Duke Pilots
#4
Gets Paid Vacation
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: King Air 200, PA-31P-350 Mojave, Bellanca 17-30A Super Viking
Posts: 192
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 27
I have not flown pistons for 15 years, but I had flown the pnav (among others Kingairs/Cheyenne/Navajos ) 135. My impression's were that a pressurized piston twin was not an elegant solution for 135 trips. Maintenance man hours were pretty high vs. hours flown.
I don't have any time in a Duke, but have listened to MORE than one mechanic ***** and moan about them.
I don't have any time in a Duke, but have listened to MORE than one mechanic ***** and moan about them.
#7
Here's one more groan... this pilot/mechanic spent more time working than flying the Duke. When it all worked, it was a beautiful thing. Just didn't happen very often! Silly upside down engines.
Ronin
Ronin
#8
I read an article in Flying magazine last year about a company that is putting PT-6's on Duke's. They are rehabbing the carcass and making it an almost new airplane. If I recall the article said that this is the plane Beech should have built in the first place. I think that the total cost is somewhere around $1.5 million (old Duke, restoration, Turbines) - but then you have a really nice fast personal airplane. Considering that a new Baron costs around a million bucks today it seems like a bargain!
#10
Gets Paid Vacation
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: King Air 200, PA-31P-350 Mojave, Bellanca 17-30A Super Viking
Posts: 192
ive come to the conclusion that all piston twins over 300hp a side are garbage.....over boosted engines or geared engines work fine but not with the technology used in current GA engine designs..... out mojave is down with problems more than we fly it.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post