A36 for Family Trips

Contemplating share of A36 primarily for work trips but also for
occasional trips with family of six (small kids). We are resigned to
shipping most of our luggage UPS for longer trips, but are interested
in strategies Bonanza owners in this situation have used to cram in
some storage here and there. We have been spoiled by traveling in a
Lance the last few years.

Thanks

Bob wrote:
Contemplating share of A36 primarily for work trips but also for
occasional trips with family of six (small kids). We are resigned to
shipping most of our luggage UPS for longer trips, but are interested
in strategies Bonanza owners in this situation have used to cram in
some storage here and there. We have been spoiled by traveling in a
Lance the last few years.

Are you overpacking?
My family wears one set of clothes and packs two more when traveling.
Stay at hotels with a washer and dryer in a commons area and wash
clothes in the evenings every three or four days for extended stays.

You know, the Lance and the Bonanza burn about the same fuel. The Bo
goes about 15 kts faster. TANSTAAFL. The Bo will never match the
Lance on load, just as the Lance will never match the Bo on speed.

Michael

Bob,
I sense that you may be overloading in either craft. I have an A36.
Empty wt is 2550, gross 3600, giving you 1050 to play with. Full fuel
is 80 gal (480 lb) bringing us to 570 lb with full tanks. Playing with
fuel, even with 1/2 tanks, gains you 240 lb (=810 useful load). Now
takeoff is not permited with less that 1/4 fuel because of risk of fuel
starvation (location of fuel pickup in tank).

There is a small shelf and compartment behind seats 5 & 6. You can fit
in 2 small-medium size suitcases and misc there. Behind that there is
a bulkhead. In that space is the flight director computer, AP servos,
ELT, and a maze of control cables. Do not plan on putting anything
there.

In club config there is a small space between the 1st and 2nd row. I
keep my flight bag, O2 bottle, fire ext., and a roll of paper towels
there. You could cram more in there but better leave some space to get
to the manual gear crank in the unlikely case you should need it. Also
leave a little space to recline the front seats.

Looking at newpiper.com, a Saratoga has nearly the same specs (3600
gross, ~2300 empty, but it carries more fuel, so not a major
difference.

I do not knot the Lance specs but they cannot be a whole lot different.

I have about 700 hrs in my Bonanza and have encountered a variety of
loading situations. Much to the dismay of some wannabe passengers,
sometimes the answer is no. 2 weeks ago I was asked if 6 of us could
travel to a 30th anniversery party, Only one person less that 120lb,
one 280, two 150's and two 230's. Gross would have been about 4000 lb.
The tanks were full and I had no pump available to drain off fuel. So
sorry. Ended up only 3 of us went and things were fine.

Four people and a load of luggage works well. Plenty of space for
everyone. Six will work if the kids are small, but they grow fast and
what works this year may not work next.

My 2 cents.

Bob

On 7-Jun-2005, wrote:

Looking at newpiper.com, a Saratoga has nearly the same specs (3600
gross, ~2300 empty, but it carries more fuel, so not a major
difference.


But if you look back at specs for older Lance and Saratoga models you find
that empty weight used to be MUCH lower. Standard empty weight for an '83
Saratoga was around 2000 lbs compared to the standard equipped empty weight
of about 2400 lbs for the current model. Part of this whopping 400 lb
difference is because the "standard" airplane today comes with full avionics
and instrumentation. But even allowing a generous 150 lbs for those
goodies, the difference in real useful load is still about 350 lbs, the
equivalent of 2 adults.

Specifically, a typical Lance or early Saratoga might have a useful load of
about 1475 lbs. Deducting 600 lbs for 100 gallons of fuel leaves a full
fuel payload of 875 lbs. Two adults of average 170 lbs and 4 kids of
average 100 lbs would total 740 lbs, leaving 135 lbs for baggage. Knock 10
gallons off the fuel load and the baggage could go to nearly 200 lbs. If
you restrict fuel to a still-reasonable 75 gallons payload would be
sufficient for 6 FAA-standard adults (but no baggage). Of course, all these
loading examples assume that you can work out weight & balance to keep the
CG within the allowed envelope.

Significantly increased empty weight is a problem for virtually every
current version of long-running models. This despite lighter weights for
avionics. I guess today's buyers want sumptuous leather seats, thick
carpets, and extra insulation, and are willing to sacrifice useful load.

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote:
Bob,
I sense that you may be overloading in either craft. I have an A36.
Empty wt is 2550, gross 3600, giving you 1050 to play with. Full fuel
is 80 gal (480 lb) bringing us to 570 lb with full tanks. Playing with
fuel, even with 1/2 tanks, gains you 240 lb (=810 useful load). Now
takeoff is not permited with less that 1/4 fuel because of risk of fuel
starvation (location of fuel pickup in tank).

Thanks
Reference info
Lance UL 1430 Spare load with full fuel and family 260 lb
Bo UL 1250 Spare load with full fuel and family 190 lb

It seems newer Bo's do have storage behind 5&6. The one we are
considering ('75) has none except a hat rack.

Bob

Bob,
There is another factor that may or may not have value to you. I
"served my time" training many hours in an Archer and later built time
in an Arrow for complex/high performance experience. Both aircraft
served me well. When I was in the market I went through and defined my
mission objectives. Several planes would have worked. Lance and
Saratoga being potential canadates. When this Bonanza came up for
sale, everything fell into place. One flight and I realized what a
different machine it is. There is a different feel to the plane in the
controlls, mass, smoothness, fit, finish, and things that are just well
thought out.

I also perform my annual inspections under the supervision of an A&P.
The aircraft is relative easy to work on, service, and maintain.
Problems have been minimal with no real suprises. Insurance is the
main cost, but after that I had avionics work (that has tapered off) as
the next cost area, and then costs associated with annuals (Filters,
plugs, perishable items). I keep a close eye on things and take care
of the little things before they get bigger or wait until annual. For
example about 2 yrs ago I had to replace the tail pipes. Took a couple
of hours on a Saturday but replaced some grommets in the support
brackets and some bolts. Took a good look at other components when
things were visible. At annual time it was done and simply a check off
item.

For me it has been a good plane.

Bob

I may go look at a 1977 Seneca II later this week. What are specific
areas to evaluate more closely on pre-buy and overall things to look for ?

Thanks -

KR

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:57:00 GMT, Ken Reed wrote:

I may go look at a 1977 Seneca II later this week. What are specific
areas to evaluate more closely on pre-buy and overall things to look for ?

Does it have long range tanks? The IFR endurance/range on a standard
tank Seneca II is not that impressive.

If you are a big guy, look for one with standard forward facing
seating. The ones I have flown with club seating limit the seat
recline for the pilot/copilot when the pilot seat is pushed all the
way back on the seat tracks. I could not stand more than an hour at a
time.

If the plane has de-ice equip make sure it all works especially the
hot plate on the windshield. These are very expensive to replace, I
think approaching $10k. Likewise with boots and the hotprops.

See if you can take it up high for two reasons:
1. Mags (if unpressurized or if leaky) tend to misfire above 12k..
2. Run the heater. These are expensive to repair/replace.

Check the engine versions. I am not sure the entire history on the
Seneca II, but some versions of TSIO360s have 1200 TBO, others are
either 1600 or 1800.

Our Seneca ate cylinders at the rate of 1-2 per annual so I would look
for cylinder history in the engine logs, and be thorough with
compression checks. I am not sure if this is indicative of the
TSIO360, or the particular engines on this plane. We were careful
with power adjustments, cowl flap usage, used speedbrakes on decent,
kept MPs up to avoid shock cooling.

Good luck. Seneca's are a bit slow as twins go, but they can haul a
lot, and are an affordable twin.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:57:00 GMT, Ken Reed wrote:

I may go look at a 1977 Seneca II later this week. What are specific
areas to evaluate more closely on pre-buy and overall things to look for ?

Thanks -

KR

I agree with most of what Nathan has said, but out of the 3 seneca
ll's that I have flown, 2 had club seating and they didnt seem to
bother me at 6'1" 225 lbs. I liked the club seating personally, It
seemed to give a little more room for the passengers. I also think
that they are a good family plane. They are affordable at 24 gallons
an hour and I plan for around 170 true. For most flights, it gets you
to where you want to go fairly cheaply and at a nice pace. The only
other thing that I can add to as far as what to lok for is to make
sure that the trunnion AD has been done, which I believe they cost
around 3500.00 each X 2. Also, if the tanks have bladders in them,
make sure that they are in good shape. I have never had an issue with
any of the seneca's eating cylinders, and we are pretty hard on one of
our planes putting around 400 hours on them just in the last year.


Scott D.