A36 Bonanza turbo prop

If you move up to the caravan Im looking for a C206.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

If you in any way can remotely consider a 172 and a Bonanza (either normally
aspirated or turbine) comparable you need a pretty significant reality
check. Both are great airplanes in their own regard, but do not in any way
compare in terms of performance and capability. The turbine adds a lot of
reliability compared to a piston plane, even a twin.

Once, while returning from Kentucky to Wisconsin, I got routed (through my
own ignorance) over the middle of Lake Michigan at 2,000 feet in solid IMC
without an autopilot while flying a 172 RG. The chance of survival in case
of an engine failure were near zero.

Now, I fly a Baron which is fully deiced, has radar and storm scope, and
even then the thought of an engine failure under the same conditions still
is concerning but eminently more survivable.

The turbine Bonanza offers even more reliability than the Baron. The
argument about tip tanks doesn't remotely make sense- you can never have too
much fuel, particularly when you're running out. They actually provide some
lift, and increase the gross weight of the plane. The turbine engine is half
the weight of the stock piston engine.

Until you've actually seen or flown in one, I wouldn't be too critical of a
turbine Bonanza. There's a lot more to flying or owning a plane than simply
making blanket judgments by reading the book numbers. My two planes, an
Extra 300 and the Baron, are perfect for me, but are likely too impractical
or of little value to a lot of other pilots, so who cares?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "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

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC

"Viperdoc" wrote:
If you in any way can remotely consider a 172 and a Bonanza
(either normally aspirated or turbine) comparable you need a
pretty significant reality check.

The comparison was intentionally ridiculous to point out the payload
shortcomings of the turbine Bonanza.
Compared to the Baron 58, the T-Bo looks really sad in that respect.

Both are great airplanes in their own regard, but do not in any way
compare in terms of performance and capability. The turbine adds
a lot of reliability compared to a piston plane, even a twin.

Agreed, but that wasn't the issue.

[snip]

The argument about tip tanks doesn't remotely make sense-

Then I have stated it poorly. My point was that it takes ALL the extra
fuel capacity to provide useful IFR cross country range, and then the
payload becomes ridiculously small for a 6-place airplane. That is not
the case with the Baron, which can tank up and still carry four people
and baggage.

They actually provide some lift, and increase the gross weight of
the plane. The turbine engine is half the weight of the stock piston
engine.

Then how come the useful load is only 1160 lbs vs. the 1440 lbs. of a
stock Bonanza 36?

Until you've actually seen or flown in one, I wouldn't be too critical
of a
turbine Bonanza.

I would love the chance. Please understand, I never said a T-Bo sucks!

There's a lot more to flying or owning a plane than simply
making blanket judgments by reading the book numbers. My
two planes, an Extra 300 and the Baron, are perfect for me,
but are likely too impractical or of little value to a lot of other
pilots, so who cares?

Well, apparently you and I do, since we are having this discussion. If
someone wants to own a turbine Bonanza for whatever reason, fine; no
doubt he will have a blast flying it. But you were comparing its utility
value with that of a Baron 58, where it comes off poorly, IMO. Would
you trade your Baron for the turbine Bonanza?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?

The notion of needing *more* reminds me of a story of Mark Donahue and the
Porsche 917. After a test lap, the engineers asked Donahue what the car
needed. He responded: "It needs more power" (the engine was already making
1200hp), so they turned up the boost and he went out on the track again.
When he returned the engineers asked what the car needed now. Donahue
responded: "It needs more power". The engineers asked how much power did
the car need and Donahue responded: "Enough power to spin the wheels down
the longest straight in the (CanAM) series...then it will need a bigger
wing...then more power...

The need for more never ends.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "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

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC

I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high. The
turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to assume
that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start adding
radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon the
plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well from a
range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is the
article availible online?

Mike
MU-2

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net...
I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high. The
turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to assume
that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start adding
radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon the
plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well from a
range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is the
article availible online?

The tips add a few hundred bounds. The D'shannon tips are about 100lbs and these
things look bigger.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so
high.

No clue from the article, which is the usual aviation mag puff piece.
It's a "Jaguar Edition" 36, so that might explain some of it.

Is the article availible online?

I can't find it. It may show up after this month's issue is no longer
current.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I had the opportunity to fly in the very same plane described in the
magazine today. We went for lunch at Madison, WI, which is around 50 miles
away.

My first impressions are that it had a lot of power- we were passing pattern
altitude by the end of the 5,000 foot runway with a normal climb-out. With
normal power settings it cruised about 40-50k faster than a piston Bonanza
(187-198k GS) in both directions.

The plane is very well equipped, with a Garmin 530 and 430, TCAD, and WX-500
Stormscope, along with fuel totalizer. Except for the panel for the tip tank
pumps, the rest of the instruments were pretty standard.

The ride was extremely smooth and quiet, and it retained the famed Bonanza
handling characteristics- very light on the controls, with both pitch and
roll well harmonized. It was much quieter than a piston Bonanza, and flying
was a lot lower workload than my Baron.

Also, you can stay high and keep the speed up until final- the big prop acts
like a speed brake. No more concerns about shock cooling either.

The plane also looks cool, with the extended nose and winglets. The turbine
conversion and wing tips definitely do not look like they were patched on-
the workmanship is flawless, as is the paint job. I'm not sure what the
Jaguar interior adds, but everything is tan leather, and nicely done.

I haven't gotten into all of the technical details of fuel burn, useful
load, range, and endurance yet, but will try to learn about this during the
next few days. However, I can say that this is one very nice airplane.

(By the way, our friends flew with us to lunch in an RG 172, and even though
they left around 15 minutes before us, we passed them with about a 75 knot
overtake speed.)

"Viperdoc" wrote:
(By the way, our friends flew with us to lunch in an RG 172,
and even though they left around 15 minutes before us, we
passed them with about a 75 knot overtake speed.)

*snif*... *pout*
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM