Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?

Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
KIAS final approach speed.

Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
usually long..")

Thoughts?

" > wrote in news:e0869c2b-6570-
:

> Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?
>
> Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
> handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
> KIAS final approach speed.
>
> Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> usually long..")
>
> Thoughts?
>

Doesn't much matter if you ae happily configured when you cross the
threshold.
The only other consideratons are the way you slwo the airplane down.
Using flaps as speedbrakes is a bad idea and even putting them out at
the limit is undesirable. Much better to put them out well below the
limit speed.
Cooling shouldn't be much of a consideration. in fact, i always figured
a fast relativelty lcean low powered approach was a good thing for your
engine.
Last but not least is caution if you are at a place where you are mixing
it up with heavies. If you try and keep up your speed by flying below
the glide nice and flat initialy , then pulling th enose up and dumping
gear and flaps at the last second,you run a very real risk of hitting
the wake from the airplane in front of you.

Which is exactly what this guy did..
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-01.pdf


BTW, what it doesn;t sahy is that the Captain had gotten every singe
wake turbulence question on every written he had taken from Private
through ATR wrong, and had never been quizzed orally about same during
any of his flight tests.



Bertie

I used speed on VFR approaches that were comfortable in the VFR pattern. At
busy airports, I might fly the ILS at 140 KIAS to keep up with the jet ahead
and behind. As long as the gear was working, slowing down was not a
problem. VFR I would maintain high speed until the last mile, on an ILS
until break-out.

If you want to make every approach the same, 105 isn't a bad choice. It is
too high for a short grass strip and too slow for ATL or ORD.

The A36 has a big speed envelope and speed changes with weight.


> wrote in message
...
| Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?
|
| Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
| handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
| KIAS final approach speed.
|
| Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
| usually long..")
|
| Thoughts?

On Dec 16, 1:24 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> I used speed on VFR approaches that were comfortable in the VFR pattern. At
> busy airports, I might fly the ILS at 140 KIAS to keep up with the jet ahead
> and behind. As long as the gear was working, slowing down was not a
> problem. VFR I would maintain high speed until the last mile, on an ILS
> until break-out.
>
> If you want to make every approach the same, 105 isn't a bad choice. It is
> too high for a short grass strip and too slow for ATL or ORD.
>
> The A36 has a big speed envelope and speed changes with weight.
>


I don't know of any grass strips with an IAP (at least around here
(Southwest PA).

Agree that the A36 has a big speed envelope -- but I'm leaning towards
slow is better for most situations. No doubt landing at a busy air
terminal will require a different approach, but the real advantage of
GA is avoiding the ATL and ORD and landing at a nearby relieved field.

Dan
http://trainingforcfi.blogspot.com/

On Dec 16, 10:58 am, " > wrote:
>
> Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> usually long..")
>
> Thoughts?

I have a thought but it is not Bonanza specific. If this D Collins guy
is the editor of Flying magazine I would take anything he says with a
grain of salt. I read flying twice a year (The freebies I get at
Oshcosh and S&F) and every time I do I am reminded why I am not a
subscriber. Collins does some pretty contriversal stuff. I remember
reading an "IFR how to" by him and a columnist named Benston (SP?) and
it was pretty much pure bull****. I wonder how many accidents were
caused by their bad advise. To Collins defence, I think he is
instructed to be contriversal to keep the readership interested and
entertained.
If you dont feel comfy at a fast approach speed try following the
speeds outlined in your POH. Also, you will keep yourself out of
trouble if you do it the way the airlines do it.
FB

On Dec 16, 3:47 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:58 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> > usually long..")
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> I have a thought but it is not Bonanza specific. If this D Collins guy
> is the editor of Flying magazine I would take anything he says with a
> grain of salt. I read flying twice a year (The freebies I get at
> Oshcosh and S&F) and every time I do I am reminded why I am not a
> subscriber. Collins does some pretty contriversal stuff. I remember
> reading an "IFR how to" by him and a columnist named Benston (SP?) and
> it was pretty much pure bull****. I wonder how many accidents were
> caused by their bad advise. To Collins defence, I think he is
> instructed to be contriversal to keep the readership interested and
> entertained.
> If you dont feel comfy at a fast approach speed try following the
> speeds outlined in your POH. Also, you will keep yourself out of
> trouble if you do it the way the airlines do it.
> FB

Dick Collins has been past editor of Flying as well as AOPA Pilot.
He's been a GA fixture for years and I am in no position to gainsay
his extensive experience (10,000 plus in GA airplanes).

