Beech musketeer info

T

TommyG

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
2,145
Display Name
Display name:
Tom
I had someone contact me about instructing him for his PPL. He owns a 1975 beech musketeer sport, B 19. I have never flown one and can't find much about them on the web. Does anyone have experience in the they can share some info.
Thanks.
 
Docile kinda like a Cherokee, very comfortable with doors on both sides, slow as molasses but all in all a good trainer with a trailing link gear that can take tons of abuse. I've flown the Musketeer, Sundowner and the retract version. Don
 
Thanks, I plan on getting up with someone with some time in one and knock out an hour or two to get the feel.
 
The wide-track, trailing-link gear makes for good, stable landings. Just don't land on the nosewheel first; it can porpoise on you. The cabin, even of the entry-level Sport, is tall, roomy and comfortable. Coming from a Cherokee 140 or C-172 it seems solid, even overbuilt.
 
I've owned one for 20 years. It's slow, stalls nice, no real surprises. Floats quite a bit if speed is fast on landing. Very stable, you will not like the rate of climb if loaded to gross. Wish it had 180hp engine. Good visibility.
 
I've got about 700 hours in a Sundowner.
They have a bad reputation for porpoising on landing.
This is almost always a result of carrying to much speed on touch down and trying to force it down.
We've got over 2300 hours of training in our 82 Sundowner and have never had an issue with it because we stress being on speed on final and not 1 knot fast.
Otherwise it's a very good trainer with nothing that will surprise you.
On our Sundowner we use 70 KTs on final with full flaps for every landing slowing to 65 as you cross the threshold. we easily make the first taxiway (about 800) on our runways with barely touching the brakes.
We love it.
 
I trained in Sports/Sundowners as well as Skipper (Beech version of the Tomahawk) and flew nice Sundowner rental planes (this was the 80's) for several years (same airframe as Musketeer basically). Great flying airplanes IMHO - not fast but stable with very nice handling and feel. One thing I missed when I transitioned to Pipers was the stability of trim - when trimmed to an airspeed holds it very well with power changes and predictable when flaps are added: in other words trim on downwind for a good speed, add flaps on base/final and speed settles right where you want it.

As others have said, airspeed critical on approach. Very good with crosswinds though - never found them as easy in any other airplane I've flown.
 
We have a 1972 Beech Sport. Very roomy cabin but very underpowered. I'm lucky to get 500fpm on a standard day at max gross. Ive never taken off with more than 48 gallons of the 60 gallon capacity. You have to get creative to keep it within W&B limits.
 
My FBO has one, it's a popular student rental. Ja_user instructs in it.

I like it, roomy interior. Not very fast, but not too slow either. Solid feel. It's a good airplane. W&B is interesting, it's very nose heavy so ballast is generally necessary in the back.

Two catches with it: The fuel system is a little odd, read up on it. There may be placards about burning off fuel from one side or the other, and not taking off with less than a certain amount of fuel in each tank. Our version also doesn't have shoulder harnesses and that bugs me.
 
So, when we're talking slow, are we saying 130ktas in cruise or 105ktas? Slow is kinda relative in this place. I've seen some very nice aircraft Musketeer/Sundowner/Sierra in the mid-30's and I'm very intruigued by them. Me, I'm still pretty much a newbie, so slow and simple is my jam. I don't like single-door Pipers and 172s always seem a tad disappointing and always overpriced. So that leaves me with a baby Beech or Grumman Cheetah/Tiger.

Matthew said:
My FBO has one, it's a popular student rental. Ja_user instructs in it.
Click to expand...

I've been meaning to get over to NCAS to try their B23. They also have that C177RG which has been calling my name...
 
labbadabba said:
So, when we're talking slow, are we saying 130ktas in cruise or 105ktas? Slow is kinda relative in this place. I've seen some very nice aircraft Musketeer/Sundowner/Sierra in the mid-30's and I'm very intruigued by them. Me, I'm still pretty much a newbie, so slow and simple is my jam. I don't like single-door Pipers and 172s always seem a tad disappointing and always overpriced. So that leaves me with a baby Beech or Grumman Cheetah/Tiger.
Click to expand...

The Musketeer is about 10 - 15 knots slower than it's similarly horsepowered Cessna, and Piper counterparts. It is about 25 - 30 knot slower than a Tiger. For a fixed gear, fixed prop 180 HP plane, the Tiger is hard to beat. You may also want to consider a Mooney M20C.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
The Musketeer is about 10 - 15 knots slower than it's similarly horsepowered Cessna, and Piper counterparts. You may also want to consider a Mooney M20C.
Click to expand...

Really, so 90-95ktas in cruise? Our 172s usually are about 105ktas. Not sure I'm willing to go retract at this point, plus Mooneys scare me (totally arbitrary weird gut feeling thing).

Grummans however are the other plane that has my eye. There one over at KOJC that I might just have to go fly.
 
If you're shopping for a Baby Beech, try to find a 1970 model or later. For the 1970 model year they widened the cabin on all the 23 and 24 series, enlarged the cabin windows, and restyled the cowl. They're roomier, visibility is better, and look nicer on the outside.

be_a23_1967.jpg


be_c23_1982.jpg
 
labbadabba said:
Really, so 90-95ktas in cruise? Our 172s usually are about 105ktas. Not sure I'm willing to go retract at this point, plus Mooneys scare me (totally arbitrary weird gut feeling thing).

