Looking for a fast, affordable, IFR single...
GB - Can't say I have noticed that of which you speak, and I go in and out of some quite challenging places wind-wise. Have never stepped from a straight-tail to a V-tail, but nor have I ever run out of control in the V-tail.
Dr
Dr
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bo's, Baron's, other fast machines...and Aztecs
Thanks very much to everyone for your thoughts on my earlier questions. Lots of good info here, which I have been chewing on. My delayed response is cos of having to go away to PAY for this aviation madness, and also to take time to think properly about issues raised. I sure appreciate the advice of people more seasoned than I. FTDK, lots of good thoughts on Bo's and IFR, and, well, too much to thank y'all individually, so, thank you all 
CC, Not sure if I mentioned or not, but Aztec is indeed still owned by moi, still lives in US - LA, to be precise - but have decided it's just a little old to be safely ferried over Pacific. Current plan is to go back to US, get lots more multi time, then get an IFR rating in the Aztec - then sell it. That said, I am STILL looking for a fast sensible machine for NZ. Main sector is Wellington - Queenstown (400 NM, lots of mountains, lots of weather) and is conducted weekly or so. Am keen to get IFR rated, and yes, do it safely - but have been increasingly thinking that safe single pilot IFR flying in NZ by low-IFR time PPL might mean, if nothing else, a reasonably serious twin. I can & do already fly my 200 knot Harmon Rocket up and down the South Island, VFR, on demand, but for poor WX, moving significant amounts of people, luggage, etc, I am now kicking around the idea of a Baron, rather than a Bo. To be precise, have been thinking maybe a 58P, with GAMIs, all the anti-ice stuff, a good autopilot, etc etc. Had a real live engine failure a month or so ago - and no, I did NOT run out of fuel - so am even more conscious that engines do quit. So I'd be interested in thoughts out there on the practicality (and sensibleness, with a PPL, not CPL, and, about 1900 TT but no advanced licenses and not much extra training except aeros, multi, heli & IFR) of operating a Baron 58P for IFR private ops in NZ. Likelihood of things going wrong? (Flying wise AND maintenance-wise, I mean.) Are they reliable, generally, and how bout the extra stuff like pressurisation? Are the (turbo) engines on the 58P reasonably reliable? CC, you talked me out of my long term dream - Aerostar - but am still interested in getting into that performance league, although my interest in killing myself is limited.
Sorry it's a long post, but I have a few questions, and am very interested in the thoughts of those with more experience than me. All opinions listened to gratefully.
What say the Greek chorus??
CC, Not sure if I mentioned or not, but Aztec is indeed still owned by moi, still lives in US - LA, to be precise - but have decided it's just a little old to be safely ferried over Pacific. Current plan is to go back to US, get lots more multi time, then get an IFR rating in the Aztec - then sell it. That said, I am STILL looking for a fast sensible machine for NZ. Main sector is Wellington - Queenstown (400 NM, lots of mountains, lots of weather) and is conducted weekly or so. Am keen to get IFR rated, and yes, do it safely - but have been increasingly thinking that safe single pilot IFR flying in NZ by low-IFR time PPL might mean, if nothing else, a reasonably serious twin. I can & do already fly my 200 knot Harmon Rocket up and down the South Island, VFR, on demand, but for poor WX, moving significant amounts of people, luggage, etc, I am now kicking around the idea of a Baron, rather than a Bo. To be precise, have been thinking maybe a 58P, with GAMIs, all the anti-ice stuff, a good autopilot, etc etc. Had a real live engine failure a month or so ago - and no, I did NOT run out of fuel - so am even more conscious that engines do quit. So I'd be interested in thoughts out there on the practicality (and sensibleness, with a PPL, not CPL, and, about 1900 TT but no advanced licenses and not much extra training except aeros, multi, heli & IFR) of operating a Baron 58P for IFR private ops in NZ. Likelihood of things going wrong? (Flying wise AND maintenance-wise, I mean.) Are they reliable, generally, and how bout the extra stuff like pressurisation? Are the (turbo) engines on the 58P reasonably reliable? CC, you talked me out of my long term dream - Aerostar - but am still interested in getting into that performance league, although my interest in killing myself is limited.
