Beech A23-19 Musketeer facts anyone?
Thread Starter
Beech A23-19 Musketeer facts anyone?
Hi guys,
I've been pointed towards a very nice Musketeer to take part in, but can't find anything useful on the net (or here) with regards to cruise performance and the likes. It's the 150 hp version. Pilotfriend e.t.c. talk of 114 kt @75% and a range of 800 NM. Any comments?
Looking for cruise data and fuel flow @ 6000 ft arounds for 75% 65% 55% if available.
The operative issue is 800 NM range, which is just about what I'd need. Is that realistic at all or is it P(R)OH fiction?
Thanks for any infos available.
I've been pointed towards a very nice Musketeer to take part in, but can't find anything useful on the net (or here) with regards to cruise performance and the likes. It's the 150 hp version. Pilotfriend e.t.c. talk of 114 kt @75% and a range of 800 NM. Any comments?
Looking for cruise data and fuel flow @ 6000 ft arounds for 75% 65% 55% if available.
The operative issue is 800 NM range, which is just about what I'd need. Is that realistic at all or is it P(R)OH fiction?
Thanks for any infos available.
I did some flying in one a few years ago and would say that the performance was virtually identical to a PA28 with the same engine.
So, if you look at a PA28-150, which is pretty well documented (or just assume 5-10% poorer performance with the same fuel consumption as a PA28-161) I think you'd be pretty much spot on.
Personally I'd be rather suspicious of claims of 800nm range. From memory the fuel capacity is 60 USgal, which is 230 litres. I used to have a Warrior that would do 28 litres/hr at about 110kn (carefully leaned, always clean aircraft, spats and teflon), at 230 litres, that would be 900nm without reserves. But, with (a) an elderly aircraft most likely without spats, (b) any tail or crosswind, (c) reserves, it's just not going to do it.
On the other hand - who in their right mind wants to fly 8 hours in a light aircraft? Make one fuel/pee stop halfway and you should have no problems unless you really are flying between two airfields 800nm apart with nothing in between.
G
So, if you look at a PA28-150, which is pretty well documented (or just assume 5-10% poorer performance with the same fuel consumption as a PA28-161) I think you'd be pretty much spot on.
Personally I'd be rather suspicious of claims of 800nm range. From memory the fuel capacity is 60 USgal, which is 230 litres. I used to have a Warrior that would do 28 litres/hr at about 110kn (carefully leaned, always clean aircraft, spats and teflon), at 230 litres, that would be 900nm without reserves. But, with (a) an elderly aircraft most likely without spats, (b) any tail or crosswind, (c) reserves, it's just not going to do it.
On the other hand - who in their right mind wants to fly 8 hours in a light aircraft? Make one fuel/pee stop halfway and you should have no problems unless you really are flying between two airfields 800nm apart with nothing in between.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand - who in their right mind wants to fly 8 hours in a light aircraft? Make one fuel/pee stop halfway and you should have no problems unless you really are flying between two airfields 800nm apart with nothing in between.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew a guy (vaguely) who flew one. The quote from the Beech owners club was always useful to wind him up;
Musketeers are not THAT much slower than 172s and Warriors, is the present version, I seem to remember it was less flattering a while ago!
His certainly seemed reluctant to get off the ground and less than spritely once airborne. I would think the 800 miles is pretty much a fairy tale. If I recall it struggled to keep up with a Pa22 (160) for speed, took twice the runway and burnt more fuel.
So that would be 95 - 100kts and over 30lts/hr which would make it a fair bit short in terms of endurance.
But if you can fly for 8 hours plus without a stop you're a better man than me!
Musketeers are not THAT much slower than 172s and Warriors, is the present version, I seem to remember it was less flattering a while ago!
His certainly seemed reluctant to get off the ground and less than spritely once airborne. I would think the 800 miles is pretty much a fairy tale. If I recall it struggled to keep up with a Pa22 (160) for speed, took twice the runway and burnt more fuel.
So that would be 95 - 100kts and over 30lts/hr which would make it a fair bit short in terms of endurance.
But if you can fly for 8 hours plus without a stop you're a better man than me!
G
Thread Starter
Thanks guys, neat to see how quick the information is pouring in. If any of you has a chance to look at the POH of one, I'd be much obliged to see some data on what the manufacturer actually thinks these can do.
Re long haul, well, certainly not regularly and Ghengis, I am much in agreement about that Autopilot. Knowing my mission profile however and looking around what is there for the budget, this one seems very clean and exceptionally kept and it is the only one where at least the manufacturer seems to claim it can do these 800 NM if you need them. I have done 4+4 hour trips before and was forced to operate into "unfriendly" regions of the European GA where a simple pit stop can turn into 4 hours do battle with uncooperative or "suddenly closed" Avgas stations, horrendous handling claims or slots 4 hours away, apart, it's nice to be able to take cheap fuel when you can find it and use it where you can't. Nice to simply hop on board again knowing you have got that 3 hours left on board to go elsewhere.
