BE36 (G36) parked at YBTL today! (Merged)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to make something that is perfect even better:
http://www.pilotjournal.com/content/...tradewind.html
http://www.pilotjournal.com/content/...tradewind.html
Since there are so many Bonanza pilots here in this thread can one of you tell me which models if any require flap for take off?
My interest is in reference to this accident.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a06_1188732892
My interest is in reference to this accident.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a06_1188732892
Chimbu,
Did I read it right in what you said about th Bonanza with tip tanks can carry 400 kg of people + 100 kgs of bags and them have enough fuel for 7+ hrs??. That seems like a big improvement, how is that achieved.
Did I read it right in what you said about th Bonanza with tip tanks can carry 400 kg of people + 100 kgs of bags and them have enough fuel for 7+ hrs??. That seems like a big improvement, how is that achieved.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ahhhh the VY/VX/VT Commorodre is not a VB/VC/VH/VK/VL Commodore arguement!
Ok So I owe you a beer and you owe me one.....which aeroclub then? YRED or YCAB?
Still a mighty fine ride no matter which one.......of course the V-Tail I go to Perth in at the end of October has to be a pretty damn fine hey Doc
J
Ok So I owe you a beer and you owe me one.....which aeroclub then? YRED or YCAB?
Still a mighty fine ride no matter which one.......of course the V-Tail I go to Perth in at the end of October has to be a pretty damn fine hey Doc
J
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very first on its very first. 165 horsepower, 1558 lbs empty, 2550 gross and noted to be a little "sluggish" on take off. Oldest still flying (with Beech Heritage Museum) serial number 18. First 30 or 40 had fabric flaps and ailerons. 1500 built in first year of production.
Thread Starter
PF - that's pretty spectacular.
I doubt however that its related to flap vs no flap.
The POH for my 1977 V35B does not specify flap for normal TO, and I don't use any.
I have been know to hang out 10 degrees when I need to get off the ground quickly, ie 600 m down-hill one-way strip at 35 C.
Dr
I doubt however that its related to flap vs no flap.
The POH for my 1977 V35B does not specify flap for normal TO, and I don't use any.
I have been know to hang out 10 degrees when I need to get off the ground quickly, ie 600 m down-hill one-way strip at 35 C.
Dr
PF - that's pretty spectacular.
I doubt however that its related to flap vs no flap.
I doubt however that its related to flap vs no flap.
I agree, the poster in the forum where I encountered the URL seemed to be blaming the pilot for not using flaps. I've never flown a Bonanza so I have no idea if flaps for take of is normal or not. It's a shame the sound dies out just after lift off, could be interesting to hear the engine.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 43 S
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vee-tail re-born ??
Last month Cirrus Design Corporation released pictures of its Williams jet powered single.
Talking similar take off,approach,landing speeds as their piston singles.
300 knots @ 25000' and it has a v tail !
A new FTDK in the making?
$1.2m us if you're interested
Talking similar take off,approach,landing speeds as their piston singles.
300 knots @ 25000' and it has a v tail !
A new FTDK in the making?
$1.2m us if you're interested
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
... it is effectively a 3 seater aircraft - a very nice, fast 3 seater but a 3 seater none-the-less!
Probably true for 3 blokes your size FTDK!, especially after a feed at the restaurant at the Albert Park in Longreach. But if you have kids or desirable females on board, you can fit 6 POB in easy and still be in the MTOW and COFG with full fuel and overnight gear.
Interesting debate with regards to use of take-off flap in the A36. Most bonanzas (and Barons) have only an "approach" or "down" setting. However some (mine included) have a intermediate position, so that any flap angle can be set. My POH suggests no flap for normal takeoff to give max clearance over 50ft obstacle. But on bush strips (where I do most of my flying) 5 or 10 degree on takeoff results in a considerably shorter ground run, which is helpful in the doughy black soil, and minimizes sticks and cow **** flying up on the takeoff roll. Climbout using this flap setting doesn't appear to be any shallower, but it probably is.
Probably true for 3 blokes your size FTDK!, especially after a feed at the restaurant at the Albert Park in Longreach. But if you have kids or desirable females on board, you can fit 6 POB in easy and still be in the MTOW and COFG with full fuel and overnight gear.