However -- I'm also aware that what works for him in his airplane
isn't law for everyone else. No problem there.

But I think it's worth considering his advice given his experience.

There is no specific POH guidance for IAPs.

What specifically his Dick Collins written that is Controversial?


Dan
http://trainingforcfi.blogspot.com

I have an S35. Eckelbar reccommends 15-16 inches and whatever RPM you
had it at in cruise, 2100-2500. I get 135-140 MPH indicated and fly the
approaches at that speed. At the outer marker/FAF/inbound course
intercept I'll lower the gear. That by itself tips the nose over to
about 500 fpm, and slows you down about 20 mph, just what you need for
the ILS. Fly the rest of the approach at about 110 MPH indicated. No
need for flaps until short final if you want them, otherwise don't
bother. As you pull more power out it slows down nicely.




wrote:
> Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?
>
> Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
> handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
> KIAS final approach speed.
>
> Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> usually long..")
>
> Thoughts?

On Dec 16, 8:35 pm, Newps > wrote:
> I have an S35. Eckelbar reccommends 15-16 inches and whatever RPM you
> had it at in cruise, 2100-2500. I get 135-140 MPH indicated and fly the
> approaches at that speed. At the outer marker/FAF/inbound course
> intercept I'll lower the gear. That by itself tips the nose over to
> about 500 fpm, and slows you down about 20 mph, just what you need for
> the ILS. Fly the rest of the approach at about 110 MPH indicated. No
> need for flaps until short final if you want them, otherwise don't
> bother. As you pull more power out it slows down nicely.

Thanks.

That's pretty much what I've been doing to date -- slow to 105 prior
to FAF, drop gear at FAF, re-trim to maintain 105, descend at 550-600
FPM (depending on headwind).

The only I problem I see with this method is that once the runway is
in sight, there's a significant configuration change to slow the
airplane down and still remain on glideslope while getting to a more
appropriate approach speed (The A36 POH only specifies NORMAL LANDING
APPROACH SPEED).

The A36 lands in a very short space at 70 KIAS approach speed (power
is required to arrest the descent at that slow an airspeed). 78 KIAS
is recommended for power off emergency landing, so is probably the
best speed for short final.

I don't agree with the stereotypical Bonanza driver that lands at 100
KIAS and needs 4000 x 150 or greater. This wing will fly at a slow
enough speed to keep the landing roll short -- very short, in fact.

Dan

On Dec 16, 2:03 pm, " > wrote:
:
>
> > > Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> > > usually long..")
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
>
> Dick Collins has been past editor of Flying as well as AOPA Pilot.
> He's been a GA fixture for years and I am in no position to gainsay
> his extensive experience (10,000 plus in GA airplanes).
>
> There is no specific POH guidance for IAPs.
>
> What specifically his Dick Collins written that is Controversial?
>
Contriversial was probably not a good word choice. How about
unorthodox. All I can remember from the article is that this Tom B did
most of the series (And not very well ) and there were side bars by
Collins about all of the corners he cuts while flying IFR. If you
consider the fact that there could be some low time pilots reading the
magazine, it is probably not a good idea to brag about how much stuff
you can get away with. It has been awhile since I have done much
teaching and as I recall, I never set out to teach people to cut
corners. This is what I found to be unorthodox. The only other thing I
can remember about the guy was a few less than accurate editorials. I
understand Flying has a new guy in there now, but I would still take
any of these " How To" piloting articles with some healthy sceptisism.
BTW how are you aware of Collins backround and experience. Do you know
him personally ?
FB

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:58:04 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?
>
>Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
>handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
>KIAS final approach speed.
>
>Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
>usually long..")
>

Check with the ABS on this and a quick phone call should suffice. They
have some good advise.
They do say that *most* Bo pilots land far too fast. With 10 hours of
class room (ground school) they drilled into us we would NOT be
landing too fast.<:-)) You should have heard the complaints when we
were informed we'd be calculating the approach and departure speeds
(for VFR) based on aircraft weights and flying those within a couple
MPH/knots. Most of those pilots had never landed that slow let alone
come down final at that speed. <:-)) We did short filed landings and
takeoffs at book speeds which is a really steep and slow final
carrying lots of power. Then we did the notably faster power off
landings. They didn't have us do any no flap landings which are a
real education in nose high, float forever, use a lot of runway
exercises.

