, but we keep making them smaller. Would you want to cram yourself into something half the size of a C-150?

You sure can't compare the limited rear seat room in a TwinStar with the cavernous back seat of a Cougar.

 

[bbchien]

..or a Seneca II, which is flying at 18K above the ice on a winter's day.