From The Cockpit – Beechcraft Travel Air

The 895 Travel Air came along with a 19 inch cabin length extension and a 19 inch tailplane span increase. The cabin extension made the Travel Air into a comfortable transporter. Further improvements came on the D95A in the form of a longer nose for more avionics and baggage volume – as well as refined brake and undercarriage systems, and fuel injection system improvements on the engine.

Although a twin by design, by performance it was barely that. Beech chose the 10-360 injected Lycomings to power the machine. At 180bhp each, together they gave the aeroplane a good measure of speed and rate of climb in normal operation – ie, a 75% power cruise speed of 173 knots at its M TOW of 1,905Ib and a sea level rate of climb of 1,250ft/min. On just one donk however its performance was marginal. The manual quoted 205ft/min at sea level, but it is all too apparent that even at weights lower than gross, this level of performance is easily eroded by the warm air and turbulence of the Australian skies over much of the year.

I was introduced to the Travel Air by way of the 895A. Although the lines of Beech’s aircraft became more graceful with the passing of years, they were nevertheless elegant from the outset. On the Travel Air it is only the upright fin which seems incongruous, a throwback to a time before raked surfaces became the norm on GA aircraft – a’la Baron, the numeracy of which you will find outweighing the Travel Air by a ratio of about 10:1 on the ramps of our aerodromes. The other difference in appearance, compared to the Baron, is the deeper engine nacelles. The extra depth is necessary because the Lycoming IO-360s use updraught induction air metering. It was only later along the GA development line that, in the quest for more speed, fuel injected engines employed rear air metering units, so that the overall engine depth could be substantially reduced. This is actually the case with the Baron, which commenced life with Continental 10-470 engines.

I don’t know how the cabin on the Badger felt as it started out in size; extended as it was on the 895A it is very comfortable, for passengers and definitely for the pilot(s). The cabin is accessed overwing from the right side. The cabin’s side panel and windscreen pillars are strengthened in order to provide a measure of rollover protection in the event of an accident. Certainly the extent of transparency area about the cabin is great – truly visibility is excellent ahead, sideways, upwards and downwards.

The instrument panel, as I recall, had that typical cluttered look of light aeroplanes of the fifties and sixties. The aircraft had a full IFR equipped panel. With some modernisation of the instruments it nevertheless was the sort of panel that presented a solid challenge to instrument scanning technique. Very much on the plus side (as with all Beechcraft) was the perfect positioning of the control column from both control sensitivity and ease of leverage points of view. This particular Travel Air’s control wheel had an interesting touch to it. At its centre was a bolt on mount containing a scrolling checklist for the aircraft. Given the option I used this checklist, particular to Type as it was. In length it was never ending but the scroller was a neat concept.

The construction of the 895A is conventional, though the structure does have some magnesium content. Not a problem in the drier climatic areas, but it has caused some corrosion difficulties elsewhere. Wing section is GA standard NACA 23000 series; the aspect ratio is moderate, at 7. 2, and the wing is quite tapered (taper ratio approximately 0. 4).

Wing construction is two cell box beam type. The ailerons are plain flap type employing distributed area aerodynamic balancing ahead of the hinge line. There is something just right about Beechcraft wings. The impressions a pilot gets from flying a 833 or F35 are also there present on the 895A. In spite of the greater roll inertia from the wing engines and the greater roll damping from the longer span wing, roll rate response to aileron input is quick and crisp. Aileron control forces are neither light nor excessive. At circuit and approach speeds the forces are quite unobtrusive, all over a nice feel.

The wing had a dihedral of 6 degrees. This is only a moderate value for a low wing twin, leading to a lower order of lateral stability. Consequently the aeroplane heading must be monitored closely during IMC flight, and maintained by regular, albeit small, inputs on the control wheel.

The retractable landing gear is electrically operated. Retracting inwards, it affords a good track width of almost 3 metres. Shock absorption is via standard gas/oil struts. Fuel is contained in four wing cell tanks; total capacity is 424 litres. This provides for a 1,000 nautical mile range, well over inter capital city distances on the eastern seaboard for example. With this in mind you can take advantage of the Travel Air’s speed potential and cruise at the maximum cruise speed (75% power) of 173 knots at 7,500ft with some reduction in range. The Travel Air is a good field performer also, its takeoff distance to 50ft of 1,280ft making it accessible to AL As across the countryside.

My first flight in the 895A was memorable of electrical problems. A late afternoon departure to the training area for a local family was uneventful. With two on board and half tanks, the lightly loaded machine showed its spirited performance on a normal flaps UP takeoff. I recall the immediate impression of a stable and solid feel to the aeroplane in cruise. Stall handling qualities contained nothing worthy of note, always a good sign. A left engine failure simulation at low level in ISA+10°C demonstrated the aeroplane’s good controllability margin but its decidedly marginal performance on one engine (nothing peculiar to the type, but representative of light twins of the Travel Air’s design era, such as the Aztec for example- second generation light twins which evolved to the improved drag and increased engine power technology of third generation twins, such as the Baron).

It was then that things went wrong. The throttled back engine’s

generator went off line, unable to be rest. No

until the other generator, which had been intermittently tripping on previous flights, tripped comprehensively also. A quick dusk was upon us, so in order to circumvent an emergency lowering of the undercarriage for real, due to depletion of battery charge, we hurriedly returned to the aerodrome for an uneventful night landing. The Travel Air settles down easily on its wheels in the landing flare.

Engineering analysis showed that the left generator had an internal bearing fail whilst one of the right generator’s attachment bolts had worked undone, effectively loosening the generator from its mounting. To some extent this is indicative of problems that can and do occur with any older aircraft; the engines are after all entirely standard Lycoming installations. But it is also a reminder to be sure of one’s maintenance organisation.

The earliest Barons were developed as modifications to the 95 Type because this process generally reduces a manufacturer’s redesign and certification costs. It also meant that the first production Baron was the Model 95-55, a four/five seater like the Travel Air. Next, in 1961, was the Model 95-55A, the six seat Baron which thereafter became standard. The 95-55 was basically a Travel Air re-engined and swept finned. It is always a matter of discretion (and wrangling . . . ) as to what degree of design change is acceptable to an airworthiness authority under the prototype modified classification.

There may not be many Travel Airs on the Australian register up for sale. However in a Travel Air you can fly with the cabin comfort of the Baron, sacrificing 15 knots in cruise speed, but saving quite a lot on fuel costs. It’s a worthwhile investment.