Anyone here flown a Beech18 ?

[Waldom]

If Ukaviator is right about the operator, most of my previous post was for naught and I sure hope that Tathepilot's flying is better than his or her research.

But, Tathepilot, if you find out that you will be flying one of these airplanes, let me know which one and I will try and help you.

I have been a designated company instructor on recip. engine, conventional-gear Beech 18s and probably checked out 15 pilots in that type including two that had no previous tail wheel experience. That's 15 pilots that checked successfully. After a brief evaluation checkride, I probably rejected twice the number. The airplane is not really that hard to fly, it was the very limited time that the operator alotted for initial training that was the limiting factor. These poor folks were going to be turned loose single-pilot in our 14 junk airplanes in the middle of a Midwest winter. If I couldn't teach them enough to survive in about six hours of flyng I would have attended a lot of funerals.

I also have experience in both types of the Garrett-engined Volpars and the Hamilton Westwind II.

 

[avbug]

The lack of conventional gear experience alone, to say nothing of other issues, indicate a strong potential for one to get in far over one's head, here.

 

[nosehair]

Hard to believe you were approached for the job with no t/w time. That ain't one to learn on.

 

[tathepilot]

thanks to everyone that is giving me much needed info here.. i agree with some of the comments about being in over my head.. at this point in my career, or at any point, i don't want to put myself at risk for the sake of flying a 'cool a/c'.. the weather down here does get crappy, and when it does, it normally stays for at least a week.. so i would have to fly the 18 in the icy soup.. i do speak the truth about being approached, but to be honest, i should have said a co-worker who is good friends with the cp was down in fl, and the cp told him that he needs someone to fly the b18, and this is when i got the phone call.
i have some short term goals, and switching companies to fly a b-18 is not on the horizon.. (pun intended)..

i am just gathering info at this point..

thanks everyone, lets keep it going..

 

[FreightPup]

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?

Ha Ha!
That's funny 'cause it's true

 

[Waldom]

Great avatar, Freight Pup. That Keith Ferris print is part of our living room decor. Good thing the wife's a pilot and the background colors are the same as that of the furniture! And yes, you're right; there is no romance associated with an engine that whines.

 

[alaskaborn]

Sounds like Hankins

 

[tathepilot]

Sounds like Hankins

that is it!

what do you know about them?

 

[kfscapn]

I didn't realize 231LJ was back in the air. I know it disappeared from YIP a few years ago in non-flying condition. I never flew it, but I flew the Turboliners and Westwind II's Kitty Hawk/Kalitta had. They were a solid, stable airplane good for about 200 knots true on 80gph.

 

[727gm]

N123LJ is actually the only Westwind IV, by Hamilton Aircraft.

The Westwind III is the standard tailwheel Beech 18 with PT6A-20 or-27 engines. Here's a picture of the unfortunate demise of my favorite, by it's new operator:

http://www.bahamaspress.com/?p=506

The Westwind series(I, II, III) was STC'ed by American Turbine Engine Company of Pasadena, CA and the aircraft were modified in Long Beach, CA in the mid-to-later sixties. The STC was sold to Hamilton, and more aircraft were converted by Hamilton later, including N38L (1975).

As I said long ago about this aircraft:

Or howzabout the good ol' Beech 18T ( Hamilton Westwind III), what a machine! Rolling in on the field gear down, flaps 45, props FWD, brakes checked, crabbing down to the ground in a strong crosswind, rounding out and aligning with the runway, coming to idle with one throttle, rolling one wheel on first and making it stick, closing the other throttle and planting the other wheel while easing the first throttle over the gate into beta/reverse (a twist of the wrist in a Westwind) then the other throttle to idle and more reverse on the on the first engine, hauling them both into a split-reverse while flying the tail down and keeping it straight. Tail becomes less effective with the big flaps near the ground, but the wing angle makes the ailerons moreso. Short field, throw in hard-but-not-too-hard braking and reverse while tail is still up and elevator to compensate. Hard to explain, a challenge and a joy to accomplish, different from most aircraft, a sweet ZEN machine.

 

[Waldom]

Thanks, 727gm, for the correction reference the Westwind IV (N231LJ). Too many brain cells lost and gray hairs aquired on my part. I also did not know the the "pre-Hamilton" history of the conversions.

Sorry to learn of N38L's recent runway "excursion". Hope it flys again and does not become another corroding wreck in the Caribbean weeds. That airplane was the nicest flying Westwind III I had flown.

 

[AngelKing]

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.

Are you saying only one was ever built or that is the last one left?

Back in the late '70s I flew 2 different tailwheel Garrett BE-18's. And saw many others, well maybe not many, but some.

AK

 

[Waldom]

To my knowlege, only one was a Garrett-powered Beech 18 that was left in the tail-wheel configuration. It also had the 8 foot stretch and the needle nose containing the 750 pound capacity cargo compartment

There were many Garrett-powered trycycle gear conversions and many conversions to Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6 engines that were left in the tail-wheel configuration.

I was unaware that there were other Beech 18 conversions that combined Garrett TPE-331 engines and a tail-wheel.

 

[AngelKing]

To my knowlege, only one was a Garrett-powered Beech 18 that was left in the tail-wheel configuration. It also had the 8 foot stretch and the needle nose containing the 750 pound capacity cargo compartment

There were many Garrett-powered trycycle gear conversions and many conversions to Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6 engines that were left in the tail-wheel configuration.

I was unaware that there were other Beech 18 conversions that combined Garrett TPE-331 engines and a tail-wheel.

Crap, I must be getting old, you're right, they had Pt-6's.

I guess 15 years of flying Merlins affected me more than I thought.

AK

 

[FreightPup]

Hey, I'm replying under a friend's name, so I hope I don't humiliate him too much. There's some good info in all of these posts. It is true that N231LJ was built for Connie (It's a screamer) and it is the only Garrett powered tailwheel Beech ever widely used, certainly in the US. Turbomecha tried them on a tailwheel C-45, with tailwheel H-18 main gear (half forks), but it didn't really go anywhere.

The first PT-6 powered tailwheel Beeches were not American Turbine Engine Corps., they were actually built at Dee Howard company, in San Antonio, TX. There were 3. The first one was built for a Canadian concern, but was later used in the US. It was registered as N12VT and was converted from a low cabin airplane, but I'm not home right now and I'd be lyin' if I guessed at which model... I think it was a Canadian 3N. Its' nose length was between a straight Beech and later Westwinds. It had no elevator downsprings and wet wings that leaked like an SR-71. It had walking gear, and the early PT-6's that had NO Beta and NO reverse. The second one was N10VT, it was a Super 18 that was earlier converted to nosegear, then back to tailwheel. The last one was N11AB, it was an E-18S that had also been a tri-gear, but converted back to tailwheel (that part was done by American Turbine Engine Corp.) and had 'fuel dump' with the wet wings. All three operated for Great Western Airlines, of Tulsa, OK, in the 1970's. They had all variants there, Dee Howard, ATE and Hamilton. N10VT (Hartford CT) and N12VT (Memphis TN) were both destroyed. N11AB was parted out (Tulsa OK). The Hamilton airplanes were the last variation of the bunch, and consequently, were the best. The nicest ones were built for SMB Stage Lines and Georgia-Pacific Paper Mills. They all had PT-6-20's. There was one "H" model Westwind that had PT-6-27's, it was N926T, modified at Blackhawk. Hope this helps out some.

How do I know this? I started riding in Twin Beeches sorting mail sacks, with Hankins, in 1969. I was 10 at the time. At the same time, I had a pen pal named: Mrs. O. A. Beech... and the '18' fascination just went downhill from there. By the way, I used to actually fly all those planes I was just talking about, as well as thousands of hours in piston Beeches for 'airlines' I worked for, outfits I'd just help out and some I owned personally.

Hopefully, my "sponsor" won't be too embarassed.

 

[AngelKing]

Yes, the two I flew were from leased from S.M.B.

If I am not mistaken, the 'N" of one of them was N149R. That was amost 30 years ago.

edit: just went through my log book, the "N" numbers were N149R and N711DN.

I remember they were just normal airplanes in the air, but taxing them around was a bear. You could hardly see forward of the extended nose and you were constantly jockeying the throttles. There was hardly any airflow over the rudders so it was constant left/right with the throttles, plus the spool-up lag fron the old engines didn't help.

I have also learned that N149R was later destroyed in a fatal accident.
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20001213X30199.asp


N711DN survived the flying, including mine, but was later parted out.

Oh, and Avbug, you can in fact groundloop without damaging them, I won't admit how I know.......

Back then, there was nothing nostalgic about these planes, they were just your nights work that you couldn't wait to get done in the morning.

Most embarrasing moment......groundlooping in front of all the other -18 drivers at Charlotte. And I did have to buy the breakfast for the witnesses, was broke for the next week.