Comparing it to a Warrior with 60 USG tanks would seem to work then and not be bad in the regard that I have actually been thinking about either a Cherokee 140/150 or a Cheetah with LR since I can't afford a HR100 which would do the profile nicely with 10 hours of fuel and about 140 KTAS.
I do get your concerns, in fact, that is why I ask. Looking at the fact that I am researching this one (getting wings) to death since about 3 years just makes it clear to me that what I really want does probably not exist within my budget. (800 NM range, 120-130 KTAS @ < 8 GPH) and that I will need to compromise or desist.
Best regards
An2 Driver
Re long haul, well, certainly not regularly and Ghengis, I am much in agreement about that Autopilot. Knowing my mission profile however and looking around what is there for the budget, this one seems very clean and exceptionally kept and it is the only one where at least the manufacturer seems to claim it can do these 800 NM if you need them. I have done 4+4 hour trips before and was forced to operate into "unfriendly" regions of the European GA where a simple pit stop can turn into 4 hours do battle with uncooperative or "suddenly closed" Avgas stations, horrendous handling claims or slots 4 hours away, apart, it's nice to be able to take cheap fuel when you can find it and use it where you can't. Nice to simply hop on board again knowing you have got that 3 hours left on board to go elsewhere.
Comparing it to a Warrior with 60 USG tanks would seem to work then and not be bad in the regard that I have actually been thinking about either a Cherokee 140/150 or a Cheetah with LR since I can't afford a HR100 which would do the profile nicely with 10 hours of fuel and about 140 KTAS.
I do get your concerns, in fact, that is why I ask. Looking at the fact that I am researching this one (getting wings) to death since about 3 years just makes it clear to me that what I really want does probably not exist within my budget. (800 NM range, 120-130 KTAS @ < 8 GPH) and that I will need to compromise or desist.
Best regards
An2 Driver
Last edited by AN2 Driver; 16th Sep 2009 at 16:25.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do get your concerns, in fact, that is why I ask. Looking at the fact that I am researching this one (getting wings) to death since about 3 years just makes it clear to me that what I really want does probably not exist within my budget. (800 NM range, 120-130 KTAS @ > 8 GPH) and that I will need to compromise or desist.
Unfortunately there are not many around and rarely seen for sale. The predecessor was the Reims Rocket, does the same thing but a little older and I have seen a couple kicking around for sale in GA Buyer.
If you are flying solo and happy to remain VMC, then a CT would do what you're after easily - it'll give you in the order of 900nm range at about 110-120kn.
If you want IMC capability, then this might well do it, or hold out and look for a big-tanked PA28 which will probably be easier to get spares and support for.
A 200hp Arrow, for example, cruises at 5,000ft / 65% power / 124kn / 36 L/hr with 279 litres useable. That'll give you 960nm. A bit better if you are patient and fly at 55% power / 111kn.
G
If you want IMC capability, then this might well do it, or hold out and look for a big-tanked PA28 which will probably be easier to get spares and support for.
A 200hp Arrow, for example, cruises at 5,000ft / 65% power / 124kn / 36 L/hr with 279 litres useable. That'll give you 960nm. A bit better if you are patient and fly at 55% power / 111kn.
G
My experience has been that an average example light of any make of light aircraft, will do about 10 % less than all book figures (cruise,climb,t/o distance etc). This is because the book figures were obtained in a brand new perfectly rigged aircraft flown by a test pilot with a million hours flying experience. I flew a 150 hp Be 23 ( it was called the Beechcraft "Sport" if I recall correctly) a few times, about 10 yrs ago. I remember it as having a very roomy and comfortable cabin with 2 doors and generally pleasant flying charcteristics. Since it has a powerfull all flying tail you did have to be carefull not to over controll in the flare. It is noticably bigger in every dimension than a PA 28 and has very sturdy construction which made the usefull load very low. I seem to remember it would carry just two people with very little baggage if you were full of fuel. It was , I thought also rather under powered as it did not have a great rate of climb and only cruised at about 100 kts. I later flew the 180 hp "Sundowner" model. This aircraft was only about 5 kts faster but the extra power gave it a good rate of climb and it had a decent usefull load.
Thread Starter
Ghengis,
usually 2 of us, but what is a CT anyway? Have not come across that one yet.
yes, the Arrow III/IV will do the trick, but are on the expensive side.
Currently there is a M20C and a Cherokee 140/150 in the closer consideration plus an Arrow II, all of which are 50 USG planes but have the advantage of fitting into the budget. Yea, I could wait and "save up" but somehow I believe if I'll do much more of that, I'll hang it up eventually before I get there. Renting has never been my piece of cake, nor sharing.
Also the fact that basically no advertized planes come with Mode S and the new ELT make for an additional dent in the budget as they will set one back at least 10k Euros (with install and EASA paperwork).
Best regards
An2 driver
usually 2 of us, but what is a CT anyway? Have not come across that one yet.
yes, the Arrow III/IV will do the trick, but are on the expensive side.
Currently there is a M20C and a Cherokee 140/150 in the closer consideration plus an Arrow II, all of which are 50 USG planes but have the advantage of fitting into the budget. Yea, I could wait and "save up" but somehow I believe if I'll do much more of that, I'll hang it up eventually before I get there. Renting has never been my piece of cake, nor sharing.
