A36 Bonanza turbo prop

[Jeff]

Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

> Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
> pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
> They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.
>

A friend of mine here had one -- he got a Piper Meridian because the
Meridian is pressurized.

[Scott Skylane]

Jeff wrote:

> Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
> pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
> They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.
>

Jeff,
These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
exercise in compromises. First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green. This restricts
you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable altitudes. Stay down
low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up high, go fast, and suck on a
nose bag. Not to mention that Jet fuel weighs 10% more than av gas, and
to carry enough to go anywhere, you have to install tip tanks.
Unfortunately, gross takeoff weight does not get an appreciable
increase, so cabin payload for anything but touch and go's drops into
the pathetic range. Etc., etc...

They are little more than a fun toy for those that can afford them. If
I were playing with that much money, I'd look into a light pressurized twin.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Roy Smith]

Scott Skylane > wrote:
> These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
> exercise in compromises.

All airplanes are an exercise in compromises.

> First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
> airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green.

I know turbines don't have a yellow arc, but I never understood the
logic behind that. Vno (bottom of the yellow arc) is determined by
airframe factors -- IIRC, the ability of the wings to handle the
stresses from vertical gusts. How does taking out pistons and putting
in fan blades change how the airframe reacts to stresses?

> This restricts you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable
> altitudes. Stay down low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up
> high, go fast, and suck on a nose bag.

But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!

[Jeff]

this is the first time I heard of them having this conversion for the A36
bonanza, seems kinda like over kill for that plane. I have seen it for other
planes before.

the article said they also had to add tip tanks for the extra gas that thing
burns

Scott Skylane wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
> > Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
> > pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
> > They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.
> >
>
> Jeff,
> These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
> exercise in compromises. First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
> airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green. This restricts
> you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable altitudes. Stay down
> low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up high, go fast, and suck on a
> nose bag. Not to mention that Jet fuel weighs 10% more than av gas, and
> to carry enough to go anywhere, you have to install tip tanks.
> Unfortunately, gross takeoff weight does not get an appreciable
> increase, so cabin payload for anything but touch and go's drops into
> the pathetic range. Etc., etc...
>
> They are little more than a fun toy for those that can afford them. If
> I were playing with that much money, I'd look into a light pressurized twin.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

[Jeff]

I think the article said it gets 1700 fpm climb, TAS at 15000 is around 210
kts.

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!

[Bruce Gray]

And KTAS for a Glasair III at 8,000 is 230.

Bruce
www.glasair.org

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I think the article said it gets 1700 fpm climb, TAS at 15000 is around
210
> kts.
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
> > These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
> > exercise in compromises.
>
> All airplanes are an exercise in compromises.
>
> > First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
> > airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green.
>
> I know turbines don't have a yellow arc, but I never understood the
> logic behind that. Vno (bottom of the yellow arc) is determined by
> airframe factors -- IIRC, the ability of the wings to handle the
> stresses from vertical gusts. How does taking out pistons and putting
> in fan blades change how the airframe reacts to stresses?

It doesn't, turbines are just rated more conservatively. There is nothing
magic about these numbers. Vne is simply 90% of Vd (maximium demonstrated
dive speed), and Vno (Vmo in turbines) is simply 80%. Barry Schiff has a
discussion of V speeds in one of his books.

Mike
MU-2

>
> > This restricts you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable
> > altitudes. Stay down low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up
> > high, go fast, and suck on a nose bag.
>
> But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!

[Viperdoc]

One of the theoretical advantages of the conversions is that it remains and
flies like a Bonanza, with excellent handling. The quality of Beech
workmanship far exceeds that of a Piper. A single turbine will likely be
more reliable regarding engine failures compared to a twin, without the
inherent difficulties of managing two engines, or one when the other quits.

Light pressurized twins require a lot more maintenance than a turbine
Bonanza- two of everything to break, and lots of moving parts contained with
an aging airframe and pressure vessel. Hourly operating expenses will likely
be lower, while dispatch rates will be higher with the turbine Bonanza.
Plus, the turbine Bonanza can be flown into significantly shorter and less
improved fields than a cabin class piston twin.

Yes, all airplanes are compromises in some respects, but most people would
agree that the performance of a turbine Bonanza probably exceeds that of a
lot of cabin class twins, and likely will be more reliable.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
> pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
> They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.

Yep, that's where I got the engine for my Navion. I have IO-550-B Platinum
edition, prop, engine instruments, etc... everything that came off some guy's
Bonanza when it went in for the turbine mod. Nine hours since factor new.

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:44:03 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
>> Anyone else read the article in the new private pilot mag ( think it was
>> pvt pilot) that had the A36 Bonanza turbo prop modification.
>> They listed is as almost a half a million dollar modification.
>
>Yep, that's where I got the engine for my Navion. I have IO-550-B Platinum
>edition, prop, engine instruments, etc... everything that came off some guy's
>Bonanza when it went in for the turbine mod. Nine hours since factor new.

Man, but that must be one sweet runnin' Navion.
You should have kept the 2-blade prop for effect though. Those
suckers were loud! <:-))

We had a pain of Navions in USAF paint take off from 3BS last summer,
right out over the noise sensitive folks in their rich homes off the
south end of 18/36. They went right by the EAA chapter building and
darn near made the wrenches rattle in the tool box. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Frank Stutzman]

Roger Halstead > wrote:

> We had a pain of Navions in USAF paint take off from 3BS last summer,

hmmm, I heard of a "pods" of whales, a "murder" of crows, a "bouquet" of
pheasants and even a "bale" of turtles. But thats the first tiime I've
ever heard of a "pain" of Navions. Just how many Navions are required to
have a full "pain?"

I will reserve comment on how apropo the term is ;-)

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:27:09 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> wrote:

>Roger Halstead > wrote:
>
>> We had a pain of Navions in USAF paint take off from 3BS last summer,
>
>hmmm, I heard of a "pods" of whales, a "murder" of crows, a "bouquet" of
>pheasants and even a "bale" of turtles. But thats the first tiime I've
>ever heard of a "pain" of Navions. Just how many Navions are required to
>have a full "pain?"

According to the airport neighbors... Just one, or more. <:-))

>
>I will reserve comment on how apropo the term is ;-)

Being a touch typist, I must have looked at the keyboard instead of
the monitor...or I can blame it on the spell checker?
My proof reader had gone to bed at least four hours earlier so I
can't blame her.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:18:41 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>> > These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
>> > exercise in compromises.
>>
>> All airplanes are an exercise in compromises.
>>
>> > First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
>> > airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green.
>>
>> I know turbines don't have a yellow arc, but I never understood the
>> logic behind that. Vno (bottom of the yellow arc) is determined by
>> airframe factors -- IIRC, the ability of the wings to handle the
>> stresses from vertical gusts. How does taking out pistons and putting
>> in fan blades change how the airframe reacts to stresses?
>
>It doesn't, turbines are just rated more conservatively. There is nothing
>magic about these numbers. Vne is simply 90% of Vd (maximium demonstrated

According to Bell in "Those Incompairable Bonanzas" Vne is 80% of the
tested dive speed in the Bo, where it is 90% in almost all other
aircraft.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>dive speed), and Vno (Vmo in turbines) is simply 80%. Barry Schiff has a
>discussion of V speeds in one of his books.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>>
>> > This restricts you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable
>> > altitudes. Stay down low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up
>> > high, go fast, and suck on a nose bag.
>>
>> But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!
>

[Frank Stutzman]

Roger Halstead > wrote:

> Being a touch typist, I must have looked at the keyboard instead of
> the monitor...or I can blame it on the spell checker?
> My proof reader had gone to bed at least four hours earlier so I
> can't blame her.

No problem, Roger. If you notice, in true usenet fashion, my gentle jab
at your typo contained a typo of its own. At least yours was mildly
amusing.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[EDR]

In article >, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

> We had a pain of Navions in USAF paint take off from 3BS last summer,
> right out over the noise sensitive folks in their rich homes off the
> south end of 18/36.

L-17's

[Ron Natalie]

"EDR" > wrote in message ...
> In article >, Roger Halstead
> > wrote:
>
> > We had a pain of Navions in USAF paint take off from 3BS last summer,
> > right out over the noise sensitive folks in their rich homes off the
> > south end of 18/36.
>
> L-17's

Or perhaps L-17 pretenders. There's very little difference between an actual
L-17 and a civilian Navion. You pretty much have to look up the serial number
to know.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:18:41 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Scott Skylane > wrote:
> >> > These have been around for quite a while, and they are nothing but an
> >> > exercise in compromises.
> >>
> >> All airplanes are an exercise in compromises.
> >>
> >> > First, there is no "yellow arc" allowed on the
> >> > airspeed indicator, so redline becomes top of the green.
> >>
> >> I know turbines don't have a yellow arc, but I never understood the
> >> logic behind that. Vno (bottom of the yellow arc) is determined by
> >> airframe factors -- IIRC, the ability of the wings to handle the
> >> stresses from vertical gusts. How does taking out pistons and putting
> >> in fan blades change how the airframe reacts to stresses?
> >
> >It doesn't, turbines are just rated more conservatively. There is
nothing
> >magic about these numbers. Vne is simply 90% of Vd (maximium
demonstrated
>
> According to Bell in "Those Incompairable Bonanzas" Vne is 80% of the
> tested dive speed in the Bo, where it is 90% in almost all other
> aircraft.

90% of Vd is the maximium that Vne can be. Some airplanes have a Vne lower
than 90% of Vd for various reasons. In the MU-2 Vd is 345kts and Vmo is
only 250kts or 72%. It had something to due with the CAR 3 standard that it
was certified under and the fact that the early MU-2s couldn't do 250kts
indicated in level flight anyway. Even though the later models have almost
twice the power as the originals and will easily reach 250kts indicated as
high as 16,000', the 250kts Vmo was left unchanged.

Mike
MU-2

> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >dive speed), and Vno (Vmo in turbines) is simply 80%. Barry Schiff has a
> >discussion of V speeds in one of his books.
> >
> >Mike
> >MU-2
> >
> >>
> >> > This restricts you to pretty low true airspeeds at breathable
> >> > altitudes. Stay down low, go slow and burn A LOT of gas. Go up
> >> > high, go fast, and suck on a nose bag.
> >>
> >> But oh man, think of the climb rates you must get!
> >
>

[John Galban]

Jeff > wrote in message >...
> this is the first time I heard of them having this conversion for the A36
> bonanza, seems kinda like over kill for that plane. I have seen it for other
> planes before.
>
> the article said they also had to add tip tanks for the extra gas that thing
> burns
>

You think the Bonanza conversion is overkill? You oughta see this one :

http://sobering.terracom.net/eaa99/Turbo_Luscombe/

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Viperdoc]

I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was featured in
Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs to a friend of mine. The
plane is truly beautiful and immaculate, there are only 80 hours on the
airframe. The conversion is fully integrated with the Bonanza, as are the
wing tanks. It does not look like it was added on at all.

The workmanship is exquisite, with a very neat installation and great
attention to detail. All of the panels fit square and flush, and the paint
job is immaculate. Of course, the Jaguar leather interior and Garmin panel
with TCAD, WX-500, etc are also immaculate. The plane retains the
reliability and workmanship of a Beech aircraft, with the added horsepower
and reliability of the turbine.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza a serious
competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly regarding reliability and ease
of flying in and out of short fields, along with cruise speed and
performance. I can't wait to go for a ride within the next few days and get
my hands on the controls!

[Roger Halstead]

On 29 Dec 2003 17:35:17 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

>Jeff > wrote in message >...
>> this is the first time I heard of them having this conversion for the A36
>> bonanza, seems kinda like over kill for that plane. I have seen it for other
>> planes before.
>>
>> the article said they also had to add tip tanks for the extra gas that thing
>> burns
>>
>
> You think the Bonanza conversion is overkill? You oughta see this one :
>
>http://sobering.terracom.net/eaa99/Turbo_Luscombe/

Yah, but this one is only 150 HP.

..Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair!)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dan Luke]

"Viperdoc" wrote:
> I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
> featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
> to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,

Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.

> For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
> a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...

....if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mike Rapoport]

For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and
Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
are too small.

Mike
MJ-2


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Viperdoc" wrote:
> > I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
> > featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
> > to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,
>
> Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
> lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.
>
> > For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
> > a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...
>
> ...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
> interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
> airplane.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is?

I do, if I'm considering a turbine Bonanza.

> It is totally meaningless.

Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
range.

> What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
> same mission. This may be the same thing in your example
> with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza...

Which is why I brought it up.

> but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
> If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel,
> then the tanks are too small.

So Cessna should have put 138 gal. tanks in Cutlass RGs?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ray Andraka]

Or your bladder is too large ;-) My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and
will carry my whole family(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags
for a few days without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).
Since 3.5 hrs is about all any of the passengers, including the dog, can go
without crossing the legs, I can't imagine what I'd do with bigger tanks. I get
condensate in the gas if I don't keep the tanks full in the hangar, and it would
be a b*&$h to have to drain off fuel before going on a trip.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
> totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
> same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and
> Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
> If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
> are too small.
>
> Mike
> MJ-2
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Viperdoc" wrote:
> > > I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
> > > featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
> > > to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,
> >
> > Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
> > lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.
> >
> > > For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
> > > a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...
> >
> > ...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
> > interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
> > airplane.
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[EDR]

In article >, Ray Andraka
> wrote:

> My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and will carry my whole family
>(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags for a few days
> without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).

Sounds like it's about time to move up to that Cessna Caravan!

[Mike Rapoport]

Well:

The range on your 172 RG is 600nm according to
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane280.shtml

The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
http://justsaytheword.home.mindspring.com/articles.html

So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which weighs 444
lb. The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane98.shtml leaving 956lbs of
useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly 50% more that your 172RG.
Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.

I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes a reserve, but
even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly better payload over
ANY distance.

Mike
MU-2








"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is?
>
> I do, if I'm considering a turbine Bonanza.
>
> > It is totally meaningless.
>
> Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
> range.
>
> > What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
> > same mission. This may be the same thing in your example
> > with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza...
>
> Which is why I brought it up.
>
> > but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
> > If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel,
> > then the tanks are too small.
>
> So Cessna should have put 138 gal. tanks in Cutlass RGs?
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...

>
> Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
> range.

Isn't the fuel in the tips "free" with respect to the original gross weight of the
Bo?

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> The range on your 172 RG is 600nm

Nope. 135 KTAS @ 10 GPH, 62 gal usable = 810 NM absolute range @ 75%
power.

> The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
> So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which
> weighs 444 lb.

So it needs 90 gal. to go 810 NM., about 610 lbs.

> The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
> leaving 956lbs of useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly
> 50% more that your 172RG.

The turbine Bo' in the article has a useful load of 1160 lbs., leaving a
useful load over the same range of 550 lbs.; 100 lbs. less than my
172RG.

> Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.

Evidently not.

> I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes
> a reserve, but even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly
> better payload over ANY distance.

Nope.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
> > Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it
> > practical range.
>
> Isn't the fuel in the tips "free" with respect to the original gross
> weight of the Bo?

Pretty close, but the point is you need it all to get useful IFR range,
and then you can't carry much load. The poster I was originally replying
to compared the aircraft favorably to a Baron 58. I think it comes off
pretty poorly in the comparison.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[sam]

If you move up to the caravan Im looking for a C206.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Viperdoc]

If you in any way can remotely consider a 172 and a Bonanza (either normally
aspirated or turbine) comparable you need a pretty significant reality
check. Both are great airplanes in their own regard, but do not in any way
compare in terms of performance and capability. The turbine adds a lot of
reliability compared to a piston plane, even a twin.

Once, while returning from Kentucky to Wisconsin, I got routed (through my
own ignorance) over the middle of Lake Michigan at 2,000 feet in solid IMC
without an autopilot while flying a 172 RG. The chance of survival in case
of an engine failure were near zero.

Now, I fly a Baron which is fully deiced, has radar and storm scope, and
even then the thought of an engine failure under the same conditions still
is concerning but eminently more survivable.

The turbine Bonanza offers even more reliability than the Baron. The
argument about tip tanks doesn't remotely make sense- you can never have too
much fuel, particularly when you're running out. They actually provide some
lift, and increase the gross weight of the plane. The turbine engine is half
the weight of the stock piston engine.

Until you've actually seen or flown in one, I wouldn't be too critical of a
turbine Bonanza. There's a lot more to flying or owning a plane than simply
making blanket judgments by reading the book numbers. My two planes, an
Extra 300 and the Baron, are perfect for me, but are likely too impractical
or of little value to a lot of other pilots, so who cares?

