Thoughts on 1962 Beech Debonair

[asgcpa]

Investigating a Beech Debonair partnership.

Thoughts or insights into model? What to look for?

 

[flyingron]

Investigating a Beech Debonair partnership.

Thoughts or insights into model? What to look for?

Join the Beechtalk forums. Lots of more specialized info over there.
Don't know much about Debs (other than my neighbor has one) other than the few things they have in common with Navions. If it's got a Hartzell prop, check compliance with the two rather onerous ADs (even an overhaul does not satisfy one of them).

 

[poadeleted21]

Overall good rigs, a lot could have happend to it in the last 51 years. What engine's in it? I believe a 1962 has the same fuel tank setup as my N35, 2 40 gallon tanks which is nice. I may even have the P35 instrument panel which is more desirable than the piano key panel.

 

[jhausch]

IO-470 J and K in the Deb are eligible for mogas STC. Some Debs have been upgraded to larger engines, though

 

[flyingmoose]

Deb is a great plane. Go fly it and you will see.

 

[Sac Arrow]

They are solid, well built machines and a joy to fly. Except they have the most god awful panel layout and a horrid flap system.

 

[JimG.]

They are solid, well built machines and a joy to fly. Except they have the most god awful panel layout and a horrid flap system.

You get used to it quickly… especially if you don't try to compare it to a Cessna

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

They are solid, well built machines and a joy to fly. Except they have the most god awful panel layout and a horrid flap system.

I would be hot on a Partnership or club in this kind of plane.

Assume about $3k a year annual inspection and maintenance, maybe more.

Early Beechcraft had the gear switch and flap switch reversed and had a higher than usual number of gear mishaps. Later models reversed it with the industry.

The panels are just ugly. But wouldn't let that stand in the way of a good airplane.

Hopefully they do not load too much maintenance reserve on the flying partners like some clubs do.

 

[asgcpa]

Actually it's a partnership and they had panel redone. Only thing missing is a GPS.

 

[poadeleted21]

I would be hot on a Partnership or club in this kind of plane.

Assume about $3k a year annual inspection and maintenance, maybe more.

Early Beechcraft had the gear switch and flap switch reversed and had a higher than usual number of gear mishaps. Later models reversed it with the industry.

The panels are just ugly. But wouldn't let that stand in the way of a good airplane.

Hopefully they do not load too much maintenance reserve on the flying partners like some clubs do.

I had a meticulous dreaded 1st annual done by who many consider "THE" Bonanza mechanic in the country, I pleaded with him to go the extra mile then some, he did. Even touched up the paint etc.. $2,600. I expect the next annual to be half that. We replaced every washer that was worn, bushing that was suspect etc... You're going to have to beat the hell out of one pretty good or buy into a beater to spend $3K in MX.

and my panel is extra ugly.

 

[Henning]

You gonna square that up into a six pack?

 

[poadeleted21]

You gonna square that up into a six pack?

piggy bank is slowly filling up, got a guy in Orangeburg, SC that comes highly recommended to spruce it up. The "faux wood" will probably stay, much to my dismay. I hate that stupid fake wood. The panel layout doesn't bother me, though I'd trade the flap switch for my Cherokee Johnson bar any day.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I had a meticulous dreaded 1st annual done by who many consider "THE" Bonanza mechanic in the country, I pleaded with him to go the extra mile then some, he did. Even touched up the paint etc.. $2,600. I expect the next annual to be half that. We replaced every washer that was worn, bushing that was suspect etc... You're going to have to beat the hell out of one pretty good or buy into a beater to spend $3K in MX.

and my panel is extra ugly.

Looks like the ASI needs fixing, VSI needs adjustment.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

My bad, You do not have turbos!....plan $1200-2000.

I had a meticulous dreaded 1st annual done by who many consider "THE" Bonanza mechanic in the country, I pleaded with him to go the extra mile then some, he did. Even touched up the paint etc.. $2,600. I expect the next annual to be half that. We replaced every washer that was worn, bushing that was suspect etc... You're going to have to beat the hell out of one pretty good or buy into a beater to spend $3K in MX.

and my panel is extra ugly.

 

[Henning]

Turbos don't normally add $1000+ to your annual maintenance.

 

[poadeleted21]

Looks like the ASI needs fixing, VSI needs adjustment.

Was a couple years ago.

 

[flyingron]

Maybe it's a windy day. The gear switch isn't so bad if you've not ever flown anything but this plane. Bart's at least is one that had the wheel embedded in the piano key for the gear. The earlier ones had identical piano keys for both gear and flaps.

Of course the Navion has a man's gear lever. None of these little microswitch jobs.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Turbos don't normally add $1000+ to your annual maintenance.

Not in a given year no. But a $5K turbo replaced after five years does indeed annualize to $1,000 (ask me how I know.)

 

[Henning]

Not in a given year no. But a $5K turbo replaced after five years does indeed annualize to $1,000 (ask me how I know.)

If you need to replace a turbo for $5k every 5 years, you are doing 2 things wrong: operating (unless you are hitting TBO+ in 5 years) and sourcing parts. Overhauling a turbo is neither difficult or expensive unless you destroyed all the parts with carbon and heat.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Turbos don't normally add $1000+ to your annual maintenance.

