Beech-Archive.digest.vol-ah
June 18, 2002 - November 28, 2002
Dear Listers,
I thought I'd post a little reminder to everyone about a very slick feature
of the email Lists here at Matronics. You can now use Netscape or Internet
Explorer to browse the current messages on your favorite List! The List
Browse Function tracks the current 7 day's worth of List messages for any
given List. Indexes are updated every 30 minutes with new messages that
have been posted. You can resort the message indexes by Thread, Subject,
Author, or Date and easily track and find current threads.
A number of List members have written to say that they love the List
Browser because they can keep tabs on the latest List messages throughout
the day without having to constantly check their email or wait for the
Digest issue to come out.
You can check out the List Browse Feature by going to the following URL and
clicking on the List of your choice:
http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
Enjoy!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net> |
"Beech-List"
Good afternoon Bonanza Listeners,
Just got back from the airport after installing a new connector between the
key lock and mag switch. Continuity check of the Mallory switch was ok. But
the key lock doesn't stop at Off or BOTH. The Mallory switch will rotate
through all ten clicks. It only uses five. There is a pin to keep the
Mallory switch from rotating. The key is very loose in the lock. Could this
be the problem? I have a alternator so don't need the generator wire and
years ago I disconnected the battery from the Mallory switch. I would like
to replace the whole thing with a Bendix Mag Switch. However the trim wheel
light is attached to the bracket that the Mallory switch is attached to. So
has anyone replaced the key lock on an early Bonanza?
regards,
Bruce Bell
Lubbock, Texas
A35 N723B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Fw: Yak-List: Yak 52 crash in CA |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Melinda Whiteway" <mmwhiteway(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 crash in CA
--> Yak-List message posted by: Melinda Whiteway
again, still unable to comprehend the tragedy that befell N644LL less than a
day ago. According to the local news reports and friends at the airport,
here is what happened.
R. Scott Puddy, a good friend, CFI, CFII, MEI and aerobatic instructor at
Attitude Aviation in Livermore (KLVK) had borrowed my Yak to practice his
sportsman routine in the aerobatic box near Byron, CA. He was seen
departing KLVK solo around 10:00 a.m. Witnesses at the nearby golf course
reported the aircraft doing what sounds like a loop when it failed to pull
out at the bottom, impacting the ground in a near-vertical attitude. There
was no apparent attempt to bail out nor any indication of mechanical or
structural failure.
My best guess is that Scott must have greyed out or blacked out pulling Gs.
If there can be any good news in all of this, it would appear that if he
lost consciousness, his last memories would have been the joys of flying
acro in a plane he loved. Thankfully, there were no other injuries or
damage to ground structures.
What a tragedy. Scott was the Features Editor for AVWeb (www.avweb.com) and
the author of many excellent articles on aviation safety. He was also a
litigation attorney and most often flew a V-35 Bonanza and a B-55 Baron that
he owned with his father. He had recently flown in his first aerobatic
competition at the IAC event in Paso Robles, CA a few weekends ago. He
attended the event in my Yak but flew the routines in a Pitts, placing
somewhere in the middle of the pack. He also attended the Operation Red
Star event at Castle in early May. 644LL can be seen parked on the Yak ramp
in many of the photos, painted in the tradition red/white DOSAAF colors.
He is survived by an adult daughter and his parents, all from the Seattle,
WA area. All of us that knew him for his excellent flying skills and wry
sense of humor already miss him a great deal.
Requiem aeternam, or maybe it would be better say "beam me up, Scottie."
Melinda Whiteway
---------------------------------
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Four New Email Lists At Matronics!! |
Dear Listers,
I've just added four new email Lists to the current lineup at
Matronics. These new lists include:
KRNet:
krnet-List(at)matronics.com The RANS KR1 and KR2 Series
Cub:
cub-List(at)matronics.com The Piper J-3 Cub
RV10:
rv10-List(at)matronics.com The New 4-place RV from Van's!
Europa:
europa(at)matronics.com The Slick European Composite
All the usual features are available with the new Lists including the
search engine, archive download, 7-day List browse, and PhotoShare!
To sign up for any or all of the new lists, please go to the List
Subscription page and put in your email address and select the Lists of
your choice. The URL for the Subscription page is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscibe
Don't forget that its your posts that generate traffic on the respective
Lists! Post an introduction and a description of your project or dreams!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [With Good URL This Time!] Four New Email Lists At Matronics!! |
[Typo in the subscribe page URL last time - SORRY! -Matt]
Dear Listers,
I've just added four new email Lists to the current lineup at
Matronics. These new lists include:
KRNet:
krnet-List(at)matronics.com The RANS KR1 and KR2 Series
Cub:
cub-List(at)matronics.com The Piper J-3 Cub
RV10:
rv10-List(at)matronics.com The New 4-place RV from Van's!
Europa:
europa(at)matronics.com The Slick European Composite
All the usual features are available with the new Lists including the
search engine, archive download, 7-day List browse, and PhotoShare!
To sign up for any or all of the new lists, please go to the List
Subscription page and put in your email address and select the Lists of
your choice. The URL for the Subscription page is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Don't forget that its your posts that generate traffic on the respective
Lists! Post an introduction and a description of your project or dreams!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck McFarlin <chmcfarlin(at)comcast.net> |
> I recently purchased a D 35 and as always with old Bonanzas it holds several
mysteries. It has a 2 axis Mitchell autopilot installed that is inop (of course).
It was installed in 1967. Tag on the unit calls it out as a "co-pilot".
It has two trim controls on the panel and a unit attached to the rear of the
control yoke. Pitch control is done via a electric motor mounted close to the
nose gear position indicator. There is a control unit under the panel. My
question is this-is this a viable unit if made to work and is it possible to find
parts/information? The current decision to be made is if I should start removing
it or move forward on trying to fix it.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> Chuck McFarlin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D35 autopilot |
If you have the paperwork for it (337's, logs, etc.) it may be worth fixing.
An autopilot can run 5K at a minimum to install. The control may all be in
the head or another associated instrument. I would give Autopilots Central
in Tulsa a call for advice. They are great! You can call Century in
Mineral Wells, TX, but they may diagnose it over the phone as being bad, or
worse yet, ask you to send it to them. They'll red tag it if you're not
agreeable to their terms, which is usually a complete overhaul whether you
need it or not. Good luck.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck McFarlin" <chmcfarlin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Beech-List: D35 autopilot
>
> > I recently purchased a D 35 and as always with old Bonanzas it holds
several mysteries. It has a 2 axis Mitchell autopilot installed that is
inop (of course). It was installed in 1967. Tag on the unit calls it out
as a "co-pilot". It has two trim controls on the panel and a unit attached
to the rear of the control yoke. Pitch control is done via a electric motor
mounted close to the nose gear position indicator. There is a control unit
under the panel. My question is this-is this a viable unit if made to work
and is it possible to find parts/information? The current decision to be
made is if I should start removing it or move forward on trying to fix it.
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> > Chuck McFarlin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Art Bruce" <abruce(at)eagnet.com> |
I am investigating the purchase of a solid, well kept 1963 Musketeer,
What advice would any of you have about this plane and its
characteristics?
Thanks;
Art Bruce
Kingsland, GA
abruce(at)eagnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice wanted |
Art,
Those of us with Bonanzas look down our noses at the Skippers and
Musketeers, smug that we have ... MORE POWER!
Others with no plane at all drool at the idea of owning a true Beechcraft
machine of any kind.
There was a discussion about this on the AOPA WebBoard (A Sundowner, I
think), but the archives are only kept for 30 days over there, and it is
long gone. From what I remember about it they all "complained" about its
relatively slow speed of 105-110 kts., the attendant lack of climb
performance, and the usual high Beech/Raytheon parts pricing.
But, on the plus side, these planes are roomy and well made.
If it were me before I got my Bonanza, I'd probably look at it with great
interest, and if it fits your "mission needs," then pursue it. Hey, if you
decide later that you want more airplane, you ought to be able to sell it
for what you paid for it, and step up to something better.
Ron Davis
Art Bruce wrote:
>
> I am investigating the purchase of a solid, well kept 1963 Musketeer,
> What advice would any of you have about this plane and its
> characteristics?
> Thanks;
>
> Art Bruce
> Kingsland, GA
> abruce(at)eagnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice wanted |
Engine, Engine, Engine!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Bruce" <abruce(at)eagnet.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Advice wanted
>
> I am investigating the purchase of a solid, well kept 1963 Musketeer,
> What advice would any of you have about this plane and its
> characteristics?
> Thanks;
>
> Art Bruce
> Kingsland, GA
> abruce(at)eagnet.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advice wanted |
In a message dated 7/19/02 9:54:26 AM, abruce(at)eagnet.com writes:
<< I am investigating the purchase of a solid, well kept 1963 Musketeer,
What advice would any of you have about this plane and its
characteristics?
Thanks;
Art Bruce
Kingsland, GA
abruce(at)eagnet.com >>
There is a Musketeer specific group. You may find it helpful. You can join it
through yahoo groups.
Kim Pratt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
Two friends have musketeers. They both love them. One is an old man who
flies very little and likes its forgiving characteristics. The other likes
that he can load it up with self, wife, lots of luggage and fly 600 miles
from Oklahoma to Arizona in one hop and feel OK when he gets there. He is an
A&P and really praises his bird.
On the other hand it is only slightly faster than the Cessna 150 that I
owned (100 vs 105) and has to have Avgas instead of Autofuel.
Don't Buy a junker, let the other guy do the work.
Blue Skies, Steve D.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Art Bruce
Subject: Beech-List: Advice wanted
I am investigating the purchase of a solid, well kept 1963 Musketeer,
What advice would any of you have about this plane and its
characteristics?
Thanks;
Art Bruce
Kingsland, GA
abruce(at)eagnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | VOLTAGE REGULATOR WARNING LIGHT |
I have fitted the Solid State Beech VR with over warning light to my A35
rebuild ZS-BYG. What about low voltage, or is this not percieved as the same
magnitude problem?
Bob Verwey
Sunny South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOLTAGE REGULATOR WARNING LIGHT |
Bob,
Replies this week will rather thin, as anybody who's anybody is at Oshkosh
AirVenture. (So what does that tell you about me?)
I have a JPI engine analyzer in my plane, and it periodically shows XX.X
volts on its display, so I don't have (or worry about) an overvolt or
undervolt indicator light. I'll eventually catch it when the radios and the
GPS blink out :)
Low voltage is usually associated with an alternator failure, so an
indicator light would be nice to have. Of course, you are supposed to keep
the ammeter in your instrument scan, so such an indicator would be
unnecessary. Well, I *still* believe warning lights are a good thing, and
we ought to have the same basic ones that our automobiles have had for 40 years.
There are several companies that market such an indicator. Just look in the
ABS Magazine ads.
As long as you're at it, you may want to get a low vacuum warning light.
Just a thought...
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Sunny Southern California
Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> I have fitted the Solid State Beech VR with over warning light to my A35
> rebuild ZS-BYG. What about low voltage, or is this not percieved as the same
> magnitude problem?
>
> Bob Verwey
> Sunny South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Solargizer report |
All,
Just thought I'd drop off a report about a new gizmo.
Last April, I bought one of those new Solargizer battery desulfator gizmos.
Lead-acid batteries (in cars, boats and airplanes) will eventually die
because of sulfation, where the sulfuric acid breaks down and forms a sulfur
deposit on the battery's plates. As the sulfur builds up, the battery's
capacity drops. Eventually, the buildup is so bad, it won't hold a charge.
The Solargizer rejuvenates your battery, allowing it to charge to its
maximum capacity, rather than slowly diminish in capacity over the months.
It works by pulsing the battery with a certain frequency of current, which
is supposed to "kick" the sulfur deposits off the plates, and it goes back
into solution.
The Solargizer is a solar-powered. It gets its power to pulse the battery
from a small solar panel roughly the size of a dollar bill. Hook it up to
the plane's battery, and leave it there while its tied down. (If you have a
hangar, then buy one of the 110v powered units.) Over a long period of time
(weeks or months), the Solargizer will eventually restore the battery back
to its like-new condition.
As of last March, my Concorde RG35-AXC battery turned 4 years old, and was
showing signs of needing replacement. Pressing the starter button, I'd have
to wait a 3-count before the blades even started turning. I mean it was so
weak, I couldn't light a cigarette and start the engine. A night in Alaska
would've been its last. The plane *barely* started to life before the
battery was totally pooped.
I could buy a new battery for about $125.00, or a Solargizer for about the
same amount. Since I'm a sucker for shiny objects and new airplane gadgets,
and since I didn't *need* to really depend on the plane to go anywhere for
the next couple of months, I decided to get the Solargizer and see if it
would save my battery.
I plug mine into the battery side of the starter solenoid, and the ground
clamp can go anywhere on the firewall. The solar panel goes out the oil
filler door to sit on top of the cowling.
April: I hooked it up and let it sit out in the Southern California sun.
May : I did a test startup. ITS ALIVE! My battery is turning the prop,
well ... faster than it was. The Solargizer seems to be working, but it
will take more time to tell.
June : Flew from Southern Calif. to Tucson, Arizona for a few days. My
plane started up just fine. I still wouldn't say the battery was totally
rejuvenated, but it was doing very well. Certainly not on its last amps.
July : Did a test startup again. Seems like the RG35-AXC finally got its
"extra cranking power" back. Looks like this thing really works. I'm a
believer.
The Solargizer is available from Aircraft Spruce for about $110.00.
If it doubles the life of my battery, it will have paid for itself.
Anything after that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.
NOTE: The Solargizer is a only a desulfator, not a recharger. You will
still need a battery recharger for the times you leave the master switch on
overnight.
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solargizer report |
Ron;
How about some manufacturer's info for the all cheap bastards on the list,
like myself. Sometimes Spruce's markup can be terrible. Not "Sporty's"
terrible, but just over the edge.
Thanks
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <radavis2522(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Beech-List: Solargizer report
>
> All,
>
> Just thought I'd drop off a report about a new gizmo.
> Last April, I bought one of those new Solargizer battery desulfator
gizmos.
>
> Lead-acid batteries (in cars, boats and airplanes) will eventually die
> because of sulfation, where the sulfuric acid breaks down and forms a
sulfur
> deposit on the battery's plates. As the sulfur builds up, the battery's
> capacity drops. Eventually, the buildup is so bad, it won't hold a
charge.
>
> The Solargizer rejuvenates your battery, allowing it to charge to its
> maximum capacity, rather than slowly diminish in capacity over the months.
> It works by pulsing the battery with a certain frequency of current, which
> is supposed to "kick" the sulfur deposits off the plates, and it goes back
> into solution.
>
> The Solargizer is a solar-powered. It gets its power to pulse the battery
> from a small solar panel roughly the size of a dollar bill. Hook it up to
> the plane's battery, and leave it there while its tied down. (If you have
a
> hangar, then buy one of the 110v powered units.) Over a long period of
time
> (weeks or months), the Solargizer will eventually restore the battery back
> to its like-new condition.
>
> As of last March, my Concorde RG35-AXC battery turned 4 years old, and was
> showing signs of needing replacement. Pressing the starter button, I'd
have
> to wait a 3-count before the blades even started turning. I mean it was
so
> weak, I couldn't light a cigarette and start the engine. A night in
Alaska
> would've been its last. The plane *barely* started to life before the
> battery was totally pooped.
>
> I could buy a new battery for about $125.00, or a Solargizer for about the
> same amount. Since I'm a sucker for shiny objects and new airplane
gadgets,
> and since I didn't *need* to really depend on the plane to go anywhere for
> the next couple of months, I decided to get the Solargizer and see if it
> would save my battery.
>
> I plug mine into the battery side of the starter solenoid, and the ground
> clamp can go anywhere on the firewall. The solar panel goes out the oil
> filler door to sit on top of the cowling.
>
> April: I hooked it up and let it sit out in the Southern California sun.
> May : I did a test startup. ITS ALIVE! My battery is turning the prop,
> well ... faster than it was. The Solargizer seems to be working, but it
> will take more time to tell.
> June : Flew from Southern Calif. to Tucson, Arizona for a few days. My
> plane started up just fine. I still wouldn't say the battery was totally
> rejuvenated, but it was doing very well. Certainly not on its last amps.
> July : Did a test startup again. Seems like the RG35-AXC finally got its
> "extra cranking power" back. Looks like this thing really works. I'm a
> believer.
>
> The Solargizer is available from Aircraft Spruce for about $110.00.
> If it doubles the life of my battery, it will have paid for itself.
> Anything after that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.
>
> NOTE: The Solargizer is a only a desulfator, not a recharger. You will
> still need a battery recharger for the times you leave the master switch
on
> overnight.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Derby <mderby(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Solargizer report |
I got my Solargizer new on ebay for about $25.....
Mike Derby
>
>Ron;
>How about some manufacturer's info for the all cheap bastards on the list,
>like myself. Sometimes Spruce's markup can be terrible. Not "Sporty's"
>terrible, but just over the edge.
>Thanks
>AL
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Davis" <radavis2522(at)netzero.net>
>To:
>Subject: Beech-List: Solargizer report
>
>
>>
>
>> The Solargizer is available from Aircraft Spruce for about $110.00.
>> If it doubles the life of my battery, it will have paid for itself.
>> Anything after that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> NOTE: The Solargizer is a only a desulfator, not a recharger. You will
>> still need a battery recharger for the times you leave the master switch
>on
>> overnight.
>>
>> Ron Davis
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solargizer report |
Al et al,
For more information, you can visit Pulsetech:
http://www.pulsetech.com/
Or, if you want a kit to build it yourself:
http://www.flex.com/~kalepa/desulf.htm
I am fairly handy with a soldering iron, and am old enough to know what a
Heathkit is/was (and have a Heathkit clock), but I decided to get the
Solargizer on more of a whim. I'll probably build a kit version for my
cars' batteries at home.
Ron
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
> Ron;
> How about some manufacturer's info for the all cheap bastards on the list,
> like myself. Sometimes Spruce's markup can be terrible. Not "Sporty's"
> terrible, but just over the edge.
> Thanks
> AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | VOLTAGE REGULATOR WARNING LIGHT |
Thanks Ron, I have found a neat circuit compliments of "the" Bob on his
site.Like the low vacuum idea...
Regards
Bob Verwey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Subject: Re: Beech-List: VOLTAGE REGULATOR WARNING LIGHT
Bob,
Replies this week will rather thin, as anybody who's anybody is at Oshkosh
AirVenture. (So what does that tell you about me?)
I have a JPI engine analyzer in my plane, and it periodically shows XX.X
volts on its display, so I don't have (or worry about) an overvolt or
undervolt indicator light. I'll eventually catch it when the radios and the
GPS blink out :)
Low voltage is usually associated with an alternator failure, so an
indicator light would be nice to have. Of course, you are supposed to keep
the ammeter in your instrument scan, so such an indicator would be
unnecessary. Well, I *still* believe warning lights are a good thing, and
we ought to have the same basic ones that our automobiles have had for 40
years.
There are several companies that market such an indicator. Just look in the
ABS Magazine ads.
As long as you're at it, you may want to get a low vacuum warning light.
Just a thought...
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Sunny Southern California
Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> I have fitted the Solid State Beech VR with over warning light to my A35
> rebuild ZS-BYG. What about low voltage, or is this not percieved as the
same
> magnitude problem?
>
> Bob Verwey
> Sunny South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Low Oil Pressure |
Dear All,
This is my first posting as I have only recently joined the band of Bonanza
owners. My father and I have acquired what we believe is the only classic
1947 Beech 35 in the UK. We are delighted with her, but have one concern -
low oil pressure. Once the engine is up to normal operating temperature
(typically just after climb out), we see the oil pressure drop right to the
bottom of the green - 30psi. I'd just like to hear from other Bonanza
Continental E185-11 owners as to what typical oil pressure readings they
experience:
Every plane I have ever flown in is capable of maintaining a constant
running oil pressure at all permissible running temperatures. The displayed
oil pressure is always that set on the pressure relief valve. Thus the oil
pump has sufficient spare capacity to maintain the pressure above the relief
valve settings even when the oil is hot and thin. The only exceptions to
this are when the engine hot and at low RPM (when the pump is not turning
fast enough to maintain the pressure), or when the oil is very cold, in
which case the pressure is slightly higher than the normal pressure due to
the viscosity of the oil trying to pass through the fully open relief valve.
I would like to know if the Continental E185-11 is fundamentally different
from all the other planes I have seen. We have been told that it has a
smaller oil pump than many other similarly rated engines, however, I would
imagine that it still is designed to be able to blow off the relief valve at
all permissible oil temps. I would like to hear from other E185-11 operators
to know whether it is absolutely normal to see the oil vary between 25psi in
different flight regimes, or whether (as I would expect) that it should
remain broadly constant at the pressure relief valve setting.
Many thanks & best wishes to all,
David Allison
Email Disclaimer
This email has been sent from KPMG LLP, a UK limited
liability partnership, or from one of the companies within
its control (which include KPMG Audit Plc , KPMG United
Kingdom Plc and KPMG UK Limited). The information in
this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to
our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email
are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
governing KPMG client engagement letter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Allison, David wrote:
> This is my first posting as I have only recently joined the band of Bonanza
> owners. My father and I have acquired what we believe is the only classic
> 1947 Beech 35 in the UK.
Well, first of all, congratulations.
We are delighted with her, but have one concern -
> low oil pressure. Once the engine is up to normal operating temperature
> (typically just after climb out), we see the oil pressure drop right to the
> bottom of the green - 30psi. I'd just like to hear from other Bonanza
> Continental E185-11 owners as to what typical oil pressure readings they
> experience:
Well, for what its worth, my E-225 (which was converted from an E-185) has
always had lower oil pressure than I would like. At startup I usually see
65 psi, and as the engine warms it tends downward, usually running at
about 38 to 45 in cruise. At flight idle it will touch 30 psi and after
landing will go all the way to about 25 psi. I've got about 300 hours on
this overhaul of the engine so far.
Its VERY temperature sensitive. Opening the cowl flaps and letting the
oil cooler get more air through it helps bring the pressure back up. From
talking to other E series owners, this is apparently somewhat typical.
I have replaced the spring on the oil relief valve and even put washers
behind it, but in my case it didn't seem to do any good. You might
consider having your pressure gauge calibrated. If its original, it might
do with a good refurbish after 50+ years. Also whats the state of your
oil cooler? If the oil isn't flowing over the cooling tubes because of
some blockage there, it will overflow past them and not get properly
cooled.
Again most of my suggestions have to do with cooling the oil. What sort
of oil temperatures are you seeing? Only on the hottest of days on long
climbs does my temperature ever get higher than about 200F.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
David,
Welcome to the joys and heartbreaks of Bonanza ownership!
Low oil pressure is rather typical of the E185-11 / E225-8 engines. Mine
tends to run at 50-40 lbs, which is rather alarming the first few times, but
then you get used to it. I believe the engine can idle with only 10 lbs of
oil pressure.
The oil system in the E-engine is rather unusual in a couple of ways. Two
oil pumps, a "dry" sump system, and a large oil reservoir that doubles as
the radiator.
The oil pumps (engine's pressure pump and the "dry" sump scavenge pump)
operate, when running at 2300 rpm, at a rate of something like 8-10 gallons
per MINUTE. This means that the 10 quarts of oil goes for a ride through
the engine about 4 times a minute. Every 15 seconds. That's not much time
for it to sit in the oil cooler tank and shed heat.
Lots of people try to jack up the oil pressure by tinkering with the oil
pressure relief valve. Stretch the spring, or install a stronger one. Put
washers under it. Doesn't help much. The thing is almost always closed
anyway. I don't think it is supposed to open until the pressure hits 80 lbs.
You can try using a thicker oil, but Aeroshell W100 (50 wt oil) is about as
far as you should go. A multigrade like 15w-50 may help during the winter,
but those hot summer days make the oil as runny as water, and there's not
too much we can do about it.
The oil pumps are inside the case, so if the pump gears have excessive
clearance, that may be a cause for low oil pressure, but usually not. The
cold oil pressure is proper at 80-90 lbs, so I expect that they are working
within their tolerances. Besides the pumps are located in the engine case
and you would have to overhaul the whole engine to get to them, and $15,000
is an expensive way to cure an oil pressure problem.
What you really need to do is to more efficiently cool the oil so it stays
thicker. Baffling is the first thing to inspect, and then maybe adjust the
way you fly the plane. Use the cowl flaps more, pull back on the throttle
about 3/4 inch to even out the EGTs & hopefully the CHTs, use a slower rate
of climb, and so on.
You may also want to look into having the oil cooler tank cleaned out,
removing any accumulated gunk and sludge to improve its oil cooling efficiency.
Best of luck,
Ron Davis
Allison, David wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> This is my first posting as I have only recently joined the band of Bonanza
> owners. My father and I have acquired what we believe is the only classic
> 1947 Beech 35 in the UK. We are delighted with her, but have one concern -
> low oil pressure. Once the engine is up to normal operating temperature
> (typically just after climb out), we see the oil pressure drop right to the
> bottom of the green - 30psi. I'd just like to hear from other Bonanza
> Continental E185-11 owners as to what typical oil pressure readings they
> experience:
> Every plane I have ever flown in is capable of maintaining a constant
> running oil pressure at all permissible running temperatures. The displayed
> oil pressure is always that set on the pressure relief valve. Thus the oil
> pump has sufficient spare capacity to maintain the pressure above the relief
> valve settings even when the oil is hot and thin. The only exceptions to
> this are when the engine hot and at low RPM (when the pump is not turning
> fast enough to maintain the pressure), or when the oil is very cold, in
> which case the pressure is slightly higher than the normal pressure due to
> the viscosity of the oil trying to pass through the fully open relief valve.
>
> I would like to know if the Continental E185-11 is fundamentally different
> from all the other planes I have seen. We have been told that it has a
> smaller oil pump than many other similarly rated engines, however, I would
> imagine that it still is designed to be able to blow off the relief valve at
> all permissible oil temps. I would like to hear from other E185-11 operators
> to know whether it is absolutely normal to see the oil vary between 25psi in
> different flight regimes, or whether (as I would expect) that it should
> remain broadly constant at the pressure relief valve setting.
> Many thanks & best wishes to all,
> David Allison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MMMARKMM(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
Hi David and welcome,
I have owned three bonanza's with the 225 in them. All had the same oil
pressure characteristic's you are describing. The advice about cowl flap use,
slower climbs, heavy oil and keeping the quantity topped off are the way to
go. I did the washer trick, on one and it helped a little but not much. I did
notice at altitude the pressure would come up, after a while in cruise. The
good news is I never had a problem with an engine because of low oil pressure
in climbs or on hot days and I live in California and fly Mexico where we get
plenty of 100 plus days. I have seen oil pressure drop to 10 lbs upon landing
and taxi at these OAT's. I never quite became use to looking at the oil
pressure gauge on these days, and after a refuel on a trip used the above
procedures. Again welcome and happy flying.
Kindest Regards,
Mark Mullahey
mmmarkmm(at)aol.com
925 684 3615
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
| From: | Don Jordan <dons6a(at)juno.com> |
Dave:
I have been away from Bonanza's about 3 years now , but I would like to
comment.
The oil cooler slash storage tank cools the oil that comes from the
scavenge oil pump in the lower part of the acc case.
At shutdown you can't get to the tank fast enough to check the oil. about
2 qts done run back in the accessory case, so run it about 2 qts low.
The oil is sucked from the cooler to the "pressure pump" that supplies
all the bearings & gallery. If your gauge is right it will show the
pressure in the system up to the relief vale. The job of the relief value
is to open when the thick- cold oil is allowing the pressure to go past
80-100 Psi.
Otherwise the relief value should remain closed at the lower pressures.
The leakage past the bearings & oil pump will get greater with wear &
age, so the pressure will drop off with age.
Don Jordan - N6DJ - RV6A
Arlington, Tx
*******************************
writes:
>
>
The displayed oil pressure is always that set on the pressure relief
valve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dean" <vtail(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
Congrats on becoming a Bonanza owner, and now the fun begins. I have a 1951
C35 that has a E185-11 that has 60 hrs smoh and on hot California days my
oil pressure is 30 psi +- a couple of psi. I have had a lot of sleepless
nights wondering what to do with this and the common answer is this is
normal for the "E" series engines. I have replaced my baffles, cleaned the
cooler/reservoir had my oil temp and pressure gauges overhauled and the
reality is enjoy your airplane. I know its very uncomforting to see this
riding on the red line but as long as your CHT is normal and oil temp is not
at max 225F/ 107.7C your good to go. Continental calls for 30-60 psi in
flight and 10 psi at idle.
Cheer's,
Tim Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk>
Subject: Beech-List: Low Oil Pressure
>
> Dear All,
>
> This is my first posting as I have only recently joined the band of
Bonanza
> owners. My father and I have acquired what we believe is the only classic
> 1947 Beech 35 in the UK. We are delighted with her, but have one concern -
> low oil pressure. Once the engine is up to normal operating temperature
> (typically just after climb out), we see the oil pressure drop right to
the
> bottom of the green - 30psi. I'd just like to hear from other Bonanza
> Continental E185-11 owners as to what typical oil pressure readings they
> experience:
> Every plane I have ever flown in is capable of maintaining a constant
> running oil pressure at all permissible running temperatures. The
displayed
> oil pressure is always that set on the pressure relief valve. Thus the oil
> pump has sufficient spare capacity to maintain the pressure above the
relief
> valve settings even when the oil is hot and thin. The only exceptions to
> this are when the engine hot and at low RPM (when the pump is not turning
> fast enough to maintain the pressure), or when the oil is very cold, in
> which case the pressure is slightly higher than the normal pressure due to
> the viscosity of the oil trying to pass through the fully open relief
valve.
>
> I would like to know if the Continental E185-11 is fundamentally different
> from all the other planes I have seen. We have been told that it has a
> smaller oil pump than many other similarly rated engines, however, I would
> imagine that it still is designed to be able to blow off the relief valve
at
> all permissible oil temps. I would like to hear from other E185-11
operators
> to know whether it is absolutely normal to see the oil vary between 25psi
in
> different flight regimes, or whether (as I would expect) that it should
> remain broadly constant at the pressure relief valve setting.
> Many thanks & best wishes to all,
> David Allison
>
>
> Email Disclaimer
>
> This email has been sent from KPMG LLP, a UK limited
> liability partnership, or from one of the companies within
> its control (which include KPMG Audit Plc , KPMG United
> Kingdom Plc and KPMG UK Limited). The information in
> this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
> is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to
> our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email
> are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
> governing KPMG client engagement letter.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Strong" <gstrong(at)att.net> |
Does anyone on the list have a manual for a Collins 451 DME? This was
the standard DME unit installed in the Bonanzas during the 70's and
beyond. I've tried the normal used manual channels but haven't been
able to find one. I'd be obviously more than happy to pay for any
copying and mailing costs.
Thanks
Gary Strong
1979 V35B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Low Oil Pressure |
Dear Tim / Don / Mark / Ron & Frank,
Thank you very much to all of you for your replies. Very, very helpful as it
would appear our aeroplane is not too far off the mark, but the main concern
is that there has been a steady drop in oil pressure, in the cruise (from
approx 36psi down to 30 +/- 2psi), in the 10 hours we have flown her since
purchase. We'd like to stop this trend! We're now going to concentrate on
getting the oil cooler cleaned out, check for any air leaks and if necessary
replace the oil pump and/or gasket. The highest oil temperature we've
experienced is 80*C [ 176*F], which we believe is ok. CHT gets up to 480
immediately after takeoff, but rapidly comes down 370-410 at top of climb.
We've just had a top end overhaul and invested in having the tail plane mod
to have the speed restriction AD lifted. This included a prop frequency
test, which showed the engine to be in good health.
I don't know if it is of interest to anyone, but the aeroplane has a very
interesting history. The log books indicate that she was ferried from South
Africa to Israel in 1948, where bomb racks were fitted prior to being put to
service as a ground attack aircraft in the War of Independence! There were
two Bonanzas, but we believe the other was destroyed on the ground. At the
time these two planes were the fastest aircraft in the newly formed Israeli
Air Force...and to think we'd entered the jet age!
Thanks again & best wishes,
David Allison
Beech 35 G-NEWT
Email Disclaimer
This email has been sent from KPMG LLP, a UK limited
liability partnership, or from one of the companies within
its control (which include KPMG Audit Plc , KPMG United
Kingdom Plc and KPMG UK Limited). The information in
this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to
our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email
are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
governing KPMG client engagement letter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk> |
Hi Gary,
You could try contacting Avionics Mobile Services ltd...
http://www.avionics-mobile.co.uk/sales.html
They test/repair & sell Collins 451 DME, so they might be able to help you
with a manual or at least copying one.
Regards,
David
Beech 35 G-NEWT
Email Disclaimer
This email has been sent from KPMG LLP, a UK limited
liability partnership, or from one of the companies within
its control (which include KPMG Audit Plc , KPMG United
Kingdom Plc and KPMG UK Limited). The information in
this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to
our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email
are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
governing KPMG client engagement letter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
David;
Interesting history and certainly might be interesting as a historical
artifact. I must comment on the CHT's, though. They're too high.
Concentrate on baffling which may be directly linked to the oil cooling.
Good luck, and as usual, keep us posted.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk>
>
> Thank you very much to all of you for your replies. Very, very helpful as
it
> would appear our aeroplane is not too far off the mark, but the main
concern
> is that there has been a steady drop in oil pressure, in the cruise (from
> approx 36psi down to 30 +/- 2psi), in the 10 hours we have flown her since
> purchase. We'd like to stop this trend! We're now going to concentrate on
> getting the oil cooler cleaned out, check for any air leaks and if
necessary
> replace the oil pump and/or gasket. The highest oil temperature we've
> experienced is 80*C [ 176*F], which we believe is ok. CHT gets up to 480
> immediately after takeoff, but rapidly comes down 370-410 at top of climb.
> We've just had a top end overhaul and invested in having the tail plane
mod
> to have the speed restriction AD lifted. This included a prop frequency
> test, which showed the engine to be in good health.
>
> I don't know if it is of interest to anyone, but the aeroplane has a very
> interesting history. The log books indicate that she was ferried from
South
> Africa to Israel in 1948, where bomb racks were fitted prior to being put
to
> service as a ground attack aircraft in the War of Independence! There were
> two Bonanzas, but we believe the other was destroyed on the ground. At the
> time these two planes were the fastest aircraft in the newly formed
Israeli
> Air Force...and to think we'd entered the jet age!
>
> Thanks again & best wishes,
> David Allison
>
> Beech 35 G-NEWT
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dean" <vtail(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Oil Pressure |
Just a quick note about your oil temp. Oil cooler efficiency is a formula of
ambient temp + 100F. Therefore if you have a 70F + 100F = 170F. But you need
to run the oil temp at around 180-185F to boil off the moisture in the oil.
Also your CHT is too hot. Max on the E185-11 is 525F. I replaced my old
baffles with new from Performance Aero, Inc and my CHT is 325-350F. Also
check to see if your CHT probe is on the correct cylinder. Mine is measured
off the #3 cylinder, and I changed from the thermal couple which ran
380-400F to the bayonet probe into the cylinder and now have 325-350F.
Cheer's,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allison, David" <David.Allison(at)kpmg.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Beech-List: Low Oil Pressure
>
> Dear Tim / Don / Mark / Ron & Frank,
>
> Thank you very much to all of you for your replies. Very, very helpful as
it
> would appear our aeroplane is not too far off the mark, but the main
concern
> is that there has been a steady drop in oil pressure, in the cruise (from
> approx 36psi down to 30 +/- 2psi), in the 10 hours we have flown her since
> purchase. We'd like to stop this trend! We're now going to concentrate on
> getting the oil cooler cleaned out, check for any air leaks and if
necessary
> replace the oil pump and/or gasket. The highest oil temperature we've
> experienced is 80*C [ 176*F], which we believe is ok. CHT gets up to 480
> immediately after takeoff, but rapidly comes down 370-410 at top of climb.
> We've just had a top end overhaul and invested in having the tail plane
mod
> to have the speed restriction AD lifted. This included a prop frequency
> test, which showed the engine to be in good health.
>
> I don't know if it is of interest to anyone, but the aeroplane has a very
> interesting history. The log books indicate that she was ferried from
South
> Africa to Israel in 1948, where bomb racks were fitted prior to being put
to
> service as a ground attack aircraft in the War of Independence! There were
> two Bonanzas, but we believe the other was destroyed on the ground. At the
> time these two planes were the fastest aircraft in the newly formed
Israeli
> Air Force...and to think we'd entered the jet age!
>
> Thanks again & best wishes,
> David Allison
>
> Beech 35 G-NEWT
>
>
> Email Disclaimer
>
> This email has been sent from KPMG LLP, a UK limited
> liability partnership, or from one of the companies within
> its control (which include KPMG Audit Plc , KPMG United
> Kingdom Plc and KPMG UK Limited). The information in
> this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
> is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to
> our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email
> are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
> governing KPMG client engagement letter.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
| Subject: | Low Oil Pressure |
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Allison, David wrote:
> The highest oil temperature we've
> experienced is 80*C [ 176*F], which we believe is ok. CHT gets up to 480
> immediately after takeoff, but rapidly comes down 370-410 at top of climb.
Well, I would say that the oil temperature looks ok, but the CHT - YOW!
A long climb on a hot day my #2 CHT will get up to about 440F and I
thought that was too hot. 480, IMHO, is way too much. I know that the
maximum that Continenal allows is 525 according to the E-225 operators
manual, but I suspect that your cylinder life shortens exponentially at
that temp.
During the summer months I do have to fly with the cowl flaps at least
partially open to keep #4 below 400 (thats at about 20 inches, 2150 RPM
and 40 degrees rich of peak). Is this about what everybody else gets?
I would really like to never see more than 380.
Anyway, David, I would take a look at your pressure gauge, since your
oil temperatures look ok to me.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com> |
Hello,
I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked at
have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to replace?
The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years that
require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my Air
Force salary).
Thanks,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
The Bonanza and Debonair fuel bladders are not difficult to replace, just
somewhat expensive. I think they run near $1500 a side for replacements.
They are fished through the little panel on top of the wing, so installation
is tedious at best. There are metal snaps to place, and vent lines to
connect.
If you are looking for the trouble-free Bonanza, look carefully. Larry
Ball's book, Those Incomparable Bonanzas, will tell you alot about the
evolution of these wonderful airplanes. You can find it at www.bonanza.org,
the American Bonanza Society website.
The early years have drawn the most attention to maintenance, with the speed
restriction, exhaustive AD to remove the restriction, etc. The '47 model 35
and the '48 A35 had a tubular steel truss wing center section that is prone
to rust and cracks. Many report no problems with them, though. The B35 and
later are made of sheet aluminum.
No matter which model you end up choosing, they are all well built and
reliable machines with one giant caveat--they must be well maintained.
Deferred items can be really expensive surprises in the long run.
Happy hunting,
Jon Alston
N2191D
D35
Dallas REDBIRD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
> Hello,
> I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
> Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked at
> have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to replace?
> The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years that
> require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
> Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
> apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
> concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my Air
> Force salary).
>
> Thanks,
> Max
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net> |
The A35 did not have a tubular center section only the straight 35.
Bruce Bell
Lubbock, Texas
A35 N723B D-1730
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)swbell.net>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
> The Bonanza and Debonair fuel bladders are not difficult to replace, just
> somewhat expensive. I think they run near $1500 a side for replacements.
> They are fished through the little panel on top of the wing, so
installation
> is tedious at best. There are metal snaps to place, and vent lines to
> connect.
> If you are looking for the trouble-free Bonanza, look carefully. Larry
> Ball's book, Those Incomparable Bonanzas, will tell you alot about the
> evolution of these wonderful airplanes. You can find it at
www.bonanza.org,
> the American Bonanza Society website.
> The early years have drawn the most attention to maintenance, with the
speed
> restriction, exhaustive AD to remove the restriction, etc. The '47 model
35
> and the '48 A35 had a tubular steel truss wing center section that is
prone
> to rust and cracks. Many report no problems with them, though. The B35 and
> later are made of sheet aluminum.
>
> No matter which model you end up choosing, they are all well built and
> reliable machines with one giant caveat--they must be well maintained.
> Deferred items can be really expensive surprises in the long run.
> Happy hunting,
> Jon Alston
> N2191D
> D35
> Dallas REDBIRD
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com>
> To:
> Subject: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
>
> >
> > Hello,
> > I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
> > Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked at
> > have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to replace?
> > The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years that
> > require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
> > Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
> > apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
> > concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my Air
> > Force salary).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Max
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 8/12/02 8:45:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
jalsto(at)swbell.net writes:
> The Bonanza and Debonair fuel bladders are not difficult to replace, just
> somewhat expensive. I think they run near $1500 a side for replacements.
> They are fished through the little panel on top of the wing, so
> installation
> is tedious at best. There are metal snaps to place, and vent lines to
> connect.
>
Good Evening Jon and Max,
I think the prices you quote would be for the 40 gallon per side baffled fuel
cells.
The non-baffled tanks are quite a bit less cost, weigh less and are easier to
install.
Personally, I would never put a baffled tank in any airplane that is legal
with the non-baffled ones.
I also would not think that the early twenty gallon or intermediate
twenty-five gallon tanks would be as expensive as the forties. Could be
wrong though!
Max, I would suggest that you step very carefully before you buy any Bonanza
older than the 1957 H35.
The ones before that, the straight 35 through the G35, are wonderful
airplanes, but I would not suggest anyone buying such a machine who is not
willing to become a true aficionado of the type.
Don't buy one just because it is cheap!
There are a multitude of traps for the unwary. The answers to your questions
are not simple. I would suggest that you spend a lot of time talking to a
lot of owners who are planning on keeping their early model airplanes, not
just those who are planning on selling them soon.
As an example, the tubular spar is a non-issue as far as safety goes, but
there are some abominable straps that are commonly used to hold the wings
together in case the spar does fail. I think the straps are the wrong way to
go, but I am sure you will find others who think they are great.
Before you buy an early airplane, you should have enough knowledge of the
nuances of the aircraft to be able to make your own decisions on such
maintenance items as the spar straps.
It ain't simple!
If you buy an airplane such as the H35 or later, the problems are much easier
defined and, therefore, easier to learn.
If you spend the time to become an expert BEFORE you buy a 1947 through 1956
airplane, you could end up with a jewel, but it isn't easy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 8/12/02 9:07:14 PM Central Daylight Time, rv4bell(at)door.net
writes:
> The A35 did not have a tubular center section only the straight 35.
> Bruce Bell
> Lubbock, Texas
>
Very true Bruce. In fact, the last fifteen of the straight 35s had the built
up aluminum spar as well as the A35 through the G35.
Incidentally, that spar has no ADs against it. The one that is in the H35,
and later airplanes, does have a recurring inspection every five hundred
hours. Disgusting but true!
As I said before: It Ain't Simple!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
A old Beech aircraft is not one to consider when speaking about economics.
Unless you are an A&P or have one in the family, an old Bonanza can eat your
lunch for you very quickly. A $10,000 annual is not unusual on one of these
"deal" airplanes. I suggest you first look at your own mission profile and
get an idea of what type of aircraft will suit you. If the Bonanza is the
way you wish to go, then
the book "Those Incomparable Bonanzas" by Larry Ball is necessary to get a
good idea of the differences in the model years. Not only are fuel cells
are expensive to buy and replace, mostly everything else is too. Good luck
and we'll be waiting for more questions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
> Hello,
> I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
> Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked at
> have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to replace?
> The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years that
> require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
> Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
> apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
> concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my Air
> Force salary).
>
> Thanks,
> Max
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
Max,
Welcome to the beech-list. You are taking a big step, but in the right
direction.
(Where to begin?)
First of all, it is my humble and worthless opinion that the early
generation Bonanzas (1947-1956) offer the best values in the market today.
Here are the Bonanza-related bestseller books:
"Colvin's Clinic" by J. Norman Colvin
McCormick-Armstrong Co, Inc., 1992, ISBN 0-911978-06-2
Describes the intricacies of inspecting and maintaining a Bonanza
"Those Incomparable Bonanzas" by Larry A. Ball
McCormick-Armstrong Co., Inc., 1992 ISBN 0-964151-41-3
Some Beech/Bonanza history, and a description of the models 1947-1972
"They Called Me 'Mr. Bonanza'" by Larry A. Ball
McCormick-Armstrong Co., Inc., 1990 ISBN 0-911978-05-4
Some more Beech/Bonanza history, and a description of the models 1973-1982
"Flying the Beech Bonanza" by John C. Eckalbar
McCormick-Armstrong Co, Inc., 1986, ISBN 0-911978-03-8
email:
http://www.skyroadprojects.com/
Sound advice on flying the Bonanza by the numbers ... and more
"Positive Flying"
by Richard L. Taylor and William M. Guinther
The Thomasson-Grant Aviation Library, 1992 ISBN 1-56566-024-2
Flying by the numbers, with specific numbers for Bonanzas.
These are available from several sources, but I prefer to order them from
the American Bonanza Society. More about them later.
To your questions:
The Beech Bonanza uses a 20-gallon rubber fuel bladder in each of the wings,
giving an original total fuel capacity of 40 gallons. Later, the FAA made
Beech derate them to 17 apiece, or 36 total usable. These cells last for
some 15-20 years -- if you keep them full. If you don't, they will dry out
and crack, or at least form tiny seeping holes. Replacing them is not
complicated, but it is difficult to put it in place through the tiny access
hole that Beech made. It helps if you have a friend with a 39" cuff length
to reach into the cavity. Fuel bladders (I try to avoid the term "cells"
now as "fuel cells" will eventually refer to new technology) can be repaired
for something like 500 and up, depending on the damage, or a new one can be
purchased for $1,200 - $1,500, depending on trade-in value and the shop you
deal with.
The wing spar inspection that you refer to is for the original 1947-1948
model 35 Bonanza. The 1947-48 models had a welded steel carrythrough truss
as part of the wing's spar that is located underneath the front and rear
seats. Perfectly fine, and the same design was used in the Staggerwing Beech
and the Beech-18. They were originally fabricated using the then-newfangled
ElectroWeld process, which wasn't quite perfected at the time, and cracks
appeared in some of the welds. Beech issued a 100-hour inspection to look
for cracks, and there are several STCs to beef up the spar to eliminate the
inspection. The later models use thick aluminum webs to do the same thing,
and the possible problem of cracks in the truss went away.
There are two web sites worth visiting about Bonanzas:
The American Bonanza Society page:
http://www.bonanza.org/
and a Bonanza lover's page:
http://www.beechcraft.org/
If you are new to Bonanzas, then I *strongly* recommend joining the American
Bonanza Society.
American Bonanza Society
Mid-Continent Airport
PO Box 12888
Wichita, KS 67277
316-945-1700
316-945-1710 (fax)
The American Bonanza Society is an organization dedicated to sharing
technical information about the Beechcraft Bonanza (and Debonair, Twin
Bonanza, Travel Air, and even the Baron).
Dues are $50/year, and you can also purchase all the back issues of the
magazine (from 1967) on a CD for about $80.
You *will* save the amount spent on the back issues if you find just *one*
nifty nugget of information, such as knowing that you should check the
little wing bolt wells to see that they aren't filled with water (corroding
the bolts). This will save you over $1,000 in not replacing the wing bolts.
So, become a member! Besides, they are a great bunch of folks.
The ABS also has a symbiotic relationship with the BPPP, the Bonanza Pilot
Proficiency Program, which is an organization dedicated to improving
Bonanza/Baron pilot skills. They offer weekend training / flying seminars
around the country to improve your flying skills. Its kinda expensive -
about $1,000, but I cannot understate the value returned.
The Bonanza Lover's page has an archive of a 5 year email discussion thread,
where just about everything has come up -- twice. Search through the
archives for the answer to your questions, O curious one. Hey, you can even
join the email group and start asking questions. I'm sure they can tell you
all you need to know about the specific model year you are looking at.
If there's anything else we can help you with, please speak up. We live to
serve.
Ron Davis
1954 E35 Bonanza
Newport Beach, CA
Max Hegler wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
> Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked at
> have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to replace?
> The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years that
> require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
> Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
> apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
> concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my Air
> Force salary).
>
> Thanks,
> Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
My apologies to the A35 drivers.....
I can second what has been said about shopping carefully. Maybe I have been
lucky, but most of the work that my airplane, a '53 D35, has required has
been minor and relatively painless. The bird was well maintained through the
years and I think that is the key--not to buy a basket case that has been
ignored. It may be a good deal on the front end, but you will pay and pay on
the back end.
My most expensive repair so far was to have the ruddervators stripped,
repainted, and balanced ($1300) but that was better than the $3000 for
having one of them reskinned!!!
Other than a couple of cylinders that had to be topped, it has been a
trouble free airplane in my first 300 hours with it.
Happy Hunting!
Jon Alston
N2191D
D35
Dallas Redbird
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
> The A35 did not have a tubular center section only the straight 35.
> Bruce Bell
> Lubbock, Texas
> A35 N723B D-1730
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)swbell.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
>
> >
> > The Bonanza and Debonair fuel bladders are not difficult to replace,
just
> > somewhat expensive. I think they run near $1500 a side for replacements.
> > They are fished through the little panel on top of the wing, so
> installation
> > is tedious at best. There are metal snaps to place, and vent lines to
> > connect.
> > If you are looking for the trouble-free Bonanza, look carefully. Larry
> > Ball's book, Those Incomparable Bonanzas, will tell you alot about the
> > evolution of these wonderful airplanes. You can find it at
> www.bonanza.org,
> > the American Bonanza Society website.
> > The early years have drawn the most attention to maintenance, with the
> speed
> > restriction, exhaustive AD to remove the restriction, etc. The '47 model
> 35
> > and the '48 A35 had a tubular steel truss wing center section that is
> prone
> > to rust and cracks. Many report no problems with them, though. The B35
and
> > later are made of sheet aluminum.
> >
> > No matter which model you end up choosing, they are all well built and
> > reliable machines with one giant caveat--they must be well maintained.
> > Deferred items can be really expensive surprises in the long run.
> > Happy hunting,
> > Jon Alston
> > N2191D
> > D35
> > Dallas REDBIRD
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Beech-List: Fuel seep
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
> > > Debonair that I could afford to buy. Some of the ones I have looked
at
> > > have fuel seeps/leaks. Are the bladders difficult/expensive to
replace?
> > > The right one has been replaced. Also, are there any model years
that
> > > require special consideration to maintenance? I have heard the early
> > > Bonanza's require wing spar inspection/repair. Which models does this
> > > apply to. Is there a book that could answer most of the questions
> > > concerning buying an early Bonanza (I can't afford a newer one on my
Air
> > > Force salary).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Max
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
No doubt that if you find one that's been well cared for, it would probably
be the most enjoyable airplane owned. Unless one gets passed through the
family, finding a great deal might be difficult. I've seen a C model sell
for $70K! I'm also seeing what may be the start of the garage doors
opening. Many long disassembled Bo's are appearing on the market. Hard
economic times may be the reason, but the prices aren't at "giveaway"
levels.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the old (heck, even the new) Bo
owner must have at least a good sense of mechanical ability, even if it's
only to read and understand the service manuals. We've all seen too many
mechanics not up to snuff on the airplane's systems and idiosyncrasies which
lead to a terribly expensive annual a few years later when properly done.
This is when many owners decide to sell so that the new owners inherit the
problems.
A good friend is contemplating either completely going through his Deb
(engine, paint, interior, etc,) or upgrading to a newer airplane. Due to
the way his present steed has been maintained, my vote was to keep what he
has and give it a good going over. Chances are, unless he spends the BIG
buck$, he'll need to through the mechanics of his potential addition in
order to get a good feel of what's what. A neighbor recently picked up a
very nice S model that was owned by a former ABS director or president or
something. First annual was $10,500, and I'll guess half of that was for
goodies, so we have a $5K annual for a machine that was supposedly very well
maintained.
For someone who's budget is being strained, my recommendation again, is to
look at the mission profile and shop accordingly. Something I didn't do
;-( .
And Jon, we still need to get together sometime.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)swbell.net>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fuel seep
>
> My apologies to the A35 drivers.....
> I can second what has been said about shopping carefully. Maybe I have
been
> lucky, but most of the work that my airplane, a '53 D35, has required has
> been minor and relatively painless. The bird was well maintained through
the
> years and I think that is the key--not to buy a basket case that has been
> ignored. It may be a good deal on the front end, but you will pay and pay
on
> the back end.
> My most expensive repair so far was to have the ruddervators stripped,
> repainted, and balanced ($1300) but that was better than the $3000 for
> having one of them reskinned!!!
> Other than a couple of cylinders that had to be topped, it has been a
> trouble free airplane in my first 300 hours with it.
> Happy Hunting!
> Jon Alston
> N2191D
> D35
> Dallas Redbird
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fuel seep
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 8/13/02 7:10:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
jalsto(at)swbell.net writes:
> I can second what has been said about shopping carefully. Maybe I have been
> lucky, but most of the work that my airplane, a '53 D35, has required has
> been minor and relatively painless. The bird was well maintained through
> the
> years and I think that is the key--not to buy a basket case that has been
> ignored. It may be a good deal on the front end, but you will pay and pay
> on
> the back end.
>
Good Morning Jon,
Well said.
However, it is not just the basket case that one must watch out for.
Unfortunately, many of the ones that are advertised with new paint, interior,
engine and a panel upgrade are among the worst buys available.
The aircraft may have been a derelict that was picked up by a dealer (or
individual) and cosmetically changed into an apparent neat machine.
As you said, the ruddervators could cost three to four thousand apiece to
have reskinned. Fresh paint will hide the corrosion, but won't fix the
problem.
Max, if you read this, remember the following.
When you buy a forty to fifty-five year old airplane, it is the airframe
itself that you must investigate most thoroughly. All the bells, whistles
and good looks won't turn a dog into a jewel.
Anything can be repaired, IF you have the funds and the will to do so.
I have a friend that is having his Luscombe rebuilt. They found corrosion
inside the fuselage so extensive that the airplane is being reskinned from
the cockpit aft. It would be cheaper for him to buy one of the brand new
Luscombes that are now available, but this particular one means enough to him
to justify the expense.
The Luscombe is the same airplane in which he first soloed fifty years ago
and he has the money to do the restoration.
While there is absolutely nothing on the market that provides efficiency and
performance on a par with a straight model 35 Bonanza, there is one that is
close.
That is the model 36 Stretch Debbie and it sells for somewhere near six
hundred thousand dollars.
When you are rebuilding a 1947 Bonanza, your costs could approach what it
would take to build a new six hundred thousand dollar airplane. If you have
the funds, go for it!
But first, study the information available. Join the various Bonanza groups
and spend a year or so getting an education. It may allow you to find that
elusive diamond in the rough. Takes a lot of digging and a lot of knowledge
to recognize it though.
Don't waste time polishing a piece of coal.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Freddie Hegler" <maxhegler(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/02 |
Jon, Bruce, Bob, A.J., and Ron...
Thanks for all the info! I have already taken some of the steps that you
have recommended. I have been flying Uncle Sam's airplanes for the last 30
years (I'm now at March ARB, CA) , and though I had my private license
before I joined the Air Force, I have never owned my own plane. I have only
ridden in a Bonanza once, a long time ago, but it was obvious then that the
plane was fast, comfortable and built right. I also realize that earlier
Bonanza's may require upkeep, and it can be expensive if not maintained
properly. I hope to find one that has been and not have a lot of extra
expense up front. I would also like to buy one in the 1964 - 1966 range.
They seem to have the most modern panels and window appearance. I'm sure
I'll be asking many more questions down the road...it's great to know there
is a great group of folks out there.
Take Care,
Max
--------------Original message
>Hello,
> I am new to the Beech-list. I am looking for an early Bonanza or
>Debonair
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/02 |
In a message dated 8/13/02 9:43:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
maxhegler(at)msn.com writes:
> I would also like to buy one in the 1964 - 1966 range.
Good Morning Max,
If you can afford an airplane of that vintage, they are probably the best
buys around.
The earlier airplanes are lighter and more fun to fly. By 1964, Beech had
played around with bob weights and stuff to add some stability. As you are
well aware, stability is the enemy of maneuverability!
They also added a lot of weight when they elected to use a lot of the same
parts in Travelairs, Barons and the Bonanza line. Parts that are strong
enough for a Baron are much stronger than they need to be for the Bonanza.
Consequently, the newer the airplane, Bonanza, Debonair or Stretch Debbie,
the heavier is the airframe.
Stronger sounds better, but the extra weight all adds up. A DC-6 landing
gear would be stronger than a Baron's, but would you want it on your Bonanza?
I had a well equipped fully IFR Straight 35, serial number D-273, that had an
empty weight of 1590 pounds. My 1978 V35 B, serial number D-10173, has an
empty weight of 2236 pounds. The engine only weighs 80 pounds more and the
electronics weigh about the same. Beech added 566 pounds to the basic
airplane in the intervening years. Part of that is necessary beefup to carry
the higher weights and handle the higher power, but the majority is for plush
upholstery and unneeded heavy Baron parts used to attain lower cost of
production through commonality of parts.
Our oldest son has a 1965 S35 that has an empty weight of approximately 2036
pounds, Since we both have BDS tip tanks installed on our airplanes, we both
have the same 3550 maximum allowable takeoff weight. That means he can carry
200 pounds more payload or 33.3 more gallons of fuel than can I. That is two
hours of fuel at maximum cruise, three hours of fuel at economy cruise.
Those big windows add to the appearance, but the little back windows as used
on the F35 and later add about ninety percent of the visibility improvement
provided by the long N35 and S35 windows. The small windows weigh about a
third of what the long ones weigh and additional structure had to be added to
the fuselage to put in the big windows.
If you can find a cream puff S35 or V35, they are probably the best for long
range and high payload operations. They won't fly as nice as an A35, but
they aren't dogs either.
Probably the least practical move would be to buy a nice H35 and stick an
IO-550 engine in it. Financially not smart, but it would be among the best
performing of the lot. Installing that engine in the A35 through G35 is
possible, but even more expensive and the structure will not accommodate any
heavier loads so it becomes a fun hot rod, but with limited capabilities.
My recommendation is still to buy the newest thing you can afford up to the
V35.
Newer than that and they get awfully heavy with no payload improvement. Pay
your money for the best airframe you can find. You can replace the engine,
paint, interior, radios, autopilots and windows later, but bringing a crummy
airframe up to first class status is a bear!
You may luck out and find an airplane on which someone has done that job for
you. That would be great, but many of the new paint, new interior, new
radios and new engine birds are hiding a crummy airframe. Be VERY careful
out there.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net> |
| Subject: | Original Instruments |
Hi,
I am in the process of restoring my 1948 model 35 polished Bonanza to
original condition.
I need some help with the original insturments.
Can any of you tell me the manufacturer and part / model number for
the:
1. Airspeed indicator
2. Turn and Bank
3. Altimeter
4. Manifold Pressure
5. Tachometer
6. Clock
7. Directional Gyro
8. Attitude Gyro
I know that the original instruments were a luminesent green.
I would appreciate any documentation you might have or know of relating
to the instruments, and any core instruments that you may know the
whereabouts of to purchase at a reasonable price or borrow to copy the
silkscreening?
I also need to locate the original carpeting and upholstery material.
The best that I have been able to come up with so far is an swatch of
carpeting.
I would appreciate any insight.
Thanks!
Brian Henry
D-1215
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Philcohen(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Original Instruments |
Sorry, no info for you, but, good luck. (N3716N D-934, polished 1947 -mostly original
Philip Cohen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Original Instruments |
Brian,
These are the "Beech" numbers I assume you are after, and what you *really*
want are the manufacturer's names and numbers.
35-324927 Airspeed indicator
Made by Pioneer, but I don't know their #
35-324309 Artificial horizon gyro
AN5736-1 artificial horizon
Made by several firms: J&H, Bendix, Pioneer.
