A36 Bonanza turbo prop

"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.

A few hundred pounds empty?

Mike
MU-2

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"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 in message hlink.net...
A few hundred pounds empty?

The Osborn tanks I believe weight about an 100 for the pair I thought. I may be
wrong. Maybe it was 50 for the pair. I'll have to dig. I know that the gross weight
increase on the Navion for them is exactly the weight of the fuel in the tanks plus the
weight of the STC kit.

"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