Here is a photo, I found of N149R from airliners.net.
Oh well, here is the link, didn't know you couldn't post photos here.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0225911



AK

 

[FreightPup]

That's absolutely correct, AK. I'm going from memory here, but some of the Westwinds I remember at Stage were: N149R, N711DN, N35136, N5653D, N961GP and N4288... but I think I'm leaving a few out. Oh well, like you said, it's been 30+ years. I helped get Methow into Beeches in the early '80's, and also got them started with Westwinds. They ended up with N432U and I think, N924J... not to mention all the recips. They're gone too now. We better do something... fast! It's not about the fuel burn, it's about the insurance. Thanks for the reply. I'm going to bed now... and dream of double-breasted round motors. If I dream of the other, I'll never get to sleep!

 

[727gm]

I used to fly:
N38L(SNB-5>TC-45J/WW-III)
N202GW(E18S/WW-III)
N5653D(E18S/WW-III)
N909GP(E18S/WW-III)
N961GP(G18S/WW-III).

Empty ~5600 lbs
Max ZFW 10450
Max Lndg 10700
Max GTW 11230

+3.22G / -1.23G

Vmc 72kts
Vyse 105kts
Vmo 216kts

550HP per side

While we normally flew them fairly lightly loaded in sterile-insect pest control, the trick to taxi was not to jockey throttles like a recip, but to use just the idle-thrust, flight controls and beta, which with the small movement necessary to adjust beta, worked great! No-spool-up lag to deal with using beta, the tiny incremental motion from idle-thrust to varying levels of beta works NOW, no lag at all! (If they'd put a King Air throttle quadrant on these planes, they would ALL be wrecked by now. The Westwind throttle was a fantastic design) Very easy to taxi, when you're used to it, much easier than a recip -18. And the brakes lasted forever. I loved the Twin Beast!

In training we were told those most likely to wreck the things were high-time Be-18 and DC-3 guys, 'cause they weren't afraid of them. In the AFM the takeoff technique was: from a full stop, run up to 2000rpm before brake release. This was important, for the reason of throttle lag....(The company put 10 to 15 thousand hours on these airframes without damage over a 15 year period).

New guys' most difficult problem at first came from unconsciously lining up that angled long nose with the runway, thereby starting off with a crooked touchdown. But once one got used to the picture, I feel the long nose made small errors in groundtrack MUCH more evident, and control easier.

I believe N711DN was ground-looped and wrecked as our company had bought the wreck. The right main had been torn off and jammed through the bottom of the fuselage. I remember some parts on our other WW-III's with 711DN stencilled on the underside.

 

[vetrider]

If Ukaviator is right about the operator, most of my previous post was for naught and I sure hope that Tathepilot's flying is better than his or her research.

But, Tathepilot, if you find out that you will be flying one of these airplanes, let me know which one and I will try and help you.

I have been a designated company instructor on recip. engine, conventional-gear Beech 18s and probably checked out 15 pilots in that type including two that had no previous tail wheel experience. That's 15 pilots that checked successfully. After a brief evaluation checkride, I probably rejected twice the number. The airplane is not really that hard to fly, it was the very limited time that the operator alotted for initial training that was the limiting factor. These poor folks were going to be turned loose single-pilot in our 14 junk airplanes in the middle of a Midwest winter. If I couldn't teach them enough to survive in about six hours of flyng I would have attended a lot of funerals.

I also have experience in both types of the Garrett-engined Volpars and the Hamilton Westwind II.

I have a couple hundred hours in a restored C-45 from about fifteen or more years ago. I got to pick and choose my days to fly it,or not. My hat is off to anyone who earns a living in that plane.

 

[Waldom]

Vetrider, That paragraph about folks checking out in the airplane had more to do with the nature of that operation than the charactaristics of the BE-18. The flying was, frankly, hazardous and company allowed very little pilot training time.

The ground handling of the machine certainly requires more attention than say a Navajo or 402, but that can be taught fairly quickly.

The challenge was operating them single-pilot over and around the Great Lakes in winter weather with no wing de-icing equipment. ....And learning how to loose-load heavy, awkward, things like bus transmissions so that they didn't shift aft and kill you even when secured by a cargo net. ....And operating with known deficiencies and occasional precautionary engine shut-downs due to high oil consumption. ....And running with a sleep deficit because pay was by the mile and we ran about as hard as the truckers used to. ...And flying with inoperative heaters in body and mind-numbing cold.

I know that this is basically a story about walking to school in waste-deep snow up-hill both ways, but it is true. I was a naive young crop-duster pilot when I took the job. I'm not proud of the judgement I displayed at the time.

My point is that I am not disparaging the design of the airplane. In fact it is a very stable instrument platform and carries a load of ice well. With my poor judgement and complete ignorance of weather flying, I credit the airplane with my survival.