One-up in an A36
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One-up in an A36
Flew an early model A36 yesterday, my first drive of the type since 1975. As I flaired to land I was somewhat surprised to find that although I ended up with the wheel on the rear stop, the nose attitude was not as high as I was looking for. From the feel of it the aeroplane touched on all 3 wheels at the same time.
I have flown most of the Bonanza, Debonair and Baron models and am very current in the V35B, but can't say I recall ever running out of elevator authority before.
Is it common practice to put some ballast in the back of the A36 flown one-up?
R
I have flown most of the Bonanza, Debonair and Baron models and am very current in the V35B, but can't say I recall ever running out of elevator authority before.
Is it common practice to put some ballast in the back of the A36 flown one-up?
R
Grandpa Aerotart
No ballast required in my A36.
With 2 'normal' size adult males
and full tanks my Bo is inside the front CofG limit...not a huge way inside but comfortably so.
When I first started flying my Bo I found that happening too...touched down ever so gently with the nose wheel barely off the ground. I was landing too fast.
With 2 'normal' size adult males
and full tanks my Bo is inside the front CofG limit...not a huge way inside but comfortably so.When I first started flying my Bo I found that happening too...touched down ever so gently with the nose wheel barely off the ground. I was landing too fast.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuckles et al
is almost always the problem.
The position of the Centre of Pressure and the downwash IGE from the flaps in the landing configuration is the culprit, take the thrust vector out when you "flare" and wheelbarrows R us.
The elevator authority is designed and certified to the numbers. More authority than necessary costs weight and drag.
Mooney is a good example, one of the reasons it is so fast relatively speaking is the small all moving trimable empennage for gross pitch control and smallish elevator for fine adjustments. If you dont trim (the empennage) for the landing config you'll run out of elevator way soon with a hard arrival and/or the inevitable excursion off the runway on the nose wheel. The whole thing is exacerbated by the short legs and proximity of the wing to the ground and the resultant effect. Dunno whether this is part of the "endorsement" process but as most dudes go from a C152/172 to Mooney I am not surprised that they are surprised by their behaviour.
Its really simple but I rarely meet anyone who has thought it through rather than monkey see monkey do with the instructor.
I was landing too fast.
The position of the Centre of Pressure and the downwash IGE from the flaps in the landing configuration is the culprit, take the thrust vector out when you "flare" and wheelbarrows R us.
The elevator authority is designed and certified to the numbers. More authority than necessary costs weight and drag.
Mooney is a good example, one of the reasons it is so fast relatively speaking is the small all moving trimable empennage for gross pitch control and smallish elevator for fine adjustments. If you dont trim (the empennage) for the landing config you'll run out of elevator way soon with a hard arrival and/or the inevitable excursion off the runway on the nose wheel. The whole thing is exacerbated by the short legs and proximity of the wing to the ground and the resultant effect. Dunno whether this is part of the "endorsement" process but as most dudes go from a C152/172 to Mooney I am not surprised that they are surprised by their behaviour.
Its really simple but I rarely meet anyone who has thought it through rather than monkey see monkey do with the instructor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of really smartarse replies came to mind when I read your post - but I suspect you did not intend to stir me up.
As a matter of fact I did note the ASI pre-start. It read 0 kts or there abouts.
It came up to 80 kts on TO and then wandered all over the place.
R
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not flown the V tail, but find the newer model is the same, she will do a 3 pointer if you are over 78 knots , so i usually aim for 78 when i close the throttle and wash off the 8 knots in the flare touching the wheels at around 70 knots. I have about 50 hours on the A36, beaut aircraft, far better than the noisy 210's, but those verniers can make you come unstuck if its a gusty final and your winding away! also make sure you say FLAPS IDENTIFIED in your head before you raise the flap, because the gear and flap levers are the wrong bloody way around and i have heard a few ending up on there belly when the pilot pulled the gear on the run on a bumpy gravel strip, squat switch triggered and bottoms away!
4S
4S
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Rat, Agree with the above posts regarding high approach speed. With full flaps my A36 will stall at 56 knots, and if you have to do a short field landing you can just about scrape the tail on the ground with a large nose up attitude.
Have only done about 70 hours in the forky tail, but the thing that struck me compared to an A36 was the light feel of the elevator. This is due to the A36 having a huge lead weight on the elevator cable. The V series does not have this, and thus if not familiar with the A36 may appear to be at the end of elevator travel.
If I find myself the only POB in the situation where I have to flair >70knots, I wind on some extra back trim so that some slight foward pressure is needed to maintain the approach angle, then not as much back pressure is needed to flair
Lets not get into the 210 v bonanza debate again!
They are chalk and cheese.
210.. Great workhorse/charter/bush machine. Carries a load and flies like a truck (and a Mack at that, as Kenworths steer a heap better and nowhere near as rough or ugly)
Bonanza.. Unbreakable easy to fly good fast personal transport.
Have only done about 70 hours in the forky tail, but the thing that struck me compared to an A36 was the light feel of the elevator. This is due to the A36 having a huge lead weight on the elevator cable. The V series does not have this, and thus if not familiar with the A36 may appear to be at the end of elevator travel.
If I find myself the only POB in the situation where I have to flair >70knots, I wind on some extra back trim so that some slight foward pressure is needed to maintain the approach angle, then not as much back pressure is needed to flair
Lets not get into the 210 v bonanza debate again!
They are chalk and cheese.
210.. Great workhorse/charter/bush machine. Carries a load and flies like a truck (and a Mack at that, as Kenworths steer a heap better and nowhere near as rough or ugly)
Bonanza.. Unbreakable easy to fly good fast personal transport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a big strong boy and I know when the control column goes "clunk" against the stops!
I think the speed of the approach may be the key issue although I am quite sure the aeroplane was stalled just as it touched down (power off, wheel back on the stops, stall horn swarking, aeroplane sinking onto the runway).
As indicated above the ASI was U/S so the approach may well have been faster than ideal.
I can see how using the trim may relieve some of the control forces, but can't wrap my head around how more nose up trim would have allowed the nose to be raised higher in the circumstances.
I only asked the question cause it was a bit of a surprise that I ran out of elevator in the A36 after flying the V35B which, as you say, is very light in the elevators.
R
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Victoria
Age: 56
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, slightly off thread here, but the door is cracked open...............
I'm currently flying an Arrow, and the time has come to move on.
My question has distilled down to Saratoga vs A36. (Not interested in a 210)
My mission - mainly flying myself around (IFR) the countryside (work related) and occasional family outback tours (Wife 55 Kg, Girls aged 5 and 2, dogs). Never really planning to carry 6 PAX.
Why should I choose an A36 over the Saratoga?.
Bear in mind cost considerations will probably limit me to an early-mid 70's A36 compared to an early-mid 80's Saratoga.
Finally, a quick summary of what I have already learned...
1. A36 is "pilots aircraft", Saratoga more of a load-hauler
2. Older A36 may have spar cap corrosion issues
3. About 10 knots cruise speed difference
4. A36 needs more runway
5. No club seating in A36 until about 197? models
6. A36 looks nicer!
Any/all opinions (and even facts!) gratefully accepted.
Also interested in comparative maint/insurance costs.
PHTR
I'm currently flying an Arrow, and the time has come to move on.
My question has distilled down to Saratoga vs A36. (Not interested in a 210)
My mission - mainly flying myself around (IFR) the countryside (work related) and occasional family outback tours (Wife 55 Kg, Girls aged 5 and 2, dogs). Never really planning to carry 6 PAX.
Why should I choose an A36 over the Saratoga?.
Bear in mind cost considerations will probably limit me to an early-mid 70's A36 compared to an early-mid 80's Saratoga.
Finally, a quick summary of what I have already learned...
