Beechcraft Duke Purchase

Mark:

I have a bit of time in one of them. A buddy of mine has one, and I've got 50 - 100 hours in his. DONT BUY ONE!!!!! The engines have major problems, the cams get eaten. If the engines don't have the latest oiling system, you can plan on a very short TBO, and at 60K per side, it's an expensive proposition. There is a fix with lifters, but it isn't STC'd as far as I know, so it might be an illegal solution. End result, with a 1600 TBO, and with major problems with the engines, it will cost a lot to run this plane. They are ground hogs, require much more runway than the books say, don't climb well. I've seen as high as 300 kts in his plane, but we had a great tailwind that day. Generally expect 220 kts cruise in the low 20s. If you have to get pressure, look at a 58P, one with the 325HP engines, not the 310s, and a 79 with the better pressure system.

Art

 

I DO own one with Firewall Forward conversion and disagree with Solofast. It is probably one of your best choices for an affordable pressurized twin. You won't find the interior space, solid engineering and payload for anywhere near this price point. YES, it will cost more to maintain. Parts are getting harder to come by so the prices are higher than you would expect. Also, fuel burn is more like 55 gph. Everything else you've read about performance is correct (assuming it has VG's). Average speed, no wind, is 210 - 220 kts. Cold weather performance is solid. The $100/hr maintenance may be a little low. As someone said, it'll have a great deal to do with how many hours you fly it. The Aerostar won't give you near the interior room and if you intend to fly into known icing you're far better off with the Duke.

 

I've never flown an MU-2, although I have quite a few friends who have lots of time in them. They all say it's a great airplane provided you are trained properly, keep ahead of it, and respect it's limitations. It is not a forgiving airplane in any way. It will bite hard!

 

The MU is a great plane, but as Don said, be sure you or your pilot gets the best training possible, these planes have been also quite controversial due to the difficulty in flying them, and I remember having read

somewhere that there was and investigation by the FAA that determined that the MU meets all the safety requirements, and that many of the accidents have been mostly due to the pilots inexperience with this

particular plane.

Have fun with your new plane and be sure to fly safe

 

Why not simulator training?

 

I can endorse this from my experience of both aircraft. I had a 4th owner Duke in the mid 80s and still know the guy who owns it. He says maintenance is $100 per hour plus a reserve of $25 per hor for contingencies. And he ahs plenty of these because he has older steam powered avionics. If the plane you are looking at as a panel and a/p that was fitted no later than late 90s you may be able to get away with $100 plus 10% per hour. As many have said, this is a marginal twin at gross +20. But like Ferraris, if you consider it a 2 seater plus bags you will be able to operate it relatively freely. Its once you add the 3rd or 4th that your range/payload on any type of FAR 25 derivative gets to become hopeless. I also had the 700 -3rd off the production line and first international delivery. It has contra rotating (the wrong way) props which makes it less noisy than the 602P but its still noisy and consideraly more than the Duke. Parts costs were Duke prices in 1985 when mine was delivered and given the tiny number produced, I have to believe that it will be a difficult plane to support today without a lot of Aerostar tribal knowledge. Mine tued out at a shade of 230 kts at ISA +5 usually at FL 170 and was slower as you went higher. But still a lot faster than the KA 90 with whom we used to race from time to time. It was as quick as the 200s in our area and if you stayed low it was faster than the Cheyenne III but not the IIIA or IV. Motors were hard to keep cool and like the Duke be very careful to make sure the baffles are all 100% intact inside the cowling.

I realize you have probably pulled the trigger by the time this is posted, but what the h...

 

Sorry about the late post of my earlier. Good decision the MU2 IMO - badly maligned by inexpereinced KA 90 drivers. Just becareful of those 331s. They take some care to operate, nothing like the plug and play of the JT8 or the PT6. But very efficient with some good upgrades. And with this you will not have to worry quite as much about that engine out at V2 which a Duke or 700P just assume you can figure out with an overspeed t/o.

 

Did you buy from Air 1st??

 

Did you research the one in Nashville, TN for $399?? Just wondering if you had the scoop on it.

 

Beautiful!!!! Let me know when you fly it long distance and how you like it.

 

So can a C55 Baron. With no problem.

 

Look, ma... no ailerons!

Great choice.

 

After seeing this thread I read as much as I could on the MU2. Some fllight tests seem to indicate that if you loose and engine at liftoff with gear and flaps it wont climb. Seems most of the reposts show it will climbl slowly from 100ft with gear on the way up, so is between ground and 100ft a huge danger zone? Also reports seemed to indicate that the 331's are far less relaible/prone to flamouts than a PT6.

Please forgive the ignorance of my post, I am not apilot but an aeroplane buff. A MU2 starts to make sense as personal aircarft as it has speed, range and comfort on par with a commercial jet, for a price that one can actualy see swinging. Everyhting else in this range is either piston and small with little payload to really be useful.

I know of course maintanance is a cost as well as hangerage and fuel, so what is the cost factor per hour. Can some costs be balanced with chartering or is that false economy. Have any of these planes been upgarded with glass cockpits, is that worthwhile. Are they really noisy inside.

 

the transition to a clean airplane from take off can be a bit unnerving from all the drag when one is not used to flying a MU-2... not an issue if one does it by the book...

the Garretts are a good engine and not an issue... if there is a problem they need to go to an authorized Garrett service center which may be away from the home field, where as the PT-6 can be worked at a lot of shops ( the flameout issue is most likely from lack of maintainance, the igniters will wear and not deliver... possibly related to service centers being away from home field )