Bonanza throw-over yoke

[MLenoch]

Question:
Is there a conversion to two yokes for the old Bonanza throw-over control yoke
configuration? (Just curious....nothing contemplated as yet.)
Thx in advance.
VL

[Dennis O'Connor]

Yup...
denny
"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> Question:
> Is there a conversion to two yokes for the old Bonanza throw-over control
yoke
> configuration? (Just curious....nothing contemplated as yet.)
> Thx in advance.
> VL

[Mark Astley]

VL,

Their website seems to be down at the moment, but try:

www.cygnet-aero.com

If I recall correctly, the price was around $3K.

cheers,
mark

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Yup...
> denny
> "MLenoch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Question:
> > Is there a conversion to two yokes for the old Bonanza throw-over
control
> yoke
> > configuration? (Just curious....nothing contemplated as yet.)
> > Thx in advance.
> > VL
>
>

[Rick Durden]

Vlado,

The conversion is a double yoke arrangement that slides into the
regular opening in the panel. Years ago my flying club in Ann Arbor
would rent one from the Beech dealer in Pontiac for our commercial
students, we eventually bought the thing.

It's an easy switch, but, as a Beech engineer once told me over drinks
one night: you can buy a better airplane than a Beechcraft, you just
can't pay more for it <g>. It's a quick, nice conversion, it's just
expensive.

Hey, we have to get you up here to do some flying on skis in a J-3 or
Super Cub. I owe you at least that for the ride you kindly gave me
several years ago.

Warmest regards,
Rick

(MLenoch) wrote in message >...
> Question:
> Is there a conversion to two yokes for the old Bonanza throw-over control yoke
> configuration? (Just curious....nothing contemplated as yet.)
> Thx in advance.
> VL

[Peter R.]

Rick Durden ) wrote:

> The conversion is a double yoke arrangement that slides into the
> regular opening in the panel. Years ago my flying club in Ann Arbor
> would rent one from the Beech dealer in Pontiac for our commercial
> students, we eventually bought the thing.

What was the thinking behind the throw-over yoke versus dual yoke?


--
Peter R.















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Kyle Boatright]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Rick Durden ) wrote:
>
> > The conversion is a double yoke arrangement that slides into the
> > regular opening in the panel. Years ago my flying club in Ann Arbor
> > would rent one from the Beech dealer in Pontiac for our commercial
> > students, we eventually bought the thing.
>
> What was the thinking behind the throw-over yoke versus dual yoke?
>
>
> --
> Peter R.
>

It is the same thing as the thinking behind the removable stick for the
right seat in my RV-6. If it isn't there, it isn't in the way. Makes it
less likely to suffer a PIO (Passenger Induced Oscillation), and it makes it
easier for the passenger to turn your $7.25 sectional into origami.

KB

[Steve Robertson]

Probaly more room for the passenger. I used to have a Bonanza with the thow-over yoke.
I liked it just fine. Passenger had more room and was not tempted to grab the yoke
right before touchdown on a windy day. Bonanzas are rarely used for primary (or
commercial) training, so who needs the extra yoke? Another nice feature is that the
throw-over mechanism has several detents so that the height of the yoke can be
adjusted to suit the PIC. .

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Musketeer

"Peter R." wrote:

> Rick Durden ) wrote:
>
> > The conversion is a double yoke arrangement that slides into the
> > regular opening in the panel. Years ago my flying club in Ann Arbor
> > would rent one from the Beech dealer in Pontiac for our commercial
> > students, we eventually bought the thing.
>
> What was the thinking behind the throw-over yoke versus dual yoke?
>
>
> --
> Peter R.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

Steve Robertson ) wrote:

> Bonanzas are rarely used for primary (or
> commercial) training, so who needs the extra yoke?

In my case, I am considering moving up to one, which would also be my first
transition to a complex aircraft, so I am going to need to rent a dual yoke
for the instructor.

> Another nice feature is that the throw-over mechanism has several detents
> so that the height of the yoke can be adjusted to suit the PIC. .

I was unaware of that. As a big fan of adjustable steering wheels in
autos, I would find this feature useful.



--
















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael]

Peter R. > wrote
> In my case, I am considering moving up to one, which would also be my first
> transition to a complex aircraft, so I am going to need to rent a dual yoke
> for the instructor.

Be careful when you do. Real Bonanza yokes are scarcer then hen's
teeth, and a lot of less-than-scrupulous operators will rent you a
Baron yoke. It fits - but it doesn't fit correctly.

