Anyone here flown a Beech18 ?

[tathepilot]

how about a b18 with tpe-101's

 

[avbug]

Yes, with the pratt engines (R-985).

Perhaps you mean TPE-331-10.

 

[tathepilot]

Yes, with the pratt engines (R-985).

Perhaps you mean TPE-331-10.

yes, you are correct..

avbug, can you tell me about this a/c.

anything you can tell me would be great!

if the pratt r-985's are similar to the 331-10's can you also tell me about the performance.

thx

 

[jbDC9]

if the pratt r-985's are similar to the 331-10's can you also tell me about the performance.

Huh? Similar... you're kidding, right?

 

[avbug]

The twin beech comes in a lot of forms. The tailwheel version is an entirely different animal than the nosewheel abberation, and requires more care. Most certainly in a crosswind. The twin beech is somewhat short coupled, though not terribly so...land it and take it off properly, you won't see any difficulties. Get it cocked sieways and you'll groundloop it and you will damage it.

I'm going to guess you're asking about the performance differences between the original R985 equipped airplane and the Garrett TPE-331...you're aware that one is a radial piston engine and the other is a geared turboshaft engine, right? The only similiarity between them so far as operation is that they both have a propeller, but the similiarities end right there. Not even the propellers or the control of them work close to the same.

One nice feature of the garretts is the speed control they provide. Idle descents aren't an issue with those engines, where they're a very bad thing in a radial engine. There's more to know technically about the garretts, but more pilot skill and attention is required with the recips.

 

[tathepilot]

Huh? Similar... you're kidding, right?

ok, so i should have done my research first... the r-985's are the radial engines..

i got offered to fly some cargo out of my home base by an operator that has 2 b18's, and i wanted to get a little more info about the a/c

 

[Waldom]

Tathepilot, I have experience in reciprocating and tubine conversions of this aircraft.

It is rather hard to help you with specific information unless you can provide exactly what type, model, conversion status, and landing gear configuration the two airplanes operated by the outfit you are interested in have.

Your previous flying experience and the type of aircraft you have flown as P.I.C would also be helpful to someone offering advice.

 

[tathepilot]

Tathepilot, I have experience in reciprocating and tubine conversions of this aircraft.

It is rather hard to help you with specific information unless you can provide exactly what type, model, conversion status, and landing gear configuration the two airplanes operated by the outfit you are interested in have.

Your previous flying experience and the type of aircraft you have flown as P.I.C would also be helpful to someone offering advice.

give me a couple of days and i will get the specifics on the a/c, thx..

 

[icefr8dawg]

that'd be a cool freight gig....

 

[tathepilot]

i agree..
it's has garrett engines and its a tail wheel.. 'WALDOM' is that enough info until i get you the specifics..?

for now some basic perf/handling characteristics would be nice

 

[avbug]

It's a tailwheel airplane, and handles like a tailwheel airplane. If you're flying multi engine airplanes, multi engine tailwheel is another degree of potential to screw something up; keep that in mind. You can get away with assymetrical thrust and a nosewheel, but not a tailwheel. The twin tail adds an additional workload to you; it's a rudder airplane and you need to be sharp on your rudder control.

The twin beech has had all sorts of atrocities done to it, and that includes the installation of a nosewheel. Sort of a dumbing down of a machine that was just fine as it was, or an answer to a question that didn't need to be asked. Volpar was responsible for a lot of that, though numerous conversions have been done or authorized (or done unauthorized, as the case may be) over the years. The basic wing and fuselage has remained the same, but almost everything else has varied with the modifications. This most especially includes the performance and handling. Even the wings have seen changes such as squared off tips, and the fusalges have been modified (extended nose, tailwheel enlarged and put on the wrong end, etc).

Garretts on the wing mean a change in the airflow over the vertical stabs. When the power is pulled to idle, depending on how the engine is rigged, not only do you dispose of the thrust, but also develop a braking action which can rob you of substantial directional control. This is especially evident on the runway, and at no time more so then when coming into reverse.

The Beech 18 is a treat to fly, and a great airplane all around, so long as you stay ahead of it. It's got a big, thick wing which is very forgiving, up to a point, and though it may complain a little, it hauls a load nicely.

If you haven't flown round engines, then you may not appreciate the reliability of a turbine engine out there, but there's a lot to be said for that. The garrett offers some pitfalls that can really hurt you, too; a malfunctioning propeller or engine on that garret can do a lot more harm than a malfunctioning hydromatic prop on the older radial, and do it more quickly.

The airplane did have spar strap issues with AD's, like many Beechcrafts.

Extra power on the wing means bigger assymetric thrust issues, most notable when takiing off or landing, but always something to consider. Are you being considered to fly the twin beeches?

 

[tathepilot]

Are you being considered to fly the twin beeches?

yes! my home base has an operation that has 2 b18's , a few shorts, a be58 and a king air.

the cp approached me, so this was very unexpected. the run is very similar to the one im currently doing, (dutytime and block to block time) plus i would not have to move to a new location for this job.

 

[avbug]

Sounds good. What is your conventional gear experience?

 

[nosehair]

the cp approached me, so this was very unexpected.

Do you have lots of tailwheel time, or are you slovenly dressed and unkempt with the smell of oil hanging about you, so that you may appear to be a tailwheel-round-engine pilot?

 

[Spooky 2]

I have a few hundred hours in the Super 18 (built around 1961 I think). Everything Avbug has said is true. Nice smooth and forgiving in the air, but demands attention close to the ground, or better yet on the ground.

There were some of these aircraft built with a cross wind gear. Never flew one but looked to be more trouble than worth. Is this job up in the San Juans by chance?

 

[tathepilot]

What is your conventional gear experience?

zero...

 

[tathepilot]

Is this job up in the San Juans by chance?

nope, i know who you speak of.. this job is in the deep south.

 

[tathepilot]

Do you have lots of tailwheel time, or are you slovenly dressed and unkempt with the smell of oil hanging about you, so that you may appear to be a tailwheel-round-engine pilot?

zero tw time, as i said to avbug..

 

[ukaviator]

If this company is the one I think your referring to, they have the BE18's with the 7ft stretch, nose gear and the Garrett engines, as well as a regular tail wheel BE18 with the R985's.

All the 18's Ive flown have been a blast to fly. Of course its nice to fly the turbine conversion 18's - not only for the reliability, but the engines offer a little over 1200hp which bumps the IAS to around 175kts

Have fun flying these unique birds!

 

[Waldom]

Well, Tathepilot, that operator has one very unique airplane there. I don't know what the second BE-18 they have is because there is only one Garrett-powered Beech 18 tail-wheel conversion in the world. It also happens to have an eight foot long fuselage stretch (four feet in front of the wing and four feet behind). The original registration was N231LJ. The last time I saw it was about ten years ago in Willow Run, Michigan. It had no engines on it and someone told me then that it had been recently ground-looped [a not unlikely possibility].

The airplane was the result of a rather nebulous deal between Gordon Hamilton (an aircraft modifier in Tuscon, AZ that did several Twin-Beech conversions) and that loveable softy and all around nice guy, Connie Kalitta (a freight operator). I do not recall what dash number Garretts it had on it but I do remember that they were rated at 715 shp. I flew that machine several years ago, and it is capable of handling a lot of weight and bulk with ease...but not legally. Due to a dispute between Hamilton and Kalitta before Hamilton had finished the approval process, the gross take-off weight of the airplane was only certified at 11,280 pounds. They had intended to have a G.T.O.W. of 12,499 pounds. This cuts into the payload a bit as you can imagine. With full fuel tanks and one pilot aboard, you will be just enough under gross to be able to take a Jepp case with you. To be fair, the airplane can hold a boatload of fuel [I don't remember how much].

The good news is that in spite of its appearance, the airplane flies nicely. The ground handling in this airplane is significantly more forgiving than the many PT-6 powered, unstretched conversions of tail-dragger Twin Beeches that Hamilton did. That being said, you will still find this airplane quite a challenge if you have no prior conventional-gear proficiency. If the company instructor is a very good one and you take your training quite seriously, a conventional gear checkout can be completed in this airplane, though. If you ever get the inkling that you have the ground-handling mastered in this airplane, you are about to receive a very rapid advance in your aeronautical education. The airplane can be operated quite safely as long you avoid a cocky attitude. I guess that's true of any airplane, but this machine excells in keeping you humble.

To avoid confusion, let me tell you about the many different turbine engine conversions of the Beech 18. There were two modification outfits that did turbine conversions: Volpar Aviation of Van Nuys, CA and Hamilton Aircraft Corporation of Tuscon, AZ.

Volpar did two versions. The Volpar Turbo 18 was a low cabin (C-45 or Beech D-18S) tricycle gear airplane with Garrett engines. In regards to performance, they are screamers. The Volpar Turboliner had Garrett TPE-331-101 engines, tricycle landing gear, an eight foot long fuselage stretch, the eight inch raised cabin of E and later model 18s, and the windshield of G and H model 18s. The 9 Turbo 18s were built for Air America and used in S.E. Asia. The Turboliner was designed as a 15 passenger commuter and freighter.

Hamilton Aircraft converted several tail-wheel 18s to Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6-20 and PT-6-27 engines. The main fuselage was not stretched but a long needle nose was added that contained a 750 pound capacity baggage compartment. [The forward compartment was needed because the increased payload could not all be put in the cabin without taking the c.g. out of the aft limit]. This conversion was called a Westwind I (not to be confused with the later Israeli Aircraft Industries Westwind I and II jets). Hamilton's Westwind II was essentially a copy of Volpar's Turboliner with Garrett TPE-331-101s, the fuselage stretch, and the nose wheel. The one and only Westwind III is the airplane you described and it has the Garrett engines, the needle nose, the stretched cabin, and a tail wheel.