"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