Beech Musketeer/Sundowner

MBDiagMan said:
That means solidly built.
Click to expand...

Very true. Suspension to spar very solid. The airframe's size and dimensions is what makes it slow, but very stable and responsive. Stalls clean, no unexpected turns just, drops the nose. The trailing link suspension is very strong, and no shocks to service.
 
I've got a couple hundred hours in a Sundowner. They're slow, about 105 knots. Thankfully they are also comfortable and fly well. I flew from Arkansas to Idaho and back in it one summer, that was a fun trip. I have never experienced any porpoising problem. The trailing link gear also tends to make you look really good.

AKBill said:
The trailing link suspension is very strong, and no shocks to service.
Click to expand...

There are no shocks, but there are rubber donuts. It's about $800 per gear for the rubber itself, and you need a mechanic who has seen it before to get them just right. Over the long run, probably cheaper than shocks as the rubber lasts a long time.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
I have never experienced any porpoising problem.
Click to expand...

I think in 20 years flying my Beech I can think of two times I had proposing. My bad on both cases.

Got my BE-19 to 13,500 feet one day in Nevada. I must say it took some time..:)
 
AKBill said:
Got my BE-19 to 13,500 feet one day in Nevada. I must say it took some time..:)
Click to expand...
I did about the same in the Sundowner getting over the Rockies from Laramie to Pocatello. It did it, but that was about all the climbing it wanted to do!
 
Hank S said:
Many porpoising incidents start with a too-fast approach, then the pilot relaxes yoke (or pushes forward) because the plane hasn't touched down yet. The impact is nose gear first, which then bounces back up, the pilot pulls back on the yoke, wing stalls, nose drops landing on nose gear, which bounces back up . . . This out-of-sync process continues, with higher bounces each time, until either the nose gear breaks off or the pilot wises up, pushed the throttle all the way in and goes around. Thus the name "Pilot Induced Oscillation," or PIO.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, well that's what we're talking about when we say that ya know.
 
Last I had was in a Mooney M20E a few years ago. It's rare for me since I do my best to get the stick/yoke nearly all the way back on most normal landings.

What got me was after many, many hours flying the Sky Arrow, I instinctively underestimated the amount of pull I needed in the Mooney's flare, and touched down flat long before I intended to. It skipped, then skipped again, then I gave full power and went around, albeit with a bit of yaw to the left as I did so.

A humbling experience.
 
Sorry for the necro posting, but does anyone have experience in a beech sport with 200hp and a CS prop? I understand they are quite rare, but I just heard about one for sale near me, and I'm curious. I guess it has seats in the baggage compartment too, which turns it into a 6 seater.
 
I haven't flown a Super, but other Musketeers are generally well-built, comfortable, good handling airplanes. Speed is not their strong suit, though.

As to the Super, Wikipedia says,

"In 1966 a single demonstration Model 23-24 was equipped with a constant speed propeller. In succeeding years approximately one third of production aircraft were delivered with the constant speed propeller.

The Super Musketeer typically has a useful load of 1050 to 1080 pounds – giving it one of the highest payloads of four-cylinder, fixed gear, simple single-engined aircraft available. Most Model 23-24s were produced in a four-seat configuration. A very small number were produced with a 4+2 configuration with the baggage area convertible to seat two children. This configuration option was more common on the Sierra models that followed the Model 23-24.

One of the few weaknesses of the Model 23-24 was that it had a simple heat distribution system that provided warm air via the firewall to the area under the instrument panel only. This meant heat to the rear seat passengers was less than optimal. Later aircraft featured increasingly better ducting designs that provided heat to all four seating positions.

The fixed-gear Model 23-24 was produced only between 1966 and 1969. A total of 369 Musketeer Super IIIs were completed before it was superseded by the Model 24 Sierra."​

The Beechtalk forum likely has more specific information.
 
Groundpounder said:
Sorry for the necro posting, but does anyone have experience in a beech sport with 200hp and a CS prop? I understand they are quite rare, but I just heard about one for sale near me, and I'm curious. I guess it has seats in the baggage compartment too, which turns it into a 6 seater.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a Beech Sierra. I almost bought one, once. Very comfortable plane. Beech build quality. What interested me was the six seats. But the problem was lack of power. Nice to have those six seats, but the kids would have to be pretty small. The Sierra probably would have been a fantastic plane if it had been equipped 230-235 horsepower engine.
 
WillFly4Food said:
Sounds like a Beech Sierra. I almost bought one, once. Very comfortable plane.
Click to expand...
Musketeer Super III (Model 23-24) was the 200 hp fixed-gear; Sierra (Model 24R) was the 200 hp retractable that came later. Super III had the earlier, slightly narrower fuselage cross-section, but still plenty comfortable.
 
WillFly4Food said:
Sounds like a Beech Sierra. I almost bought one, once. Very comfortable plane. Beech build quality. What interested me was the six seats. But the problem was lack of power. Nice to have those six seats, but the kids would have to be pretty small. The Sierra probably would have been a fantastic plane if it had been equipped 230-235 horsepower engine.
Click to expand...