1. A36 is "pilots aircraft", Saratoga more of a load-hauler
2. Older A36 may have spar cap corrosion issues
3. About 10 knots cruise speed difference
4. A36 needs more runway
5. No club seating in A36 until about 197? models
6. A36 looks nicer!
Any/all opinions (and even facts!) gratefully accepted.
Also interested in comparative maint/insurance costs.
PHTR
RS,
Did you, or have you subsequently done a weight and balance for the aircraft? Possibly an individual aircraft with a forward CG problem?
Did you, or have you subsequently done a weight and balance for the aircraft? Possibly an individual aircraft with a forward CG problem?
Grandpa Aerotart
PilotHTR
In your situation you don't need an A36 but there are more of them around than V35s and E33s and most of the 33/35s in Oz are late 60s models where the oldest 36 is a 1970 model...actually mine is a 1970 model but there are 4 older ones than mine still in Oz.
35s had a structural issue with the V tail but I would be surprised if any are left that haven't been modded.
The 35 has a well known (airsick inducing for the rear pax) tail waggle in turbulence that is less an issue in straight tail short bodied Bonanzas such as the 33 and a non issue in the long body 36.
Yes older Bonanzas can have spar cap corrosion issues...mine did at one point and I had to change out a spar...not cheap but if you get it at the right price to begin with not a show stopper either. All older aeroplanes can have corrosion issues and, as one engineer put it to me, Bonanzas are overall less of a drama in that area than Pipers or Cessnas.
Cost of operation between a 33/35 and 36 will be near identical as they share the same engine, prop, wing and undercarriage. Overall costs might be a little higher than equivalent Cessna or Piper but there wouldn't be much in it. Bonanza parts are more expensive but they are built so much better that you don't need to buy parts all that often. In quality of build nothing else comes close to a Bonanza...36s have never been out of production so parts are available for everything even if the prices can be eye watering.
Cost of insurance/operation will mostly be impacted by the decision to have retractable undercarriage or fixed rather than other areas between the 4/6 seater choices.
The Saratoga has the baggage compartment between the engine and cabin which is great but I would suggest you will never use it as with your typical loads forward CofG will preclude it. Bonanzas flown with 6 bums have a real problem with where to put 'stuff'...flown as 4 seaters it is never an issue.
Club seating became a standard fit in 1970...about 4 or 6 serial numbers after mine. I don't see it as a hugely attractive option as with normal seating the middle seats can fold down flat and my daughter likes that option so she can sleep enroute. We call it Raffles class. With the two rear seats either removed or folded up there is a huge, easily accessed area for bags.
The big windows in a Bo give an unparralled view for all...but that comes with a price in terms of radiant heat at low altitude in summer time...you really need curtains...but the aircraft also has great vents for each seat. The aircraft also has great heating front and back when it's cold. 210s as an example are like ice boxes in the rear seats with truly crap heating...not sure about pipers. The middle row emergency exits are an industry leading feature in the Bo. Large enough for even a large adult to climb out and they fold up and completely out of the way when used as an emergency exit but open only a few inches when used as ventilation on the ground. I would say there is no better single engine aircraft when it comes to crashworthiness.
Much is made of the lack of ergonomics in the control layout on Bonanzas and yes it is an unusual failing in an otherwise amazing aeroplane...but it also has its good side...with the single 'throw over' pole and the co pilot peddles that fold flat the entire front right seat is a roomy place for a non flying pax to sit comfortably without worrying about where they puts their feet etc. General seating comfort in all seats of the Bo is excellent...they really are comfy aeroplanes to spend time in...****loads of leg room even in the middle row..I am 6'2" and can sit very comfortably anywhere, except the very rear, in my Bo.
Bonanza handling is fantastic...the 35s are very sporty, the 36s less so but still excellent. Both really need a decent A/P for serious IFR work as they tend to be harder to fly IFR than more stolid types like the Cherokee 6 variants and the 210...the 36 is better than the 35 in this respect.
The 35 can have aft CofG issues at MTOW which the 36 doesn't have.
After market mods and support for the Bo is unrivaled...because there are so many of them. They were the only single engined aircraft that never went out of production..ever...since 1948!!
The type owner/pilot group is huge...and I mean HUGE, and a gold mine of good info. American Bonanza Society and it's Australian affiliate are a must join if you plan to own one. The technical support through this group will save you many multiples of the meager membership costs.
Go out and hire one of each and see for yourself..and after you have flown each one stand back and look at each.
You will end up buying a Bo I bet! The are far and away the best looking, flying and performing single engine aircraft ever built.
In your situation you don't need an A36 but there are more of them around than V35s and E33s and most of the 33/35s in Oz are late 60s models where the oldest 36 is a 1970 model...actually mine is a 1970 model but there are 4 older ones than mine still in Oz.
35s had a structural issue with the V tail but I would be surprised if any are left that haven't been modded.
The 35 has a well known (airsick inducing for the rear pax) tail waggle in turbulence that is less an issue in straight tail short bodied Bonanzas such as the 33 and a non issue in the long body 36.
Yes older Bonanzas can have spar cap corrosion issues...mine did at one point and I had to change out a spar...not cheap but if you get it at the right price to begin with not a show stopper either. All older aeroplanes can have corrosion issues and, as one engineer put it to me, Bonanzas are overall less of a drama in that area than Pipers or Cessnas.
Cost of operation between a 33/35 and 36 will be near identical as they share the same engine, prop, wing and undercarriage. Overall costs might be a little higher than equivalent Cessna or Piper but there wouldn't be much in it. Bonanza parts are more expensive but they are built so much better that you don't need to buy parts all that often. In quality of build nothing else comes close to a Bonanza...36s have never been out of production so parts are available for everything even if the prices can be eye watering.
Cost of insurance/operation will mostly be impacted by the decision to have retractable undercarriage or fixed rather than other areas between the 4/6 seater choices.
The Saratoga has the baggage compartment between the engine and cabin which is great but I would suggest you will never use it as with your typical loads forward CofG will preclude it. Bonanzas flown with 6 bums have a real problem with where to put 'stuff'...flown as 4 seaters it is never an issue.
Club seating became a standard fit in 1970...about 4 or 6 serial numbers after mine. I don't see it as a hugely attractive option as with normal seating the middle seats can fold down flat and my daughter likes that option so she can sleep enroute. We call it Raffles class. With the two rear seats either removed or folded up there is a huge, easily accessed area for bags.
The big windows in a Bo give an unparralled view for all...but that comes with a price in terms of radiant heat at low altitude in summer time...you really need curtains...but the aircraft also has great vents for each seat. The aircraft also has great heating front and back when it's cold. 210s as an example are like ice boxes in the rear seats with truly crap heating...not sure about pipers. The middle row emergency exits are an industry leading feature in the Bo. Large enough for even a large adult to climb out and they fold up and completely out of the way when used as an emergency exit but open only a few inches when used as ventilation on the ground. I would say there is no better single engine aircraft when it comes to crashworthiness.
Much is made of the lack of ergonomics in the control layout on Bonanzas and yes it is an unusual failing in an otherwise amazing aeroplane...but it also has its good side...with the single 'throw over' pole and the co pilot peddles that fold flat the entire front right seat is a roomy place for a non flying pax to sit comfortably without worrying about where they puts their feet etc. General seating comfort in all seats of the Bo is excellent...they really are comfy aeroplanes to spend time in...****loads of leg room even in the middle row..I am 6'2" and can sit very comfortably anywhere, except the very rear, in my Bo.
Bonanza handling is fantastic...the 35s are very sporty, the 36s less so but still excellent. Both really need a decent A/P for serious IFR work as they tend to be harder to fly IFR than more stolid types like the Cherokee 6 variants and the 210...the 36 is better than the 35 in this respect.
The 35 can have aft CofG issues at MTOW which the 36 doesn't have.
After market mods and support for the Bo is unrivaled...because there are so many of them. They were the only single engined aircraft that never went out of production..ever...since 1948!!
The type owner/pilot group is huge...and I mean HUGE, and a gold mine of good info. American Bonanza Society and it's Australian affiliate are a must join if you plan to own one. The technical support through this group will save you many multiples of the meager membership costs.
Go out and hire one of each and see for yourself..and after you have flown each one stand back and look at each.
You will end up buying a Bo I bet! The are far and away the best looking, flying and performing single engine aircraft ever built.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 7th Dec 2006 at 06:31.
Grandpa Aerotart
A 36 is 5 kts slower...I don't think so
155 for a typical 210 v 165 for a typical 36 v a little quicker again for a typical 35.
I can slow my Bo down to 155 by operating well lean of peak EGT and only burn 49 liters/hr while the 210 is burning 60 doing 155ktas...faster my arse
Lets face it...210, V35 and A36 share the same engine/prop...which aeroplane is sleeker and lighter at MTOW?
210s and the Cherokee 6 variants are great load haulers...but you pay a price for that.
155 for a typical 210 v 165 for a typical 36 v a little quicker again for a typical 35.
I can slow my Bo down to 155 by operating well lean of peak EGT and only burn 49 liters/hr while the 210 is burning 60 doing 155ktas...faster my arse
Lets face it...210, V35 and A36 share the same engine/prop...which aeroplane is sleeker and lighter at MTOW?
210s and the Cherokee 6 variants are great load haulers...but you pay a price for that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PilotHTR
I forgive you for hijacking my thread cause I think it is done and you pose an interesting question.
I have a 1977 low time (3000 h) V35B (dry leased - not owned by me). Probably one of the best examples of the breed in the country. I have a bunch of time in this aeroplane and use it for business travel all over Oz, and often fly in reasonable hard core IFR - but avoiding CBs like the plague. I have a few hours in the A36. I have a bunch of time in C210 and PA32 but no time in the Saratoga.
Before I got the "Fork-tailed Doctor Killer" I was a 210 man, but (don't tell anyone) I am rapidly becoming a Bonanza convert and would probably only look at the A36 if I was in the market.
In your situation you don't need an A36 but there are more of them around than V35s and E33s and most of the 33/35s in Oz are late 60s models (with at least one exception) where the oldest 36 is a 1970 model...actually mine is a 1970 model but there are 4 older ones than mine still in Oz.
35s had a structural issue with the V tail but I would be surprised if any are left that haven't been modded. Yep!
The 35 has a well known (airsick inducing) tail waggle in turbulence that is less an issue in straight tail short bodied Bonanzas such as the 33 and a none issue in the long body 36. This is true. I think they all waggle a bit (a characteristic of the design) but the V-tail is the champion. This is not a great issue for front those in the front row because it rotates around your bum, but it can really upset those in the back. I understand a yaw damper helps - and the pilot can limit the waggle somewhat with rudder if you hand fly it - but leave it to the A/P in rough air and it will "rock and roll".
Yes older Bonanzas can have spar cap corrosion issues...mine did at one point and I had to change out a spar...not cheap but if you get it at the right price to begin with not a show stopper either. All older aeroplanes can have corrosion issues and, as one engineer put it to me, Bonanzas are overall less of a drama in that area than Pipers or Cessnas.
Cost of operation between a 33/35 and 36 will be near identical as they share the same engine, prop, wing and undercarriage. Overall costs might be a little higher than equivalent Cessna or Piper but there wouldn't be much in it. Bonanza parts are more expensive but they are built so much better that you don't need to buy parts all that often. In quality of build nothing else comes close to a Bonanza...36s have never been out of prodeuction so parts are available for everything even if the prices can be eye watering. All true!
Cost of insurance/operation will mostly be impacted by the decision to have retractable undercarriage or fixed rather than other areas between the 4/6 seater choices. I have no experience in this area but maybe if you have a chunk of time in a retractable it is less of an issue with the insurer.
The Saratoga has the baggage compartment between the engine and cabin which is great but I would suggest you will never use it as with your typical loads CofG will preclude it. Bonanzas flown with 6 bums have a real problem with where to put 'stuff'...flown as 4 seaters it is never an issue.
Club seating bacame a standard fit in 1970...about 4 or 6 serial numbers after mine. I don't see it as a hugely attractive option as with normal seating the middle seats can fold down flat and my daughter likes that option so she can sleep enroute. We call it Raffles class. With the two rear seats either removed or folded up there is a huge, easily accessed area for bags. If I were buying a new Bonanza I would have it fitted with non-club seating (but unfortunately that is not an option - I don't like club seating and I rarely look to fly with more than 4 plus baggage)
The big windows in a Bo give an unparralled view for all...but that comes with a price in terms of radiant heat at low altitude in summer time...you really need curtains...but the aircraft also has great vents for each seat. The aircraft also has great heating front and back when it's cold. 210s as an example are like ice boxes in the rear seats with truly crap heating...not sure about pipers. The middle row emergency exits are an industry leading feature in the Bo. Large enough for even a large adult to climb out and they fold up and completely out of the way when used as an emergency exit but open only a few inches when used as ventilation on the ground. I would say there is no better single engine aircraft when it comes to crashworthiness. Yep!
Much is made of the lack of ergonomics in the control layout on Bonanzas and yes it is an unusual failing in an otherwise amazing aeroplane...but it also has its good side...with the single 'throw over' pole and the co pilot peddles that fold flat the entire front right seat is a roomy place for a non flying wife to sit comfortably without worrying about where she puts her feet etc. General seating comfort in all seats of the Bo is excellent...they really are comfy aeroplanes to spend time in. The non-standard control layout has never been an issue for me - its just the way Bo's (at least the older ones are). Going from the 210 to the V35 and back is not an issue - though I know some who really bitch about it.
Bonanza handling is fantastic...the 35s are very sporty (Yes, indeeed!), the 36s less so but still excellent (I didn't notice a great difference in the A36 that is the subject of this thread apart from the running out of elevator in the flare (see above)). Both really need a decent A/P for serious IFR work as they tend to be harder to fly IFR than more stolid types like the Cherokee 6 variants and the 210...the 36 is better than the 35 in this respect. This is so - although I am quite happy hand flying the V35 in IFR. I do however use the A/P most of the time. It has almost neutral stability in roll and can get away from you if you are not paying attention.
The 35 can have aft CofG issues at MTOW which the 36 doesn't have.
THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, and is the reason I would buy the A36. The only straight tail Bo I have flown is the Debonair and then I only ever had 2 people in it, so I don't know how it compares with the V35. HOWEVER, for example, if you put full fuel (284 l) and 4 x 80 kg people (no baggage) in my Bo it will be 4 kg overweight and right on the aft C of G limit. The C of G will get slightly worse as it burns fuel so leaving fuel out does not help the C of G issue.
It is usefully a three place aeroplane unless you are carrying small women and children.
After market mods and support for the Bo is unrivaled...because there are so many of them. They were the only single engined aircraft that never went out of production..ever...since 1948!!
The type owner/pilot group is huge...I mean HUGE and a gold mine of good info. American Bonanza Society and it's Australian affiliate are a must join if you plan to own one. The technical support through this group will save you many multiples of the meager membership costs.
Go out and hire one of each and see for yourself..and after you have flown each one stand back and look at each.
You will end up buying a Bo I bet! The are far and away the best looking, flying and performing single engine aircraft ever built.
I suspect CC is right!
I forgive you for hijacking my thread cause I think it is done and you pose an interesting question.
I have a 1977 low time (3000 h) V35B (dry leased - not owned by me). Probably one of the best examples of the breed in the country. I have a bunch of time in this aeroplane and use it for business travel all over Oz, and often fly in reasonable hard core IFR - but avoiding CBs like the plague. I have a few hours in the A36. I have a bunch of time in C210 and PA32 but no time in the Saratoga.
Before I got the "Fork-tailed Doctor Killer" I was a 210 man, but (don't tell anyone) I am rapidly becoming a Bonanza convert and would probably only look at the A36 if I was in the market.
In your situation you don't need an A36 but there are more of them around than V35s and E33s and most of the 33/35s in Oz are late 60s models (with at least one exception) where the oldest 36 is a 1970 model...actually mine is a 1970 model but there are 4 older ones than mine still in Oz.
35s had a structural issue with the V tail but I would be surprised if any are left that haven't been modded. Yep!
The 35 has a well known (airsick inducing) tail waggle in turbulence that is less an issue in straight tail short bodied Bonanzas such as the 33 and a none issue in the long body 36. This is true. I think they all waggle a bit (a characteristic of the design) but the V-tail is the champion. This is not a great issue for front those in the front row because it rotates around your bum, but it can really upset those in the back. I understand a yaw damper helps - and the pilot can limit the waggle somewhat with rudder if you hand fly it - but leave it to the A/P in rough air and it will "rock and roll".
Yes older Bonanzas can have spar cap corrosion issues...mine did at one point and I had to change out a spar...not cheap but if you get it at the right price to begin with not a show stopper either. All older aeroplanes can have corrosion issues and, as one engineer put it to me, Bonanzas are overall less of a drama in that area than Pipers or Cessnas.
Cost of operation between a 33/35 and 36 will be near identical as they share the same engine, prop, wing and undercarriage. Overall costs might be a little higher than equivalent Cessna or Piper but there wouldn't be much in it. Bonanza parts are more expensive but they are built so much better that you don't need to buy parts all that often. In quality of build nothing else comes close to a Bonanza...36s have never been out of prodeuction so parts are available for everything even if the prices can be eye watering. All true!
Cost of insurance/operation will mostly be impacted by the decision to have retractable undercarriage or fixed rather than other areas between the 4/6 seater choices. I have no experience in this area but maybe if you have a chunk of time in a retractable it is less of an issue with the insurer.
The Saratoga has the baggage compartment between the engine and cabin which is great but I would suggest you will never use it as with your typical loads CofG will preclude it. Bonanzas flown with 6 bums have a real problem with where to put 'stuff'...flown as 4 seaters it is never an issue.
Club seating bacame a standard fit in 1970...about 4 or 6 serial numbers after mine. I don't see it as a hugely attractive option as with normal seating the middle seats can fold down flat and my daughter likes that option so she can sleep enroute. We call it Raffles class. With the two rear seats either removed or folded up there is a huge, easily accessed area for bags. If I were buying a new Bonanza I would have it fitted with non-club seating (but unfortunately that is not an option - I don't like club seating and I rarely look to fly with more than 4 plus baggage)
The big windows in a Bo give an unparralled view for all...but that comes with a price in terms of radiant heat at low altitude in summer time...you really need curtains...but the aircraft also has great vents for each seat. The aircraft also has great heating front and back when it's cold. 210s as an example are like ice boxes in the rear seats with truly crap heating...not sure about pipers. The middle row emergency exits are an industry leading feature in the Bo. Large enough for even a large adult to climb out and they fold up and completely out of the way when used as an emergency exit but open only a few inches when used as ventilation on the ground. I would say there is no better single engine aircraft when it comes to crashworthiness. Yep!
Much is made of the lack of ergonomics in the control layout on Bonanzas and yes it is an unusual failing in an otherwise amazing aeroplane...but it also has its good side...with the single 'throw over' pole and the co pilot peddles that fold flat the entire front right seat is a roomy place for a non flying wife to sit comfortably without worrying about where she puts her feet etc. General seating comfort in all seats of the Bo is excellent...they really are comfy aeroplanes to spend time in. The non-standard control layout has never been an issue for me - its just the way Bo's (at least the older ones are). Going from the 210 to the V35 and back is not an issue - though I know some who really bitch about it.
