@Medewok and @Off_Field
Yeah, spending 30k on reconditioning the engine after a prop strike doesn’t seem like real value-add, so I’m not sure why they list it that way…
The avionics on that bird look older than the paint, which is kind of backwards.
Pretty plane that has been smacked around, and doesn’t have good avionics.
Tough sell for 80k.
@ all,
the “vintage” Bonanzas, i.e. those with the Continental “E” engines (1947-1956) are rather rare in Europe and command somewhat higher prices due to having that “classic” status nowadays.
Anyway, I would not recommend one of those very old Bonanzas to someone who just wants to have a practical airplane to get them from A to B. To really enjoy it, you would have to consider the “tinkering part” of it as part of the hobby.
Impossible to give clear numbers on operating costs of these birds. I mean: fuel, hangarage, landing fees etc. are fairly easy to calculate. But as always with such old aircraft, maintenance and airworthiness are the big unknowns. In the case of these old Bonanzas, it is hugely dependent on the single aircraft you are looking at. How well has it been taken car of? What mods have been made? What engine/prop combination is installed? What ADs apply and which of those have been complied with? What kind of mandatory recurrent inspections will there be? This really requires a lot of knowlede if you don’t want to face big surprises that may surpass the value of the airframe.
Those who understand German can read up on this in the next issue of PuF. It will contain an article about these very early Bonanzas. 
I know zero zilch nothing about Bonanzas from personal experience (well I was looking at a new A36 in 2002 but didn’t have enough money, plus there were other reasons) but I am told you need a good engineer to look after them. One reason given is poor access to some areas up front and some “interesting” engineering solutions.
Those who understand German can read up on this in the next issue of PuF. It will contain an article about these very early Bonanzas
I doubt PuF has the ~1500 readers per day which EuroGA has
BeechBaby wrote:
Like the car dealer, sells you the car, then screws you senseless for the next three years. To keep in warranty, you must get it serviced,by us.
I am very happy to say I screwed a used car salesman in California, way back. He had offered me an “extended warranty” that I was not sure I wanted, I agreed to the purchase, he made his little raindance, showed me the picture of his GF and child, welcomed me to his “growing family of happy customers”, yaddi yadda… I went over to the office to sign and pay, told them I did not want the extended warrant, did not pay for it.
Weeks later I received the paperwork for the extended warranty. I thought of calling to say I had waived it, but decided instead that if I ever had a problem that could be covered by that warranty, I would play innocent and present the certificate.
Just before selling the car, the gearbox developed a leak in the driveshaft seal. I took it in with the warranty and got it fixed for free!
Not bad for a (way too honest) Scandinavian.
@boscomantico
Your comments are exactly what I’ve come away with while reading forums and literature on the Bonanzas.
It is like a minefield, where there are gold nuggets and bombs, and only the elite knowledgeable few actually can tell the difference between them.
The older E engines look attractive for the Mogas STC. The cruise speed isn’t phenomenal, but fuel costs come in about the same as a Mooney, which makes them look quite attractive from the operational standpoint.
However, useful load isn’t that great, there are a number of issues with the airframes (AD’s) and from what I understand, the 6 cylinder Conti’s are more expensive to maintain than the 4-banger Lycomings.
Which, for a noob like myself, makes it look awful daunting to walk into that minefield with no real knowledge of the situation.
So I read like an idiot, hours at a time, and feel like I come away knowing at least nothing more than I went in with…
I look at the beautiful pictures, see the V-Tails at airfields and go, “Oh man, beautiful”, but its like a pretty bug or snake… great to look at, but do you really want to touch it?
Probably not. :(
So I’m quite happy for the moment with my 201, which flies cheaply through the air, has few AD’s and is built like a freakin’ tank.
I don’t like the elevator control on landing (too stiff), but everything else is fine for me. She flies like a beaut, is quiet enough, and gets great fuel economy, especially when dialed down just a bit to say, 140kts.
But that hot chick with the V-Tail is eye-catching.
I dare not call myself bilingual, but I believe I understand German reasonably enough to amble through an article on the Bo’s.
Should I subscribe to PuF or will the article be free-to-read for mooches like myself?
Hard to beat the Mooney’s on fuel economy and range. They’re in a class by themselves there.
AF wrote:
Anyone have experience with Bo’s that can shed some light on this option?
I have owned and operated mine since 2006. 10 years. Bonanza N35, IO-470N. The first thing I did was transfer it to FAA. Mainly for STC, and field work. Also there were some mods I wanted which were not possible to complete under EASA regs. The situation is changing, but it still is better to be N Reg.
Beautiful to look at – beauty being in the eye of the beholder, very stable IFR platform, great touring aeroplane. My useful load is 1280lbs, wife. two kids, 200lbs baggage. Right within the envelope. I plan 165kts, 10.2 US. I can do Glasgow to Perranporth in Cornwall, in two hours ten minutes. Right within the envelope. For a myriad of reasons the earlier models have the greater useful loads. I plan 165kts, at 10.2 galls.
Maintenance, undoubtably the greatest issue, as it is with a lot of UK GA aircraft. Very limited shops who can look after it. Most have not got a clue, but then, they do not have a clue on most other airframes either. That said, if you look, you will find, and mines has been meticulously looked after having found the ‘one’. It has cost me a small fortune, but……….they are older airframes, and require loving TLC. I owned a Chipmunk before, so I know about high maintenance costs.
FWIW…aeroplane ownership eventually turns into a labour of love. All costs are similar to running a 172, with the exception of fuel and maintenance, It is much larger cabin interior than the Mooneys, an airframe I also like, but agree that overall economy swings in favour of the Mooney.
They are fast, and the usual speed and engine management provisos exist. Good also off grass and not sure why the comment that it would increase maintenance costs was made.
@Beechbaby
Thanks for your reply. Appreciate having more personal experiences, it helps.
BeechBaby wrote:
I plan 165kts, 10.2 US.
That’s miraculous.
Do you lube the plane before you fly or what?!
I’ve heard some amazing numbers, but that is phenomenal.
The IO-470N is not Mogas STC’d is it? (I see IO-470J/K on Petersen’s, but not the N)
What do you pay in yearly maintenance? (all things considered, not just the basics)
TLC included in costs, Rodger that.
I too thought 165kt at 10.2 USG/hr is utterly amazing, for a plane with a cockpit volume like that. Well, it’s a possible TAS at FL200 or some such, with a turbo, on a TIO360 or similar.
The V-tail Bonanzas are ‘slippier’. They have less resistance because they only have two tail wings instead of three. That’s an established fact. So, yes, the V-tails are very fast, and can reach 165 kts with the IO470, but I didn’t know they only need 10.2 USG/hr – that’s truly amazing !! On the down side, I’ve heard that the V-tails have a bit less stability about the vertical axis, which causes them to ‘wiggle’ with the behind a bit. I don’t know if there are yaw dampers available.
I own an F33A from 1992, together with another chap, so we share the cost and so far we haven’t run into time collisions. The plane only has 1300hrs on the airframe. This plane is just wonderful. I usually plan for 160 kts when filing a flight plan, being cautious, but yesterday I had 170kts TAS in FL85 (@13.5 USG/hr). Bonanzas are very sturdily built, the gear is the same as in the Baron (twin) and very robust. It has ample useful load, I can fly all my missions easily. 3 persons, or 2 adults + 2 children, with luggage, and full tanks aren’t a problem. Total endurance is 5:30 hrs, so a 4:30 flight time gives you a range of 700-750 miles.
It is absolutely great on grass (actually it was built for grass), liftoff speed is 65kts, less with approach flaps, and stall speed with full flaps is 52 kts ! That very same plane goes 170kts ! Which makes it very versatile, a very stable IR platform. I just love the bird.
What was said above about finding the right model: yes, that’s true. But it applies to all planes. Bonanzas are usually well maintained, I have found, and it’s probably more a question of avionics. If you find a nicely kept model, maintenance is not really an issue. In beechtalk, there is a million and one threads about what to look for, in which model, and they help everybody….
Buying one in Europe can be difficult, because only few are on sale at any given time. That’s because whoever owns one, either doesn’t want to sell at all, or if he does, there’ll be plenty of friends queuing up, so most aren’t sold publicly. That’s how I got my ‘half’, through word of mouth and instant decision. As far as I can tell, that’s a problem that applies to every model. Probably, the ones ending up on the market are the lemons ?
One way to get one might be becoming a member of the EBS, the European Bonanza Society, which is the European sister of the ABS (American B. Soc.). They usually have their ear in the community, and they can also offer to accompany you should you want to look at one.
That’s how I would do it: register in EBS, get in contact with the people, and ask around.