Grummans however are the other plane that has my eye. There one over at KOJC that I might just have to go fly.
Click to expand...

Here's a good article on the Beech if you are an AOPA member. They are good, very well built airplanes, but the cruise speed would frustrate me. YMMV.

You should fly the Tiger. It may make the decision a lot easier.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Beechcraft-Sundowner

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...craft-Fact-Sheets/Grumman-American-AA5B-Tiger
 
Anthony said:
Here's a good article on the Beech if you are an AOPA member. They are good, very well built airplanes, but the cruise speed would frustrate me. YMMV.

You should fly the Tiger. It may make the decision a lot easier.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Beechcraft-Sundowner

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...craft-Fact-Sheets/Grumman-American-AA5B-Tiger
Click to expand...

AOPA on the Sundowner: Lightly loaded and at a density altitude of 7,500 feet, the airplane trued out at 120 knots at 75 percent power (2,650 rpm), 115 knots at 65 percent power (2,500 rpm), and 96 knots at 57 percent power (2,300 rpm). The handbook indicates that the airplane should burn 11 gph, 9 gph, and 7.9 gph, respectively, at these power settings.

120KTAS!!!! Whoo-Hooo!! For me coming off of 0-300 172s that's screaming.

That said, I'm sure the excitement of 120kts will wear off. 135-140KTAS for a Tiger. I'll just need to fly both. I'm a bigger guy, 6' 230lbs so there's that too.
 
I don't think 120 KTAS is real world numbers for the Sundowner, but I could be wrong.
 
labbadabba said:
I've been meaning to get over to NCAS to try their B23.
Click to expand...

labbadabba said:
I'm a bigger guy, 6' 230lbs so there's that too.
Click to expand...

You are a little bit more "solid muscle" than I am.

I haven't flown that B23 for a while, but I do remember that it is really nose heavy. Unless you are in the 150lb range, you'll really have to look closely at the W&B. Normally it needs ballast in the back for CG. Something that you really need to check during preflight - look inside the baggage compartment for weights.

Swing by sometime and check it out.
 
I've got a sierra that is for sale. It's a very quiet plane and has some nice features like cabin fresh air blower. Really helps on ground. If you come to lincoln area we can send you out with a cfi and see how you like it.
 
I fly an 80 Sundowner and flight plan 110 at 65% power.

Solid flyer, stable IFR platform and roomy. We just flew our plane out to Dubuque IA, Rapid City SD , Kansas City and home.
 
Ah memories... My first plane was the first Sport ever made, N2319W. I bought the plane when living in San Diego in '95. I flew it from Oceanside to Burnet TX, then up to Gardner Kansas. VFR the whole way. No GPS. No autopilot. Last leg to Kansas was in 48knt headwind. That plane is a slow reliable tank. I sold it in 97 to a guy in Leavenworth KS and never saw it again.
 
I think it's one of the best values out there. A Sport with a Lycoming 320 and two doors can be had about as cheap as a 150/152 and is more comfortable for the occasional XC.

My friend's 23-24 with IO-360 (200hp) cruises at 65% and 110 knots. So yes, they are a bit draggy as are all wide, comfortable airplanes. I too question the AOPA article that claims 120 knots from the same plane with 180hp (the Sundowner).
 
As others have said, approach speed does matter. It always matters, but this line of aircraft seems less forgiving than typical trainers and there have been many accidents due to porpoising. Not a deal breaker per se, but a risk that must be addressed with proper training.

Also as mentioned, performance suffers due to the cabin. I probably wouldn't consider a B19 for personal use, but for training it should be workable. Think of it more like a big 152 than a 172/PA28 when thinking about performance numbers. I do have Super Musketeer time (200hp) and that aircraft is a bit less peppy than a 180hp PA28, so you can imagine what 150hp in a similar airframe will do!

That said, they handle nicely and are extremely comfortable, so as with anything there is a tradeoff!
 
TUPilot said:
As others have said, approach speed does matter. It always matters, but this line of aircraft seems less forgiving than typical trainers and there have been many accidents due to porpoising. Not a deal breaker per se, but a risk that must be addressed with proper training.

Also as mentioned, performance suffers due to the cabin. I probably wouldn't consider a B19 for personal use, but for training it should be workable. Think of it more like a big 152 than a 172/PA28 when thinking about performance numbers. I do have Super Musketeer time (200hp) and that aircraft is a bit less peppy than a 180hp PA28, so you can imagine what 150hp in a similar airframe will do!

That said, they handle nicely and are extremely comfortable, so as with anything there is a tradeoff!
Click to expand...
I flew a rental sundowner quite a bit in the 80s between purchases. It was a very docile , easy to fly trainer with no bad habits. ( it will not "porpoise if you know what your doing , sort of like any other tri gear.) very well built, comfortable as are the other beech aircraft.
 
ksarrowpilot said:
Ah memories... My first plane was the first Sport ever made, N2319W. I bought the plane when living in San Diego in '95. I flew it from Oceanside to Burnet TX, then up to Gardner Kansas. VFR the whole way. No GPS. No autopilot. Last leg to Kansas was in 48knt headwind. That plane is a slow reliable tank. I sold it in 97 to a guy in Leavenworth KS and never saw it again.
Click to expand...
Greetings. I resurrected ol 2319w around 1984. I acquired the damaged and gutted MB-1 airframe and later found a 67 complete but damaged MB-287(?) to cannabalize for parts. I Would like to see how it was painted after I sold it and what it looks like today.
Thanks, Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top