Speedbrakes for a Bonanza: Opinions?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:23:39 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

What's your cruise speed? :~)

Well, the earliest Bonanzas are not the fastest of the Bonanza fleet by
any stretch. Probably pretty good for their time (1949 in my case),
though.

To answer your question, though, depends upon wether the FEDS are
listening or not. I am restricted by an AD on the ruddervators that gives
me a Vno of 125 KIAS and I would never violate that. Nope, never, not me!
Before the AD came out I would usually figure my cruise speed was about
140 KIAS. Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
my 10 gph.

There is a method of compliance to remove the AD. I havn't bothered,
though. Most of my flying is either down low and slow or up high and
fast. At about 14,000 feet full throttle gives me right at 125 knots
indicated.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Pretty good for that era and the age of your bird. A 157kt gear speed would
be frivolous.

100MPH gear speed


Peter, though, is flying a TN V35 and will probably cruise about 180-195, so
his request for info about speed brakes is very legitimate. It's not hard at
all to lose 25-40 kts prior to dumping the gear and letting that bleed off
the rest of excess speed.

At altitude, maybe. And you don't want to rip the doors off or damage
the gear in other ways (unless you must, of course) by lowering the
gear while going too fast. May not go down all the way, may not be
able to retract, then the insurance company owns the plane.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:57:27 -0500, Peter R.
wrote:

Frank Stutzman ) wrote:

Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel than
my 10 gph.

For comparison, my turbo-normalized V35 with the prior engine burned
about 15.5 gph at wide open throttle, 75 degrees LOP, at 185 kts TAS up
around 13,000 ft cruise (standard temperature or warmer).

This works out to approximately 50% more fuel burned for only about 48%
more airspeed (assuming the 125 kts quoted in your post).

I am curious if the new engine will add a few kts more since all
tolerances will be factory new or better (how's that for regurgitating
the marketing literature?).

Better efficiency with a newer engine, but your speed is restricted by
the airframe. Climb will certainly be nice!

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Frank Stutzman ) wrote:

Still pretty pokey for a Bonanza, but not bad considering that
every newer Bonanza that was faster was also burning a lot more fuel
than
my 10 gph.

For comparison, my turbo-normalized V35 with the prior engine burned
about 15.5 gph at wide open throttle, 75 degrees LOP, at 185 kts TAS up
around 13,000 ft cruise (standard temperature or warmer).

What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
turbonormalizer?

In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0 gph,
and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
turbonormalizer?

No. With prior engine means with the high-time, turbo-normalized IO-520
engine that has been retired in favor of the new engine currently being
installed.

In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0 gph,
and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.

200 kts with an IO-550? Where did you read this? Or are you
experiencing this first-hand? That airspeed figure is higher than the
airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

With the 190 kts quote, I decided the much greater purchase price was
not worth the 5 extra knots, so I remained with the IO-520. 200 kts TAS
might have made me go with the 550.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow ) wrote:

What do you mean "with the prior engine"? Is that before your added the
turbonormalizer?

No. With prior engine means with the high-time, turbo-normalized IO-520
engine that has been retired in favor of the new engine currently being
installed.

In a 33/35 Bonanza with a TN IO-550, your should get 167kts TAS @ 11.0
gph,
and 200kts @17.4gph at 12,500.

200 kts with an IO-550? Where did you read this?

http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.

Or are you
experiencing this first-hand?

A tad less, but I'm in a B36...a tad heavier.

That airspeed figure is higher than the
airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

But you only have the IO-520, right?


With the 190 kts quote, I decided the much greater purchase price was
not worth the 5 extra knots, so I remained with the IO-520. 200 kts TAS
might have made me go with the 550.

The IO-550 is MUCH smoother and the climb numbers are better, particularly
at altitude.

I have to climb out of Montrose (altitude = 5700+) and head east, and I have
little trouble getting to 14,000 or better before hitting the very high
terrain just east of here.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:33 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Jon A." wrote in message
.. .
Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
(mph or kts??)

Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)

They were about as fast and slippery as today's models. That made
them a real challenge. :-)) On mine (59 Debonair) the full flap
speed is 120 while gear down is 140.

It is possible to keep the speed up to 160 to, or near the outer
marker, come back on the power a bit, add a touch of flaps under 160
coming down the ILS, use a bit of rudder to "wag the tail" (not a good
thing with passengers in back) to slow to 140. As soon as it is under
140 dump the gear. Hit the flap switch to full as soon as the gear
finishes cycling as it'll be well under 120 by the time you hit full
flaps. You should still be able to set down on the beginning of the
touch down zone and stop with about a 1000 feet of roll out (give or
take depending on experience)

It's a lot easier to do if they have you join the localizer just
outside the OM as the turn (even if it is only 30 degrees) helps slow
the plane. Those long, straight in, keep-the-speed-up localizers are
more difficult. Takes a little more tail wagging.

OTOH I'd much prefer to join at 140 which I can comfortably hold all
the way down the ILS, put the gear and flaps down and not have to work
to get slowed down. I would add that although the Bo does not change
trim with flap changes it requires substantial trim changes from the
approach of 120 to 140 and the landing speed of roughly 80 (or less)
If you aren't ready for that there will be a substantial change in the
amount of yoke force required to hold the nose up as it slows.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:45:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Jon A." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "markjenn"
wrote:

They're not a bad idea on some aircraft, but Bonanzas, with their 154K
gear
speeds, really don't need them. I also think that shock-cooling is an
overrated thing, but that's another discussion.

Some Bonanzas have gear speeds at 100mph

Which ones?

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:00:33 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Jon A." wrote in message
.. .
Models prior to the G or H (1956, 57) IIRC. The J, K, M ('58 - 60)
were 140 mph and the newer ones crept up to 157 or so.
(mph or kts??)

Were they even fast enough to require flaps? :~)

They were about as fast and slippery as today's models. That made
them a real challenge. :-)) On mine (59 Debonair) the full flap
speed is 120 while gear down is 140.

They were definitely about as slippery, but I don't think they were "quite"
as fast. :~)

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow ) wrote:


http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.

100+ degree Fahrenheit day on the ground, huh? Talk about a truly best-
case scenario. That's marketing for you!


That airspeed figure is higher than the
airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

But you only have the IO-520, right?

The 190 kt airspeed was given to me when I had originally asked about
the IO-550 because I was considering the upgrade.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow ) wrote:


http://www.taturbo.com/houtbk.jpg - highlighted bar.

100+ degree Fahrenheit day on the ground, huh? Talk about a truly best-
case scenario. That's marketing for you!

What, doing the test under conditions WAYYYY less than optimal? (Being
factious?)

Would it perform better on a 109 degree day, or a standard temperature day?

That airspeed figure is higher than the
airspeed quoted to me when I was first considering an IO-550 as the
replacement. I was told to expect around 190 kts at altitude.

But you only have the IO-520, right?

The 190 kt airspeed was given to me when I had originally asked about
the IO-550 because I was considering the upgrade.

And that 190 is 10 kts less than the "Maximum Reasonable" that TAT quotes at
12,500. In the B36 we typicalluy do about 185 on 14.5gph) (B36 = 3850 GW
vs. 3400 for a 33/35).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow ) wrote:

(B36 = 3850 GW vs. 3400 for a 33/35).

My V35 has the Beryl D'Shannon tip tanks installed that increase the GW
to 3550. When the tanks first came out that weight increase had to be
fuel only but since then I have verified that the weight can be
cargo/passengers, not just fuel.

However, 3850 is a better number still.

--
Peter