Also the fact that basically no advertized planes come with Mode S and the new ELT make for an additional dent in the budget as they will set one back at least 10k Euros (with install and EASA paperwork).
Best regards
An2 driver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did some flying in one a few years ago and would say that the performance was virtually identical to a PA28 with the same engine.
Ghengis,
usually 2 of us, but what is a CT anyway? Have not come across that one yet.
yes, the Arrow III/IV will do the trick, but are on the expensive side.
Currently there is a M20C and a Cherokee 140/150 in the closer consideration plus an Arrow II, all of which are 50 USG planes but have the advantage of fitting into the budget. Yea, I could wait and "save up" but somehow I believe if I'll do much more of that, I'll hang it up eventually before I get there. Renting has never been my piece of cake, nor sharing.
Also the fact that basically no advertized planes come with Mode S and the new ELT make for an additional dent in the budget as they will set one back at least 10k Euros (with install and EASA paperwork).
Best regards
An2 driver
usually 2 of us, but what is a CT anyway? Have not come across that one yet.
yes, the Arrow III/IV will do the trick, but are on the expensive side.
Currently there is a M20C and a Cherokee 140/150 in the closer consideration plus an Arrow II, all of which are 50 USG planes but have the advantage of fitting into the budget. Yea, I could wait and "save up" but somehow I believe if I'll do much more of that, I'll hang it up eventually before I get there. Renting has never been my piece of cake, nor sharing.
Also the fact that basically no advertized planes come with Mode S and the new ELT make for an additional dent in the budget as they will set one back at least 10k Euros (with install and EASA paperwork).
Best regards
An2 driver
I've only personally flown the older model CT2K but the performance and handling were both sparkling - the main drawback was the payload, which was pretty poor. The new CTLS, which I believe you can buy from P&M with an EASA Permit as a light aircraft solved the payload problem without ruining the rest.
It's quite a popular machine and there are a few syndicates running on them if you look around, or you'd probably not struggle to set up a syndicate and sell shares if you want to share the cost.
G
Thread Starter
Ah, ok, a Microlight. Well, unfortuately, where I live these are banned. Not sure about the LS cathegory, but I believe no joy there as well. Apart, I am not exactly in the cathegory of a "light" pilot 
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: NYC
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA28
I have over 20 years of experience flying PA28/150,161,180,236. Except for the 236 , the others have a fuel capacity of 50 gallons with 48 usable. The engine in the pa28 is an IO360. I have found the furthest I've ever been able to fly the plane is 500 nm leaning out to the max. The draw back is that you are landing with minimum reserves of maybe 4 gallons per side. Normal flying in these planes should be about 450 miles and then landing with a 45 minute reserve.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater
I've flown one a few times and been along as a pax as well.
Here's me in the rhs at Subic Bay.
She was slow, slow, slow. But really roomy up front and in the rear.
Remember the heavy handbrake flap leaver that required a really firm pull to get to the last detent.
100 kts cruise just possible if I recall. 3 POB max and still ponderous performance.
Had a soft spot for it, as did those who flew it more often.
I've flown one a few times and been along as a pax as well.
Here's me in the rhs at Subic Bay.
She was slow, slow, slow. But really roomy up front and in the rear.
Remember the heavy handbrake flap leaver that required a really firm pull to get to the last detent.
100 kts cruise just possible if I recall. 3 POB max and still ponderous performance.
Had a soft spot for it, as did those who flew it more often.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a 150hp Muskateer sitting right next to my machine in hangar. They tell about 90-100 kts cruise with 30 liter per hour, so pretty much comparable to an old 172.
BUT, there is one important thing to consider: the landing gear is quite womanish and finicky, due to the only thing between you and ground is a hard rubber block = no shock absorber, no swinging band steel spring, no catholicity for a hard landing. You have to be VERY good in landing and a hard landing will destroy the gear mounts.
BUT, there is one important thing to consider: the landing gear is quite womanish and finicky, due to the only thing between you and ground is a hard rubber block = no shock absorber, no swinging band steel spring, no catholicity for a hard landing. You have to be VERY good in landing and a hard landing will destroy the gear mounts.
the landing gear is quite womanish and finicky, due to the only thing between you and ground is a hard rubber block
...'cos all the air's escaped!
FBW
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW the University of Illinois flight program use to use Beech Sports (similar). You might contact them for info.
I understand some of these planes were aerobatic!
I never flew one. BUT if I may offer these observations about Beech. The bonanza was nice.
BUT
Compare the seminole to the duchess and the duchess was awful.
compare the tomahawk to the beech skipper and the skipper was worse than awful.
but it is up to you. and I sure wouldn't buy one until I had flown it for at least five hours.
I understand some of these planes were aerobatic!
I never flew one. BUT if I may offer these observations about Beech. The bonanza was nice.
BUT
Compare the seminole to the duchess and the duchess was awful.
compare the tomahawk to the beech skipper and the skipper was worse than awful.
but it is up to you. and I sure wouldn't buy one until I had flown it for at least five hours.