Speedbrakes for a Bonanza: Opinions?

[Peter R.]

With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
(overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
investment.

Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes and was
wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a small
aircraft.

I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine warm.
If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.

Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
Thanks.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
> (overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
> investment.
>
> Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes and was
> wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a small
> aircraft.
>
> I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
> without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine warm.
> If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>
> Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
> Thanks.
>
Here's what John Deakin had to say at
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html
"Some pilots spend a lot of money installing speed brakes, because they want
the ability to get down faster, without pulling much power off. If I'm
cruising at high altitude, and ATC wants me down, or I need to dump it
through a layer of potential icing conditions, I'll put the gear down (with
the 156 IAS Vlo on my Bonanza, the gear is a wonderful speed brake), pull
off five or ten inches of MP, and head on down at 2,000 FPM or better. Does
my engine get cold? No, because I'll enrich to peak EGT, then another 50 to
ROP, and that will keep my CHTs nice and toasty. They may slowly drop a bit,
but I'm not concerned about that. In other words, at lower power settings,
I'm running at the "best power" point on the mixture curve for temperature
control. This gives a surprising amount of temperature control, too!"

And http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182107-1.html

"Just consider one of those times you've looked longingly at the ads for
speed brakes. Now, let me show you why you don't need them!"


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

[Jon A.]

Contact Steve Oxman through the WBS, he's the newest president. Steve
has speed brakes on his K model Bonanza. He'll be able to give you
the straight skinny.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:32:45 -0500, Peter R. >
wrote:

>With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
>(overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
>investment.
>
>Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes and was
>wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a small
>aircraft.
>
>I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
>without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine warm.
>If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>
>Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
>Thanks.

[Dave Butler]

Peter R. wrote:
> With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
> (overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
> investment.
>
> Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes and was
> wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a small
> aircraft.
>
> I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
> without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine warm.
> If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>
> Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
> Thanks.

I have the Precise Flight speed brakes on my Mooney. I've never flown a Bo, so I
can't comment on that. On the Mooney, I'd say they're "nice to have" but
certainly not a necessity. I don't use them for high power descents, but I do
use them occasionally when I misplan a descent and need to hurry up the descent,
or when ATC asks for an expedited descent.

They've been relatively maintenance free, but there has been the occasional
"hang" when they fail to retract, usually asymmetrically. The resulting roll is
easily overpowered by ailerons. The hang is corrected with cleaning and lubrication.

I wouldn't look for speedbrakes if I were buying an airplane. I wouldn't install
them if they weren't already on the plane. Since I do have them, I'm happy
they're there.

I'm not convinced shock cooling is an important issue, but that depends on your
particular religious inclination, I suppose.

Dave

[Dave Butler]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
>> (overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
>> investment.
>> Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes and was
>> wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a small
>> aircraft.
>>
>> I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
>> without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine
>> warm. If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>>
>> Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
>> Thanks.
>
>
> I have the Precise Flight speed brakes on my Mooney. I've never flown a
> Bo, so I can't comment on that. On the Mooney, I'd say they're "nice to
> have" but certainly not a necessity. I don't use them for high power
> descents, but I do use them occasionally when I misplan a descent and
> need to hurry up the descent, or when ATC asks for an expedited descent.
>
> They've been relatively maintenance free, but there has been the
> occasional "hang" when they fail to retract, usually asymmetrically. The
> resulting roll is easily overpowered by ailerons. The hang is corrected
> with cleaning and lubrication.
>
> I wouldn't look for speedbrakes if I were buying an airplane. I wouldn't
> install them if they weren't already on the plane. Since I do have them,
> I'm happy they're there.
>
> I'm not convinced shock cooling is an important issue, but that depends
> on your particular religious inclination, I suppose.

One more thing: I should have added that they are vacuum powered, so put an
additional load on your vacuum pump. I have no idea how significant that is.
They also add a lot of distance to your vacuum plumbing, including a bunch
that's inside your wing where it is hard to inspect.