Interesting debate with regards to use of take-off flap in the A36. Most bonanzas (and Barons) have only an "approach" or "down" setting. However some (mine included) have a intermediate position, so that any flap angle can be set. My POH suggests no flap for normal takeoff to give max clearance over 50ft obstacle. But on bush strips (where I do most of my flying) 5 or 10 degree on takeoff results in a considerably shorter ground run, which is helpful in the doughy black soil, and minimizes sticks and cow **** flying up on the takeoff roll. Climbout using this flap setting doesn't appear to be any shallower, but it probably is.
Thread Starter
"But if you have kids or desirable females on board, you can fit 6 POB in easy and still be in the MTOW and COFG with full fuel and overnight gear."
G'day Beach
My comment related to the V35B!
6 POB in the V35B? Now that would be interesting, and I can't say I find stick figures particularly desirable!
For the record, full fuel in my V35B leaves 316 kg for pax and baggage, and you soon run out the rear of the c of g envelope by putting stuff in the baggage compartment.
.... and a big fella like me up front actually helps the C of G, which tends to be more limiting than the Max TOW.
Dr
PS: I guess there could be times when it helps to be a skinny little drought ravaged fella like you!
G'day Beach
My comment related to the V35B!
6 POB in the V35B? Now that would be interesting, and I can't say I find stick figures particularly desirable!
For the record, full fuel in my V35B leaves 316 kg for pax and baggage, and you soon run out the rear of the c of g envelope by putting stuff in the baggage compartment.
.... and a big fella like me up front actually helps the C of G, which tends to be more limiting than the Max TOW.
Dr
PS: I guess there could be times when it helps to be a skinny little drought ravaged fella like you!
Chimbu,
It seems that Bonanza pilots are as biased as some of the Comanche pilots I know. 
Your post got me thinking, a light single engine aircraft that has a 500kg payload with full fuel (7 hours endurance), seemed pretty good. I decided to do some research. Your payload figures on the Comanche 260C and didn’t seem quite right, I don’t own either but have flown in the 260C and the 180, but have never had the pleasure of flying in the Bonanza. After flying in the 260C I was very impressed with what it could haul and how far it could go. Since then I has been my pick of the singles.
Google searching produces the following info. The standard A36 looks to have a 425 kg payload with full fuel (74 USG). The standard Comanche 260C looks to have a 395 kg payload with full fuel (90 USG). The PA24-260 has 30 KG less payload with 16 USG more fuel, or with the same fuel as the A36 has a 435 kg payload. Both the standard A36 and the standard 260C can carry four 100kg adults and 20 to 30 kg of bags and 74 USG.
The Bonanza is about 5 knots faster but burns about 3 USG/hr more. On 74 USG with no reserve the 260C will go about 840 nm and the A36 about 770 nm. Take you pick on which is more important, range or speed. The payload figures I have for standard aircraft give a small win to the 260C. There are plenty of other factors, price, cost of spares, AD’s, etc.
I don’t know where you got your quote from but the data I found for the 400 shows a 185 knot TAS @ 75% which is 25 knot increase in speed for a 6 Usg/Hr increase in fuel flow over the 260C.
The 400’s range at 75% cruise is just over 1000 Nm and over 1200 nm at 55% at 160 knots.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Bonanza is a great aircraft and you can still buy them new. The difference between the two types isn’t that great, it comes down to a matter of personal preference.
Just as well we all don't like the same aircraft, there wouldn't be enough to go a round.
And the 260C with full fuel, including tips, carries two skinny pilots and a brief case...all be it for close to 9hrs...put tip tanks on my Bo and it will carry 4 100kg bums and 100kg of bags for 7+hrs at 166kts.
Your post got me thinking, a light single engine aircraft that has a 500kg payload with full fuel (7 hours endurance), seemed pretty good. I decided to do some research. Your payload figures on the Comanche 260C and didn’t seem quite right, I don’t own either but have flown in the 260C and the 180, but have never had the pleasure of flying in the Bonanza. After flying in the 260C I was very impressed with what it could haul and how far it could go. Since then I has been my pick of the singles.