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
>totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
>same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and
>Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
>If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
>are too small.
>
>Mike
>MJ-2

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC

[Dan Luke]

"Viperdoc" wrote:
> If you in any way can remotely consider a 172 and a Bonanza
> (either normally aspirated or turbine) comparable you need a
> pretty significant reality check.

The comparison was intentionally ridiculous to point out the payload
shortcomings of the turbine Bonanza.
Compared to the Baron 58, the T-Bo looks really sad in that respect.

> Both are great airplanes in their own regard, but do not in any way
> compare in terms of performance and capability. The turbine adds
> a lot of reliability compared to a piston plane, even a twin.

Agreed, but that wasn't the issue.

[snip]

> The argument about tip tanks doesn't remotely make sense-

Then I have stated it poorly. My point was that it takes ALL the extra
fuel capacity to provide useful IFR cross country range, and then the
payload becomes ridiculously small for a 6-place airplane. That is not
the case with the Baron, which can tank up and still carry four people
and baggage.

> They actually provide some lift, and increase the gross weight of
> the plane. The turbine engine is half the weight of the stock piston
engine.

Then how come the useful load is only 1160 lbs vs. the 1440 lbs. of a
stock Bonanza 36?

> Until you've actually seen or flown in one, I wouldn't be too critical
of a
> turbine Bonanza.

I would love the chance. Please understand, I never said a T-Bo sucks!

>There's a lot more to flying or owning a plane than simply
> making blanket judgments by reading the book numbers. My
> two planes, an Extra 300 and the Baron, are perfect for me,
> but are likely too impractical or of little value to a lot of other
> pilots, so who cares?

Well, apparently you and I do, since we are having this discussion. If
someone wants to own a turbine Bonanza for whatever reason, fine; no
doubt he will have a blast flying it. But you were comparing its utility
value with that of a Baron 58, where it comes off poorly, IMO. Would
you trade your Baron for the turbine Bonanza?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mike Rapoport]

If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?

The notion of needing *more* reminds me of a story of Mark Donahue and the
Porsche 917. After a test lap, the engineers asked Donahue what the car
needed. He responded: "It needs more power" (the engine was already making
1200hp), so they turned up the boost and he went out on the track again.
When he returned the engineers asked what the car needed now. Donahue
responded: "It needs more power". The engineers asked how much power did
the car need and Donahue responded: "Enough power to spin the wheels down
the longest straight in the (CanAM) series...then it will need a bigger
wing...then more power...

The need for more never ends.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
> >totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly
the
> >same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172
and
> >Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet
peeves.
> >If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
> >are too small.
> >
> >Mike
> >MJ-2
>
> If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
> world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.
>
> You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
> of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
> at altitude.
>
> Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
> a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.
>
> TC
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high. The
turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to assume
that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start adding
radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon the
plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well from a
range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is the
article availible online?

Mike
MU-2

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > The range on your 172 RG is 600nm
>
> Nope. 135 KTAS @ 10 GPH, 62 gal usable = 810 NM absolute range @ 75%
> power.
>
> > The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
> > So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which
> > weighs 444 lb.
>
> So it needs 90 gal. to go 810 NM., about 610 lbs.
>
> > The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
> > leaving 956lbs of useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly
> > 50% more that your 172RG.
>
> The turbine Bo' in the article has a useful load of 1160 lbs., leaving a
> useful load over the same range of 550 lbs.; 100 lbs. less than my
> 172RG.
>
> > Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.
>
> Evidently not.
>
> > I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes
> > a reserve, but even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly
> > better payload over ANY distance.
>
> Nope.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message hlink.net...
> I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high. The
> turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to assume
> that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start adding
> radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon the
> plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
> turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well from a
> range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is the
> article availible online?
>
The tips add a few hundred bounds. The D'shannon tips are about 100lbs and these
things look bigger.

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so
high.

No clue from the article, which is the usual aviation mag puff piece.
It's a "Jaguar Edition" 36, so that might explain some of it.

> Is the article availible online?

I can't find it. It may show up after this month's issue is no longer
current.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Viperdoc]

I had the opportunity to fly in the very same plane described in the
magazine today. We went for lunch at Madison, WI, which is around 50 miles
away.

My first impressions are that it had a lot of power- we were passing pattern
altitude by the end of the 5,000 foot runway with a normal climb-out. With
normal power settings it cruised about 40-50k faster than a piston Bonanza
(187-198k GS) in both directions.

