A36 Bonanza turbo prop

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
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?

Pretty close, but the point is you need it all to get useful IFR range,
and then you can't carry much load. The poster I was originally replying
to compared the aircraft favorably to a Baron 58. I think it comes off
pretty poorly in the comparison.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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?

"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