[Nigel T Peart]

I've flown a Cessna TP206 with speed brakes in skydiving ops. Very useful
in that
operation. They halve the descent time from 12,000 ft. Don't even have to
remember to retract before landing as they are inop below 100kts.




"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1105471673.894646@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Dave Butler wrote:
>> Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>> With my Bonanza about to roll out of maintenance with its new
>>> (overhauled) engine, I have been considering ways to preserve that
>>> investment. Recently, I came across an article discussing speedbrakes
>>> and was wondering if anyone here has experience with speedbrakes in a
>>> small aircraft.
>>>
>>> I see the main advantage being the ability to slow and/or descend
>>> without having to significantly drop power, which keeps the engine warm.
>>> If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>>>
>>> Looking for any comments, either pro or con, about this modification.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> I have the Precise Flight speed brakes on my Mooney. I've never flown a
>> Bo, so I can't comment on that. On the Mooney, I'd say they're "nice to
>> have" but certainly not a necessity. I don't use them for high power
>> descents, but I do use them occasionally when I misplan a descent and
>> need to hurry up the descent, or when ATC asks for an expedited descent.
>>
>> They've been relatively maintenance free, but there has been the
>> occasional "hang" when they fail to retract, usually asymmetrically. The
>> resulting roll is easily overpowered by ailerons. The hang is corrected
>> with cleaning and lubrication.
>>
>> I wouldn't look for speedbrakes if I were buying an airplane. I wouldn't
>> install them if they weren't already on the plane. Since I do have them,
>> I'm happy they're there.
>>
>> I'm not convinced shock cooling is an important issue, but that depends
>> on your particular religious inclination, I suppose.
>
> One more thing: I should have added that they are vacuum powered, so put
> an additional load on your vacuum pump. I have no idea how significant
> that is. They also add a lot of distance to your vacuum plumbing,
> including a bunch that's inside your wing where it is hard to inspect.

[markjenn]

They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K gear
speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
overrated thing, but that's another discussion.

- Mark

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

> Here's what John Deakin had to say at
<snip>

Good articles. Thanks.



--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Dave Butler ) wrote:

> One more thing: I should have added that they are vacuum powered, so put an
> additional load on your vacuum pump.

Really? Are they the first generation? The Precision Flight
speedbrakes being sold now are driven by electricity.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Jon A. ) wrote:

> Contact Steve Oxman through the WBS, he's the newest president.

I'll do that. Thanks.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

markjenn ) wrote:

> They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K gear
> speeds, really don't need them.

In his Avweb articles (posted in this thread), John Deakin expressed the
same opinion.

The reason I was considering them had to do with the type of airports in
which I fly. The majority of my flying is for Angel Flight Northeast,
which brings me into Teterboro and Boston Logan frequently. If I could
fly at 160-170 all the way to the outer marker, it would certainly make
fitting in to the traffic flow much easier.

But, cost is certainly an issue and if I am lacking in skills to slow
the aircraft down, then this is something I should explore. I was going
to take a Bonanza Proficiency course last October, but unfortunately a
cylinder cracked and started this extended maintenance period.

> I also think that shock-cooling is an overrated thing, but that's
> another discussion.

I am certainly too low time to have any experience with this, so I have
to rely on others' experiences.

The only fact that sort of sways me into the shock cooling camp is what
Cape Air does with their Cessna 402s. The head of our local flight
school used to fly with Cape Air and told me about their strict policy
of using all drag-inducing devices to descend long before they reduce
power. As a result of demonstrated engine reliability, Cape Air was
able to receive a TBO extension for their C402 engines.

This policy was discussed in an Aviation Consumer article last year.


--
Peter

[Aaron Coolidge]

Peter R. > wrote:
: The only fact that sort of sways me into the shock cooling camp is what
: Cape Air does with their Cessna 402s. The head of our local flight
: school used to fly with Cape Air and told me about their strict policy
: of using all drag-inducing devices to descend long before they reduce
: power. As a result of demonstrated engine reliability, Cape Air was
: able to receive a TBO extension for their C402 engines.

