What's the worst plane ever?

paflyer said:
I am, assumed you are too.
Click to expand...
The duke had lycoming tio-541 engines. Last I check lycoming wouldn't overhaul them and there were limited options from independent shops. The engines were running their guts out on the duke and require significantly more maintenance than other cabin twins. Despite how hard the engines are running the airframe was underpowered for its weight. I found it to be a bit of a turd.

Just my opinion though. If you like the duke it's all good.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The duke had lycoming tio-541 engines. Last I check lycoming wouldn't overhaul them and there were limited options from independent shops. The engines were running their guts out on the duke and require significantly more maintenance than other cabin twins. Despite how hard the engines are running the airframe was underpowered for its weight. I found it to be a bit of a turd.

Just my opinion though. If you like the duke it's all good.
Click to expand...
I think your data on the engines is incorrect. There's plenty of support out there.

If anything, the PROPS are not the best mates for the engines; it has plenty of HP.
 
So what other props are available? Does it really make an improvement?

As far as overhaul support you could be right. The rest of what I said about maintenance is from direct personal experience. Even oil changes take longer on the duke.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So what other props are available? Does it really make an improvement?

As far as overhaul support you could be right. The rest of what I said about maintenance is from direct personal experience. Even oil changes take longer on the duke.
Click to expand...
You can't use tempest filters. Found that out the other day. They are too long, Champions fit though.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So what other props are available? Does it really make an improvement?

As far as overhaul support you could be right. The rest of what I said about maintenance is from direct personal experience. Even oil changes take longer on the duke.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that they used Baron LG in the design, which put it too close to the ground for nice big paddles on the engines to take full advantage of the 760HP available, particularly on TO.
 
I've always wanted to fly a Duke. It flies great in the sim. ;)

Although, it's my understanding that because of the wonky fuel routing, it definitely can't be run LOP. That's a big negative in my book. With that being said, running LOP at high altitudes in a cabin-class piston twin isn't a great idea, either.
 
paflyer said:
I think your data on the engines is incorrect. There's plenty of support out there.

If anything, the PROPS are not the best mates for the engines; it has plenty of HP.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. Owner of the business in the office suite next to mine has a Duke. Just put two Lycoming factory overhauls (engine swaps) in it last year. I do not know if his plane still has the original prop type, but his are 3-blade props with more ground clearance than I have with the 2-blade Hartzells on my Aztec.


Tarheelpilot said:
The duke had lycoming tio-541 engines. Last I check lycoming wouldn't overhaul them and there were limited options from independent shops. The engines were running their guts out on the duke and require significantly more maintenance than other cabin twins. Despite how hard the engines are running the airframe was underpowered for its weight. I found it to be a bit of a turd.

Just my opinion though. If you like the duke it's all good.
Click to expand...

My office neighbour's Duke is a 6 place with 380 hp engines. People get orgasmic over 325 hp RAM IV upgrades for the Cessna 414. Don't quite understand how those engines could be working so hard and the Duke could be underpowered by comparison? What am missing? :confused: o_O

BTW my neighbour owns homes in the USA, Mexico and Canada and flies his family between them, logging 250 to 300 hours a year including biz trips. He moved up to the Duke from a 340. Says the Duke is typical Beech, built to be serviced and maintained unlike the Cessna which he considered built as a "throw away' airplane. That is just his opinion, as he voiced it, that I am passing on (his other airplane is a 206 JetRanger).

What led to the engine replacements is losing a high time engine on takeoff at Phoenix with his family on board. He said the plane had no problem climbing on one engine and he brought it around in the pattern.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
I believe you are correct. Owner of the business in the office suite next to mine has a Duke. Just put two Lycoming factory overhauls (engine swaps) in it last year. I do not know if his plane still has the original prop type, but his are 3-blade props with more ground clearance than I have with the 2-blade Hartzells on my Aztec.




My office neighbour's Duke is a 6 place with 380 hp engines. People get orgasmic over 325 hp RAM IV upgrades for the Cessna 414. Don't quite understand how those engines could be working so hard and the Duke could be underpowered by comparison? What am missing? :confused: o_O

BTW my neighbour owns homes in the USA, Mexico and Canada and flies his family between them, logging 250 to 300 hours a year including biz trips. He moved up to the Duke from a 340. Says the Duke is typical Beech, built to be serviced and maintained unlike the Cessna which he considered built as a "throw away' airplane.

