B60 DUKE

The most significant original limita- tion was the low standard fuel capacity (142 gallons/852 pounds usable and 204 gallons/l,224 pounds optional). From the original concept to the fin- ished product, the original Duke was a significant technical exercise and devel- opment. It was designed as a single-pilot air- plane, and much to Beech's credit, a school for pilots and maintenance peo- ple was offered almost from the start. The school runs four days: three days of classroom and one day (or part of a day) for a checkride. At a current cost of $350 (free with the purchase of a new Duke), it is very cheap insurance for anyone who owns or flies a Duke. continued AOPA PILOT • 35 COl1rillltt'd The company anticipated an average production run of 200 units per year (the initial base price was $166,500). Sales never reached company projec- tions. In fact, in the now-IS-year run of the Duke, a total of 596 have been built. The original Model 60 had a pro- duction run of approximately 126. The A60, a 1971 model year introduction, had a production run of about 120. The B60, the current Duke, was intro- duced in the 1974 model year, and 350 have been produced to date. Initial response was enthusiastic, but there were still some attributes of the airplane that proved unsatisfactory be- cause of either service-life experience or customer-acceptance complaints. Many of the customer or potential- customer objections had to do with the relatively small amount of room in the cabin for passengers (people in the front seats are taken care of quite well, except for what some pilots consider too much squeezing, crawling and gen- erally undignified processes to get into the seats). A certain amount of the mechanical and systems problems owners experi- enced have resulted from lack of knowledge of the aircraft and the envi- ronment in which it operates and, a certain amount, from maintenance shortcomings (one service manager, ag- gravated by my constantly squawking pressurization, governor and turbo- charger problems years ago, asked: "How perfectly do you want it to oper- ate, anyhow?"). To put it another way, a lot of the problems that have oc- curred with any high-performance, particularly high-altitude, aircraft over the years have been a combination of lack of knowledge on the part of both operators and repair shops, and the need to develop a different strategy for both operation and maintenance. Powerplant management and mainte- nance and the acceptance of progres- sive as opposed to "don't fix it unless it breaks" service are requirements that many operators still don't follow. The Duke and anything else that regularly operates at extremes of altitude (and temperature), and any complex, so- phisticated agglomeration of systems, requires a great deal more care and feeding-and thoughtful operation- than a basic or even moderately so- phisticated aircraft. There is another side to it, of course: the primary and component manufac- turers. Some pieces or systems, which appear perfectly functional and suitable DUIm to the engineers and the finance de- partments and which work fine during factory analysis and test, don't do too well in the field. Or, continuous use points out shortcomings of design or materials or installation. For whatever reason, some of the early Duke owners had very unsatis- factory experiences. An acquaintance of mine, who had owned several Bonan- zas and Barons, was so unhappy with his and with the difficulty he had in getting it maintained satisfactorily that his company bought a non-Beech product when they moved up to a turboprop. It was from early owners that the Duke garnered the reputation of having poor runway performance and gained such nicknames or epithets as the tank, the turtle and the truck. And quite a few of them decided it was a maintenance hog, too. Beech, along with its suppliers, re- sponded to a lot of the operational dif- ficulties. As previously mentioned, there have been two model changes. There also have been quite a few im- provements that did not result in a new model designation. The first was an increase in engine TBO to 1,200 hours, announced for the 1970 model year. There were pressurization prob- 36. FEBRUARY 1983 lems and problems with the security or sealing of the cabin door. There also were problems with the turbosuper- chargers, and exhaust gases were caus- ing corrosion, particularly to the flaps. Passengers 'complained it was a noisy airplane. There were valve, connecting- rod and crankcase problems, too. The A60 was introduced as a 1971 airplane, and many of the difficulties had been addressed. The turbos were made of stainless steel, and the exhaust system had been redesigned. A new pressurization system was fitted, steps had been taken to deal with water leaks, and the flap motor was changed. The maximum takeoff rate was in- creased from 6,725 to 6,775 pounds. For the 1974 model year, the Duke became the B60, with a lot of internal engine changes that made the desig- nated model TIO-541-EIC4 from the previous E1A4. The pressurization out- flow valves were moved to the back of the aft pressure bulkhead, which in- creased the cabin length by six inches. In 1975, a new pressurization system manufactured by AiResearch was added, along with longer exhaust stacks to deal with the flap corrosion problem. In 1976, TBO was increased to 1,600 hours and an optional wing- tip fuel tank system was offered that increased total usable fuel to 232 gal- lonsj1,392 pounds. In 1978 and 1980, Beech paid even more attention to the passengers. The flow of pressurization air was rede- signed and interior soundproofing was improved. The interior was redesigned yet again to provide more elbow and hip room and to create a greater visual illusion of space. The original nicad batteries, which had caused service problems, were re- placed with two, 12-volt, 25-amp lead acid batteries mounted in series. By this time, the combination of in- flation and more-profit-per-unit pricing policies had taken hold. The base price, which had risen to $187,000 in 1974 ascended to $258,000 in 1977, $313,000 in 1979, $341,700 in 1980 and $433,250 in 1982. There have been a few airworthiness directives affecting the Duke over the years. The first one our records show was issued in 1971 and restricted oper- ations from known icing conditions un- til an electrical transducer was added to the deice system. Another required replacement of the pilot side window before pressurized flight could be con- ducted. There was one that required replacement of the elevator hinge sup- ports and two dealing with the wing outer panel to center section attach nuts. Two ADs dealt with the problems of moisture in the cabin and fuselage and one with possible interference be- tween the fuselage moisture barrier and elevator controls. There was a problem with potential propeI1er blade shank cracking, another with engine piston pins and yet another with fuel cell leaks. There are several ADs on accessories, many of which are com- mon to several aircraft. By the time the B60 was introduced, Beech was marketing the airplane as a personal business machine directed at successful individuals who had made it on their own and wanted to show it. It had lost its niche as the fastest pressur- AOPA PILOT • 37 continued ized piston twin by a few knots to the Aerostar 601 and 602P (see September 1982 Pilot, p. 36) and found a more limited market slot due to competition from larger cabin and lower cost air- craft. It had become a very limited pro- 'lOiuctionaircraft, much as the Models ~ 18 and 65 (Queen Air) had before it. It may be that the macho image and the visceral visual appeal of the Duke took it out of contention for many po- tential buyers. It may be the hangar tales that grew out of its flying and maintenance characteristics. Or, it may be that people or companies buying aircraft in this price and performance range want to see larger interior cubic space even if the available payload is little different. For whatever reason, the Duke is not taken seriously as a competitor in the pressurized twin market. Although it is not the most fuel efficient, it does have competitive useful load and performance, and, de- spite its reputation, it is price competi- tive. Particularly when the usual pas- senger load (less than four) in this category aircraft is considered, the Duke has a lot to recommend it. It also is a delightful airplane to fly, so long as the pilot understands the nature and the characteristics of the airplane (again, it makes sense to go to school). Pre- and post-flight checks are 38· FEBRUARY 1983 straightforward. The only real caution, particularly for those aircraft with the optional 232-gallon fuel capacity, is that the Duke is another airplane that should not be topped off immediately after flight if it is going to be left in the sun or otherwise subjected to substan- tial temperature variations. (Pilots must be cautioned not to leave a fully fueled aircraft in the sun for too long lest they get a face full of gasoline when the caps are removed.) If maximum endur- ance is the goal, it is strongly recom- mended that the pilot monitor the re- fueling and ensure that it is done on a level surface to preclude imbalanced loads. Line personnel must be cautioned not to insert the nozzle too far into the tank to avoid damaging the bladder. There are three parts of the flight regime that deserve good training and careful attention from any Duke pilot: takeoff, landing and low-speed man- agement. These three areas probably have done more to fill the hangar tale books on the Duke than all others combined. The operating manual says that a Duke will get off the ground and over a 50-foot barrier in 2,626 feet and that it will get on and stopped over a 50- foot barrier in 3,065 feet (unlike some aircraft, if