I've never seen a Cape Air plane flying above 1500'. Usually Cape Approach,
or Hyannis/Martha's Vineyard/Nantucket tower calls 'em as traffic "well
below" me.

I will ask about their engine management procedures - I know quite a few Cape
Air pilots - but I don't remember them doing anything out of the ordinary.
--
Aaron C.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> markjenn ) wrote:
>
> > They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
gear
> > speeds, really don't need them.
>
> In his Avweb articles (posted in this thread), John Deakin expressed the
> same opinion.
>
> The reason I was considering them had to do with the type of airports in
> which I fly. The majority of my flying is for Angel Flight Northeast,
> which brings me into Teterboro and Boston Logan frequently. If I could
> fly at 160-170 all the way to the outer marker, it would certainly make
> fitting in to the traffic flow much easier.

While the Bonanza is a slippery devil, they're not that hard to bleed off
speed when you have a few miles from the FAF.

> But, cost is certainly an issue and if I am lacking in skills to slow
> the aircraft down, then this is something I should explore. I was going
> to take a Bonanza Proficiency course last October, but unfortunately a
> cylinder cracked and started this extended maintenance period.

You'll get much more, and enduring, "mileage" from the BPPP
(http://www.bppp.org/main.asp) and from the Advanced Pilot Seminars
http://www.advancedpilot.com/course.html (I take it you have GAMIjectors in
your Bonanza??)

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

[zatatime]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:22:13 -0500, Peter R.
> wrote:

>But, cost is certainly an issue and if I am lacking in skills to slow
>the aircraft down, then this is something I should explore.


Why not build the skills? It'll probably cost less, you'll be a
better pilot overall, and I'll bet you have fun doing it. If your
ever deep in failures, the skill will help you more than a gadget ever
will, i.e. save you life.

..02
z

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

> You'll get much more, and enduring, "mileage" from the BPPP
> (http://www.bppp.org/main.asp) and from the Advanced Pilot Seminars
> http://www.advancedpilot.com/course.html

I most definitely plan on taking the BPPP course as soon as the engine
is comfortably broken in.


> (I take it you have GAMIjectors in your Bonanza??)

Yes, as well as Tornado Alley's turbo-normalization system.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow ) wrote:
>
> > You'll get much more, and enduring, "mileage" from the BPPP
> > (http://www.bppp.org/main.asp) and from the Advanced Pilot Seminars
> > http://www.advancedpilot.com/course.html
>
> I most definitely plan on taking the BPPP course as soon as the engine
> is comfortably broken in.
>
>
> > (I take it you have GAMIjectors in your Bonanza??)
>
> Yes, as well as Tornado Alley's turbo-normalization system.
>
Then you'll definitely want to take the Advanced Pilot Seminar, so as to
keep your new engine in prime shape.

Which model Bo do you have? I have a B36TC but swapped the engine at TBO
for a Millennium TN IO-550, all done by the Western Skyways
http://www.westernskyways.com/turbo_es.html


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

[[email protected]]

Unless there is a very odd reason, the round rubber speed brakes
extendable on the bottom work fine.

Why add any weight for this at all? Get to adding stuff, pretty
soon they fly like pigs. Keep it light.

My opinion. Bill Hale BPPP

[Peter R.]

) wrote:

> Unless there is a very odd reason, the round rubber speed brakes
> extendable on the bottom work fine.
>
> Why add any weight for this at all? Get to adding stuff, pretty
> soon they fly like pigs. Keep it light.
>
> My opinion. Bill Hale BPPP

And if you are truly with the BPPP (after all, this is Usenet), then
your opinion is pretty valuable. :)

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

> Which model Bo do you have?

A '73 V35B.

> I have a B36TC but swapped the engine at TBO
> for a Millennium TN IO-550, all done by the Western Skyways
> http://www.westernskyways.com/turbo_es.html

Very nice. After some research, I opted to stay with the IO-520 and
went with a GAMISpec overhauled engine with Millennium Taperfin
cylinders.

--
Peter

[Jon A.]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
> wrote:

>They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K gear
>speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
>overrated thing, but that's another discussion.

Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jon A. > wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
> > wrote:
>
> >They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K gear
> >speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
> >overrated thing, but that's another discussion.
>
> Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph


I have 100 mph gear speed on my 1946 Johnson Rocket -- I have found the
best way to bleed off speed is to do the 360 overhead approach, where
you overfly the runway, on desired runway heading, at pattern altitude
and "break" to the downwind (assuming that nobody is already on
downwind), reducing throttle as speed bleeds off. i hit gear speed about
the 180 degree point, drop the gear, drop flaps even with the TD point
and continue with a short base and final.

If you do it right, you won't have to add any power and can make the
numbers with a nice 3-pointer. This also works great in a T-34.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
> > wrote:
>
> >They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
gear
> >speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
> >overrated thing, but that's another discussion.
>
> Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph

Which ones?


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

[markjenn]

> The reason I was considering them had to do with the type of airports in
> which I fly. The majority of my flying is for Angel Flight Northeast,
> which brings me into Teterboro and Boston Logan frequently. If I could
> fly at 160-170 all the way to the outer marker, it would certainly make
> fitting in to the traffic flow much easier.

Well, I'm all for being a good citizen, but spending tens of thousands of
dollars to make ATC's job a little easier seems like money poorly spent to
me. You should be able to be in 65% cruise until the OM, pull power back a
few inches, drop the gear, and sail down the ILS at about 140K or so. On
short final, you can pull the power back to 15", pull the nose up to bleed
speed to full-flap speed, drop the flaps, and you'll come right down and
make the 2nd taxiway. ATC will think you're a pro. I really don't think
the engine will have any issue with this operation at all.

> But, cost is certainly an issue and if I am lacking in skills to slow
> the aircraft down, then this is something I should explore. I was going
> to take a Bonanza Proficiency course last October, but unfortunately a
> cylinder cracked and started this extended maintenance period.

I've done the BPPP twice. Money very well spent. After this course, you
will be able to handle the airplane well enough without speed brakes for any
reasonable ATC situation.

Personally, if I had $15K burning a hole in my pocket for IFR Bonanza mods,
I'd go for ice protection long before speed brakes.

- Mark

[Scott Skylane]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I have 100 mph gear speed on my 1946 Johnson Rocket -- I have found the
> best way to bleed off speed is to do the 360 overhead approach, where
> you overfly the runway, on desired runway heading, at pattern altitude
> and "break" to the downwind (assuming that nobody is already on
> downwind), reducing throttle as speed bleeds off. i hit gear speed about
> the 180 degree point, drop the gear, drop flaps even with the TD point
> and continue with a short base and final.
>
> If you do it right, you won't have to add any power and can make the
> numbers with a nice 3-pointer. This also works great in a T-34.


Oh God. Oh, God...

[Jon A.]

Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:45:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
>gear
>> >speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
>> >overrated thing, but that's another discussion.
>>
>> Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph
>
>Which ones?

[Peter R.]

markjenn ) wrote:

> Personally, if I had $15K burning a hole in my pocket for IFR Bonanza mods,
> I'd go for ice protection long before speed brakes.

To be fair, Mark, the speedbrakes from Precision Flight are US $4,100,
plus 35 hours installation labor, not 15k. :) However, I have learned
enough in the last few days to agree in principle with your point.

BTW, this Bonanza is equipped with TKS Weeping Wing, but the previous
owner shows me an invoice that was higher than 15k for that mod.

