How much does the C of G move aft with fuel burn, in a Bonanza

[Ratshit]

In another thread (Any C210 at YSBK), the following statement was made:

We were at max takeoff weight and I had to arrange it so as C of G moved aft when fuel burned off we ware ALWAYS in limits until landing.

This got me thinking!

Bonanza's (particulaly the V-tails) have always been a bit more sensitive to C of G issues than many of their contemporaries, but is there really a danger of the C of G moving outside the aft limit with fuel burn?

That is what I have always been led to believe, but having bought a Weight and Balance program that is custom made for the Fork-tailed Dr Killer, that clearly is not the case. Yes the C of G does move slightly aft with fuel burn, but the envelope also "moves aft". The end result is that if the V35B is within its C of G limits at TO, it will be within limits after 1, 2, 3 or 4 hours in the air.

With my V35B, it would seem that provided you are at or below max weight and within the C of G envelope at TO, and you land with 45 min fuel in the tanks, then it will stay within the envelope throughout the fuel burn.

Anyone care to comment for the A36?

R:cool:

[Chimbu chuckles]

The aft limit is linear in the A36, 2227mm aft of the datum.

It would be possible to do if loaded rediculously aft to begin with...if the seating was arranged by a moron and you then ran the tanks dry...it would basically have to be almost a deliberate act.

How much the CofG actually moves as fuel burns off in a Bo is situation specific...if you have an aft CofG at ZFW it will move a lot further as fuel burns than if you are in the middle of the envelope at ZFW.

[Ratshit]

How much the CofG actually moves as fuel burns off in a Bo is situation specific...if you an aft CofG at ZFW it will move a lot further as fuel burns than if you were in the middle of the envelope at ZFW.

CC - you are correct but the movement is not as great as some would have you believe, and even for the V35B, if you start not above max TO weight and within the C of G envelope, it seems to me that you will stay within the envelope as long as you don't run the tanks dry.

I have always thought that you could start within the envelope and fly yourself into an "out of C of G" situation.

R:cool:

[john_tullamarine]

Not type specific but useful things to keep in mind .. not much different to running ballast calculations at the end of the day ..

(a) if the actual loaded CG is forward of the tank arm, then fuel burn moves the CG further forward

(b) if .. aft .. burn moves it further aft

.. so the effect is very dependent on the loaded CG .. if the fuel arm is within the envelope limits (ie the aircraft can be loaded either forward or aft of the fuel arm, burn can move the CG forward or aft according to circumstances.

(c) be VERY wary of aircraft with non-prismatic tanks .. ie the fuel load arm varies with the quantity of fuel. This can be a real trap if the usually quoted full tank arm is used without thought ... I've seen many a chap (including some weight control folk) get caught out with this ...

[bushy]

Data and method for calculating G of G is in the flight manual. That's what it's for. The fuel tanks are very close to the G of G and so will not move the G of G very much as the fuel burns off.If you enter the details from the flight manual into a good flight planner that makes it much easier, and it will calculate the C of G for both takeoff and landing.
You may also find that bonanza's, and barons will both bang their tails on the ground during the loading process, if you let them. This will happen if they are correctly loaded, but I always loaded back seat pax first, so I could make sure the doors were properly closed. Then, with no weight in the front seats a pax stands on the rear step, which is alongside the rear seats, the balance is all wrong. At this point, the nose often lifts and the tail hits the ground. Most embarrassing. But once you are all aboard the loading is correct, because no-one is standing on the step.
You soon learn ways to prevent this.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Like I said, with a Bonanza, you can do it but you'd have to be a bit thick.

5 or 6 years ago I designed a load system for my Bo in excell...it's very clever...all I need do is type in pax weight in the seat row they will occupy and I get a ZFW CofG. Type in the number of liters at engine start and they are converted to KGs and a TOW/CofG is calculated instantly. Type in the burn and you get a Kgs in the tank on landing and and landing CofG. I scanned the original DCA POH CofG envelope and incorporated that in the spreadsheet too so it is a simple matter to print it off and plot the three positions in seconds...or just look down and eyeball them.

Example

Row 1 90kgs of pilot and pilot stuff.
Row 2 180 kgs of pax and pax stuff
row 3 130 kgs of pax and pax stuff or frieght.

ZFW/CofG 1433/2243. That is 200kg below Mtow and 16mm behind the aft limit.

200liters/144kg of fuel.

TOW/CofG 1557/2212. 56kg under Mtow and 15mm inside the aft limit.

Enroute the CofG will be exactly at the aft limit, 2227mm, when you have burned 100 liters of fuel. If you land with 60 liters on board you will be at 2233mm and if you land with fixed reserves only 2236mm...9mm outside the aft CofG limit....doesn't sound like much but you are definately in experimental test pilot territory. The CofG has moved 24mm from takeoff to landing with fixed reserves intact.

You could add 77 liters of fuel and that would bring you up to MTOW, 1633kg and a CofG at takeoff/landing of 2201/2224 so 3mm inside the limits...might even be worth doing if the fuel where you're going is really expensive relative to where you're leaving. The CofG has still moved 23mm.

If you move 1 pax from the 3rd row to sit next to you instead you get TOW /CofG 1557/2138 and a CofG on landing with fixed reserves of 2156mm...71mm inside the aft limit. The CofG has travelled 18mm during the trip.

[Ratshit]

Maybe I am just getting old, but the Wt and Balance Charts for the V35B are among the most complex I have seen.

I bought a program called eFlite (see www.eFlite.com (http://www.eFlite.com)), that is customised for my aeroplane. Very easy to use and provides a graphical representation of the Wt and Balance - plotting the TO, Landing and Zero Fuel situation within the CG Envelope. Makes it easy to ponder statements such as the one in the first post..

R:cool:

[runway16]

A simple statement :

Yes, with the Beech 35/36 series you can end up with a CG beyond the aft limit (usually after fuel burn off).
It can get interesting to have to push the stick forward at round out instead of it coming back.

History would record that the Beech 35/36 series are no worse than any other brand of aircraft that has an increasing aft CG with fuel burn off. It just means that you have to fly the aircraft within the known limits of the machine and that includes the W&B.

Know your machine and fly safely gentlemen.

[Ratshit]

A simple statement : Yes, with the Beech 35/36 series you can end up with a CG beyond the aft limit (usually after fuel burn off). It can get interesting to have to push the stick forward at round out instead of it coming back. History would record that the Beech 35/36 series are no worse than any other brand of aircraft that has an increasing aft CG with fuel burn off. It just means that you have to fly the aircraft within the known limits of the machine and that includes the W&B.
Know your machine and fly safely gentlemen.

"Yes, with the Beech 35/36 series you can end up with a CG beyond the aft limit (usually after fuel burn off)"

Runway 16 - the intent of this thread was to challenge that statement, at least in relation to the BE35!

"Know your machine and fly safely gentlemen"

Yes, indeed! And having flown nothing much other than the V35B for the last couple of years, I probably know it better than anything I have flown in the previous 35 years.

So what have I learnt?

1) Its much easier to load it out of the rear C of G than I had previously thought.

2) If you load it so that it is at or below its Max TO weight, and within its C of G envelope, it will stay within the envelope unless you fly it down to only fumes in the tanks. I never fly it with less than +15% and 45 min reserves, so this is not an issue for me. The C of G will sit on the aft limit only.

I am tossing around upgrading to a BE36, so this is of interest to me. If you believe CC (and I do cause he seems to be a font of much aviation wisdom), the BE36 is much the same.

R:cool:

[Chimbu chuckles]

The BE36 is not as sensitive as the V35 because when they designed it they moved the wing back a bit...but put enough stuff in the back of any aeroplane and you'll go out the back...I remember landing C185s with the CofG so far aft that if you used flaps 40 the control column hit the forward stop and stayed there until you went back to flaps 30. Three point landings became one point landings as the tailwheel gently arrived first:E ...with the BE36 you can carry LOTS and if loaded with a modicum of thought you'll stay well within the limits.

4x100kg adults+40kg bags and 250 liters of fuel will have you taxiing at MTOW and the CofG between 2100 and 2122, over 100mm inside the aft limit throughout. 210s may carry more but not with as much elan:ok:

[Ratshit]

CC - Don't tell my mates, most of whom are confirmed Cessna drivers, but the Fork-tailed Dr Killer has converted to Beech.

I thought a newish C206 was the machine for me (cause I think the newest C210 in Oz is now near 20 years old) but the 206 is just too slow.

I quite like Mooneys (particularly the ones with IO550s) but they are not ideal for some of the places I need to go (sit a bit low to the ground).

I just can't get excited about plastics (although a Columbia seems to have gained my brother's affection).

I mostly use the V35B for personal transportation but there are times when I need to carry more - over a long distance.

The Pipers will haul the load but are too slow.

The Missus didn't win the $30M Xmas Gold Lotto so I had to shelve my plans to go to France to collect a TBM850.

Which leaves me with a Bo.

R:cool:

[Chimbu chuckles]

An E55 Baron would carry the extra load for you...at a significant DOCs premium...but an A36 would have the extra capability you require occasionally with identical DOCs as the V35.

Agree...TBM700 or 850 is the dog's bollox as long as cost is not the determinate factor.:ok:

[Schmacko]

Why would anyone want to fly a bonanza anyway ?:hmm:

[Ratshit]

An E55 Baron would carry the extra load for you...at a significant DOCs premium...but an A36 would have the extra capability you require occasionally with identical DOCs as the V35. Agree...TBM700 or 850 is the dog's bollox as long as cost is not the determinate factor.:ok:

CC - Yes, and E55 or 58 Baron would work but hard (though not necessarily impossible) to justify turning the second donk for personal transportation. There is the old single vs twin argument. Personally I try to avoid flying at night in a single, but then I don't give a second thought to flying solid daytime IFR in the same aeroplane - go figure! I guess psychologically I convince myself that in the event of an engine failure I will pop out the bottom with enough room to find somewhere to park. Certain these days with terrain displays on GPS moving maps you can dodge a few hills on the way down through cloud.

R:cool:

[john_tullamarine]

Maybe I am just getting old, but the Wt and Balance Charts for the V35B are among the most complex I have seen..

I wouldn't have thought so ... in general the most complicated are trimsheets for those aircraft which are trimmed at ZFW and then one needs the loaded CG for trim settings.

Suggest that you have a look at birds such as the GII .. there are a few such trimsheets around ... one ends up with two envelopes superimposed with a fudge grid to make it all work.

At the end of the day, all the light aircraft have fairly straightforward trimsheets .... and, if designed sensibly, they all look pretty much the same in principle and use ..

[Ratshit]

Maybe I am just getting old, but the Wt and Balance Charts for the V35B are among the most complex I have seen..

I wouldn't have thought so ... in general the most complicated are trimsheets for those aircraft which are trimmed at ZFW and then one needs the loaded CG for trim settings.

Suggest that you have a look at birds such as the GII .. there are a few such trimsheets around ... one ends up with two envelopes superimposed with a fudge grid to make it all work.

At the end of the day, all the light aircraft have fairly straightforward trimsheets .... and, if designed sensibly, they all look pretty much the same in principle and use ..

"Suggest that you have a look at birds such as the GII"

GII (?) - give me a break man! The biggest thing I have any time on is a C402.

R:cool:

[john_tullamarine]

... sorry, buddy ... but that's the way things are ... just keep it in the envelope and life is cool ...

[bushy]

There are some interesting things here. I believe we have had sucessful forced landings in Australia at night. Surprising.
I remember reading american figures which showed that you are more likely to be killed in a twin engined aircraft than a single. Fatalities from engine failures were less, but prangs from other causes more than made up for it. Singles are simpler, and it appears, safer because of that.
Australia has a history of scud running and cfit in IFR equipped aircraft. Many of these are avoidable if the pilot is IFR qualified. We seem to make IFR training and flying so hard that hardly any of our pilots do it, and there are too many avoidable cfits
Peole talk about the KISS principle. We seem to do the opposite. And it costs.

[Chimbu chuckles]

It's a worthy direction.

RS do you have an electrically powered back up AI?

If not your workload will be high gliding down on partial panel.

Don't get me wrong I do fly my aircraft at night and a little 'soft' IFR but only rarely...I avoid it if I.

Why?

I really think it is more a 'getting old/running out of lives thing' myself. I used up 7 of em in PNG...at least.

The basic facts are that no statistics can say with absolute certainty that singles are less safe than twins or visa versa.

In my view a well trained, skillfull and current pilot in a moderately loaded Baron can fly away from an engine failure every time...loaded to average 'private use' weights they'll happily climb on one engine at 500'/min...bloody sight better than a single after an engine failure.

Well trained and skillfull being the big problem....in my view virtually no private owners would spend the time and effort required to maintain the levels of skill required...a good two hour workout with a knowledgeable instructor every 6 mths and a few hundred hours between.

I think given the realistic amount of time I have spent in IMC in my Bo over the years...it would struggle to be a few hours total...maybe 1-2% of my total Bo time I cannot justify a second engine, vac pump, generator etc.

If I was doing lots of IFR/night flying I would definately get a second electric AI and fit a back up generator as those are failures you're likely to have to cope with...engine failures are incredibly rare overall, even with the abuse many engines suffer under...a well maintained engine that only you fly regularly and with a good all cylinder monitor I think is incredibly reliable. Take out the fuel starvation events from the forced landing stats and pure mechanical failures are rare indeed...statistically almost irrelevant.

That said if I as doing lots of over water flying I would want an E55 Baron...or if I ever get to a point, and it's not likely, where the extra cost of a twin is not a factor...they are the sexiest civil piston aeroplane ever built.:ok: ...but really short of living on King Island and flying a lot I cannot see a Baron increasing the safety aspects of my private flying anything like enough to justify the recurrent training and 2xDOCs...after 12000+ ME hrs I have long since lost the thrill of a handfull of throttles.

[Brian Abraham]

Have an Excel sheet made up for weight and balance which can be easily adapted to any GA type. Sample graphic below allows instant assessment of fuel burn influence (blue line in this case).
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/untitled.jpg
Anyone wanting a free copy (no steak knives included) let me have relevent details and I will adapt.

[john_tullamarine]

Only one caveat with the graphical things ... one needs to be careful with straight lines and curved according to the axes units and whether the loading arm is constant or varies .. ie one can get caught out if one just plots the end points and presumes a straight line betwixt the two ...

I have no doubt that Brian has this well and truly under control ... a suitable subject for a beer, perhaps ... how are you off this week or next for a convivial as discussed previously ?

[Brian Abraham]

Taken care of by a look up table if that should arise John (shapely curves). Nothing much gets pass you :) Call anytime, should be around for a week or so before making an interstate trip.

[Ratshit]

There are some interesting things here. I believe we have had sucessful forced landings in Australia at night. Surprising.
I remember reading american figures which showed that you are more likely to be killed in a twin engined aircraft than a single. Fatalities from engine failures were less, but prangs from other causes more than made up for it. Singles are simpler, and it appears, safer because of that.
Australia has a history of scud running and cfit in IFR equipped aircraft. Many of these are avoidable if the pilot is IFR qualified. We seem to make IFR training and flying so hard that hardly any of our pilots do it, and there are too many avoidable cfits
Peole talk about the KISS principle. We seem to do the opposite. And it costs.

"We seem to make IFR training and flying so hard that hardly any of our pilots do it, and there are too many avoidable cfits. Peole talk about the KISS principle. We seem to do the opposite. And it costs."

Is this really the case Bushy? I did my IR in NZ and validated it and my CPL back in Oz, so I don't have a lot of direct ab initio IR training experience here, although a number of my UPPL mates have done SECIRs with minimal fuss and bother. It certainly costs money to do a CIR but flying costs money. I did the Ozzie IR exam as part of the validation - and passed Morse Code (no longer required) for the second time.

The Private IR was an attempt to solve the cfit problem. I am probably showing my age but I am not a fan of the PIR. The guy I do my renewals with flatly refuses to write me out a PIR - just seems to have nothing to do with them. Every year I ask him to do the paperwork and every year he ignores me. Maybe cause it takes a couple of hours to do all the paperwork.

I recently flew with a CPL trained pilot who now flys only for personal business. He has held a CIR but now flys only on a PIR and mostly flys VFR and only upgrades when necessary. It was NOT a pleasant experience for me.

I fly on an IFR plan 95% of the time so that I am well in tune with the system - but that does mean that I do fly some real IFR at times. I avoid ICE (not hard to do in Nth Qld) and CBs, like the plague.

It certainly costs money to operate in the IFR system, but I see this as a relatively small part of operating an aeroplane.

R:cool:

[Ratshit]

It's a worthy direction.

RS do you have an electrically powered back up AI?

Yes CC! It does have an electric back-up AH.

