Beechcraft Duke Purchase

I don't know that much about MU-2s, other than proper training and flying them by the book is essential (true in any high performance aircraft, but particularly so in the MU-2).

However, I have a lot of time in 331- powered turboprops. The 331 is a great engine, and I would put it's reliability up against the PT-6 any day. The 331 was not as reliable 40 years ago, and the statistics that the Pratt guys quote are relying on this period...

Do keep in mind, however, that if the MU-2 were being sold today, it would probably cost around $3 million. A used one is still a $3 million airplane when you take it to the shop for service... furthermore, an MU-2 is not an airplane where you can skimp on crew training, or hire a low time guy to fly it.

My point in this is that, no matter how cheap to buy, an MU-2 is not going to be cheap to operate, especially if you have to hire and train a crew. It is not an airplane which you can skimp on, either from a crew standpoint or from a maintenance standpoint.

I would also add that when you start looking, you will probably find a divergence between those airplanes which have been well maintained and upgraded over the years, and those who have not. A solid, upgraded, well maintained MU-2 may not be as cheap as you think.

As for charter, I believe my standard rule applies: If you can put it somewhere that has a large fleet of them already, and enough business for another airplane, you can probably recover some of your costs. If you are expecting to do it yourself, or with your buddy who is a CFI, forget it.

If you really want to minimize your costs, I would go talk to the local charter operators and see what they are operating, and talk with the DO or President to find out what they have demand for. You might find out that a Lear or Citation would actually be cheaper on a total cost of ownership basis because you could charter it with someone who already has the infrastructure in place.

 

I hesitate to jump in here as I haven't read all the posts and may be diverging or repeating. But, here I go. I have many thousands of hours in airplanes from Cessnas to P-51s, F-18s, Dukes, King Airs, Lears, 727-777, and a number of NASA test aircraft.

I really like flying the Duke, but do not buy one unless it's just because you like the way it looks. It is loud and crowded inside, burns a lot of fuel per seat mile and is worth less by the minute. It does not do well on one engine. It will fly, but not like your Aerostar. Your Aeorstar is an excellent airplane, if a little crowded and loud inside as well. But it, like all of Ted Smith's designs, is a superior airplane. If you want a pressurized cabin class piston twin, look at a later model 414 or 421. I see people mentioning the various MU-2 models. I've flown those too. They are marvelous aircraft, go like hell and tough as nails. But they are absolutely unforgiving of error. I assure you, an F-18 is more forgiving. So, if you go that route, get lots of training initially and on an ongoing basis. There is a reason they are so affordable. People (and insurance companies) are afraid of them. That doesn't mean they aren't good airplanes; they are, but they will bite if teased.

Sorry if I'm repeating what's already been said. Best wishes.

 

There is always the option to convert the Duke to a turbine!
Royal Turbine | Royal Turbine

 

as much as I like the Aerostar, I would hesitate to recommend it to a low time pilot...it does every thing well, yet it comes close to needing a higher level of understanding and proficiency much the same as a MU-2... it's an easy airplane to fly, it's also very easy to get behind the plane if one skill sets are not in top form.

 

Yes, an Aerostar, like all aircraft with high wing loading, can be unforgiving if taken upside the envelope. I saw a man crash one. He simply got behind it after an engine failure. But you can say the same of most light twins, and, pertinant to this thread, the Duke is not a great single engine airplane.

 

Actually, Aerostars with the 350 hp engines do quite well on one. Far better than any piston Duke.

The difficulty in flying an Aerostar is that it is fast, complex, and the engines require careful management. It is more challenging than many turboprops for that reason, in my opinion.

 

I didn't mean to imply that Aerostars have single engine issues. You are correct, they fly much better on one motor than most recip twins. In fact, if memory serves me, the Aerostar will outrun a healthy 310 with one engine caged. In my original post I praised the Aerostar. I think it is one of the great values. Just don't let it get slow.....

Same is true with the MU-2. BTW, I know several owners; they are unamious in saying liftoff to gear retraction (first segment) is critical. Of course, that is true with any light twin.

 

It's very simple, rotation at 100knots (flaps 20 degrees) positive rate gear up,

If engine quits before 120 knots (span of about 3 seconds between rotation and achievement of that speed) - I pull other engine back and take what I'm given. If engine quits after 120 knots I fly happily away at 800 FPM.

No ambiguity. 120 knots is equivalent to V1, 130 Knots V2

Below 120 knots? I land and use those big Ol brakes!

 

As to the question whether anyone is upgrading the panels to glass in these awesome birds....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very nice setup! Isn't the G600 great?

So did you only go with a single GTN? Can you shoot LPV approaches with that configuration? I was having a discussion about this with someone the other day, and we weren't sure of the answer (the Commander I fly has a 750/650).

 

Yes supposedly you can but to tell you the truth I'm still an old fashioned ILS kinda guy.

 

I used to say the same thing, and then they put in an LPV to the calm wind runway at my home base. Now I use it all the time.

 

You might want to read some of the previous posts...

 

I have about 300 hours in a B60. I have a lot more time in Cessna 414s and 421s. Even more in King Airs. The most cluck for your buck, IMHO, is a 421 B model. Quiet, roomy and comfortable. The Duke is none of these, although the Duke is prettier. A late model 414 is ok too, but does not have geared engines. Still quieter than a Duke, but nothing like a 421.

 

the 421 has greater versatility with configuration / space over a Duke... allowing for a greater range of use ( what one wants to carry or needs a pottie)... not familiar with price points of the B model vs the C, my preference would be for the C... the wet wing vs the multi tanks with bladders ( expensive to replace )can be a selling point for the C, as well as the trailing links on the main gear.. admittedly the Duke looks great, flies good, which may be hard to overcome if that is what one wants...

 

B models are sweetly priced these days.