--
Peter

[Frank Stutzman]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:


> I have 100 mph gear speed on my 1946 Johnson Rocket -- I have found the
> best way to bleed off speed is to do the 360 overhead approach, where
> you overfly the runway, on desired runway heading, at pattern altitude
> and "break" to the downwind (assuming that nobody is already on
> downwind), reducing throttle as speed bleeds off. i hit gear speed about
> the 180 degree point, drop the gear, drop flaps even with the TD point
> and continue with a short base and final.

> If you do it right, you won't have to add any power and can make the
> numbers with a nice 3-pointer. This also works great in a T-34.

Gee Orval, you must be a lot fun for ATC at a busy controled field.

Its been a long time, but I don't remember you ever doing that when you
flew in and out of Palo Alto.
--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Frank Stutzman]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> > Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph

> Which ones?


My A35 has a gear speed of 105 MPH.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
> Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
> were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
(mph or kts??)

Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:45:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon A." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
> >gear
> >> >speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
> >> >overrated thing, but that's another discussion.
> >>
> >> Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph
> >
> >Which ones?
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > > Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph
>
> > Which ones?
>
>
> My A35 has a gear speed of 105 MPH.
>
What's your cruise speed? :~)
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Dude]

>
>> I have 100 mph gear speed on my 1946 Johnson Rocket -- I have found the
>> best way to bleed off speed is to do the 360 overhead approach, where
>> you overfly the runway, on desired runway heading, at pattern altitude
>> and "break" to the downwind (assuming that nobody is already on
>> downwind), reducing throttle as speed bleeds off. i hit gear speed about
>> the 180 degree point, drop the gear, drop flaps even with the TD point
>> and continue with a short base and final.
>
>> If you do it right, you won't have to add any power and can make the
>> numbers with a nice 3-pointer. This also works great in a T-34.
>
> Gee Orval, you must be a lot fun for ATC at a busy controled field.
>


I gotta ask, is this really that tough on ATC? I have been vectored in to
busy airports on more than one occassion in almost exactly the same pattern.
They brought me in over the field at 1500 AGL from whatever direction, then
turned me straight into the downwind (there never is anyone flying the
pattern at these fields) then called my base.

Worked well for everyone.

[markjenn]

> They brought me in over the field at 1500 AGL from whatever direction,
> then turned me straight into the downwind (there never is anyone flying
> the pattern at these fields) then called my base.

A lot of the high-traffic urban airports will want to get you into their
airliner flow a long ways out. But it varies a lot.

- Mark

[markjenn]

> To be fair, Mark, the speedbrakes from Precision Flight are US $4,100,
> plus 35 hours installation labor, not 15k. :) However, I have learned
> enough in the last few days to agree in principle with your point.
>
> BTW, this Bonanza is equipped with TKS Weeping Wing, but the previous
> owner shows me an invoice that was higher than 15k for that mod.

Fair enough. I was just guessing as I have neither mod.

- Mark

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
>
> > I have 100 mph gear speed on my 1946 Johnson Rocket -- I have found the
> > best way to bleed off speed is to do the 360 overhead approach, where
> > you overfly the runway, on desired runway heading, at pattern altitude
> > and "break" to the downwind (assuming that nobody is already on
> > downwind), reducing throttle as speed bleeds off. i hit gear speed about
> > the 180 degree point, drop the gear, drop flaps even with the TD point
> > and continue with a short base and final.
>
> > If you do it right, you won't have to add any power and can make the
> > numbers with a nice 3-pointer. This also works great in a T-34.
>
> Gee Orval, you must be a lot fun for ATC at a busy controled field.
>
> Its been a long time, but I don't remember you ever doing that when you
> flew in and out of Palo Alto.



I usually didn't arrive from the south and had not really discovered the
efficiency of the 360 overhead at that time. Reid-Hillview would
sometimes request a 360 overhead, but I never really perfected it until
I moved to Spruce Creek and got into formation flying.

It really works!

