Bonanza crash caught on video

Jay Honeck wrote:
Many if not most Bonanzas don't use flaps even for short field and
this didn't look short. As some one from there mentioned it's 4000
feet at 1200 MSL. There is no take off maneuver even short field at
high altitude in mine that calls for any use of the flaps.

That's interesting -- I never realized that Bo pilots didn't need to
use flaps for departure.

I presume there is something about the wing that makes them
unnecessary?

I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate. The Arrow I last flew seemed to add little lift and some
drag once past 20 degrees, but added neither the lift nor the drag of
the much more effective Cessna flaps.

I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Matt

I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Yep, horsepower makes all the difference. In our 150 hp Piper
Warrior, adding flaps for takeoff was something we did cuz we were
told to do so -- but they didn't really make much difference. That
plane just daintily floated off the ground (and back ON the ground,
when landing) no matter what the flap setting.

Our 235 hp Piper Pathfinder is WAY different. With 2 notches of
flaps, on a cool day, you can just hang on the prop and see nothing
but sky. It'll leap off the ground much faster with than without
flaps.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:25:47 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.

Normal takeoff for the Malibu (dual-turbo 350hp Lycoming) is no flap.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

I remember getting a revision to the BE90 POH that removed the short field
takeoff technique. I believe it has to do with liability. Does anyone have a
Bonanza POH that is actually up to date with all the revisions? I'm pretty
sure the Bonanza would get in the air in less distance with approach flaps,
but is probably no longer on the POH, just like the KA.

Karl

karl gruber wrote:



I remember getting a revision to the BE90 POH that removed the short field
takeoff technique. I believe it has to do with liability. Does anyone have a
Bonanza POH that is actually up to date with all the revisions? I'm pretty
sure the Bonanza would get in the air in less distance with approach flaps,


Approach flaps cuts 20% off the takeoff distance.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:31:22 -0700, "karl gruber"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if Beech even published a short field takeoff technique for
the Bonanza. I know for sure they don't for the King Air, even though at one
time they did. It called for takeoff with approach flaps.

None for the Sundowner or it's sisters, either.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:25:47 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff.
The Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff.
The deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.

Yep, horsepower makes all the difference. In our 150 hp Piper
Warrior, adding flaps for takeoff was something we did cuz we were
told to do so -- but they didn't really make much difference. That
plane just daintily floated off the ground (and back ON the ground,
when landing) no matter what the flap setting.

Our 235 hp Piper Pathfinder is WAY different. With 2 notches of
flaps, on a cool day, you can just hang on the prop and see nothing
but sky. It'll leap off the ground much faster with than without
flaps.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear of a high-horsepower plane like the
Bonanza that DOESN'T use flaps for takeoff. When I saw the video, I
thought for sure that was the reason for the crash.

Not all Bonanzas. The older ones I'm familiare with don't, but I
believe the newer A36 calls for 15 degrees which airn't much.

Roger

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift.

On a Beech Sundowner, flaps will help climb at *exactly* 75 MPH IAS.
Any faster or slower and the performance drops off significantly and
you'd be better off without flaps.

The performance graph looks like an inverted, rounded Vee, and I've
verified it at altitude.

Matt Whiting wrote:


I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate.


While still adding lift. You can see this in your POH because the stall
speed is lowest at 40 degrees of flaps.



I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff. The
Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff. The
deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.



Cessna flaps are very effective at both adding lift and drag. My 182
had 40 degrees of flaps and it really helped to wedge it in short. My
Bo has 30 degrees of flaps and that combined with a much slipperier wing
allows the 182 to stop in 100 less feet than my Bo with the same load,
not at the same weight.(Myself and 40 gallons). At the same weight the
Bo needs slightly less runway than the 182. Stall speed for my S35 is
63 knots at gross(3300 pounds), flaps up. Flaps down it is 51 knots at
gross. At 2400 pounds it is 55/46 knots. It depends on what you're
trying to accomplish on the takeoff that decides for you if flaps should
be used or not. Just getting off the ground in the minimum distance is
not necessarily the best strategy. A no flap takeoff in any plane will
at some point cross thru the altitude of the climbing aircraft using
flaps, usually between 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from the start of the
takeoff roll. So while the guy using flaps wows the crowd on takeoff
the guy that takes off without flaps is much farther above the trees one
mile from the takeoff point.