A36 baggage?

[John Doe]

Where do you put the luggage in an A36? (do you have to take out the 3rd row
of seats?)

[Dave S]

There is a space behind the 3rd row that can contain baggage.

THe usual caveat about Bonanza's and their empty fuel/end of trip CG
issues applies.

Dave

John Doe wrote:
> Where do you put the luggage in an A36? (do you have to take out the 3rd row
> of seats?)
>
>

[John Doe]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
> There is a space behind the 3rd row that can contain baggage.
>
> THe usual caveat about Bonanza's and their empty fuel/end of trip CG
> issues applies.

Can you explain further?

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:08:43 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> There is a space behind the 3rd row that can contain baggage.
>>
>> THe usual caveat about Bonanza's and their empty fuel/end of trip CG
>> issues applies.
>
>Can you explain further?
>
Fuel is typically forward of the spar/c.g., bodies and "stuff"
typically aft of the spar/c.g.

In-flight the fuel gets turned into various combustion by-products and
the c.g. shifts aft.

AFAIK the A36 has the 2 front seats located further forward than any
of the other Bananer's, but the passenger/baggage compartment extends
further aft.

TC

[Newps]

wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:08:43 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>>There is a space behind the 3rd row that can contain baggage.
>>>
>>>THe usual caveat about Bonanza's and their empty fuel/end of trip CG
>>>issues applies.
>>
>>Can you explain further?
>>
>
> Fuel is typically forward of the spar/c.g., bodies and "stuff"
> typically aft of the spar/c.g.
>
> In-flight the fuel gets turned into various combustion by-products and
> the c.g. shifts aft.
>
> AFAIK the A36 has the 2 front seats located further forward than any
> of the other Bananer's, but the passenger/baggage compartment extends
> further aft.



In an A36 if you can takeoff within CG you will land within CG.

[George Patterson]

Newps wrote:

> In an A36 if you can takeoff within CG you will land within CG.

I've got a flight planner which came loaded with the data for an A36 with club
seating, N90002. The CoG shifts aft 4" from full to empty tanks. It's very easy
to load that plane in such a way that you take off within the envelope and
attempt to land outside the envelope without anyone changing seats.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Robert M. Gary]

That hard part is loading it. I flew a Debonair before I bought my
Mooney. I still don't understand why Beech continues having people load
baggage from that little door on the side. In the Mooney, you load it
like a car's truck, from the top. In the Beech, I had to load the first
bag, then lift it up and load the next under it, etc. The other option
was to load the bags over the back seat, skipping the door. There is a
reason Chevy puts a trunk on cars rather than have a little door on the
side to load your car. I guess for those that only carry 1 or 2 bags
the Beech way may work but for those of us that load to the ceiling,
the Mooney way is clearly the best. I"m also 6'4", I've always thought
that Beech designed for shorter pilots, while Mooney designed for
taller pilots, perhaps that is a factor too.

-Robert

[John Doe]

You're 6'4" and you fly a Mooney? Wow. Good on ya. Probably don't have
much leg room for passengers in the back. Do you find the Mooney to be a
tight fit?


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That hard part is loading it. I flew a Debonair before I bought my
> Mooney. I still don't understand why Beech continues having people load
> baggage from that little door on the side. In the Mooney, you load it
> like a car's truck, from the top. In the Beech, I had to load the first
> bag, then lift it up and load the next under it, etc. The other option
> was to load the bags over the back seat, skipping the door. There is a
> reason Chevy puts a trunk on cars rather than have a little door on the
> side to load your car. I guess for those that only carry 1 or 2 bags
> the Beech way may work but for those of us that load to the ceiling,
> the Mooney way is clearly the best. I"m also 6'4", I've always thought
> that Beech designed for shorter pilots, while Mooney designed for
> taller pilots, perhaps that is a factor too.
>
> -Robert
>

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> In the Beech, I had to load the first bag, then lift it up and load
> the next under it, etc. The other option was to load the bags over
> the back seat, skipping the door.

Sounds like how I load the 182 for AirVenture.

[Jay Honeck]

> I still don't understand why Beech continues having people load
> baggage from that little door on the side. In the Mooney, you load it
> like a car's truck, from the top. In the Beech, I had to load the first
> bag, then lift it up and load the next under it, etc. The other option
> was to load the bags over the back seat, skipping the door. There is a
> reason Chevy puts a trunk on cars rather than have a little door on the
> side to load your car.

Interesting. The few times I've loaded a Mooney, I found the location of
the baggage compartment door to be awkward. Having to lift the bags up so
much higher in order to clear the lip made me long for the nice, low baggage
doors in most other planes.

Of course, I wasn't loading for Oshkosh. If I was loading to the roof, I
can certainly see your point.

> I"m also 6'4", I've always thought
> that Beech designed for shorter pilots, while Mooney designed for
> taller pilots, perhaps that is a factor too.

First time I've ever heard that. Usually I've heard pilots describe both
planes the other way 'round...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Butler]

> Interesting. The few times I've loaded a Mooney, I found the location of
> the baggage compartment door to be awkward. Having to lift the bags up so
> much higher in order to clear the lip made me long for the nice, low baggage
> doors in most other planes.