Bonanza handling is fantastic...the 35s are very sporty (Yes, indeeed!), the 36s less so but still excellent (I didn't notice a great difference in the A36 that is the subject of this thread apart from the running out of elevator in the flare (see above)). Both really need a decent A/P for serious IFR work as they tend to be harder to fly IFR than more stolid types like the Cherokee 6 variants and the 210...the 36 is better than the 35 in this respect. This is so - although I am quite happy hand flying the V35 in IFR. I do however use the A/P most of the time. It has almost neutral stability in roll and can get away from you if you are not paying attention.
The 35 can have aft CofG issues at MTOW which the 36 doesn't have.
THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, and is the reason I would buy the A36. The only straight tail Bo I have flown is the Debonair and then I only ever had 2 people in it, so I don't know how it compares with the V35. HOWEVER, for example, if you put full fuel (284 l) and 4 x 80 kg people (no baggage) in my Bo it will be 4 kg overweight and right on the aft C of G limit. The C of G will get slightly worse as it burns fuel so leaving fuel out does not help the C of G issue.
It is usefully a three place aeroplane unless you are carrying small women and children.
After market mods and support for the Bo is unrivaled...because there are so many of them. They were the only single engined aircraft that never went out of production..ever...since 1948!!
The type owner/pilot group is huge...I mean HUGE and a gold mine of good info. American Bonanza Society and it's Australian affiliate are a must join if you plan to own one. The technical support through this group will save you many multiples of the meager membership costs.
Go out and hire one of each and see for yourself..and after you have flown each one stand back and look at each.
You will end up buying a Bo I bet! The are far and away the best looking, flying and performing single engine aircraft ever built.
I suspect CC is right!
However when I win Gold Lotto - I am sure there is a TBM 800 out there with my name on it!
R
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Both the A36's i fly have the IO-540, both i plan 145 and both burn around 60lph. I run 24" 2400rpm unless im cruising above 6500ft where they loose manifold pressure, so full throttle and 2400rpm.
You must be flogging your motor, or the V tails are faster.......
Both the A36's i fly have the IO-540, both i plan 145 and both burn around 60lph. I run 24" 2400rpm unless im cruising above 6500ft where they loose manifold pressure, so full throttle and 2400rpm.
You must be flogging your motor, or the V tails are faster.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 36 is 5 kts slower...I don't think so
155 for a typical 210 v 165 for a typical 36 v a little quicker again for a typical 35.
I can slow my Bo down to 155 by operating well lean of peak EGT and only burn 49 liters/hr while the 210 is burning 60 doing 155ktas...faster my arse
Lets face it...210, V35 and A36 share the same engine/prop...which aeroplane is sleeker and lighter at MTOW?
210s and the Cherokee 6 variants are great load haulers...but you pay a price for that.
155 for a typical 210 v 165 for a typical 36 v a little quicker again for a typical 35.
I can slow my Bo down to 155 by operating well lean of peak EGT and only burn 49 liters/hr while the 210 is burning 60 doing 155ktas...faster my arse
Lets face it...210, V35 and A36 share the same engine/prop...which aeroplane is sleeker and lighter at MTOW?
210s and the Cherokee 6 variants are great load haulers...but you pay a price for that.
My V35B has an IO-520.
I fly it as high as I possibly can to chase a smoother ride up north here, on 2300/full throttle (21") - I figure about 60% power. At that it trues a consistent 160 and burns 50 lph at 25 ROP (as per the book). You could safely get that back to 48 lph if it had an all cylinder engine monitor. If I stoke it up to 2400 it trues 165 and burns 55 lph. If I pull it back to 2200 it trues 155 and burns 45 lph.
R
Grandpa Aerotart
Chimbu sticks fingers in ears, closes eyes tightly and yells lalalalalalalal
My Bo has an IO550b/3 bladed blac mac prop so may be quicker than an original 1970 Bo.
145Ktas?...pull up the wheels.
Oh I see Rat**** neat me to it
My Bo has an IO550b/3 bladed blac mac prop so may be quicker than an original 1970 Bo.
145Ktas?...pull up the wheels.
Oh I see Rat**** neat me to it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers
R