That might normally be true however half of all the maintenance I spent since buying my plane have been directly related to the turbos. I was chasing manifold pressure.

rebuilt airbox, new scat/sceet hosing, check turbos for output, checked waste gates, heat issues on the few cylinders which were cracked that were replaced, 100% replacement of all hoses every 60 months. I was obviously doing some catch up in maintenance coupled with unrealistic expectations that I should get 25" at 20,000.'

But yes if I had everything working when I bought the plane and I knew that it was right, I would have likely spent about half what I did.

 

[Sac Arrow]

If you need to replace a turbo for $5k every 5 years, you are doing 2 things wrong: operating (unless you are hitting TBO+ in 5 years) and sourcing parts. Overhauling a turbo is neither difficult or expensive unless you destroyed all the parts with carbon and heat.

Normally you go through two turbos per each engine TBO.

 

[Henning]

Normally you go through two turbos per each engine TBO.

No, that's if you run very ROP and hard.

 

[Sac Arrow]

No, that's if you run very ROP and hard.

LOP at 65%. Although I do believe the previous owner butchered the engine with ROP hard operation. I don't know that the "2 turbos to one engine" ratio exists universally, but all of the A&P's seemed to figure it applied across the board at least to TSIO 360 applications.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

In the normalizers the turbo is not on 100% of the time. I had 1500 hrs on the engine when I did a top overhaul and I had the turbos checked for output and they delivered identically to a known good nearly new one so we left them on.

I figure I use my Turbos about 10-20% of the time flying. Where boost type planes are on all the time.

 

[Sac Arrow]

In the normalizers the turbo is not on 100% of the time. I had 1500 hrs on the engine when I did a top overhaul and I had the turbos checked for output and they delivered identically to a known good nearly new one so we left them on.

I figure I use my Turbos about 10-20% of the time flying. Where boost type planes are on all the time.

Good point.

 

[35B33]

To get back to the original question, I bought my '62 Deb in 1984 and still have it. 1962 was the first year Debs came with 40 gallon tanks on each side and the now standard panel.

Those tanks are rubber bladders so you might inquire as to their age. They last for decades but are not fun to replace. I was frustrated with the 470 because I couldn't get the fuel flows that I could in a 182. Installed a 520BB and Gami's, and now do my long XCs (750nm) ~11gph.

Great airplane, I think the partners are a bigger unknown than the plane. Previously I was in a Mooney partnership with a Doc and a CPA, the CPA felt he didn't need to help with changing oil, washing the plane, etc. because he 'maintained the books'. Do due diligence on both the plane and the partners.

Cal

 

[JHW]

Those tanks are rubber bladders so you might inquire as to their age. They last for decades but are not fun to replace.

sometimes you need a helper with smaller arms. I had to enlist my 10-year-old assistant last week to get to a couple of snaps I couldn't reach.

 

[docmirror]

I've had 4 planes with the Beech bladders. All at least 40 years old. Although you can't do anything about the past, the best thing to do with a plane with bladders is keep the fuel tanks full. Next, carefully replace the O-rings in the fuel drains, or replace the fuel drains with the modern flush mount.

They will last a long, long time, but aren't indestructible. If someone has allowed them to go dry for more than a few months, it's gonna be a problem.

 

[JHW]

I've had 4 planes with the Beech bladders. All at least 40 years old. Although you can't do anything about the past, the best thing to do with a plane with bladders is keep the fuel tanks full.

That's an OWT. The top of the bladder is never covered with fuel no matter how full. Yet they never fail at the fuel sending units which are almost always dry. They almost always fail at the quick drain sump which is always wet. As long as you have some fuel in them the rubber is seeing the same concentration of fuel vapor, whether that is due to 30 gallons or 1 qt. And yes they last a long time, the one I changed last year was original with a 1957 date code.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I agree with the CPA if he does the books and that is his forte then let him do that well. If you like doing mechanical then you guys do that.

What I would tell you is that I will bill the club for my CPA time at $200-250 per hour and you guys can charge a mechanics wage $75 for your time to do the oil changes.

I think its ridiculous that you think he should do the books and chip in on maintenance as well. Especially since there is more time involved with administration every month than the two or three oil changes a year.

when I had a few Non equity partners they were happy if I allowed them $35 per hour to do maintenance on the airplane so they did oil changes, clean plugs and even did the owner assisted annuals and we took off $500 against their monthly contribution each.

To get back to the original question, I bought my '62 Deb in 1984 and still have it. 1962 was the first year Debs came with 40 gallon tanks on each side and the now standard panel.

Those tanks are rubber bladders so you might inquire as to their age. They last for decades but are not fun to replace. I was frustrated with the 470 because I couldn't get the fuel flows that I could in a 182. Installed a 520BB and Gami's, and now do my long XCs (750nm) ~11gph.

Great airplane, I think the partners are a bigger unknown than the plane. Previously I was in a Mooney partnership with a Doc and a CPA, the CPA felt he didn't need to help with changing oil, washing the plane, etc. because he 'maintained the books'. Do due diligence on both the plane and the partners.

Cal

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I just replaced the last of 4 bladders in the Comanche. The one I pulled out was dated 1960 so it must have been original. That makes it 50 years old. I checked my logs and all 4 bladders made about 45 or 50 years as they died within 2 years of each other.

I keep my aux empty and my mains full but not for the bladders. I could care less if the 2nd set only lasts 30 years. it is inconvienent for me to keep fuel in the aux unless I am going on a xcountry requiring more than 3 hrs fuel.

I empty my auxes - run out of gas before I switch so that I have good fuel management in the last tank. I guess I could put a gallon in each aux when I get home but I do not.

That's an OWT. The top of the bladder is never covered with fuel no matter how full. Yet they never fail at the fuel sending units which are almost always dry. They almost always fail at the quick drain sump which is always wet. As long as you have some fuel in them the rubber is seeing the same concentration of fuel vapor, whether that is due to 30 gallons or 1 qt. And yes they last a long time, the one I changed last year was original with a 1957 date code.

 

[JHW]

I empty my auxes - run out of gas before I switch so that I have good fuel management in the last tank. I guess I could put a gallon in each aux when I get home but I do not.

doesn't matter, you "emptied" them to the point that the engine sputtered but there is still some small amount of fuel in the tank.

 

[35B33]

I agree with the CPA if he does the books and that is his forte then let him do that well. If you like doing mechanical then you guys do that.

What I would tell you is that I will bill the club for my CPA time at $200-250 per hour and you guys can charge a mechanics wage $75 for your time to do the oil changes.]

To which I would have said thanks but we will find someone else. The CPA wasn't brought in for his accounting skills but as a private pilot. He volunteered to divide the monthly expenses and write the checks - no mention of this being in place of doing anything else or discussed beforehand.

Which is why I think a new partnership needs to be evaluated as closely as the airplane.

Cal

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

- no mention of this being in place of doing anything else or discussed beforehand.

Which is why I think a new partnership needs to be evaluated as closely as the airplane.

Cal

I agree Cal... if you ever saw the oil change I did once, you would reconsider having someone like me help you with it. On the other hand I am more than happy to drive the 18 miles to pickup a case of oil, filter, analysis kit if that saves you guys 1/2 hr... I am all for chipping in where it makes sense to do so. My buddies were all great mechanics and I am really good at sourcing that absolute best prices so we work well together.

 

[hindsight2020]

Isn't the -35 model of the same vintage a better value? A cursory look at the online traders shows similar pricing for Debs and Bos of 60s vintage. I imagine the additional climb and loaded handling of the V tail with 35 extra ponies has to make a difference. I'm sure someone well-versed in the Beech brand could highlight where the difference lies. I can't see the appeal of the Deb if it costs the same to acquire today, unless the ruddervator assembly is a PITA to repair/maintain?¿

 

[kyleb]

I can't see the appeal of the Deb if it costs the same to acquire today, unless the ruddervator assembly is a PITA to repair/maintain?¿

The Deb is mogas capable and has a conventional tail which allegedly has less wag.

 

[rbridges]

That's an OWT. The top of the bladder is never covered with fuel no matter how full. Yet they never fail at the fuel sending units which are almost always dry. They almost always fail at the quick drain sump which is always wet. As long as you have some fuel in them the rubber is seeing the same concentration of fuel vapor, whether that is due to 30 gallons or 1 qt. And yes they last a long time, the one I changed last year was original with a 1957 date code.

I don't think it's necessarily just contact with fuel, keeping the tanks fueled acts as a temperature buffer. That's one of the theories I hear anyway.

 

[Henning]

Isn't the -35 model of the same vintage a better value? A cursory look at the online traders shows similar pricing for Debs and Bos of 60s vintage. I imagine the additional climb and loaded handling of the V tail with 35 extra ponies has to make a difference. I'm sure someone well-versed in the Beech brand could highlight where the difference lies. I can't see the appeal of the Deb if it costs the same to acquire today, unless the ruddervator assembly is a PITA to repair/maintain?¿

Yes, the 35 has always been the better value. The one thing you can get (at a healthy price premium) extra on a 33 is Aerobatic rating with the E&F 33Cs.

 

[JHW]

I don't think it's necessarily just contact with fuel, keeping the tanks fueled acts as a temperature buffer. That's one of the theories I hear anyway.

are you flying a supersonic jet where the fuel tanks insulate the tires from overheating ?

 

[asgcpa]

I agree with the CPA if he does the books and that is his forte then let him do that well. If you like doing mechanical then you guys do that.

What I would tell you is that I will bill the club for my CPA time at $200-250 per hour and you guys can charge a mechanics wage $75 for your time to do the oil changes.]

To which I would have said thanks but we will find someone else. The CPA wasn't brought in for his accounting skills but as a private pilot. He volunteered to divide the monthly expenses and write the checks - no mention of this being in place of doing anything else or discussed beforehand.

Which is why I think a new partnership needs to be evaluated as closely as the airplane.

Cal

I would agree, but each member brings special skills. My current partner and i are meeting with the two potential partners tomorrow. Were discussing the particular plane and operating parameters.