I am seriously into multiple redundancy and have it pretty much covered apart from the pilot and the engine. If I owned the aeroplane I would probably fit dual vac pumps as well. It has a Cent III autopilot so I would loose that if I lost the single vac pump.

If not your workload will be high gliding down on partial panel.

Don't get me wrong I do fly my aircraft at night and a little 'soft' IFR but only rarely...I avoid it if I.

Why?

I really think it is more a 'getting old/running out of lives thing' myself. I used up 7 of em in PNG...at least.

The basic facts are that no statistics can say with absolute certainty that singles are less safe than twins or visa versa.

In my view a well trained, skillfull and current pilot in a moderately loaded Baron can fly away from an engine failure every time...loaded to average 'private use' weights they'll happily climb on one engine at 500'/min...bloody sight better than a single after an engine failure.

Well trained and skillfull being the big problem....in my view virtually no private owners would spend the time and effort required to maintain the levels of skill required...a good two hour workout with a knowledgeable instructor every 6 mths and a few hundred hours between.

Because I do fly some serious IFR, I try to do 6 month currency checks with a senior instructor, between CIR renewals - even in the Bo. Like many busy non-professional pilots I sometimes struggle getting the 6 month check done but as others often fly with me I try to operate at a high level of proficiency. I generally fly at least one approach each time I fly - so I generally maintain a very high level of approach currency. Having an ILS at home base also helps. I am flying about 200 hr a year so I am pretty current with the aeroplane.

I think given the realistic amount of time I have spent in IMC in my Bo over the years...it would struggle to be a few hours total...maybe 1-2% of my total Bo time I cannot justify a second engine, vac pump, generator etc.

If I was doing lots of IFR/night flying I would definately get a second electric AI and fit a back up generator as those are failures you're likely to have to cope with...engine failures are incredibly rare overall, even with the abuse many engines suffer under...a well maintained engine that only you fly regularly and with a good all cylinder monitor I think is incredibly reliable. Take out the fuel starvation events from the forced landing stats and pure mechanical failures are rare indeed...statistically almost irrelevant.

I have had 2 total electrical failures in other crappy private hired aircraft (one of the reasons for getting the Bo). Although on an IFR plan I was in VMC on both occassions.

I don't have 2 generators but I now feel that I have the electrical failure pretty well covered. The Bo has a GNS430, but I also have a GPSMAP296 installed on the yolk, so I could find my way to anywhere and make a pretty good fist of a GPS APPR with that if necessary (I have practiced this). It runs for maybe 12 hr on its battery. I also have Jeppesen FliteDeck moving map and eFlightBag running on a mini-tablet computer. It gets its GPS info from the GPSMAP296, but I also have a little blue tooth GPS in the flight bag - just in case. I can find my way home with that as well and use it to make a reasonable job of a GPS, NDB, VOR or LLZ appr. The tablet runs for 2 hours on battery power.

I also carry CDMA Mobile Phone, ICOM Portable VHF with VOR, and Sat phone.

I am the only person who flys the aeroplane. As you know, it doesn't have an all cylinder engine analyzer (would if I owned it), but thanks to your instruction I now have a pretty good idea of how to operate it effectively. Maintenance is done by someone I trust.

That said if I as doing lots of over water flying I would want an E55 Baron...or if I ever get to a point, and it's not likely, where the extra cost of a twin is not a factor...they are the sexiest civil piston aeroplane ever built.:ok: ...but really short of living on King Island and flying a lot I cannot see a Baron increasing the safety aspects of my private flying anything like enough to justify the recurrent training and 2xDOCs...after 12000+ ME hrs I have long since lost the thrill of a handfull of throttles.

Yes, my brother swapped a Mooney for a B55, and soon got over the "handfull of throttles" when the fuel and maintenance bills rolled in.

Why an E55? Is it the fastest Baron (the smaller airframe with the big engines)? I have flown the B, C, D and E55 - I know the B has the little motors but don't remember the differences between the C, D and E.



Much of the single vs twin thing is psychological. I know a bloke with a TBM700 who flys it all over the place day and night in IFR but is reluctant to take it far over water.