Further, there are instructors who have special dispensation (an
exemption, I think) to teach with throwover yokes outside the special
case of instrument instruction in a single. I know there is such an
exemption for Barons, and I would be surprised if there weren't one
for a complex endorsement in a Bonanza. You really ought to check
with the Bonanza society before you go to the trouble and expense of
renting a double yoke.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael wrote:

> Be careful when you do. Real Bonanza yokes are scarcer then hen's
> teeth, and a lot of less-than-scrupulous operators will rent you a
> Baron yoke. It fits - but it doesn't fit correctly.

Thank you for the warning. I was going to start with the American
Bonanza Society to see if this group would be able to point me in the
right direction.

However, you have me thinking: Is there a characteristic of the Baron
dual yoke that a non-Beech experienced person like me would be able to
spot to expose such a scandal?

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael]

Peter R. > wrote
> Thank you for the warning. I was going to start with the American
> Bonanza Society to see if this group would be able to point me in the
> right direction.

Best bet, IMO. They will also hook you up with an instructor.

> However, you have me thinking: Is there a characteristic of the Baron
> dual yoke that a non-Beech experienced person like me would be able to
> spot to expose such a scandal?

Yes, but not easily. It looks the same, except that the part that
mounts on the shaft is subtly different. You can make it work, but
it's crooked and will either be hitting your knees or blocking the
lower part of the panel.

BTW - be careful in regards to the checkout. The Bo is EXTREMELY easy
to land - easier than anything I have ever flown, including the C-172.
In fact, when you transition from a C-172 or equivalent, you can
complete a day-VFR checkout in an hour or two, no problem. The same
plane will eat your lunch night-IFR. A reasonable checkout for a
pilot who is already instrument proficient in a C-172 or similar and
wishes to fly something like a Bo IFR is 10 hours.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael ) wrote:

> The same
> plane will eat your lunch night-IFR. A reasonable checkout for a
> pilot who is already instrument proficient in a C-172 or similar and
> wishes to fly something like a Bo IFR is 10 hours.

Good point, Michael. I am going to be even more conservative than that.
Despite 550 hours in a C172, I've lowered my expectation to at least 25
hours to check out in the Bo, most due to IMC/night IMC challenges in an
aircraft that can over-speed in an unusual attitude in seconds.

--
Peter R.


















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Paul Sengupta]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> BTW - be careful in regards to the checkout. The Bo is EXTREMELY easy
> to land - easier than anything I have ever flown, including the C-172.

I found an Apache easier to land than a 172.

Paul

[B. Salmon]

On 13 Feb 2004 08:40:27 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
Peter, your thinking on the ABS is on target they can point you in the
right direction for a dual yoke. I also recommend you attend a BPPP
(Baron/Bonanza Pilot Proficiency Program) after you have 25 hours or
so in the aircraft. The BPPP can teach you how to get the most out of
the plane and show you things most instructors don't teach. They can
also save your life with the techniques they teach. I fly an A36 and
have attended several BPPP training sessions. I would also caution you
not to be complacent on the transition, this is not as simple an
aircraft to move up to as you may have been led to believe.

>Peter R. > wrote
>> Thank you for the warning. I was going to start with the American
>> Bonanza Society to see if this group would be able to point me in the
>> right direction.
>
>Best bet, IMO. They will also hook you up with an instructor.
>
>> However, you have me thinking: Is there a characteristic of the Baron
>> dual yoke that a non-Beech experienced person like me would be able to
>> spot to expose such a scandal?
>
>Yes, but not easily. It looks the same, except that the part that
>mounts on the shaft is subtly different. You can make it work, but
>it's crooked and will either be hitting your knees or blocking the
>lower part of the panel.
>
>BTW - be careful in regards to the checkout. The Bo is EXTREMELY easy
>to land - easier than anything I have ever flown, including the C-172.
> In fact, when you transition from a C-172 or equivalent, you can
>complete a day-VFR checkout in an hour or two, no problem. The same
>plane will eat your lunch night-IFR. A reasonable checkout for a
>pilot who is already instrument proficient in a C-172 or similar and
>wishes to fly something like a Bo IFR is 10 hours.
>
>Michael


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Michael]

Peter R. > wrote
> Good point, Michael. I am going to be even more conservative than that.
> Despite 550 hours in a C172, I've lowered my expectation to at least 25
> hours to check out in the Bo, most due to IMC/night IMC challenges in an
> aircraft that can over-speed in an unusual attitude in seconds.

Actually, any fast and efficient airplane can overspeed in an unusual
attitude in seconds. The Bo is no more prone to it than other
airplanes that offer similarly efficient cruise. There's no magic to
it - if you want to go fast and not burn a ton of gas, you have to
make the plane slippery. Slippery planes accelerate quickly when the
nose comes down.