105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
reconfiguration was rather short and quick.

Yes, it is a hand full to reconfigure (retrim) while going full flaps.
If the 36 is like the 33 with trim it's dependent on air speed, not
flap settings which means a lot of retrimming from the 105 down to
about 70 in the roundout.

The Deb/33 does not change pitch or trim with changes in flap
settings, but small changes in speed in the 70 to 105 knot range
require substantial trim changes.

Roger (K8RI)

>Thoughts?

On Dec 16, 10:41 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:03 pm, " > wrote:
> :
>
> > > > Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
> > > > usually long..")
>
> > > > Thoughts?
>
> > Dick Collins has been past editor of Flying as well as AOPA Pilot.
> > He's been a GA fixture for years and I am in no position to gainsay
> > his extensive experience (10,000 plus in GA airplanes).
>
> > There is no specific POH guidance for IAPs.
>
> > What specifically his Dick Collins written that is Controversial?
>
> Contriversial was probably not a good word choice. How about
> unorthodox. All I can remember from the article is that this Tom B did
> most of the series (And not very well ) and there were side bars by
> Collins about all of the corners he cuts while flying IFR. If you
> consider the fact that there could be some low time pilots reading the
> magazine, it is probably not a good idea to brag about how much stuff
> you can get away with. It has been awhile since I have done much
> teaching and as I recall, I never set out to teach people to cut
> corners. This is what I found to be unorthodox. The only other thing I
> can remember about the guy was a few less than accurate editorials. I
> understand Flying has a new guy in there now, but I would still take
> any of these " How To" piloting articles with some healthy sceptisism.
> BTW how are you aware of Collins backround and experience. Do you know
> him personally ?
> FB

Unorthodox is probably a much better word choice. Then we're talking
about differences in practice, not mere right and wrong.

I don't know Dick Collins personally (though I'd like to have lunch
and do a brain dump at some point), but I've read several of his
books. I read Flying when I was a kid (whenever I could scrape
together the $1.50 and had enough time over lunch to run down to the
drug store. Later I learned that the drug store was also popular since
it stocked Playboy -- behind the counter, of course. I still bought
Flying.)

Dick Collins has over 8,000 hours in a 210, plus thousands more in
others. He's been around GA for a long time and his father (Leighton
Collins) wrote a fairly good book about flying (entitled Takeoffs and
Landings but it covers far more than that).

While the article may have suggested cutting corners, I haven't found
that in his books.

What -- In My Humble Opinion -- he does very well is help help the
reader cross the chasm from FAA dogma (read Written and Practical) to
real world practice. While some may say these are shortcuts, I think
instead this knowledge leans towards the art that follows any skill.

While I agree "new pilots" should be wary and perhaps even ignore some
advice, you can't sell magazines (nor should you!) that tiptoes around
every possible item that may screw over a newbie. In fact, at some
point every pilot needs to develop judgment -- and that is the skill
and art of winnowing out the wheat from the chaff.

I'm always wary of protection schemes.

Dan

> They do say that *most* Bo pilots land far too fast. With 10 hours of
> class room (ground school) they drilled into us we would NOT be
> landing too fast.<:-)) You should have heard the complaints when we
> were informed we'd be calculating the approach and departure speeds
> (for VFR) based on aircraft weights and flying those within a couple
> MPH/knots. Most of those pilots had never landed that slow let alone
> come down final at that speed. <:-)) We did short filed landings and
> takeoffs at book speeds which is a really steep and slow final
> carrying lots of power. Then we did the notably faster power off
> landings. They didn't have us do any no flap landings which are a
> real education in nose high, float forever, use a lot of runway
> exercises.

Interesting! I went flying with my instructor Friday (most of his
hours are in T210 and lately a C185).

We flew steep slow finals (70 KIAS) as well.

What I learned is that excess energy is better dissipated in the air.
With a 10 knot headwind component) we could have landed and taken off
on the 2400 foot runway (we back taxied, but the numbers worked out).

BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.

Dan
http://traiingforcfi.blogspot.com

On Dec 16, 10:37 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>>
> 105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
> As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
> reconfiguration was rather short and quick.
>
So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
were you I would find a different instructor next year.


FB

> > 105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
> > As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
> > reconfiguration was rather short and quick.
>
> So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
> were you I would find a different instructor next year.


Was this during the ABS Bonanza training??

Does seem like stuffing 10 lbs into a 5 lb bag...

Dan

wrote:

> BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.


What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.

On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
> wrote:
> > BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> > energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>
> What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
> power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.

I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.

Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.

Dan

" > wrote in news:3c3cbac8-a160-4bde-
:

>
>
> What I learned is that excess energy is better dissipated in the air.
> With a 10 knot headwind component) we could have landed and taken off
> on the 2400 foot runway (we back taxied, but the numbers worked out).
>
> BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>


Been a while since I've flown a 182 but that doesn't sound right.



Bertie

On Dec 17, 4:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:3c3cbac8-a160-4bde-
> :
>
>
>
> > What I learned is that excess energy is better dissipated in the air.
> > With a 10 knot headwind component) we could have landed and taken off
> > on the 2400 foot runway (we back taxied, but the numbers worked out).
>
> > BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> > energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>
> Been a while since I've flown a 182 but that doesn't sound right.
>
> Bertie

182?

" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 17, 4:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> news:3c3cbac8-a160-4bde-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > What I learned is that excess energy is better dissipated in the
>> > air. With a 10 knot headwind component) we could have landed and
>> > taken off on the 2400 foot runway (we back taxied, but the numbers
>> > worked out).
>>
>> > BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's
>> > insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to
>> > arrest the descent.
>>
>> Been a while since I've flown a 182 but that doesn't sound right.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> 182?
>

Sorry, thought we were talking 182 210


Bertie

wrote:

> On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
>>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>>
>>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
>>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
>
>
> I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
>
> Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.




Doesn't matter.

On Dec 17, 3:04 pm, john smith > wrote:

> > They do say that *most* Bo pilots land far too fast. With 10 hours of
> > class room (ground school) they drilled into us we would NOT be
> > landing too fast.<:-)) You should have heard the complaints when we
> > were informed we'd be calculating the approach and departure speeds
> > (for VFR) based on aircraft weights and flying those within a couple
> > MPH/knots.
>
> What does that tell you about the quality of instruction prior to the
> ABS course?

Or they have read too much of Collins bad advise ;)

On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> >>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>
> >>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
> >>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
>
> > I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
>
> > Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.
>
> Doesn't matter.

Care to elaborate?

The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different
wings, different weights, different powerplants, different CGs,
different loading envelopes, different gear, different prop governors,
different empennage, and a few thousand other minor differences.

I guess that doesn't matter?

Dan



Dan

wrote:
> On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
>>>>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>>
>>>>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
>>>>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
>>
>>>I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
>>
>>>Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.
>>
>>Doesn't matter.
>
>
> Care to elaborate?
>
> The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different
> wings,

Wings are the same.



different weights,


The 36 weighs 31 pounds more than the same year model 35.

different powerplants,


Same powerplant as mine.



different CGs,
different loading envelopes,


Yes and it is beneficial.



different gear,


Same gear, just heavier duty than the straight 35, exactly the same as mine.


different prop governors,

Irrelevant.



> different empennage,


Duh.



and a few thousand other minor differences.
>
> I guess that doesn't matter?



No, it doesn't change the fact that at 70 knots you are not out of
elevator. I land at less than that speed, power off and it flares just
fine.

On Dec 17, 10:36 pm, Newps > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
> >>>>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>
> >>>>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
> >>>>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
>
> >>>I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
>
> >>>Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.
>
> >>Doesn't matter.
>
> > Care to elaborate?
>
> > The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different
> > wings,
>
> Wings are the same.
>
> different weights,
>
> The 36 weighs 31 pounds more than the same year model 35.
>
> different powerplants,
>
> Same powerplant as mine.
>
> different CGs,
> different loading envelopes,
>
> Yes and it is beneficial.
>
> different gear,
>
> Same gear, just heavier duty than the straight 35, exactly the same as mine.
>
> different prop governors,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> > different empennage,
>
> Duh.
>
> and a few thousand other minor differences.
>
>
>
> > I guess that doesn't matter?
>
> No, it doesn't change the fact that at 70 knots you are not out of
> elevator. I land at less than that speed, power off and it flares just
> fine.