35-324304 Turn and Bank gyro
35-324300 Rate of Climb
35-324305 Manifold Pressure
35-32406 Tachometer
AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors Corp.
p/n: 1 RT8 1548708
is the part number for the black-faced tachometer.
35-324307-4 Directional Gyro
AN 5735-1 directional gyro
Made by several firms: Jack & Heinz, Bendix, Pioneer,
Possibly Jack & Heinz p/n: JH 5500
35-324298 Altimeter
35-324301 8-day Clock
My 8-day windup Beech chronometer only says "Beechcraft" on
the outside of the case, and I'm not gonna open it up to see what's inside.
Its probably a Wakmann, though. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure if the
1947 Bonanza came with a clock that had the additional red hands (for
elapsed time) on it, or just the clock.
(NOTE: AC was also the company that made all the instrument cluster gauges.
The part number will vary depending on the face color, green, beige, smoke
or black, but any of them should be silkscreenable back to the original 1947
Beech color of green.)
I believe all gyros were postwar surplus, so manufacturers may have varied a
bit. They are AN-style gyros, so you should be able to pick up just about
any used one and have it refurbished to look like the original.
You should be able to take whatever instruments you need to:
Keystone Instruments Inc.
Piper Memorial Airport
9-1/2 Island Route
Lock Haven, PA 17745
570-748-7083
570-748-4439 (fax)
http://www.keystoneinstruments.com/gauges.htm
to get them fixed up and silkscreened to the 1947 green color. You will need
to let them know if you want the markings done in white, or in faded yellow
imitating the aging radium look. If you *really* need authenticity, you may
be able to find a watch repair shop to re-do them in radium even though it
isn't exactly permitted anymore. Sure would look boss.
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Brian J. Henry wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am in the process of restoring my 1948 model 35 polished Bonanza to
> original condition.
>
> I need some help with the original insturments.
>
> Can any of you tell me the manufacturer and part / model number for
> the:
>
> 1. Airspeed indicator
> 2. Turn and Bank
> 3. Altimeter
> 4. Manifold Pressure
> 5. Tachometer
> 6. Clock
> 7. Directional Gyro
> 8. Attitude Gyro
>
> I know that the original instruments were a luminesent green.
>
> I would appreciate any documentation you might have or know of relating
> to the instruments, and any core instruments that you may know the
> whereabouts of to purchase at a reasonable price or borrow to copy the
> silkscreening?
>
> I also need to locate the original carpeting and upholstery material.
> The best that I have been able to come up with so far is an swatch of
> carpeting.
>
> I would appreciate any insight.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brian Henry
> D-1215
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Original Instruments |
Oh, yeah.
Another source you can try is:
Century Instrument Corp.
4440 Southwest Blvd.
Wichita, KS 67210
316-683-7571 or 800-733-0116
I believe Century has all the silkscreens to do your instruments in the 1947
colors. Now, all you have to do is get the instruments. :)
Ron Davis
> Brian J. Henry wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am in the process of restoring my 1948 model 35 polished Bonanza to
>>original condition.
>>
>>I need some help with the original insturments.
>>
>>Can any of you tell me the manufacturer and part / model number for
>>the:
>>
>>1. Airspeed indicator
>>2. Turn and Bank
>>3. Altimeter
>>4. Manifold Pressure
>>5. Tachometer
>>6. Clock
>>7. Directional Gyro
>>8. Attitude Gyro
>>
>>I know that the original instruments were a luminesent green.
>>
>>I would appreciate any documentation you might have or know of relating
>>to the instruments, and any core instruments that you may know the
>>whereabouts of to purchase at a reasonable price or borrow to copy the
>>silkscreening?
>>
>>I also need to locate the original carpeting and upholstery material.
>> The best that I have been able to come up with so far is an swatch of
>>carpeting.
>>
>>I would appreciate any insight.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Brian Henry
>>D-1215
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beechboys"
As long as the left coasters are talking fly-in, here's the CBA's next deal,
this coming Saturday. O'Halloran threatened to be there (even though he
doesn't fly a classic), so bring money and dental insurance cards. Hope to
see many of you.
Al
CLASSIC BONANZA ASSOCIATION FLY-IN
GRAND LAKE REGIONAL (3O9)
AFTON, OKLAHOMA
AUGUST 24th, 2002
Airport Information:
Elevation: 792 ft. MSL
LAT/LONG 36-34-39. 279N / 094-51-42. 841/W
Located on the 225 radial/25.9 DME from the Neosha (EOS-117.30) VOR/DME
Runway Information:
RWY 17/35 - 3465' X 60' Paved
STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERN
RADIO: 122.70 CTAF
119.025 AWOS (6NME) (918-786-8350)
FLY-IN DATE: AUGUST 24, 2002
RAIN DATE - AUGUST 31, 2002
Noon - Prime Rib Buffet Lunch - Price is $ 14.95 for all you care to eat
at the Waters Restaurant in the Shangri La Resort.
The August fly-in will be held at the Grand Lake Regional Airport in
Afton, Oklahoma, home of Shangri La Resort. The Resort is nestled on 650
acres along the shores of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees at the foothills
of the Ozarks. Shangri-La has some of the best recreational facilities
in the Midwest. Resort Accommodations provide beautiful panoramic views
of either the lakefront, courtyard or one of the two golf courses.
The restaurant is only 1.5 miles from the airport and courtesy
transportation will be provided.
For anyone wanting to make overnight reservations at Shangri-La Resort
or play golf please contact them at (918-257-4204).
As always, we encourage suggestions for future fly-in destinations.
Future fly-ins include Fredricksburg, Texas and Gaston's Fly-in Resort
in northern Arkansas along the banks of the White River. There is a new
motel and restaurant under construction at Fredricksburg and it should
be finished by October.
Please email me if you plan on attending the fly-in!!!!! Laissez les
bons temps rouler- Beechcraft Style!
George M. Bown - gmbown(at)gte.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
Bob,
I believe there are two firms that hold an STC for installing an IO-470 in
an early Bonanza:
Beryl D'Shannon Aviation Specialties, Inc.
Airlake Airport (LVN)
21405 Hamburg Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
952-469-4783 or 763-535-0505 or 800-328-4629
800-546-4217 (fax)
email:
http://www.beryldshannon.com/index.htm
Hammock Aviation Services
Ennis Municipal Airport (F41)
3002 W. Ennis Ave.
Ennis, TX 75119
972-875-4279
Jerry Hammock:
http://www.hammockaviation.com
If you get into a real pickle, I imagine you can contact one of these folks.
There are a few model 35s with an IO-520 or IO-550 (!) up front. I don't
think you will have a problem with an IO-470.
The 35/A35/B35 models have the smaller ruddervators (and horizontal
stabilizers), and never has a strengthener for them, unlike the later ones
that were subject to the "ruddervator cuff mod" airworthiness directive.
AD 94-20-04, the one that requires us Americans to limit the top (indicated)
speed to 125 kts, or perform the "fix-it" Raytheon Service Bulletin 27-3358
to remove the speed restriction. I imagine you have to do the same down
there in New Zealand. The AD is currently under revision, and Raytheon was
also revising the Service Bulletin, and hopefully when the new proposed AD
(NPRM 2000-CE-44-AD) turns into a real AD, it will be easier to perform.
Lastly, there *was* a mod by Steve Smith years ago that was a "stub spar"
which was an alternative to the ruddervator cuff mod. I don't know if one
was ever developed for the early Bonanzas. I don't think so.
Soooo, I don't think you will have to do anything special in strengthening
the ruddervator structure, although if you have the tailcone assembly apart,
you may very well want to replace the bulkhead assembly at Station 272 (or
is it the station 256.9?) with the stronger beefed-up bulkhead "just in case."
NOTE: The main reason you don't have to do anything special is that
although you are installing an IO-470, there is no supplement to the Pilot's
Operating Handbook, meaning that there is no change to the flight and
performance limitations, so you still have to fly the plane as if it had the
E185-11 or E225-8 engine in it.
Green arc is still 64-160 mph,
Yellow arc is still 160-202 mph, and
Redline is still 202 mph.
However, I'm *sure* that you will be flying a lot closer to redline than you
ever did before :-)
Oh. Be *very* careful of the flaps and landing gear. Flying all that much
faster will make it harder to slow it down to 100 mph. I tend to use slips
quite often in my E35 to slow it down.
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Bob Verwey wrote:
> Hi Ron
>
> I've been trying to post this message on Matronics without much luck. Maybe
> you can help.
> I am busy with the empenage group on my A35 rebuild. The actual surfaces are
> in mint condition having lived in a rarified environment for the last 30
> years, and having only flown about the fist five of these. I need advise on
> strengthening the stabiliser attach system since I have fitted an IO 470 up
> front. Any info or pointers?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
> ZS-BYG
> A35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | instrument markings |
Reading Ron's reply about operational markings on the airspeed indicator made me
wonder about the red markings that appear on my tach next to 2000 to about 2050
rpms. I fly behind an E-225-8 in a straight '35.
Do the markings indicate an area to be avoided due to vibrations? I haven't found
anything about this "red area" in any literature about the engine or the airframe.
Could it be that the tach came from another Beech that had such limitations,
or did it apply to an early engine?
I don't notice any performance problems when operating in this red area nor do
I feel any additional vibrations.
Any thoughts out there?
Thanks,
Rob Mayer
D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
In a message dated 8/21/02 11:01:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> Lastly, there *was* a mod by Steve Smith years ago that was a "stub spar"
> which was an alternative to the ruddervator cuff mod. I don't know if one
> was ever developed for the early Bonanzas. I don't think so.
>
Good Afternoon Ron,
Could you be referring to the modification developed by Mike Smith? As you
are undoubtedly aware, that, or the cuff was added because of the extra chord
length of the "D" section on the later stabilizers. Mike's was a much better
modification than the factory cuff setup. It was lighter and invisible from
the outside. The trouble is that it required that the stabilizers be removed
to make the installation. The factory cuff was cheaper to install and
required less skill to apply.
One more comment on installing a larger engine than originally approved in an
early airframe.
Every installation that I have seen in a straight 35 allows no more power to
be pulled than is used in the original engine. If an E225 is used, the MP is
limited to 26.5 inches at 2300 RPM and 27.5 inches at 2050 RPM. 2300 RPM is
allowed for only one minute and 2050 RPM is the limit at all other times.
Interestingly, if an E225 is installed in an A35, it is possible, depending
on the auxiliary fuel pump installed and a couple of other items, to utilize
the full 225 horsepower. If an E205-11 is installed in the same airframe,
only the original 185 HP may be used.
I know it doesn't make sense, but the approvals have the limits the applicant
and the FAA agreed on. It is a LOT easier to get something approved if you
leave the horsepower alone.
Many large engines have restrictions on the power allowed.
Before anyone uses any horsepower above that with which the aircraft was
originally certificated, it is pertinent to ascertain what has been approved
and why it is what it is.
Beefing up the tail is not likely to allow any increase in the horsepower
allowed nor is it likely to allow the aircraft to carry any higher loads.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: instrument markings |
In a message dated 8/21/02 11:30:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> Reading Ron's reply about operational markings on the airspeed indicator
> made me wonder about the red markings that appear on my tach next to 2000
> to about 2050 rpms. I fly behind an E-225-8 in a straight '35.
>
Good Afternoon Rob,
There is always the possibility that you have an installation which allows
higher power to be used than is listed in the Operation Specifications for
the model 35. It is also possible that some extra restriction has been
applied to your aircraft. If that is so, there should be documentation to
explain that discrepancy. If there is a local approval that allows the
higher horsepower, there should be a 337 documenting that fact.
I have had many folks tell me that their straight 35 was legal for the full
power with an E225 installed.
When they showed me the paper work, there was nothing available to allow the
higher power. In a few cases, I was shown documentation on the Hartzell
propellor that stated it was approved on that engine to as high as 2650 RPM.
That documentation is applicable only to the propellor/engine combination.
It does not negate the restriction applied to the operation of that E225 in
the straight 35 airframe which restricts the MP and RPM allowed.
Without looking it up, I think you will find that the RPM is restricted to
2300 for one minute during takeoff and a maximum of 2050 RPM for all other
operations.
The Manifold Pressure is to be restricted to 26.5 inches when using 2300 RPM
and 27.5 inches during operations at 2050 RPM.
The larger engine definitely provides better performance at altitude, but
provides absolutely no better performance at sea level.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: instrument markings |
Robert,
There is a Beech Service Letter (May 1954) that deals with the removal of
rpm restrictions on the E225-8 engine.
A portion of it states:
"Additional tests, conducted since the introduction of the Continental
E-225-8 engine on the Bonanza, indicate that the restricted rpm range, from
2100 to 2200, imposed on early production, is not necessary provided
propeller blade maintenance is adequate. Therefore, this restriction,
placarded on the instrument panel and marked with a red arc on the
tachometer, may be ignored or removed."
NOTE
Although the vibration encountered between 2100 and 2200 rpm with the
E-225-8 engine, when operated at higher manifold pressures, is not
sufficient to warrant restricting operation in this range, it does make
essential good maintenance of the propeller blades, especially between Blade
Stations 35 and 42 and back approximately 1-1/2 inches from the blade
leading edge. This area must be kept free of nicks, scratches and gouges
which might cause stress concentrations and result in blade failures. Blade
maintenance must be in accordance with Section VI of the Bonanza Maintenance
Manual, P/N 35-590057-3, as revised January 15, 1954.
Happy skies,
Ron Davis
Robert J. Mayer wrote:
>
>
> Reading Ron's reply about operational markings on the airspeed indicator
> made me wonder about the red markings that appear on my tach next to
> 2000 to about 2050 rpms. I fly behind an E-225-8 in a straight '35. Do
> the markings indicate an area to be avoided due to vibrations? I
> haven't found anything about this "red area" in any literature about
> the engine or the airframe. Could it be that the tach came from another
> Beech that had such limitations, or did it apply to an early engine? I
> don't notice any performance problems when operating in this red area
> nor do I feel any additional vibrations. Any thoughts out there? Thanks,
> Rob Mayer
> D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
Bob,
Yes, Mike Smith is the one I was thinking of. His stub spar mod is indeed a
more elegant repair, and was available before Beech's mod was. However, I
believe it was designed *only* for the C35 and later models. I don't know
if he also did one for the 35-B35 series or not.
I am assuming that Bob V. is aware that his performance will not legally
increase, although its possible in New Zealand there may be additional
paperwork he can do to overcome this. I don't know. Perhaps the reason for
his engine upgrade is not to go rocketing through the sky, but for
ease-of-maintenance reasons. Its hard enough to find anyone here in the
States that knows anything about the E-series engines. I expect the problem
in NZ is slightly worse. With an IO-470, it will be considerably easier to
maintain.
You're right -- there is no need for a tail mod on the 35, but if I *was*
already working on the tail section, and the bulkhead was easy to get to at
this stage of restoration/repair, then I would certainly replace the
bulkhead with the stronger one just for my own peace of mind. My two cents
here.
Ron Davis
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/21/02 11:01:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
> radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
>
>
>
>>Lastly, there *was* a mod by Steve Smith years ago that was a "stub spar"
>>which was an alternative to the ruddervator cuff mod. I don't know if one
>>was ever developed for the early Bonanzas. I don't think so.
>>
>>
>
> Good Afternoon Ron,
>
> Could you be referring to the modification developed by Mike Smith? As you
> are undoubtedly aware, that, or the cuff was added because of the extra chord
> length of the "D" section on the later stabilizers. Mike's was a much better
> modification than the factory cuff setup. It was lighter and invisible from
> the outside. The trouble is that it required that the stabilizers be removed
> to make the installation. The factory cuff was cheaper to install and
> required less skill to apply.
>
> One more comment on installing a larger engine than originally approved in an
> early airframe.
>
> Every installation that I have seen in a straight 35 allows no more power to
> be pulled than is used in the original engine. If an E225 is used, the MP is
> limited to 26.5 inches at 2300 RPM and 27.5 inches at 2050 RPM. 2300 RPM is
> allowed for only one minute and 2050 RPM is the limit at all other times.
>
> Interestingly, if an E225 is installed in an A35, it is possible, depending
> on the auxiliary fuel pump installed and a couple of other items, to utilize
> the full 225 horsepower. If an E205-11 is installed in the same airframe,
> only the original 185 HP may be used.
>
> I know it doesn't make sense, but the approvals have the limits the applicant
> and the FAA agreed on. It is a LOT easier to get something approved if you
> leave the horsepower alone.
>
> Many large engines have restrictions on the power allowed.
>
> Before anyone uses any horsepower above that with which the aircraft was
> originally certificated, it is pertinent to ascertain what has been approved
> and why it is what it is.
>
> Beefing up the tail is not likely to allow any increase in the horsepower
> allowed nor is it likely to allow the aircraft to carry any higher loads.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
In a message dated 8/21/02 3:07:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> However, I
> believe it was designed *only* for the C35 and later models. I don't know
> if he also did one for the 35-B35 series or not.
>
Good Evening Ron,
I am sure it was only for the long "D" section stabilizers. They are the
only ones that required it! I thought I mentioned that in the earlier
message. In any case, parts are much easier to come by for the O470 and
later engines.
The only downside is the price and the weight. The O470, O520 and O550
engines all weigh the same, so if one is biting the bullet and accepting the
extra weight, the only thing to stop them from installing the IO-550B is the
size of their wallet. I still recommend that an H35 or later be purchased if
a bigger engine is desired. It takes a dedicated scrounger and enthusiast
such as yourself to keep the E series engine going. On top of that,
regardless of how much horsepower you put in the aircraft, you can't increase
the useful load. Putting in any of the later engines robs you of eighty
pounds right off the top.
I do love the early light weight airplanes. They are, by far, the most fun
to fly, but if payload and range are an issue, it is best to buy a later
airframe.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | R u a straight 35'r? |
Howdo
I ride around in a lovely straight 35, happily dealing with its age, its
AD's, its limitations, its unique character its pure pleasure to fly .
Question?
Is there any interest out there in forming a "Straight 35" group or some
other informal forum organized to focus on the unique-ness of the
original 1500 units that started this whole Bonanza thing?
I would like to hear from anyone so disposed..
Pete Scott 4579V ss1221 winginit(at)jps.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Philcohen(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
1500 is alot of planes. Alot more than are in other "plane-specific clubs. Seems
like a good Idea. Philip Cohen D-964
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
Gentlemen,
Thanks for the comments. Down here in South Africa (not NZ), the older birds
like the 35-C35's can be reclassified in the Experimental category as soon
as deviation from th original specification is warranted as a result of
scarcety of parts, or lack of factory support for said model. In this part
of the world, I think there are only 5 aircraft still in operation in the
1947-1952 vintage. Keeping them flying is a real expensive challenge. E
engines are just about extinct.
The downside of our Experimental category is VFR flight only, but since I am
a fair weather pilot flying for fun only, I'm not to stressed about this
aspect. The X category does, however, allow the owner operator extreme
latitude in terms of the operational parameters of the aircraft. Obviously
these parameters have to be substantiated before an approval will be given.
In other words, we write our own STC's.
The IO 470 is fitted because I had it in hand before the aircraft; that
settles that! I've gutted the aircraft completely, new wiring, panel,
interior, reskinned the wings, flaps and ailerons, etc. Fortunately the tail
feathers were acquired off another bird that had a nose strike and are in
mint condition. Since I have them off at the moment, I was wondering about
the strengthening mod. The bulkhead mod has been done, but the cuffs appeal
to me. The amount of flex evident in the assembled form seems rather
alarming, although some "give" is not always a bad thing.
To get back to the original thread-does anyone know a site where there might
be some kind of diagramatical views of any of the mods, or where more of the
technical specs are evident?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Re: A35 tail group
In a message dated 8/21/02 3:07:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> However, I
> believe it was designed *only* for the C35 and later models. I don't know
> if he also did one for the 35-B35 series or not.
>
Good Evening Ron,
I am sure it was only for the long "D" section stabilizers. They are the
only ones that required it! I thought I mentioned that in the earlier
message. In any case, parts are much easier to come by for the O470 and
later engines.