Sorry it's a long post, but I have a few questions, and am very interested in the thoughts of those with more experience than me. All opinions listened to gratefully.
What say the Greek chorus??
Last edited by lostpianoplayer; 7th Oct 2007 at 07:08. Reason: accuracy
Grandpa Aerotart
Some comments from the members section of the ABS website...if you buy any Beechcraft piston an absolute must join btw.
I would only add that they are FAR23 certified aircraft with a 10000hr life on the pressure hull...bare that in mind when shopping.
I am a happy owner of a 1973 Bonanza A36 and am considering the purchase of a 1981 58P. A source that I value has however advised against such purchase, saying that those aircraft come with endless problems, mostly due to its engines. Apparently none of the 58Ps known to him have reached engine TBOs, often not even reaching half the hours. According to the source, shock cooling of the engine during descents is the cause of most of those problems.
While I understand and appreciate the issue of shock cooling, my own research seems to indicate that the 58P is no better or worse than other pressurized piston twins in this respect. Does anybody care to comment and to "sell" me the 58P based on solid operating experiences?
While I understand and appreciate the issue of shock cooling, my own research seems to indicate that the 58P is no better or worse than other pressurized piston twins in this respect. Does anybody care to comment and to "sell" me the 58P based on solid operating experiences?
I have a '76 P-Baron that I have rebuilt. I have not found it to be any different than other aircraft as far as maintenance. All Beechcraft have high cost parts. The Baron has been a pleasure to own and fly. No real surprises.
I just replace the six fuel bladders, original. Not bad for a 1976 aircraft.
I just replace the six fuel bladders, original. Not bad for a 1976 aircraft.
We have 2 P Barons in the hangar now. I purchased mine after watching my close friends experience with his P Baron for over 4 years. We've how got over 7 years total experience with P Barons. Our experience has been good. Like any aircraft, if you purchase one that has been neglected or mistreated you will have more problems than any man should have to deal with.
The pressurization system has been almost problem free. The main key is to clean the outflow valves, an easy job (see posts regarding this). We clean them every other annual.
The engines respond well to careful handling and operation. I believe many of the story's associated with turbo'd engine cylinder problems are in large part the result of the practice of replacing cylinders with rebuilt cylinders that had multiple overhauls which so often was the case prior to the mid 90's when new cylinders became much more affordable. One engine of my P Baron had new ECi nickel cylinders installed the year prior to my purchase. The other engine was overhauled as part of the purchase and I had nickel ECi's installed on it also. For the 3 annuals since then the lowest compression I've had was 76 psi on one cylinder. The other cylinders (11) have been above 78 psi. Never experienced that on any previous engine. Oil usage is < 2 quarts between oil changes at 30 hour intervals. All other engines I've had would blow anything more than 10 quarts overboard in the first few hours. Not these. I fill with 12 quarts and don't have to add between changes.
My friends plane has had two problems with wastegates. The P Baron wastegate is a poppet design as compared to the more common butterfly style gate valves used on other turbo installations. One required $150 to clean up deposits on the stem which were holding it open (~ 800 TT IIRC). The other (~1100 TT) required more work which cost $400 this year. I do not consider that to be a problem.
I will not attempt to sell you on the P Baron because I don't know your operating requirements. I do know that I have not witnessed the attributes your friend has 'experienced'. I have found that there are important differences to operating turbo'd engines that, when followed, lead to good results. Keep the cylinders from running hot by using the mixture control or the yoke as appropriate and you'll get a long way down the road to happy ownership. Knock'm around, chop the throttles, climb at low airspeed's, yeah, you're likely not going to make a set of cylinders last more than 800 hours.
As for the rest of the plane, I heard from many people that they 'knew' pressurization was a burden. I've not seen that. I truly enjoy the flight flexibility that the pressurization provides.
I had been told that you only really benefited from turbocharging if you lived in the mountains. I live at sea level in Houston, Tx, and use the altitude capability all the time. However most of my trips are over an hour long.
I summary my answer to the question is, No. P Barons are not trouble. But then again as I've heard another wise man say, "It all depends."
The pressurization system has been almost problem free. The main key is to clean the outflow valves, an easy job (see posts regarding this). We clean them every other annual.
The engines respond well to careful handling and operation. I believe many of the story's associated with turbo'd engine cylinder problems are in large part the result of the practice of replacing cylinders with rebuilt cylinders that had multiple overhauls which so often was the case prior to the mid 90's when new cylinders became much more affordable. One engine of my P Baron had new ECi nickel cylinders installed the year prior to my purchase. The other engine was overhauled as part of the purchase and I had nickel ECi's installed on it also. For the 3 annuals since then the lowest compression I've had was 76 psi on one cylinder. The other cylinders (11) have been above 78 psi. Never experienced that on any previous engine. Oil usage is < 2 quarts between oil changes at 30 hour intervals. All other engines I've had would blow anything more than 10 quarts overboard in the first few hours. Not these. I fill with 12 quarts and don't have to add between changes.
My friends plane has had two problems with wastegates. The P Baron wastegate is a poppet design as compared to the more common butterfly style gate valves used on other turbo installations. One required $150 to clean up deposits on the stem which were holding it open (~ 800 TT IIRC). The other (~1100 TT) required more work which cost $400 this year. I do not consider that to be a problem.
I will not attempt to sell you on the P Baron because I don't know your operating requirements. I do know that I have not witnessed the attributes your friend has 'experienced'. I have found that there are important differences to operating turbo'd engines that, when followed, lead to good results. Keep the cylinders from running hot by using the mixture control or the yoke as appropriate and you'll get a long way down the road to happy ownership. Knock'm around, chop the throttles, climb at low airspeed's, yeah, you're likely not going to make a set of cylinders last more than 800 hours.
As for the rest of the plane, I heard from many people that they 'knew' pressurization was a burden. I've not seen that. I truly enjoy the flight flexibility that the pressurization provides.
I had been told that you only really benefited from turbocharging if you lived in the mountains. I live at sea level in Houston, Tx, and use the altitude capability all the time. However most of my trips are over an hour long.
I summary my answer to the question is, No. P Barons are not trouble. But then again as I've heard another wise man say, "It all depends."
I flew a 58TC with the same TSIO-520-LB engines as 58Ps (the -WB engines are the same with slightly higher manifold pressure output at full throttle). The company I worked for had owned the airplane since it had 50 total hours on it, in 1979. By the time they sold the airplane in about 2000, they had gone through five sets of engines, each making it to TBO with no cylinder issues...the only exception being one factory reman engine with a bad valve that blew at about 55 hours on the engine; TCM replaced the engine.
I attribute success with these engines to:
1. proper fuel system setup for takeoff fuel flows (these engines use the Bendix fuel injection system, so it's different from almost all other Continental engines).
2. good baffling.
3. conservative engine power. We cruised at about 62% power most flights. Fuel flows are set to 75F rich of peak (it would not run smoothly lean of peak, even with GAMIjectors, although a few owners have had success LOP).
4. not flying too high--above about FL200 cooling air is dramatically reduced and engine temperatures run high.
5. flying a lot--the airplane averaged 250 to 300 hours per year most years.
During the short time I was flying the 58TC (3 years), I found it to be a highly reliable and capable airplane.
I attribute success with these engines to:
1. proper fuel system setup for takeoff fuel flows (these engines use the Bendix fuel injection system, so it's different from almost all other Continental engines).
2. good baffling.
3. conservative engine power. We cruised at about 62% power most flights. Fuel flows are set to 75F rich of peak (it would not run smoothly lean of peak, even with GAMIjectors, although a few owners have had success LOP).
4. not flying too high--above about FL200 cooling air is dramatically reduced and engine temperatures run high.
5. flying a lot--the airplane averaged 250 to 300 hours per year most years.
During the short time I was flying the 58TC (3 years), I found it to be a highly reliable and capable airplane.
I have owned a 79 58P for 2 years. I previously owned a E55 Baron for 10 years. The advantages of pressurization, turbocharging and A/C are well worth the modest increase in operational cost. The increased costs are not much more than the 55 Baron. the annual maybe slightly more and the fuel cost are more but justify the comfort and performance of the 58P. You will arrive at your destination not as fatigued and not have to worry with using 02. I have had very few maintenance items with the 58P. It would be hard to go back.
Ditto on Steven's comments.
I would only add that the single most important factor in any engine's overall performance is the 'nut behind the wheel'. Any hamfisted pilot can cause serious damage to an engine, especially a high output turbocharged engine, by careless operation. I will not try to sell the 58P to you, but would suggest that if you are planning on operating any high performance engine you also buy, read, and follow the operating instructions! That could be the single most important part of the purchase.
I would only add that the single most important factor in any engine's overall performance is the 'nut behind the wheel'. Any hamfisted pilot can cause serious damage to an engine, especially a high output turbocharged engine, by careless operation. I will not try to sell the 58P to you, but would suggest that if you are planning on operating any high performance engine you also buy, read, and follow the operating instructions! That could be the single most important part of the purchase.
No, not "just trouble" but after a V35B for 7 yrs. & a "straight" 58 for 8, the last 3+ yrs in my P Baron have taught me that more capability & performance is more maintenance as well. No problem there but treating it right helps, both flying it & maintenance.
Grandpa Aerotart
A pressurised aircraft with such a small cabin as a B58P always seemed odd to me. If I was in the market for such an aircraft I would be taking a long hard look at a low time Cessna 414.
Never flown one but my understanding is that they are essentially a pressurised C402, and I always enjoyed flying that aeroplane. With the sort of loads you are talking about, performance should be excellent.
Dr
Never flown one but my understanding is that they are essentially a pressurised C402, and I always enjoyed flying that aeroplane. With the sort of loads you are talking about, performance should be excellent.
Dr
A bit left field, perhaps and I'm not sure of the regulations in NZ, but surely an RV-10 must be worth a look. A 260hp version will take 3.7 200lb people with full fuel, 155-170KTAS at 8000' and a claimed range of around 850nm (without reserves, presumably)
A nicely built example out of the US would be circa Bo money, more or less brand-new and gives you the chance to stick whatever you like in it - a couple of G900X's gives you the glass that everyone loves to stare at.
A
A nicely built example out of the US would be circa Bo money, more or less brand-new and gives you the chance to stick whatever you like in it - a couple of G900X's gives you the glass that everyone loves to stare at.
A
Grandpa Aerotart
Yes...I'm certainly living in hope...I got places to go and people to see and I'll be mighty shat off if I am taking my shoes off for the DOTARS morons
Andy that isn't a bad thought in se terms...fine looking aeroplane...but in seperate email traffic it seems our thread starter has moved up a notch and has his heart set on a decent twin...not a huge ask as he already has an Aztruc in the US...and a small collection of other aircraft which I look forward to sampling soon....REALLY looking forward to the Harmon Rocket
Andy that isn't a bad thought in se terms...fine looking aeroplane...but in seperate email traffic it seems our thread starter has moved up a notch and has his heart set on a decent twin...not a huge ask as he already has an Aztruc in the US...and a small collection of other aircraft which I look forward to sampling soon....REALLY looking forward to the Harmon Rocket
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 8th Oct 2007 at 13:48.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressurised Aircraft
FTDK
The Cessna 421B Golden Eagle was an excellent machine, quite, comfortable & very reliable. Many of the passengers used to prefer the 421 cabin to the Citation 550 cabin.
Tmb
The Cessna 421B Golden Eagle was an excellent machine, quite, comfortable & very reliable. Many of the passengers used to prefer the 421 cabin to the Citation 550 cabin.
Tmb
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you REALLY want pressurisation then go for a cabin class twin........340 or 414A. There are others of course but these are possibly the most popular. Yes the 414A shares the same wing as the 402C.Watch the geared props on the 421's. If you want the BEST Chancellor
414A in OZ you won't go past FKH. Currently having the SIDS completed at Caloundra. A tight, well maintained, well equipped aircraft!
Last edited by PA39; 10th Oct 2007 at 11:14. Reason: addition