you can land the Duke there, chances are you can get it back off). To do the first requires careful use of all 760 horsepower. To do the latter re- quires very precise descent, speed and power management; it also requires several decisions during the approach and, at all but long runways, a definite commitment to continue the landing. Despite its 380-hp engines, the Duke is not going to win any drag races. It is slow to accelerate initially. Among other considerations, it requires that the pilot learn to take density altitude considerations very seriously. Operat- ing off runways of less than 4,000 feet (or even more than 4,000 feet in more than sea level, standard temperature conditions) suggests establishing full power before brake release. Rolling takeoffs and during-the-roll power applications greatly lengthen the re- quired runway length. Precision in ro- tation (lighten the nosewheel at 85 knots and plan to fly off at 95 knots) and both aircraft and airspeed manage- ment are important. Thank goodness for the short gear retraction and extension time, because acceleration to best single-engine rate of climb speed is slow, particularly when it is hot. This is the period of maximum exposure. When the aircraft is clean and initial climb speed is reached and the first power reduction is made (preferably at 1,000 feet agl), the rush is over and things both settle down and quiet down-those short, fat propellers make a lot of noise when they turn at 2,900 rpm. In fact, to com- ply with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, the maximum continuous power setting of 2,900/41.5 has been supplemented with a "Maximum Nor- mal Operating Power" of 2,750/36.5, which is the old recommended normal cruise climb power setting. Aside from noise relief, the initial fuel flow setting of 520 pounds per hour can be reduced to 396 pph (or about $40 per hour less at the fuel pump). From here on up to cruise altitude, nUImthe pilot can enjoy the surroundings, the view (which is a lot better from the cockpit than it may appear to be while standing on the outside looking in) and the very well organized cockpit. A cruise climb of 140 knots provides good visibility and an average of 700 fpm or better to altitude. Cruising at altitude is where the Duke excels. At an average power set- ting of 65 'percent, it is quiet, quite fast and very comfortable. The cockpit de- sign may be 15 yea,rs old, but it is still unsurpassed by the competition and by quite a few of the turboprops and tur- bojets. ' Night lighting is excellent, and there are several variations as well as seg- mented controls to adjust them to any pilot's preference. Exterior lighting, with all the options, is excellent, too. It would be pretty hard not to see a Duke at night with a navigation, two rotating beacon, a wing-tip recognition, three strobe, and taxi and landing lights on during an approach. Even in the older Duke we used last year, but particularly with the 1982 model, there is more than enough room for five in the airplane for long flights. The seats are quite comfortable, with good support and a variety of ad- justments, for four-hour legs. Descent management is easy without concern for rapid cooling of those ex- pensive engines or for loss of pres- surization. High-speed and high-rate descents with power can be made clean. Even faster ones can be made thanks to the 174 KIAS gear- and ap- proach-flap extension limits. The pres- surization controller enables the pilot to ensure that even the highest-rate de- scents do not bother the passengers. Instrument flight in the Duke is en- joyable and secure so long as the pilot knows the airplane and its characteris- tics (so what, we say the same thing about any airplane). Pitch stability is excellent, and configuration changes, such as gear and flap extension or re- traction, provide little if any pitch change. Yaw stability is about the same as in the Bonanza and Baron families. In other words, in turbulence, Dutch roll is very apparent. What a difference a good yaw damper makes. Pitch forces are fairly high; roll input requires a bit less effort, and yaw even less. Control response is positive and crisp, even at low airspeeds, and the airplane is highly maneuverable. I settled on an approach speed of 130 knots, until it was time to commit to land, for the best combination of stability, response and quick reaction to missed-approach decisions. Work load was very low, even when hand-flying the approaches in tight conditions anp high ATC-induced work load. Attitude and power changes do re- quire attention to the trim of the air- plane, and three-axis trim controls- particularly rudder and elevator-are welcome pilot aids. Final approach and landing is where a lot of pilots-including long-time Duke pilots-have decided it is a tough airplane. Pilots tend to be tough on brakes. Part of this is that pilots tend to land too fast; the Duke floats