Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

  1. #1

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    The GW restriction was a fallout from the intended use. It's been a
    while since I've looked at the Type Certificate data sheet. But the
    Sport series airplanes were always intended for very light aerobatic
    and training use. Some of the models were even marked "aerobatic".

    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, "johannesdorfling"
    <johannesdorfling@...> wrote:
    >
    > I am very keen on buying a 1971 B 19 Sport. Why were these planes
    > subject to the gross weight restriction and not the older
    > models?....the airframes seem very much the same, with only 10-15 Hp
    > less!! Is it only the power difference? What did the Beech "fix" of
    > this restriction entail? To what gross weight does the fix end in?
    Are
    > these planes really such poor performers? I would appreciate input
    > from people in the know and pilots that fly them regularly.
    > Thanks.
    > Johan

  2. #2

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    Johan:

    Not sure what restrictions or "fix" you are talking about.

    I have a 1970 B-19 - Gross wt. is 2150, empty wt. is 1439. I usually fuel to 40 gal. (holds 60) which leaves me about 470 lb. for passengers & crew.

    As far as performance, it outperforms the C172 in terms of speed,
    climb, fuel economy and crosswind capability; and is much more comfortable to fly.

    Don

  3. #3

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    In the BAC Classifieds I have a Beech kit listed (for sale) which
    will legally restore the B19 Sports to a 2150 max gross. Here is a
    partial clip of the descriptive text:
    _____________________
    Beech B19 Sports from MB481 through MB616 came with a 58-inch pitch
    propeller. AD73-25-04 was issued, limiting these planes to a max
    gross weight of 2,000 pounds, and three occupants. The planes did
    not demonstrate adequate climb capability as-equipped.

    This Beech kit provides a legal way to bring these planes back up to
    2,150 pounds Max Gross. The kit contains a new AFM, a new
    Operational Limitations placard, and five different paperwork items.
    One of the items ...
    _____________________

    To my knowledge there are no differences in the airframe parts or
    structural strength. Most of the airframe parts are common
    throughout the 19/23/24 line, with the obvious exceptions for gear
    type, window count, door count and size, etc.


    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, johannes dorfling
    <johannesdorfling@...> wrote:
    >
    > Hi All,
    > Thanks for the input. Much appreciated!
    > The weight restriction I am referring to came into effect about
    1974, affecting 1970 - 1973 Model B19's, serial No's MB-481 through
    MB-616. Production models after 1973 came out of the factory with
    the Beech "fix". The initial gross weight was 2250lb. This was
    slated down to 2000lb and limited to 3 passengers due to poor climb
    performance at gross (AD 73-25-04). Thereafter Beech came out with a
    fix (kit No. 23-9014-1 S) which increased the gross weight to 2150,
    still 100lb short of the initial GW. As far as I can make out this
    involved removing the prop and changing the pitch from 58 inch to
    54 inch with the appropriate placards depicting the new weights and
    limitations. I am not sure if this was the only change required
    though. The 1963 models came out with a Lycoming O-320-D2B with 160
    Hp, and the models after that (1964 and on) with the 165Hp
    Continental O-346. The 160Hp had a payload of 1000lb! I find it
    strange that 10 Hp can make that big a difference in payload!
    > These early A23's were somehow unaffected by the weight
    restriction slammed on the B19's (Why!!!). I was wondering if there
    are other changes in the airframe that can account for the big
    difference. The later models appears more streamlined than the flat
    nosed early models! Furthermore, the sport was build more as a
    trainer in mind, with a supposed decrease in empty weight of 150lb
    compared to the A23's, which should translate to a bigger payload!
    (This is according to Aviation Consumer). Yet the payload is down.
    >
    > It seems to me that the owners and pilots of the Beech 23 and 19
    series are happy and impressed with their a/c. I am certainly
    looking forward to flying it next weekend!! Aviation Consumer is not
    very complimetary to or impressed with the Beech 23 and 19 series.
    Yet, to me they seems beautiful and a lot of value for the money! It
    is just that a payload of 711 lb seems little!
    >
    > Cruising with a wide open throttle and not red lining the engine
    would seem like you have a cruise prop in front? That is part of my
    confusion.....finer pitch prop (the "fix") should translate to
    higher static and climb and cruise RPM, and climb props easily over
    rev at full throttle while in the cruise (at least the ones I have
    flown). What RPM do you run while in the cruise with full throttle?
    >
    > Thanks again for the input and your comments are eagerly read!
    > Johan

  4. #4

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    You're missing one link. Beech first built the A 19 with
    a O320 C2d 150 hp with 2150 weight I owned one a 1968
    model and loved it. It was not an aerobatic model but
    a great trainer.
    Bob

  5. #5
    Ours is a 66 A23-19 with the payload increase kit (paperwork) for the A23-19's. The gross for ours is 2250 (up from 2150). It's also got an upgrade from the original E2C engine to a 160HP D2A. Makes a big difference. There's a person over at a nearby airport that has a '63 model with the D2B and a 2300 lb gross weight. I'd feel comfortable loading ours to 2300 with the higher HP especially since ours runs better!

