Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Why do Beech Bonanzas have such a strong following?

I have had my V tail for 8 years now, and have over 400 hours PIC in the Bo. I also fly a variety of other types. The Bonanza handles wonderfully, is fast, responsive, can carry my family, on full fuel, at 160kts, with 200 lbs baggage. Now, I appreciate there are other types that could just about do it, but not with the space we have, the all round visibility, and the smooth comfort in ride.

I flew some PA32 guys recently. How smooth, how fast, I can see why you are in love with it, were the comments. In fairness they now understood the facts behind the perception.

You also need to realise that a lot of these planes are over sixty years old. They were doing all of the above, then. The legend was built on that I believe.

It was the forerunner, and with Beech quality, extensive parts, and a support system second to none, it really is hard to beat, quite literally……

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

Correct me if I am wrong but the C210 must be pretty close to the same numbers as the Bonanza?
I got curious and found a POH for the C210M (1977) and an SR20 (2011 edition of POH) and decided to compare some numbers.

At 6000ft in ISA the 3800 lbs C210 is quoted to do 160 ktas on 13.7 gph.
The SR20 at 2600 lbs is quoted to do 159 ktas on 13.1 gph.

It doesn’t look like the SR20 is that much more efficient than the C210, although it does have the gear dangling, but it’s also 1000 lbs lighter.
How do book (or actual) values for the Bonanza compare?
Anyone with a C210 care to comment on its performance in real life vs the book?

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

A Bonanza is a nice aircraft. Its reputation is historical and was certainly justified. There are many more interesting choices now with things like the Cirrus, PA46 and others. But Beech build quality has always been strong.

EGTK Oxford

love my VTail best single engine I have flown.

EBST
Flying the Beech Bonanza is a great primer for the type – a lot of useful performance/principles of flight applied information.
It would be helpful to get some real life information on maintenance. All these older complex aircraft require sensible preventive maintenance budgets, plus the avionics spend to keep up with European regs – 8.33, BRNAV, Mode S (presumably we will be asked to switch to DME/DME in due course).

My annual runs me between $1500 and $2500 per year, with the latter being typical. If the airplane is well maintained, it is not difficult to keep it that way for a substantial number of years without major expenses.

I am not planning on relocating to Europe, but my run of the mill V35A has a GNS530W which is approved for PRNAV, BRNAV, LPV, RNP 0.3 Approach, and has 8.33 frequency spacing. I have a mode S transponder as well. We have enough fun keeping up with our own equipment requirements and I have a compliant ADS-B Out/In system

Some of the older BE-35 versions have magnesium flying controls, and despite the carrier landing build quality, the wings are attached with wing bolts with recurring ADs.

The ruddervators are still made from magnesium, but all other control surfaces are aluminum except for the very oldest of the breed. There are no recurring ADs on the wing bolts, in fact there aren’t any wing bolt ADs on the type. There has never been a recorded wing bolt failure in the Bonanza type, as our president is fond to say, period. There are recurring ADs including a 100 hour inspection which takes a few minutes and a 500 hour inspection of the Spar Carry Thru Structure that takes about 4 hours of labor once the airplane is opened up for the annual.

The 33/35 series do have CofG limitations as fuel burns off, which arguably make them three seaters on some missions.

I consider the 33/35 airplane a good 3 seater under any circumstances airplane and a four seat with minimum or no luggage. It is all CG related, there is ample weight carrying capability. The 35 has a better usable empty weight and CG than the straight tail 33 version although many are mislead by the envelope which indicates the 33 has a more aft CG limit. It needs it because the extra weight in the rear pushes the typical 33 CG aft by more than 2.5 inches. Comparing same year aircraft, the V35B has a 75 to 100 pound advantage over its F33A brother. For comparison, an SR22TN is a good one to two place airplane.

The 36TC is a beautiful evolution of the type, a serious airways SEP which can also operate from grass airfields.

I would prefer the B35TC with the engine upgraded to an IO550TN and tip tanks. It has a 4000 pound gross weight and is a good 4 to 5 place airplane.

On handling the Vike and SIAI Marchetti may have the edge?

It is possible, but of the 40+ types I have flown, I have yet to come across an equal or better.

In terms of economic resilience I think the 182/Six/206 may attract more continuous operating investment and % residual value to original value. A lot of beautiful V-tails, Comanches, 210s are not getting the investment they need to be around ten years from now.

The old 182/Six/and 206 may haul a lot, but they don’t go fast, have poor handling qualities, and rattle themselves apart.

Last Edited by NCYankee at 07 Jun 23:16
KUZA, United States
Correct me if I am wrong but the C210 must be pretty close to the same numbers as the Bonanza?
I got curious and found a POH for the C210M (1977) and an SR20 (2011 edition of POH) and decided to compare some numbers.

At 6000ft in ISA the 3800 lbs C210 is quoted to do 160 ktas on 13.7 gph.
The SR20 at 2600 lbs is quoted to do 159 ktas on 13.1 gph.

It doesn’t look like the SR20 is that much more efficient than the C210, although it does have the gear dangling, but it’s also 1000 lbs lighter.
How do book (or actual) values for the Bonanza compare?

At 8000 feet, ISA day, I cruise between 165 and 168 Kts on 12.5 GPH. At 6000 feet, it is just a bit above 160 to 165 Knots on the same 12.5 GPH. If someone else is paying for the fuel, I can cruise at 175 Kts at 7000 MSL and 16 GPH. I own a 1968 V35A with an IO520BA engine.

KUZA, United States

NCY thanks for the reply.

Here is a link on the wing bolt question which confirms no AD but you are potentially in the Cessna ageing SID territory?

http://www.csobeech.com/wing-bolts.html

Oxford (EGTK)

Calculated my TAS last week. 8000 FT 12.5 GPH 145 IAS OAT about 0 give me 163 Kts TAS with 1600 HRs IO520BA no GAMI’s…yet

NCY & Beech Baby summed it up very good ..it’s by all means a fantastic aircraft to fly (I see already three V members…)

My configuration IO520BA
Three blade
Century C41 Approach capable A/P with electric trim (works very well)
KLN90B/Mode S GTX
KX165 (KCS55A) and GNC255
Stormscope Wx1000E
GEM602 and Shadin FF

When I bought the aircraft last year (V35 1966 Model, allowed for six seats) I decide to add the following safety features
Shoulder straps from Alpha aviation
Eagle fuel drains (great stuff)
Liquidair STC for cooling the engine from GAMI (my cylinders are running cool..hottest 380 max)

Flew last week a GNSS RNAV okay LNAV only approach in Hungary with the old KLN and it works. One downside I found is that you need to X-check always with the KLN to assure sequencing is correct installing the Sandel Sn3500 would seriously reduce the workload as all the info is in front of you…
The previous owner had completely alodined inside the airframe with the same primer that was used on the concorde.

Things I would love to add (Rome was not build in one day ):
Sn3500 (yeah I know Peter it isn’t installed yet…8.33 was more of a priority..)
GAMI injectors (did a GAMI spread test (shorthand method) GEM has no data output) the numbers show about a gallon delta..
New speed slope
Tip Tanks as on my destination airfield Avgas is not always guaranteed
Hot prop
…yes last New Waas GPS..maybe 400W to replace my KLN90B

I think the V35 is a good (may the best) value for money compromise for speed, handling and performance overall..can’t think of similar A/C who can do the same…
I know I am biased now

In terms of build quality tap with your knuckles on a Cessna wing, Piper then a Mooney and last go to a Beech and you will find out..

Last Edited by Vref at 08 Jun 09:33
EBST

My TAS is similar when I calculate, although I consistently burn 11.2, and generally run at 65%, looking at 21/23, boxed climb at 25/25. This works well in my IO-470-N. runs very smooth and sweet. Plus gives me the economy on a long run. I can get out of a 620mtr Tarmac strip, with four up, and the aircraft is equally comfortable on grass. I zero timed everything firewall forward, renewed all mounts, baffles, battery, and box, all fuel lines, exhaust, last year. Cost me 8k, but I am now very comfortable with the serious end of the aeroplane, and have the knowledge that we know every inch of the plane. I have a progressive maintenance plan in place, and we budget, task, and complete in agreement with the IA.

These are projects, I am under no illusion about that, and a labour of love and money. Not sure I would do it with any other airframe, hard to describe. It does draw attention on the ramp, as do others of course, but people do have a strong awareness of the Beech brand. Bit like Coca Cola I guess.

My issue though, and I am currently looking at an Beech A36, is panel upgrade. There are planes on the market with everything panel wise, that I would relish, at low money, in relative terms. Do I spend 50k on my V tail, and I would never see a penny of it back, or do I purchase newer airframe, with all the IR upgrades already done….Ah, the challenge of it all

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 08 Jun 10:09
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

…It does draw attention on the ramp…

Yes, I can personally attest to the beauty of your airplane BB! Having seen it at Mull last summer….superb!

YPJT, United Arab Emirates
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top