Google searching produces the following info. The standard A36 looks to have a 425 kg payload with full fuel (74 USG). The standard Comanche 260C looks to have a 395 kg payload with full fuel (90 USG). The PA24-260 has 30 KG less payload with 16 USG more fuel, or with the same fuel as the A36 has a 435 kg payload. Both the standard A36 and the standard 260C can carry four 100kg adults and 20 to 30 kg of bags and 74 USG.
The Bonanza is about 5 knots faster but burns about 3 USG/hr more. On 74 USG with no reserve the 260C will go about 840 nm and the A36 about 770 nm. Take you pick on which is more important, range or speed. The payload figures I have for standard aircraft give a small win to the 260C. There are plenty of other factors, price, cost of spares, AD’s, etc.
As you would expect from aerodynamics 101, the extra 10 GPH the Comanche 400 burns yields only about 10 to 15 extra knots.
And then 400nm later you will be landing for fuel in the 400 Comanche.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Bonanza is a great aircraft and you can still buy them new. The difference between the two types isn’t that great, it comes down to a matter of personal preference.
Just as well we all don't like the same aircraft, there wouldn't be enough to go a round.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
desirable females on board, you can fit 6 POB in easy and still be in the MTOW and COFG with full fuel and overnight gear.
to Ballina for some sun sand and s_x. It all worked perfectly, maybe a little too perfectly....
Forgot to add in my last post.
When you consider that the Bonanza and the Comanche designs go back over 45 years, they are both bench mark aircraft even by todays standards. I don't think the new Cirrus or Diamond aircraft out perform them when you take into consideration, horsepower, payload, speed, range etc.
The real advances are in the the avionics/instrumentation etc which can be retrofitted to a large extent.
When you consider that the Bonanza and the Comanche designs go back over 45 years, they are both bench mark aircraft even by todays standards. I don't think the new Cirrus or Diamond aircraft out perform them when you take into consideration, horsepower, payload, speed, range etc.
The real advances are in the the avionics/instrumentation etc which can be retrofitted to a large extent.
Grandpa Aerotart
Those figures were from aviation consumer aircraft report for the Comanche...I agree however they're both excellent aircraft...I have not flown a Comanche but a really lovely example pitched up at YRED a few months ago...sexy but no head room was my take from a walk around. I think you might find parts are getting scarce for most old Pipers, Comanches in particular...Piper is not great in that respect...Beech/Ratheon/Hawker Beech, whayever it is this week, are excellent for parts availability...and at the prices they charge they'd fecking well wanna be
Jaba the tip tanks on the Bo give about 300lbs (or might be 350lbs) extra usefull load...fuel or bums...my Bo will happily carry 4 100kg bums and about 50kg baggage with full tanks...the tips would lift the baggage allowance and give 2+ hrs more fuel. 7 x 165kts gives comfortably 1100nm with good reserves
Tips are on my 'to do' list next year...not because I want to fly 1100nm but I will be able to fly to my father's place at Bowral and back without a tech stop at Camden.
Not having to tech stop is a speed mod as much, perhaps more than, Turbonormalising but is cheap by comparison and doesn't raise your operating costs the way pumping the engine full of air/fuel tends to do. As an example I can usually fly YRED -YBCS downwind non stop but have to land somewhere on the way back because I am JUST short of enough fuel to be safe/smart. YRED-YMIG-YRED is not possible no matter what...I would save at least an hour all up with the tips...imagine how much faster I would have to fly to save 60 minutes CNS-YRED or Mittagong-YRED.
Agreed on the beers...it's a draw
Jaba the tip tanks on the Bo give about 300lbs (or might be 350lbs) extra usefull load...fuel or bums...my Bo will happily carry 4 100kg bums and about 50kg baggage with full tanks...the tips would lift the baggage allowance and give 2+ hrs more fuel. 7 x 165kts gives comfortably 1100nm with good reserves
Tips are on my 'to do' list next year...not because I want to fly 1100nm but I will be able to fly to my father's place at Bowral and back without a tech stop at Camden.
