One-up in an A36
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Victoria
Age: 56
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat****,
I see now that I did indeed very successfully hikack your thread....humble apologies - but I see I was right in that it was the correct place to cast about for the wisdom of knowledgable Bonanza owners!!
To all of you - many thanks. It's obvious simply from the depth of your responses that these are aircraft that once tried, have you hooked. And how very true that they just look RIGHT.
CC - I plan a flight as soon as I can (I'll go see John at YLIL), and I suspect you are on the money that I'll probably end up getting one.
My overall reading is that for carrying capacity, comfort, reliablility and sheer pleasure the A36 is the way to go. Great comments on the club vs 'normal' seating. "Raffles" class sounds great to my kids! And the RHS is better in this respect as my wife is a non-flyer.
As for parts/maint - I don't mind paying for quality - that usually means better reliability anyway, whether its aircraft, cars or shoes.
I have enough complex time for insurance to be OK, and the insurer also tells me that I can reduce my premium if I limit myself on the policy to 4 seats.
Many thanks, and again RS, apologies for the hijack - any further questions I'l start a new thread.
Cheers
PHTR
Now........what was the question.....
I see now that I did indeed very successfully hikack your thread....humble apologies - but I see I was right in that it was the correct place to cast about for the wisdom of knowledgable Bonanza owners!!
To all of you - many thanks. It's obvious simply from the depth of your responses that these are aircraft that once tried, have you hooked. And how very true that they just look RIGHT.
CC - I plan a flight as soon as I can (I'll go see John at YLIL), and I suspect you are on the money that I'll probably end up getting one.
My overall reading is that for carrying capacity, comfort, reliablility and sheer pleasure the A36 is the way to go. Great comments on the club vs 'normal' seating. "Raffles" class sounds great to my kids! And the RHS is better in this respect as my wife is a non-flyer.
As for parts/maint - I don't mind paying for quality - that usually means better reliability anyway, whether its aircraft, cars or shoes.
I have enough complex time for insurance to be OK, and the insurer also tells me that I can reduce my premium if I limit myself on the policy to 4 seats.
Many thanks, and again RS, apologies for the hijack - any further questions I'l start a new thread.
Cheers
PHTR
Now........what was the question.....
Grandpa Aerotart
This one has been on the market a long while...a couple of years ...as they all tend to be in Oz.
http://www.abs.org.au/pdfs/MMB.pdf
I believe the owner died but am not certain. It has come down something like 100k since first being advertised and I bet there is still significant room to move. It has tip tanks which give you about 2 hours more range and 100kg greater MTOW. They also tend to lower stall speed and improve longitudinal stability due mass distribution and end plate effect.
Note I have no affiliation with that aircraft...I post the link as an example of what is available in the 'better than average' end of the market
If I was in the market I would look at this one...get a really good pre purchase inspection done and then make them a cruel and insulting offer.
Another option, although fraught with some risk, is to buy in the US and import...there are about 6-10 A36s on the market at any one time in Oz and 10 times that in the states...the US ones tend to be lower time airframes and better equiped.
Whichever way you go remember that the used market is tiny...not many people are out there buying SE aircraft period let alone 6 seater retractables. It is most assuredly a BUYERS market especially at present.
Have fun!
The fellas at Lilydale are excellent...they helped me greatly a couple of years ago when i was down that way on a xmas trip in my Bo.
Edit: Even the ones with club seating are not tied to that arrangement...the seats are reverseable and can be mounted either way. It probably takes about 20 minutes to change them around.
http://www.abs.org.au/pdfs/MMB.pdf
I believe the owner died but am not certain. It has come down something like 100k since first being advertised and I bet there is still significant room to move. It has tip tanks which give you about 2 hours more range and 100kg greater MTOW. They also tend to lower stall speed and improve longitudinal stability due mass distribution and end plate effect.
Note I have no affiliation with that aircraft...I post the link as an example of what is available in the 'better than average' end of the market
If I was in the market I would look at this one...get a really good pre purchase inspection done and then make them a cruel and insulting offer.Another option, although fraught with some risk, is to buy in the US and import...there are about 6-10 A36s on the market at any one time in Oz and 10 times that in the states...the US ones tend to be lower time airframes and better equiped.
Whichever way you go remember that the used market is tiny...not many people are out there buying SE aircraft period let alone 6 seater retractables. It is most assuredly a BUYERS market especially at present.
Have fun!
The fellas at Lilydale are excellent...they helped me greatly a couple of years ago when i was down that way on a xmas trip in my Bo.
Edit: Even the ones with club seating are not tied to that arrangement...the seats are reverseable and can be mounted either way. It probably takes about 20 minutes to change them around.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 7th Dec 2006 at 10:16.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PilotHTR
There are a couple of old "friends" of mine at Lilydale.
Spent many hours flying all over Qld in VH-FWE (V35) back in the 1970's when it was operated by the Stanbroke Pastoral Co, and many more in VH-FCT (Fort ConstanTine) (A36), when it was purchased new to replace FWE.
Cheers
R
There are a couple of old "friends" of mine at Lilydale.
Spent many hours flying all over Qld in VH-FWE (V35) back in the 1970's when it was operated by the Stanbroke Pastoral Co, and many more in VH-FCT (Fort ConstanTine) (A36), when it was purchased new to replace FWE.
Cheers
R
Last edited by Ratshit; 7th Dec 2006 at 12:04.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bugger me.... I have never heard of a Bonanza modded with a Lycoming IO540, yet 4SPOOLED has flown 2 of them!
Can't be much of a mod losing 20 knots cold like that!!!
Beat me to it CC re the club seating. Yes it is reversible (and a bit of a mongrel of a job), but gives great functionality. My kids love the club seating as they use it as a bit of a play area with all the bags stowed between the front 2 rows (make sure you can get them out easily though in case of emergency gear extension). Also I know from experience that AFT COG is improved with heavy PAX in the middle row with club seating.
I have to echo everything Chimbu says about the A36. They are simply a fabulous way of getting about
The A36 I routinely fly always trues out at 172/173 kts and thats with full fuel and two up. Loaded it Tas's at 168 kts. The 210N that I use on the odd occassion Trues at 171 kts with full fuel and two pob. Loaded it's back to 165 kts. It has an IO-550 which does makes a difference (210's fitted with the IO-550TI are actully a bit quicker than the A36's).
Not sure why people keep saying the 210's handling is truck like. It's not. If you crank the yoke over hard in a 210 they'll roll just as rapidly as an A36. Both aircraft have relatively heavy pitch forces, the 210 winning this one. You'll also work the trim a bit harder in the 210.
The 210 however, does not have the same 'feel' that the Bonanza does.
When you roll the Bonanza over hard you can feel the ailerons moving out into the airflow and 'feel' the work that they are doing. It's almost seems like you are reaching out and carressing the ailerons out into the slipstream and have an intimate feel for what they are doing.
They're both very stable machines at a forward C of G, but on the aft limit they could both be described as feeling a bit 'tender'.
The A36 is a great flying machine, with very little adverse yaw as you roll it into a steep turn with not a lot of back pressure required to hold the attitude. At the risk of getting slapped down hard, I've been all the way round in an A36. It felt just right and did it so easily. Fantastic aeroplane.
Gripes? A couple. It's a hot machine in the summer, not just the direct sunlight but they throw a lot of heat back from behind the panel.
At times they can also come up a bit short on endurance with just on 74 USG available. The 210 will go another hour, the Saratoga two.
If I had to choose between the two I would go for the 210. I just can't get around the load that they will carry, over a long distance at a good airspeed. A great aeroplane. Perhaps the best piston single Cessna ever pushed out the factory doors at Wichita. Apologies, a bit OT there.
I think the original post was about landing the Bonanza with a forward C of G and not getting the nose up far enough, and then rolling it on with all three wheels at the same time. Yes, it's an easy thing to do if one hasn't flown the A36 a lot. With full flap you'll need a decent tug on the yoke to get nose up where you want it. I sometimes leave the flaps at 20 degrees and find it easier to achieve the attitude I'm after. But it's not difficult to achieve consistant touchdowns with the mains on first.
It is an easy aeroplane to land and fly with no hidden vices. The aircraft systems are easy to understand and to use. It's one of the all time classic GA aeroplanes. If you had to pick three aircraft to make the 'classic' list, the Beech Bonanza would be one of them.
That's why it's been in continuous production for nearly sixty years.
210.. Great workhorse/charter/bush machine. Carries a load and flies like a truck
The 210 however, does not have the same 'feel' that the Bonanza does.
When you roll the Bonanza over hard you can feel the ailerons moving out into the airflow and 'feel' the work that they are doing. It's almost seems like you are reaching out and carressing the ailerons out into the slipstream and have an intimate feel for what they are doing.
They're both very stable machines at a forward C of G, but on the aft limit they could both be described as feeling a bit 'tender'.
The A36 is a great flying machine, with very little adverse yaw as you roll it into a steep turn with not a lot of back pressure required to hold the attitude. At the risk of getting slapped down hard, I've been all the way round in an A36. It felt just right and did it so easily. Fantastic aeroplane.
Gripes? A couple. It's a hot machine in the summer, not just the direct sunlight but they throw a lot of heat back from behind the panel.
At times they can also come up a bit short on endurance with just on 74 USG available. The 210 will go another hour, the Saratoga two.
If I had to choose between the two I would go for the 210. I just can't get around the load that they will carry, over a long distance at a good airspeed. A great aeroplane. Perhaps the best piston single Cessna ever pushed out the factory doors at Wichita. Apologies, a bit OT there.
I think the original post was about landing the Bonanza with a forward C of G and not getting the nose up far enough, and then rolling it on with all three wheels at the same time. Yes, it's an easy thing to do if one hasn't flown the A36 a lot. With full flap you'll need a decent tug on the yoke to get nose up where you want it. I sometimes leave the flaps at 20 degrees and find it easier to achieve the attitude I'm after. But it's not difficult to achieve consistant touchdowns with the mains on first.
It is an easy aeroplane to land and fly with no hidden vices. The aircraft systems are easy to understand and to use. It's one of the all time classic GA aeroplanes. If you had to pick three aircraft to make the 'classic' list, the Beech Bonanza would be one of them.
That's why it's been in continuous production for nearly sixty years.
Bonanza's are great aircraft. My Wife was even delivered to our wedding in FCT.
Here is a picture of the Bo I get around in, taken at Norfolk Island when we flew across the ditch.
Bevan..
Here is a picture of the Bo I get around in, taken at Norfolk Island when we flew across the ditch.
Bevan..
For private flying a bonanza is so far ahead of a 210 its just not funny. No dodgy plastics or rattles in the cabin, quality finish all around, easy access via double rear doors, The satisfying clunk when you shut the door is bit like my '77 merc 350SLC and there is MUCH less noise from the slipstream in flight than any 210 i ever flew.
All up a bonanza feels and flies like a baron.
If you cant keep the nosewheel off on touch down you are simply too fast. Apparently common when you first get in one, until you start to relax and have a bit of faith in the wing at lower airspeed. As for CofG you should be more worried about aft CofG when full up than fwd CofG when not.
210 = holden crumbledoor
Bonanza = mercedes
Simply no competition IMHO.
All up a bonanza feels and flies like a baron.
If you cant keep the nosewheel off on touch down you are simply too fast. Apparently common when you first get in one, until you start to relax and have a bit of faith in the wing at lower airspeed. As for CofG you should be more worried about aft CofG when full up than fwd CofG when not.
210 = holden crumbledoor
Bonanza = mercedes
Simply no competition IMHO.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty stupid comment there guys, the conventional tailplane A36 must be slower than the V tail, both the ones i fly are 82 models, and have the 3 blade mac prop.
And Beach Kingyeah sorry they have the IO 520..... i swap between 4 types every second day, so you get a bit confused on occasion but i fly IO 520's 540's and 550's......
And Beach Kingyeah sorry they have the IO 520..... i swap between 4 types every second day, so you get a bit confused on occasion but i fly IO 520's 540's and 550's......
Last edited by 4SPOOLED; 8th Dec 2006 at 10:32.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Victoria
Age: 56
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers all,
especially CC and RS. BTW - Checked up on MMB - on a long term dry lease with view to purchase. A pity - looked very nice.
Let the search begin........
PHTR
especially CC and RS. BTW - Checked up on MMB - on a long term dry lease with view to purchase. A pity - looked very nice.
Let the search begin........
PHTR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty stupid comment there guys, the conventional tailplane A36 must be slower than the V tail, both the ones i fly are 82 models, and have the 3 blade mac prop.
And Beach Kingyeah sorry they have the IO 520..... i swap between 4 types every second day, so you get a bit confused on occasion but i fly IO 520's 540's and 550's......
And Beach Kingyeah sorry they have the IO 520..... i swap between 4 types every second day, so you get a bit confused on occasion but i fly IO 520's 540's and 550's......
As I said, I rarely fly below 7000' at 2300/full throttle (21"?) where I get a very consistent 160 from my Scimitar prop'd V35B. I have been told that it is a couple of kts slower with the Scimitar prop - but it climbs like it is on rails. I generally make A100 in 10 min at 100 IAS, full tanks and one up.
I am curious now and at the first opportunity I will take it for a low level lap at 24/24 to see what it will do.
Couple of fallacies:
1) the V-tail is faster than the straight tail. My recollection from direct comparisons between similar BE35 and BE33 (?) is that they give the same speed. The V-tail has one less surface but is larger and heavier than the straight-tail. I would expect the BE36 to be a bit slower than the 35/33 (as Chimbu has indicated) cause the fuselage is bigger.
2) the V-tail wags its tail cause it doesn't have a vertical fin. Not so! It is a characteristic of the general design. The 33, 35 and 36 all do it in turbulence - as does the Baron. However it is true that the V-tail is the rock and roll king.
3) the V-tail goes faster if you "get it on the step" by climbing a bit past the desired altitude and then trimming it nose down to straight and level. After flying my Fork-tailed Dr Killer for quite a few hundred hours, I don't believe this is true. Climb it to the desired altitude - hit the Alt button on the AP, close the cowl flaps, bring set 2300 rpm and lean the mixture and it will settle itself to the same TAS as it will if you climb an extra 200' and then slowly trim in nose down to S&L while doing the above.
As for the C210 - well the fastest one I have flown gave a consistent 175 at 24/full throttle (21?) at height, while the slowest one ploughed along at 155 on the same power setting. I have spent a bit of time in a couple of new ones (back in the early 80's) and flown as per above I would have said the average was about 165 kts TAS.
R
Last edited by Ratshit; 8th Dec 2006 at 12:21.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company plans 145 through FP3000 and i usually cruise A085, or A095, on the GPS it will usually give me in the 150's although depends on the wind.....i have seen her GS up around the 170's on occasion however. Under A065 she will indicate a tadd over 140 any higher and it starts to drop back a tad. If i cruise any lower than 5500 (very rare) i use 23' 2400. EGT peaks and then 75 off usually gives 60lph on the fuel computer. Use 74lph for climb or 17 on the fuel flow indicator, as one A36 doesnt have a fuel computer. I find she will also climb at least at 750fpm if you use 110 IAS
Much prefer them to the 210 as i said earlier!
Much prefer them to the 210 as i said earlier!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company plans 145 through FP3000 and i usually cruise A085, or A095, on the GPS it will usually give me in the 150's although depends on the wind.....i have seen her GS up around the 170's on occasion however. Under A065 she will indicate a tadd over 140 any higher and it starts to drop back a tad. If i cruise any lower than 5500 (very rare) i use 23' 2400. EGT peaks and then 75 off usually gives 60lph on the fuel computer. Use 74lph for climb or 17 on the fuel flow indicator, as one A36 doesnt have a fuel computer. I find she will also climb at least at 750fpm if you use 110 IAS. Much prefer them to the 210 as i said earlier!
As I said above my V35B at A090 on 2300/full throttle (21") and 25 ROP gives 140 IAS and 160 TAS.
My GS record to date is 245 kts enroute YBCS-YBTL.
Going into YBTL from the SW a couple of years ago I was letting down from 9000 at 193 kts GS, and was cleared for a visual appr straight in to RWY 01 when a QF 737 went over the top of me heading north to intercept the TL RWY 01 ILS.
