A36 Bonanza turbo prop

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, there are only 80 hours on the
airframe. The conversion is fully integrated with the Bonanza, as are the
wing tanks. It does not look like it was added on at all.

The workmanship is exquisite, with a very neat installation and great
attention to detail. All of the panels fit square and flush, and the paint
job is immaculate. Of course, the Jaguar leather interior and Garmin panel
with TCAD, WX-500, etc are also immaculate. The plane retains the
reliability and workmanship of a Beech aircraft, with the added horsepower
and reliability of the turbine.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza a serious
competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly regarding reliability and ease
of flying in and out of short fields, along with cruise speed and
performance. I can't wait to go for a ride within the next few days and get
my hands on the controls!

"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

"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?

Or your bladder is too large ;-) My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and
will carry my whole family(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags
for a few days without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).
Since 3.5 hrs is about all any of the passengers, including the dog, can go
without crossing the legs, I can't imagine what I'd do with bigger tanks. I get
condensate in the gas if I don't keep the tanks full in the hangar, and it would
be a b*&$h to have to drain off fuel before going on a trip.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

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



--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In article , Ray Andraka
wrote:

My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and will carry my whole family
(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags for a few days
without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).

Sounds like it's about time to move up to that Cessna Caravan!

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

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

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC

If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?

The notion of needing *more* reminds me of a story of Mark Donahue and the
Porsche 917. After a test lap, the engineers asked Donahue what the car
needed. He responded: "It needs more power" (the engine was already making
1200hp), so they turned up the boost and he went out on the track again.
When he returned the engineers asked what the car needed now. Donahue
responded: "It needs more power". The engineers asked how much power did
the car need and Donahue responded: "Enough power to spin the wheels down
the longest straight in the (CanAM) series...then it will need a bigger
wing...then more power...

The need for more never ends.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:33:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

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

If you're really interested in this debate, you oughta look into real
world numbers with respect to the 250-powered 36.

You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC