Beech Musketeer
Thread Starter
Beech Musketeer
Just wondering why the Beech Musketeer, didn't prove as popular as the Cessna 172 and the Piper Pa-28?
Was it due to price, maintenance or performance?
Was it due to price, maintenance or performance?
Have you ever flown one?
To call its performance "anaemic" is an insult to anaemics everywhere
To call its performance "anaemic" is an insult to anaemics everywhere
Was it due to price, maintenance or performance?
Dunno about the Musketeer, but the Sundowner is a pleasant enough aircraft to fly. Performance maybe a little shy of a 181, but seems nicely built and with a comfortable interior. Handles nicely, too.
I suspect marketing (or lack of) may have had something to do with it. The Cherokee/Cessna a/c in the same class already had a pretty firm popularity rating by the time anyone from Beech started trying to sell them, in NZ, anyway. Same with the Skipper vs Tomahawk scenario. Piper had it all over Beech for marketing, although the Skipper is reportedly a pretty good trainer.
I suspect marketing (or lack of) may have had something to do with it. The Cherokee/Cessna a/c in the same class already had a pretty firm popularity rating by the time anyone from Beech started trying to sell them, in NZ, anyway. Same with the Skipper vs Tomahawk scenario. Piper had it all over Beech for marketing, although the Skipper is reportedly a pretty good trainer.
Very average machine.
Even with 200hp they are slow as hell, the little bit of cabin room in no way compensates for the absolute lack of performance.
They do have nice enough controls once airborne.
The plane Mr Beech built while Mrs Beech was away.
Even with 200hp they are slow as hell, the little bit of cabin room in no way compensates for the absolute lack of performance.
They do have nice enough controls once airborne.
The plane Mr Beech built while Mrs Beech was away.
Maybe the one I flew was above average. (Yes, one. Just one.)
On a trip where a similar-aged Archer2 trued out at 123, the Sundowner trued at 119..not that much of a difference. Same power setting/fuel consumption.
Takeoff/landing performance seemed OK. No stol machine, but no worse than the Archer and maybe a little better.
On a trip where a similar-aged Archer2 trued out at 123, the Sundowner trued at 119..not that much of a difference. Same power setting/fuel consumption.
Takeoff/landing performance seemed OK. No stol machine, but no worse than the Archer and maybe a little better.
Im far from a seasoned ace in them myself (thank god), flown just 2 of them and they both sucked. (fixed gear musketeer I'm referring to)
The 200hp one wheezes its way to 105-110 perhaps and struggles to get above 4500 feet on a warm day with 2 people and gas...
When I compare that to a Mooney or Cardinal and what they can achieve with the same horsepower I wonder why they bothered.
The 200hp one wheezes its way to 105-110 perhaps and struggles to get above 4500 feet on a warm day with 2 people and gas...
When I compare that to a Mooney or Cardinal and what they can achieve with the same horsepower I wonder why they bothered.
I flew a 'mouskateer' only once. Typical Beech felt solid enuf but due size was slowish. Bigger airframe than it's competitors I reckon with a nice draggy wing & you pay for that, drag man lots of drag. Bit of an ugly ducking & as has been said, marketing, that's what sells anything never lone planes. I found the Duchess similar, bit of an ugly ducking & felt like it whilst taxiing, waddled along:-) The Rockwell 112/114 kind of suffered from that also, very wide fuse & with 4 pot donks where slugs! The 6 pot version wasn't much better!
Wmk2
Wmk2
The 200hp one wheezes its way to 105-110 perhaps and struggles to get above 4500 feet on a warm day with 2 people and gas...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kalgoorlie
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi I have about 600 hours in the 200hp mouse.It seems to be aircraft that you just have to love most pilots hate them. My aircraft is built like a brick ****house performs like a brick ****house. So if you are looking for a aircraft that performs well the mouse will not impress you however if you looking for reliable aircraft that is as reliable as a brick ****house the mouse is for you.
I plan on 115kts and I get it I burn 42 lts a hour I can carry a good size swag and couple cartons of beer. If going bush i also carry another 100 lts of fuel in plastic jerry cans this gives me enough to do all my work. So the mouse has carried my sorry arse across Australia and always got me home. So if you have only got a couple of hours you just cannot pass judgement on what is bloody good aircraft.
I plan on 115kts and I get it I burn 42 lts a hour I can carry a good size swag and couple cartons of beer. If going bush i also carry another 100 lts of fuel in plastic jerry cans this gives me enough to do all my work. So the mouse has carried my sorry arse across Australia and always got me home. So if you have only got a couple of hours you just cannot pass judgement on what is bloody good aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree Bushmongrel, I spend a little time in a good mates Mouse... she's a solid, reliable wee machine and frankly a pleasure to fly in comparison to other aircraft of a similar size!
It's horses for courses, isn't it? When I'm taking the Mouse, I ain't in a hurry, there's no pressure and everything is well in hand. She lifts four (admittedly not huge) adults in acceptable comfort for short flights. I find that things like the RPM tend to stay where I put them in the Mouse too... not forever hunting the bloody throttle like in the 172 or other equivalent fixed-pitch aircraft.
She's a fine wee machine fairly well suited to her design task I reckon -although as others have said, getting a bit long in the tooth now. My mates one is about due out of a lengthy period of TLC... looking fwd to seeing her again! She'll be a minter
It's horses for courses, isn't it? When I'm taking the Mouse, I ain't in a hurry, there's no pressure and everything is well in hand. She lifts four (admittedly not huge) adults in acceptable comfort for short flights. I find that things like the RPM tend to stay where I put them in the Mouse too... not forever hunting the bloody throttle like in the 172 or other equivalent fixed-pitch aircraft.
She's a fine wee machine fairly well suited to her design task I reckon -although as others have said, getting a bit long in the tooth now. My mates one is about due out of a lengthy period of TLC... looking fwd to seeing her again! She'll be a minter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I plan on 115kts and I get it I burn 42 lts a hour I can carry a good size swag and couple cartons of beer. If going bush i also carry another 100 lts of fuel in plastic jerry cans this gives me enough to do all my work. So the mouse has carried my sorry arse across Australia and always got me home. So if you have only got a couple of hours you just cannot pass judgement on what is bloody good aircraft.
The 200 horse mouse retract
I did a fair bit of time in had an EDM and properly managed she burned about 31lph from memory. It was a bit faster of course, but not a lot.It was a stable old girl in cloud and it's vsi was pretty stable in a climb too!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Under the wing, asleep.
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also built a aerobatic Bonanza, lovely too. 
As a general comment, Beech machines are very well done, but the babies did not out perform the competition like in the bigger models.
As a general comment, Beech machines are very well done, but the babies did not out perform the competition like in the bigger models.
