Beech B23 Musketeer
Moderator
Thread Starter
Beech B23 Musketeer
I've got an opportunity to fly a Beech B23 Musketeer next week, which I fully intend to take. Whilst I'll be checked out in it by an instructor, it's always nice to learn a bit about the type before turning up - and I really haven't a clue about it, nor can I seem to find anything online.
Can anybody point me to any kind of pilots notes or checklist for the type online? For that matter, has anybody got any private notes that they could either post or Email to me ([email protected])?
I hope it's nice to fly, it's certainly cheap!
G
Can anybody point me to any kind of pilots notes or checklist for the type online? For that matter, has anybody got any private notes that they could either post or Email to me ([email protected])?
I hope it's nice to fly, it's certainly cheap!
G
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did some flying in one at Hurn (group plane parked @ AA). As with all B products. Well build and sturdy, especially undercart on these. But for the HP up front, SLOW and needs to be flown on the black stuff more so than other offerings.
Interesting point on that one was the wing spar. I think it only had less than 2000 hrs on the airframe, but needed replacement due to corrosion. All panels glued in place, aparently a first type of this job for the AA boys and the Cof A still only came to about £ 6k ?.
Anyway I'd rather fly a AA5B for my 180hp Lycoming's fixed pitch worth.
Interesting point on that one was the wing spar. I think it only had less than 2000 hrs on the airframe, but needed replacement due to corrosion. All panels glued in place, aparently a first type of this job for the AA boys and the Cof A still only came to about £ 6k ?.
Anyway I'd rather fly a AA5B for my 180hp Lycoming's fixed pitch worth.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown the B23 Sundowner. Nice size aircraft, big inside, doors on each side. Quite heavy to fly, but nice & stable, good IFR. A bit slow & thirsty.
The main problem with the B23 is the highish landing accident statistics. These mostly involve "wheelbarrowing". It's not a hard aircraft to land but seems to catch people out.
The main problem with the B23 is the highish landing accident statistics. These mostly involve "wheelbarrowing". It's not a hard aircraft to land but seems to catch people out.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Anyway I'd rather fly a AA5B for my 180hp Lycoming's fixed pitch worth.
G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have checked the site which I usually use for free checklists, but they don't have one for the B23.
They are for sale here at $15, here at $9.95 and here at $14.95, but they are all mail order from the US (which does not comply with your 1 week turnaround). More are available and these are just the first 3 hits from Google.
Afraid that there does not appear to be any free versions for the Musketeer.
Have you asked the club if they would fax / email a copy of what they use?
They are for sale here at $15, here at $9.95 and here at $14.95, but they are all mail order from the US (which does not comply with your 1 week turnaround). More are available and these are just the first 3 hits from Google.
Afraid that there does not appear to be any free versions for the Musketeer.
Have you asked the club if they would fax / email a copy of what they use?
Moderator
Thread Starter
I haven't, and don't really have the time now unfortunately - however I'm sure an hour with a manual and coffee when I get there should resolve it, just would have been nice to have something to read whilst flying steerage over there.
G
G
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enjoy!
Had the pleasure of part owning G-AYYU and G-AYWS both nice B23s. Yes, pretty heavy on the controls compared to some.. and you may wish to avoid selecting full-flap because the nose-down pitch is quite disconcerting at first. I always trimmed the elevator after landing flap selected to reduce load at the flare. Good point: it cariees a big load with a fair range........I did Nice from CVT a few times refuelling at Toussus.......... with 3 pax and tents! Enjoy! bm
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own a 1979 C-23 Sundowner (180 hp). It really is an easy bird to fly.
I happen to own one of the rare aerobatic certified models so I can have some fun with it.
It has fairly quick ailerons. Beware of CofG issues; they are nose-heavy. Full fuel and two big guys up front will put you outside the forward limit of the CofG envelope.
It has a reputation of being able to "bite" when landing, being subjected to porpoising. This is less of an issue with the aerobatic models: more weight in the tail, and a leading edge fillet on the stabilator at the fuselage give more pitch authority on the aerobats. It has never been an issue with me.
It requires good speed control on approach or else it will float forever. It is like an airliner in one respect, it prefers power-on stabilized approaches. Use 80 knots no flaps and 1st notch, 75 knots for two notches of flap, 70 knots for full flap approaches (which I tend to avoid for reasons mentioned elsewhere). At flare, hold it off a couple of feet above the runway, as speed bleeds off, keep pulling and the stall honker will go off, and it will plop down nicely on the mains. Hold the nose off until she quits flying completely.
On landing, the placard on the instrument panel that says "raise flaps to increase brake effectiveness" means just what it says. Make a reflex to raise the flaps as soon as all three wheels are on the ground to increase weight on the mains (for braking), and to reduce the potential for wheelbarrowing.
Overall it is a very comfortable aircraft. Not overly quick; you'll see about 105 knots indicated; at 7500 ft you might be lucky to have that true out to 115-120 knots. Very roomy cabin. It will carry a decent load. Figure on nearly 6 hours endurance with full tanks at economic cruise settings, so you can plan for 5 hours and have a comfortable reserve. Good large luggage compartment, two doors.
With the aerobat version you can have fun with your flying mate in the morning, and take the family touring in the afternoon.
That's all I can think of for now. Mine is in the shop right now getting some winter TLC; I plan on being in the air again the first week in April.
Mike
I happen to own one of the rare aerobatic certified models so I can have some fun with it.
It has fairly quick ailerons. Beware of CofG issues; they are nose-heavy. Full fuel and two big guys up front will put you outside the forward limit of the CofG envelope.
It has a reputation of being able to "bite" when landing, being subjected to porpoising. This is less of an issue with the aerobatic models: more weight in the tail, and a leading edge fillet on the stabilator at the fuselage give more pitch authority on the aerobats. It has never been an issue with me.
It requires good speed control on approach or else it will float forever. It is like an airliner in one respect, it prefers power-on stabilized approaches. Use 80 knots no flaps and 1st notch, 75 knots for two notches of flap, 70 knots for full flap approaches (which I tend to avoid for reasons mentioned elsewhere). At flare, hold it off a couple of feet above the runway, as speed bleeds off, keep pulling and the stall honker will go off, and it will plop down nicely on the mains. Hold the nose off until she quits flying completely.
On landing, the placard on the instrument panel that says "raise flaps to increase brake effectiveness" means just what it says. Make a reflex to raise the flaps as soon as all three wheels are on the ground to increase weight on the mains (for braking), and to reduce the potential for wheelbarrowing.
Overall it is a very comfortable aircraft. Not overly quick; you'll see about 105 knots indicated; at 7500 ft you might be lucky to have that true out to 115-120 knots. Very roomy cabin. It will carry a decent load. Figure on nearly 6 hours endurance with full tanks at economic cruise settings, so you can plan for 5 hours and have a comfortable reserve. Good large luggage compartment, two doors.
With the aerobat version you can have fun with your flying mate in the morning, and take the family touring in the afternoon.
That's all I can think of for now. Mine is in the shop right now getting some winter TLC; I plan on being in the air again the first week in April.
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 85
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ghengis,
Probably too late to be of any help but I had one many years ago and the words of wisdom from elsewhere regarding keeping 70-75 on the clock into the flare are very valid.
Mine came from Belgium where a gentleman tried all afternoon and finally suceeded in taking the nosegear out. I changed the complete engine mount with nosegear, from one that was corroded out, and flew it back to UK. There I finished the sheet metal repairs and flew it happily for several years.
The airplanes are all nose heavy and if you look at the horizontal stab' it has an inverted aerofoil shape to give downward lift!! I guess Beech knew they had a problem?
Other than that a great stable, roomy airplane that makes a wonderful instrument platform at the expense of a bit of speed.
Probably too late to be of any help but I had one many years ago and the words of wisdom from elsewhere regarding keeping 70-75 on the clock into the flare are very valid.
Mine came from Belgium where a gentleman tried all afternoon and finally suceeded in taking the nosegear out. I changed the complete engine mount with nosegear, from one that was corroded out, and flew it back to UK. There I finished the sheet metal repairs and flew it happily for several years.
The airplanes are all nose heavy and if you look at the horizontal stab' it has an inverted aerofoil shape to give downward lift!! I guess Beech knew they had a problem?
Other than that a great stable, roomy airplane that makes a wonderful instrument platform at the expense of a bit of speed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't overemphasize the speed control thing enough. We had one member in our club who flew the C24 Sierra retract version. She liked to shoot "airliner" style approaches, coming in hot at 100+ knots then bleeding off speed coming into the flare, hopefully getting it right.
This worked well enough in her previous Cherokee but in her Sierra, she misjudged it one day, touched down too fast, bounced, then tried to force it back on, porpoised, and broke off the nose wheel. Totalled the prop, engine mount and nose gear plus other sundries and the insurance bill climbed to about $35k (CDN).
If you DO misjudge it in this aircraft, the wise thing to do is not to try to play the "real men don't go around" card, but instead pour on the coal and head back up for another go.
Once you do master the landing technique it will reward you with the nicest most consistent landings. They like power-on approaches; without power, you may as well tie an anvil to your feet and try to flap your arms, to get an idea of how they fly. Just for fun, pull the power mid-field on your downwind and try to deadstick it (when you're comfortable with the bird) to see what I mean. Don't try to fly a square box but start turning in now if you want to arrive on the runway.
Mike
This worked well enough in her previous Cherokee but in her Sierra, she misjudged it one day, touched down too fast, bounced, then tried to force it back on, porpoised, and broke off the nose wheel. Totalled the prop, engine mount and nose gear plus other sundries and the insurance bill climbed to about $35k (CDN).
If you DO misjudge it in this aircraft, the wise thing to do is not to try to play the "real men don't go around" card, but instead pour on the coal and head back up for another go.