The difference between the Bo and other airplanes in its class is the
landing qualities. The plane is so easy to land that it will lull you
into a false sense of security if you let it. It's no more difficult
in night/IMC than other planes in its class.

I think a 25 hour minimum is excessive. With 550 hours and an
instrument rating, you could transition into a twin (and I mean a real
twin like a C-310, not a trainer like a Seminole) and do it safely in
25 hours given good instruction. The Bo shouldn't take more than half
that. I suspect your insurance company is going to want 10-15 hours,
and with quality instruction that should be plenty.

The key is getting good quality instruction. Your open pilot warranty
is probably going to require 800-1500TT, 200-500 retract, and 25 in
make and model. First off, I suggest you NOT ask the insurance
company to name someone who doesn't meet that. Second, I suggest you
look for someone who has lots of experience flying and teaching in
that class of airplane. Bonanza time is best, and your top choice
would be someone who owns his own Bo, but time in similarly performing
airplanes is almost as good. Baron or TravelAir, Comanche (single or
twin), Cessna 210 or 310, Bellance 14-19 or Viking, that kind of
thing. Stay away from the guy with 40 hours of Bonanza time picked up
while getting someone an instrument rating and lots of retract time in
Arrows, Seminoles, C-172RG's, Duchesses, and other retracts that are
purpose-built as trainers. They are not the same class of airplane,
and thus your transition training will take longer and be of lower
quality.

Michael

[Julian Scarfe]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> BTW - be careful in regards to the checkout. The Bo is EXTREMELY easy
> to land - easier than anything I have ever flown, including the C-172.

Have you got any time on the Duchess? I guess the Bo (which I've never
flown) must be similar in its landing characteristics, despite the
difference in empennage.

I just spent a week upgrading my IR from SE to ME, which necessitated flying
the Duchess. Having spent most of my hours landing the Mooney 201 and the
Twin Com, it's a very different experience, which flatters even my handling
skills. You don't so much "land" it as drive it into the general vicinity
of the runway in a vaguely sensible attitude and let the awesome
trailing-link gear do the rest. ;-)

If it didn't have carbs, it would be a nice aircraft.

Julian Scarfe

[Peter R.]

(B. Salmon <>) wrote:

> Peter, your thinking on the ABS is on target they can point you in the
> right direction for a dual yoke. I also recommend you attend a BPPP
> (Baron/Bonanza Pilot Proficiency Program) after you have 25 hours or
> so in the aircraft. The BPPP can teach you how to get the most out of
> the plane and show you things most instructors don't teach. They can
> also save your life with the techniques they teach.

I will do that. Thank's for the advice.

<snip>
> I would also caution you
> not to be complacent on the transition, this is not as simple an
> aircraft to move up to as you may have been led to believe.

You have my word that I am taking this very seriously.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> (B. Salmon <>) wrote:
>
> > Peter, your thinking on the ABS is on target they can point you in the
> > right direction for a dual yoke. I also recommend you attend a BPPP
> > (Baron/Bonanza Pilot Proficiency Program) after you have 25 hours or
> > so in the aircraft. The BPPP can teach you how to get the most out of
> > the plane and show you things most instructors don't teach. They can
> > also save your life with the techniques they teach.
>
> I will do that. Thank's for the advice.

Are you referring to a V-35 or an F33A?

I've trying to nail down a deal on an F33A, so let us know how yours goes.

Tom
--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Peter R. > wrote
> > Good point, Michael. I am going to be even more conservative than that.
> > Despite 550 hours in a C172, I've lowered my expectation to at least 25
> > hours to check out in the Bo, most due to IMC/night IMC challenges in an
> > aircraft that can over-speed in an unusual attitude in seconds.
>
> Actually, any fast and efficient airplane can overspeed in an unusual
> attitude in seconds. The Bo is no more prone to it than other
> airplanes that offer similarly efficient cruise. There's no magic to
> it - if you want to go fast and not burn a ton of gas, you have to
> make the plane slippery. Slippery planes accelerate quickly when the
> nose comes down.
>
> The difference between the Bo and other airplanes in its class is the
> landing qualities. The plane is so easy to land that it will lull you
> into a false sense of security if you let it. It's no more difficult
> in night/IMC than other planes in its class.

V model or F33? I gots to know!

I've about this " " close to concluding a deal on an F33A...then I'm
going to dress it out.

[Peter R.]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> Are you referring to a V-35 or an F33A?
>
> I've trying to nail down a deal on an F33A, so let us know how yours goes.

'73 V35-B with turbo-normalizer and TKS, among other upgrades.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> V model or F33? I gots to know!

V model - I've flown the 35A and 35S. Both land exactly the same.
Never flew an F33, can't comment on it.

Michael