just like a Cherokee or Bonanza or Mooney if you attempt to plant it on the ground at too high an airspeed. The technique that works best for me (and it was taught by a very experi- enced Duke pilot) is to keep the ap- proach speed above blue line (Vyse) until the decision is made to land, par- ticularly if runway length is a consider- ation. At the decision point-about 200 feet in the air-start reducing power and airspeed (the manual recommends an approach speed of 95 knots at nor- mal approach weights). I call it a deci- sion point because from there on you should not attempt a balked landing AOPA PILOT • 39 continued BEECH DUKE Model B60 Base price $433,250 Price as tested $644.452 AOPA Pilot Operations/Equipment Category": All-weather $559,000 to $650,000 (est.) Performance Takeoff distance, ground roll 2,075 ft Takeoff distance over 50-ft obst 2,626 ft Accelerate/stop distance 3,600 ft Max demonstrated crosswind component 25 kt Rate of climb, sea level 1,601 fpm Single-engine ROC. sea level 307 fpm Max level speed, 23,000 ft 246 kt Specifications Powerplants 2 380-hp Lycoming TIO-541-E1C4, 6 cyl, 760 hp total @ 2,900 rpm/41.5 in Recommended TBO 1,600 hr Propellers 2 Hartzell, 3 blade, constant speed, full feathering, 74 in dia 33 ft 10 in 12 ft 4 in 39 ft 3 in 212.9 sq ft 31.8 Ib/sq ft 8.9Ib/hp 6 11 ft 10 in 4 ft 2 in 4 ft 4 in 4.425 Ib 4,919lb 6,819lb 2,394 Ib l,900lb l,1821b All specificatiolls are based all mQ/lUfacture~s calculatiolls. All performallce figures are based all stalldard day, stalldard atmosphere, at sea level alld gross weight, uJ/less otherwise 1I0ted. "Operatiolls/Equipmellt Category reflects this aircraft's maximum potelltial. See JUlie] 982 Pilot p. 93. j 85 KIAS 99 KIAS ] 20 KIAS 112 KIAS ]60 KIAS 100 KIAS ]74 KIAS 140 KIAS 174 K]AS 174 KIAS 207 KIAS 233 KIAS 85 KIAS 81 KIAS 73 KIAS ]6,000 ft ]6,000 ft Limiting and Recommended Airspeeds Vmc (Min control w / critical engine inoperative) Vx (Best angle of climb) Vy (Best rate of climb) Vxse (Best single-engine angle of climb) Vyse (Best single-engine rate of climb) Va (Design maneuvering) Vfe (Max flap extended) 15° 30° Vie (Max gear extended) Vlo (Max gear operating) Vno (Max structural cruising) Vne (Never exceed) Vr (Rotation) VSl (Stall clean) Vso (Stall in landing configuration) 16,000 ft Max operating altitude Single-engine service ceiling Landing distance over 50-ft obst Landing distance, ground roll Cruise speed/Range w /45-min rsv, 232 gal fuel @ 6,125 Ib mid-cruise weight (fuel consumption, both engines) Approx. 79% power, best economy 26,000 ft 240 kt/1,068 nm (260.4 pph/43.4 gph) 222 kt/927 nm (284.4 pph/47.4 gph) Approx. 65% power, best economy 26,000 ft 226 kt/1,127 nm (225 pph/37.5 gph) 207 kt/1,032 nm 235.2 pph/39.2 gph) Approx. 55% power, best economy 26,000 ft 219 kt/1,178 nm (209.4 pph/34.9 gph) 201 kt/1,088 nm (216 pph/36 gph) 30,000 ft 15,100 ft 3,065 ft ],3]8 ft Length Height Wingspan Wing area Wing loading Power loading Seats Cabin length Cabin width Cabin height Empty weight Empty weight, as tested Max ramp weight Useful load Useful load, as tested Payload w/202 gal/1,212 lb fuel Payload w /232 gal/1,392 Ib fuel, as tested 508 lb Max takeoff weight 6,775 Ib Max landing weight (with 10 ply tires; 6,600 w /8 ply tires) 6,775 Ib Fuel capacity 147 gal (142 gal/852 Ib usable) 207 gal (202 gaJ/1,212 Ib usable) 237 gal (232 gal/1,392 Ib usable) Oil capacity, ea engine 13 qt Baggage capacity front (nose bay) 500 Ib, 32 cu ft aft cabin (6-seat configuration) 701b,- unless you are on the razor edge of competence. If there is any doubt at this point, execute a missed approach unless you are blessed with a very long runway in front of you. The Duke is a good airplane in which to demonstrate the concept of getting behind the power curve. The best place to check this out is at alti- tude. Just as during takeoff, a lot of time is required to accelerate from a slow-speed maneuver, such as ap- proach to stall or, even more telling, Vmc. So long as a pilot knows the technique and the characteristics of an airplane, a -missed approach or any other change in plans is strictly no sweat, so long as power and airspeed and descent rate are all in hand. In a Duke, knowing, practicing and adher- ing to the characteristics of the airplane make all the difference between com- petent confidence and hair-raising ad- venture. Stalls, single-engine work and approaches to minimums can be han- dled as a matter of course if you are trained properly. And it makes it easier on the air- plane and its systems, and any passen- gers who may be on board, too. My reunion with the Beech Duke, which included a lot of night and IFR hours, was a pleasure. It renewed my appreciation for an airplane that is competitive in many ways but that suf- fers from its reputation as an aircraft only for those high rollers who have made it big and who want to show it to the world. D DUKE 40· FEBRUARY 1983