Once you do master the landing technique it will reward you with the nicest most consistent landings. They like power-on approaches; without power, you may as well tie an anvil to your feet and try to flap your arms, to get an idea of how they fly. Just for fun, pull the power mid-field on your downwind and try to deadstick it (when you're comfortable with the bird) to see what I mean. Don't try to fly a square box but start turning in now if you want to arrive on the runway.
Mike
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks, got just under 5 hours in it in the end.
An interesting beast, clearly modelled upon the PA28 in it's general form. It felt distinctly gutless, but that's mostly due to airfield density altitudes of 6,000+ft where I was flying.
With the advice of the instructor who checked me out, I settled on 2 stages, and was flying it around MTOW-250lb, which meant that the 70-75KIAS was a little fast and it tended to bounce. A little lower - slightly under 70 I found gave a more elegant landing - whether that had anything to do with the relatively high TAS at those density altitudes I'm unsure.
Control forces displacements in all three axes were clearly less than for the similar PA28, which gave it a more crisp feel that I rather liked. But, hands off it was very stable.
I wasn't fast in the cruise, full throttle / lean to peak was giving me about 2400rpm / 100KIAS, but that may again have been a hot/high thing.
Overall, a nice machine and I enjoyed it - if I find myself back in that neck of the woods again, I may have another go.
G
An interesting beast, clearly modelled upon the PA28 in it's general form. It felt distinctly gutless, but that's mostly due to airfield density altitudes of 6,000+ft where I was flying.
With the advice of the instructor who checked me out, I settled on 2 stages, and was flying it around MTOW-250lb, which meant that the 70-75KIAS was a little fast and it tended to bounce. A little lower - slightly under 70 I found gave a more elegant landing - whether that had anything to do with the relatively high TAS at those density altitudes I'm unsure.
Control forces displacements in all three axes were clearly less than for the similar PA28, which gave it a more crisp feel that I rather liked. But, hands off it was very stable.
I wasn't fast in the cruise, full throttle / lean to peak was giving me about 2400rpm / 100KIAS, but that may again have been a hot/high thing.
Overall, a nice machine and I enjoyed it - if I find myself back in that neck of the woods again, I may have another go.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad you enjoyed the Beechcraft xperience. I have a share in one based Cardiff and the running costs are very cheap compared to the cost of solo hire these days. True, the cruising speed is only slightly better than a Tomahawk but the build quality is second to none. Excellent tourer and an excellent machine for group ownership. If you are ever in Cardiff.....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Musketeer
We had one on our flying group at Rochester back in the late 70's. We were all fairly new PPL's, mainly Condor trained. I don't recall any of the problems related here and found it a very simple, straightforward thing to fly.
We used to call it 'The Flying Breeze Block'. It seemed heavy, underpowered and generally unpleasant.
We traded it for a new 172N and that was as good as the Musketeer was bad.
Look around for a Robin 180 instead. You can then load the thing up with fuel, 4 people and baggage, not worry too much about overloading the thing and no worries about Cof G.
If the choice is wide, go for something a bit more exciting than the Musketeer - horrible thing.
HP
We used to call it 'The Flying Breeze Block'. It seemed heavy, underpowered and generally unpleasant.
We traded it for a new 172N and that was as good as the Musketeer was bad.
Look around for a Robin 180 instead. You can then load the thing up with fuel, 4 people and baggage, not worry too much about overloading the thing and no worries about Cof G.
If the choice is wide, go for something a bit more exciting than the Musketeer - horrible thing.
HP
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BE23 180 Hp Sundowner I used to own was a great plane.
(The Musketeer used to have something like 140 Hp and that was not enough for this beast.)
Heavy (unbreakable ?), slightly slower than an Archer, but faster climbing. And as told, CoG forward with full fuel and heavy front only crew. The solution is to put heavy things in the back. It could carry a fair load, 2 doors and lot's of room.
Only minor point was a shimmy from time to time in X-wind landings.
If you want the best of the lot, go for the Sierra;
- retractable an constant speed for less then an Arrow.
S.
(The Musketeer used to have something like 140 Hp and that was not enough for this beast.)
Heavy (unbreakable ?), slightly slower than an Archer, but faster climbing. And as told, CoG forward with full fuel and heavy front only crew. The solution is to put heavy things in the back. It could carry a fair load, 2 doors and lot's of room.
Only minor point was a shimmy from time to time in X-wind landings.
If you want the best of the lot, go for the Sierra;
- retractable an constant speed for less then an Arrow.
S.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
happen to own one of the rare aerobatic certified models so I can have some fun with it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, they are cleared for the following according to the placard:
snap rolls
barrel rolls
aileron rolls
loops
immelmans
split "S"
spins.
That's plenty of fun for an aerobatics newbie like me on a Saturday morning!
Mike
snap rolls
barrel rolls
aileron rolls
loops
immelmans
split "S"
spins.
That's plenty of fun for an aerobatics newbie like me on a Saturday morning!
Mike