I'm with you on that, Jay. Also the opening is not large enough.

>>I"m also 6'4", I've always thought
>>that Beech designed for shorter pilots, while Mooney designed for
>>taller pilots, perhaps that is a factor too.
>
>
> First time I've ever heard that. Usually I've heard pilots describe both
> planes the other way 'round...

Don't know about Beech, but I'm 6'1" and I have the adjustable pilot's seat
pulled forward to the second (or third?) notch in the Mooney. The Mooney's leg
space in the front row is like a tunnel. I'd guess 5'9" or so as the minimum
height for a Mooney.

[Robert M. Gary]

> You're 6'4" and you fly a Mooney? Wow
It would be hard to fly a Mooney if you aren't 6 foot. At 6'4" I still
have to move the seat up several notches. The Mooney is like a sports
car, you sit with your feet almost straight out in front of you. The
firewall actually has feet areas cut out for all that leg room. My wife
could never fly the Mooney. She's 5"5" and not only can she not reach
the rudders but she also can't see over the glareshield. In the Bonanza
you sit up like in a truck. My knees always seemed to be hitting the
bottom of the panel, Getting in and out is easier in the Bonanza but
sitting up front, the Mooney is clearly more roomy.
I have the F Mooney (about 10" longer than the older models). My boys
are pre-teen and fit just fine. I've ridden in the back seat by myself
and was ok. However, two full size guys in the back seat is very tight.
In the Bonanza you have a bit larger cabin but it costs 2-3 gal/hr more
to push that larger cabin through the air at the same 150 knots.
-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

In the Bonanza
> you sit up like in a truck. My knees always seemed to be hitting the
> bottom of the panel, Getting in and out is easier in the Bonanza but
> sitting up front, the Mooney is clearly more roomy.

My experience has been the opposite. I have an S35 and a friend has an
M20C, about a 62 or 63 model. In the Mooney your feet are straight out
in front and there's hardly any wiggle room. The Bonanza you sit in
like in your kitchen chair. Legs getting tired during the flight? In
the Mooney too bad, there's no place to move them to. In the Bo I can
put my legs on the copilot side if I want. Time to get out? In the
Mooney you have to slide the seat back to extract yourself. In my Bo
the seat never moves unless I let somebody else fly from the left seat.
When you slide the seat back in a Mooney it rests right up against the
front of the back seat, leaving exactly zero leg room for a passenger in
the back seat. I'm 6'2" and have the seat in my Bo 2 or 3 notches from
full back. If I put the seat full back the rear seat passengers still
have more legroom than your average compact car, probably about 18" and
that's with the rear seats slid all the way forward. Need more? Then
slide the back seats farther back, there's probably about 12" of travel
there, just like the front seats. The Mooney? Oh yeah that's right,
the back seat is fixed and it's a one piece seat. The Bo has individual
rear seats, each with it's own armrest on both sides of the seat. At
least the Mooney windows are like pillbox slits compared to the Bo...The
Mooney is good at what it was designed for, to go fast on little power.
It is not designed for off pavement operations. Not nearly enough
prop clearance and gear doors that are way too close to the ground. To
get 150 knots TAS I need to run 11.5 GPH thru my BO, that's 21.5" and
2100 at the best altitude of 6000, that's 55% power so it's pretty quiet
in there at that low a setting. I'm not sure what my friends Mooney
needs for that. I think I remember her saying that 145-150 knots was
about all you'd get out of 180 HP.

[Frank Stutzman]

Newps > wrote:
> the back seat is fixed and it's a one piece seat. The Bo has individual
> rear seats, each with it's own armrest on both sides of the seat. At
> least the Mooney windows are like pillbox slits compared to the Bo...The
> Mooney is good at what it was designed for, to go fast on little power.

Tut, tut, Newps. You've got to be a touch careful about the
generalizations. In my early Bonanza ('49 A35) I have bench seats in the
front and the back. NONE of which have any adjustemnt. However, I can
adjust the height of the pedals (and even fold the co-pilots pedals
completely down).

I'm not a big guy, however. I've only sat in a Mooney a couple of times
(a 201, IIRC). It certainly gave the perception of being much more
claustrophic than the Bonanza. Wether the dimentions though bear that
out, I dunno.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

> When you slide the seat back in a Mooney it rests right up against the
> front of the back seat

I don't know because I've never flown the old short body Mooneys. I fly
an F model that has 10 extra inches behind the front seat.

> I think I remember her saying that 145-150 knots was about all you'd get out of 180 HP.

I've never flow a 180hp old Mooney, mine is 200hp. I've also never
flown a 180hp Bo.

I think the last time Mooney produced a 180hp Mooney or one of the
short body models was in the middle of the 70's.

-Robert

[Frank Stutzman]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:

> I've never flow a 180hp old Mooney, mine is 200hp. I've also never
> flown a 180hp Bo.

(nitpick mode)

And you never will fly a 180HP Bonanza as there never was such an animal.

Lots of engines have been put on the Bonanza. The various HPs from
the factory were 165, 185, 205, 225, 240, 250, 260, 285.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" (185 hp, converted to 225)
Hood River, OR