If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the same mission. This may be the same thing in your example with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves. If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel, then the tanks are too small. Mike MJ-2 "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Viperdoc" wrote: I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate, Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360 lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG. For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly... ...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the airplane. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
For the @$&*^! 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
The range on your 172 RG is 600nm Nope. 135 KTAS @ 10 GPH, 62 gal usable = 810 NM absolute range @ 75% power. The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which weighs 444 lb. So it needs 90 gal. to go 810 NM., about 610 lbs. The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs leaving 956lbs of useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly 50% more that your 172RG. The turbine Bo' in the article has a useful load of 1160 lbs., leaving a useful load over the same range of 550 lbs.; 100 lbs. less than my 172RG. Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater. Evidently not. 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. Nope. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ? | frank may | Military Aviation | 11 | September 5th 04 02:51 PM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Early Bonanza or Apache? | Brinks | Owning | 11 | July 16th 03 06:01 PM |