Please re-read the thread an you will see I am referring to a 1947
Model 35, which is significantly different in every respect I
mentioned.

I have not found that the A36 has enough energy left to flare and
arrest the descent at 70 KIAS.

Dan

A36 GW on same wing as 33 or 35, is 200 pounds greater.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| wrote:
| > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps > wrote:
| >
| wrote:
| >>
| >>>On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
| >>
| wrote:
| >>
| >>>>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's
insufficient
| >>>>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
| >>
| >>>>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
| >>>>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
| >>
| >>>I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
| >>
| >>>Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.
| >>
| >>Doesn't matter.
| >
| >
| > Care to elaborate?
| >
| > The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different
| > wings,
|
| Wings are the same.
|
|
|
| different weights,
|
|
| The 36 weighs 31 pounds more than the same year model 35.
|
| different powerplants,
|
|
| Same powerplant as mine.
|
|
|
| different CGs,
| different loading envelopes,
|
|
| Yes and it is beneficial.
|
|
|
| different gear,
|
|
| Same gear, just heavier duty than the straight 35, exactly the same as
mine.
|
|
| different prop governors,
|
| Irrelevant.
|
|
|
| > different empennage,
|
|
| Duh.
|
|
|
| and a few thousand other minor differences.
| >
| > I guess that doesn't matter?
|
|
|
| No, it doesn't change the fact that at 70 knots you are not out of
| elevator. I land at less than that speed, power off and it flares just
| fine.
|

The CG range on the A36 is very different from the 33/35 models. Without
passengers in the middle or rear, the CG is further fwd and the force
required to flare is greater.



> wrote in message
...
| On Dec 17, 10:36 pm, Newps > wrote:
| > wrote:
| > > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps > wrote:
| >
| > wrote:
| >
| > >>>On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps > wrote:
| >
| > wrote:
| >
| > >>>>>BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's
insufficient
| > >>>>>energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the
descent.
| >
| > >>>>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts,
no
| > >>>>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
| >
| > >>>I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well.
| >
| > >>>Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread.
| >
| > >>Doesn't matter.
| >
| > > Care to elaborate?
| >
| > > The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different
| > > wings,
| >
| > Wings are the same.
| >
| > different weights,
| >
| > The 36 weighs 31 pounds more than the same year model 35.
| >
| > different powerplants,
| >
| > Same powerplant as mine.
| >
| > different CGs,
| > different loading envelopes,
| >
| > Yes and it is beneficial.
| >
| > different gear,
| >
| > Same gear, just heavier duty than the straight 35, exactly the same as
mine.
| >
| > different prop governors,
| >
| > Irrelevant.
| >
| > > different empennage,
| >
| > Duh.
| >
| > and a few thousand other minor differences.
| >
| >
| >
| > > I guess that doesn't matter?
| >
| > No, it doesn't change the fact that at 70 knots you are not out of
| > elevator. I land at less than that speed, power off and it flares just
| > fine.
|
| Please re-read the thread an you will see I am referring to a 1947
| Model 35, which is significantly different in every respect I
| mentioned.
|
| I have not found that the A36 has enough energy left to flare and
| arrest the descent at 70 KIAS.
|
| Dan
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

> A36 GW on same wing as 33 or 35, is 200 pounds greater.

It can be.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The CG range on the A36 is very different from the 33/35 models. Without
> passengers in the middle or rear, the CG is further fwd and the force
> required to flare is greater.

The CG range is a little larger on the 36 but otherwise similar. With
pax only in front of the 35 the CG is near forward limit, same as the 36.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:05:10 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
>> energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
>
>
>What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
>power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.

It's not an elevator authority issue, but rather one of energy.

Book figures for the 33 are ~ 80 knots (varies a bit from year to
year) for a no power landing. It's 78 (90 MPH) for mine. Normal is 70
(80 MPH) minus one mph for each 100# under gross. The POH states the
power off landing is faster as there is not enough energy to safely
flare at the normal power on landing speed.

