A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A36 Bonanza turbo prop



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old December 31st 03, 03:19 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Viperdoc" wrote:
I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,


Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...


....if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #23  
Old December 31st 03, 05:33 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and
Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
are too small.

Mike
MJ-2


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Viperdoc" wrote:
I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,


Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...


...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM




  #24  
Old December 31st 03, 08:21 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is?


I do, if I'm considering a turbine Bonanza.

It is totally meaningless.


Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
range.

What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example
with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza...


Which is why I brought it up.

but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel,
then the tanks are too small.


So Cessna should have put 138 gal. tanks in Cutlass RGs?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #25  
Old December 31st 03, 08:40 PM
Ray Andraka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Or your bladder is too large ;-) My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and
will carry my whole family(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags
for a few days without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).
Since 3.5 hrs is about all any of the passengers, including the dog, can go
without crossing the legs, I can't imagine what I'd do with bigger tanks. I get
condensate in the gas if I don't keep the tanks full in the hangar, and it would
be a b*&$h to have to drain off fuel before going on a trip.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and
Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks
are too small.

Mike
MJ-2

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Viperdoc" wrote:
I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,


Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...


...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM



--
--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


  #26  
Old December 31st 03, 08:49 PM
EDR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ray Andraka
wrote:

My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and will carry my whole family
(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags for a few days
without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).


Sounds like it's about time to move up to that Cessna Caravan!
  #27  
Old December 31st 03, 09:15 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well:

The range on your 172 RG is 600nm according to
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane280.shtml

The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
http://justsaytheword.home.mindspring.com/articles.html

So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which weighs 444
lb. The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...rplane98.shtml leaving 956lbs of
useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly 50% more that your 172RG.
Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.

I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes a reserve, but
even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly better payload over
ANY distance.

Mike
MU-2








"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is?


I do, if I'm considering a turbine Bonanza.

It is totally meaningless.


Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
range.

What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example
with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza...


Which is why I brought it up.

but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel,
then the tanks are too small.


So Cessna should have put 138 gal. tanks in Cutlass RGs?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM




  #28  
Old December 31st 03, 09:59 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dan Luke" wrote in message ...


Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
range.


Isn't the fuel in the tips "free" with respect to the original gross weight of the
Bo?
  #29  
Old December 31st 03, 10:32 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
The range on your 172 RG is 600nm


Nope. 135 KTAS @ 10 GPH, 62 gal usable = 810 NM absolute range @ 75%
power.

The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which
weighs 444 lb.


So it needs 90 gal. to go 810 NM., about 610 lbs.

The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
leaving 956lbs of useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly
50% more that your 172RG.


The turbine Bo' in the article has a useful load of 1160 lbs., leaving a
useful load over the same range of 550 lbs.; 100 lbs. less than my
172RG.

Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.


Evidently not.

I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes
a reserve, but even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly
better payload over ANY distance.


Nope.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #30  
Old December 31st 03, 10:40 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it
practical range.


Isn't the fuel in the tips "free" with respect to the original gross
weight of the Bo?


Pretty close, but the point is you need it all to get useful IFR range,
and then you can't carry much load. The poster I was originally replying
to compared the aircraft favorably to a Baron 58. I think it comes off
pretty poorly in the comparison.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? Gus Rasch Aerobatics 1 February 14th 08 11:18 PM
Ivo Prop on O-320 Dave S Home Built 14 October 15th 04 03:04 AM
Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ? frank may Military Aviation 11 September 5th 04 02:51 PM
IVO props... comments.. Dave S Home Built 16 December 7th 03 12:43 AM
Early Bonanza or Apache? Brinks Owning 11 July 16th 03 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.