I have no use for 6 seats, but a potential partner has three little kids, so he could throw one in the back if need be. Turns out I know the guy that owns this Beech whatever, so I will contact him and see what the deal is.
 
Did a little more digging through the archives. Turns out Wiki is not quite accurate in saying the fixed-gear Super was only built between 1966 and 1969.

Through 1969 the 200 hp fixed-gear version was called Model 23-24 Musketeer Super III, as mentioned above. In 1970, the entire Musketeer line was redesigned with a 4-inch wider fuselage and new instrument panel, featuring funky vertical-tape engine gauges. This included the B19 Sport (150 hp) and the C23 Custom (180 hp, renamed Sundowner in 1972). It also included the 1970 A24 Super (200 hp), but only five of these were produced before the 200 hp fixed-gear model was discontinued altogether. Of those five, just one still shows up on the FAA register, in Pennsylvania.

When the 200 hp retractable version came out in 1970 it was initially known as the Model A24R Musketeer Super R. In 1972 it too was renamed, as B24R Sierra.

There will be a quiz. o_O

One nice thing about the Supers is that many of them had the optional left-side cabin door, in addition to the standard right-side door.
 
Groundpounder said:
How slow?
Click to expand...
I’d regularly see 110 kts at around 8000ft.
Super III A23-24 has 200hp, fixed pitch prop.
It really is a tank.
I landed that thing in crosswinds I wouldn’t even consider in a Cessna.
Just dump the Johnson bar flaps when you touch down, and it would just suck to the runway.
The trailing link gear was solid.
Really a solid, solid plane.
Just soooo slow, and a dog of a climber trying to get up over the Sierras.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weiss said:
I’d regularly see 110 kts at around 8000ft.
Super III A23-24 has 200hp, fixed pitch prop.
It really is a tank.
I landed that thing in crosswinds I wouldn’t even consider in a Cessna.
Just dump the Johnson bar flaps when you touch down, and it would just suck to the runway.
The trailing link gear was solid.
Really a solid, solid plane.
Just soooo slow, and a dog of a climber trying to get up over he Sierras.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.
 
The Super III my friend has is $20k. Needs paint and some interior work, but the avionics are decent. 1200 hours on a Penn Yan overhaul, the gear donuts are only a few years old, new windshield and electric fuel pump. Would need an extensive prebuy, but this could be a nice airplane to form a partnership around.
 
Worked at a flight school with a Sierra on the line. Noticed a couple of things - first is that unlike airplanes further up the Beechcraft lineup, the Sundowner, Musketeer series doesn’t possess the usual silky, ball-bearing control feel. Although they were roomy, comfortable little airplanes, they all seemed under-powered. Didn’t really appreciate it until I started flying the Duchess. Whereas the the Sierra would get along okay, it never seemed as spritely as 200hp Arrow or 201 Mooney,...but the Duchess felt like a little hot rod by comparison. It’s true of many airplanes: they don’t really work until a certain power to weight ratio is made. A 180hp Comanche is a dog, but a 260 Comanche just works great. And sometimes it’s just a little more power - a 150hp Bellanca Decathlon is kind of a sled, doesn’t do anything real well, a 150 Citabria will out climb it, but a Super Decathlon with just 30 more horsies seems like a completely different airplane,it does everything well.
 
I did that in a 172 ONCE! It was very ugly. :eek:
 
I flew one a long time ago and it was a solid and nice flying airplane. To answer your question, I think my Cessna 140 would keep up with it.
 
All of the small Beech models tended to be slow or middling in their class. I'd much rather pay Piper maintenance costs for a faster plane, which any competing Cherokee is.
 
N1120A said:
All of the small Beech models tended to be slow or middling in their class. I'd much rather pay Piper maintenance costs for a faster plane, which any competing Cherokee is.
Click to expand...
If you are not in a hurry and just like to fly... Two doors are great, maintenance is straight forward, inexpensive plane to own and operate.
 
AKBill said:
If you are not in a hurry and just like to fly... Two doors are great, maintenance is straight forward, inexpensive plane to own and operate.
Click to expand...

I prefer a sliding canopy and going much faster.
 
One of the local flight schools had a couple of brand new Sundowners and I flew one of them once. It seemed kinda noisy, but maybe that was because I was at full power most of the time. :cool:

I never got to fly the other one because some dude decided to point it straight down onto Capitol Expressway right next to the airport. :eek::eek:
 
The Musketeer is one of the few airplanes that you have to check for bird strikes on the back of the ailerons. They are a bit slow for their horsepower.

Actually, I worked for an FBO as a CFI that had a Sundowner on the line. We used it for the larger students that didn't fit in a 150 very well.

I enjoyed instructing in it. It was very balanced on the controls, forgiving on landings, & roomy inside. I wouldn't hesitate to buy/own one.

I've also go time in the BE-19's. They too are great flying airplanes.