Depending on the year the 36 is slightly longer than the 35/33 to a
fair amount longer (18" IIRC). CG covers a much wider range on the 36.
As I recall the wing is the same with some minor differences in the
tips, stall strips, and rivet patterns (flush and round head). OTOH
they are not interchangeable. Early 33s had a number of variations in
the tank arrangement(s). I've had mechanics swear the aux tanks on
mine were after market as they are forward of the spar, but it came
from the factory that way.

The early 35s are considerably lighter than later 33s and 36s.
Later 36s are heavy.

Roger (K8RI)

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:02:38 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>
>> > 105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
>> > As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
>> > reconfiguration was rather short and quick.
>>
>> So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
>> were you I would find a different instructor next year.
>
>
>Was this during the ABS Bonanza training??

Yup

>
>Does seem like stuffing 10 lbs into a 5 lb bag...

It really isn't all that bad.
It'd be really easy if the trim weren't hidden under the instrument
panel requiring the pilot to lean over to adjust. OTOH it's *coarse*
and takes little movement of the trim wheel. They fixed that around
CD-60 or so.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>Dan

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:04:35 -0500, john smith > wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> Check with the ABS on this and a quick phone call should suffice. They
>> have some good advise.
>> They do say that *most* Bo pilots land far too fast. With 10 hours of
>> class room (ground school) they drilled into us we would NOT be
>> landing too fast.<:-)) You should have heard the complaints when we
>> were informed we'd be calculating the approach and departure speeds
>> (for VFR) based on aircraft weights and flying those within a couple
>> MPH/knots.

That was nothing compared tot he complaining when we were told we'd be
doing full stalls and the instructor would be blocking the yoke to
prevent the use of the ailerons in the stall.<:-))

>
>What does that tell you about the quality of instruction prior to the
>ABS course?

Out of 60 some only 3 of us had ever done full stalls in the Bo. Only
2 had done accelerated stalls and only one still practiced them. IIRC
less than 10 had current charts.

Roger (K8RI)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:41:48 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>
>>
>> That was nothing compared tot he complaining when we were told we'd be
>> doing full stalls and the instructor would be blocking the yoke to
>> prevent the use of the ailerons in the stall.<:-))
>
>The A36 I fly has the vortex generators installed. Stalls are gentle
>and predictable, at Vso or clean.
>
>I haven't staled the V tail yet -- apparently that break is a bit more
>significant.

The Deb (basically the early 33) has a very abrupt break and wants to
roll left. Using the ailerons at that point will accelerate the roll
rather than stopping it, hence the instructors blocking the yokes.

>
>You would need to screw up big time to stall-spin an A36.
>
>
>> Out of 60 some only 3 of us had ever done full stalls in the Bo. Only
>> 2 had done accelerated stalls and only one still practiced them. IIRC
>> less than 10 had current charts.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>
>Is practicing stalls as important as recognizing an imminent stall and
>recovering prior to the full stall break?

The ASF/ABS seemed to think so in the Bo specific proficiency
training.
If you haven't joined the American Bonanza Society (ABS) it's well
worth the money and they have both excellent pilot proficiency and
aircraft Service Clinics. http://www.bonanza.org/
the Bo specific proficiency training usually takes a whole week end
with 10 hours of class room and 4 to 5 hours of flying and another 3
or so spent on physical systems. One session is good for one phase of
the wings program, a BFR, Instrument currency, and I think I'm missing
two other things it qualifies the pilot for. It's also something your
insurance company loves to see on your qualifications.

Roger (K8RI)

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:51:47 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>On Dec 16, 10:37 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>>>
>> 105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
>> As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
>> reconfiguration was rather short and quick.
>>
>So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
>were you I would find a different instructor next year.
>

That's the way I've always flown the ILS in actual when it's close to
minimums.
My instructor had me flying in actual so often that my first flight
after getting the rating was with most of my route near minimums as I
was comfortable with that. I'm nowhere near that competent at present,
nor would I fly with ceilings at least 200 above minimums now If I
could get out there.

