skiermanmike wrote:....Also, a friend just bought a IO550 powered A36 and it seems to be a real runway hog. I really had to scale back my recommendations of backcountry destinations for him because I was really so surprised when he told me how much pavement he was using at relatively low DA (2000’ or more? I’m not an expert here, could be just a gaining familiarity with a new plane kind of thing.).
...

If an IO550 plane is taking 2000', something is wrong or something can be changed. I'm not doubting your findings at all, I actually think it's common because of how people fly them. I've found the same seems to be the case for Scouts where the majority of owners are not flying them to their capabilities because let's be honest, they don't need to.

We've found that gap seals and VG's really help A36 short field performance. Also, CG towards the aft side helps more than most planes, unfortunately that is rarely the case when people try to shave weight out of them or go into short strips light.

Flying an A36 by the book numbers will leave you unimpressed unless you're going long distances pavement to pavement. Behind the power curve and it'll come in at 80mph stable as a rock loaded up. If I need to come in really short, I like to start retracting flaps from full to zero about 20' off the ground if landing is assured. The retract rate of the electric flaps is perfect for this. By the time you touch, you're at zero flaps, full weight on the wheels, very nose high attitude (increases as flaps retract), and slow slow slow. On takeoff, flaps 10-20 (seems to vary by airframe), nose off asap, let it fly off, suck the gear asap, off you go. If you use full flaps on TO, it'll get off the ground scary quick but what happens afterward is not impressive.

With tip tanks, I've maxed out my 8 hour duty day without refueling by running LOP. I'd highly recommend the tips with pumps, not the ones with a 4 way fuel selector.

I have about 850 hours in three A36's, all part 135. I've never flown a C210. Good recipe for bias? Haha

asa wrote:

PA12_Pilot wrote:ASA, what mods have you done to your A36s? I see the tips tanks, but that’s the only change I can see. Is the nose sitting a little high, or is it camera optics/angle that makes it look that way?

Tip tanks, IO550, gap seals, VG's, extended baggage. I think that's it.

mtv wrote:Interesting discussion. First thing I’d say is that none of the planes the OP is discussing are true six place aircraft. That is, 6 adults, even if two are midgets. A 500 mile trip, cramped up in the far aft baggage compartment, which is also a black hole with only the view of the guy ahead’s noggin? Oh yeah....great way to learn to love Greyhound buses.

So, since the OP didn’t specify, let’s assume the fifth and sixth seats will be occupied by kids....very young kids. That implies more “stuff” to keep them entertained. But my concern is you’re very apt to absolutely RUIN them for ever wanting to fly again. Seriously, have you ever sat in the far aft seat of anything flying in turbulence? Barf-Ho!!! And that’ll put ANYone off flying.

Not only that, but do the W and B for these planes and loads. What’s the CG going to be? Do you propose to make one or more stops for fuel? How about cargo on those 500 mile trips?

Oh, and kids do grow, generally like weeds. You going to own this thing for two years?

Seriously, folks?

MTV

Since when is an A36 not a 6 place airplane? As far as I can tell he's not talking about a 6 place camping plane, but for a 500nm XC. If everyone just has light bags, I don't see the issue. Yeah, Check your weight and balance but I mean what's the next best thing, a navajo? Seems like the A36 is perfect for what he's asking.

You already have badass slow 182. Don't get another Cessna....

Sorry, I have almost no experience with A 36 Bonanzas. So, what is the ACTUAL payload for an A-36 with fuel for 500 miles? And, with Actual American passengers? Dunno, just asking.

MTV

CAVU wrote:

Since I already have the airframe I want, I'd like to see if I can add a supercharger to the IO520F. That might get me the altitude performance I want up to, say, 12k, perhaps without the heat and complexity of the turbos. That would be the best of all worlds for me. There's no STC, though, and I need paint, interior and windows first. So, dreaming . . .

CAVU

Are you talking about a Roots type supercharger or turbocharger? I've never seen a Roots type blower on a 520, but they may be out there.

BUT, frankly, if all you need to do is get to 12 thousand, I'd forget the supercharger, and install an IO 550. That is the engine these airplanes and the 206 always wanted. That engine makes LOTS of power, runs nice and cool and LOVES being run (intelligently) lean of peak EGT. You won't believe the difference in actual thrust from that engine.

MTV

mtv wrote:
Sorry, I have almost no experience with A 36 Bonanzas. So, what is the ACTUAL payload for an A-36 with fuel for 500 miles? And, with Actual American passengers? Dunno, just asking.

MTV

Gross 4010
Empty 2300
Useful 1710
500nm @ 165kts = 3 hours
3.5hrs * 18 gal/hr = 63gal = 378 lbs (100* ROP)

= 1332 lbs for pax + gear

= Even with six 180lb people, you have 252lbs for bags

If you're running LOP, changes to 14gph @ 150kts = 47gal = gain another 100lbs of useful.

The old B33 manual had a short take off chart with flaps 20 and a 67 mph at 50 feet. These early Debs seem to be around 1850lbs empty. Stripping out old autopilot junk and vacuum system might bring this down.

The chart shows at SL ISA no wind and 2800 lbs only 900 feet to 50 feet. A -470N and three blade propeller might reduce this.

That a lardy A36 might be 2500 lbs empty suggests they are quite a different airplane.

It might be worth quoting some real world A36 empty weights? I was surprised they had come in as high as this.

asa wrote:

mtv wrote:
Sorry, I have almost no experience with A 36 Bonanzas. So, what is the ACTUAL payload for an A-36 with fuel for 500 miles? And, with Actual American passengers? Dunno, just asking.

MTV

Gross 4010
Empty 2300
Useful 1710
500nm @ 165kts = 3 hours
3.5hrs * 18 gal/hr = 63gal = 378 lbs (100* ROP)

= 1332 lbs for pax + gear

= Even with six 180lb people, you have 252lbs for bags

If you're running LOP, changes to 14gph @ 150kts = 47gal = gain another 100lbs of useful.

Thanks, only thing I'd seen on A-36 was 3600 gross. Over 4000 is impressive.

MTV

mtv wrote:

CAVU wrote:

Since I already have the airframe I want, I'd like to see if I can add a supercharger to the IO520F. That might get me the altitude performance I want up to, say, 12k, perhaps without the heat and complexity of the turbos. That would be the best of all worlds for me. There's no STC, though, and I need paint, interior and windows first. So, dreaming . . .

CAVU

Are you talking about a Roots type supercharger or turbocharger? I've never seen a Roots type blower on a 520, but they may be out there.

BUT, frankly, if all you need to do is get to 12 thousand, I'd forget the supercharger, and install an IO 550. That is the engine these airplanes and the 206 always wanted. That engine makes LOTS of power, runs nice and cool and LOVES being run (intelligently) lean of peak EGT. You won't believe the difference in actual thrust from that engine.

MTV

Yeah, the IO550 would be great. Unfortunately, my IO520F FODed and I was looking at 30k for a TCM factory reman IO520F and 9k to overhaul the Mac C90 prop, vs. 70k+ for the IO550 conversion + more than 10k for a new prop for that engine. The cost difference just didn't make sense at that time. That was 10 years ago and the IO520F is still running strong and looking good, so I've been looking at the https://www.forcedaeromotive.com/products/cessna/. It's not STC'd for the 206, but, if it could be done for the range that they're quoting for the 182, it's pretty attractive. I don't know what kind of blower they use--Root, twin screw or centrifugal (edit: looks like centrifugal in the illustration on the web site). Having all of the lubrication sealed and internal, and lower heat than turbo systems both strike me as attractive. But, as I said before, it's down the list after some major maintenance items.

CAVU

mtv wrote:
Sorry, I have almost no experience with A 36 Bonanzas. So, what is the ACTUAL payload for an A-36 with fuel for 500 miles? And, with Actual American passengers? Dunno, just asking.

MTV

[/quote][/quote]

500 nm is 3 hours so we'll call that 40 gallons with the 550. If it's a light plane then we'll say 2300 pounds empty and 2540 before we put people in there. So that would be 1060 of payload. Let's call it 1000 pounds with an extra 10 gallons of gas for reserve.

mtv wrote:BUT, frankly, if all you need to do is get to 12 thousand, I'd forget the supercharger, and install an IO 550. That is the engine these airplanes and the 206 always wanted. That engine makes LOTS of power, runs nice and cool and LOVES being run (intelligently) lean of peak EGT. You won't believe the difference in actual thrust from that engine.

MTV

I use 19"/2300/12 GPH(basically right at peak) as my standard setting at 11,500/12,500 and see 165-168 kts true there.

CAVU wrote: 70k+ for the IO550 conversion + more than 10k for a new prop for that engine.

I did mine 5 years ago. I got a factory reman and then the STC from D'Shannon which was $4K and included their baffles. I already had an MT prop so no cost there. Total cost $48K.

Good point. I was looking at the Atlantic Aero conversion, which was a lot more expensive with the overhead crossflow IO550.

My new IO520F plus prop overhaul wound up costing me a little more than 40k with a new set of baffles from Airforms AK. My engine bonked on the last flight before I was heading to the paint shop, so that's where that money went. It was an unpleasant enough surprise that I decided against stretching the budget. Ten years on now, that might have been the better choice, though.

Still, if I could add a blower for 20-25k that would maintain 75% power to 12,000', that would be a nice compromise between between the IO550 and the TSIO520. Then again, the most outrageous setup I've seen is the TAT TSIO550 in an A36 Bonanza. It's a rocket ship distance machine. 200 knots TAS in the upper teens. Tell me again what it is that makes airplanes fly?

CAVU

whee wrote: I know a guy that put a FAT supercharger on his C185. Maybe they have things figured out to get easy one off approvals.

That's good to know. The engine mounts are different than the 206, but if it's on an IO520, that's a nice precedent. I just watched an interview video with Forced Airmotive on the conversion, and they estimate $36k plus, installed, on an SR22. That would pay for an IO550 conversion come overhaul time. In the meantime, the IO520F soldiers on in the 206, and I pray for tailwinds.

CAVU wrote:

whee wrote: I know a guy that put a FAT supercharger on his C185. Maybe they have things figured out to get easy one off approvals.

That's good to know. The engine mounts are different than the 206, but if it's on an IO520, that's a nice precedent. I just watched an interview video with Forced Airmotive on the conversion, and they estimate $36k plus, installed, on an SR22. That would pay for an IO550 conversion come overhaul time. In the meantime, the IO520F soldiers on in the 206, and I pray for tailwinds.

FYI you should definitely call Forced Aeromotive. I’ve been all the way down the rabbit hole with them and actually secured the field approval to do my non-STC’ed plane, but balked last minute when my wife decided she really wanted a boat (LOL - seriously). So now we have a new-to-us surf/wakeboard boat and no supercharger, but I digress. They have definitely done 206s before.

I got to fly the first several hours on a new engine install on a mid-70’s T210 a long time ago. The old guy who schooled me in it had worn out a couple of them, haha. He would never climb more than 500fpm because he said the heat killed them although it was capable of much more. Also if there was any turbulence he dropped the gear. He was the owner/mechanic and a notorious cheapskate. The room was nice, I remember that above all else. Kind of a pig though, liked flying the 250 Comanche a lot more.

One of the SE AK air taxis had or has an A36. It was around a long time. I saw one 210 here in 25 years, they didn’t have it for long.

We are seeing a lot of Caravans and now 2) PC-12’s. Either of those will fit your mission easily if you can budget it. Plus will better handle the weather you’re bound to encounter on your weekly trips.

skiermanmike wrote: So now we have a new-to-us surf/wakeboard boat and no supercharger, but I digress.

That's funny. I've got a few of those too, but really, I'm way up. I think my best investment bang for the buck on the to-do list will be the interior and windows if it makes her happier about taking long trips in the airplane. If it's gonna take an extra hour to get there, having nice seats, clear windows, and a headliner that doesn't look like squirrels live above it will make it more palatable. That, and some VGs that, I hear, will help smooth out the bumps.

The last time Jim Richmond of Cub Crafters was in Valdez he mentioned his personal project was lightening up his Bonanza. I never heard any more about that but if anyone would know how to lighten up something I bet it would be him.

Some 36’s are weighing in at over 2700 lbs empty, am guessing the newer models. While the early 182 went from around 1700 lbs empty to over 2000 lbs in current 182T model, I didn’t realise the 36 was such a pie eater, putting on 600 lbs as it got younger!

I have a friend that has a late 60's 210. He has had it for 3 years now and has had a bunch of gear problems. Gear doors not closing, gear lights not working and lately gear would not retract fully and would not extend. Went through the book and finally by pulling G's both in a left and right turns did the gear finally lock down. After landing hydraulic fluid was found to be at the proper level. Its once again in the shop.
There is also a saddle issue that needs to be taken into account.
Just something to think about during your research.

L18C-95 wrote:Some 36’s are weighing in at over 2700 lbs empty, am guessing the newer models. While the early 182 went from around 1700 lbs empty to over 2000 lbs in current 182T model, I didn’t realise the 36 was such a pie eater, putting on 600 lbs as it got younger!

Some 36's have tables in the back for club seating. TABLES. What a shame

As a 210 owner of 35 yrs I need to respond to all the 210 "gear" problems. It's always a friend told me or somebody knew somebody that had a 210 gear problem. Wife/I have always done owner assisted annuals/maintenance but are by no means good wrenches. We owned/flew 1962 210 for 14 years and mech added doublers on both door posts for cracks and replaced ONE gear saddle with heavier unit. After- no issues.

Currently: 1981 T210N- owned/flown for last 21 years and other than normal cleaning, greasing maintenance; left gear leg was pulled 6 yrs ago to replace an o-ring seal that had a drip leak that drove me crazy. NO other gear issues.

Now, after getting comfortable with Husky STOL fun; I'm approaching with 210 much slower and planning to load up to gross weight with sand bags and practice getting the speeds slower on stock wing. Of course initial practice will be 3-4 K above ground then incrementally lower speeds on landings- hopefully below 65kts.

Jack