If you're building time, who needs speed?
 
saddletramp said:
The Musketeer is one of the few airplanes that you have to check for bird strikes on the back of the ailerons. They are a bit slow for their horsepower.

Actually, I worked for an FBO as a CFI that had a Sundowner on the line. We used it for the larger students that didn't fit in a 150 very well.

I enjoyed instructing in it. It was very balanced on the controls, forgiving on landings, & roomy inside. I wouldn't hesitate to buy/own one.

I've also go time in the BE-19's. They too are great flying airplanes.

If you're building time, who needs speed?
Click to expand...

Well the biggest problem isn't speed it's the fuel burn. A Cherokee 140 is as fast or faster for similar money on 2gph less fuel and if you find an original 150 hp model you can run mogas!

These aren't popular because they were late to the party when it comes to trainers. People tend to buy what they learned to fly in. The early model Musketeers had an odd ball engine as well. If all you care about is comfort then this is the plane for you. In the same price range you will have the option for an older 172, Cherokee 140, Grumman Traveler, Aero Commander Lark, or some vintage options like Pacers, Stinsons, etc. With the exception of the Grumman, none of these will be more than 5-10 mph faster than the Beech models but will use a little less fuel doing so.
 
saddletramp said:
If you're building time, who needs speed?
Click to expand...

I'll never understand this comment. Why not go farther using the higher speed? Build time actually going somewhere, instead of sitting in a pattern or practice area?
 
N1120A said:
I'll never understand this comment. Why not go farther using the higher speed? Build time actually going somewhere, instead of sitting in a pattern or practice area?
Click to expand...

To what end?? What is further away? If the mission is to time build I would pull the power back to where it barely flies and save the gas. My Cessna 150 is about as slow as it gets and even then I never run it past 60%. I go plenty of places in it and get more hours getting there.
 
The Cherokee 140 empty weight is close to 1300lbs, cruse is about 110kts, holds 36gal. B-19 empty weight is 1450lbs, cruse 105kts, 52 usable.
 
Last edited:
I think the sleeper in this series is the A23/24. It's not underpowered but a little slow for the hp, and the engine has a 1800 hr TBO IIRC, but its comfy and will tolerate ice a little better than most in this class. I had a chance to buy one just after getting my PPL, but the tax man got it first. (The owner "forgot" to pay state use tax for like 5 years.) My CFII flew one in a club and really liked it.
 
Grum.Man said:
To what end?? What is further away? If the mission is to time build I would pull the power back to where it barely flies and save the gas. My Cessna 150 is about as slow as it gets and even then I never run it past 60%. I go plenty of places in it and get more hours getting there.
Click to expand...

Most time builders aren't doing it in their own planes. I get people who fly slow in their own planes to save gas, even if I don't, though that can bring with it some other problems (like early overhauls). I like to get where I'm going faster and only pull back if predicted winds are stronger than expected and I want higher reserves at the end of the line.
 
N1120A said:
Most time builders aren't doing it in their own planes. I get people who fly slow in their own planes to save gas, even if I don't, though that can bring with it some other problems (like early overhauls). I like to get where I'm going faster and only pull back if predicted winds are stronger than expected and I want higher reserves at the end of the line.
Click to expand...

Good point on renting vs owning but we are talking owning here. I don't buy the premise that a lower power setting will cause early overhauls. Lower temps, lower cylinder pressure, lower rpm are all good things for an engine. If I am going someplace I too run at normal power settings. If not I am usually at 50-60%.
 
Grum.Man said:
Good point on renting vs owning but we are talking owning here. I don't buy the premise that a lower power setting will cause early overhauls. Lower temps, lower cylinder pressure, lower rpm are all good things for an engine. If I am going someplace I too run at normal power settings. If not I am usually at 50-60%.
Click to expand...

My engine runs cooler at higher power settings, because I'm going faster. Of course, wind factors into that as well. Still, why own a slower plane that burns the same gas? If you want to burn 8 gallons an hour, why fly a 172 or Musketeer, when you can fly a Warrior or a Cheetah? This is why I never get the cult of the fixed gear 182.
 
N1120A said:
My engine runs cooler at higher power settings, because I'm going faster. Of course, wind factors into that as well. Still, why own a slower plane that burns the same gas? If you want to burn 8 gallons an hour, why fly a 172 or Musketeer, when you can fly a Warrior or a Cheetah? This is why I never get the cult of the fixed gear 182.
Click to expand...

We aren't going to convince each other of our point of view but there are a lot of reasons to own a particular plane even if it's slower on less fuel. If I was a bigger person who liked long cross countries I would be in the market for a Musketeer. Some people like high wing planes for camping and sight seeing. Add to that 172's and Musketeer's are usually cheaper than a Warrior or Cheetah.
 
I know this sounds strange, but there are people who see flight training and GA as a necessary evil enroute to the airline bus-driver job, and nothing more. No romance of it, no enjoyment of travel, challenge, or walking in historical shoes. They couldn't give a rats about sightseeing or going places. They want the cheapest thing that will hang in the sky and tick over the hobbs on its way to their logbook entry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top