Starting new C172s

[navghtivs]

I have flown it 6~7 times now, and still find starting the engine of
new Cessna 172S quite tricky, and often I have to try two or three
times to start it. I never had problem in older C172s.

So what's the trick, guys? How much throttle (1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 inch) do
you open? How fast do you advance the mixture when the engine starts to
fire? Anthing else?

Thanks

[[email protected]]

Well I think each airplane is slightly different.

However I fly most the newer 172SP, and what I have found is that you
need to prime (Fuel pump on, mixture rich) for a little longer than
what the POH specifys. Otherwise it just cranks, and cranks while of
course the fuel that was there to prime it is now gone, so you restart
the process but this time you use even less prime because you think you
have primed plenty the first time. Which makes the issue worse. Also
make sure you have 1/4 throttle, any less and it may be have enough to
get it going. As far as when to advance the mixture.... As soon as it
first starts to catch, advance it in all the way, rather quickly but
smoothly.

One thing you DO NOT want to do (I learned this the easy way, by
watching my instructor do this) is pump the throttle open and close to
force prime it. We (rather he) tried this method and we started
smelling fuel, we got out and saw a puddle of fuel near the front
wheel. We waited 5 mins and it finally started.

[Withheld By Request]

Having three hands helps a bit.

WBR

"navghtivs" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have flown it 6~7 times now, and still find starting the engine of
> new Cessna 172S quite tricky, and often I have to try two or three
> times to start it. I never had problem in older C172s.
>
> So what's the trick, guys? How much throttle (1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 inch) do
> you open? How fast do you advance the mixture when the engine starts to
> fire? Anthing else?
>
> Thanks
>

[cjcampbell]

navghtivs wrote:
> I have flown it 6~7 times now, and still find starting the engine of
> new Cessna 172S quite tricky, and often I have to try two or three
> times to start it. I never had problem in older C172s.
>
> So what's the trick, guys? How much throttle (1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 inch) do
> you open? How fast do you advance the mixture when the engine starts to
> fire? Anthing else?
>
> Thanks

I prime it per the manual, then start it with the throttle closed. If
it does not start immediately, I crack the throttle ever so slightly,
leave the fuel pump on, and start it. If the engine tries to die after
starting, I leave the fuel pump on until it warms up. Pretty much all
of this can be found in the manual.

Most people who have trouble starting C172s have tried to learn to
start the airplane by using the checklist without first gaining a
thorough understanding of what the manual says. There are way too many
instructors who fall into that category.

[OP]

On 5 Sep 2005 08:40:45 -0700, "navghtivs" >
wrote:

>I have flown it 6~7 times now, and still find starting the engine of
>new Cessna 172S quite tricky, and often I have to try two or three
>times to start it. I never had problem in older C172s.
>
>So what's the trick, guys? How much throttle (1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 inch) do
>you open? How fast do you advance the mixture when the engine starts to
>fire? Anthing else?
>
>Thanks


I rent from a Cessna dealer FBO at VNY. The procedure there is:

Throttle - open 1/4 inch
Mixture - Idle Cutoff
Propeller area - Clear
Master Switch - ON
Beacon - ON
Aux Fuel Pump - ON
Mixture - Advance full - 2 to 3 seconds, then return to Idle Cutoff
Aux Fuel Pump - OFF
Ignition - START
Mixture - Advance full, when engine fires

Works every time for me.

BTW... same procedure when the engine is hot - EXCEPT - Mixture -
advance full - 1 second, then return to Idle Cutoff.

Ron Kelley

[Brien K. Meehan]

I've flown about 25 different 172SP's, and they've all behaved exactly
the same.

I open the throttle about an inch, and do the rest exactly by the
checklist. The only important variables seem to be:

- Make as little delay as possible between priming and turning the key
to START. It doesn't need to be immediate, but don't delay
unneccessarily.

- Advance the mixture from IDLE CUT OFF to RICH within a second or so.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

OP wrote:
> I rent from a Cessna dealer FBO at VNY. The procedure there is:
>
> Throttle - open 1/4 inch
> Mixture - Idle Cutoff
> Propeller area - Clear
> Master Switch - ON
> Beacon - ON
> Aux Fuel Pump - ON
> Mixture - Advance full - 2 to 3 seconds, then return to Idle Cutoff
> Aux Fuel Pump - OFF
> Ignition - START
> Mixture - Advance full, when engine fires
>
> Works every time for me.


I take it from the procedure the new 172s are fuel injected?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>
>I prime it per the manual, then start it with the throttle closed. If
>it does not start immediately, I crack the throttle ever so slightly,
>leave the fuel pump on, and start it. If the engine tries to die after
>starting, I leave the fuel pump on until it warms up. Pretty much all
>of this can be found in the manual.
>
>Most people who have trouble starting C172s have tried to learn to
>start the airplane by using the checklist without first gaining a
>thorough understanding of what the manual says. There are way too many
>instructors who fall into that category.
>


Following the checklist to the letter works best for most users. The above
method requires three hands, because the throttle is closed, which gives
you one extra thing to do when it fires. Whatever works best for you is
fine - but the checklist method, if followed exactly, works every time.

G Faris

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>I rent from a Cessna dealer FBO at VNY. The procedure there is:
>
>Throttle - open 1/4 inch
>Mixture - Idle Cutoff
>Propeller area - Clear
>Master Switch - ON
>Beacon - ON
>Aux Fuel Pump - ON
>Mixture - Advance full - 2 to 3 seconds, then return to Idle Cutoff
>Aux Fuel Pump - OFF
>Ignition - START
>Mixture - Advance full, when engine fires
>
>Works every time for me.
>
>BTW... same procedure when the engine is hot - EXCEPT - Mixture -
>advance full - 1 second, then return to Idle Cutoff.
>


Pretty close to the standard method - but why use a "timed" method to
determine fuel flow from the pump, when there is an instrument in front
of you that gives precise information? If you didn't have a fuel flow
guage, or suspected that it wasn't working, this would be a good backup
method - but on the ones I've flown this guage is always working, and
gives a reliable indication for the starting procedure.

G Faris

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>
>I take it from the procedure the new 172s are fuel injected?
>
>


They are - and in these discussions (this is the second time this has
come up recently) we should start saying "Injected 172's" instead of
"new" - because some of these "new" models are getting to be eight or
nine years old now . . .

G Faris

[OP]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:14:49 +0200, Greg Farris >
wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>
>>
>>I rent from a Cessna dealer FBO at VNY. The procedure there is:
>>
>>Throttle - open 1/4 inch
>>Mixture - Idle Cutoff
>>Propeller area - Clear
>>Master Switch - ON
>>Beacon - ON
>>Aux Fuel Pump - ON
>>Mixture - Advance full - 2 to 3 seconds, then return to Idle Cutoff
>>Aux Fuel Pump - OFF
>>Ignition - START
>>Mixture - Advance full, when engine fires
>>
>>Works every time for me.
>>
>>BTW... same procedure when the engine is hot - EXCEPT - Mixture -
>>advance full - 1 second, then return to Idle Cutoff.
>>
>
>
>Pretty close to the standard method - but why use a "timed" method to
>determine fuel flow from the pump, when there is an instrument in front
>of you that gives precise information? If you didn't have a fuel flow
>guage, or suspected that it wasn't working, this would be a good backup
>method - but on the ones I've flown this guage is always working, and
>gives a reliable indication for the starting procedure.
>
>G Faris

The reason given by the FBO was that the fuel flow meter in "some"
of the injected 172's is either slow to respond or doesn't read
accurately at the aux fuel pump flow rate. And it is easier to
flood the engine using the fuel flow meter. Don't know how true
that is, but the timed method (using a simple one thousand, two
thousand count) is accurate enough.

I guess if you are flying your own plane or the same one every time,
using the fuel flow meter would be more convenient once you knew
what the fuel flow meter should read to properly start your engine.
The only place I see a problem would be starting a hot engine.
Apparently you don't want as much fuel in there under that
condition. Maybe that would be a lower fuel flow rate.

Ron Kelley

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>The reason given by the FBO was that the fuel flow meter in "some"
>of the injected 172's is either slow to respond or doesn't read
>accurately at the aux fuel pump flow rate. And it is easier to
>flood the engine using the fuel flow meter. Don't know how true
>that is, but the timed method (using a simple one thousand, two
>thousand count) is accurate enough.
>


Tha argument for using the fuel flow meter instead of a timed method is
that you don't know if the pump is primed or not, so the time it takes for
X amount of fuel to be pumped, after you flip the switch, is variable.
Your method though works around this, because you leave the pump ON, and
"dose" the fuel with the mixture control. Sounds OK to me. It's true that
it's very easy to flood these engines, and pilots transitioning from
non-injected models will have more trouble with too much fuel flow than
too little.

G Faris

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

OP wrote:
> The reason given by the FBO was that the fuel flow meter in "some"
> of the injected 172's is either slow to respond or doesn't read
> accurately at the aux fuel pump flow rate. And it is easier to
> flood the engine using the fuel flow meter. Don't know how true
> that is, but the timed method (using a simple one thousand, two
> thousand count) is accurate enough.


On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle full
forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel flow
or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture to
idle cut off. Crank the engine and when it catchs, push the mixture to full
rich. Always seemed to work.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle
full
>forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel
flow
>or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture to
>idle cut off. Crank the engine and when it catchs, push the mixture to full
>rich. Always seemed to work.
>
>

That's standard - but OP is proposing a slightly modified procedure, which
might have some adavantages

G Faris

[john smith]

> Tha argument for using the fuel flow meter instead of a timed method is
> that you don't know if the pump is primed or not, so the time it takes for
> X amount of fuel to be pumped, after you flip the switch, is variable.

The Piper Turbo Arrow IV manual contains a time chart based on OAT for
priming.

[john smith]

> On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle
> full
> forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel
> flow
> or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture to
> idle cut off.

Why push the throttle up?
Throttle controls air, mixture controls fuel.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Well, you need both for combustion.

.... but the fact is that on this airplane (and most fuel injected
engines, I believe) the fuel won't flow into the engine unless the
throttle is open.

You can easily test this by turning on the aux fuel pump and advancing
the mixture to rich while keeping the throttle fully closed. You'll
sit there all day without seeing the fuel flow meter move.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Well, you need both for combustion.
>
>... but the fact is that on this airplane (and most fuel injected
>engines, I believe) the fuel won't flow into the engine unless the
>throttle is open.
>
>You can easily test this by turning on the aux fuel pump and advancing
>the mixture to rich while keeping the throttle fully closed. You'll
>sit there all day without seeing the fuel flow meter move.
>

Besieds which - even if you get the engine to start with the throttle
closed, you will need to advance it as soon as it starts, necessitating
a third hand.

GF

[Newps]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
>
> On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle full
> forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel flow
> or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture to
> idle cut off. Crank the engine and when it catchs, push the mixture to full
> rich. Always seemed to work.

I do the same thing with my Bonanza except the mixture stays full rich.
Starts every time, hot or cold. Why pull the mixture out?

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>>On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle
>>full
>>forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel
>>flow
>>or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture to
>>idle cut off.
>
>
> Why push the throttle up?

Because if you don't the fuel won't get in there.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> I do the same thing with my Bonanza except the mixture stays full rich.
> Starts every time, hot or cold. Why pull the mixture out?

Hey, NewPS, congratulations on your new Bonanza. When did you pick it up?


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john smith]

> >>On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle
> >>full
> >>forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel
> >>flow
> >>or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture
> >>to idle cut off.

> > Why push the throttle up?

> Because if you don't the fuel won't get in there.

I understand throttle cracked (1/4"), but not full.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
>
> >>On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and
throttle
> >>full
> >>forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the
fuel
> >>flow
> >>or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the
mixture to
> >>idle cut off.
> >
> >
> > Why push the throttle up?
>
> Because if you don't the fuel won't get in there.
>
>


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html

/begin excerpt
Injected Engines

Fuel-injected engines don't have an accelerator pump, so pumping the
throttle on one of them does nothing at all but demonstrate ignorance (not
stupidity, which is an entirely different phenomenon) .

Many problems are mitigated with fuel injection, but others are added. Fuel
injection usually puts all fuel right into the intake port (a few, like the
superb Wright R-3350, put the fuel directly into the cylinder). It is
possible for fuel to run down the "log runner" intakes on flat engines and
create some of the above hazards and problems, but it's far less likely.

Fuel injection is great stuff. But its major problem is the dreaded hot
start. If you shut down, then re-start within about 15 minutes, or if you
wait an hour, it'll probably start right up and run just fine. But it is
that period of time somewhere in between (30 to 45 minutes after shutdown is
generally the worst) that can drive pilots to drink. Nothing seems to work.
The problem is that the hot engine "cooks" all the fuel in the engine
compartment. It cooks it in the main line coming into the engine-driven fuel
pump, the lines after that, and even the tiny stainless lines going from the
distribution valve to each cylinder. The result is a system just full of
bubbles, and these engines don't run well on bubbles.

The only effective technique for this is to make sure the mixture control is
pulled all the way to idle cutoff (ICO), and then run the boost pump for 30
seconds or so. (On "high" if you have a two-speed pump.) Yes, that's a long
30 seconds, but it needs to be done.

Note added 06/06/02: Later data strongly suggests the boost pump be run on
the highest setting for AT LEAST 60 full seconds, by the clock, and 90
seconds is better.
The electric boost pump is usually located somewhere outside the engine
compartment, and thus has no problems with bubbly fuel. What you're doing
here is to circulate cool fuel into and through the engine-driven fuel pump,
up to the fuel control unit, and then back through the vapor return lines to
the fuel tank. The idea is that when you do crank the engine, the
engine-driven pump will really pump liquid fuel, and not starve on bubbles.
A normal start should result. While cranking, you might need a quick shot on
the boost pump to help the cold fuel get beyond the fuel control unit, and
blow out the lines to the fuel distributor ("spider"), and the tiny lines to
each cylinder. But make sure it's really quick, otherwise you risk flooding
the engine.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>I do the same thing with my Bonanza except the mixture stays full rich.
>> Starts every time, hot or cold. Why pull the mixture out?
>
>
> Hey, NewPS, congratulations on your new Bonanza. When did you pick it up?

A week ago Friday. Flew off the 10 hours with a couple of instructors
in about a week and now I am experimenting on my own. More than any
Cessna I have flown Bonanza owners are scared to death to get slow with
these planes. You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
more practice to do. A friend has a 1300 foot grass strip near here and
I was able to get in and out of there pretty easy( I need 600 feet to
land and get stopped at 2400 pounds, same distance for takeoff). Turns
out the Bo uses only very slightly more runway than my 182 while having
275 more pounds of useful load, going 50 MPH faster on that extra 55 HP
and while putzing around the local area I am burning 9.5 GPH while
indicating 155 MPH versus a max of about 140 MPH with my 182 burning
about 13. If I'd have known all of this I would have bought one years ago.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>>>>On a cold fuel injected engine, I've always pushed the mixture and throttle
>>>>full
>>>>forward, hit the boost pump long enough to get needle movement on the fuel
>>>>flow
>>>>or fuel pressure gauge, then retarded the throttle to 1/4" and the mixture
>>>>to idle cut off.
>
>
>>>Why push the throttle up?
>
>
>>Because if you don't the fuel won't get in there.
>
>
> I understand throttle cracked (1/4"), but not full.



That's what I initially thought too. Experience proves otherwise.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:


> The only effective technique for this is to make sure the mixture control is
> pulled all the way to idle cutoff (ICO), and then run the boost pump for 30
> seconds or so. (On "high" if you have a two-speed pump.) Yes, that's a long
> 30 seconds, but it needs to be done.

My hot start technique is all levers full forward. Run boost pump until
pressure reaches its max, this is 5-7 seconds, then turn boost pump off.
Pull throttle all the way out and then back in about two turns.
Start the engine. Always starts on first try.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

john smith wrote:
> I understand throttle cracked (1/4"), but not full.


I open the throttle full before I hit the boost pump to allow a maximum amount
of fuel in to support starting. After it's primed, I only open it 1/4" so that
it won't start up at full bore. It takes a few moments for the oil pump to get
the oil moving so for the first moment or so you have only what oil is clinging
to parts from before.

That's my thinking, anyway. All I can say for sure is that the procedure has
started a lot of engines for me over the years.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
> fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
> 75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
> more practice to do.

I do believe it, as I bought my Bonanza from one such pilot. During my
transition to the Bonanza and just after I bought the aircraft, he and I
took a flight to a nearby airport. Just after my landing, he tersely
lectured me because the stall warning horn went off just before the wheels
touched down. Apparently he gets very nervous with approach speeds lower
than about 95 kts.

What model did you purchase again?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[R.L.]

The checklist on the really new (Garmin Glass Panel Equipped) 172S's has
been changed. They now recommend full open throttle while executing the
priming step, then back off the throttle to 1/4 inch per usual before
starting. I understand the change was made because they found that the old
method (as below) was killing batteries with difficult starts.


"OP" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Sep 2005 08:40:45 -0700, "navghtivs" >
> wrote:
>
> >I have flown it 6~7 times now, and still find starting the engine of
> >new Cessna 172S quite tricky, and often I have to try two or three
> >times to start it. I never had problem in older C172s.
> >
> >So what's the trick, guys? How much throttle (1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 inch) do
> >you open? How fast do you advance the mixture when the engine starts to
> >fire? Anthing else?
> >
> >Thanks
>
>
> I rent from a Cessna dealer FBO at VNY. The procedure there is:
>
> Throttle - open 1/4 inch
> Mixture - Idle Cutoff
> Propeller area - Clear
> Master Switch - ON
> Beacon - ON
> Aux Fuel Pump - ON
> Mixture - Advance full - 2 to 3 seconds, then return to Idle Cutoff
> Aux Fuel Pump - OFF
> Ignition - START
> Mixture - Advance full, when engine fires
>
> Works every time for me.
>
> BTW... same procedure when the engine is hot - EXCEPT - Mixture -
> advance full - 1 second, then return to Idle Cutoff.
>
> Ron Kelley
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:07:26 -0600, Newps > wrote:


>I do the same thing with my Bonanza except the mixture stays full rich.
> Starts every time, hot or cold. Why pull the mixture out?

Mainly because I'ma thinking the 170-twice in question has a
RSA/Bendix/TCM/Precision fuel injection system opposed to your Bo's
TCM classic fuel injection system.

SOP with a RSA/B system is crank with the mixture at ICO until the
engine fires. SOP for a TCM classic sytem is full rich.

Was in Vero Beach a few years back talking to a long-time TCM factory
engine rep that was getting a lot of compaints about Seneca V starting
issues.

Reminded him that the TCM engine (newly equipped with RSA/B injection
in the Seneca V) needed to be started like a fuel-injected Lycoming...

TC

[OP]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:35:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>>
> Note added 06/06/02: Later data strongly suggests the boost pump be run on
>the highest setting for AT LEAST 60 full seconds, by the clock, and 90
>seconds is better.
>The electric boost pump is usually located somewhere outside the engine
>compartment, and thus has no problems with bubbly fuel. What you're doing
>here is to circulate cool fuel into and through the engine-driven fuel pump,
>up to the fuel control unit, and then back through the vapor return lines to
>the fuel tank. The idea is that when you do crank the engine, the
>engine-driven pump will really pump liquid fuel, and not starve on bubbles.
>A normal start should result. While cranking, you might need a quick shot on
>the boost pump to help the cold fuel get beyond the fuel control unit, and
>blow out the lines to the fuel distributor ("spider"), and the tiny lines to
>each cylinder. But make sure it's really quick, otherwise you risk flooding
>the engine.


I had read of this method for starting a hot fuel injected engine,
but the article I read didn't say anything about which fuel injected
engines had the return to the tank line. Does this apply to "all"
fuel injected engines of the Lycoming/Continental types, flat
four/sixes in all aircraft? I guess my question is... is the vapor
return line common to all aircraft manufacturers?

Ron Kelley

[john smith]

> My hot start technique is all levers full forward. Run boost pump until
> pressure reaches its max, this is 5-7 seconds, then turn boost pump off.
> Pull throttle all the way out and then back in about two turns.
> Start the engine. Always starts on first try.

Continental or Lycoming?
I have found Continental/s to be easy to hot start because of the return
line.
Lycoming's are much more difficult, in my experience.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:30:25 GMT, OP > wrote:

snip

>I had read of this method for starting a hot fuel injected engine,
>but the article I read didn't say anything about which fuel injected
>engines had the return to the tank line. Does this apply to "all"
>fuel injected engines of the Lycoming/Continental types, flat
>four/sixes in all aircraft? I guess my question is... is the vapor
>return line common to all aircraft manufacturers?

The method described (WOT, ICO, boost pump on) is used to clear a TCM
classic fuel injection system, which will have a return line. If the
"aircraft manufacturer" is using an engine/s with this type of fuel
injection, it will have a return line/s. It can be important on some
aircraft to know how many "return lines" are present, and which tank/s
they are connected to.

A RSA/Bendix system will not have a return line. On the airframes that
I am allegedly familiar with, running the boost pump in this manner
will not accomplish much. But if it makes you (collective you) feel
better, go for it.

The typical RSA/Bendix "hot start" issue is not vaporised fuel in the
pump/lines causing a too-lean start, it is the fuel "boiling" out of
the hard injector lines into the engine induction system along with an
over-zealous application of boost pump-throttle-mixture to over-prime
an engine that often doesn't need priming at all.

I've never personally seen a Lycoming with a TCM classic system, but
there are a few TCM's flying around with RSA/Bendix systems.

TC

snip

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
>>fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
>>75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
>>more practice to do.
>
>
> I do believe it, as I bought my Bonanza from one such pilot. During my
> transition to the Bonanza and just after I bought the aircraft, he and I
> took a flight to a nearby airport. Just after my landing, he tersely
> lectured me because the stall warning horn went off just before the wheels
> touched down. Apparently he gets very nervous with approach speeds lower
> than about 95 kts.
>
> What model did you purchase again?

I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
first things you notice is these things are really put together.
Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>>My hot start technique is all levers full forward. Run boost pump until
>>pressure reaches its max, this is 5-7 seconds, then turn boost pump off.
>> Pull throttle all the way out and then back in about two turns.
>>Start the engine. Always starts on first try.
>
>
> Continental or Lycoming?
> I have found Continental/s to be easy to hot start because of the return
> line.
> Lycoming's are much more difficult, in my experience.

I've got the IO-520.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
> seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space.

Again, congratulations. Sounds like a beauty. Perhaps we will run across
each other at some future ABS event.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
> seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
> first things you notice is these things are really put together.
> Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
> thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.

The first time my wife rode in our, after our POS T210 (ours was a lemon),
said it was like riding in a Caddy or Mercedes after being in a Yugo.


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

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space.
>
>
> Again, congratulations. Sounds like a beauty. Perhaps we will run across
> each other at some future ABS event.

Possibly, although you'll be more likely to find me on a backwoods strip
somewhere trying to find out where the trout are hiding. I have heard
stories of Bo pilots being, ah, a little stuffy. If I run in to that
you'd never see me at a Bo event again. I don't suffer morons.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.
>
>
> The first time my wife rode in our, after our POS T210 (ours was a lemon),
> said it was like riding in a Caddy or Mercedes after being in a Yugo.

My wife is five foot nuthin'. As soon as she sat in it and saw she
could use the spar as a footrest I got the green light.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:41:41 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.

You probably haven't had your Bonanza long enough to answer this
question, but how do you find the cost of maintenance? I have heard
that Raytheon charges exorbitant prices for parts.

Back in the late 90s I made a short trip from John Wayne Airport to
Van Nuys to pick up a passenger. The owner of the FBO from whom I
rented the aircraft for the flight asked if I might pick up a set of
generator brushes for him. I intended to pick up my passenger at the
Raytheon ramp on KVNY, so I agreed to bring the parts back with me.
The cost for two generator brushes (for clarity, these are about the
size of a half stick of blackboard chalk and made of carbon). The
bill was about $200.00! I was shocked. When I worked at the
electrical wholesale house in the 70s, we sold similar brushes for
$0.50 each.

So what has been the experience of other Bonanza owners with regard to
maintenance costs?

[crossposted to rec.aviation.owning]

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
> > Newps > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
> >>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space.
> >
> >
> > Again, congratulations. Sounds like a beauty. Perhaps we will run across
> > each other at some future ABS event.
>
> Possibly, although you'll be more likely to find me on a backwoods strip
> somewhere trying to find out where the trout are hiding. I have heard
> stories of Bo pilots being, ah, a little stuffy. If I run in to that
> you'd never see me at a Bo event again. I don't suffer morons.


We have been trying to get more of them to join our formation flights,
but have very few takers. I must admit, however, that the later models
handle like trucks! Somewhere along the line, Beech decided that
Bonanzas were too light on the controls and stiffened them up. Also, the
vernier throttle and its positioning make it hard to fly formation.

[[email protected]]

Alot of bonanza parts are expensive. However, accessory parts are what
the market offers since they aren't aircraft specific ie brushes.
Those don't need to be bought from Beechcraft.
If you buy them from Beech, they will be marked up 300%.

Most of the Beechcraft parts are very well built and don't need changing
very often.
Once the aircraft is up to snuff, the maintenance isn't much different
than other aircraft of the same type.

Nothing flys like a Bonanza!!!



Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:41:41 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.
>
>
> You probably haven't had your Bonanza long enough to answer this
> question, but how do you find the cost of maintenance? I have heard
> that Raytheon charges exorbitant prices for parts.
>
> Back in the late 90s I made a short trip from John Wayne Airport to
> Van Nuys to pick up a passenger. The owner of the FBO from whom I
> rented the aircraft for the flight asked if I might pick up a set of
> generator brushes for him. I intended to pick up my passenger at the
> Raytheon ramp on KVNY, so I agreed to bring the parts back with me.
> The cost for two generator brushes (for clarity, these are about the
> size of a half stick of blackboard chalk and made of carbon). The
> bill was about $200.00! I was shocked. When I worked at the
> electrical wholesale house in the 70s, we sold similar brushes for
> $0.50 each.
>
> So what has been the experience of other Bonanza owners with regard to
> maintenance costs?
>
> [crossposted to rec.aviation.owning]

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:41:41 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.
>
>
> You probably haven't had your Bonanza long enough to answer this
> question, but how do you find the cost of maintenance? I have heard
> that Raytheon charges exorbitant prices for parts.

I've heard that too, we'll see. My IA has the same model Bo I do so I
am lucky there. No paying for learning about Bonanza's.


>
> Back in the late 90s I made a short trip from John Wayne Airport to
> Van Nuys to pick up a passenger. The owner of the FBO from whom I
> rented the aircraft for the flight asked if I might pick up a set of
> generator brushes for him. I intended to pick up my passenger at the
> Raytheon ramp on KVNY, so I agreed to bring the parts back with me.
> The cost for two generator brushes (for clarity, these are about the
> size of a half stick of blackboard chalk and made of carbon). The
> bill was about $200.00! I was shocked. When I worked at the
> electrical wholesale house in the 70s, we sold similar brushes for
> $0.50 each.

My mechanic says I have an alternator that costs a lot to overhaul if
you do it the right(FAA) way. We will be taking it to the automotive
shop down the street when the time comes. Right now I have one dimmer
switch that is belly up. Mechanic says $350 from Beech but he will
check his other sources and get a cheaper one. Cessna was the same,
very expensive for a dimmer but we found a different source.

[Newps]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>>Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, congratulations. Sounds like a beauty. Perhaps we will run across
>>>each other at some future ABS event.
>>
>>Possibly, although you'll be more likely to find me on a backwoods strip
>>somewhere trying to find out where the trout are hiding. I have heard
>>stories of Bo pilots being, ah, a little stuffy. If I run in to that
>>you'd never see me at a Bo event again. I don't suffer morons.
>
>
>
> We have been trying to get more of them to join our formation flights,
> but have very few takers. I must admit, however, that the later models
> handle like trucks! Somewhere along the line, Beech decided that
> Bonanzas were too light on the controls and stiffened them up. Also, the
> vernier throttle and its positioning make it hard to fly formation.

My Bo doesn't handle much different than my 182, although I admit I'm
not very picky. Everybody but me who has put VG's on their plane raves
about the handling differences, me, I couldn't tell a thing other than
the stall speed had been reduced a few knots. Personally I think most
of them are full of ****. Watching them fly there's no way they can
tell anything.

[john smith]

> We have been trying to get more of them to join our formation flights,
> but have very few takers. I must admit, however, that the later models
> handle like trucks! Somewhere along the line, Beech decided that
> Bonanzas were too light on the controls and stiffened them up. Also, the
> vernier throttle and its positioning make it hard to fly formation.

That would probably be due to the rash of accidents where the tail got
pulled off prior to the mandated leading edge cuffs on the V-tails.

[OP]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:41:00 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:30:25 GMT, OP > wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>I had read of this method for starting a hot fuel injected engine,
>>but the article I read didn't say anything about which fuel injected
>>engines had the return to the tank line. Does this apply to "all"
>>fuel injected engines of the Lycoming/Continental types, flat
>>four/sixes in all aircraft? I guess my question is... is the vapor
>>return line common to all aircraft manufacturers?
>
>The method described (WOT, ICO, boost pump on) is used to clear a TCM
>classic fuel injection system, which will have a return line. If the
>"aircraft manufacturer" is using an engine/s with this type of fuel
>injection, it will have a return line/s. It can be important on some
>aircraft to know how many "return lines" are present, and which tank/s
>they are connected to.
>
>A RSA/Bendix system will not have a return line. On the airframes that
>I am allegedly familiar with, running the boost pump in this manner
>will not accomplish much. But if it makes you (collective you) feel
>better, go for it.
>
>The typical RSA/Bendix "hot start" issue is not vaporised fuel in the
>pump/lines causing a too-lean start, it is the fuel "boiling" out of
>the hard injector lines into the engine induction system along with an
>over-zealous application of boost pump-throttle-mixture to over-prime
>an engine that often doesn't need priming at all.
>
>I've never personally seen a Lycoming with a TCM classic system, but
>there are a few TCM's flying around with RSA/Bendix systems.
>
>TC

Thanks for the information.

Ron

[Roger]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:11 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>Newps > wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
>> fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
>> 75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
>> more practice to do.

That sounds a bit low although some of the older and lighter V-tails
would be down in that range.

I have a Deb that was built in 59 (Sept 11th no less). Final is 80
MPH minus one MPH for each 100# under gross. That brings book speed
for me alone to between 76 and 78 depending on fuel.

I have 1000# useful load. 70 gallons of fuel drops that to 430. Add my
170 and it's down to 250 under gross or 78 MPH. 3 hours of flying @
14 GPH drops that by another 250# for 500# under gross or 75 MPH.
>
>I do believe it, as I bought my Bonanza from one such pilot. During my
>transition to the Bonanza and just after I bought the aircraft, he and I
>took a flight to a nearby airport. Just after my landing, he tersely

I think you will find when flown by the numbers they require less
landing distance than a 172.

It you get a chance to take the ASF/ABS pilot proficiency training
they make you calculate each take off and landing speed. Then they
expect you to be able to fly it at that +/- only a couple MPH.

>lectured me because the stall warning horn went off just before the wheels
>touched down. Apparently he gets very nervous with approach speeds lower
>than about 95 kts.

Mine goes off sooner than that and you can feel it settle in a stall
as the wheels touch.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>What model did you purchase again?
Roger

[Paul kgyy]

Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.

I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
issues - an AD for tail strengthening on older models, and more
recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.

[Newps]

Roger wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:11 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
>>>fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
>>>75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
>>>more practice to do.
>
>
> That sounds a bit low although some of the older and lighter V-tails
> would be down in that range.

That's the book speed. With my 182 I could fly below the book speed
because I had VG's.


>
> I have a Deb that was built in 59 (Sept 11th no less). Final is 80
> MPH minus one MPH for each 100# under gross. That brings book speed
> for me alone to between 76 and 78 depending on fuel.

Book also says 1 MPH per 100# below gross. At 2400 book says my stall
is 53 MPH.


>
> I have 1000# useful load. 70 gallons of fuel drops that to 430. Add my
> 170 and it's down to 250 under gross or 78 MPH. 3 hours of flying @
> 14 GPH drops that by another 250# for 500# under gross or 75 MPH.

My useful is right at 1300 pounds.


>
>>What model did you purchase again?

S35.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:27:29 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>My mechanic says I have an alternator that costs a lot to overhaul if
>you do it the right(FAA) way. We will be taking it to the automotive
>shop down the street when the time comes.

Have you any idea with the differences in overhaul procedures are?

> Right now I have one dimmer switch that is belly up. Mechanic says
>$350 from Beech but he will check his other sources and get a cheaper
>one.

A dimmer is nothing more than a wire-wound rheostat right? If it
hasn't been charred beyond serviceability, and the fault is a result
of an open winding, it might be an easy matter to procure the proper
gage Nichrome wire, and rewind it. Materials: <$1.00

>Cessna was the same, very expensive for a dimmer but we found
>a different source.

Well, you can't blame the manufacturers for trying to make a profit,
but attempted price gouging because they officially have a monopoly on
an approved part that is comparable to those priced at 1/10th won't
endear them to their customers.

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Sep 2005 06:13:28 -0700, "Paul kgyy" > wrote
in . com>::

>Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
>Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.

I would hope Cessna's charging 100 times the market rate for similar
items is a result of an attempt to included the cost of liability
exposure in the price, and not monopolistic profiteering.

>I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
>issues

I too am considering a Bonanza. It's cost of operation per-seat-mile
seems superior to anything else in its class, but a 40-50 year old
aircraft does make one think about its structural integrity.

>- an AD for tail strengthening on older models,

That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
design, IIRC.

>and more recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.

That is probably the biggest concern, but there are methods of
detecting problems there aren't there? Isn't there a retrofit kit
available also?

[Robert M. Gary]

No different from Mooney or probably any other.

-Robert

[john smith]

> A dimmer is nothing more than a wire-wound rheostat right? If it
> hasn't been charred beyond serviceability, and the fault is a result
> of an open winding, it might be an easy matter to procure the proper
> gage Nichrome wire, and rewind it. Materials: <$1.00

Have you ever taken one apart and tried to rewind it?

[john smith]

> That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
> failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
> change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
> design, IIRC.

Not flutter, over stressed by exceeding design speeds.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:17:55 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>> A dimmer is nothing more than a wire-wound rheostat right? If it
>> hasn't been charred beyond serviceability, and the fault is a result
>> of an open winding, it might be an easy matter to procure the proper
>> gage Nichrome wire, and rewind it. Materials: <$1.00
>
>Have you ever taken one apart and tried to rewind it?

I have not taken a Cessna nor Bonanza dimmer apart, but I have rewound
rheostats and coils. But then I'm an IBEW trained, card-caryin'
Journeyman Wireman 'A', and electronics technician. Such a task may
not be for everyone, just as some find soldering difficult.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:19:07 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>> That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
>> failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
>> change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
>> design, IIRC.
>
>Not flutter, over stressed by exceeding design speeds.

Right. That makes sense.

[Roger]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:39:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:41:41 -0600, Newps > wrote
>in >::
>
>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.
>
>You probably haven't had your Bonanza long enough to answer this
>question, but how do you find the cost of maintenance? I have heard
>that Raytheon charges exorbitant prices for parts.
>
>Back in the late 90s I made a short trip from John Wayne Airport to
>Van Nuys to pick up a passenger. The owner of the FBO from whom I
>rented the aircraft for the flight asked if I might pick up a set of
>generator brushes for him. I intended to pick up my passenger at the
>Raytheon ramp on KVNY, so I agreed to bring the parts back with me.
>The cost for two generator brushes (for clarity, these are about the
>size of a half stick of blackboard chalk and made of carbon). The
>bill was about $200.00! I was shocked. When I worked at the
>electrical wholesale house in the 70s, we sold similar brushes for
>$0.50 each.
>
>So what has been the experience of other Bonanza owners with regard to
>maintenance costs?

As of 5 years ago:
Sisors pin for nose gear: Was over $300 (It's 1/4 inch drill rod)
Shimp pack for nose gear: Varies, but bout $170 give or take.
Nose gear strut: $7000
Gear Door hinges: About $470 each and there are two per door.
Outer gear door: About $500

Throttle cable: A tad less than $300, but you'll probably have to
find a supplier for the older Bos as Ratheon doesn't carry them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>[crossposted to rec.aviation.owning]

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:51:56 -0400, Roger
> wrote in
>::

>
>>So what has been the experience of other Bonanza owners with regard to
>>maintenance costs?
>
>As of 5 years ago:
>Sisors pin for nose gear: Was over $300 (It's 1/4 inch drill rod)
>Shimp pack for nose gear: Varies, but bout $170 give or take.
>Nose gear strut: $7000
>Gear Door hinges: About $470 each and there are two per door.
>Outer gear door: About $500
>
>Throttle cable: A tad less than $300, but you'll probably have to
>find a supplier for the older Bos as Ratheon doesn't carry them.

Those prices are similarly outrageous to the generator brushes I
mentioned. I presume they are retail prices. The brushes were
wholesale presumably, as I was picking them up for an A&P. Or does
Raytheon offer wholesale pricing at all?

Have you had any luck in mitigating parts costs by shopping at
Wentworth Aircraft, Inc: http://www.wentworthaircraft.com/home.htm

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> No different from Mooney or probably any other.
>
> -Robert

What?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
>>Right now I have one dimmer switch that is belly up. Mechanic says
>>$350 from Beech but he will check his other sources and get a cheaper
>>one.
>
>
> A dimmer is nothing more than a wire-wound rheostat right? If it
> hasn't been charred beyond serviceability, and the fault is a result
> of an open winding, it might be an easy matter to procure the proper
> gage Nichrome wire, and rewind it. Materials: <$1.00

I went flying today and saw that my mechanic had fixed the rheostat,
don't yet know what he did. I have Nulites and now the panel looks
really cool.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:10:12 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>I went flying today and saw that my mechanic had fixed the rheostat,
>don't yet know what he did. I have Nulites and now the panel looks
>really cool.

Great.

I'll bet it was an easy fix; it's a very simple system:
http://www.nulite.net/electrical.htm

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:06:20 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> No different from Mooney or probably any other.
>>
>> -Robert
>
>What?

I think he was referring to the enormously inflated price of aircraft
parts.

[john smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:10:12 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
> >
> >I went flying today and saw that my mechanic had fixed the rheostat,
> >don't yet know what he did. I have Nulites and now the panel looks
> >really cool.
>
> Great.
>
> I'll bet it was an easy fix; it's a very simple system:
> http://www.nulite.net/electrical.htm

Another high priced product.
Google "electroluminescent rope"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:05:39 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>"electroluminescent rope"

Oh, you mean this stuff:
http://www.glowire.com/basic_glowire_information.htm
Cleaver.

Here
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/Projects/Electroluminescence/LitELine04.html
they say it operates at 120V 500Hz, there might be some interaction
with the ADF at that frequency and its harmonics. Or perhaps Nulites
chose another frequency for their inverter.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>> [Robert M. Gary wrote]
>>> No different from Mooney or probably any other.

>>What?

> I think he was referring to the enormously inflated price of aircraft
> parts.


You seldom know what R.M.G. is talking about because he "over-trims."


Montblack

[Michael]

> Alot of bonanza parts are expensive.

Aircraft parts in general are expensive; Beech parts are simply
outrageous.

My injected engines have one way valves that allow fuel to drain in
case it was overprimed. They are Piper parts, and are $50 each. They
are functionally equivalent to automotive valves that cost $10 each.
But that's nothing. My friend has a Baron, and his valves are $600
each. That's the Beech way.

Similar example - rod ends for trim tab actuators. Normally an AN
part, about $15. On the Baron, it's $120.

> Most of the Beechcraft parts are very well built and don't need changing
> very often.

Many of my friends own Bonanzas and Barons. I have not noticed them
replacing parts less often than I do on my Piper, same vintage. Beech
parts are no better (or worse) than any other aircraft parts. They are
more expensive.

> Once the aircraft is up to snuff, the maintenance isn't much different
> than other aircraft of the same type.

That's true. Mostly, the parts that wear out are engine, not airframe
parts. Fortunately, the engines are Continental - not Beech/Raytheon.
By the time you figure in all the other expenses - labor, engine parts,
fuel, insurance, hangar, engine overhaul - the high cost of Beech parts
isn't really a significant factor in owning a Beech. It's only when
you buy something that needs a lot of airframe work that the Beech
parts cost hits you hard. That's why you can get such a great deal on
an old Bonanza, Baron, or TravelAir.

> Nothing flys like a Bonanza!!!

Actually, lots of things fly like a Bonanza. It's an airplane.
Nothing special.

The real truth is, nothing lands like a Bonanza. Most airplanes in its
class require some skill to land. The Bonanza really doesn't. It's
easier to land than a C-172. It makes you look good. That's why so
many pilots love it.

Michael

[Jon Kraus]

I hope their parts prices are better than their websight. It is pretty
much worthless. I bookmarked it anyway, just in case :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:51:56 -0400, Roger
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>>So what has been the experience of other Bonanza owners with regard to
>>>maintenance costs?
>>
>>As of 5 years ago:
>>Sisors pin for nose gear: Was over $300 (It's 1/4 inch drill rod)
>>Shimp pack for nose gear: Varies, but bout $170 give or take.
>>Nose gear strut: $7000
>>Gear Door hinges: About $470 each and there are two per door.
>>Outer gear door: About $500
>>
>>Throttle cable: A tad less than $300, but you'll probably have to
>>find a supplier for the older Bos as Ratheon doesn't carry them.
>
>
> Those prices are similarly outrageous to the generator brushes I
> mentioned. I presume they are retail prices. The brushes were
> wholesale presumably, as I was picking them up for an A&P. Or does
> Raytheon offer wholesale pricing at all?
>
> Have you had any luck in mitigating parts costs by shopping at
> Wentworth Aircraft, Inc: http://www.wentworthaircraft.com/home.htm

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:19:53 GMT, Jon Kraus > wrote
in >::

>I hope their parts prices are better than their websight.

Well, used aircraft parts are quite functional in some applications,
and given they are genuine, you shouldn't run afoul of the FAA as
might occur if automotive parts are substituted. I have found
Wentworth prices to be reasonable, about half of the cost of new.

[Robert M. Gary]

>You seldom know what R.M.G. is talking about because he "over-trims."

I have a newsreader that puts replys under the associated posts w/o
regard to time. If you're just reading news sorted by date, I can see
how you can be confused.

[Robert M. Gary]

> I think he was referring to the enormously inflated price of aircraft

BTW: A friend of mine just replaced the tire and wheel on his
Gulfstream. $40K!!

-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>You seldom know what R.M.G. is talking about because he "over-trims."
>
>
> I have a newsreader that puts replys under the associated posts w/o
> regard to time. If you're just reading news sorted by date, I can see
> how you can be confused.
>

I see only new posts, so if you just post a reply with no context then
it's just drivel.

[Roger]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:08:07 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Peter R. wrote:
>> > Newps > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>> >>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space.
>> >
>> >
>> > Again, congratulations. Sounds like a beauty. Perhaps we will run across
>> > each other at some future ABS event.
>>
>> Possibly, although you'll be more likely to find me on a backwoods strip
>> somewhere trying to find out where the trout are hiding. I have heard
>> stories of Bo pilots being, ah, a little stuffy. If I run in to that
>> you'd never see me at a Bo event again. I don't suffer morons.
>
>
>We have been trying to get more of them to join our formation flights,
>but have very few takers. I must admit, however, that the later models
>handle like trucks! Somewhere along the line, Beech decided that
>Bonanzas were too light on the controls and stiffened them up. Also, the
>vernier throttle and its positioning make it hard to fly formation.

With a 59 Deb (Sept 11) I find the controls just right. The throttle
is just in the right place and it is very easy to fly. OTOH I don't
fly formation with any one I don't know. Of course I won't fly
formation with a lot of the ones I do either <:-))

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

[Roger]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:11:51 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I have a 64 S35, first year with the IO520 and the first year as a six
>>>seater so as a four seater you have a lot of cargo space. One of the
>>>first things you notice is these things are really put together.
>>>Cessnas and Pipers are flimsy beer cans compared to a Bonanza, of course
>>>thats also why the empty weight is 230 pounds more.
>>
>>
>> The first time my wife rode in our, after our POS T210 (ours was a lemon),
>> said it was like riding in a Caddy or Mercedes after being in a Yugo.
>
>My wife is five foot nuthin'. As soon as she sat in it and saw she
>could use the spar as a footrest I got the green light.

You got a tall one. Joyce is 4'10" <:-)) I have noticed the spar
cover does lose a bit of paint on that side.

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

[Roger]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:33:40 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 9 Sep 2005 06:13:28 -0700, "Paul kgyy" > wrote
>in . com>::
>
>>Beech isn't the only one that's exorbitant. I got a recent quote from
>>Piper for $200 each for a pair of gas caps for my Arrow.
>
>I would hope Cessna's charging 100 times the market rate for similar
>items is a result of an attempt to included the cost of liability
>exposure in the price, and not monopolistic profiteering.
>
>>I've always wanted a Bo but am getting concerned now about structural
>>issues
>
>I too am considering a Bonanza. It's cost of operation per-seat-mile
>seems superior to anything else in its class, but a 40-50 year old
>aircraft does make one think about its structural integrity.
>
>>- an AD for tail strengthening on older models,
>
>That Airworthiness Directive was a result of a number of in-flight
>failures attributed to flutter wasn't it? It was a necessary design
>change to deal with an unanticipated problem inherent in the original
>design, IIRC.
>
>>and more recently an issue about cracks in the wing spar web.
>
>That is probably the biggest concern, but there are methods of
>detecting problems there aren't there? Isn't there a retrofit kit
>available also?

It's a visual inspection and can be fixed by stop drilling and
doublers. The current question is whether that is good enough or not.
It's thought the cracks come from taxiing on rough surfaces rather
than in flight, but who knows.

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

[Roger]

On 9 Sep 2005 15:46:16 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>>You seldom know what R.M.G. is talking about because he "over-trims."
>
>I have a newsreader that puts replys under the associated posts w/o
>regard to time. If you're just reading news sorted by date, I can see
>how you can be confused.

Posts in order by date are in logical order only by chance by the time
they've gone through several servers.

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

[Roger]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:00:46 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Roger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:00:11 -0400, "Peter R." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You wouldn't believe the number of numbnuts out there who
>>>>fly final at 100 mph or more. Right now I can comfortably fly final at
>>>>75 MPH although the book speed for my weight is 68 MPH so I have some
>>>>more practice to do.
>>
>>
>> That sounds a bit low although some of the older and lighter V-tails
>> would be down in that range.
>
>That's the book speed. With my 182 I could fly below the book speed
>because I had VG's.
>
>
>>
>> I have a Deb that was built in 59 (Sept 11th no less). Final is 80
>> MPH minus one MPH for each 100# under gross. That brings book speed
>> for me alone to between 76 and 78 depending on fuel.
>
>Book also says 1 MPH per 100# below gross. At 2400 book says my stall
>is 53 MPH.
>

On mine Vso at just over 2400 is 55 MPH, but with me alone and 11
gallons of unusable fuel, I'd have to take off with only 10 gallons
available. <:-)) That would mean summer clothes and leaving the
planes documents in the car too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>> I have 1000# useful load. 70 gallons of fuel drops that to 430. Add my
>> 170 and it's down to 250 under gross or 78 MPH. 3 hours of flying @
>> 14 GPH drops that by another 250# for 500# under gross or 75 MPH.
>
>My useful is right at 1300 pounds.
>
>
>>
>>>What model did you purchase again?
>
>S35.
>

[xyzzy]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>You seldom know what R.M.G. is talking about because he "over-trims."
>
>
> I have a newsreader that puts replys under the associated posts w/o
> regard to time. If you're just reading news sorted by date, I can see
> how you can be confused.
>
Many newsreaders don't show already-read posts. Mine does but they are
marked as already read, so I don't look at them again. If the post you
replied is already read when I read yours, what you're replying to is
not fresh in my mind and I'm not about to go back and look at that just
so I can figure out wtf you are saying.

Leaving some context in is simple netiquitte.