Beechcraft Duke Purchase

I don't have much first hand experience with Dukes, but I always hear horror stories about how expensive they are to maintain. I know that you rarely see them actually flying, so be careful of getting a hangar queen.

I did have a pressurized Aerostar, and that was a great airplane.

Isn't there a turbine conversion for the Duke? If you have to have a Duke, that's the way I'd go.

 

Here is the turbine conversion... http://www.royalturbine.com/

All I have ever heard and seen is negative regarding a Duke...the conversion is supposed make it great.

 

A friend had a Duke until recently upgrading to a TBM-700. All I've ever heard is to stay away from a Duke and my friend didn't really dispel that. He said it was a good airplane but had potential to be a major headache.

 

The Duke is a nice airplane just like all Beechcraft products, but it should have never left the factory on piston engines. If you have your heart set on a Duke I would highly recommend that you get one that has the turbine conversion. That being said, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to get a turbine Duke when a nice used C90 King Air can be bought for probably a lot cheaper than the cost of converting a Duke to turbine power. (That's why you don't see a lot of converted Dukes.) If you do just have to have a Duke, and it's running on piston engines, know that it's going to be underpowered (the Duke is a heavy airplane for it's size) and the engines are horribly expensive to work on. The pressurization system is fairly problematic on Dukes as well.

If you feel that you can't foot the bill for a turbine Duke and the C90 is out of reach as well, but you still want a pressurized twin, you always can always go for the "K-Mart King Air" otherwise known as the Piper Cheyenne, but I've always been partial to Beechcraft products.

 

If we're moving the OP up to a turboprop, there are lots of choices!

 

I have also heard very bad things about the Duke, I think it does not have enough power to hold on an engine out

 

As with most light piston twins, the remaining operating engine is there to allow you the freedom to choose where you will crash. There are very very few light piston twins that will offer you any sort of real world engine out performance. On a standard day at max gross takeoff weight a piston Duke will only do about 1,500 to 2,000 FPM on BOTH engines, subtract one engine and now you are down to about 100 to 200 FPM.

One light piston twin that does have a lot of power is the Baron B56TC, which is a pretty rare airplane. It's the small Baron size (B55 fuselage) but with the Duke (380 horsepower Lycoming TIO-541-B4) engines mounted on it and no pressurization system to weigh things down. Vmc in the B56TC is pretty high due to the small tail, but if you can handle it, it's one of the few light piston twins that will actually offer some decent single engine performance.

 

I also believe Cessna 340A Rams can keep up with an engine out

 

I don't know much about the Duke but I designed a control system for a Beechcraft King Air 200 for my last year project at university.

 

The 56TC is a neat airplane! I know someone who used to have one. I have quite a bit of time in 55 model Barons, and I can only imagine what a 56TC would be like!

That said, I've heard that the 56TC was also a bit of a maintenance nightmare. And I think the OP wanted something pressurized. A 58P would be an alternative in the Beech family.

 

I guess the intent of the original post was that he is looking to move into a pressurized twin, but after re-reading the original post it really just looks like he specifically wants a Duke and no amount of alternative solutions are going to sway his desires. I think that Dukes are comfortable, svelte looking airplanes that handle very well, but they are very expensive to maintain and can be temperamental. Perhaps the Duke is the perfect airplane for Mark, as owning a Duke is not unlike owning a Ferrari. Neither one really makes sense from a practical standpoint, but life isn't always about practical decisions. There are a lot of pressurized piston twins that make a lot more sense and would be a lot cheaper to maintain than a Duke. My only piece of advice as far as purchasing a Duke is pretty much what I would tell anyone contemplating the purchase of a modern Ferrari- get one that is the newest, most well cared for example, with the most complete logbooks that you can possibly afford, and then be completely prepared to have it worked on early and often by a trusted and competent mechanic.

 

The Duke was a great airplane at the time, and in terms of flying one it is timeless....

All that said, it is going to be a money pit to keep up. Most of the systems are old and obsolete, and since they weren't produced in any high quantity, spares are going to be expensive. The Lyc's are going to cost, on per hour basis, as much as a turbine, since the TBO is half of a PT6 and the cost is about half too.... That's why the turbine retrofit makes sense...

A turbine retrofit would go a long way to making it a timeless airplane, but if you aren't going turbine I'd suggest that you look for something more reliable and less of a hangar queen....

Also be very careful about corrosion, in both the tailcone (dissimilar metals) and in the underbelly where water can collect.

There is a reason that old twins are priced so low, and the Duke is a prime example of this. The advice above about a C-90 is spot on...

 

I don't have first hand experience but the former owner I know is in Plainview and I could put you in touch with him if you so desire. PM me if interested.

 

Let us know how it goes. It sounds like you know more about Dukes than anyone on here.

I'd be careful about budgeting your maintenance costs by the hour, unless you plan to fly 300-400 hours per year or more. At 10 hours per year or 100 hours per year, your maintenance costs are going to be pretty much the same. If you can get away with only $12k/year on a Duke, I think that would either be quite impressive, or you're letting a lot of things slide.

 

When I mentioned that someone was thinking of buying a Duke he said, " WHY?? Go out and get a King Air C90." The single engine performance of the Duke isn't good with a load, maintenance costs and operating costs are high,etc. He has flown everything from the three-holer on down to Cubs and he thinks that the Duke is a very bad idea.

 

Oh, all kinds of people with ten space suttle landings and their own sportplane magazines will tell friends-of-friends how terrible some model of airplane or car is that someone is going to get. There is no doubt you are taking on a heavy lift if you are going to get into any of the pressurized recips, be they a Duke, a 421, a P model Aerostar, or ......God Forbid.... a P Navajo...... but they all are machines not much different from your Ferrari or Lambo. When operated in the manner in which they are designed for, supported by proper maintenance (not cheap, but definable and predictable), and proper training and decision making, they provide lots of enjoyment and utility.

I was told by lots of experts just how bad a P-navajo was and how bad a Merlin was, but I operated a successful charter business for years with those two machines. The P-Navajo I admit was marginal on engine reliability, and has gotten worse since then (10 -15 years ago) because of truly under-developed engines, but no different than my Lamborghinis, I knew going in that it was going to be tens of thousands to get it in the right shape, then thousands to keep it there. Pretty predictable, actually, and $100 / hr for maintenance on a Duke sounds about right.

Some airframes / engines are truly unreliable or flawed designs, but not most. Most of the bad rep I think comes from people who haven't properly maintained them, fly with too heavy a load into weather they shouldn't be in, and don't spend enough money on training and proficiency. If you can avoid being one of those 80%, you'll probably have a great time with a Duke. that's why there are lots of people that love them.

Also - the annual budget of operating a C90 is only about, oh double or triple that of a Duke (including amortizations or debt service). A King Air is a true leap up from a Duke, and the price reflects that.

BTW, I have flown two different types of three-holers around the world and owned and operated about everything else. Some of the most experienced airline types don't know their rear ends from holes in the ground when it comes to a type they have personal experience with.

 

As I said before, if you're flying 300-400 hours per year, that may be about right. And if they're a charter outfit, they probably are doing at least that. But maintenance costs are not strictly a variable cost. I'd be impressed if you could do a thorough annual for $12k, without deferring a bunch of stuff. Let alone fixing anything which breaks in between inspections, or engine reserves.

To be fair, some of those southern places have very low hourly rates, so maybe that's a factor.

Anyway, do what you want, just keep your eyes open and be realistic. What works for a charter operator may or may not be appropriate for an owner/operator.

 

I know you really want to get the Duke, but have you considered a Cessna 340 RAM? They are great airplanes, I own one that I charter and it has been bulletproof, fast and very reliable, and I operate it from a 7,000FT airport.

 

Small world, I thought he'd already sold it a few months ago...

Well, the impression I got is that it probably CAN be problematic but, like anything else, if you maintain it properly it'll be fine. The question then comes down to how much that maintenance will be. It'd be hard to predict the future but I'd feel confient in saying that the owner in Plainview isn't likely to have cut any corners. He's a straight shooter and has the wherewithal to tend to it properly.

 

Flying at around FL140-160 I see normally 180-190 kts. of ground speed with neutral winds (It has a RAM VII conversion), not flying at full power. I will speak with the pilot that flies the 340 and will tell you the real fuel flow average.