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> If true, this would be an excellent way to maintain engine health.
>

IF (big IF) you subscribe to the shock cooling theory, I guess it might
make sense. Then again, you can drop your gear at 154 knots. That's
your speedbrake right there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dave Butler]

Peter R. wrote:
> Dave Butler ) wrote:
>
>
>>One more thing: I should have added that they are vacuum powered, so put an
>>additional load on your vacuum pump.
>
>
> Really? Are they the first generation? The Precision Flight
> speedbrakes being sold now are driven by electricity.

Yes, really. I don't know what generation. I think they were installed early in
our plane's life, which would have been in the 80s. Didn't know there were
electrical ones.

Dave

[Frank Stutzman]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> What's your cruise speed? :~)

Well, the earliest Bonanzas are not the fastest of the Bonanza fleet by
any stretch. Probably pretty good for their time (1949 in my case),
though.

To answer your question, though, depends upon wether the FEDS are
listening or not. I am restricted by an AD on the ruddervators that gives
me a Vno of 125 KIAS and I would never violate that. Nope, never, not me!
Before the AD came out I would usually figure my cruise speed was about
140 KIAS. Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
my 10 gph.

There is a method of compliance to remove the AD. I havn't bothered,
though. Most of my flying is either down low and slow or up high and
fast. At about 14,000 feet full throttle gives me right at 125 knots
indicated.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > What's your cruise speed? :~)
>
> Well, the earliest Bonanzas are not the fastest of the Bonanza fleet by
> any stretch. Probably pretty good for their time (1949 in my case),
> though.
>
> To answer your question, though, depends upon wether the FEDS are
> listening or not. I am restricted by an AD on the ruddervators that gives
> me a Vno of 125 KIAS and I would never violate that. Nope, never, not me!
> Before the AD came out I would usually figure my cruise speed was about
> 140 KIAS. Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
> every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
> my 10 gph.
>
> There is a method of compliance to remove the AD. I havn't bothered,
> though. Most of my flying is either down low and slow or up high and
> fast. At about 14,000 feet full throttle gives me right at 125 knots
> indicated.
>
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR

Pretty good for that era and the age of your bird. A 157kt gear speed would
be frivolous.

Peter, though, is flying a TN V35 and will probably cruise about 180-195, so
his request for info about speed brakes is very legitimate. It's not hard at
all to lose 25-40 kts prior to dumping the gear and letting that bleed off
the rest of excess speed.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Peter R.]

Dave Butler ) wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
> > Dave Butler ) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One more thing: I should have added that they are vacuum powered, so put an
> >>additional load on your vacuum pump.
> >
> >
> > Really? Are they the first generation? The Precision Flight
> > speedbrakes being sold now are driven by electricity.
>
> Yes, really. I don't know what generation.

That "Really?" wasn't meant as a question of your fact; rather it was
simply an incredulous "Wow! Vacuum powered? That's gotta be a lot of
extra demand on the vacuum system."

> Didn't know there were electrical ones.

Just goes to show you that occasionally some technological advances do
make their way into mainstream over twenty years time. :)


--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Frank Stutzman ) wrote:

> Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
> every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
> my 10 gph.

For comparison, my turbo-normalized V35 with the prior engine burned
about 15.5 gph at wide open throttle, 75 degrees LOP, at 185 kts TAS up
around 13,000 ft cruise (standard temperature or warmer).

This works out to approximately 50% more fuel burned for only about 48%
more airspeed (assuming the 125 kts quoted in your post).

I am curious if the new engine will add a few kts more since all
tolerances will be factory new or better (how's that for regurgitating
the marketing literature?).