The only downside is the price and the weight. The O470, O520 and O550
engines all weigh the same, so if one is biting the bullet and accepting the
extra weight, the only thing to stop them from installing the IO-550B is the
size of their wallet. I still recommend that an H35 or later be purchased
if
a bigger engine is desired. It takes a dedicated scrounger and enthusiast
such as yourself to keep the E series engine going. On top of that,
regardless of how much horsepower you put in the aircraft, you can't
increase
the useful load. Putting in any of the later engines robs you of eighty
pounds right off the top.
I do love the early light weight airplanes. They are, by far, the most fun
to fly, but if payload and range are an issue, it is best to buy a later
airframe.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
In a message dated 8/22/02 12:14:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
winginit(at)jps.net writes:
> Is there any interest out there in forming a "Straight 35" group or some
> other informal forum organized to focus on the unique-ness of the
> original 1500 units that started this whole Bonanza thing?
>
> I would like to hear from anyone so disposed..
>
> Pete Scott 4579V ss1221 winginit(at)jps.net
>
>
Good Morning Pete,
That is precisely the type of support the straight 35 needs.
It is, without doubt, the most pleasant of the type to fly.
I am not currently an owner of one of those jewels, but would be happy to
participate and help out in any way possible in the dissemination of data and
knowledge to the group.
The original Bonanza deserves that sort of tender loving care. Too many
folks buy one and then try to turn it into something it was never meant to
be!
I look forward to your endeavors.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Former owner of D-10, D-729 and D-273 in that order, circa 1954 to 1968.
Still miss them often and wish I had kept the last one forever!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 Philcohen(at)aol.com wrote:
> 1500 is alot of planes. Alot more than are in other "plane-specific
> clubs. Seems like a good Idea. Philip Cohen D-964
1500 is a lot of planes, but how many of them are still flying? I would
guess only half that at best. Maybe that makes a stronger arguement for a
model specific club.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" (S/N D-1514, guess I'm out of the club)
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
Frank,
Bryan Wells' website
http://www.vintagebonanza.com/
has a "Model Info" page that lists, as of 2001, the 35-G35 production and
the number currently registered in the US:
Total 2001
Mod. Built Reg. %
----- ------ ------ ----
35 1500 679 45% ---\
A35 699 345 49% > 1311, or 47% of total remaining
B35 479 287 60% ---/
C35 717 486 68% --\
D35 297 228 77% \
E35 300 230 77% > 1504, or 53% of total remaining
F35 390 199 51% /
G35 473 361 76% --/
====== ====== ====
4855 2815 58%
Nice to know Beech built such a sturdy plane that nearly 50 years later,
roughly half of them are still flying. (Well, on the books, anyway...)
Ron Davis
Frank Stutzman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 Philcohen(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>1500 is alot of planes. Alot more than are in other "plane-specific
>>clubs. Seems like a good Idea. Philip Cohen D-964
>>
>
> 1500 is a lot of planes, but how many of them are still flying? I would
> guess only half that at best. Maybe that makes a stronger arguement for a
> model specific club.
>
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" (S/N D-1514, guess I'm out of the club)
> Hood River, OR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck McFarlin <chmcfarlin(at)comcast.net> |
Hi,
I am currently updating the panel in my D35 (small moving map GPS, new intercom,
transponder, gyro's etc). We are finally at the point of putting it all back
in the airplane but we have entered a period of debate about panel color. The
overlay and other exposed panel pieces are headed to the powder coaters soon.
Currently I am thinking about a satin black or something like the original
color (what ever that was). The third option would seem to be a color similar
to the newer versions (various shades of gray). Looking for suggestions.
Thanks,
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D35 panel color |
Chuck,
Hey, I'm always a sucker for the original look, but it seems that the
"modern" way is to paint the dash a dark non-reflective color, like black or
battleship gray.
If your panel looks reasonably authentic, then I'd stick with an authentic
color of the period. For the D35, the factory interior colors were:
6YR2/2 BROWN
5GY1/1 GRAY
If you prefer black, then maybe that old-style black "crinkle paint" would
be a nice choice, but beware, it is the devil to use those nifty stick-on
letters on crinkle paint.
If your panel looks more modern, then it seems you can't go wrong with
black, or if its quite modern with lots of fancy gadgets, then that hazy Air
Force blue-gray would look keen.
Ron Davis
Chuck McFarlin wrote:
>
> Hi, I am currently updating the panel in my D35 (small moving map GPS,
> new intercom, transponder, gyro's etc). We are finally at the point of
> putting it all back in the airplane but we have entered a period of
> debate about panel color. The overlay and other exposed panel pieces
> are headed to the powder coaters soon. Currently I am thinking about a
> satin black or something like the original color (what ever that was).
> The third option would seem to be a color similar to the newer
> versions (various shades of gray). Looking for suggestions. Thanks, Chuck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jdevany(at)olypen.com |
My left nose gear door is worn paper thin where it comes up against
the fuselage. Somewhere back about a year ago, I remember some
conversation in this group about an STC for composite nose gear
doors. Does anyone know if the STC was approved and if so, where
can I find these new nose gear doors?
Jim Devany
D4516
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "carmine pecoraro" <aeroauto(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A35 tail group |
If your tail feathers go back on and balanced corredtly there is no need to
put the tail mod on them. You don't need extra weight back there.
cheers carmine pecoraro
>From: Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: Re: A35 tail group
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:06:27 -0700
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Yes, Mike Smith is the one I was thinking of. His stub spar mod is indeed
>a
>more elegant repair, and was available before Beech's mod was. However, I
>believe it was designed *only* for the C35 and later models. I don't know
>if he also did one for the 35-B35 series or not.
>
>I am assuming that Bob V. is aware that his performance will not legally
>increase, although its possible in New Zealand there may be additional
>paperwork he can do to overcome this. I don't know. Perhaps the reason
>for
>his engine upgrade is not to go rocketing through the sky, but for
>ease-of-maintenance reasons. Its hard enough to find anyone here in the
>States that knows anything about the E-series engines. I expect the
>problem
>in NZ is slightly worse. With an IO-470, it will be considerably easier to
>maintain.
>
>You're right -- there is no need for a tail mod on the 35, but if I *was*
>already working on the tail section, and the bulkhead was easy to get to at
>this stage of restoration/repair, then I would certainly replace the
>bulkhead with the stronger one just for my own peace of mind. My two cents
>here.
>
>Ron Davis
>
>
>BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 8/21/02 11:01:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Lastly, there *was* a mod by Steve Smith years ago that was a "stub
>spar"
> >>which was an alternative to the ruddervator cuff mod. I don't know if
>one
> >>was ever developed for the early Bonanzas. I don't think so.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Good Afternoon Ron,
> >
> > Could you be referring to the modification developed by Mike Smith? As
>you
> > are undoubtedly aware, that, or the cuff was added because of the extra
>chord
> > length of the "D" section on the later stabilizers. Mike's was a much
>better
> > modification than the factory cuff setup. It was lighter and invisible
>from
> > the outside. The trouble is that it required that the stabilizers be
>removed
> > to make the installation. The factory cuff was cheaper to install and
> > required less skill to apply.
> >
> > One more comment on installing a larger engine than originally approved
>in an
> > early airframe.
> >
> > Every installation that I have seen in a straight 35 allows no more
>power to
> > be pulled than is used in the original engine. If an E225 is used, the
>MP is
> > limited to 26.5 inches at 2300 RPM and 27.5 inches at 2050 RPM. 2300
>RPM is
> > allowed for only one minute and 2050 RPM is the limit at all other
>times.
> >
> > Interestingly, if an E225 is installed in an A35, it is possible,
>depending
> > on the auxiliary fuel pump installed and a couple of other items, to
>utilize
> > the full 225 horsepower. If an E205-11 is installed in the same
>airframe,
> > only the original 185 HP may be used.
> >
> > I know it doesn't make sense, but the approvals have the limits the
>applicant
> > and the FAA agreed on. It is a LOT easier to get something approved if
>you
> > leave the horsepower alone.
> >
> > Many large engines have restrictions on the power allowed.
> >
> > Before anyone uses any horsepower above that with which the aircraft was
> > originally certificated, it is pertinent to ascertain what has been
>approved
> > and why it is what it is.
> >
> > Beefing up the tail is not likely to allow any increase in the
>horsepower
> > allowed nor is it likely to allow the aircraft to carry any higher
>loads.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
>
>
cheers carmine pecoraro
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: D35 panel color |
In a message dated 8/22/02 8:26:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
chmcfarlin(at)comcast.net writes:
> We are finally at the point of putting it all back in the airplane but we
> have entered a period of debate about panel color.
Good Evening Chuck,
Colors are always very personal, but I lean toward the lighter colors.
When I first started flying professionally, almost all panels were black. I
guess it was a leftover from WWII. When the DC-6 was delivered, somebody ran
some tests to determine the color for the panel. Those tests showed that
lighter colors were easier on the eyes, allowed better visibility around the
rest of the cockpit and didn't give the black hole contrast trouble common
with the black panels.
My airline decided on a light gray.
When the glass cockpit airplanes came on the scene, the ergonomic folks
decided that light beige or tan was even better than the light gray.
I agreed with their choice.
The light beige is my all time favorite.
Beech has used light gray, light blue and light tan at various times over the
years.
Personally, I don't like black at all and I positively hate that crinkle
finish!
Whatever color you chose, may I suggest a flat paint as first choice with a
satin finish as second.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
Hello Bob,
You have probably hit on the most responsive nerve of the straight
35..namely
those that are kept as original as possible. I find myself at the
opposite end
of the tunnel.. Victoria (4579V) is a straight 35 but has seen the
benefit of
various mods over the years and now represents an example of the steady
morphis of
a solid original design.
I am not complaining about her updated instrument panel, radio stack,
autopilot
alternator, late model cosmetics, etc. etc.; these mods have clearly
made a good
thing better by making her fit into an old carpenter's flying budget,
but:...
I do admire those brave souls who are embarking on a "purest"
renovation project
that is geared to the 35's original specs. My best to you.
Input from interested people as to how (or if we should) pursue this
special
focus will be welcomed and I'll endeavor to be an information conduit.
Pete
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/22/02 12:14:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
> winginit(at)jps.net writes:
>
> > Is there any interest out there in forming a "Straight 35" group or some
> > other informal forum organized to focus on the unique-ness of the
> > original 1500 units that started this whole Bonanza thing?
> >
> > I would like to hear from anyone so disposed..
> >
> > Pete Scott 4579V ss1221 winginit(at)jps.net
> >
> >
>
> Good Morning Pete,
>
> That is precisely the type of support the straight 35 needs.
>
> It is, without doubt, the most pleasant of the type to fly.
>
> I am not currently an owner of one of those jewels, but would be happy to
> participate and help out in any way possible in the dissemination of data and
> knowledge to the group.
>
> The original Bonanza deserves that sort of tender loving care. Too many
> folks buy one and then try to turn it into something it was never meant to
> be!
>
> I look forward to your endeavors.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Former owner of D-10, D-729 and D-273 in that order, circa 1954 to 1968.
> Still miss them often and wish I had kept the last one forever!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
In a message dated 8/22/02 11:15:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
winginit(at)jps.net writes:
> I am not complaining about her updated instrument panel, radio stack,
> autopilot alternator, late model cosmetics, etc. etc.; these mods have
> clearly
> made a good thing better by making her fit into an old carpenter's flying
> budget,
> but:...
>
Good Morning Pete,
Kudos to you!
I see nothing wrong with making a good thing better by adopting newer
technology where it fits in with reasonable operational capability.
I do like seeing those beautiful aircraft which still enjoy the completely
original configuration, but I too would go with modern electronics, a
modified instrument panel, autopilot and alternator. Even the late model
cosmetics are not bad, provided they are ones that do not add weight.
That E-series engine is a light weight marvel, just a little hard to find
parts for. Not impossible for a good scrounger, but it is doable.
When one adds a 470 to the airframe, he/she adds another eighty pounds.
That means the payload suffers the loss of one grandchild or one hours fuel.
Modern electronics, judiciously selected, can provide full modern IFR
capability at far less weight than the original Motorola radio. Add a set of
blades on the tail and a tail cone mounted comm antenna, as used by Mike
Smith, and you could even have less drag than the old LF wire antenna
provided.
While the Bonanza is a beautiful and easy to fly airplane, IFR or VFR, we
older folks do find an autopilot handy while searching for the bifocals we
dropped on the floor, so I can accept the weight penalty of a good light
weight autopilot. My current choice would be an S-Tec 30. Just a little
over ten pounds and it even holds altitude!
Replace the E-80 starter and old 35 amp generator with new light weight
replacements and you could save that ten pounds needed for the A/P.
I also would give up a couple of pounds for an overall paint job. Polishing
aluminum is not my idea of an enjoyable day at the airport. Besides,
polishing makes the skins thinner, they are thin enough already. The paint
is likely to make the airframe last a LOT longer.
There are cosmetic choices that can make the airplane lighter. The 35s came
with steel springs and sisal stuffing in the seats. I replaced mine with
light weight slings and light weight cushions. The stuff was not only
lighter, but actually more comfortable. I weighed the seats before and after
and found that I saved a full twenty-five pounds. You can't just go to Air
Mods (a wonderful shop by the way) and tell Dennis to make your seats the
best in the world, you must use some restraint, but you can gain comfort,
safety and lose some weight at the same time.
Many folks like to add the back windows. I would suggest restraint. The big
ones look neat and do add visibility, but they weigh a lot and require major
structural change. The smaller triangular, ones used on the F35 and later,
add about 75 percent of the usable visibility of the big ones, require no
major structural changes and add very little weight. I could live with
those.
Go ahead and modernize. Just pretend that you are a missile engineer when
you are planning those changes.
Keep it light!
That is one of the major features that makes the straight 35 such an
outstanding airplane.
I went through a major lightening program on my last 35, serial D-273.
I ended up with a 'key board up' modern stack style panel, new overall paint,
a state of the art interior and an empty weight of 1590 pounds.
The weight of electronics of the that day would easily accommodate a full IFR
stack of GPS, dual NavComs, ADF, DME Strikefinder etc. made to modern
standards.
My choice, if I were doing it today, would be to eliminate the ADF and DME,
go with an IFR approach approved GPS, dual NavComs (For dispatch reliability.
One would be plenty if you really want to save weight.) and a transponder.
That package would weigh enough less than the one I had to add the autopilot.
It is possible that careful research of all of the light weight materials
available today would allow one to get a model 35 back to the original design
empty weight of 1550 pounds while still enjoying all of the benefits of
modern navigation and communication.
I get heart burn when I hear people tell of flying the airplane several
hundred pounds over the design weight and using horsepowers that provide
cruising speeds above the yellow line. High horsepower won't hurt the
airframe, provided it is used for climb, not cruise.
Stick with the loading and speeds originally designed for, keep the weights
down, and modify away!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
In a message dated 8/23/02 7:49:50 AM Central Daylight Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com
writes:
> That means the payload suffers the loss of one grandchild or one hours fuel.
OOOPS!!
That should have read "one hour and twenty minutes fuel"
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
In a message dated 8/23/02 7:55:04 AM Central Daylight Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com
writes:
> > That means the payload suffers the loss of one grandchild or one hours
> fuel.
>
> OOOPS!!
>
> That should have read "one hour and twenty minutes fuel"
>
>
Well, it has been pointed out to me that an hour and twenty minutes would be
at a high cruise speed. At an economy cruise, not maximum endurance, eighty
pounds of fuel is good for over two hours at over 130 mph.
How true!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
Some comments to "Old Bob's" modernization thoughts.
I recently had to overhaul my E-80 starter and thought that I could go
lighter- ABS told me that the lighter weight starters wouldn't fit the
E-225 I fly. I already had a Jasco 50a alternator when I purchased the bird
(D-733).
An engineer at Beech convinced me not to consider adding the third window-
he was concerned about structural changes to a 50 year old airframe and the
added stress that would be caused by the normal twisting and flexing of the
airframe that has new holes in it.
As to the seats- I don't think I have original ones but they are too soft
and I will upgrade soon. I really didn't think much about weight savings
before your email, thanks for the heads up! I had looked at some foam at
Oshkosh that was like Tempur-pedic, I'll now have to weigh it before I do
anything. I sit a little too low on the current cushions and want to add
about 1 1/2 " to my height. How easy are the cushions to remove? Are they
just screwed down?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Rob Mayer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
Some comments to "Old Bob's" modernization thoughts.
I recently had to overhaul my E-80 starter and thought that I could go
lighter- ABS told me that the lighter weight starters wouldn't fit the
E-225 I fly. I already had a Jasco 50a alternator when I purchased the bird
(D-733).
An engineer at Beech convinced me not to consider adding the third window-
he was concerned about structural changes to a 50 year old airframe and the
added stress that would be caused by the normal twisting and flexing of the
airframe that has new holes in it.
As to the seats- I don't think I have original ones but they are too soft
and I will upgrade soon. I really didn't think much about weight savings
before your email, thanks for the heads up! I had looked at some foam at
Oshkosh that was like Tempura-pedic, I'll now have to weigh it before I do
anything. I sit a little too low on the current cushions and want to add
about 1 1/2 " to my height. How easy are the cushions to remove? Are they
just screwed down?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Rob Mayer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beechboys"
Just a reminder that the CBA is having their August Fly In at 3O9 in Afton,
Oklahoma. Bring cash, lawyers and guns as O'Halloran will make a personal
appearance. Hope to see you all, weather permitting.
Al
CLASSIC BONANZA ASSOCIATION AUGUST FLY-IN
GRAND LAKE REGIONAL (3O9)
AFTON, OKLAHOMA
AUGUST 24th, 2002
Airport Information:
Elevation: 792 ft. MSL
LAT/LONG 36-34-39. 279N / 094-51-42. 841/W
Located on the 225 radial/25.9 DME from the Neosha (EOS-117.30) VOR/DME
Runway Information:
RWY 17/35 - 3465' X 60' Paved
STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERN
RADIO: 122.70 CTAF
119.025 AWOS (6NME) (918-786-8350)
FLY-IN DATE: AUGST 24, 2002
RAIN DATE - AUGUST 31, 2002
Noon - Prime Rib Buffet Lunch - Price is $ 14.95 for all you care to eat
at the Waters Restaurant in the Shangri La Resort.
The August fly-in will be held at the Grand Lake Regional Airport in
Afton, Oklahoma, home of Shangri La Resort. The Resort is nestled on 650
acres along the shores of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees at the foothills
of the Ozarks. Shangri-La has some of the best recreational facilities
in the Midwest. Resort Accommodations provide beautiful panoramic views
of either the lakefront, courtyard or one of the two golf courses.
The restaurant is only 1.5 miles from the airport and courtesy
transportation will be provided.
For anyone wanting to make overnight reservations at Shangri-La Resort
or play golf please contact them at (918-257-4204).
As always, we encourage suggestions for future fly-in destinations.
Future fly-ins include Fredricksburg, Texas and Gaston's Fly-in Resort
in northern Arkansas along the banks of the White River. There is a new
motel and restaurant under construction at Fredricksburg and it should
be finished by October.
Please email me if you plan on attending the fly-in!!!!! Laissez les
bons temps rouler- Beechcraft Style!
George M. Bown - gmbown(at)gte.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | 470 and the straight 35. |
I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
Peter,
You could go from the E185-11 engine to the E225-8 with not much more than a
logbook entry (if done by a certified repair station, I believe), or more
commonly a form 337, as the Type Certificate was amended to allow the early
birds to use the E225.
But, there are a couple of firms that have STCs to put bigger engines in the
early Bonanzas:
Aviation Research Systems
Sandy River Airport (03S)
42313 SE Oral Hull Rd.
Sandy, OR 97055
503-668-4542
Jerry Forston
( ... is in the process of getting the STC for 0-470 jugs on E185/E225
series engines.)
Beryl D'Shannon Aviation Specialties, Inc.
Airlake Airport (LVN)
21405 Hamburg Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
952-469-4783 or 763-535-0505 or 800-328-4629
800-546-4217 (fax)
email:
http://www.beryldshannon.com/index.htm
(E225-8 -> IO-470-N)
Hammock Aviation Services
Ennis Municipal Airport (F41)
3002 W. Ennis Ave.
Ennis, TX 75119
972-875-4279
Jerry Hammock:
http://www.hammockaviation.com
(E225-8 -> IO-470-N)
(E225-8 -> IO-520 or IO-550! engine)
Usually it doesn't pay to do it, though. The STC is expensive, the airplane
is an "oddball" when you get done with it, and mechanics will *definitely*
hesitate before working on this baby.
If you need "MORE POWER!" then it usually pays to sell your gem, add the
amount of money you were going to pay to do the upgrade and buy another gem
that has the engine of your choice already in it.
Ron Davis
1954 E35 gem
Peter Scott wrote:
>
>
> I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
>
> Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
In a message dated 8/23/02 8:22:29 PM Central Daylight Time, winginit(at)jps.net
writes:
> I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
>
> Pete
>
Good Evening Pete,
Actually, your dash 11 is an upgrade from the original dash 1!
I think you will find that the E-225 is the most powerful engine that is
shown in the TCDS as being eligible for installation in a straight 35. As
has been pointed out many times before, that approval does NOT allow any
higher horsepower to be used than was available with the E-185-1 engine. 185
HP for one minute during takeoff and 165 maximum continuous at all other
times.
I keep hearing rumors of local approvals of bigger engines, but I have never
actually seen one.
I am aware of one airplane that has 520/550 cylinders on an E model case. I
don't know if he has cobbled up some sort of stroker shaft or if he is still
using the standard "E" one.
In any case, it has, to my knowledge, no standard category FAA approval.
There are always rumors around concerning folks who have an approval to use
the full 225 horsepower in a Straight 35. I have yet to see such an
approval.
More Old Wives Tales I guess.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
Nope! I think Gary Hammock has a 550 in one. Gas powered space shuttle!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Scott" <winginit(at)jps.net>
Subject: Beech-List: 470 and the straight 35.
>
>
> I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: R u a straight 35'r? |
In a message dated 8/23/02 3:40:03 PM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> How easy are the cushions to remove? Are they
> just screwed down?
>
Good Evening Rob,
If you have the original seats, they are welded steel tubing with steel
zigzag springs welded to the frame. On top of the steel springs is a layer
of sisal. That is covered with thick cotton padding and then the upholstery
cloth is fitted over the whole assembly. There are no separate cushions as
such. I had the springs cut out, canvas slings applied to the seat frames
and foam placed over the sling. Still not a cushion in the normal usage of
the word. The front seats are removed by taking out some bolts. Three if my
memory serves me correctly. The seatbacks for the front seats can be removed
separately by taking a couple of bolts off where they attach to the seat
bottom frame.
My rather hazy recollection of the rear seat assembly is that the seat back
and the seat bottom are all one weldment. Incorporated in the seat back is a
tubing that is mounted transversally between the sides of the aircraft. That
tubing is a structural component of the aircraft and it is illegal to fly the
machine with that tubing removed. The ambulance version of the early Bonanza
had a steel tube as part of the ambulance kit that could be used when the
regular rear seat was removed. To get the seat out you remove the two bolts
which hold the cross tube to the sides of the fuselage and a couple of bolts
which hold the bottom of the weldment to the rear spar. The forces on the
fuselage in flight are such that it tends to collapse the sides into the
airplane. Removing the seat assembly is easier if a jack is placed across the
fuselage just aft of the transverse tube so that the fuselage can be forced
out an eighth of an inch or so. That will relieve the pressure and allow the
seat to come out. Chances are the fuselage sides will stay out a bit so that
the seat can be put back in without having to use the jack. Once you fly the
machine, the sides will once again be pressing tightly against that cross
tube. Kinda makes you wonder how many times you ought to remove that rear
seat doesn't it?
Once again, the reason the early Bonanza flew so well was that Beech
engineers had made a major effort to keep the weight down. They combined as
much structure as possible to eliminate weight. Making those one piece steel
seats part of the primary structure was part of that weight conservation
program.
Separate seats with separate seat cushions are convenient and allow creature
comfort for a broader range of people shapes and sizes. The fixed seats
weigh less and can be built to provide great comfort for one individual. If
you are the only person who must be accommodated, build the seat to meet your
needs and enjoy the lighter weight.
On the A35 and later, the fuselage was beefed up so that the steel cross tube
was no longer needed. Definitely more convenient, but it also definitely
weighs more!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
In a message dated 8/23/02 9:11:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> But, there are a couple of firms that have STCs to put bigger engines in the
>
> early Bonanzas:
>
Good Evening Ron,
Have you checked the approval from BDS and Hammock recently?
I have never asked Gary but I did ask the folks at BDS about engine upgrades
on the straight 35 a few years ago and it is my recollection that they had no
approvals for the straight 35. They can replace the E series in an A35
through G35 with anything up to and including the IO-550-B, but had nothing
to offer for the plain 35.
If you have different information, I sure would be happy to know it.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beechboys"
| Subject: | Afton, OK. Today NOT! |
It appears that the weather gods are angry at the CBA and will not cooperate
for the fly-in today. T Storms predicted for my route and then in the TUL
area until 8PM. If someone gets there, how about a report. Maybe there
will be a fly-in at O'Halloran International tomorrow. Anyone up for that?
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beechboys"
| Subject: | Fw: Fly-in Weathered Out |
This just in!
----- Original Message -----
From: "PAUL WHITESELL" <pwhitesell(at)commreps.com>
Subject: Fly-in Weathered Out
> I just spoke with Bob Kruse in Oklahoma. His observation which is
> confirmed by flight service is that clouds and rain are closing in on
> the fly-in destination. Thunder storms are also headed in that
> direction. I am officially moving the event to the rain date of August
> 31st. Please pass the word.
> --
> CommReps
> Paul Whitesell
> 972 380 5976
> www.commreps.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
Interesting if true.. I'd like to know for sure.
Pete
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
> Nope! I think Gary Hammock has a 550 in one. Gas powered space shuttle!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Scott" <winginit(at)jps.net>
> To:
> Subject: Beech-List: 470 and the straight 35.
>
> >
> >
> > I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> > the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> > later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> > will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
There is always someone who has a faster airplane, a larger engine, more
money, better tax breaks or newer sneakers. Who cares? The experience
of the shortest of flights beats any amount of pavement thrashing you
can describe.
It ain't the difference between airplanes that counts, it's the
difference
between flying and any other form of travel (read freedom) that gets my
attention.
Pete
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/23/02 8:22:29 PM Central Daylight Time, winginit(at)jps.net
> writes:
>
> > I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> > the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> > later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> > will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
> >
> > Pete
> >
>
> Good Evening Pete,
>
> Actually, your dash 11 is an upgrade from the original dash 1!
>
> I think you will find that the E-225 is the most powerful engine that is
> shown in the TCDS as being eligible for installation in a straight 35. As
> has been pointed out many times before, that approval does NOT allow any
> higher horsepower to be used than was available with the E-185-1 engine. 185
> HP for one minute during takeoff and 165 maximum continuous at all other
> times.
>
> I keep hearing rumors of local approvals of bigger engines, but I have never
> actually seen one.
>
> I am aware of one airplane that has 520/550 cylinders on an E model case. I
> don't know if he has cobbled up some sort of stroker shaft or if he is still
> using the standard "E" one.
>
> In any case, it has, to my knowledge, no standard category FAA approval.
>
> There are always rumors around concerning folks who have an approval to use
> the full 225 horsepower in a Straight 35. I have yet to see such an
> approval.
>
> More Old Wives Tales I guess.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
In a message dated 8/25/02 11:04:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
winginit(at)jps.net writes:
> It ain't the difference between airplanes that counts, it's the difference
> between flying and any other form of travel (read freedom) that gets my
> attention.
>
Good Morning Pete,
My sentiments precisely.
Even a Tripacer beats any ground bound travel.
When my wife and I were very young, we had a Ryan ST3KR (PT-22). It was good
for about 100 mph top cruise. Thelma Jean in the front pit holding one of
the babies, me in the back enjoying the flight and we were off to Grandma's
house.
In 1953 we acquired the use of a Tripacer. A full panel and a four channel
VHF transmitter combined with a very accurate and reliable gadget called an
Omnirange receiver. IFR capable and we could take the whole family at once.
The Bonanza has much better range, greater payload capability and burns less
fuel than either the Ryan or the Piper. Any of the three beat the devil out
of using the highways, (It was even more dramatic back in those days before
General Eisenhower built us those Interstate Highways)
I think we can definitely agree that the freedom to fly is wonderful.
What bothers me is those folks who buy an early Bonanza, stick a monster
engine in it and try to fly the same loads and speeds that they could in one
of the later models.
If you have the money and the inclination, the big engine is not a problem.
If the airplane is flown at the original indicated speed limitations and
within the originally certificated weights, the extra horsepower will allow
higher rates of climb and higher altitude performance with no extra strain on
the airframe other than some very minor torque effects on the engine mounts.
That is easy to compensate for, but the higher weights and speeds are not.
The A35, and later, all have approvals for a bigger engine. Some of those
approvals allow use of the higher horsepower from that bigger engine. On the
other hand, many restrict the bigger engine to no more than was provided by
the earlier engine. It is much easier to get a big engine approved by
limiting the HP than it is go through the hassle of getting it approved for
the full power available from the newer, and more powerful, engines.
To my current knowledge, no one has an approval to use any horsepower higher
than the 185/165 limits in the straight 35 airframe. I am not aware of any
engine heavier than an E-225 being approved either, though Ron Davis and a
couple of others have mentioned that it has been done.
Keep it light, keep it simple and keep it legal!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Installing side windows in 1965 Deb or S model |
Hi,
I removed the door window in my C33 Debonair and find the glass to be
sandwiched between two thin strips of aluminum which are spot welded
together in just short of a million places. The rivets pass thru the
strips and not the glass which is the best way to do it as usual Beech does.
My question is how do I replace the glass?? I have had suggestions of
drilling out the spots and another of cutting the metal frame into two
pieces - at the corners and reassembling them with the new glass. I
suppose a third is to buy new strips from Beech. None of these sound quite
ideal so I am still looking for the usual way of dealing with this. Surely
someone has replaced windows??
Did I mention that this nice Deb is for sale?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
820 Jackson Drive
Paso Robles, CA 93446-1812
805.239.8112
805.674.5140 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Installing side windows in 1965 Deb or S model |
In a message dated 8/26/02 12:02:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
kempthornes(at)earthlink.net writes:
> My question is how do I replace the glass?? I have had suggestions of
> drilling out the spots and another of cutting the metal frame into two
> pieces -- at the corners and reassembling them with the new glass.
Good Afternoon Hal,
The professionals who do such things use a knife like tool to split the
frames. Don't try to drill the spot rivets out or cut the frame. The knife
is tapped along the frame with a hammer.
I have never tried it myself, but Dennis Walters, of Air Mod, has described
the process at seminars in Oshkosh and other venues. He feels it is the only
way to go.
Since he does window replacements professionally. I don't know how happy he
would be to give advice during working hours, but he freely gives lot's of
good 'how to' advice at his seminars.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing side windows in 1965 Deb or S model |
I've done this job, all seven pieces of glass on a straight 35 (no third
windows). The frames are two pieces of aluminum spot welded together with
the window plexiglass "floating" around in this frame. The way the LPI
Plastics manual tells one to do it is to drill in the CENTER of the spot
welds with a No. 40 drill. This nearly drills away the whole weld but not
all of it. You then take a putty knife and sharpen the edge like a razor
blade. This you then tap into the frame edges where they meet and chisel
away the remaining spot weld. When enough welds are popped apart, the frame
starts to separate. When all the welds are chiseled, the frames come apart,
the old window can be removed, the frames can be stripped of old adhesive
(on my 54 year old '48, ONLY MEK would cut the black goo holding the frames
into the airframe!), primed and painted. The no. 40 drilled holes that
drilled out the spot welds are now countersunk on one frame side for the no.
3 flat head rivets you will use to reassemble the frame. The window might
have to be trimmed, but then it is put into one frame side with the proper
adhesive, the other frame side is put in place and no. 3 flat head rivets
are used in those previously drilled holes to hold the whole mess together.
It's great fun! I put Smokey Grey glass in my ship and the windows are the
best looking part of the airplane.
I also helped my Pal; Jess Meyers replace two windows in his1950 B35.
His ship is pictured on the cover of the current issue of Trade-a-plane
(second August issue).
I suppose the spot welds could be chiseled apart without drilling, but
the frames are so flimsy, I think they would have assumed pretzel shape if I
had tried that! And, they still need a way to be held together after
splitting.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas, NV 1948 Straight 35
> The professionals who do such things use a knife like tool to split the
> frames. Don't try to drill the spot rivets out or cut the frame. The
knife
> is tapped along the frame with a hammer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | 470 and the straight 35. |
I've got an IO 470 (265hp) in my A35 which I am looking forward to flying.
What about structural limitations? Does anyone have any info?
Bob Verwey
A35 ZS-BYG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Peter Scott
Subject: Re: Beech-List: 470 and the straight 35.
There is always someone who has a faster airplane, a larger engine, more
money, better tax breaks or newer sneakers. Who cares? The experience
of the shortest of flights beats any amount of pavement thrashing you
can describe.
It ain't the difference between airplanes that counts, it's the
difference
between flying and any other form of travel (read freedom) that gets my
attention.
Pete
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/23/02 8:22:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
winginit(at)jps.net
> writes:
>
> > I have been under the opinion that the only approved engine upgrade for
> > the 'ol Straight 35 is the 225 E series. Is it possible to go to a
> > later engine?. not that I am ready.. my dash 11 is running fine and
> > will probably outlast me if I'm lucky.
> >
> > Pete
> >
>
> Good Evening Pete,
>
> Actually, your dash 11 is an upgrade from the original dash 1!
>
> I think you will find that the E-225 is the most powerful engine that is
> shown in the TCDS as being eligible for installation in a straight 35. As
> has been pointed out many times before, that approval does NOT allow any
> higher horsepower to be used than was available with the E-185-1 engine.
185
> HP for one minute during takeoff and 165 maximum continuous at all other
> times.
>
> I keep hearing rumors of local approvals of bigger engines, but I have
never
> actually seen one.
>
> I am aware of one airplane that has 520/550 cylinders on an E model case.
I
> don't know if he has cobbled up some sort of stroker shaft or if he is
still
> using the standard "E" one.
>
> In any case, it has, to my knowledge, no standard category FAA approval.
>
> There are always rumors around concerning folks who have an approval to
use
> the full 225 horsepower in a Straight 35. I have yet to see such an
> approval.
>
> More Old Wives Tales I guess.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
In a message dated 8/27/02 8:01:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
skymaster(at)icon.co.za writes:
> I've got an IO 470 (265hp) in my A35 which I am looking forward to flying.
> What about structural limitations? Does anyone have any info?
>
> Bob Verwey
> A35 ZS-BYG
>
Good Morning Bob,
I have minimal knowledge, but BDS and Gary Hammock do have approvals for
installing the heavier engine in an A35.
This is very hazy, but my memory tells me that there is some beefing up
needed in the nose gear tunnel/engine mount structure. I recall that at
least one modifier added a doubler over the sides of the tunnel and I do
believe the engine mounts were changed.
The problem is with the added weight, not the added horsepower.
As long as the gross weight and the speed restrictions of the aircraft are
kept the same, the higher power is merely transformed into a higher rate of
climb and a greater flexibility as to how often it can be flown close to the
yellow line.
There is no question that some slightly higher torque loads are applied to
the airframe, but my engineer friends tell me that is a small consideration
and the structure to handle the weight of the engine more than covers any
airframe problem developed by the higher torque.
As to why the greater horsepower does not increase the stress on the
airframe, think of it this way.
If you have a large tank which weighs 50,000 pounds and you want to carry it
on a semi truck trailer which weighs 15,000 pounds, how strong do the
fasteners have to be to hold the tank to the trailer?
At first thought, you might say strong enough to hold down the 50,000 pound
tank. That, however, is in error. The fastenings only need to be strong
enough to support the 15,000 pound trailer.
If the tank lifts due to a bump or rolls over due to a side load, it will
take the trailer with it. The lighter weight chains, or whatever was used,
will be more than adequate to keep the two combined.
So it is with more horsepower in an airplane. Keep the weights and speeds
the same and the stresses will be the same.
The acceleration will be better, the rate of climb will be faster, the
altitude at which you can achieve yellow line will be higher and overall
performance will improve dramatically. If you elect to cruise at the same
power as the old engine provided, you are likely to burn less fuel at the
same weight due to the ability to attain that power at a lower RPM and a
greater likelihood that you will be able to operate the engine leaner at the
power required.
The principal downside to the bigger engine is the additional eighty pounds.
Incidentally, is that a misprint when you said 265 HP? To my recollection,
the 470 engines varied from 213 HP to 260. I don't recall a 265 version.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | 470 and the straight 35. |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Beech-List: 470 and the straight 35.
In a message dated 8/27/02 8:01:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
skymaster(at)icon.co.za writes:
> I've got an IO 470 (265hp) in my A35 which I am looking forward to flying.
> What about structural limitations? Does anyone have any info?
>
> Bob Verwey
> A35 ZS-BYG
>
Good Morning Bob,
I have minimal knowledge, but BDS and Gary Hammock do have approvals for
installing the heavier engine in an A35.
This is very hazy, but my memory tells me that there is some beefing up
needed in the nose gear tunnel/engine mount structure. I recall that at
least one modifier added a doubler over the sides of the tunnel and I do
believe the engine mounts were changed.
The problem is with the added weight, not the added horsepower.
As long as the gross weight and the speed restrictions of the aircraft are
kept the same, the higher power is merely transformed into a higher rate of
climb and a greater flexibility as to how often it can be flown close to the
yellow line.
There is no question that some slightly higher torque loads are applied to
the airframe, but my engineer friends tell me that is a small consideration
and the structure to handle the weight of the engine more than covers any
airframe problem developed by the higher torque.
As to why the greater horsepower does not increase the stress on the
airframe, think of it this way.
If you have a large tank which weighs 50,000 pounds and you want to carry it
on a semi truck trailer which weighs 15,000 pounds, how strong do the
fasteners have to be to hold the tank to the trailer?
At first thought, you might say strong enough to hold down the 50,000 pound
tank. That, however, is in error. The fastenings only need to be strong
enough to support the 15,000 pound trailer.
If the tank lifts due to a bump or rolls over due to a side load, it will
take the trailer with it. The lighter weight chains, or whatever was used,
will be more than adequate to keep the two combined.
So it is with more horsepower in an airplane. Keep the weights and speeds
the same and the stresses will be the same.
The acceleration will be better, the rate of climb will be faster, the
altitude at which you can achieve yellow line will be higher and overall
performance will improve dramatically. If you elect to cruise at the same
power as the old engine provided, you are likely to burn less fuel at the
same weight due to the ability to attain that power at a lower RPM and a
greater likelihood that you will be able to operate the engine leaner at the
power required.
The principal downside to the bigger engine is the additional eighty pounds.
Incidentally, is that a misprint when you said 265 HP? To my recollection,
the 470 engines varied from 213 HP to 260. I don't recall a 265 version.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Thanks for the insights on the issue. The engine is an IO 470L ex Baron and
according to the handbook the rated HP is 265@ 2650rpm. My only installation
issue was the depth of the sump. Being ally sheet it was easily to remove a
slice; downside is one quart reduction in oil capacity. I've only got about
4hr fuel endurance so I should be OK. The mount is the tubular base from a
C182 which with a bit of creativity fitted very well, utilising the beefed
up attach points of the old 185 engine mounts. I feel the mount is a lot
stronger than the original setup because it is an integral tubular unit in
its own right before being fitted to the airframe. The IO470 L breathes from
the back of the engine where the belt driven Alty sits (I like the belt
driven type). AlSO this engine has the extended crank out front which helped
to eliminate trimming the nosebug.
My questions regarding the stabilator strengthening were prompted by
thoughts of continual yellow arc cruising, and inadvertant excursions into
turbulent air.
> Bob _ _ _ squared?
> A35 ZS-BYG
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Getting Bounced From Matronics Lists... |
Dear Listers,
I have two programs I run regularly to purge the various Matronics email
lists of bad email addresses. I referred to these as my Email Weasels and
there is a daily version that is run automatically every night at midnight
and there is a and a monthly version that I run by hand at roughly 30-day
intervals.
