cost of panel upgrade on bonanza

[soxinbox]

I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Al Marzo]

Expect to spend anywhere from about $5.5K for a piano keys up (Hammock
Aviation, Ennis, TX) conversion to about $8K (Air Research, Sandy
River , OR) for the full change. You'll have wiring and instrument
issues that you never thought of before. So maybe you should look at
P models and up, or planes that already had this conversion done.

Now with that said, I suggest yo do a bit more research and if a
Bonanza or Bonanza derivative (Debonair, the Bonanza look alike with
the Piper tail) is how you want to tell the world that you've arrived,
contact the American Bonanza Society (www.abs.org) and ask any
questions you can think of to the people who are the most
knowledgable about them and are always willing to help. You may very
easily purchase one that looks nice and clean and spend $20K on your
first annual, even after some schmuck A&P does a "prebuy".




On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:31:52 GMT, soxinbox > wrote:

>I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
>bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
>would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
>but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>
>Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
>power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help.

[Matt Barrow]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
. 166...
> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
> bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
> would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same
time,
> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>
> Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
> power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.
>
The cost would be commensurate with just going to a newer model Bonanza
would be my guess.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[C Kingsbury]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
. 166...
> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
> bonanza or debonair.

My first thought is, "don't."

Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather because I've
found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and you're better off
learning with something simple. Why not a good Skylane? For the same money
you'll get a newer, likely lower-time bird, spend less on insurance and
maintenance. The only downside being speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range
depending on the two birds you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or
do you just want it? You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to
or even exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the Total
Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big pressurized twin
cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a nice Bo. Of course that
resale value will come back on the tail end, should you decide to step up.

Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane ownership
is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and when anything makes
a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your wallet. Be prepared for
numbers that sound like the down payment on a car. If the thought of this
concerns you, best stay away from an early 60s Beech retract.

> Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
> would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same
time,
> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the one you
have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading the panel,
you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell it. Let the
previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception to this would be a
good plane with a high-time engine, because a much larger portion of the
money you spend on the engine will be retained as value. Of course, if you
already have a plane you like but just want newer radios, it can make sense
to upgrade because you'll own them long enough to get your money's worth.
But if you're buying the plane now, buy what you want the first time around.

Best,
-cwk.

[soxinbox]

I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
want something that is resonably fast with a good range.

Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
afford more plane than they could fly.

I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load >1000) with
a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.

>
> "soxinbox" > wrote in message
> . 166...
>> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early
>> 60s bonanza or debonair.
>
> My first thought is, "don't."
>
> Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather
> because I've found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and
> you're better off learning with something simple. Why not a good
> Skylane? For the same money you'll get a newer, likely lower-time
> bird, spend less on insurance and maintenance. The only downside being
> speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range depending on the two birds
> you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or do you just want it?
> You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to or even
> exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
> older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the
> Total Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big
> pressurized twin cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a
> nice Bo. Of course that resale value will come back on the tail end,
> should you decide to step up.
>
> Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane
> ownership is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and
> when anything makes a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your
> wallet. Be prepared for numbers that sound like the down payment on a
> car. If the thought of this concerns you, best stay away from an early
> 60s Beech retract.
>
>> Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much
>> this would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the
>> same
> time,
>> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>
> My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the
> one you have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading
> the panel, you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell
> it. Let the previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception
> to this would be a good plane with a high-time engine, because a much
> larger portion of the money you spend on the engine will be retained
> as value. Of course, if you already have a plane you like but just
> want newer radios, it can make sense to upgrade because you'll own
> them long enough to get your money's worth. But if you're buying the
> plane now, buy what you want the first time around.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>
>

[Howard Nelson]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
. 165...
> I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
> I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
> that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
> important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
> whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
> want something that is resonably fast with a good range.
>
> Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
> plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
> value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
> of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
> afford more plane than they could fly.
>
> I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load >1000) with
> a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
> panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
> debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
> was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.

In reference to previous replys. A Cessna 182 or Piper 235 (fixed gear) with
long range tanks might get you to your destination just as fast or nearly as
fast as a 165K plane with less range. The cost of ownership and resale for
these two planes has been very favorable (there is a reason for that). The
actual total time for a 600nm trip in a 135K aircraft vs 155K aircraft is
not that different (you spend a lot of the time getting to the airport,
loading the plane, etc.) If you can avoid a refueling stop by having good
range then you will get there first.
Howard
C182 (with long range tanks!)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[[email protected]]

The older bonanza's panel are kind of sparce, but don't let that be a
factor whether or not to buy one.
If the airplane is a nice one and/or affordable one, why not buy it and
fly it as it is and worry about the panel later.

I own an older Bonanza and had the original panel for eight years before
i modified it.

The main reason that i made the panel modification is that I wanted the
speed sloped windshield, and if you were ever going to do a panel
modification, do it while the windshield is out!!!

I would have flown behind the original panel forever without the
windshield modification. It just seemed like a good thing to do.

If your mechanically inclined it could be a very nice winter project to
do it your self.
It's quite a bit of work to do the modification, but its a lot of fun.

Good luck in your endevor!!

Dave


Howard Nelson wrote:

> "soxinbox" > wrote in message
> . 165...
>
>>I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
>>I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
>>that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
>>important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
>>whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
>>want something that is resonably fast with a good range.
>>
>>Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
>>plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
>>value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
>>of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
>>afford more plane than they could fly.
>>
>>I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load >1000) with
>>a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
>>panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
>>debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
>>was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.
>
>
> In reference to previous replys. A Cessna 182 or Piper 235 (fixed gear) with
> long range tanks might get you to your destination just as fast or nearly as
> fast as a 165K plane with less range. The cost of ownership and resale for
> these two planes has been very favorable (there is a reason for that). The
> actual total time for a 600nm trip in a 135K aircraft vs 155K aircraft is
> not that different (you spend a lot of the time getting to the airport,
> loading the plane, etc.) If you can avoid a refueling stop by having good
> range then you will get there first.
> Howard
> C182 (with long range tanks!)
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
>
>

[Roger]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:31:52 GMT, soxinbox > wrote:

>I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
>bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
>would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
>but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

Mine http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm has the non
standard T arrangement. I don't know if there's an STC but I've seen
a lot of them that have been changed. The non standard T can be a bit
confusing if you aren't used to it, but it sure is nice for partial
panel work. Another non standard, but nice feature is the air speed
indicator is CAS and not IAS. They ride the bumps very well but are
not at all forgiving if you get behind the airplane. They are
absolutely rudder only in stalls.

I understand it's an easy conversion to move the instruments. STC or
how cheap? I have no idea. I found mine easy to use so never bothered
changing it. One thing you will note is they have very poor panel
lighting for night flight. A good set of post lights or the new ring
lights would be a good investment.

If you crawl under the panel be prepared for a shock as a 40 to 45
year old airplane will probably look pretty ratty under there.

Most already have the radios upgraded to something more modern, but
may not have GPS. Mine was modern when I purchased it, but the old
KNS-80 RNAV is a tad outdated now. <:-))

I've spent quite a few hours "in the soup" in mine.

If you have the chance the upgrade to the Deshannon Speed sloped
windshield (3/8" or 1/2") along with the 1/4 inch side windows is
worth the investment. You can fly in torrential rain and not hear it.

One thing you want in a Deb or Bo is a good autopilot if you plan on
any instrument work. " Mine has the S-tec 50 although I'd like to
have a 60. I've thought of having a certified enroute and approach GPS
installed, but so far I've stuck with the King Silver Crown stack and
use my Garmin 295. I like the new map anywhere and may just stick on
the yoke or top of the panel.

Look for one with the 260 (IO-470N). They are faster and use only a
little more gas.

Be sure to check the main spar carry through for cracks.
Check the throttle and prop cables for jacket integrity and ease of
operation. The jackets tend to get brittle and flake off leaving
them open to moisture, but this is true of most old airplanes.

Check for wrinkles up front, although they are not nose heavy and have
almost unbelievable elevator authority some do end up landing on the
nose gear. Landing book figures are shorter than a 172. Other than
the pattern entry they both fly the pattern close to the same speeds.
The Deb has a lot more momentum, is far slipperier, and has a higher
sink rate, but you almost have to try to make one float.
>
>Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
>power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.

They are standard, Everyone else is backwards. <:-))

I learned in the Deb so anything else really is backwards to me. You
have to reach over to get the gear handle while the newer ones have it
right by your hand.

>
>Thanks in advance for any help.

I've put over a 1000 hours on mine and the maintenance has been quite
reasonable. A visit to a Bonanza service clinic is well worth the
cost as is the ABS/Air Safety Foundation Bonanza specific training.
Actually it would be worth joining the ABS if you are considering the
purchase of one. They are a wealth of information.

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

[Roger]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:01:49 -0500, Al Marzo >
wrote:

>Expect to spend anywhere from about $5.5K for a piano keys up (Hammock

No one goes with the piano keys any more. Just conventional switches
which look a lot nicer.

>Aviation, Ennis, TX) conversion to about $8K (Air Research, Sandy

Having the instruments moved to the conventional layout is a
relatively small job.

The complete new panel is about 8 grand and that is with all new
wiring.

\
>River , OR) for the full change. You'll have wiring and instrument
>issues that you never thought of before. So maybe you should look at

What issues? They are a mess under the panel, but I haven't seen any
old planes that aren't. Instruments are instruments. There isn't
that much to go wrong and they are relatively easy to get at. Note I
said *relatively* easy. One thing to remember is they do not have an
alternate static port which should be added.

>P models and up, or planes that already had this conversion done.

Remember too that the straight tails do not have any speed
limitations. Like the V-tails though they do tend to have a higher
barf factor in the back seat.

>
>Now with that said, I suggest yo do a bit more research and if a
>Bonanza or Bonanza derivative (Debonair, the Bonanza look alike with
>the Piper tail) is how you want to tell the world that you've arrived,

Ahhh... The Deb is the forerunner of the F-33 Bo. It definitely does
not have a piper tail. It did have the Travel air or military tail to
begin. Unfortunately all the Bo versions have Magnesium elevator
skins.

>contact the American Bonanza Society (www.abs.org) and ask any
>questions you can think of to the people who are the most
>knowledgable about them and are always willing to help. You may very
>easily purchase one that looks nice and clean and spend $20K on your
>first annual, even after some schmuck A&P does a "prebuy".

I haven't spent that much on mine (on annuals) in over 10 years and I
take it to a Bo specialist and follow a progressive maintenance
program. Unfortunately he passed away last winter so now I need to
find a new mechanic.

After about 12 years the paint is getting to the point where it could
use some help. 45 years old and still less than 4000 hours TT and
I've put a third of them on it.

Going to an F-33 would raise the price to at least $140,000 while Debs
can be found from $60 and up in good shape, (less for those that could
use some help) but they are 40 to 45 year old airplanes. I'm seeing
Debs listed in the $80K to $100K plus range now. I keep thinking of
having a new panel installed and the avionics upgraded to state of the
art even though I'd never get the money back. It's just a great plane
to fly. Tip tanks give me about a 1200 mile range. (raises the total
gas on board to 100 gallons) if you can stand to sit there that long.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:31:52 GMT, soxinbox > wrote:
>
>>I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
>>bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>>panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
>>would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
>>but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>>
>>Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
>>power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help.

[Roger]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:28:30 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
>"soxinbox" > wrote in message
. 166...
>> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
>> bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
>> would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same
>time,
>> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>>
>> Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
>> power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.

The power/mix/prop is pretty much standard and most of the parts are
available. It would be easy to change but they are pretty much
standard. The prop and Throttle are just like any other high
performance I've flown. The mixture is just a big knob a bit lower.

Probably about $300 to $400 plus labor of maybe 5 hours.
>>
>The cost would be commensurate with just going to a newer model Bonanza
>would be my guess.

The non standard part is the gear and flap switches.
If it's a first complex, why bother? I can understand if it's not.

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

[Roger]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:38:34 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"soxinbox" > wrote in message
. 166...
>> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
>> bonanza or debonair.
>
Now this is making more sense.

>My first thought is, "don't."
>
>Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather because I've
>found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and you're better off
>learning with something simple. Why not a good Skylane? For the same money

The Deb or Bos are not forgiving airplanes.