Not having to tech stop is a speed mod as much, perhaps more than, Turbonormalising but is cheap by comparison and doesn't raise your operating costs the way pumping the engine full of air/fuel tends to do. As an example I can usually fly YRED -YBCS downwind non stop but have to land somewhere on the way back because I am JUST short of enough fuel to be safe/smart. YRED-YMIG-YRED is not possible no matter what...I would save at least an hour all up with the tips...imagine how much faster I would have to fly to save 60 minutes CNS-YRED or Mittagong-YRED.
Agreed on the beers...it's a draw
Chimbu,
Agree on the Tips as a cheap speed mod as far as speed mod prices go. They still don't come cheap from what I hear.
I don't know what research you have done on them. Don't forget that there is an empty weight penalty with the tips, prob about 25 to 30 lbs. What I'm saying is you don't get to use all of the increased take off weight as payload. Also in some tip tank installations the increased weight must be as fuel in the tips, i.e. the increased weight cannot apply if the tips are empty.
Agree on the Tips as a cheap speed mod as far as speed mod prices go. They still don't come cheap from what I hear.
I don't know what research you have done on them. Don't forget that there is an empty weight penalty with the tips, prob about 25 to 30 lbs. What I'm saying is you don't get to use all of the increased take off weight as payload. Also in some tip tank installations the increased weight must be as fuel in the tips, i.e. the increased weight cannot apply if the tips are empty.
Grandpa Aerotart
Yup...but the D'Shannon ones give you the extra whether full or empty...don't ask me how
At about USD8k they are a crapload less than the TN kit at about 4 times that and a LOT simpler to fit...the TN also gives you a gross weight increase in the range of several 100 lbs but they are not cumulative.
At about USD8k they are a crapload less than the TN kit at about 4 times that and a LOT simpler to fit...the TN also gives you a gross weight increase in the range of several 100 lbs but they are not cumulative.
Grandpa Aerotart
Just watched that crash...pretty sad...although there are no figures for flap use on takeoff in the POH that is a change that just 'happened' at some point many years ago...they were removed...probably by Lawyers...as stated by others a little flap does nice things for your ground roll and not a lot to the climb out...vortex generators are pretty clever too.
Just from watching the tape I ponder whether using 10 degrees of flap and getting the wheels up asap might have made a VERY BIG difference...he stagged along for quite a while...had he had a little more lift and less drag???
Comments suggest hot and high may have been a factor too...did he lean for takeoff?
That is also why I pull my wheels up VERY quickly on takeoff at shorter strips...like YRED...I don't want to flip like that if the engine fails just airborne when the nosewheel rips off...I want to slide and slow down relatively slowly rather than near instantly.
Very sad bit of film.
Just from watching the tape I ponder whether using 10 degrees of flap and getting the wheels up asap might have made a VERY BIG difference...he stagged along for quite a while...had he had a little more lift and less drag???
Comments suggest hot and high may have been a factor too...did he lean for takeoff?
That is also why I pull my wheels up VERY quickly on takeoff at shorter strips...like YRED...I don't want to flip like that if the engine fails just airborne when the nosewheel rips off...I want to slide and slow down relatively slowly rather than near instantly.
Very sad bit of film.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 4th Sep 2007 at 04:48.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Hangar
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a 210 Driver
Hmm ... flaps vs no flaps on take off is something that has been debated here before, I'm sure.
Why hasn't anyone said anything about the C210 yet ...
It's been said before - no other piston single carries as much, as far, as fast as a (later model) 210. ... and no C of G problems to speak of.
Admittedly the Bo is nicer to fly though.
Why hasn't anyone said anything about the C210 yet ...
It's been said before - no other piston single carries as much, as far, as fast as a (later model) 210. ... and no C of G problems to speak of.
Admittedly the Bo is nicer to fly though.
Just from watching the tape I ponder whether using 10 degrees of flap and getting the wheels up asap might have made a VERY BIG difference...he stagged along for quite a while...had he had a little more lift and less drag???
Comments suggest hot and high may have been a factor too...did he lean for takeoff?
Comments suggest hot and high may have been a factor too...did he lean for takeoff?
I wonder if for some reason he ended up with the aux fuel pump on.
The elevation of that airport is 1286 ft with 4051 ft of runway available but California has had some pretty hot weather over the last week.
Interestingly that was the second crash at that airport that day. A kitfox crashed on takeoff in the early morning but the occupants were able to extract themselves from the wreckage.
