Thoughts on 1962 Beech Debonair

JHW said:
are you flying a supersonic jet where the fuel tanks insulate the tires from overheating ?
Click to expand...

I'm not following your comment. I've read that keeping fuel in the bladders helps keep them cooler, especially if the plane is kept outside in the sun.
 
rbridges said:
I'm not following your comment. I've read that keeping fuel in the bladders helps keep them cooler, especially if the plane is kept outside in the sun.
Click to expand...
maybe it does, but I'd be hard pressed to connect that to durability in any meaningful way given the way that bladders fail in the real world
 
hindsight2020 said:
Isn't the -35 model of the same vintage a better value? A cursory look at the online traders shows similar pricing for Debs and Bos of 60s vintage. I imagine the additional climb and loaded handling of the V tail with 35 extra ponies has to make a difference. I'm sure someone well-versed in the Beech brand could highlight where the difference lies. I can't see the appeal of the Deb if it costs the same to acquire today, unless the ruddervator assembly is a PITA to repair/maintain?¿
Click to expand...

There are proponents for both models. When I was looking, way back in 1984, Aviation Consumer's annual buying guide showed the V tail having a much higher fatality rate per 100,000 (I think) hours. AD mods, including greater awareness of ruddervator skin thickness and balance, has put them on a more equal level with regard to any structural issues.

The ruddervator is magnesium which seems to more sensitive to corrosion than the empennage on the Debs. But both types can be reskinned, it is only money, and last for many more years.

Some like the 470 for the auto gas STC, others want the 520 and 550's improved performance - and have their fingers crossed that some form of 100LL remains available. I went for the 520 because it was available and could use the existing McCauley 2A36C prop.

Cal
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
That's an OWT. The top of the bladder is never covered with fuel no matter how full. Yet they never fail at the fuel sending units which are almost always dry. They almost always fail at the quick drain sump which is always wet. As long as you have some fuel in them the rubber is seeing the same concentration of fuel vapor, whether that is due to 30 gallons or 1 qt. And yes they last a long time, the one I changed last year was original with a 1957 date code.
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't say a thing about where they fail. I know where and how they fail. However, you did address the solution, which I mentioned in my post. The fuel drain is the weak area. Two solutions are to rebuild the sump drain with new o rings(as written) so the pilot doesn't keep banging on it to get it to stop dripping, or to put in the STC for flush mount which provides mechanical support for the sump nipple.

Also, keeping the fuel tank full will provide maximum tank internal pressure so that when it is sumped, the bladder will not deform upward as much as sumping when the tank is half or less full, which will cause the bladder to flex at the sump point. Added to that, if the tank is full when you sump, the pressure on the o-ring is greater and you'll have less chance of leaking when you sump. I've found that sumping when the tank is low on fuel causes more leaking, and deformation of the bottom of the bladder.

Now, thanks for showing me your 'knowledge' of the Bonanza bladders.
 
you're welcome (and yes i know you're being sarcastic) but that's no reason to stop challenging silly notions like bladders have to be wet

and yes, the eagle drains are great. Everyone should have them. there would be a lot more 40 year old bladders flying if those had been around from the beginning.
 
rbridges said:
I'm not following your comment. I've read that keeping fuel in the bladders helps keep them cooler, especially if the plane is kept outside in the sun.
Click to expand...


If you keep your airplane on tie down, bladders prematurely aging is the least of your problems.
 
The 35's are a good deal because there are some warts with that design that not all Pilots ignore.

I'd prefer the regular tail Debonair body over the V tails any day. Either the 33 or the 36. You don't get the tail gyrations that are common on the V-tails.

both the V tail and the T tail have not stood the test of time. The conventional tail has and is rewarded with a higher resell value.
 
JHW said:
you're welcome (and yes i know you're being sarcastic) but that's no reason to stop challenging silly notions like bladders have to be wet

and yes, the eagle drains are great..
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You may not know that the full tank advice comes from the premier Bonanza shop in the world out in Ramona CA, direct from the guy who's worked at the factory, and has about the most knowledge on the Bo anywhere. I don't make up silly advice, but in this case I will just pass it along from Dick to the rest of the community.
 
docmirror said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You may not know that the full tank advice comes from the premier Bonanza shop in the world out in Ramona CA, direct from the guy who's worked at the factory, and has about the most knowledge on the Bo anywhere. I don't make up silly advice, but in this case I will just pass it along from Dick to the rest of the community.
Click to expand...
ditto. I'm at the field of the late neil pobanz if you want to start comparing credentials of advisors.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
The 35's are a good deal because there are some warts with that design that not all Pilots ignore.

I'd prefer the regular tail Debonair body over the V tails any day. Either the 33 or the 36. You don't get the tail gyrations that are common on the V-tails.

both the V tail and the T tail have not stood the test of time. The conventional tail has and is rewarded with a higher resell value.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the magnesium V-tails haven't kept up condition-wise to the aluminum tails of the Deb? Or do you mean your comment as in "the public didn't like" the cosmetic difference of T-tail/V-tails versus a conventional tail?

Another poster made me aware of that material difference and I suppose if I was looking at the two dollar for dollar, that difference wouldn't be inconsequential to me. Having picked a Piper over a Mooney in part to concerns of difficulty to diagnose corrosion surprises with the embedded Mooney steel cage, I'd certainly prefer an aluminum Deb tail over a magnesium V-tail. Perhaps that accounts for the price equity.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Do you mean the magnesium V-tails haven't kept up condition-wise to the aluminum tails of the Deb? Or do you mean your comment as in "the public didn't like" the cosmetic difference of T-tail/V-tails versus a conventional tail?

Another poster made me aware of that material difference and I suppose if I was looking at the two dollar for dollar, that difference wouldn't be inconsequential to me. Having picked a Piper over a Mooney in part to concerns of difficulty to diagnose corrosion surprises with the embedded Mooney steel cage, I'd certainly prefer an aluminum Deb tail over a magnesium V-tail. Perhaps that accounts for the price equity.
Click to expand...
you get magnesium either way
 
teejayevans said:
IIRC, magnesium burns easily and quite hot....I think I rather Aluminium.
Click to expand...
If there is something hot enough to light your control surfaces on fire you are probably beyond help. Bo's have a pretty stellar record as far as post crash fires.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I would be hot on a Partnership or club in this kind of plane.

Assume about $3k a year annual inspection and maintenance, maybe more.

Early Beechcraft had the gear switch and flap switch reversed and had a higher than usual number of gear mishaps. Later models reversed it with the industry.

The panels are just ugly. But wouldn't let that stand in the way of a good airplane.

Hopefully they do not load too much maintenance reserve on the flying partners like some clubs do.
Click to expand...

Tony, wish you lived here. We are looking for one more....two existing Deb owners want to stay in the Partnership. It could really work....
 
The numbers look good. $120 fixed costs per partner per month. About $160 per hour (have to build a reserve for Engine OH). For a nice relatively fast machine....I am really hoping because I am sick of weeding out all the toads.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Do you mean the magnesium V-tails haven't kept up condition-wise to the aluminum tails of the Deb? Or do you mean your comment as in "the public didn't like" the cosmetic difference of T-tail/V-tails versus a conventional tail?

Another poster made me aware of that material difference and I suppose if I was looking at the two dollar for dollar, that difference wouldn't be inconsequential to me. Having picked a Piper over a Mooney in part to concerns of difficulty to diagnose corrosion surprises with the embedded Mooney steel cage, I'd certainly prefer an aluminum Deb tail over a magnesium V-tail. Perhaps that accounts for the price equity.
Click to expand...

As Jeff stated, both have magnesium tail feathers and I corrected my previous post.

Cal
 
teejayevans said:
IIRC, magnesium burns easily and quite hot....I think I rather Aluminium.
Click to expand...

Magnesium burns, aluminum melts - you worry about the metal when you have how many gallons of avgas around you?
 
JHW said:
ditto. I'm at the field of the late neil pobanz if you want to start comparing credentials of advisors.
Click to expand...
Random, Jeff Wright knows about what he speaks. SERIOUSLY. So be careful, and be diplomatic.

If he wants to, he will plaster you flat in an aviation p***ing contest.
 
Last edited:
asgcpa said:
The numbers look good. $120 fixed costs per partner per month. About $160 per hour (have to build a reserve for Engine OH). For a nice relatively fast machine....I am really hoping because I am sick of weeding out all the toads.
Click to expand...

I wish we lived in the same area too.

I had 2 guys pay $250 per month which covered average annual maintenance, hangar rent, insurance and then they paid $25 per flight hour reserve but they got credited for their time $35 per hour maintenance since they were A&P and IA.

The fuel can be from 12-13 gph. 86 gallons useable fuel so 1000nm trips were easily obtainable.

I could use a non equity partner now.:)
 
bbchien said:
Random, Jeff Wright knows about what he speaks. SERIOUSLY. So be careful, and be diplomatic.

If he wants to, he will plaster you flat in an aviation p***ing contest.
Click to expand...

Do you have an opinion on what I wrote? Does the head pressure on the bladder when full maintain the shape of the nipple which gets banged on by the pilot? Does it also help to force the o-ring closed better when full? Should the o-rings in the original drains be replaced periodically? Are the flush fuel drains I brought up first not a good idea? Did Jeff inaccurately accuse me of saying that the tank fails at the top, thus my opinion to keep the tank full represent a silly OWT?

This isn't about pizzing on anyone. This is about factual data which will help the new owner of the Deb from having to replace a bladder early in his ownership. I don't really give a wet dribbly shyte who is who around here, when someone is wrong, I point it out.

So, to review:
A) Keep the tanks full to maintain head pressure in the tank so that the nipple will not deform, and the pressure on the fuel drain will keep the o-ring saturated and under pressure.
B) Replace the o-rings in the sump periodically.
C) Alternately, install the flush fuel drain in place of the original to provide mechanical support to the bladder at the nipple.

Or -- don't. I'm done here. Don't like my advice, fine with me. :wineglass:
 
I have no personal information in this regard.

However, I knew Neal Pobanz personally for over fifteen years, and (sadly) ate countless donuts and cups of coffee over the C75 table with him until he passed 2 years ago. And he maintained JHW's B-95 which is still current.

His view on bladders was that they need not have been kept full. He did advocate keeping SOME fuel in the tank, however. His view was that the nipples wear out when they wear out. He was, for 20 years the ABS's airframe guru.

It just appears you were P*ssing with Jeff, which is ill advised. He owns a baby Baron with quite old cells, which are doing fine. He just isn't interested in going head to head with you.

He's had an aviation career and is a professional engineer.
I think this is a case of "internet webboard" in which you, d, wrote things you would ordinarly not say.

And as we used to say, "that is all".
 
Last edited:
So, we have a difference of opinion. I've had four old Bos over the years, never replaced a bladder. I didn't quote Jeff, he quoted me and got my analysis of the failure mode wrong. If you don't want to debate the facts, but want to play 'I knew this guy when' and that makes it right I guess I can't compete. You're a man of science, tell me why my advice is mistaken, given the failure mode, and how to avoid it.
 
Hey you are the one who threw out the "premier shop guy told me this" but there is really no need to guess about it. Figure the head pressure from 20 cm of gasoline applied to the tiny surface area around the nipple. To me that doesnt even seem like rounding error compared to the force typically applied to a curtis valve. Talk of such things smacks of grasping at straws to prop up the old idea that bladders must always be full. Thats ok. Old ideas die hard. Its like trying to convince my mother in law to stop paying for the land line in her house that she hasnt talked on in 10 years.

The difference is that on a forum like this, new pilots who dont know better might swallow the OWT. Thats why i'll always call BS when these things come up. I'm not trying to convince you, there is no need. I'm just offering a counterpoint so that maybe others will stop and think before believing such a silly idea.
 
JHW said:
The difference is that on a forum like this, new pilots who dont know better might swallow the OWT.
Click to expand...

pot_calls_kettle_black.jpg
 
35B33 said:
Magnesium burns, aluminum melts - you worry about the metal when you have how many gallons of avgas around you?
Click to expand...
Magnesium burns hot and violently...but yea, it's probably not a big issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top