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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 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 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Early Bonanza or Apache? | Brinks | Owning | 11 | July 16th 03 06:01 PM |