A36 Bonanza turbo prop

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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.)

"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?