cost of panel upgrade on bonanza

"soxinbox" wrote in message
. 165...
I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
want something that is resonably fast with a good range.

Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
afford more plane than they could fly.

I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load 1000) with
a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.

In reference to previous replys. A Cessna 182 or Piper 235 (fixed gear) with
long range tanks might get you to your destination just as fast or nearly as
fast as a 165K plane with less range. The cost of ownership and resale for
these two planes has been very favorable (there is a reason for that). The
actual total time for a 600nm trip in a 135K aircraft vs 155K aircraft is
not that different (you spend a lot of the time getting to the airport,
loading the plane, etc.) If you can avoid a refueling stop by having good
range then you will get there first.
Howard
C182 (with long range tanks!)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

The older bonanza's panel are kind of sparce, but don't let that be a
factor whether or not to buy one.
If the airplane is a nice one and/or affordable one, why not buy it and
fly it as it is and worry about the panel later.

I own an older Bonanza and had the original panel for eight years before
i modified it.

The main reason that i made the panel modification is that I wanted the
speed sloped windshield, and if you were ever going to do a panel
modification, do it while the windshield is out!!!

I would have flown behind the original panel forever without the
windshield modification. It just seemed like a good thing to do.

If your mechanically inclined it could be a very nice winter project to
do it your self.
It's quite a bit of work to do the modification, but its a lot of fun.

Good luck in your endevor!!

Dave


Howard Nelson wrote:

"soxinbox" wrote in message
. 165...

I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
want something that is resonably fast with a good range.

Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
afford more plane than they could fly.

I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load 1000) with
a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.


In reference to previous replys. A Cessna 182 or Piper 235 (fixed gear) with
long range tanks might get you to your destination just as fast or nearly as
fast as a 165K plane with less range. The cost of ownership and resale for
these two planes has been very favorable (there is a reason for that). The
actual total time for a 600nm trip in a 135K aircraft vs 155K aircraft is
not that different (you spend a lot of the time getting to the airport,
loading the plane, etc.) If you can avoid a refueling stop by having good
range then you will get there first.
Howard
C182 (with long range tanks!)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:23:19 GMT, soxinbox wrote:

I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
want something that is resonably fast with a good range.

Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
afford more plane than they could fly.

I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load 1000) with

You just ruled out the Deb. The Deb and F-33 prior to 74 only had
1000# useful load and 420# (or more) of that is gas.. In 74 the F-33
went to 1400#. Of course that is when the shifting CG became something
to monitor.

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

a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.


"soxinbox" wrote in message
. 166...
I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early
60s bonanza or debonair.

My first thought is, "don't."

Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather
because I've found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and
you're better off learning with something simple. Why not a good
Skylane? For the same money you'll get a newer, likely lower-time
bird, spend less on insurance and maintenance. The only downside being
speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range depending on the two birds
you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or do you just want it?
You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to or even
exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the
Total Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big
pressurized twin cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a
nice Bo. Of course that resale value will come back on the tail end,
should you decide to step up.

Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane
ownership is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and
when anything makes a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your
wallet. Be prepared for numbers that sound like the down payment on a
car. If the thought of this concerns you, best stay away from an early
60s Beech retract.

Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much
this would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the
same
time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the
one you have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading
the panel, you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell
it. Let the previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception
to this would be a good plane with a high-time engine, because a much
larger portion of the money you spend on the engine will be retained
as value. Of course, if you already have a plane you like but just
want newer radios, it can make sense to upgrade because you'll own
them long enough to get your money's worth. But if you're buying the
plane now, buy what you want the first time around.

Best,
-cwk.

You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
compared to a complex single.

soxinbox wrote:

I've flow 172s and 182s, but prefer the low wings ( just my preferance).
I will be using this primarily for weekend getaways. In life I've found
that it is often the road you take, not where you go, that is most
important, but coffee house philosophy aside, I don't want to spend my
whole weekend getting somewhere just to turn around and come back, so I
want something that is resonably fast with a good range.

Your advice on the avionics is well headed. I am only going to keep this
plane until I get confortable enough to move up to a twin, so the resale
value is important. This intemediate plane is to keep me from being one
of those smoking holes in the ground that used to be someone who could
afford more plane than they could fly.

I am really looking for a TRUE four place plane ( useful load 1000) with
a 700 mile range, flip flop nav/coms, autopilot, gps, and modern six pack
panel. Without breaking the bank, this seams to be leading me to the
debonair. Problem is There are few planes with this combination, and so I
was seeing if it is feasable to not lose too much money on it.


"soxinbox" wrote in message
. 166...
I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early
60s bonanza or debonair.

My first thought is, "don't."

Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather
because I've found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and
you're better off learning with something simple. Why not a good
Skylane? For the same money you'll get a newer, likely lower-time
bird, spend less on insurance and maintenance. The only downside being
speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range depending on the two birds
you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or do you just want it?
You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to or even
exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the
Total Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big
pressurized twin cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a
nice Bo. Of course that resale value will come back on the tail end,
should you decide to step up.

Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane
ownership is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and
when anything makes a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your
wallet. Be prepared for numbers that sound like the down payment on a
car. If the thought of this concerns you, best stay away from an early
60s Beech retract.

Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much
this would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the
same
time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the
one you have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading
the panel, you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell
it. Let the previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception
to this would be a good plane with a high-time engine, because a much
larger portion of the money you spend on the engine will be retained
as value. Of course, if you already have a plane you like but just
want newer radios, it can make sense to upgrade because you'll own
them long enough to get your money's worth. But if you're buying the
plane now, buy what you want the first time around.

Best,
-cwk.




--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:47:32 -0400, Ray Andraka
wrote:

You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
compared to a complex single.

Can't argue with that.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:56:36 -0500, Al Marzo
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:47:32 -0400, Ray Andraka
wrote:

You should look at a Piper PA-28-235 (Dakota or pathfinder). They have 84
gallon tanks, full fuel useful loads over 1000 lbs and are simple to maintain
compared to a complex single.

Can't argue with that.

And the Dakota is a tue, all seats full airplane.

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

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:38:34 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


"soxinbox" wrote in message
.166...
I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
bonanza or debonair.

Now this is making more sense.

My first thought is, "don't."

Not because these can't be perfectly good airplanes, but rather because I've
found that airplane ownership is a complex business, and you're better off
learning with something simple. Why not a good Skylane? For the same money

The Deb or Bos are not forgiving airplanes.

you'll get a newer, likely lower-time bird, spend less on insurance and
maintenance. The only downside being speed, which is in the 20-40 knot range
depending on the two birds you're comparing. Do you need that extra speed or
do you just want it? You may notice that good 182s cost a lot, comparable to

The extra speed won't come into play until going on long trips.
I've not seen good 182 costing near what the same year Bo, or Deb
would run. Typically I see 182s about 10 years newer than the Bo or
Deb running about the same price.

or even exceeding Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc. that aren't all that much
older/higher-time. There's a reason for this: smart pilots look at the Total
Cost of Ownership. This is also why you can buy a big pressurized twin
cessna with all the toys for not a lot more than a nice Bo. Of course that
resale value will come back on the tail end, should you decide to step up.

Bos aren't terribly expensive to fly, depending on year and how much
you fly. Mine runs less than several single owner 172s on the field.
Depending on hours I figure It runs between $80 and $100 an hour. Two
of the 172s on the field are running closer to $125 an hour.


Of course, if you have money coming out the wazoo, then airplane ownership
is easy. Find a decent mechanic (ask your type club) and when anything makes
a funny sound, take it to him, and hand over your wallet. Be prepared for
numbers that sound like the down payment on a car. If the thought of this
concerns you, best stay away from an early 60s Beech retract.

I've never found that to be the case, but you do need to do a bit of
networking. Know where to find parts.


Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same
time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

My rule of thumb here is to buy the plane you want, and upgrade the one you
have. The reason is that while you might spend $50k upgrading the panel,
you'll be lucky to get back more than $30k when you resell it. Let the

Probably not that much of a return. After a few years avionics are
almost a wash. $50K would purchase a really, really nice panel.

previous owner eat that depreciation. The only exception to this would be a
good plane with a high-time engine, because a much larger portion of the
money you spend on the engine will be retained as value. Of course, if you
already have a plane you like but just want newer radios, it can make sense
to upgrade because you'll own them long enough to get your money's worth.
But if you're buying the plane now, buy what you want the first time around.

That is what I did. I purchased the oldest example in existence. :-))
but some one had put a lot of money into it.

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

Best,
-cwk.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:31:52 GMT, soxinbox wrote:

I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

Mine http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm has the non
standard T arrangement. I don't know if there's an STC but I've seen
a lot of them that have been changed. The non standard T can be a bit
confusing if you aren't used to it, but it sure is nice for partial
panel work. Another non standard, but nice feature is the air speed
indicator is CAS and not IAS. They ride the bumps very well but are
not at all forgiving if you get behind the airplane. They are
absolutely rudder only in stalls.

I understand it's an easy conversion to move the instruments. STC or
how cheap? I have no idea. I found mine easy to use so never bothered
changing it. One thing you will note is they have very poor panel
lighting for night flight. A good set of post lights or the new ring
lights would be a good investment.

If you crawl under the panel be prepared for a shock as a 40 to 45
year old airplane will probably look pretty ratty under there.

Most already have the radios upgraded to something more modern, but
may not have GPS. Mine was modern when I purchased it, but the old
KNS-80 RNAV is a tad outdated now. :-))

I've spent quite a few hours "in the soup" in mine.

If you have the chance the upgrade to the Deshannon Speed sloped
windshield (3/8" or 1/2") along with the 1/4 inch side windows is
worth the investment. You can fly in torrential rain and not hear it.

One thing you want in a Deb or Bo is a good autopilot if you plan on
any instrument work. " Mine has the S-tec 50 although I'd like to
have a 60. I've thought of having a certified enroute and approach GPS
installed, but so far I've stuck with the King Silver Crown stack and
use my Garmin 295. I like the new map anywhere and may just stick on
the yoke or top of the panel.

Look for one with the 260 (IO-470N). They are faster and use only a
little more gas.

Be sure to check the main spar carry through for cracks.
Check the throttle and prop cables for jacket integrity and ease of
operation. The jackets tend to get brittle and flake off leaving
them open to moisture, but this is true of most old airplanes.

Check for wrinkles up front, although they are not nose heavy and have
almost unbelievable elevator authority some do end up landing on the
nose gear. Landing book figures are shorter than a 172. Other than
the pattern entry they both fly the pattern close to the same speeds.
The Deb has a lot more momentum, is far slipperier, and has a higher
sink rate, but you almost have to try to make one float.

Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.

They are standard, Everyone else is backwards. :-))

I learned in the Deb so anything else really is backwards to me. You
have to reach over to get the gear handle while the newer ones have it
right by your hand.


Thanks in advance for any help.

I've put over a 1000 hours on mine and the maintenance has been quite
reasonable. A visit to a Bonanza service clinic is well worth the
cost as is the ABS/Air Safety Foundation Bonanza specific training.
Actually it would be worth joining the ABS if you are considering the
purchase of one. They are a wealth of information.

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

Can't speak for a Bo, but my Cherokee Six had the non-standard layout. I was
able to have the gauges put in a six pack configuration using the existing
holes for very little extra money (did it at the same time I upgraded from the
ancient AN gyros). Basically, it involved re-plumbing the static/pitot lines
and rewiring some of the gyro power. The added cost over the cost of replacing
the gyros was only about $100 since I had the gyros out anyway.

soxinbox wrote:

I am getting ready to buy my first plane. I am considering an early 60s
bonanza or debonair. Some of these planes don't have a standard "six pack"
panel layout, and I was wondering if anyone had an idea of how much this
would cost to upgrade. I probably would update the radios at the same time,
but I am really interested in the cost of the panel only.

Also does anyone know if there are any STC'ed conversions to a standard
power/prop/mixture quadrant for these older planes.

Thanks in advance for any help.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759