>you'll get a newer, likely lower-time bird, spend less on insurance and
>maintenance. The only downside being speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range
>depending on the two birds you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or
>do you just want it? You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to

The extra speed won't come into play until going on long trips.
I've not seen good 182 costing near what the same year Bo, or Deb
would run. Typically I see 182s about 10 years newer than the Bo or
Deb running about the same price.

>or even exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
>older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the Total
>Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big pressurized twin
>cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a nice Bo. Of course that
>resale value will come back on the tail end, should you decide to step up.

Bos aren't terribly expensive to fly, depending on year and how much
you fly. Mine runs less than several single owner 172s on the field.
Depending on hours I figure It runs between $80 and $100 an hour. Two
of the 172s on the field are running closer to $125 an hour.

>
>Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane ownership
>is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and when anything makes
>a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your wallet. Be prepared for
>numbers that sound like the down payment on a car. If the thought of this
>concerns you, best stay away from an early 60s Beech retract.

I've never found that to be the case, but you do need to do a bit of
networking. Know where to find parts.

>
>> Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
>> would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same
>time,
>> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>
>My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the one you
>have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading the panel,
>you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell it. Let the

Probably not that much of a return. After a few years avionics are
almost a wash. $50K would purchase a really, really nice panel.

>previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception to this would be a
>good plane with a high-time engine, because a much larger portion of the
>money you spend on the engine will be retained as value. Of course, if you
>already have a plane you like but just want newer radios, it can make sense
>to upgrade because you'll own them long enough to get your money's worth.
>But if you're buying the plane now, buy what you want the first time around.

That is what I did. I purchased the oldest example in existence. <:-))
but some one had put a lot of money into it.

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

[Roger]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:23:19 GMT, soxinbox > wrote:

>I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
>I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
>that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
>important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
>whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
>want something that is resonably fast with a good range.
>
>Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
>plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
>value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
>of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
>afford more plane than they could fly.
>
>I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load >1000) with

You just ruled out the Deb. The Deb and F-33 prior to 74 only had
1000# useful load and 420# (or more) of that is gas.. In 74 the F-33
went to 1400#. Of course that is when the shifting CG became something
to monitor.

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

>a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
>panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
>debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
>was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.
>
>>
>> "soxinbox" > wrote in message
>> . 166...
>>> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early
>>> 60s bonanza or debonair.
>>
>> My first thought is, "don't."
>>
>> Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather
>> because I've found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and
>> you're better off learning with something simple. Why not a good
>> Skylane? For the same money you'll get a newer, likely lower-time
>> bird, spend less on insurance and maintenance. The only downside being
>> speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range depending on the two birds
>> you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or do you just want it?
>> You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to or even
>> exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
>> older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the
>> Total Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big
>> pressurized twin cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a
>> nice Bo. Of course that resale value will come back on the tail end,
>> should you decide to step up.
>>
>> Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane
>> ownership is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and
>> when anything makes a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your
>> wallet. Be prepared for numbers that sound like the down payment on a
>> car. If the thought of this concerns you, best stay away from an early
>> 60s Beech retract.
>>
>>> Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
>>> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much
>>> this would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the
>>> same
>> time,
>>> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>>
>> My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the
>> one you have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading
>> the panel, you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell
>> it. Let the previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception
>> to this would be a good plane with a high-time engine, because a much
>> larger portion of the money you spend on the engine will be retained
>> as value. Of course, if you already have a plane you like but just
>> want newer radios, it can make sense to upgrade because you'll own
>> them long enough to get your money's worth. But if you're buying the
>> plane now, buy what you want the first time around.
>>
>> Best,
>> -cwk.
>>
>>
>>

[Al Marzo]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:43:48 GMT, Roger
> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:01:49 -0500, Al Marzo >
>wrote:
>
>>Expect to spend anywhere from about $5.5K for a piano keys up (Hammock
>
>No one goes with the piano keys any more. Just conventional switches
>which look a lot nicer.

A too-typical Beech owner. Thinks everyone has an extra 3 to 4K to
**** away! FYI, lots of piano key up conversions are still being
done.

>>Aviation, Ennis, TX) conversion to about $8K (Air Research, Sandy
>
>Having the instruments moved to the conventional layout is a
>relatively small job.

Yea, right. That's why it takes 5 grand to do the job!

>
>The complete new panel is about 8 grand and that is with all new
>wiring.

Didn't I say that?

>\
>>River , OR) for the full change. You'll have wiring and instrument
>>issues that you never thought of before. So maybe you should look at
>
>What issues? They are a mess under the panel, but I haven't seen any
>old planes that aren't. Instruments are instruments. There isn't
>that much to go wrong and they are relatively easy to get at. Note I
>said *relatively* easy. One thing to remember is they do not have an
>alternate static port which should be added.

There's always a mess under the panel, unless you don't think it's an
issue to deal with. Instruments are instruments? Yes, and with
anything else in an old airplane (earlier than 1962) when you remove
things, you find other things to do. Easy job? I guess repairing a
gear up on a Bonanza is a relatively easy job, too!

>>P models and up, or planes that already had this conversion done.
>
>Remember too that the straight tails do not have any speed
>limitations. Like the V-tails though they do tend to have a higher
>barf factor in the back seat.

What speed restrictions? The red line? Or are you talking about the
1947 to 1950 models that haven't had the restriction lifted yet? And
for your info, oh great guru of wannabe Bonanza owners, the fuse makes
the wiggle, not the tail. try sitting in the back seat of that
economy model you own for a flight through some afternoon Texas air.
>>
>>Now with that said, I suggest yo do a bit more research and if a
>>Bonanza or Bonanza derivative (Debonair, the Bonanza look alike with
>>the Piper tail) is how you want to tell the world that you've arrived,
>
>Ahhh... The Deb is the forerunner of the F-33 Bo. It definitely does
>not have a piper tail. It did have the Travel air or military tail to
>begin. Unfortunately all the Bo versions have Magnesium elevator
>skins.

Sorry, it looks more like the tail of a Piper than that of a Bonanza.
Let's take a poll. When someone mentions Bonanza, and you envision it
in your mind, what do you see? Yup, that's right Hoss, a V Tail!

>>contact the American Bonanza Society (www.abs.org) and ask any
>>questions you can think of to the people who are the most
>>knowledgable about them and are always willing to help. You may very
>>easily purchase one that looks nice and clean and spend $20K on your
>>first annual, even after some schmuck A&P does a "prebuy".


>I haven't spent that much on mine (on annuals) in over 10 years and I
>take it to a Bo specialist and follow a progressive maintenance
>program. Unfortunately he passed away last winter so now I need to
>find a new mechanic.

The only way to maintain an old complex aeroplane is to have some type
of program in effect, whether it be put together professionally or by
someone with a good understanding of the machine. You really need to
take your head out of the sand and see what some folks who do not have
the benefit of a Bonanza experienced mechanic are getting stuck with.
Too bad about losing your guy, lots of down and dirty knowledge goes
away daily. Suffice to say that I'll bet your next annual will be
nice and expensive with a new pair of eyes looking at it. Run up to
Ennis, it's only a hop and a skip. Let them do the next one and see
what happens.

>After about 12 years the paint is getting to the point where it could
>use some help. 45 years old and still less than 4000 hours TT and
>I've put a third of them on it.
>
There's a place in Ennis that does that work too.

>Going to an F-33 would raise the price to at least $140,000 while Debs
>can be found from $60 and up in good shape, (less for those that could
>use some help) but they are 40 to 45 year old airplanes. I'm seeing
>Debs listed in the $80K to $100K plus range now. I keep thinking of
>having a new panel installed and the avionics upgraded to state of the
>art even though I'd never get the money back. It's just a great plane
>to fly. Tip tanks give me about a 1200 mile range. (raises the total
>gas on board to 100 gallons) if you can stand to sit there that long.

There are no Debs at 60 that are flyers. People like the cheap model
because they're afraid of the tails, but don't realize what they don't
get. Ever heard of cowl flaps? What about emergency escape windows?

Are you using auto gas at all?

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:26:39 -0500, Al Marzo >
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:43:48 GMT, Roger
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:01:49 -0500, Al Marzo >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Expect to spend anywhere from about $5.5K for a piano keys up (Hammock
>>
>>No one goes with the piano keys any more. Just conventional switches
>>which look a lot nicer.
>
>A too-typical Beech owner. Thinks everyone has an extra 3 to 4K to
>**** away! FYI, lots of piano key up conversions are still being
>done.

Probably so, but I haven't seen any. The ones I've seen have been
getting away from the old ugly piano switches.

>
>>>Aviation, Ennis, TX) conversion to about $8K (Air Research, Sandy
>>
>>Having the instruments moved to the conventional layout is a
>>relatively small job.
>
>Yea, right. That's why it takes 5 grand to do the job!
>

It doesn't. It can be done in an afternoon if all you are doing is
changing to the standard T configuration. They figured on mine with
the current cut outs they wouldn't even have to do any metal work.
I haven't had it done as I kinda like the old lay out.

The 5 grand is a major panel rework and would cost as much in a Cessna
or Piper.


>>
>>The complete new panel is about 8 grand and that is with all new
>>wiring.
>
>Didn't I say that?

No, we were talking about changing to the standard T, or I was.

>
>>\
>>>River , OR) for the full change. You'll have wiring and instrument
>>>issues that you never thought of before. So maybe you should look at
>>
>>What issues? They are a mess under the panel, but I haven't seen any
>>old planes that aren't. Instruments are instruments. There isn't
>>that much to go wrong and they are relatively easy to get at. Note I
>>said *relatively* easy. One thing to remember is they do not have an
>>alternate static port which should be added.
>
>There's always a mess under the panel, unless you don't think it's an
>issue to deal with. Instruments are instruments? Yes, and with
>anything else in an old airplane (earlier than 1962) when you remove
>things, you find other things to do. Easy job? I guess repairing a
>gear up on a Bonanza is a relatively easy job, too!


Easier than a Mooney. <:-))

>
>>>P models and up, or planes that already had this conversion done.
>>
>>Remember too that the straight tails do not have any speed
>>limitations. Like the V-tails though they do tend to have a higher
>>barf factor in the back seat.
>
>What speed restrictions? The red line? Or are you talking about the
>1947 to 1950 models that haven't had the restriction lifted yet? And
>for your info, oh great guru of wannabe Bonanza owners, the fuse makes
>the wiggle, not the tail. try sitting in the back seat of that
>economy model you own for a flight through some afternoon Texas air.

I think I said that. They all wiggle.

>>>
>>>Now with that said, I suggest yo do a bit more research and if a
>>>Bonanza or Bonanza derivative (Debonair, the Bonanza look alike with
>>>the Piper tail) is how you want to tell the world that you've arrived,
>>
>>Ahhh... The Deb is the forerunner of the F-33 Bo. It definitely does
>>not have a piper tail. It did have the Travel air or military tail to
>>begin. Unfortunately all the Bo versions have Magnesium elevator
>>skins.
>
>Sorry, it looks more like the tail of a Piper than that of a Bonanza.
>Let's take a poll. When someone mentions Bonanza, and you envision it
>in your mind, what do you see? Yup, that's right Hoss, a V Tail!

I think of the new ones. They discontinued the V-tail I believe in 84
and went to the straight. The A-36 started out life with the V-tail.

>
>>>contact the American Bonanza Society (www.abs.org) and ask any
>>>questions you can think of to the people who are the most
>>>knowledgable about them and are always willing to help. You may very
>>>easily purchase one that looks nice and clean and spend $20K on your
>>>first annual, even after some schmuck A&P does a "prebuy".
>
>
>>I haven't spent that much on mine (on annuals) in over 10 years and I
>>take it to a Bo specialist and follow a progressive maintenance
>>program. Unfortunately he passed away last winter so now I need to
>>find a new mechanic.
>
>The only way to maintain an old complex aeroplane is to have some type
>of program in effect, whether it be put together professionally or by
>someone with a good understanding of the machine. You really need to
>take your head out of the sand and see what some folks who do not have
>the benefit of a Bonanza experienced mechanic are getting stuck with.

I think that is true of any older airplane. You need some one who
knows them specifically. Just like flying them. Go to Bo specific
training and they even brace the yoke so you can't use the ailerons
when doing stalls. You calculate the proper speed for every landing
and takeoff and are expected to fly them None of the high speed
finals Bo pilots like. You find you really can land an F33 or old
V-tail shorter than a 172.

>Too bad about losing your guy, lots of down and dirty knowledge goes
>away daily. Suffice to say that I'll bet your next annual will be
>nice and expensive with a new pair of eyes looking at it. Run up to
>Ennis, it's only a hop and a skip. Let them do the next one and see

Ennis?

>what happens.

I'm going to go down to Kalamazoo Air. They specialize in Bonanzas.
and it's only about 30 minutes from here.

>
>>After about 12 years the paint is getting to the point where it could
>>use some help. 45 years old and still less than 4000 hours TT and
>>I've put a third of them on it.
>>
>There's a place in Ennis that does that work too.
>
>>Going to an F-33 would raise the price to at least $140,000 while Debs
>>can be found from $60 and up in good shape, (less for those that could
>>use some help) but they are 40 to 45 year old airplanes. I'm seeing
>>Debs listed in the $80K to $100K plus range now. I keep thinking of
>>having a new panel installed and the avionics upgraded to state of the
>>art even though I'd never get the money back. It's just a great plane
>>to fly. Tip tanks give me about a 1200 mile range. (raises the total
>>gas on board to 100 gallons) if you can stand to sit there that long.

The longest leg I've flown was 5 1/4 hours. I had 40 gallons left in
the tanks. Which is another thing to think of. Those early bladder
tanks have no baffles and that means a lot of gas is listed as
unusable. You can run the tanks dry, but you can have 11 gallons left
in the last main that is useable. Pull the nose up steep and it'll
quit. The same for slips. It's limited to 20 seconds and they aren't
joking as the tank will unport and the engine will quit.

>
>There are no Debs at 60 that are flyers. People like the cheap model

I wouldn't sell mine for that.

>because they're afraid of the tails, but don't realize what they don't

You don't get very far into the years before there aren't any cheap
models. They came out in 60 although mine is listed as a 59, and by
62 most were coming with all the options making them as expensive as
the Bo. They stuck with the name, but finally changed it to F-33 Bo
in 72, or at least I think it was 72.

>get. Ever heard of cowl flaps? What about emergency escape windows?

Mine is number one off the assembly line and it has cowl flaps.
I doubt there are many left that are stock. It takes a full page
just to list the mods. As far as escape windows? Neither Piper or
Cessna have them and I've never worried about them. OTOH I sure would
like to have shoulder harnesses.

>
>Are you using auto gas at all?

Nope. I don't think there is an STC available for the 260 HP, IO-470N

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

[Ray Andraka]

Can't speak for a Bo, but my Cherokee Six had the non-standard layout. I was
able to have the gauges put in a six pack configuration using the existing
holes for very little extra money (did it at the same time I upgraded from the
ancient AN gyros). Basically, it involved re-plumbing the static/pitot lines
and rewiring some of the gyro power. The added cost over the cost of replacing
the gyros was only about $100 since I had the gyros out anyway.

soxinbox wrote:

> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
> bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
> would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
>
> Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
> power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.

--
--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

[Ray Andraka]

You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
compared to a complex single.

soxinbox wrote:

> I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
> I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
> that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
> important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
> whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
> want something that is resonably fast with a good range.
>
> Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
> plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
> value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
> of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
> afford more plane than they could fly.
>
> I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load >1000) with
> a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
> panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
> debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
> was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.
>
> >
> > "soxinbox" > wrote in message
> > . 166...
> >> I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early
> >> 60s bonanza or debonair.
> >
> > My first thought is, "don't."
> >
> > Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather
> > because I've found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and
> > you're better off learning with something simple. Why not a good
> > Skylane? For the same money you'll get a newer, likely lower-time
> > bird, spend less on insurance and maintenance. The only downside being
> > speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range depending on the two birds
> > you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or do you just want it?
> > You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to or even
> > exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
> > older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the
> > Total Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big
> > pressurized twin cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a
> > nice Bo. Of course that resale value will come back on the tail end,
> > should you decide to step up.
> >
> > Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane
> > ownership is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and
> > when anything makes a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your
> > wallet. Be prepared for numbers that sound like the down payment on a
> > car. If the thought of this concerns you, best stay away from an early
> > 60s Beech retract.
> >
> >> Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
> >> panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much
> >> this would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the
> >> same
> > time,
> >> but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.
> >
> > My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the
> > one you have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading
> > the panel, you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell
> > it. Let the previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception
> > to this would be a good plane with a high-time engine, because a much
> > larger portion of the money you spend on the engine will be retained
> > as value. Of course, if you already have a plane you like but just
> > want newer radios, it can make sense to upgrade because you'll own
> > them long enough to get your money's worth. But if you're buying the
> > plane now, buy what you want the first time around.
> >
> > Best,
> > -cwk.
> >
> >
> >

--
--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

[Al Marzo]

Hammock Aviation in Ennis, just below Dallas. The real Bonanza expert
in Texas. You owe it to yourself to at least talk to him before
spending money anywhere else.

I didn't know you had the 470N, thought you still had the lower power
470. That makes for an excellent combo, lighter airframe and belt
driven generator injected motor. Your STC would require the cowl
flaps with an N, but it didn't leave the factory that way. I've heard
of only one STC that didn't require cowl flaps with the N engine.

Try this for a nice shoulder harness set up
http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page7.html



On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:39:24 GMT, Roger
> wrote:

[Al Marzo]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:47:32 -0400, Ray Andraka >
wrote:

>You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
>gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
>compared to a complex single.

Can't argue with that.

[Roger]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:56:02 -0500, Al Marzo >
wrote:

>Hammock Aviation in Ennis, just below Dallas. The real Bonanza expert
>in Texas. You owe it to yourself to at least talk to him before
>spending money anywhere else.
>
>I didn't know you had the 470N, thought you still had the lower power
>470. That makes for an excellent combo, lighter airframe and belt
>driven generator injected motor. Your STC would require the cowl
>flaps with an N, but it didn't leave the factory that way. I've heard
>of only one STC that didn't require cowl flaps with the N engine.

There was another Deb on the field, about 2 years newer than mine, but
it still had the 225. I had a considerable lead in cruise (bout 15
knots) at the same power settings. OTOH I had a lot of power left.
His also had the speed sloped windshield, but no tip tanks or gap
seals.

I'd think any N series would run pretty hot without cowl flaps.

I picked up a set of those "ring lights" for the instruments. They
are a solid state electro-luminescence strip inside what looks like a
bezel for the instruments and fits right over the front of the
instruments. I've had the things for three years now, (and the STC)
but never had them put in. When I do the panel will be changed to a
standard layout.If I had the material, time, and inclination I'd make
up a complete new panel. I made panels in industry for years before I
quite and went back to college to become a computer nerd.

I should take the time to go down there when my wife goes to Tasmania.
I could be gone a couple weeks and come home with a new looking plane.

IF I were 20 years younger "and the stock market hadn't tanked" I'd be
thinking real seriously about redoing the whole panel and going glass
even if I'd never recoup the cost. Then again, I'd get it back in
use.

The only big expense I've had was upgrading to the big Hartzell
3-blade prop. The insurance company did pay a bit over five grand
when a deer charged across the runway one night while I was landing.
The airplane made out better than she did. Of course I found myself in
a plane riding on the left main looking at the runway lights *above*
the tip tank. I was trying to keep the right main up (I didn't know
if I still had one) without digging in the tip tank, until I got the
speed down and then the nose gear (I didn't know if that was there
either). Fortunately both were still there and in good shape although
I was missing the outer gear door and brake line on the right. It did
get a bit busy in there for a moment or two.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com>
>Try this for a nice shoulder harness set up
>http://www.alpha-aviation.com/page7.html
>
>
>
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:39:24 GMT, Roger
> wrote:
>

[Roger]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:56:36 -0500, Al Marzo >
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:47:32 -0400, Ray Andraka >
>wrote:
>
>>You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
>>gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
>>compared to a complex single.
>
>Can't argue with that.

And the Dakota is a tue, all seats full airplane.

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