The plane is very well equipped, with a Garmin 530 and 430, TCAD, and WX-500
Stormscope, along with fuel totalizer. Except for the panel for the tip tank
pumps, the rest of the instruments were pretty standard.

The ride was extremely smooth and quiet, and it retained the famed Bonanza
handling characteristics- very light on the controls, with both pitch and
roll well harmonized. It was much quieter than a piston Bonanza, and flying
was a lot lower workload than my Baron.

Also, you can stay high and keep the speed up until final- the big prop acts
like a speed brake. No more concerns about shock cooling either.

The plane also looks cool, with the extended nose and winglets. The turbine
conversion and wing tips definitely do not look like they were patched on-
the workmanship is flawless, as is the paint job. I'm not sure what the
Jaguar interior adds, but everything is tan leather, and nicely done.

I haven't gotten into all of the technical details of fuel burn, useful
load, range, and endurance yet, but will try to learn about this during the
next few days. However, I can say that this is one very nice airplane.

(By the way, our friends flew with us to lunch in an RG 172, and even though
they left around 15 minutes before us, we passed them with about a 75 knot
overtake speed.)

[Dan Luke]

"Viperdoc" wrote:
> (By the way, our friends flew with us to lunch in an RG 172,
> and even though they left around 15 minutes before us, we
> passed them with about a 75 knot overtake speed.)

*snif*... *pout*
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:25:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
>more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
>unpreasurized airplane?

Now you're confusing me. I don't expect any turboprop airplane to run
out of poop in the low teens. Max rated thermo hp isn't the issue,
it's running out of it before getting to an altitude where acceptable
gains in true airspeed are made.

The real question is how much power is available and the specific fuel
consumption in let's say between 9,000-15,000 msl.

Again, unless they've made some big changes in the powerplant, you
don't need to worry about getting too "high" unpressurised.

TC


>> You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
>> of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
>> at altitude.
>>
>> Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
>> a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.
>>
>> TC
>>
>>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

A few hundred pounds empty?

Mike
MU-2

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high.
The
> > turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to
assume
> > that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start
adding
> > radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon
the
> > plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
> > turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well
from a
> > range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is
the
> > article availible online?
> >
> The tips add a few hundred bounds. The D'shannon tips are about 100lbs
and these
> things look bigger.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I didn't design the conversion or even talk to the guy who did but consider
that there are a number or constraints:

1) Vmo (which will be the same as Vno in the piston Bonanza)
2) Mmo, does anyone even know what the maximium permissable mach number is
for a Bonanza? Probably even Beech does not.
3) Weight and balance, you can't put a huge engine out in front.
4) Fuel burn at expected altitudes (high teens) a bigger compressor takes a
lot of power to turn at low altitudes. At sea level my TPE 331s each burn
36gph idling (the props are at flat pitch..

I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance than
a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but not
to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put an
engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would probably
have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.

I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at any
flight altitude.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:25:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine
for
> >more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
> >unpreasurized airplane?
>
> Now you're confusing me. I don't expect any turboprop airplane to run
> out of poop in the low teens. Max rated thermo hp isn't the issue,
> it's running out of it before getting to an altitude where acceptable
> gains in true airspeed are made.
>
> The real question is how much power is available and the specific fuel
> consumption in let's say between 9,000-15,000 msl.
>
> Again, unless they've made some big changes in the powerplant, you
> don't need to worry about getting too "high" unpressurised.
>
> TC
>
>
> >> You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
> >> of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
> >> at altitude.
> >>
> >> Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
> >> a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.
> >>
> >> TC
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message hlink.net...
> A few hundred pounds empty?

The Osborn tanks I believe weight about an 100 for the pair I thought. I may be
wrong. Maybe it was 50 for the pair. I'll have to dig. I know that the gross weight
increase on the Navion for them is exactly the weight of the fuel in the tanks plus the
weight of the STC kit.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:37:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance than
>a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but not
>to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put an
>engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would probably
>have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head, intentionally or
accidentally. A turbo-normalized or turbo-supercharged engine in an
A-36 should have no issues with delivering 75% of rated TO hp well
into the teens.

Again, it has admittedly been several years since I did the research
for a prospective customer (for whom $$ was by no means an issue), but
the power "curve" of the 250 was less than desirable when compared to
a turbo piston-pounder.

Specific fuel consumption was approximately 1/3 higher, with the
additional fuel storage neccessary to retain "acceptable" range
capabilities.

There are many existing aircraft types that have been "re-engined"
with powerplants drastically exceeding the original installations. In
a lot of cases, no "flight-test"-ing is required, nor is it needed.
Engine operating limitations are changed so as not to exceed the
original levels.

I would certainly agree that testing would need to be performed if
increasing the usable hp-thrust rating.
>
>I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
>thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at any
>flight altitude.

I apologize if I wasn't clear, or it may be a case of
miscommunication. It's likely when looking at "newer" t-prop aircraft
you will notice that the gas generator is likely capable of exceeding
airframe limitations at max thermo-hp.

Hence, at altitude it has no problems producing a very high percentage
of "max take-off" power. I'm sure you know this.

They are few and far between, but there are A-36's flying around with
350 hp turbo-supercharged Lycoming engines. Aside from the differences
in initial rate of climb, I would be willing to bet the the overall
performance numbers would be more than comparable to the turbine
conversion.

The guy I spoke to that had one could only lament the fact that he had
to burn 22-25 gph in cruise...

Regards;

TC

snip

[Wyatt Emmerich]

I fly a Cessna P210 with a turbine conversion. Used to fly a turbo Arrow.
I'm based in the south and I have found engine heat at altitude to be the
limiting factor for both the turbine and piston. On cold days, you can go a
good 20-30 knots faster than hot days at altitude with the turbine. On hot
days with my Arrow at altitude, I always seemed to be worried about cylinder
head temps.

The Allison engine is much lighter than the piston, but you have to carry
more fuel, so it's a wash. Plus Jet-A is 10 percent heavier than Avgas.
However, the lighter turbine engine allows for tip and aft auxiliary tanks
which extend my range to 1200 nautical miles. Fuel burn is 25 gallons--quite
a bit more than the piston, offset slightly by the lower cost of Jet-A.

Nevertheless, I have found increased speed, although nice, not nearly as
important as the comfort of knowing a turbine has substantially higher
reliability than a piston. Next is the quiet and smoothness of the plane,
it's climb ability, huge feathered-prop glide ratio and, being pressurized,
the ability to get quickly on top of the bumpy cumulo level in the summer.




> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:37:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance
than
> >a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but
not
> >to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put
an
> >engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would
probably
> >have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.
>
> You seem to have hit the nail on the head, intentionally or
> accidentally. A turbo-normalized or turbo-supercharged engine in an
> A-36 should have no issues with delivering 75% of rated TO hp well
> into the teens.
>
> Again, it has admittedly been several years since I did the research
> for a prospective customer (for whom $$ was by no means an issue), but
> the power "curve" of the 250 was less than desirable when compared to
> a turbo piston-pounder.
>
> Specific fuel consumption was approximately 1/3 higher, with the
> additional fuel storage neccessary to retain "acceptable" range
> capabilities.
>
> There are many existing aircraft types that have been "re-engined"
> with powerplants drastically exceeding the original installations. In
> a lot of cases, no "flight-test"-ing is required, nor is it needed.
> Engine operating limitations are changed so as not to exceed the
> original levels.
>
> I would certainly agree that testing would need to be performed if
> increasing the usable hp-thrust rating.
> >
> >I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
> >thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at
any
> >flight altitude.
>
> I apologize if I wasn't clear, or it may be a case of
> miscommunication. It's likely when looking at "newer" t-prop aircraft
> you will notice that the gas generator is likely capable of exceeding
> airframe limitations at max thermo-hp.
>
> Hence, at altitude it has no problems producing a very high percentage
> of "max take-off" power. I'm sure you know this.
>
> They are few and far between, but there are A-36's flying around with
> 350 hp turbo-supercharged Lycoming engines. Aside from the differences
> in initial rate of climb, I would be willing to bet the the overall
> performance numbers would be more than comparable to the turbine
> conversion.
>
> The guy I spoke to that had one could only lament the fact that he had
> to burn 22-25 gph in cruise...
>
> Regards;
>
> TC
>
> snip
>

[Dan Luke]

"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:
> I fly a Cessna P210 with a turbine conversion.

What are your max gross, useful load and usable fuel capacity?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)