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