    We're still deciding on which mod to do first. We've got the old breakers replaced as well as doing a ton of stuff at annual in June. Now we're debating the Powerflow exhaust or vortex generators first. We want to do both for utility, but trying to decide which one first.

  6. #6

    Re: B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, johannes dorfling
    <johannesdorfling@...> wrote:

    <Snip>
    The 160Hp had a payload of 1000lb!
    --------------------------------------------

    Highest I've seen is ~ 948 lbs.
    Average is probably more ~ 850 to 900..depending.
    Mine was ~ 935 but only saw one correction for W/B in the logs from original.
    Still very good though & much better than most at 160 horse. 60 Gal fuel tanks too (huge..most others were ~40) ..very flexible. Can't think of any other that did better, even today.

  7. #7
    Not sure what you mean "runs better"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bearair
    I'd feel comfortable loading ours to 2300 with the higher HP especially since ours runs better!

  8. #8

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    > Why were these planes
    > subject to the gross weight restriction and not the older
    > models?....the airframes seem very much the same, with only 10-15
    Hp
    > less!! Is it only the power difference? What did the Beech "fix" of
    > this restriction entail? To what gross weight does the fix end in?
    Are
    > these planes really such poor performers? I would appreciate input
    > from people in the know and pilots that fly them regularly.

    The fix deals with the prop and placards as mentioned. The main
    purpose was to increase climb performance at gross. The Sport I
    previously owned (MB-614, 1973 B19) had a 620 lb useful load.
    Granted, it had a lot of interior work that probably added several
    pounds and there were a couple of ways that we could have lightened
    it up.

    As for full-throttle rpm, that was more of a product of density
    altitude.

    As far as value, it was a great a/c to own and fly. It was mostly
    trouble-free. But real value is based on the mission. If you are
    looking for a load-hauler, the Sport is not the bird. I would
    consider a Sundowner.

    Best,

    Ray

  9. #9

    B 19 Sport gross weight restriction

    I'm just wondering if the Power Flow Systems (PFS) new exhaust came with a GWTO increase? Seems if you could prove you recovered the performance, the FAA would allow the orginal GWTO. Wonder if PFS even knew of the GWTO limitation of the 150 hp airplanes. They'd probably sell more systems to Musketeers if it came with a 100 lbs of GW increase. You'd have to sell it to the FAA as an AMOC to the AD, but that should be easy.....right?

    Marty Vanover
    Phoenix

    bhoward@bmi.net wrote:
    Hi all -

    I pretty much confirm what Don Bateman wrote:

    I have a 1970 B-19 - Gross wt. is 2150, empty wt. is 1439. I usually fuel
    to 40 gal. (holds 60) which leaves me about 470 lb. for passengers & crew.

    It outperforms the C172 in terms of speed, climb, fuel economy and
    crosswind capability; and is much more comfortable to fly.

    ---

    I have a 1973 Beech Sport 150. I cruise at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) at
    about 110 MPH. I don't remember how fast a 172 cruises - maybe a little
    faster. I Flight plan at 9GPH and have used 8.3 for the 200 hrs I've
    flown her - so, with 40 Gals (top of the slot and a 'scosh' I'm good for 4
    hrs. I can't hold my water for that long, so...

    But I did a lot of flying in a Hawk XP and the Sport is LOTS wider - no
    hugging your co-pilot (unless you want to!) Solid in every axis, too!

    The reason for the Gross weight limitation is all about Power - with only
    150 HP, on a hot day at Gross is the climb will only be 2-400fpm.

    The exact airframe with 200 HP will haul almost 600# more. There's just
    no substitute for Cubic Horsepower!

    Imagine what a constant speed prop would do if you could get 2,700RPM on
    takeoff and climb?

    But also imagine how tough the Sport is - flying that much lighter! You
    could carry lots more, if you could get it off the ground, that is!

    Bill Howard
    BeechSportBill

Similar Threads

  1. [musketeermail] Over Gross
    By Rellihan in forum BAC Mail Archive - DO NOT POST HERE
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 07:46 AM
  2. Over Gross
    By Rellihan in forum Musketeer-Mail Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 07:46 AM
  3. Prop weight
    By gmacpN18996 in forum Musketeer-Mail Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2005, 10:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO