Old Airframe Cleanups

When one looks at the small gains in airspeed from each existing speed
mod kit, you have to say that, for the most part, the original designer
got it right.

Having said that, I still would like to see the manufacturers do factory
cleanups of existing designs, still in production.

The Bonanza is a very clean design, but I can't help but wonder if there
are a few more knots to be eaked out by redesigning the nose bowl. Those
big air inlets designed in the 1940's and 1950's just don't look right.

Lopresti has a new nose bowl for the Bonanza. He says it's good for
about 3-4 knots. And it costs about $15K. For less money during an
engine overhaul I can put a 550 in the plane and get 10 knots.





john smith wrote:

When one looks at the small gains in airspeed from each existing speed
mod kit, you have to say that, for the most part, the original designer
got it right.

Having said that, I still would like to see the manufacturers do factory
cleanups of existing designs, still in production.

The Bonanza is a very clean design, but I can't help but wonder if there
are a few more knots to be eaked out by redesigning the nose bowl. Those
big air inlets designed in the 1940's and 1950's just don't look right.

Newps wrote:
Lopresti has a new nose bowl for the Bonanza. He says it's good for
about 3-4 knots. And it costs about $15K. For less money during an
engine overhaul I can put a 550 in the plane and get 10 knots.


But you can do both and add 13-14 knots.

"john smith" wrote:


Having said that, I still would like to see the manufacturers do factory
cleanups of existing designs, still in production.

Cessna got an extra 4 KTAS out of the 182 with new cowl, pants, wing tips,
nav antennas and steps on the "T" model change. I think they'd already
gotten a couple with the the "R" model which restarted production in '96.

The NA 182T I've flown is about 10 KTAS faster than my buddy Filippo's '79
182Q at the same settings.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

I cannot see spending $1000 to save $5.00 in fuel, like some of the
KingAir mods. Turboprops which are underpowered operate best in the
middle altitudes. VLJ's can operate higher however with Mach numbers
several decimal numbers lower than .72 they are going to get
constantly knocked down to lower altitudes and suffer the fuel burn
unfortunately.

With the older stuff comes years of parts availability, engineering,
and refinement, and with the Bonanza, 60 years of wisdom are now
poured into the new G36 with a base price of $690,000.

Based upon this we are looking to pick up an M35 Bonanza with a runout
(aren't they all) 470. The aircraft has decent paint, crappy interior,
legal radios (center stack, and a dual yoke, 5100 hrs. tt. The beauty
is the D'Shannon 1/2" speedslope windshield and aft body strake.
Tail fin mod, aluminum flaps and ailerons, no ad's except for the
prop. Here's the deal: We found an IO 520AB 285hp with a three-bladed
wheel for short money, STC already exists. With a little cleanup and
new carpet and seats we'll be 'haulin' the mail'. Preliminary figures
show a takeoff roll of 750 feet, rate of climb 1250 fpm, cruise of 165
ktas no problem.

Any recommendations are appreciated as we can't bolt a turbine into
this one (yet).

Have a great one!

Bush

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:45:05 -0400, john smith
wrote:

When one looks at the small gains in airspeed from each existing speed
mod kit, you have to say that, for the most part, the original designer
got it right.

Having said that, I still would like to see the manufacturers do factory
cleanups of existing designs, still in production.

The Bonanza is a very clean design, but I can't help but wonder if there
are a few more knots to be eaked out by redesigning the nose bowl. Those
big air inlets designed in the 1940's and 1950's just don't look right.

Bush wrote:

Based upon this we are looking to pick up an M35 Bonanza with a runout
(aren't they all) 470. The aircraft has decent paint, crappy interior,
legal radios (center stack, and a dual yoke, 5100 hrs. tt. The beauty
is the D'Shannon 1/2" speedslope windshield and aft body strake.


I had the strake. Made no difference so I sold it.



Tail fin mod,


They've all got that now.


aluminum flaps and ailerons, no ad's except for the
prop.

There's AD's like the wing spar inspection, etc.


Here's the deal: We found an IO 520AB 285hp

That's a 520BA


with a three-bladed
wheel for short money,


The two blade McCauley outperforms the three blade in every respect.



STC already exists. With a little cleanup and
new carpet and seats we'll be 'haulin' the mail'. Preliminary figures
show a takeoff roll of 750 feet, rate of climb 1250 fpm, cruise of 165
ktas no problem.


What's the empty weight? My S35 has that engine and weighs 1985 with
two seats installed. Takeoff roll, on grass at 5000 DA with myself and
40 gallons is 550 feet, no wind, gets to 50 feet AGL in 1200 feet.
Trues out at 175 kts(2 knots below book) at 6000 indicated on a warmer
than standard day on 14.5 GPH. The M should be a little lighter
although maybe not enough to make a difference in takeoff. You should
have no problem getting the same cruise as me.

It's worth remembering the Mooney 201 was pretty much a cleaned up
Mooney Executive. All of the minor things added a nice amount of
airspeed to the basic airplane.

We've looked at the newer Mooneys that get hauled along the sky behind
an IO 540. Our 201 uses an IO 360, and cruises really nicely at 9 GPH.
I think the increased engine size doesn't much help our typical
flight. I do think we have to cancel 8% or so of our far in advance
planned trips, and wonder if the newer airplane's range, altitude, and
the like would change that much. But going from 8% to 4% cancellations
is probably not worth the incremental cost,



On Jun 21, 7:45 pm, john smith wrote:
When one looks at the small gains in airspeed from each existing speed
mod kit, you have to say that, for the most part, the original designer
got it right.

Having said that, I still would like to see the manufacturers do factory
cleanups of existing designs, still in production.

The Bonanza is a very clean design, but I can't help but wonder if there
are a few more knots to be eaked out by redesigning the nose bowl. Those
big air inlets designed in the 1940's and 1950's just don't look right.

We've looked at the newer Mooneys that get hauled along the sky behind
an IO 540. Our 201 uses an IO 360, and cruises really nicely at 9 GPH.
I think the increased engine size doesn't much help our typical
flight.

IMHO, a bigger engine always trumps the smaller one, not so much
because it's faster, but because you can always choose to throttle
back and putt along at 9 GPH.

However, when you really want to *go* -- or, more importantly, when
you need to lift a lot of payload -- nothing beats horsepower.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well the reason for the three bladed wheel is that it came with the
engine, whole kit and ... you know.In the entire Cape Air deal with
the counterweights we can install a TSIO-520VB with 325 hp, no use for
hydro so we can plug that. Whappo! 200 kt. cheap Bonanza, I can't wait
for the Loran -E install!

Have a great one!

Bush

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:38:35 -0600, Newps wrote:



Bush wrote:

Based upon this we are looking to pick up an M35 Bonanza with a runout
(aren't they all) 470. The aircraft has decent paint, crappy interior,
legal radios (center stack, and a dual yoke, 5100 hrs. tt. The beauty
is the D'Shannon 1/2" speedslope windshield and aft body strake.


I had the strake. Made no difference so I sold it.



Tail fin mod,


They've all got that now.


aluminum flaps and ailerons, no ad's except for the
prop.

There's AD's like the wing spar inspection, etc.


Here's the deal: We found an IO 520AB 285hp

That's a 520BA


with a three-bladed
wheel for short money,


The two blade McCauley outperforms the three blade in every respect.



STC already exists. With a little cleanup and
new carpet and seats we'll be 'haulin' the mail'. Preliminary figures
show a takeoff roll of 750 feet, rate of climb 1250 fpm, cruise of 165
ktas no problem.


What's the empty weight? My S35 has that engine and weighs 1985 with
two seats installed. Takeoff roll, on grass at 5000 DA with myself and
40 gallons is 550 feet, no wind, gets to 50 feet AGL in 1200 feet.
Trues out at 175 kts(2 knots below book) at 6000 indicated on a warmer
than standard day on 14.5 GPH. The M should be a little lighter
although maybe not enough to make a difference in takeoff. You should
have no problem getting the same cruise as me.