What's with these A36's

[Jabawocky]

Flew an A36 today, nice machine, 91 model, and it was a slug!

Half the climb rate of the V35B I flew 30 min before hand.:ooh:

IO550 and no go.........my plastic plane would have blown it away!:}

Seems the FTDK is onto something....:cool:

Seriously.......it was pretty new too! Very uninspiring. 90% fuel (standard) and 310kg payload.:uhoh:

What's the problem Chuck?

Hoo Roo

J

[Chimbu chuckles]

Beats me....did you remember to pull up the wheels?:E

[tnuc]

recently picked up a factory new G36 from Wichita and flew as a flight of 2 with 2 POB each aircraft from ICT to SFO, on every let the SR22 GTS we traveld with blew the 36 away in climb and quickly got 15 - 20 nm in front. At bull head city in Arizona we swapped our luggage out of the 36 into the Cirrus but it still outclimbed and outrun us !

[Chimbu chuckles]

You would have been not far below MTOW in a late model 36 with '90% fuel and 310kg pax'.

I wold expect a Cirrus to outperform an A36...same engine and prop attached to a LOT less aeroplane.

[Jabawocky]

Couple of thoughts, yes we were a bit below MTOW, but lets say a V tail today in very HOT conditions at MTOW did better.

1. Prop, the Scimitar on the V is a big blade compared to the one (same one with the AD limiting revs etc)

2. The vortex generators on the leading edge may have some degrading effect, and they look UGLY.

3. Equine Flu.......Even with 15 more ponies......:}

J

PS.... Gear???? thought it was fixed!:}

[Chimbu chuckles]

Did you pull power to 25/25 after takeoff?

No better way to make an aeroplane feel a little doggy...max cont on IO550 is full throttle/2700rpm...leave it there until well into the climb and then maybe just pull rpm back to 2500...makes a huge difference to 'get up and go' factor.

[VH-XXX]

Perhaps it was a SR22 TURBO GTS. Nice! Only US$533k so at the current 92 cents it great value at AUD$580k!

This puts the base model at $220k at the moment, including airbags, 200hp, parachute, terrain awareness, and an optional front wheel fairing! WFT?

[Walrus 7]

An SR22 will take out an A36 on speed just about every day of the week. The 22 is simply a faster machine in the climb and cruise, but generally doesn't have the payload capability.

The G36, and indeed many late model A36s don't have the performance of many of the early A36s because they have put on a lot of weight over the years with luxury fittings, air conditioners and so forth. Up until 1984 the A36 had a 285 HP donk, that year being the first fitted with the 300HP engine. However, many owners have retrofitted the 300HP engine to the earlier airframes, giving them extra payload and speed over the later models because the airframe is lighter.

To illustrate: the 1972 A36 (285 HP) had a BEW of 925 kg and an MTOW of 1632 kg. The 1990 A36 (300HP) had a BEW of 1027 kg and an MTOW of 1655 kg. The usable load had diminished from 707 kg to 628 kg.

The G36 figures are 1148 kg and 1656 kg respectively. Hence you might find the later models a 'slug' compared to a pre-1984 A36 that has been retrofitted with the 300HP Connie.

Walrus

[Rich-Fine-Green]

CC:

Not sure what you mean by the SR22 being a LOT less an airplane.

Same engine

SR22 has fixed gear and G36 is a retract.

SR22 has wider and higher cabin.

Yes, the SR22 has 4 seats and the G36 has a 4 + 2 cabin.

Having flown both in the USA, it simply comes down to the SR22 (and others of it's generation like the Columbia) is a modern design with less drag and better performing wing etc.

The G36/A36 is an older design. Great in it's day but now outclassed, as i'm sure the SR22 will be outperformed one day by a future design. That's progress and aviation has been waiting some time for the Cirrus/Columbia/Eclipse/Diamond designs to kick things along.

But, as suggested, a G36 or SR22 operated at 25/25 after take-off is not throwing out full muscle.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Cirrus et al may outclimb and outrun a 36 but they'll never outclass a 36:ok:

[Jabawocky]

We are going to have to do a scientific test when Chucks A36 comes out of the paint shop some time before Christmas 2012:}

So why then does a V35B at 25/25 out run the A36.....and we have tested them at FULL load?:uhoh: If we ran the V Tail at full stick all the way it would go even harder.

Have a good book here by John Eckalbar which I am going top read from the comfort of the Esplanade Hotel in Freo.....see what it has to say.

I guess an SR22 or the GTS would do the job, lotsa $$$:ooh:

J

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

A mate once had his A36 painted and engine/prop overhauled in the one go. When I asked him how much difference the new donk made, he said that the re-rigging of the gear doors (done with the paint obviously) was by far the greatest improvement of them all and that the thing now took much longer to slow up!

Who would've thought.

The point being: There are apples and there are apples!

Maybe the V35 was just a much better rigged, straighter example. Gear doors, trim tabs etc etc.

[gassed budgie]

Here you go J'wok. The A36 I fly always TAS's at 172/173KTAS without fail. Pics taken last Wednesday.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2808/p10207351ii7.jpg


http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2273/p10207352zt1.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1904/p10207411sg4.jpg



re-powered by a Power By Victor powerplant, thing was quite different than a standard 36


Even if Victor managed to get another 15hp out of an IO-520 (and I doubt that they would) you would only expect to see around a 4 kt increase in cruise IAS at the very most.

[MACH082]

your running the ole girl pretty hard there budgie! 2600rpm! i would get that alternator looked at too!

[Creampuff]

M082: If 'your' (perhaps 'you're'?) serious, I'd suggest that 2600 (or even 2550 - the actual indication) is easy for the 'ole girl', and that zero on a centre-zero ammeter is actually a normal reading.

I certainly like seeing both when I'm flying A36s.

[gassed budgie]

your running the ole girl pretty hard there budgie! 2600rpm!


It was actually bang on 2500RPM Macho (and yes the tacho is dead accurate at this RPM). It's just the angle that the pic was taken at that suggests otherwise. At this power setting the IO-520 is running at a bit less than 65% power, so it's just loafing along. If I'm at FL125 it's spun up to 2700RPM. It won't hurt it.

[jamsquat]

if the angle of the photo appears to make the tacho overread then the ammeter must be showing discharge!!! :ok:

JS

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Creampuff

2550! You obviously don't mind a bit of noise!

Dr :8

[Peter Fanelli]

If I'm at FL125 it's spun up to 2700RPM. It won't hurt it.


Geez, tell that nervous nellies that were participating in the thread about max continuous power a while back :)

[gassed budgie]

if the angle of the photo appears to make the tacho overread then the ammeter must be showing discharge!!!


That's where the needle sits on this particular ammeter gauge. If there's a discharge for any reason it's always at least a one division scale deflection to the discharge side of the gauge. The aircraft's electrical system is indeed working as advertised.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Ammeter in the FTDK sits in exactly the same position = normal.

Dr :8

PS: That is when the f*cking heap of sh*t is not leaking fuel from both tanks!

[werbil]

FTDK,

It will probably sit in the exactly the same position for at least a couple of weeks (the ammeter needle that is).

:{:{

W

PS reminds me of an old saying - time to spare go by air.

[Peter Fanelli]

PS: That is when the f*cking heap of sh*t is not leaking fuel from both tanks!


Sounds like this issue has really affected your long term relationship with this aircraft, maybe you both should attend some counseling so you can patch things up.

210 Anyone?

[gassed budgie]

210 Anyone


Now that you've asked, yes. We're in the market for a late model ('82 or later) 210. If anyone has got any leads PM me. Unfortunately most 210 owners have a rather over inflated idea of what their aircraft is worth, regardless of model or TT on the airframe. For example, $365,000 for an '81 210N ? Come on fella's, you're around a $100k's away from where you should be (and that's on a good day).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

GB

Have you looked at bringing one in from the States?

There has never been a better time.

Dr :8

[havick]

I know of a few companies in the states that have CASA approval to issue CofA's over there so you can fly it back yourself..
(edit.. assuming you don't already hold the req'd FAA tickets)

[gassed budgie]

Have you looked at bringing one in from the States?


Yes, been over myself to have a look around. Wasn't happy with what I saw. I'm very fussy and very particular with what I buy. The most promising was a 1982 210N with a low total time, NDH, one owner, very original aircraft.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8320/p10206293ba1.jpg

Clean as a whistle here....................

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6971/p10206113lk5.jpg

.....................but not so good here. I walked away from it.
It was probably the cheapest $5K I've spent on an aeroplane. Someone else has been engaged to locate an aircraft for us.

[jamsquat]

"It was probably the cheapest $5K I've spent on an aeroplane."

As an expensive $5k would have cost so much more!!!!!!:ok:

JS

[Jabawocky]

Jamsquat.....very funny......but that $5K could have lead to much more costly spending.

No point throwing good money after bad is an expression that springs to mind.

J

[Bendo]

So Creampuff...

... where do you like the gear handle when you're flying a Bonanza? :E

[Howard Hughes]

Nice looking Bonanza here! (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Beechcraft-Baron-D-55_W0QQitemZ270183096893QQihZ017QQcategoryZ63678QQssPageName ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) Now if only I had a spare 100K...:ok:

[Jabawocky]

I see that one has recent fuel bladders:oh:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I'm going to have another drive of this machine next week. Will stick it to it a bit harder this time.

The owner reports:

6500'
2400 rpm/22"
150 kts IAS
170 kts TAS
60 L/hr

Dr :8

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Spent 2.5 hrs in the A36 (1991 model) today.

The Chuckler from Chimbu is right (now that's a surprise!) - it will perform if you take a stick to it.

Two up and full tanks, the FTDK would be all over it in the climb. I pushed all the levers forward on TO and left them there until well into the climb, when I pulled the Prop back to 2500 rpm.

15 min to 10,000 ft at 110 kts. The FTDK does it consistently in 12, but not too bad none-the-less.

At A100, 2300 rpm/full throttle ie 19", (which is interesting cause at A100 the FTDK is still good for 21"), 140 IAS, 165 TAS, 55 L/hr.

All is forgiven - nice machine!

Dr :8

PS: ..... and it is a dream to land. In 200+ landings in the FTDK I have NOT ONCE pulled off anything to equal the two greasers I did today. Finished off down the ILS and landed in 18 kts X wind gusting to 22 - no worries. Maybe the FTDK can just stay in Perth!

PPS: It needs more toys! I did miss the Shadin digital fuel flow.

[Jabawocky]

Did the A/P work this time?

How about that door catch?

J

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Did the A/P work this time?

Yes, but it doesn't fly a GPS track as well as the Century III in the FTDK. Tends to "hunt" around a bit. I could not get it to couple to the glidepath either - but that could be me. ADF went U/S.

How about that door catch?

The owner has pulled the extra heavy seal off the door - works fine now.

Dr :8

[Peter Fanelli]

At A100, 2300 rpm/full throttle ie 19", (which is interesting cause at A100 the FTDK is still good for 21"), 140 IAS, 165 TAS, 55 L/hr.


I thought Bonanzas were supposed to be fast.

[Chimbu chuckles]

What does the FTDK's MP gauge read parked at MSL?

At ISA it should read 29.5ish (of course) and that would suggest 19.5ish at 10k in ISA conditions less in warmer than ISA (virtually always in FNQ).

If the FTDK's says upwards of 2in more then I am gonna suggest it is not reading accurately and may be reading more at MSL too but it aint something many people particularly check closely before starting the engine...food for thought.

Peter the figures of 175KIAS etc you see quoted for 210s/A36s and Cirrus etc for that matter, are invariably at max continuous RPM...had FTDK really put the spurs to the A36 with 25-2700rpm then I feel sure he'd have seen 175ish...but who flogs any aeroplane to that extent in cruise except aircraft salesman or journos writing infomercials in 'Flying'?

[Peter Fanelli]

Yeah I know.
It's amazing how fast a 310 holding max power will zoom past an unsuspecting Baron on bank runs too.

Ooops, did I say that?

Not that we ever did anything like that. :=

As for the Cirrus I think they were lucky they had the chance to emerge during that time when the other manufacturers, except Beech and Mooney, were temporarily out of the game. I mean in the mid 80's it was all about efficiency and economy. Then along comes Cirrus who manage to rewrite the rule book. In the 80's anyone suggesting a 300hp 4 place airframe would be considered looney tunes. But now it's the norm. Columbia 400 for example, 4 seats and burns 24 gph????

I'd love to know how some of the older airframes would do with similar power.

300hp Grumman Tiger
300Hp Cessna Cardinal

How about a 375HP A36 with a Geared Continental out front.

I think I know what my hobby will be when I'm filthy stinking rich. :)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

CC, the V35B reads about 29.0" at sea level ( I do check what it is doing on TO). Will have a closer look next time I see it !!!!

PF, 2300/19" ?? that's a pretty conservative power setting. I didn't get around to looking up the book, but what would it be - maybe 60% power.