R:cool:

[bushy]

Rat****
It's great that you have made the effort to fly IFR, and a V35 is a great aeroplane to do it in.
I knew a businessman who bought a new seneca who got killed scud running because he did not have a rating. And another who also bought a seneca, who got killed the same way. A builder who owned a Bonanza traded it for a Baron, and was lost when he went scud running in his Baron. He did not have a rating. There was also a doctor who used to fly a turbo mooney home from one of his remote clinics at night. Night flying here on a moonless night is really IF. I used to urge him to get a rating, but he kept saying he did not have the time. Fortunately he stopped flying and sold his aircraft. Another doctor here did the same. They are both still here.
Scud running is a dangerous activity which can usually be avoided if you can go IFR Seems it is better to keep the single, and spend the money on a rating, and recurrent practise and training. You could spend a few grand on a simulator, if our regulator did not make it so complex.
Of course there is some weather that NO-ONE can fly in.

Your friend the instructor who will not have anything to do with the PIFR is doing the industry a dis-service. Many will be scud running unnecessarily. But our "uniquely Australian" thinking tells us that unless it's complex, it's no good.
Like some of those elaborate, roller blind, almost stupid checklists

We need to keep things simple, and sensible.

[Ratshit]

Bushy

I was not disagreeing with the thrust of your post. I too know of several people who had the money to buy the machinery and are no longer with us because they did not take the time and go to the trouble to get appropriate training. Its one of the reasons that referring to the BE35 as the "Fork-tailed Dr Killer" tickles my black humour funny bone (I am a 2 x Dr - not medical), but I have always tried to operate at the highest level professionally in all areas - including flying. Fortunately, I have been exposed to many highly experienced and professional pilots and instructors.

However, I still do not agree with you on the PPIR issue. I think it is just a licence to kill yourself in a different way from scud running. I think if someone wants to fly IFR they should do the CIR, single engine only if that is all that is required. What's the big deal - do the subject, do the training, do the test!

I have been in a number of situations where I would have been in deep doggy doo-doo if I only had some parts of the PPIR or if I had not at least been current enough to pass an IR renewal in the previous 12 mths.

For example, in May last year I departed YBTL for YBRK to visit Beef 2006. Can't remember the details of the weather, but it was pretty fine and dandy with nothing nasty forcast. Getting fuel in YBRK is a pain if you don't have a Shell card so I stopped off in YBMK and topped off my fuel so I could go to Rocky and back to YBTL with my usual reserves. Departed RK in blue sky and south of MK flew over the top of solid cloud about the same time as they started giving Special Weather due to rapid deterioration from MK north. I flew the last 40 min or so in solid cloud, heavy rain and mod turbulance, and broke out on the TL ILS about 400'.

I wondered at the time how someone with part or even all of a PPIR would have gotten on in the same circumstances. I suspect that by the time they realised how unfriendly the weather really was that they would have been fast running out of options.

R:cool:

[Ag2A320]

Hi Gents
E55 Barons fast, but IMHO the 56TC Baron, takes the cake as the fastest baron i have flown, 380hp per side 252KTAS@6000ft, dont even ask about the FF, but I digress, owned a 1973 V-35B from 1980-87 fitted with Osbourne tip tanks,and most all the speed mods available in the 80's, had a Loran C & Century 3 A/P, (which was the cats meow back then, how did i ever make it anywhere with out GPS/SatNav:}, still have my crib logs floating around found it the other day in my oldkit bag along with the Loran freqs and areas of coverage), never worried about the Aft Cg much, (did KIN-YYZ nonstop to visit the inlaws for christmas; sent the wife and kids ahead didn't think they would enjoy 11 1/2 hrs trip,plus had to fly up to the 23rd at work, took off at 530am christmas eve landed at 500 pm in YYZ) in most cases just topped the tanks and made sure it was loaded with cg range, the moment of the fuel in the tips alleviated most of the CG /fuel burn worries. Being overweight doesnt bother me as much as being out of the cg limits.

Flew many wonderful hours in the Bo(sadly the joker who bought her left her out to be blown over in a hurricane:mad:). Loved the Bonanza so much bought a 79 A36 (1987-92) It got tricky in the 35 to get the brood and kit in and out even with the ext baggage door, plus my parents and inlaws had a hard time scaling the wing and getting in to rear seats; well thats the story i sold the wife! :E fitted the A-36 with Osbourne tanks as well and Bendix RDR-1200 radar pod, had no problems flying it up from where we lived in the caribbean, 5-6 hrs over water never bothered me or the family (used Louise Sacchi's book Ocean Flying as a guide).