As I haven't flown since last March I'm neither current or competent
as far as I'm concerned. I hope the fix the later some time in the
next couple of weeks.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>FB

The 36/A36 front seats are a little in front of the fwd CG limit, in the
33/35 models all the seats are behind the fwd limit. Fuel is the only
weight you can add to the Bonanza to shift the CG forward and that means you
have to keep a minimum fuel as ballast since the CG moves aft as you burn
fuel. It is essential on all the Bonanza models to do a take-off and a
landing W&B. [A good idea in any airplane]


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFII-ASMELI, A&P
BE400/BE1900-BE300
"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The CG range on the A36 is very different from the 33/35 models.
Without
| > passengers in the middle or rear, the CG is further fwd and the force
| > required to flare is greater.
|
| The CG range is a little larger on the 36 but otherwise similar. With
| pax only in front of the 35 the CG is near forward limit, same as the 36.

The fuselage was repositioned on the 36 wing, by sectioning the cabin,
changing the cabin profile. You will see about 10 inches between the
firewall and a 36 wing root and almost none on a 33/35.

Early 35s have small engines and later models have the IO520/IO550 engines
and about 1,000 pounds more gross weight than the 1948 models.

Bonanzas have been modified so much that it is hard to make a general
statement, each airplane may have many STC changes in GW, engine, brakes,
anything that effects GW.



"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:05:10 -0700, Newps > wrote:
|
| >
| >
| wrote:
| >
| >> BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient
| >> energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent.
| >
| >
| >What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no
| >power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo.
|
| It's not an elevator authority issue, but rather one of energy.
|
| Book figures for the 33 are ~ 80 knots (varies a bit from year to
| year) for a no power landing. It's 78 (90 MPH) for mine. Normal is 70
| (80 MPH) minus one mph for each 100# under gross. The POH states the
| power off landing is faster as there is not enough energy to safely
| flare at the normal power on landing speed.
|
| Depending on the year the 36 is slightly longer than the 35/33 to a
| fair amount longer (18" IIRC). CG covers a much wider range on the 36.
| As I recall the wing is the same with some minor differences in the
| tips, stall strips, and rivet patterns (flush and round head). OTOH
| they are not interchangeable. Early 33s had a number of variations in
| the tank arrangement(s). I've had mechanics swear the aux tanks on
| mine were after market as they are forward of the spar, but it came
| from the factory that way.
|
| The early 35s are considerably lighter than later 33s and 36s.
| Later 36s are heavy.
|
| Roger (K8RI)

> If you haven't joined the American Bonanza Society (ABS) it's well
> worth the money and they have both excellent pilot proficiency and
> aircraft Service Clinics. http://www.bonanza.org/
> the Bo specific proficiency training usually takes a whole week end
> with 10 hours of class room and 4 to 5 hours of flying and another 3
> or so spent on physical systems. One session is good for one phase of
> the wings program, a BFR, Instrument currency, and I think I'm missing
> two other things it qualifies the pilot for. It's also something your
> insurance company loves to see on your qualifications.
>
> Roger (K8RI)

ABS membership is on the way. I signed up for a trial membership a
couple of months ago and it seems worthwhile.

Once the CFII ticket is punched, I'll probably look to spend the next
bunch of $$ I don't have yet on the Bonanza training.

Dan

On 12/18/2007 6:45:56 PM, " wrote:

> Besides,
> I turn off electric trim as part of the pre-landing checklist.

Why do you do this?

(Curious since I own a V35B with electric trim that I exclusively.)

--
Peter

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

>
> Book figures for the 33 are ~ 80 knots (varies a bit from year to
> year) for a no power landing. It's 78 (90 MPH) for mine. Normal is 70
> (80 MPH) minus one mph for each 100# under gross. The POH states the
> power off landing is faster as there is not enough energy to safely
> flare at the normal power on landing speed.


My book 50 foot speed is 68 MPH(59 KTS) at my typical landing weight.

On Dec 19, 12:34 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 12/18/2007 6:45:56 PM, " wrote:
>
> > Besides,
> > I turn off electric trim as part of the pre-landing checklist.
>
> Why do you do this?
>
> (Curious since I own a V35B with electric trim that I exclusively.)
>
> --
> Peter

Two Reasons:
#1: Runaway trim
#2: Prevents accidental/inadvertent autopilot activation


Dan