--
Peter

[Jon A.]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:23:39 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
>> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> > What's your cruise speed? :~)
>>
>> Well, the earliest Bonanzas are not the fastest of the Bonanza fleet by
>> any stretch. Probably pretty good for their time (1949 in my case),
>> though.
>>
>> To answer your question, though, depends upon wether the FEDS are
>> listening or not. I am restricted by an AD on the ruddervators that gives
>> me a Vno of 125 KIAS and I would never violate that. Nope, never, not me!
>> Before the AD came out I would usually figure my cruise speed was about
>> 140 KIAS. Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
>> every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
>> my 10 gph.
>>
>> There is a method of compliance to remove the AD. I havn't bothered,
>> though. Most of my flying is either down low and slow or up high and
>> fast. At about 14,000 feet full throttle gives me right at 125 knots
>> indicated.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Frank Stutzman
>> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
>> Hood River, OR
>
>Pretty good for that era and the age of your bird. A 157kt gear speed would
>be frivolous.

100MPH gear speed

>
>Peter, though, is flying a TN V35 and will probably cruise about 180-195, so
>his request for info about speed brakes is very legitimate. It's not hard at
>all to lose 25-40 kts prior to dumping the gear and letting that bleed off
>the rest of excess speed.

At altitude, maybe. And you don't want to rip the doors off or damage
the gear in other ways (unless you must, of course) by lowering the
gear while going too fast. May not go down all the way, may not be
able to retract, then the insurance company owns the plane.

[Jon A.]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:57:27 -0500, Peter R. >
wrote:

>Frank Stutzman ) wrote:
>
>> Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
>> every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
>> my 10 gph.
>
>For comparison, my turbo-normalized V35 with the prior engine burned
>about 15.5 gph at wide open throttle, 75 degrees LOP, at 185 kts TAS up
>around 13,000 ft cruise (standard temperature or warmer).
>
>This works out to approximately 50% more fuel burned for only about 48%
>more airspeed (assuming the 125 kts quoted in your post).
>
>I am curious if the new engine will add a few kts more since all
>tolerances will be factory new or better (how's that for regurgitating
>the marketing literature?).

Better efficiency with a newer engine, but your speed is restricted by
the airframe. Climb will certainly be nice!

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Frank Stutzman ) wrote:
>
> > Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
> > every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel
than
> > my 10 gph.
>
> For comparison, my turbo-normalized V35 with the prior engine burned
> about 15.5 gph at wide open throttle, 75 degrees LOP, at 185 kts TAS up
> around 13,000 ft cruise (standard temperature or warmer).

What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
turbonormalizer?

In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0 gph,
and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

> What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
> turbonormalizer?

No. With prior engine means with the high-time, turbo-normalized IO-520
engine that has been retired in favor of the new engine currently being
installed.

> In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0 gph,
> and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.

200 kts with an IO-550? Where did you read this? Or are you
experiencing this first-hand? That airspeed figure is higher than the
airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

With the 190 kts quote, I decided the much greater purchase price was
not worth the 5 extra knots, so I remained with the IO-520. 200 kts TAS
might have made me go with the 550. :)

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow ) wrote:
>
> > What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
> > turbonormalizer?
>
> No. With prior engine means with the high-time, turbo-normalized IO-520
> engine that has been retired in favor of the new engine currently being
> installed.
>
> > In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0
gph,
> > and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.
>
> 200 kts with an IO-550? Where did you read this?

http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.

> Or are you
> experiencing this first-hand?

A tad less, but I'm in a B36...a tad heavier.

> That airspeed figure is higher than the
> airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
> replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

But you only have the IO-520, right?

>
> With the 190 kts quote, I decided the much greater purchase price was
> not worth the 5 extra knots, so I remained with the IO-520. 200 kts TAS
> might have made me go with the 550. :)

The IO-550 is MUCH smoother and the climb numbers are better, particularly
at altitude.

I have to climb out of Montrose (altitude = 5700+) and head east, and I have
little trouble getting to 14,000 or better before hitting the very high
terrain just east of here.


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

[Roger]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:33 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
>"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
>> Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
>> were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
>(mph or kts??)
>
>Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)
>
They were about as fast and slippery as today's models. That made
them a real challenge. <:-)) On mine (59 Debonair) the full flap
speed is 120 while gear down is 140.

It is possible to keep the speed up to 160 to, or near the outer
marker, come back on the power a bit, add a touch of flaps under 160
coming down the ILS, use a bit of rudder to "wag the tail" (not a good
thing with passengers in back) to slow to 140. As soon as it is under
140 dump the gear. Hit the flap switch to full as soon as the gear
finishes cycling as it'll be well under 120 by the time you hit full
flaps. You should still be able to set down on the beginning of the
touch down zone and stop with about a 1000 feet of roll out (give or
take depending on experience)

It's a lot easier to do if they have you join the localizer just
outside the OM as the turn (even if it is only 30 degrees) helps slow
the plane. Those long, straight in, keep-the-speed-up localizers are
more difficult. Takes a little more tail wagging.

OTOH I'd much prefer to join at 140 which I can comfortably hold all
the way down the ILS, put the gear and flaps down and not have to work
to get slowed down. I would add that although the Bo does not change
trim with flap changes it requires substantial trim changes from the
approach of 120 to 140 and the landing speed of roughly 80 (or less)
If you aren't ready for that there will be a substantial change in the
amount of yoke force required to hold the nose up as it slows.

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

>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:45:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jon A." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
>> >gear
>> >> >speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
>> >> >overrated thing, but that's another discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph
>> >
>> >Which ones?
>>
>>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:33 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon A." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
> >> were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
> >(mph or kts??)
> >
> >Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)
> >
> They were about as fast and slippery as today's models. That made
> them a real challenge. <:-)) On mine (59 Debonair) the full flap
> speed is 120 while gear down is 140.

They were definitely about as slippery, but I don't think they were "quite"
as fast. :~)>

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

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

>
> http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.

100+ degree Fahrenheit day on the ground, huh? Talk about a truly best-
case scenario. That's marketing for you!


> > That airspeed figure is higher than the
> > airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
> > replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.
>
> But you only have the IO-520, right?

The 190 kt airspeed was given to me when I had originally asked about
the IO-550 because I was considering the upgrade.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow ) wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.
>
> 100+ degree Fahrenheit day on the ground, huh? Talk about a truly best-
> case scenario. That's marketing for you!

What, doing the test under conditions WAYYYY less than optimal? (Being
factious?)

Would it perform better on a 109 degree day, or a standard temperature day?

> > > That airspeed figure is higher than the
> > > airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
> > > replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.
> >
> > But you only have the IO-520, right?
>
> The 190 kt airspeed was given to me when I had originally asked about
> the IO-550 because I was considering the upgrade.

And that 190 is 10 kts less than the "Maximum Reasonable" that TAT quotes at
12,500. In the B36 we typicalluy do about 185 on 14.5gph) (B36 = 3850 GW
vs. 3400 for a 33/35).

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

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

> (B36 = 3850 GW vs. 3400 for a 33/35).

My V35 has the Beryl D'Shannon tip tanks installed that increase the GW
to 3550. When the tanks first came out that weight increase had to be
fuel only but since then I have verified that the weight can be
cargo/passengers, not just fuel.

However, 3850 is a better number still.

--
Peter

[Dave Butler]

>>Didn't know there were electrical ones.
>
>
> Just goes to show you that occasionally some technological advances do
> make their way into mainstream over twenty years time. :)

Yeah, the vacuum ones really suck (sorry). ;-)

[Roger]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:53:24 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:33 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jon A." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
>> >> were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
>> >(mph or kts??)
>> >
>> >Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)
>> >
>> They were about as fast and slippery as today's models. That made
>> them a real challenge. <:-)) On mine (59 Debonair) the full flap
>> speed is 120 while gear down is 140.
>
>They were definitely about as slippery, but I don't think they were "quite"
>as fast. :~)>

By the mid to late 50s they were into the upper 170 knot range. With
the exception of the TC models at altitude speeds, have not varied
over a couple of knots since.

The very first Bos only had a cruse in 150 knot range. (1947 into the
early 50s) It didn't take much additional HP to put the speed right up
there, particularly with the lighter weight models.

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