My eldest occasionally trys to guilt me with the fact i sold the A36 the year he soloed cause "the oldman did want him playing with his toys" :}, not so the the local CAA clown (ex heavy airline goon that knew nothing about GA) caught the Uk CAA bulletin bug and tried to hassle me about overhaul limits on the engine even though i could prove it didn't apply to private aircraft got tired of fighting plus was craving more speed,higher ,faster etc and i continued stepping up to my current RiceRocket in the hanger.

When I do retire from the day job of hard IFR and sell the Hole in my hanger:E definately going to buy another V-35B, a true a pilots aircraft, hope to keep it till the end of my flying days, where the sons can fight over the old mans toys again!:hmm: ill probably fit tanks, v'g's and a good moving map with datalink, but days of flying hard IFR will be over, if it comes to that me and the old Bo will put down and wait it out. maybe ill even get around to flying it all the way down undda to visit old friends, i had always intend to with both Bo's never got around to it, hopefully i will, would like to spend the golden years looking up at the traffic at Fl350 remebering that flying below 5000ft in your own aircraft is one of the true joys of flying.

Somewhere i have the notes on the Cg movement with/without the tanks installed, with 3 blade & 2 blade prop and speed diff between both props, LR cruise at aft cg, flap gap seals and the works, I'll try to find them, Old Mike Smith, Beryl D'Shannon and Norm Colvin got lots of calls & letters from me;tried almost every trick in the book, short of re-engining with a IO550 to get more speed out of the Bo's.

I also recommend if you don't own a copy yet Norm Colvin's Book: Colvin's Corner every Bo & Baron owner should have one, the American Bonanza Society markets it in their montly, still have my copy under lock and key as its known to grow legs in the presence of other mechanics and Bo owners.

[Chimbu chuckles]

RS

The C,D and E are pretty much the same aeroplane...even a lot of the Bs have IO520s these days.

Your approach to flying, without blowing sunshine up your ar$e, is impressive. While I rarely file IFR on long trips in my Bo I do file VFR plans the way we did in the old FS days and fly at levels that make it easy to convert to IFR if the situation dictates...even after 100s of hours of 'scud running' in PNG the thought of doing it in Australia terrifies me...I just don't...ever!

I had never flown single engine IFR until the Bo...and it took some getting used to...and I agree it is mostly psycological...the first time I poked into a line of storms (little ones) just south of YBTL I had my heart a bit in my mouth even after 18 years of being IF rated and having bounced my way through tropical stormy weather numerous times in the SW Pacific and PNG in twins/turboprops etc...but the Bo handled it with applomb..I was very impressed...Bonanzas are really very good in any weather that is sensible to fly in.

I remember coming back from NSW to Redcliffe a few years ago on a dark night and the autopilot died south of Coffs...5 minutes of handflying and the old single pilot habits honed from 6000+ hrs single pilot IFR RPT sans autopilots kicked in and it became fun...despite the light turbulence and driving rain....I felt like a real pilot again for the first time since going to jets with more autopilots than flesh and blood ones and system redundancy up the waazoo. I get a kick out of the automation too but it's a vastly different kick.

...would like to spend the golden years looking up at the traffic at Fl350 remebering that flying below 5000ft in your own aircraft is one of the true joys of flying.

Never a truer word was spoke:D :ok:

[Ratshit]

CC - To put things into perspective, I am in the very fortunate position that 98% of my flying is personal transportation for work related purposes, and as a result, 98% of the costs (including my "toys") are paid for by work. It is much easier to maintain a high level of proficiency and currency if you are not wearing the costs personally. None-the-less I treat flying as a risk management exercise and spend quite a bit of thinking time on minimising the risks.

Like most, I have done my share of scud running in the past, and I have given myself at least two serious frights. One in NZ when I almost flew myself into a hill while trying to get the guy in the coffin beside me to his funeral, and once in NQ when by pure luck I narrowly missed a Telecom tower.

On the subject of CBs, a Flying Dr pilot I ran into in Coen a couple of years ago told me that if I ever blunder into a CB in Nth Qld, I can reasonably expect to survive after nothing more than a rough ride - unlike in the SE of Qld where there is a good chance they will chew you up and spit you out.

I would like to have a strike-finder in the Bo, but do have poor-man's radar - a CDMA internet connection to the BOM site on my mini-tablet.

R:cool: