if I had the money, today I'd buy...

Epic LT...or whatever the certified verision is or w ll be.
 
I'd get a roomy Caravan. (They're quite 'grand') But not a fancy G1000 EX; I'd go for a Garmin-stack legacy model with TKS. Then add an APE III and APE STOL kit to increase MATOW and decrease ground roll (respectively). I'd also love an upgraded engine; A -140 wouldn't be bad, but "if I had the money" I'd have Texas Turbine and Blackhawk collaborate and try to exceed the performance of the 900hp Honeywell. I'd like to break 1,500hp but I'd settle for 1,200 with the -67. Now I'd convert it to experimental and do all sorts of random mods to make a fun, go-anywhere RV...
 
Whatever I can afford to fly forever.
 
PBY Catalina, or maybe one of the Martin Mars tankers if they would let one go.
 
441 with RVSM
 
Beech Duke
 
kayoh190 said:
Beech Duke
Click to expand...

I'd look cool in a Duke, I think I've settled on the Royal Turbine version though, with the long round nacelles, it looks even cooler.:D Plus even with the conversion cost, PT-6s would save money over 10 years if you wanted to really fly a Duke.
image.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Some thing that won't depreciate !
 

Attachments

  • SR9-2.jpg
    SR9-2.jpg
    674.4 KB · Views: 36
  • SR9-4.jpg
    SR9-4.jpg
    724 KB · Views: 27
  • SR9-6.jpg
    SR9-6.jpg
    597 KB · Views: 30
Henning said:
I'd look cool in a Duke, I think I've settled on the Royal Turbine version though, with the long round nacelles, it looks even cooler.:D Plus even with the conversion cost, PT-6s would save money over 10 years if you wanted to really fly a Duke.
View attachment 42970
Click to expand...

Would that address the issues that give rise to its bad reputation?
 
Sam D said:
Would that address the issues that give rise to its bad reputation?
Click to expand...

Yep, the big issue stems from the TIO-541 engines, and Lycoming's operating instructions for it. If you don't want incredible bills on that engine and expect to get them to TBO, basically the Duke is a 175-180kt airplane, and you best be LOP and pulled back soon after take off. Even then the engines are now $100k a side to overhaul and swing $30k props. That gets you 1200hrs. If you treat it as a 190kt plane, you're looking around a 700hr average to OH and if operated ROP, you'll do some cylinder work in that time. When you add up all the costs, compare that to a used/refresh PT-6 that you can operate 5000hrs virtually maint free. Between the costs of maintenance and poor dispatch reliability, yes you have addressed the reasons the Duke gets a bad rap.
 
Actually, it's Beech's operating instructions that are the real issue. 79% power is not a cruise power point...
 
The land plus all the materials and labor for my next house - a couple hundred acres would be nice.
 
Henning said:
I'd look cool in a Duke, I think I've settled on the Royal Turbine version though, with the long round nacelles, it looks even cooler.:D Plus even with the conversion cost, PT-6s would save money over 10 years if you wanted to really fly a Duke.
View attachment 42970
Click to expand...

It gives you 425 speed with the cabin of a mini 340 at the cost of a 441! :mad2:The trifecta of aviation! :rofl::rofl:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Actually, it's Beech's operating instructions that are the real issue. 79% power is not a cruise power point...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that too. Personally I think they would have been better to put the TIGO-541 on it. For as much of a bastard stepchild of an engine that it is, I know one guy with a set in a P-Navajo or Mojave, I forget which, and he's had really good service out of it for 20 years now. He doesn't fly it hard, and he is LOP, basically runs the same way I do, just richen up to the pull and let the airspeed fall where it does, about that of a 325 Navajo. He does well beyond TBO that way. He is however the only operator I know that doesn't curse that engine/plane.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
the APS guys say that it can be.....so??:D
Click to expand...

Well, let me rephrase that. Any percent power you want can be cruise. It's just that most engines won't tolerate 79% power leaned to 1650F TIT ROP (max cruise per the Duke POH I have around here somewhere) for very long.

And most high powered engines won't tolerate 79% power, ROP or LOP, as a cruise power setting for very long. Now, I have heard about people who've flown 421s at full power full rich all the time (which is allowable) without any issues, but the GTSIO-520s in the 421 are also known for good cooling and long-lasting cylinders.

Henning said:
Yeah, that too. Personally I think they would have been better to put the TIGO-541 on it. For as much of a bastard stepchild of an engine that it is, I know one guy with a set in a P-Navajo or Mojave, I forget which, and he's had really good service out of it for 20 years now. He doesn't fly it hard, and he is LOP, basically runs the same way I do, just richen up to the pull and let the airspeed fall where it does, about that of a 325 Navajo. He does well beyond TBO that way. He is however the only operator I know that doesn't curse that engine/plane.:lol:
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don't really know why the decision was made for the TIO-541 vs. the TIGO. The extra horsepower and slower spinning props would've been a much better setup all around. I also suspect that you would've gotten more speed at the same horsepower from having bigger, slower-turning props. The weight difference I don't see as being a factor. Takeoff at 2900 RPM is brutal (mine is 2850 RPM, I would really prefer 2700 or even lower) and cruise powers I believe were listed up to 2700 RPM.

One of the engineers I worked with back at Leaky Gray Engines was one of the guys who'd worked on the TI(G)O-541 back when they were in development. He loved P-Navajos, and would tell me all kinds of stories about them. He didn't think much of a Duke, but he did fly in one back and forth to Wichita a few times with a Beech test pilot at FL250, and said it was a nice ride.
 
Henning said:
I'd look cool in a Duke, I think I've settled on the Royal Turbine version though, with the long round nacelles, it looks even cooler.:D Plus even with the conversion cost, PT-6s would save money over 10 years if you wanted to really fly a Duke.
View attachment 42970
Click to expand...

That's a crazy good looking airplane! I've always really liked the Duke.
 
TBM-700-series, with a frax to a Global Express for long-haul.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, let me rephrase that. Any percent power you want can be cruise. It's just that most engines won't tolerate 79% power leaned to 1650F TIT ROP (max cruise per the Duke POH I have around here somewhere) for very long.

And most high powered engines won't tolerate 79% power, ROP or LOP, as a cruise power setting for very long. Now, I have heard about people who've flown 421s at full power full rich all the time (which is allowable) without any issues, but the GTSIO-520s in the 421 are also known for good cooling and long-lasting cylinders.
Click to expand...
why not?....so long as CHTs are cool enough.....1650F TIT is an operational limit...and can run there all day long.

What's the failure mode that concerns you?....operating above 79%HP? After all....these engines are de-rated....then boosted in other configurations.
 
Last edited:
Limits are not goals...
 
I'd buy a Tecnam Twin P2006T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top