Beech B-60 Duke...

MSNFlier

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
118
Total Time
Some
Anyone ever fly one? Likes? Dislikes? Have been researching various aircraft values, etc., for a friend of mine, came across it and have become curious about the aircraft. I see them on ramps from time to time and I cannot recall seeing one that didn't look just about perfect. From the TTAF I see on www.aso.com, it appears they are more "personal" transport rather than "corporate?"

It appears to be a 6 seater (four pax in back) and appears to be a bit bigger than the Baron and, I assume, faster. It "looks" fast, too.

I don't recall that Raytheon Beechcraft builds them anymore. Anyone know why?

Thanks in advance.
 

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
The Duke is my favorite piston twin. Never flown one, but in my interest I've talked to several people that have owned them over the years. I think it's a sexy, sexy plane. I can't think of any piston twin that looks better. :D

I was told that 230 knots on about 40gph is what to expect. It's not a cheap plane to maintain. The huge engines require a lot of attention, and from what I hear a Duke will spend a lot of time in the shop.

But hell, if I had the money - I'd own two. That way I have one to fly while the other is getting fixed!
 

everyonedoa360

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Posts
89
Total Time
12K+
bigD,

I could not not agree with you more. The best looking "light" twin
ever! Needs lots of runway and I would not want to fly one with only one turning, but a hell of great looking bird.
 

KingAirer

USER
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
490
Total Time
1000
THe Baron is a far superior airplane to the Duke, but ur right, the Duke does look cool!
 
Last edited:

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
I'm curious - what about the Baron is superior to the Duke? I'm not arguing - I haven't flown either one, but I just would have figured the Duke to be a more capable plane. Or are you talking a price/performance type thing, in which case I can see that already...
 

RockyMnt1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
163
Total Time
2200
Beech B-60 Duke

I have about 250 hours of Duke time. Here is what I have noticed:

1) 230 kts GS is about right

2) 40 gals/hr is about right. I tend to baby the engines and keep the TIT around 850 instead of 900. I would rather pay for fuel than metal.

3) The Duke that I fly has been in peices for 6 months. The rebuilt engines (at 35K ea) lasted only 230 hours before the lobes on the camshaft were worn down. The FAA is about to approve a fix for this. This airplane will be the POC (proof of concept) for the fix. The camshaft lobe problem is a known problem with these engines.

4) 4 folks in the back is somewhat cramped, but doable.

5) There is more cabin space in the Duke vs. the Baron. The Baron that I fly (Be-56 TC) is faster than the Duke. This Baron does have the same engines as the Duke which is why. I don't care for the ergonomics of the Baron cockpit.

6) The vortex generators really improve the low speed characteristics. I touch down at 80-85 kts IAS. However, the advantages of the winglets are canceled by the drag of the vortex generators.

7) The cokpit layout is very comfortable.

8) There seems to be adequate baggage storage space.

9) I really do like the "lines" of the airplane.
 

MSNFlier

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
118
Total Time
Some
a related question....

Dukes are not pressurized, are they (or are some)? If so, is there an STC for putting a turbine on them (or, I guess, why would/wouldn't you want to)?

Thanks for the thoughts thus far (even the opinion on it being ugly), it's always interesting to learn more about different aircraft that intrigue me.

Andy MSN
 

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
Dukes are pressurized.

And dagnabit, Maverick - you couldn't be more wrong!
:p
 

RockyMnt1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
163
Total Time
2200
Beech B-60 Duke

1) As far as being ugly, to each his own. That is too subjective to get into here.

2) The Duke that I fly is pressurized.

3) It is equipped with turbo superchargers. I have not seen any with turboprops on them, although with this fleet wide engine problem (100 engines at last count) that might not be a bad idea. By the way, does everyone notice that Lycoming is NOT stepping up to the plate to stand behind their engines with any sort of design fix or solution? Our best guess is it is a maneuver to sidestep liability. Once the STC fix is approved by the FAA, it is anticipated that Lycoming will issue a service bulletin recommneding the fix. Since the FAA approved the fix, the risk to Lycoming is mitagated. Yes, Lycoming recognizes that there is a problem. No, they will not get involved with a solution at this point. Let someone else take the heat. Great marketing ploy.
 

everyonedoa360

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Posts
89
Total Time
12K+
They are ALL pressurized!
 

sabreliner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
216
Total Time
5000+
Never flown a Duke before, but I've worked on one a little bit. I'd think long and hard about your needs before getting into and airplane like that.

The motors (which someone put on upside down!) are very sensitive. It is probably best that the a/c only be flown by one pilot who is well trained. Even so, it will spend a lot of time in the shop, and be expensive to maintain. Also, I seem to remember that everytime it took off on our 4500ft rwy, it went right to the end before rotating. So, you might want to look carefully at runway performance.

This would seem to me to be an airplane that requires a well trained pilot and deep pockets. It isn't a hop in and go machine.

I wonder if you compared the costs, would a C-90 be any more expensive to operate?
 
Top