Beech Musketeers

AggieMike88

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,804
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
A friend sent me a notice that the following aircraft is for sale and located near Waco, TX. 1966 Beech C23-24 Musketeer SUPER III Sport 200. Price was in the low $30's with 2500 TTAF and low times on engine, P & I about 7 & 8.

What can the gallery share with me about these aircraft? What are it's good/bad points, what are the items to look at closely during pre-buy?

This has a possibility of being added to a club as a training aircraft.


(And do I need to wear a floppy hat, van dyke beard, and swash boots when flying one? :D )

.
 

Attachments

  • the-three-musketeers.jpg
    the-three-musketeers.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 60
Huge cabin (nice), a little slow, but the Super III is better because that word, "Super," means more power. Stable, built like a Beech (good thing).

Probably be a good club plane, as long as it is in good condition, but I would not buy one as my "own and fly forever" plane because I like to fly faster.

Bo Boggs (occasionally on here, user name "the Old Man," bases at Aero Country) has a 23, with (IIRC) the O346 engine, and flies all over the place with it; think he flight plans about 105 knots. He's in the Beech Aero Club (or soimething like that), type club for the 23s & 24s, bet you could find the right guy for a pre-buy and general advising there.

www.beechaeroclub.org
 
I've got about 31 hours in the Musketeer brand, but few in the 200HP super III. They are fairly quiet, comfy, solid, and sloooooooow. Even with 200HP it is still well behind comparable fixed gear planes of same HP. I think I know this plane. It came from down near Fredericksburg and was for sale about 7 years ago by an older man. It was brought up to Waco by the next owner and now it looks like he's selling. If it's the same one, this has fixed pitch prop and only four seats(some had kiddie seats in back).

Of course, the gear donuts need to be checked, and the pivot bolts as well. Not a lot of worry on corrosion but it's always a candidate for checking. I've heard the side glass tends to get cracks in the corners because it's flat plexi to save money but I haven't seen that myself. The fuselage is rather slab sided, and the looks are stodgy but that doesn't affect how it flies.

The same airframe is the retract Sierra with the same engine HP.
 
Roomy, almost as fast as driving, built well. I'd be a little scared of the IO346 models due to their obscurity. The landing gear looks weird to me.
 
What makes them so draggy compared to lesser-powered fixed gear 4 seaters?
 
If you're seriously considering a baby beech, then like any other type it might be prudent to look at accident reports to see if it is particularly hazardous in any way.

Below is one such accident report. Don't let this dissuade you if you really want one, but it does serve to point out a particular area of concern with this model. Be careful out there.


NTSB Identification: BS012345
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 1, 2006 in Columbia, MO
Aircraft: Beech C24R (Sierra) Registration: N222SL
Injuries: 2 Uninjured
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 1, 2006, at 1231 CST, a Beech C24R (Sierra), N222SL, piloted by a private pilot, was damaged during an in-flight collision north of Columbia, Missouri. The personal flight was being conducted under 14 CFR Part 91 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. Whiteman approach observed a large radar return believed to be a flock of migratory waterfowl. The controller informed the pilot of the radar return, which was located immediately north of the aircraft flight path and was moving in an E-SE direction. The pilot acknowledged and immediately afterward requested a course deviation to the south to avoid a cumulus build up. The controller approved deviations as-needed and subsequently informed the pilot that the radar return had also altered course and was now at his 6 o-clock position and approximately 2 miles. The pilot informed Whiteman approach that he was going to make a 90 deg turn momentarily to “take a look”. The airplane turned to the west, then immediately returned to a southerly heading. At 1224 The pilot confirmed he had visual contact with a very large flock of Canadian geese at his same altitude. At 1227 Whiteman approach informed the controller that the radar return appeared to be overtaking the aircraft and requested the pilot to “say airspeed”. The pilot responded that he was increasing power and asked for a descent. Whiteman approved altitude and course deviations as-needed. The aircraft was observed to descend but no appreciable speed increase was noted. At 1231 the aircraft was struck in the empennage and trailing edge of the left wing by an estimated 7 geese, damaging the rudder and left aileron. The pilot executed an emergency landing at Columbia MO (COU) airport. The pilot and one passenger were uninjured. The flight departed Kansas City Downtown Airport (MKC) at1015. The intended destination was St. Louis Spirit Airport (SUS).
 
JHW said:
If you're seriously considering a baby beech, then like any other type it might be prudent to look at accident reports to see if it is particularly hazardous in any way.

Below is one such accident report. Don't let this dissuade you if you really want one, but it does serve to point out a particular area of concern with this model. Be careful out there.


NTSB Identification: BS012345
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 1, 2006 in Columbia, MO
Aircraft: Beech C24R (Sierra) Registration: N222SL
Injuries: 2 Uninjured
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 1, 2006, at 1231 CST, a Beech C24R (Sierra), N222SL, piloted by a private pilot, was damaged during an in-flight collision north of Columbia, Missouri. The personal flight was being conducted under 14 CFR Part 91 on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. Whiteman approach observed a large radar return believed to be a flock of migratory waterfowl. The controller informed the pilot of the radar return, which was located immediately north of the aircraft flight path and was moving in an E-SE direction. The pilot acknowledged and immediately afterward requested a course deviation to the south to avoid a cumulus build up. The controller approved deviations as-needed and subsequently informed the pilot that the radar return had also altered course and was now at his 6 o-clock position and approximately 2 miles. The pilot informed Whiteman approach that he was going to make a 90 deg turn momentarily to “take a look”. The airplane turned to the west, then immediately returned to a southerly heading. At 1224 The pilot confirmed he had visual contact with a very large flock of Canadian geese at his same altitude. At 1227 Whiteman approach informed the controller that the radar return appeared to be overtaking the aircraft and requested the pilot to “say airspeed”. The pilot responded that he was increasing power and asked for a descent. Whiteman approved altitude and course deviations as-needed. The aircraft was observed to descend but no appreciable speed increase was noted. At 1231 the aircraft was struck in the empennage and trailing edge of the left wing by an estimated 7 geese, damaging the rudder and left aileron. The pilot executed an emergency landing at Columbia MO (COU) airport. The pilot and one passenger were uninjured. The flight departed Kansas City Downtown Airport (MKC) at1015. The intended destination was St. Louis Spirit Airport (SUS).
Click to expand...



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Having gotten my PPL in a C23 Sundowner, and operating same in a flight school environment, I have some general bullets.

I also own a Super-3 now for grocery-getting in addition to the V-Tail.

==

Pro:

Built like a brick outhouse.

Super roomy inside. You can fly very big and tall pilots with only W&B ballasting.

Parts can be expensive, you don't replace them as often, so it's a wash.

Good useful on the super in its HP class (ours is 1,020#)

Con:

They are not stone-simple to land well. If your clientele are newbies and doing primary training, you WILL frustrate some of them. The plane wants to land on speed, and deviations of only a few mph on final will cause either a porpoise (which must either add power or go around to correct), or a slam-down.

Piper or Cessnas are more forgiving. Club members with proper checkout shouldn't be a problem. Noobs will cost you an LNG collapse every few years. Insurance rates will reflect this.

Dowdy looks. :)

==

The Super-3 can be flown at 130kt (at least, mine can), but at 12gph. You're flogging the thing at these power settings. Better to plan 120 and 10gph.

$0.02

- Mike
 
AggieMike88 said:
(And do I need to wear a floppy hat, van dyke beard, and swash boots when flying one? :D )

.
Click to expand...

Yes, but:

The cabin roof spoils the flow of the plume from your hat and you have to remove your sword to board.

Other than that I have a few hours in them and they are a stable and really honest machine. Slow as heck, (but faster than a goose no matter what you read elsewhere), Good trainer, good for $100 burger runs nearby. Not a long distance traveller.
 
Hopefully Gary Mascelli will be along to tell you about his Sundowner. Also my recollection is that the Super Musketeer only has one door.
 
cheap weenie said:
The main thing is how wide they are.
Click to expand...
Musketeers built from 1970 onward had widened cabins, adding 4-1/2 inches at the front occupants' elbows. The '66 that the OP is looking at has the narrower, more slab-sided cabin, but even that is not bad.

According to the source I was looking at, only 5 Supers (200 hp) were built from 1970 on.

AdamZ said:
Also my recollection is that the Super Musketeer only has one door.
Click to expand...

The left-side door was an option, so some Supers have them, some don't. Constant-speed props were also optional on the Supers, but only 86 were so equipped from the factory.
 
Last edited:
Funny:

Many Musketeers were built with landing gear switches, gear indicator lights and fixed gear, as training aids.
 
I've always liked the idea of the Musketeer because it's a Beech and seems more solidly built than the other small planes I've flown. I read years ago that they are known for porpoising due to the rubber donut suspension, so I was always hesitant about them.

A fellow at our strip has a beautiful example that I have flown a few times and find it great. I have landed it a couple of times and I don't understand why the warning about the porpoising was even written. To me it seems to land like anything else.

The fellow who owns the one I've flown is a football player sized guy, probably 240 and 6'2". I'm 190 and 6'1" myself and we both fit in it easily.

One thing that you might not have thought of, is that when it comes to parts availability, this is not a 150 or a 172. A few times, my friend has been down for a number of weeks while awaiting parts. Once was an exhaust system which would have been quick off the shelf for a Cessna, but it was a long drawn out deal getting it taken care of on his plane. I don't remember what his other parts delay involved.

I expect that the roominess of these planes has a lot to do with their slow speeds because they have so much more frontal area than other planes of this size, producing added drag.

Yeah, they are not known as speed demons, but if you don't need a fast plane, I think you would find it to be very pleasant to fly.

My $0.02,
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
Below is one such accident report. Don't let this dissuade you if you really want one, but it does serve to point out a particular area of concern with this model. Be careful out there.
Click to expand...
Concern because the thing is so slow it was overtaken by a flock of Canadian Geese? Dang, what is the typcial cruise speed of a goose...and I don't mean the G21 kind?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Concern because the thing is so slow it was overtaken by a flock of Canadian Geese? Dang, what is the typcial cruise speed of a goose...and I don't mean the G21 kind?
Click to expand...


Well, if it is dangerous because it is slow, then my 140 is a death trap.:lol: I fly in my friends Musketeer when I want to go fast.:D
 
schmookeeg said:
Con:

They are not stone-simple to land well. If your clientele are newbies and doing primary training, you WILL frustrate some of them. The plane wants to land on speed, and deviations of only a few mph on final will cause either a porpoise (which must either add power or go around to correct), or a slam-down.

Piper or Cessnas are more forgiving. Club members with proper checkout shouldn't be a problem. Noobs will cost you an LNG collapse every few years. Insurance rates will reflect this.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you, but I would never have guessed that.....I didn't think Beech built a plane that wasn't easy to land. I've never been inside a Musketeer, but always thought it looked like a single engine Duchess which is one of the easiest airplanes to land that I have flown.
 
MBDiagMan said:
A fellow at our strip has a beautiful example that I have flown a few times and find it great. I have landed it a couple of times and I don't understand why the warning about the porpoising was even written. To me it seems to land like anything else.
Click to expand...

It took me a while to get the hang of using flaps on the Beech Sport that I flew (I learned to fly in a Cessna 120 with no flaps), but once I got it down to the runway, I don't recall any problems with the acual landing. :dunno:
 
Cherokees are faster, more plentiful, and less expensive. With only 1200 parts there just isn't much to break, and parts are everywhere.
 
steingar said:
Cherokees are faster, more plentiful, and less expensive. With only 1200 parts there just isn't much to break, and parts are everywhere.
Click to expand...
ayep. I never understood why some people came to view "built like a bridge" as a positive for an aircraft. i guess if the airplane was made of iron bars it would be even better.
 
I kind of like having a plane that is certified in the utility category up to full gross weight and can still pull 160kts. Sadly, the Musketeer design only meets half of that package. Solid gear is also a nice thing when conditions aren't perfect. Makes landings just a bit more assured without tearing up costly bits of the plane.
 
AdamZ said:
Hopefully Gary Mascelli will be along to tell you about his Sundowner. Also my recollection is that the Super Musketeer only has one door.
Click to expand...

Sorry Adam, I would share but why waste my breath......I wouldn't buy one, they suck they are slow, ugly and whatever else you can think of. So much easier then offering good info on a plane that I fly.

If anyone wants real info on the Beech Sundowner or the older mice send me an PM, I'll provide as much info on prebuy or maintenance that I can.
 
The OP should buy Gary's airplane. It's real pretty, and I hear he's looking for something faster.:wink2:
 
steingar said:
The OP should buy Gary's airplane. It's real pretty, and I hear he's looking for something faster.:wink2:
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael, but no, we are keeping 08Romeo.....I dont want the added expense of retract or starting over on maintenance. Comfort is way more important than speed for for Mary and I. Besides we already have a complete set of glasses with 08Romeo's tail number, what would we do then? ;)
 
I'm not in the market for a 140, just was browsing around BS and TAP. I have a plane which is plenty fast and hauls enough now, but I was comparing the prices on the 140 to what I used to see maybe 5-7 years ago. Seemed like a lot of decline that I couldn't figure, but the commentary on decline seems rather spot on.
 
I've owned a B model Sierra now for several years and my wife and I just love the thing, it's the perfect plane for what we do. I've thought about buying something faster, and I keep looking, but for the trips we make, it would basically take 10 minutes off of the flight..which is depriving myself of 10 minutes of flying time. Also, this may seem petty to other pilots, but I just don't think I can give up my pilot-side door after flying with one for so long. The combination of pilot-side door and low wings are both very attractive to me (but I do recognize that that's just a personal opinion).
 
That Sierra retract dealeo is the bees knees!
 
Challenged said:
I've owned a B model Sierra now for several years and my wife and I just love the thing, it's the perfect plane for what we do. I've thought about buying something faster, and I keep looking, but for the trips we make, it would basically take 10 minutes off of the flight..which is depriving myself of 10 minutes of flying time. Also, this may seem petty to other pilots, but I just don't think I can give up my pilot-side door after flying with one for so long. The combination of pilot-side door and low wings are both very attractive to me (but I do recognize that that's just a personal opinion).
Click to expand...

There is a really beautiful and nicely modified Sierra at my airport. The owner bought it before ever flying at all and started to take lessons. It appears that I am going to get the opportunity to use it for some of my commercial training and I am very pumped about it.
 
GMascelli said:
Sorry Adam, I would share but why waste my breath......I wouldn't buy one, they suck they are slow, ugly and whatever else you can think of. So much easier then offering good info on a plane that I fly.
Click to expand...

My sarcasm detector broke. I can't tell if you're serious or pouting.
 
JHW said:
ayep. I never understood why some people came to view "built like a bridge" as a positive for an aircraft. i guess if the airplane was made of iron bars it would be even better.
Click to expand...

It's the difference between say, 6 squawks a year vs 12, knowing that both cost the same.

I understand that there are crummy and under-maintained beeches, and well-maintained creampuff C/P planes. It has been my experience that equal effort in maintenance over time yields fewer squawks on the heavier beech, at same cost. The Musketeer pays for that with about 2gph, the Bonanza about the same, so it's not "free"

I think the difference is only philosophical. Some people think a pound of chrome is the only appropriate watch to wear too. :D
 
schmookeeg said:
It's the difference between say, 6 squawks a year vs 12, knowing that both cost the same.

I understand that there are crummy and under-maintained beeches, and well-maintained creampuff C/P planes. It has been my experience that equal effort in maintenance over time yields fewer squawks on the heavier beech, at same cost. The Musketeer pays for that with about 2gph, the Bonanza about the same, so it's not "free"
Click to expand...

Agree with the top, fewer squawks all around on the better built plane. Disagree that the Bo pays for it with more fuel burn. The economy is very good, and only bested by the Mooney. It's better than the 210, Lance, of similar HP and load. Due in part to the fully enclosed gear, flush riveting, double tapered wing, recessed hinges, etc.
 
docmirror said:
Agree with the top, fewer squawks all around on the better built plane. Disagree that the Bo pays for it with more fuel burn. The economy is very good, and only bested by the Mooney. It's better than the 210, Lance, of similar HP and load. Due in part to the fully enclosed gear, flush riveting, double tapered wing, recessed hinges, etc.
Click to expand...

Bos pay for it in useful load.
 
I've got no experience with the "mouse" but Do have with the C23 "Slowdowner".
Compared with a Cherokee 140, The C23 is bigger, and slower. But is still fine to fly.
It burns more fuel, but Has more room. Payload is about the same.
There is only one AD for the Mouse/Downer, that would cause me some concern, but it's not too many AMUs to fix, if need be.
 
schmookeeg said:
My sarcasm detector broke. I can't tell if you're serious or pouting.
Click to expand...

I don't pout........your detector is working just fine. I just get tired of all those who bash the baby beech's. I thought I would try the who gives a **** what others think attitude and be an asshat...... It's good to change things up now and then. :)

I will share any info on the beech product, just PM me.
 
Gary's airplane does have the left door, however. When I saw a picture on this blog, I thought it was a mirrored picture of Cherokee, with door on the wrong side. Then, I noticed the pitot probe instead of pitot mast.

I came across a few for sale, especially B19s, but I need extra speed more than extra payload.
 
The bo's cost works out great per mile because you're going faster. The baby beech's, not so much, and they are just oddball enough that you can't claim much of a maintenance advantage either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top