There I am with the 73 settling into the ILS out my left window - and I am pulling ahead of him on a converging track for the 01 threshold.
Thought "Humm, this will be interesting"!
Eventually couldn't stand the suspenders anymore and the following exchange occurred:
Me: "XXX, am I No.1 or No.2 to the jet?"
TL Tower: "You're No.2!" (somewhat abruptly)
Me: "XXX, ah OK, I better slow down then and let the old fella catch up"
TL Tower: "XXX is that a turbine Bonanza?" (I suspect after looking at his radar screen)
Me: "Nope! It's just a quick one!"
TL Tower: "OK, I'll remember that for next time!"
Then of course, being Townsville, I had go for a right base onto 07 to let the 737 land on 01, when I could just as easily have landed on 01 ahead of him and turned off at the first taxyway.
I WAS THERE FIRST!
R
Last edited by Ratshit; 8th Dec 2006 at 12:18. Reason: Needed tidying up!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown a Lance, 210's and Barons
A Baron is a serious pilots aircraft. Its very well made and goes like the clappers.
Great fun to fly!
I have heard the Bonanza flies a similar way.
The pole isn't a big drama once you get used to it. Same with the throttle in the middle and the gear and flap selector reversed. Some of the latest models have a guard on the gear selector so you cannot mistake it as a flap selector. Not sure if the Bonanza has the same thing.
Someone mentioned the middle 2 windows double as emergency exits - Its a fantastic idea!
A Lance is a bit of a truck. It takes its time climbing and uses the curvature of the earth to get airborne. It is pretty simple aircraft - No cowl flaps and some still have the gear auto extend fitted, Manual gear extension just requires gravity. I hear the Saratoga's are nicer because they have the tapered wing rather than the Lance's Hershey Bar wing.
Club seating allows more legroom in the rear. The middle row with forward facing seats legroom is almost non existant, especially if you are a tall pilot!
There is also a lever by the left middle row pax's feet to drain fuel, I'm paranoid a pax with high heels will rest her heel on the leaver and drain fuel from the aircraft in flight!
The 210 is a work horse. It is louder in the cabin than the Lance. Little bit more complex with cowl flaps etc. The 210M model I flew still had gear doors fitted and it went 5-10ish knots faster than others I have flown. The 210N model has a few more refinements, like the improved undercarriage system, improved seatbelts and a backlit panel where all the switches are. I find the rear 2 seats a bit narrow, and getting pax back there is a bit of a mission. (much easier with the rear entry door in the Lance/Baron/Bonanza)
Just my 3 cents.
Its a good thread guys.
A Baron is a serious pilots aircraft. Its very well made and goes like the clappers.
Great fun to fly!
I have heard the Bonanza flies a similar way.
The pole isn't a big drama once you get used to it. Same with the throttle in the middle and the gear and flap selector reversed. Some of the latest models have a guard on the gear selector so you cannot mistake it as a flap selector. Not sure if the Bonanza has the same thing.
Someone mentioned the middle 2 windows double as emergency exits - Its a fantastic idea!
A Lance is a bit of a truck. It takes its time climbing and uses the curvature of the earth to get airborne. It is pretty simple aircraft - No cowl flaps and some still have the gear auto extend fitted, Manual gear extension just requires gravity. I hear the Saratoga's are nicer because they have the tapered wing rather than the Lance's Hershey Bar wing.
Club seating allows more legroom in the rear. The middle row with forward facing seats legroom is almost non existant, especially if you are a tall pilot!
There is also a lever by the left middle row pax's feet to drain fuel, I'm paranoid a pax with high heels will rest her heel on the leaver and drain fuel from the aircraft in flight!
The 210 is a work horse. It is louder in the cabin than the Lance. Little bit more complex with cowl flaps etc. The 210M model I flew still had gear doors fitted and it went 5-10ish knots faster than others I have flown. The 210N model has a few more refinements, like the improved undercarriage system, improved seatbelts and a backlit panel where all the switches are. I find the rear 2 seats a bit narrow, and getting pax back there is a bit of a mission. (much easier with the rear entry door in the Lance/Baron/Bonanza)
Just my 3 cents.
Its a good thread guys.