What led to the engine replacements is losing a high time engine on takeoff at Phoenix with his family on board. He said the plane had no problem climbing on one engine and he brought it around in the pattern.
Click to expand...
So I thought the whole point to this thread was sharing opinions about what we thought in regards to what planes we didn't like. All which is very subjective. How is there a right or wrong answer ?? I don't like dukes. I think they are underpowered. I don't like the engines.

I'm not the guy you know that likes them. I'm the guy that doesn't like them. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I'm glad your buddy has a good relationship with his duke. I'm happy for him.

The argumentative winning the Internet **** gets really ****ing old.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I've always wanted to fly a Duke. It flies great in the sim. ;)

Although, it's my understanding that because of the wonky fuel routing, it definitely can't be run LOP. That's a big negative in my book. With that being said, running LOP at high altitudes in a cabin-class piston twin isn't a great idea, either.
Click to expand...
It is a blast.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So I thought the whole point to this thread was sharing opinions about what we thought in regards to what planes we didn't like. All which is very subjective. How is there a right or wrong answer ?? I don't like dukes. I think they are underpowered. I don't like the engines.

I'm not the guy you know that likes them. I'm the guy that doesn't like them. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I'm glad your buddy has a good relationship with his duke. I'm happy for him.

The argumentative winning the Internet **** gets really ****ing old.
Click to expand...
Dude, this is an open forum. You went beyond stating your subjective opinion, so you can expect people with knowledge to pipe up.
 
Pilawt said:
The Baron 56TC was basically a test-bed for the Duke engine installation. The smaller, lighter Baron airframe with 380 hp per side must have been a real rocket.
Click to expand...

There's a just retired (at 80!) pilot at our airport that owned and flew one of these since 1984. His was a 1967, and every time he took off it was "an event" around the club with everyone watching. I would kill to have a twin like that, but the parts and support are now very difficult. Beech built less than 100 of them. For example, he told me the turbos and exhaust system are not the same as was used on the same engine in the Duke, so if the turbo housings crack they are near impossible to replace.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So I thought the whole point to this thread was sharing opinions about what we thought in regards to what planes we didn't like. All which is very subjective. How is there a right or wrong answer ?? I don't like dukes. I think they are underpowered. I don't like the engines.

I'm not the guy you know that likes them. I'm the guy that doesn't like them. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I'm glad your buddy has a good relationship with his duke. I'm happy for him.

The argumentative winning the Internet **** gets really ****ing old.
Click to expand...

I asked two pretty straight-forward questions: "Don't quite understand how those engines could be working so hard and the Duke could be underpowered by comparison? What am I missing?"

I don't see how what I wrote was argumentative. You are entitled to your opinion. I am simply trying to understand how a 380 hp per side 6-place twin could be "underpowered" in comparison with other similar pressurised cabin-class twins out there, including the one example I cited. Maybe someone else out there can provide some insight?

The listed empty and gross weights for the 414A are within 100 lbs of the Duke, so that would not seem a factor.
 
Last edited:
paflyer said:
Dude, this is an open forum. You went beyond stating your subjective opinion, so you can expect people with knowledge to pipe up.
Click to expand...
So .... my point of irritation is the implicit message that I don't have knowledge which in fact I do. And the effort to devalue my input. Hence the winning the internet statement. I'm sure you're experiences, while different than mine, are valid and my experience with the duke while different doesn't invalidate yours.

Thanks for sharing

And seeing how it's easy to miss the finer points while quickly browsing a post I might have read between the lines too much. If so my apologies.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
So .... my point of irritation is the implicit message that I don't have knowledge which in fact I do. And the effort to devalue my input. Hence the winning the internet statement. I'm sure you're experiences, while different than mine, are valid and my experience with the duke while different doesn't invalidate yours.

Thanks for sharing
Click to expand...

It was a post of mine that seems to have irritated you. I wasn't trying to imply you don't have knowledge. I was trying to tap into it. I enjoy most of your posts on this forum. Just so you know...
 
GRG55 said:
It was a post of mine that seems to have irritated you. I wasn't trying to imply you don't have knowledge. I was trying to tap into it. I enjoy most of your posts on this forum. Just so you know...
Click to expand...
I just went back and reread all the posts. I'm retarded. Disregard my bs please
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The duke had lycoming tio-541 engines. Last I check lycoming wouldn't overhaul them and there were limited options from independent shops. The engines were running their guts out on the duke and require significantly more maintenance than other cabin twins. Despite how hard the engines are running the airframe was underpowered for its weight. I found it to be a bit of a turd.

Just my opinion though. If you like the duke it's all good.
Click to expand...

paflyer said:
I think your data on the engines is incorrect. There's plenty of support out there.

If anything, the PROPS are not the best mates for the engines; it has plenty of HP.
Click to expand...

paflyer said:
My understanding is that they used Baron LG in the design, which put it too close to the ground for nice big paddles on the engines to take full advantage of the 760HP available, particularly on TO.
Click to expand...

Correct, the Duke used the Baron gear, so props weren't as long as they should have been. The cowls are also large (thanks to the way Lycoming designed the engines, they couldn't be much tighter) so a lot of the props are throwing thrust at the cowls rather than towards moving the plane forward. I forget the gross weight on it, but it wasn't very good. Cessna built a much more efficient plane with the 340. Also with 2900 RPM redline, that 380 HP wasn't particularly usable, you wouldn't fly with the engines spinning that fast other than takeoff.

The engines never got the chance to evolve. The 541 was supposed to replace the 540, but early issues with the Duke and P-Navajo killed the design, and they stuck with the 540. The 541 had some design advantages, but the OEMs quickly decided "We'll stick to the 540s, they work."

Basically, it made 380 HP but made the thrust of a much lower power engine. There was consideration given to re-engining the Duke with Navajo engines at one point which I think would've resulted in a faster airplane overall (perhaps slightly worse takeoff performance), but the discussions never went very far. Navajo engines (350 HP/side) with bigger props and landing gear that allowed those bigger props would've gone a long way towards improving the plane's performance.

I still want to fly one.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct, the Duke used the Baron gear, so props weren't as long as they should have been. The cowls are also large (thanks to the way Lycoming designed the engines, they couldn't be much tighter) so a lot of the props are throwing thrust at the cowls rather than towards moving the plane forward. I forget the gross weight on it, but it wasn't very good. Cessna built a much more efficient plane with the 340. Also with 2900 RPM redline, that 380 HP wasn't particularly usable, you wouldn't fly with the engines spinning that fast other than takeoff.

The engines never got the chance to evolve. The 541 was supposed to replace the 540, but early issues with the Duke and P-Navajo killed the design, and they stuck with the 540. The 541 had some design advantages, but the OEMs quickly decided "We'll stick to the 540s, they work."

Basically, it made 380 HP but made the thrust of a much lower power engine. There was consideration given to re-engining the Duke with Navajo engines at one point which I think would've resulted in a faster airplane overall (perhaps slightly worse takeoff performance), but the discussions never went very far. Navajo engines (350 HP/side) with bigger props and landing gear that allowed those bigger props would've gone a long way towards improving the plane's performance.

I still want to fly one.
Click to expand...
Are the turboprop Dukes a lot better?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Are the turboprop Dukes a lot better?
Click to expand...

Why would you put lipstick on a pig? ;)

In all seriousness, yes they are vastly improved. I actually like the turbine Duke for some missions, and was trying to convince a friend he should consider one. I think they would be better with RR250 engines. Of course the airframe issues are the same.

Oh, this video explains it all.

 
Ted DuPuis said:
Why would you put lipstick on a pig? ;)

In all seriousness, yes they are vastly improved. I actually like the turbine Duke for some missions, and was trying to convince a friend he should consider one. I think they would be better with RR250 engines. Of course the airframe issues are the same.

Oh, this video explains it all.

Click to expand...
That video was fantastic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
This is about 10 degrees off center, but it kind of sort of relates.
My mechanic tells me he hates the C-337, and that if I ever buy a C-337, he will kill himself before he will work on it.

Does anyone have a C-337 I can borrow for couple of weeks? I want him to see me in it enough to convince him I bought it.
I think the S.O.B. has been overcharging me for years.
 
Shepherd said:
This is about 10 degrees off center, but it kind of sort of relates.
My mechanic tells me he hates the C-337, and that if I ever buy a C-337, he will kill himself before he will work on it.

Does anyone have a C-337 I can borrow for couple of weeks? I want him to see me in it enough to convince him I bought it.
I think the S.O.B. has been overcharging me for years.
Click to expand...
I'm going to bill you for the keyboard and the coffee I just spit all over it!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Why would you put lipstick on a pig? ;)

In all seriousness, yes they are vastly improved. I actually like the turbine Duke for some missions, and was trying to convince a friend he should consider one. I think they would be better with RR250 engines. Of course the airframe issues are the same.

Oh, this video explains it all.

Click to expand...
That video is actually an inside joke for Duke fans.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Why would you put lipstick on a pig? ;)

In all seriousness, yes they are vastly improved. I actually like the turbine Duke for some missions, and was trying to convince a friend he should consider one. I think they would be better with RR250 engines. Of course the airframe issues are the same.

Oh, this video explains it all.

Click to expand...
I love that video. It's a shame we lost the Learbaron one though.
 
paflyer said:
That video is actually an inside joke for Duke fans.
Click to expand...

I know, and it has a number of technical inaccuracies. But it's funny no matter who you are!

Fearless Tower said:
I love that video. It's a shame we lost the Learbaron one though.
Click to expand...

I wish we could find it. I wonder if some internet genius could find it from the archives of where xtranormal used to be.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The duke had lycoming tio-541 engines. Last I check lycoming wouldn't overhaul them and there were limited options from independent shops. The engines were running their guts out on the duke and require significantly more maintenance than other cabin twins. Despite how hard the engines are running the airframe was underpowered for its weight. I found it to be a bit of a turd.

Just my opinion though. If you like the duke it's all good.
Click to expand...

Dukes are pigs and won't run LOP...

 
vontresc said:
Lol yeah. What ever happens to the learbaron video?
Click to expand...

It seems to have been lost at sea, but I will offer a cash reward to anyone who finds it.
 
Shepherd said:
This is about 10 degrees off center, but it kind of sort of relates.
My mechanic tells me he hates the C-337, and that if I ever buy a C-337, he will kill himself before he will work on it.

Does anyone have a C-337 I can borrow for couple of weeks? I want him to see me in it enough to convince him I bought it.
I think the S.O.B. has been overcharging me for years.
Click to expand...

If I had one, I would definitely let you use it as long as you take pictures of your mechanic when he sees you in it....:lol::lol::lol:
 
DA40 is my least favorite. Very uncomfortable seats and very hot in the cabin (summer).
 
I only flew one plane that I ended up hating. It was an Arrow the had one heck of a buzz in the tail (conventional). It scared the bejesus out of me and the CFI...:yes: Never flew that beast again.

On the other hand, I love Dukes or maybe just one Duke. When I was in the pre-purchase phase with the 310, his broker told me the owner had his eye on a Duke in Cali he was in love with and had put a deposit down on it. If I didn't buy the 310 he would loose the deal on the Duke. I called it BS until the buyer agreed to about 7.5 AMUs worth of post pre-buy items I wanted done and he should have said no to (nothing airworthy). Oh Yeah, two days after we closed he was on a flight to Cali. Talk about handing me the keys to the chicken coop (sorry Dean)...:happydance:
 
James331 said:
Well all around, from what I've flown I'd say that Piper/ Czech sport cruiser, went up in it once with a student, we were going to get his PPL in it to save money, well the controls were so un-balanced, we both agreed that the old 172 on the line was a better call, never flew it again after that, it's a stick and the roll axis is very numb compared to the super sensitive pitch axis, why they let it out of the factory like that is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I flew one of those too, thought it was the weirdest flying airplane I'd ever been in. Kept looking for the right LSA as that was obviously not it.
 
An Airbus A320 I flew 6 years ago on. It was owned by Egypt Air. It was used for domestic flights. Holy worn out... I guess that is what happens when you fly in a sand blaster all your life. I will never do that again.
 
Worst was an old worn out Aeronca Chief. The tailwheel springs had about the same tension as an old screen door spring (some of you younger folks may have to ask someone about that) and the mechanical brakes were lacking, at best. Just getting the darned thing to the runway and lined up was a chore. At least the roll rate was faster than a T'craft BC-12, which means could be measured with a sun dial rather than a calendar. That was back in the early 80s. Haven't been in one since.
 
Bill Jennings said:
[1] Is Steve still here? Still flying?
Click to expand...

I saw Steve at Oshkosh this past summer. He had sold his IAR, was working ground crew on Devil Dog. He said he was taking some time off from aviation. Haven't heard from him since.


BTT: My least favorite I've flown would have to be the Cherokee 140. I really didn't like the T-38 either to be honest.
 
I've never flown one as a pilot, but by far the worst riding aircraft I've ever been on was the MV-22. Just not natural.
 
CH-47s suck! There...I said it.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top