So why fly it like that? 1) Cause I am getting old and crotchety and I like a bit of piece and quiet when I am flying, and 2) To get the range out of the aircraft for a reasonable out-and-back flight with good IFR reserves without having to refuel, especially when flying around in the sort of crap that was all over Nth Qld yesterday.

I can't think of too many 6 seater lighties that will do better, but I was not aware that Cirrus had a 6 seater out (????!!!!).

Dr :8

[gassed budgie]

...but who flogs any aeroplane to that extent in cruise except aircraft salesman or journos writing infomercials in 'Flying'?

Umm..............I do.

[Walrus 7]

Gassed Budgie,

Please explain your comment re: 'infomercials in Flying?' I suspect you were referring to the British magazine of that name and not the Australian one?

Walrus

[Chimbu chuckles]

That was my comment re infomercials.

Just a view formed after a lifetime of reading pilot reports in flying mags that never seem to contain any negatives...and even a Bo has one or two...It seems to me the aviation journos have been afraid to report honestly lest they not be handed any new models to 'test'.

GB no argument from me...MCP is there to be used...it remains uncommon though for MOST pilots who slavishly follow a doctrine handed down over generations of instructors who SHOULD HAVE known better....a doctrine that suggests choking an engine of 20 odd % of it's available HP at 800' after takeoff is somehow a good idea.

Even on the odd engine these days that actually has a real 'METO' 5 minute limit 5 minutes is a LOOONNGGG time...you'd be climbing through 6000 feet before you reached it.

[gassed budgie]

Even on the odd engine these days that actually has a real 'METO' 5 minute limit 5 minutes is a Even on the odd engine these days that actually has a real 'METO' 5 minute limit 5 minutes is a LOOONNGGG time...


Yes, 5 minutes in a 210 with the IO-520 singing at 2850RPM certianly does seem like a LOOONNGGG time. After about 2 minutes of listening to that, you'd swear it's starting to feel a little bit uncomfortable, almost sounding as if it's struggling to reach the top note. I usually back it off at 1,000' AGL.
As far as cruise power goes, I'll always run with the MCP available at that particular altitude. I don't settle for 65% power if I can get 75% power for example. If I'm up high where all you've got is 16" of MP, I won't hesitate to run with 2700RPM. Yes, some people here will feel a bit twitchy about that, but as shown in some of the pics above the green goes all the way to 2700RPM.

[Walrus 7]

Gassed budgie,

Sorry for attributing Chimbu's comments to you. I will look a bit closer at the posts next time.

Chimbu,

You are actually partially right. Many journos are reluctant to say negative things about aeroplanes for fear that they won't get another test. Another problem is that they don't get the aeroplane long enough to do genuine evaluations (unlike car and motorbike journos who can have the car or bike for a weekend) so they have to rely on a one-hour flight, the technical specs and whatever the owner or salesperson says. Unless the negative point is glaringly obvious, it can be easily missed under the weight of positive input.

On the Bo subject, there is a retrospective coming up in AF next issue and I know it contains some of the negative aspects including comments by a 210 exponent.

Walrus

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"What does the FTDK's MP gauge read parked at MSL?"

CC, we made a point of sussing this out on the way back from YPJT.

MP guage reads 29.5" at parked at MSL. About the same on TO ...... and just under 21" at full throttle at A100.

Jaba has pics to verify the above.

I am about to take the FTDK into the Flight Levels. Will be interesting to see how it goes! My recollection is that the Service Ceiling is about 17,000'. I will be happy to be able to cruise at 12 - 15k to get above the summer bumps.

Dr :8

[bushy]

It'll go. Ive had one up to 18000.

[Jabawocky]

Here ya go!

9500' with a desity height of about 10500'

http://file037b.bebo.com/10/large/2007/11/28/08/4525920200a6227845460l.jpg

[slackie]

It's amazing that the aircraft could lift all that nav gear to such lofty heights!!

[Walrus 7]

We can't see the RPM in that pic, but I suspect you blokes had about 2500 RPM set?

Walrus

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"We can't see the RPM in that pic, but I suspect you blokes had about 2500 RPM set?"

2300 rpm, actually!

I normally cruise it 2300/full throttle at 9 or 10,000 ft. Gives me 160 TAS, 50 L/hr, 5.25 hrs endurance.

I suspect that I will have to crank it up to 2500 above 10,000 ft.

Dr :8