The Daily Weasel grinds through the 8 to 10mb of bounced email that is
generated each day looking for obvious things like "user unknown", "host
unknown", and other things that usually mean the user's email address
doesn't exist any longer. The Daily Weasel has been purging 5 to 10 email
addresses each night.
The Monthly Weasel gets more serious about the task and sends a single
message to each list member with specially generated headers and content
information. Any bounces or replies to these messages are considered
errors and the email address is eligible for purging. This program is
particularly useful for "weaseling out" email addresses that are actually
being forwarded to by another email address that is subscribed to a List
and otherwise would not be identifiable. The Monthly Weasel purges roughly
100 nonexistent email addresses each month when it is run.
To check to see if your address has been removed by either of the Email
Weasel programs, you can check the Weasel Status Web Page at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/unsubscribed
If you find your email address on the Weasel List, but are certain that
everything is working fine now, simply go the Matronics Subscription page
and resubscribe your address. No harm, no foul. The subscription URL is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
That all having been said, I've noticed that the Daily Weasel may have been
getting a little too aggressive in purging addresses recently and a number
of people have written asking if and why they'd been dropped from the List.
A couple of months ago I rewrote the Daily Weasel program to include a
wider variety of errors and more aggressively purge. One of the new purge
criteria that I added seems to occur a fair amount of the time (Connection
Deferred) even though the address is really okay.
As of today, I've removed the Connection Deferred criteria from the Daily
Weasel Rule set and this should decrease the number of "false positives"
and unnecessary unsubscribed.
Again, if you get unsubscribed by either of the Email Weasel utilities,
simply go to the subscription page and resubscribe:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JBirkle1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH |
Hello,
Any of your guys heard of the SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH by Aero Improvements? My
Bonanza door latch is far from perfect....this looks like a good backup to
prevent the door from popping open!
Thanks,
John Birkle
F-35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Strong" <gstrong(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH |
I've not heard of this but I would be very interested. I've had mine
pop open before (I assume I didn't get it latched all the way). Any
more info on either their website or address/phone number?
Gary S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JBirkle1(at)aol.com
Subject: Beech-List: SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH
Hello,
Any of your guys heard of the SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH by Aero Improvements?
My
Bonanza door latch is far from perfect....this looks like a good backup
to
prevent the door from popping open!
Thanks,
John Birkle
F-35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JBirkle1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: SAF-T-PIN DOOR LATCH |
The info I have on the Saf-T-Pin Door Latch system is:
Aero Improvements, 909-392-8225. It appears to be a good
system but I'd sure like to see one installed before I purchase and
install one on my plane!
John Birkle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
Hi!
I have a "hydro-selective" Hartzell prop turned by an E-225-8 and want to try and
get the MP and RPM settings I need to fly instruments. It sure sounds easier
than it is!
Anyone familiar with this prop probably knows that it is not a constant speed prop
but rather just an adjustable prop. If I lower MP, the RPM's go up; if I raise
RPM's, the MP goes down. If I am cruising at 22" and 2000 RPM (a common combination
I use) and want to start my descent I can't just raise RPM's to 2300
and then play with MP to get my descent rate because as I lower the MP I get
to a point where the prop will over-speed.
The only thing I have been able to work out is to raise RPM's in two or three stages
while I lower MP. I would like a way to not have to be spinning both knobs,
adding to the work load.
I will soon start instrument training and everyone tells me to "get the numbers
worked out" before I start.
Any ideas out there in Beech cyber-land would be appreciated.
Rob Mayer
D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Robert;
Although it is not what folks are used to, the prop can and is used by many
people in an IFR platform. That said, you need to work those numbers out to
your particular airplane. Sounds hard, but it just takes a bit of practice.
Now that I've gotten that out, I will tell you that there is "T Drive" that
is attached to that prop that will make it a truly constant speed version.
There are plenty around, and expect to pay up to about $1500 for one. It is
mounted on the rear of the engine where the fuel pump is. The fuel pump is
then mounted to the rear of the T Drive. The original kit for the prop
included the drive, but many opted to not install it. Good luck
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Beech-List: The Numbers
>
> Hi!
> I have a "hydro-selective" Hartzell prop turned by an E-225-8 and want to
try and get the MP and RPM settings I need to fly instruments. It sure
sounds easier than it is!
> Anyone familiar with this prop probably knows that it is not a constant
speed prop but rather just an adjustable prop. If I lower MP, the RPM's go
up; if I raise RPM's, the MP goes down. If I am cruising at 22" and 2000 RPM
(a common combination I use) and want to start my descent I can't just raise
RPM's to 2300 and then play with MP to get my descent rate because as I
lower the MP I get to a point where the prop will over-speed.
> The only thing I have been able to work out is to raise RPM's in two or
three stages while I lower MP. I would like a way to not have to be spinning
both knobs, adding to the work load.
> I will soon start instrument training and everyone tells me to "get the
numbers worked out" before I start.
> Any ideas out there in Beech cyber-land would be appreciated.
> Rob Mayer
> D-733
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/5/2002 8:11:01 PM Central Standard Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> Anyone familiar with this prop probably knows that it is not a constant
> speed prop but rather just an adjustable prop. If I lower MP, the RPM's go
> up; if I raise RPM's, the MP goes down. If I am cruising at 22" and 2000
> RPM (a common combination I use) and want to start my descent I can't just
> raise RPM's to 2300 and then play with MP to get my descent rate because as
> I lower the MP I get to a point where the prop will over-speed.
>
Good Evening Rob,
You have me thoroughly confused!
Normally accepted terminology for a propellor that can be manually adjusted
on the ground to various fixed pitch positions is that it is a ground
adjustable prop.
A propellor that has the capability of having the blade pitch adjusted via a
device in the cockpit is regularly referred to as a controllable pitch
propellor. When the blades are not being adjusted, the propellor reacts as
would any other fixed pitch propellor. I can understand why the MP may go
down when you increase the RPM with a controllable prop, but the rest has me
at a loss.
The normal reaction to a reduction in MP would be a reduction in RPM. An
increase in MP should produce an increase in RPM.
I am familiar with some of the early Hartzell controllable props that were
used on Bonanzas and were not equipped with a governor That then became a
controllable propellor, but I have never seen one that reacts as you
describe.
Further information would be appreciated.
In any case, the E-225, when installed in your airframe, D-733, is restricted
to a maximum of 2050 RPM for all operations except takeoff. During takeoff,
it may be operated at 2300 for one minute.
Could you provide more information as to just which propellor is installed?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
'Old Bob':
I have the Hartzell HC-12V20-7B "Hydro-Selective Propeller" without a governor.
As I lower MP, the RPM's go up- this is a condition mechanics have told me is 'normal'
with this type of controllable prop without a governor. At low MP settings
and full prop it does act like a fixed prop, but not over 15".
I want to be able to achieve a prop setting that allows me to maintain a lower
approach speed (let's say 95 mph at level attitude) and will result in full RPM
being available for a go around without fiddling with both throttle and prop;
a combination that seems very difficult to find.
It is necessary to set very low MP (~12" to 13") to get the plane to slow to 95
mph at level flight (my gear extension and operating speed is 100 mph). This
seems to be a good speed to use for approach so I can just drop the gear for a
stable descent.
I don't like to operate below 15" and then adjust the prop, so I would like to
get the prop set-up before I get to my approach speed of 95 mph. I would also
like to avoid spending so much time adjusting the prop at a time when work-load
could be high.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Rob Mayer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Robert J. Mayer wrote:
> I have the Hartzell HC-12V20-7B "Hydro-Selective Propeller" without a
> governor.
I have the same prop on my A35, also powered by an E-225.
> As I lower MP, the RPM's go up- this is a condition
> mechanics have told me is 'normal' with this type of controllable prop
> without a governor. At low MP settings and full prop it does act like
> a fixed prop, but not over 15".
Like Old Bob, I'm scratching my head over this. Unless I have been
completely oblivious for the past 500 hours (including getting my IFR
ticket in this plane last May), this is not how my prop behaves. The only
thing I can think of is that you are starting a descent and prop starts
windmilling.
For what its worth, here is the crib sheet I have taped to my
panel. Remember that this is for an A35, so your numbers will be close,
but different.
MP RPM Pitch AS VS
Climb (Vy) FT 2300 +9 90 1200
Cruise 20" 2150 0 130 0
Cruise Decent 16.7" 2150 -4 130 -500
Approach 13.4" 2000 0 90 0
Precesion 15" 2000 -2 90 -500
Approach
Approach
Where "FT" is full throttle and "----" is whatever I can get with the prop
control full forward.
> I would also like to avoid spending so much
> time adjusting the prop at a time when work-load could be high.
Lots of luck. Going missed is with this prop is like being a hyper-active
monkey on speed. I gave it up doing it gracefully. What I typically do
is putting the MP at about 19", getting the gear up, reducing the RPM,
putting in the rest of the throttle and then doing the final setting of
the RPM. Oh yes, and doing all of the other normal missed approach things
at the same time.
BTW, Al mentioned that there is a govenor that runs off of a
"T-drive" with the fuel pump. I'm not positive that is possible with the
-7B version of this prop. Would be glad to know I was wrong, has anybody
(first hand) added a T-drive to a -7B?
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
Frank:
Thanks for the crib sheet, I plan on flying tomorrow and I will see if I can develop
some numbers.
I will more closely observe RPM's and see if your theory about a descent causing
the higher numbers works out; I'll try holding altitude and increase RPM from
my normal cruise setting of 1900-2000 to about 2150 and see what happens to
MP, then I'll lower MP and see what happens to RPM at the same altitude. I'll
"report back" Sunday or Monday!
Thanks,
Rob Mayer
D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Robert J. Mayer wrote:
> Thanks for the crib sheet, I plan on flying tomorrow and I will see if
> I can develop some numbers.
Well, that is the bottom line. Don't know if you have Ecklebars book
("Flying the Beech Bonanza" or somthing like that), but he has some
numbers in it. They seemed to me to be completely inappropriate for my
old bird.
> I will more closely observe RPM's and see if your theory about a
> descent causing the higher numbers works out;
Well, it is just a theory and I can't say I put much credance behind it.
> I'll try holding
> altitude and increase RPM from my normal cruise setting of 1900-2000
> to about 2150 and see what happens to MP, then I'll lower MP and see
> what happens to RPM at the same altitude. I'll "report back" Sunday or
> Monday!
Well, I use 2150 because thats where my plane "feels good". Nothing
scientific about out. I can't remember what Old Bob said about the RPMS
in your airframe, but you might be legally limited to 2050.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
I'm not sure about the models, but I wasn't aware there were different ones.
My A had the juice prop installed, but the T drive sat in a box. When I got
it, it was brand new, but 35 years old.
Use Frank's numbers and maybe get in touch with Lew Gage.
---- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stutzman" <stutzman(at)stutzman.com>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: The Numbers
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Robert J. Mayer wrote:
>
> > I have the Hartzell HC-12V20-7B "Hydro-Selective Propeller" without a
> > governor.
>
> I have the same prop on my A35, also powered by an E-225.
>
> > As I lower MP, the RPM's go up- this is a condition
> > mechanics have told me is 'normal' with this type of controllable prop
> > without a governor. At low MP settings and full prop it does act like
> > a fixed prop, but not over 15".
>
> Like Old Bob, I'm scratching my head over this. Unless I have been
> completely oblivious for the past 500 hours (including getting my IFR
> ticket in this plane last May), this is not how my prop behaves. The only
> thing I can think of is that you are starting a descent and prop starts
> windmilling.
>
> For what its worth, here is the crib sheet I have taped to my
> panel. Remember that this is for an A35, so your numbers will be close,
> but different.
>
> MP RPM Pitch AS VS
> Climb (Vy) FT 2300 +9 90 1200
>
> Cruise 20" 2150 0 130 0
>
> Cruise Decent 16.7" 2150 -4 130 -500
>
> Approach 13.4" 2000 0 90 0
>
> Precesion 15" 2000 -2 90 -500
> Approach
>
> Approach
>
> Where "FT" is full throttle and "----" is whatever I can get with the prop
> control full forward.
>
> > I would also like to avoid spending so much
> > time adjusting the prop at a time when work-load could be high.
>
> Lots of luck. Going missed is with this prop is like being a hyper-active
> monkey on speed. I gave it up doing it gracefully. What I typically do
> is putting the MP at about 19", getting the gear up, reducing the RPM,
> putting in the rest of the throttle and then doing the final setting of
> the RPM. Oh yes, and doing all of the other normal missed approach things
> at the same time.
>
> BTW, Al mentioned that there is a govenor that runs off of a
> "T-drive" with the fuel pump. I'm not positive that is possible with the
> -7B version of this prop. Would be glad to know I was wrong, has anybody
> (first hand) added a T-drive to a -7B?
>
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about the models, but I wasn't aware there were different ones.
> My A had the juice prop installed, but the T drive sat in a box. When I got
> it, it was brand new, but 35 years old.
Well, I certainly could be wrong. I'd love to find out that I was
wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm going shopping ;-)
> Use Frank's numbers and maybe get in touch with Lew Gage.
One note about my numbers: the speeds are in knots. Indicated knots, if
thats not obvious.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
I didn't closely look at your numbers, but I've heard that the aeroplane
can't go over 144mph! ;-) Is that true?
Also, I remember a new prop control cable in the box, so that may be one of
the things that's needed for the conversion .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stutzman" <stutzman(at)stutzman.com>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: The Numbers
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not sure about the models, but I wasn't aware there were different
ones.
> > My A had the juice prop installed, but the T drive sat in a box. When I
got
> > it, it was brand new, but 35 years old.
>
> Well, I certainly could be wrong. I'd love to find out that I was
> wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm going shopping ;-)
>
> > Use Frank's numbers and maybe get in touch with Lew Gage.
>
> One note about my numbers: the speeds are in knots. Indicated knots, if
> thats not obvious.
>
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
> I didn't closely look at your numbers, but I've heard that the aeroplane
> can't go over 144mph! ;-) Is that true?
Can't and Won't are two different things ;-)
[Al is talking about the speed restriction AD that exists on the 35, A35
and B35]
I guess I really do cruise at about about 125 knots (144 mph). However,
before the AD came out, I routinly ran at about 140-145 knots. If I sneak
above 125 knots nowdays, I don't worry about it much as I know the plane
is capable of it.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
Frank and Al:
I thought there was some type of chute that deploys out of the tail cone
when you exceed 125k, I sure wouldn't try to fly faster than that!
I heard that the new SB on the speed restriction is due out soon and that it
will require an IA's certification that the airframe mods over the years
have not affected the structural integrity of the plane; in addition, the
ruddervators will have to be balanced and the prop also balanced.
My bird wants to fly fast.
Thanks for all the comments today regarding "the numbers", I'll see what I
can work out tomorrow.
Rob Mayer, D-733
> I didn't closely look at your numbers, but I've heard that the aeroplane
can't go over 144mph! ;-) Is that true?
>
> Can't and Won't are two different things ;-)
>
> [Al is talking about the speed restriction AD that exists on the 35, A35
> and B35]
>
> I guess I really do cruise at about about 125 knots (144 mph). However,
before the AD came out, I routinly ran at about 140-145 knots. If I sneak
above 125 knots nowdays, I don't worry about it much as I know the plane is
capable of it.
>
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 470 and the straight 35. |
OK My thots, I am interested in the IO470 conversion for a straight 35
simply as a potential soulution when E series engines become unobtainable
along with parts and overhauls. (or prop parts and overhauls.)
Of more interest to me is if there are any ways to increase load carrying
capacity and/or CG envelope.
Blue Skies
Steve D
4512V
48 Straight 35
PS Randy Keep me posted on Cessna 150 5744E. What are you doing to my pretty
little bird (overhaul?)
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Actually, Frank has the newly required device hooked up to his transponder
that sends a signal to the FAA Speed Enforcement Division when the
instrument exceeds 144.001 mph. You can get it through Beech for about
$17K, another $2.5k for installation. The new AD will require an IA's
signoff, your personal signoff that the work has been completed, a relic
belonging to Walter Beech himself (such as a piece of clothing) and an
endorsement from President Reagan specifying all the thing you mentioned.
It also helps if you can get a note from your mommy saying that her boy
would never go too fast in a flying machine. When all are in compliance,
the AD will then move to the C through H, then J through V, etc. So do your
part and get with the program.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: The Numbers
>
> Frank and Al:
>
> I thought there was some type of chute that deploys out of the tail cone
> when you exceed 125k, I sure wouldn't try to fly faster than that!
> I heard that the new SB on the speed restriction is due out soon and that
it
> will require an IA's certification that the airframe mods over the years
> have not affected the structural integrity of the plane; in addition, the
> ruddervators will have to be balanced and the prop also balanced.
> My bird wants to fly fast.
> Thanks for all the comments today regarding "the numbers", I'll see what I
> can work out tomorrow.
> Rob Mayer, D-733
>
> > I didn't closely look at your numbers, but I've heard that the
aeroplane
> can't go over 144mph! ;-) Is that true?
> >
> > Can't and Won't are two different things ;-)
> >
> > [Al is talking about the speed restriction AD that exists on the 35, A35
> > and B35]
> >
> > I guess I really do cruise at about about 125 knots (144 mph). However,
> before the AD came out, I routinly ran at about 140-145 knots. If I sneak
> above 125 knots nowdays, I don't worry about it much as I know the plane
is
> capable of it.
> >
> > Frank Stutzman
> > Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> > Hood River, OR
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/6/02 10:00:34 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> 'Old Bob':
> I have the Hartzell HC-12V20-7B "Hydro-Selective Propeller" without a
> governor.
> As I lower MP, the RPM's go up- this is a condition mechanics have told me
> is 'normal' with this type of controllable prop without a governor. At low
> MP settings and full prop it does act like a fixed prop, but not over 15".
>
Good Evening Rob,
I checked the TCDS for that propellor. I can't be sure, but it sounds to me
as though that is the old diaphragm operated Hartzell propellor that can be
either a constant speed or a controllable unit depending on whether or not a
governor is installed.
I have never seen one that reacts as you describe. Since it does not have a
governor, it should perform as a fixed pitch propellor when you adjust the
Manifold Pressure. If something else, such as you describe, is happening,
there is either something wrong or it is a type of propellor with which I am
not familiar.
Generally speaking, It works well to adjust the prop when you are near the
airspeed that you intend to fly. At low altitudes, gear and flaps up, it
should take about 18 to 20 inches and 1900 RPM or so to hold altitude. Try
dropping the gear and adding four inches of manifold pressure to see if it
will keep the airspeed and altitude close to what they were before you
dropped the gear. As long as the RPM is below 2050, you are OK. If that
addition of MP takes the RPM above 2050, bring it down by adding some pitch
to the blades. Adjust the MP to hold the altitude and airspeed at the new
adjusted prop setting.
Then, after you have found a power setting that meets your desires, try
pulling the gear up and reducing the MP (leave the propellor control alone)
to see what power it takes to hold that airspeed clean. You should be able
to find a combination that will allow you to leave the prop alone and make
the adjustments with throttle alone.
As long as you don't make any appreciable speed changes, you should be able
to find a fixed setting for the prop pitch that will allow the RPM to remain
within the 1800 to 2050 range while you reconfigure the aircraft for the
approach maneuvers.
Personally, I would try to find a setting that would allow full throttle to
be applied at you planned IFR Approach speed without the RPM exceeding 2050.
In any case, the key is to realize that it is airspeed changes that make
major propellor pitch changes necessary. Keep the airspeeds constant and the
RPM should stay within limits while you move the throttle as much as is
required to climb, descend or hold altitude during the approach maneuvers.
Hope that helps,
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | The Numbers- revisited |
Thanks for the assistance on this topic! I compiled some numbers on a flight on
took on Saturday. Unfortunately, I couldn't always enter all the info, ATC kept
on calling out traffic and there were some mountains below to be concerned
with. I think I have gotten a better handle on this issue with all your help.
Here is the chart I made:
NUMBERS WORKSHEET 9-7-02
Flight Segment MP RPM Pitch A/S
V/S Configuration
Climb
22"
2000
100mph
500fpm
Gear/flaps up
Climb
23"
2150
90?
500fpm
Gear/flaps up
Cruise
22" @ 5500'
2000
Level
145
0
Gear/flaps up
Simulated Approach
16"@ 6500'
2200
Level
120
0
Gear/flaps up
Simulated Approach
18" @ 6500'
2000
Level
120
0
Gear/flaps up
Cruise/descent
17"
2200
150
-500fpm
Gear/flaps up
Descent
16"
2150
147?
-500
Gear/flaps up
Approach
18"
2000
Level
128
0
Gear/flaps up
Descent
12.5"
2000 full?
105
-500
Gear/flaps up
Cruise/descent
16"
2100
150
-500
Gear/flaps up
17-
2000
Level
132
0
Gear/flaps up
Simulated Approach
17"
1900
Level
120
0
Gear/flaps up
14"
1950
Level
Gear/flaps up
Simulated Approach
13"
Full
Level
105
0
Gear/flaps up
Simulated Approach
12.5
2000 full?
Level
95
0
Gear/flaps up
Descent
11.5"
Full
120-
-500fpm
Gear/flaps up
I put "-" behind some numbers to reflect an actual number a little below what I
wrote down, exact readings are a little difficult at times, but I think I've
captured the big picture.
Any thoughts on interpretation of the above would be appreciated.
Thanks again,
Rob Mayer
D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
Hello fellow aviators.....
I have watched this conversation with great interest.
This gathering of numbers is a standard part of the BPPP curriculum.
I attended a BPPP in Little Rock last October and I can tell you that,
although it ain't cheap, it was the best money I have spent since I
purchased my D35 3 years ago.
Putting this flying by the numbers business into practice has made my flying
smoother, more predictable, and probably alot safer. I am working on my
instrument rating right now and it is most helpful there as well. By having
the airplane correctly configured for any phase of flight, I never have the
surprise of running into the pattern with extra knots to lose to drop the
gear, chasing the thing around during approaches, and I can really get the
climb performance the airplane is intended to have.
I was the oldest Bo at the event. When I asked if that was usual, the
response was yes.
BPPP is looking for a way to offer the course in a one day, no fluff format
at a lower price to lure more classic Bonanza owners. I hope they do.
Happy flying.....
Jon Alston
N2191D
Dallas RBD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Beech-List: The Numbers- revisited
>
> Thanks for the assistance on this topic! I compiled some numbers on a
flight on took on Saturday. Unfortunately, I couldn't always enter all the
info, ATC kept on calling out traffic and there were some mountains below to
be concerned with. I think I have gotten a better handle on this issue with
all your help.
> Here is the chart I made:
> NUMBERS WORKSHEET 9-7-02
>
>
> Flight Segment MP RPM Pitch A/S
V/S Configuration
>
> Climb
> 22"
> 2000
>
> 100mph
> 500fpm
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Climb
> 23"
> 2150
>
> 90?
> 500fpm
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Cruise
> 22" @ 5500'
> 2000
> Level
> 145
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Simulated Approach
> 16"@ 6500'
> 2200
> Level
> 120
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Simulated Approach
> 18" @ 6500'
> 2000
> Level
> 120
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Cruise/descent
> 17"
> 2200
>
> 150
> -500fpm
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Descent
> 16"
> 2150
>
> 147?
> -500
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Approach
> 18"
> 2000
> Level
> 128
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Descent
> 12.5"
> 2000 full?
>
> 105
> -500
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Cruise/descent
> 16"
> 2100
>
> 150
> -500
> Gear/flaps up
>
>
> 17-
> 2000
> Level
> 132
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Simulated Approach
> 17"
> 1900
> Level
> 120
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
>
> 14"
> 1950
> Level
>
>
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Simulated Approach
> 13"
> Full
> Level
> 105
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Simulated Approach
> 12.5
> 2000 full?
> Level
> 95
> 0
> Gear/flaps up
>
> Descent
> 11.5"
> Full
>
> 120-
> -500fpm
> Gear/flaps up
>
>
> I put "-" behind some numbers to reflect an actual number a little below
what I wrote down, exact readings are a little difficult at times, but I
think I've captured the big picture.
>
> Any thoughts on interpretation of the above would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Rob Mayer
>
> D-733
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
In a message dated 9/10/2002 5:24:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jalsto(at)swbell.net writes:
> BPPP is looking for a way to offer the course in a one day, no fluff format
> at a lower price to lure more classic Bonanza owners. I hope they do.
> Happy flying.....
> Jon Alston
>
I hope they do since I think the price is getting a bit steep.
Cliff
V35B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
In a message dated 9/9/02 12:27:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> Thanks for the assistance on this topic! I compiled some numbers on a flight
> on took on Saturday. Unfortunately, I couldn't always enter all the info,
> ATC kept on calling out traffic and there were some mountains below to be
> concerned with. I think I have gotten a better handle on this issue with
> all your help.
> Here is the chart I made:
>
Good Morning Rob,
I believe your original request was to help determine numbers to be used as
targets for use while you are training for your instrument rating.
I also assumed that it was your desire that you be able to operate most of
the time without the necessity to make adjustments to your propellor control.
Based on those assumptions, I would recommend that you first establish the
speed at which you wish to fly for that IFR training.
I would suggest that you attempt to operate at somewhere around 103 MPH.
That is just under 90 knots and will allow you to take advantage of the lower
minima often available to approach category "A" aircraft. Obviously, a
variance of 100 to 105 MPH would work fine.
I note that the numbers you have given utilize many different airspeeds. If
it is your desire to operate over a large range of speeds, adjustment of the
propellor control will almost certainly be required. If you will restrict
your operations to a narrow range of speeds, the propellor can easily be
operated as a fixed pitch prop with no attention to the propellor control
being required.
As I mentioned before, when operated in your D-733 airframe, the E-225 is
restricted to a maximum RPM of 2050 except for one minute during takeoff.
I highly recommend that you fly the airplane as follows to determine what
setting is appropriate for you to use while doing your training.
Set up the airplane with the gear down and the flaps up at an altitude about
a thousand feet above the airport where you normally will be operating.
Apply full throttle, to a maximum of 27.5 inches of indicated Manifold
Pressure (the limit that is allowed for your engine when installed in a
straight 35), maintain the airspeed at 103 mph (allow the airplane to climb
while you are adjusting the prop) and adjust the propellor control until the
RPM reads 2050.
That should give you a fixed propellor position that will allow you to fly
all of the required approach maneuvers without ever touching the prop. Make
your climbs, descents and all required maneuvers at 103 MPH and it will be no
more difficult than it would be if you were flying a Cessna 172 with a fixed
pitch propellor. Determine the manifold pressures required for a gear down
500 foot per minute rate of descent as well as a gear up 500 feet per minute
descent.
Determine a Manifold Pressure that will allow you to hold level flight gear
up and another that will hold things level with the gear down.
Forget what the RPM reads as long as it does not exceed 2050. Since we have
already determined where it should be set for full throttle operation, that
should be a no brainer.
The only time you should need full throttle would be on a missed approach.
Once again, hold the airspeed, get the gear up as soon as positive rate of
climb is achieved and the RPM should stay below the 2050 limit.
Holding the airspeed constant is key to the whole procedure.
If you find that the Manifold Pressure settings required are lower than you
like, some flap may be used as drag. Just be sure that you maintain the
fixed speed of around 103 MPH.
Enjoy flying all of your instrument training with that fixed pitch propellor!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
In a message dated 9/9/02 12:27:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> Thanks for the assistance on this topic! I compiled some numbers on a flight
> on took on Saturday. Unfortunately, I couldn't always enter all the info,
> ATC kept on calling out traffic and there were some mountains below to be
> concerned with. I think I have gotten a better handle on this issue with
> all your help.
> Here is the chart I made:
>
Good Morning Rob,
I believe your original request was to help determine numbers to be used as
targets for use while you are training for your instrument rating.
I also assumed that it was your desire that you be able to operate most of
the time without the necessity to make adjustments to your propellor control.
Based on those assumptions, I would recommend that you first establish the
speed at which you wish to fly for that IFR training.
I would suggest that you attempt to operate at somewhere around 103 MPH.
That is just under 90 knots and will allow you to take advantage of the lower
minima often available to approach category "A" aircraft. Obviously, a
variance of 100 to 105 MPH would work fine.
I note that the numbers you have given utilize many different airspeeds. If
it is your desire to operate over a large range of speeds, adjustment of the
propellor control will almost certainly be required. If you will restrict
your operations to a narrow range of speeds, the propellor can easily be
operated as a fixed pitch prop with no attention to the propellor control
being required.
As I mentioned before, when operated in your D-733 airframe, the E-225 is
restricted to a maximum RPM of 2050 except for one minute during takeoff.
I highly recommend that you fly the airplane as follows to determine what
setting is appropriate for you to use while doing your training.
Set up the airplane with the gear down and the flaps up at an altitude about
a thousand feet above the airport where you normally will be operating.
Apply full throttle, to a maximum of 27.5 inches of indicated Manifold
Pressure (the limit that is allowed for your engine when installed in a
straight 35), maintain the airspeed at 103 mph (allow the airplane to climb
while you are adjusting the prop) and adjust the propellor control until the
RPM reads 2050.
That should give you a fixed propellor position that will allow you to fly
all of the required approach maneuvers without ever touching the prop. Make
your climbs, descents and all required maneuvers at 103 MPH and it will be no
more difficult than it would be if you were flying a Cessna 172 with a fixed
pitch propellor. Determine the manifold pressures required for a gear down
500 foot per minute rate of descent as well as a gear up 500 feet per minute
descent.
Determine a Manifold Pressure that will allow you to hold level flight gear
up and another that will hold things level with the gear down.
Forget what the RPM reads as long as it does not exceed 2050. Since we have
already determined where it should be set for full throttle operation, that
should be a no brainer.
The only time you should need full throttle would be on a missed approach.
Once again, hold the airspeed, get the gear up as soon as positive rate of
climb is achieved and the RPM should stay below the 2050 limit.
Holding the airspeed constant is key to the whole procedure.
If you find that the Manifold Pressure settings required are lower than you
like, some flap may be used as drag. Just be sure that you maintain the
fixed speed of around 103 MPH.
Enjoy flying all of your instrument training with that fixed pitch propellor!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
Bob:
You are correct in assuming that I want the target numbers for instrument
flight without having to constantly be concerned with prop settings. Thanks,
you laid out a good procedure for me to follow to determine the target
numbers I seek!
As you probably know, the gear and flap operating speeds on the '35 are both
100mph, so I thought I would use your procedure to establish prop settings
for a target speed of about 95 mph (83k).
I charted the higher speeds and prop settings as I thought that these
numbers would be helpful in my learning more about the hydro-selective prop.
It seems that such a prop only gives me some control over RPM, not the more
precise control available with a constant speed prop. For example, I found
that I would lose authority over RPM's when I reduced it to some point; in
effect if I operate at 22" I could lower RPM to about 1950-2000 but then RPM
would remain fairly constant while I cranked out more turns on the prop
control and to increase RPM I would have to crank in until I reached that
point that re-established my authority.
Most of the people with whom I have discussed this prop apparently do not
have your understanding of its operating characteristics and I have received
confusing info up to now. I have read the BPPP instructional material and it
does not deal with the older Bonanzas and certainly not with the prop I have
and it just added to my confusion.
Thanks again for all your help.
Rob Mayer,
D-733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
In a message dated 9/10/02 11:55:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> For example, I found
> that I would lose authority over RPM's when I reduced it to some point; in
> effect if I operate at 22" I could lower RPM to about 1950-2000 but then
> RPM
> would remain fairly constant while I cranked out more turns on the prop
> control and to increase RPM I would have to crank in until I reached that
> point that re-established my authority.
>
Good Afternoon Rob,
One of the things that I remember well about that prop was that it had a
relatively small controllable range between the high pitch stops and the low
pitch stops. Back when there was no AD applied to the straight 35s, I would
commonly descend at 180 mph or higher airspeeds.
Even when the prop was set to maximum pitch (minimum RPM) it would still
require that I throttle back quite a bit to keep the RPM from exceeding the
2050 limit.
Not only that, the flat pitch stop wouldn't allow anywhere near 2300 RPM
static.
As I recall, if it was set according to the spec sheets, you wouldn't get
2300 until close to one hundred MPH on takeoff. If the stops were set to
allow a higher RPM earlier on the takeoff roll, it was hard to keep it down
to 2050 for a normal descent!
All in all, not one of my favorite propellors. I much preferred the Beech
electric. It has about double the pitch change range of the early Hartzell.
The later style Hartzells, with the transfer collar and piston control, were
much better, though I still think the Beech Roby Electric prop is the best if
it weren't for the maintenance difficulties.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The Numbers- revisited |
In a message dated 9/10/02 11:55:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer(at)optonline.net writes:
> For example, I found
> that I would lose authority over RPM's when I reduced it to some point; in
> effect if I operate at 22" I could lower RPM to about 1950-2000 but then
> RPM
> would remain fairly constant while I cranked out more turns on the prop
> control and to increase RPM I would have to crank in until I reached that
> point that re-established my authority.
>
Good Afternoon Rob,
One of the things that I remember well about that prop was that it had a
relatively small controllable range between the high pitch stops and the low
pitch stops. Back when there was no AD applied to the straight 35s, I would
commonly descend at 180 mph or higher airspeeds.
Even when the prop was set to maximum pitch (minimum RPM) it would still
require that I throttle back quite a bit to keep the RPM from exceeding the
2050 limit.
Not only that, the flat pitch stop wouldn't allow anywhere near 2300 RPM
static.
As I recall, if it was set according to the spec sheets, you wouldn't get
2300 until close to one hundred MPH on takeoff. If the stops were set to
allow a higher RPM earlier on the takeoff roll, it was hard to keep it down
to 2050 for a normal descent!
All in all, not one of my favorite propellors. I much preferred the Beech
electric. It has about double the pitch change range of the early Hartzell.
The later style Hartzells, with the transfer collar and piston control, were
much better, though I still think the Beech Roby Electric prop is the best if
it weren't for the maintenance difficulties.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
The course was $950 almost a year ago.
They are concerned that only a small percentage of the fleet is taking
advantage of the program--the newer $100,000+ birds. If you can afford one
of them, then the course isn't too much.
For poor working stiffs like me with expensive tastes in airplanes, it was a
chunka change to cough up.
I really hope they do come up with a cheaper abbreviated program to cater to
the rest of us.
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 9/10/2002 3:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jalsto(at)swbell.net writes:
> The course was $950 almost a year ago.
> They are concerned that only a small percentage of the fleet is taking
> advantage of the program--the newer $100,000+ birds. If you can afford one
> of them, then the course isn't too much.
> For poor working stiffs like me with expensive tastes in airplanes, it was
> a
> chunka change to cough up.
> I really hope they do come up with a cheaper abbreviated program to cater
> to
> the rest of us.
> Jon
>
>
I agree. It would have to get down to about $500 before I would consider
doing it.
I would think that a maximum of 4hrs flight time and 2-3 hrs of ground school
at $35/hr would be sufficient to render any current pilot pretty proficient,
VFR at least. And that's only $250 plus the cost of operating your own
plane. Not even close to $950!
Cliff
V35B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Strong" <gstrong(at)att.net> |
I took the BPPP program this spring and thought it was the best $995 I
could spend. Of the 2 1/2 days, clearly 2 full days of instruction (1
1/2 classroom & 4 hrs in the plane). Everything was first class and
very well done.
Gary S.
1979 V35B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Gotta agree with that one. Although it's worth a million plus, $1K is a bit
much for the workin' man. The other alternative is to find a BPPP (or
ex-BPPP) instructor in your area that'll free lance. There are some around.
----- Original Message -----
From: <FlyV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: BPPP
>
> In a message dated 9/10/2002 3:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jalsto(at)swbell.net writes:
>
>
> > The course was $950 almost a year ago.
> > They are concerned that only a small percentage of the fleet is taking
> > advantage of the program--the newer $100,000+ birds. If you can afford
one
> > of them, then the course isn't too much.
> > For poor working stiffs like me with expensive tastes in airplanes, it
was
> > a
> > chunka change to cough up.
> > I really hope they do come up with a cheaper abbreviated program to
cater
> > to
> > the rest of us.
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
> I agree. It would have to get down to about $500 before I would consider
> doing it.
> I would think that a maximum of 4hrs flight time and 2-3 hrs of ground
school
> at $35/hr would be sufficient to render any current pilot pretty
proficient,
> VFR at least. And that's only $250 plus the cost of operating your own
> plane. Not even close to $950!
>
> Cliff
> V35B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | BPPP Flight Training |
When my wife and I each needed to get ten hours in our new (to us) Bonanza
for insurance reasons, we followed AJ's approach. We were able to find two
guys relatively close to our area (Seattle) that are former or current BPPP
instructors. $40 an hour plus our expenses and I feel like we got the same
top notch professional instruction that BPPP offers.
Walt Cannon
1954 E Model
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Strong" <gstrong(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | collins DME & Davtron clock |
I purchased in January my 1979 V35B with a Collins DME. The DME head
(model 451) has a selection for GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). If
everything is working correctly and the clock is set you can use it as
the aircraft clock. It didn't work when I purchased the plane so I had
it repaired. The problem lies in that whenever something happens to put
a small spike in the electrical system (ie: drop landing gear, start
engine, etc) the keep alive circuit gets a spike and the clock either
resets or locks up. To fix I pull the keep alive fuse and reinstall it
then reset the clock. (the keep alive circuit is what keeps the clock
running when the master is off through a small fuse directly to the
battery bypassing the master switch).
Its had mod 3 put in during the repair that was supposed to fix this but
it didn't work. My question before I put any more money in it is
whether other pilots with this same DME use the clock and/or does it
have any problems? I don't mind putting a little money in it, but if
it's a chronic problem with this unit, I'll just not use the clock and
go with the Davtron unit that installs in the yoke.
Thanks!!
Gary Strong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
Just came back from the hangar where I found "Victoria's" (4579V) left
main strut totally flat. I noticed a little sag the other day and made
a note to add some Nitrogen.
I'm hoping that this requires a simple fix; any experience out there?
I'm thinking that maybe the "o" ring under the valve fitting at the top
of the strut has failed.
No oil leak evident on the strut or any other evidence of a major
failure.
Too dark to check any further tonite.
I put a little nitrogen in about a year and a half ago to bring things
up and have had no trouble 'till this past week.
What do you guru'z suggest?
Pete Scott D1221 V4579V
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flat main gear. |
Pete,
Try a shot of nitrogen (or compressed air -- your choice) and see if your
problem goes away for the next six months.
If the problem returns within a week or so, then go to Plan B:
Buy the Granville Strut Seal kit. Its a bottle of fluid that replaces the
strut fluid. (There are easy directions on how to do it in the kit.) The
Granville strut fluid makes the o-rings swell up and seal better. You can
get the kit for a single strut, two struts or for three. Specify which one
you want. (I believe its something like $35 for the 2-strut kit.)
If the Granville strut seal trick doesn't work, then you may have to go to
Plan C and overhaul the strut and replace the o-rings, etc. If you need to
do this, then there's more to it than a short email. Keep us posted.
Ron Davis
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Just came back from the hangar where I found "Victoria's" (4579V) left
> main strut totally flat. I noticed a little sag the other day and made
> a note to add some Nitrogen.
>
> I'm hoping that this requires a simple fix; any experience out there?
> I'm thinking that maybe the "o" ring under the valve fitting at the top
> of the strut has failed.
>
> No oil leak evident on the strut or any other evidence of a major
> failure.
>
> Too dark to check any further tonite.
>
> I put a little nitrogen in about a year and a half ago to bring things
> up and have had no trouble 'till this past week.
>
> What do you guru'z suggest?
>
> Pete Scott D1221 V4579V
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Verwey" <skymaster(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | FW: Slowing down an early 35 |
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Verwey [mailto:skymaster(at)icon.co.za]
Subject: Slowing down an early 35
Further to Ron's comments about slipping his aircraft to slow down to
placarded speeds; how well does the early Bonanza slip agressively say in a
quest to shorten final approach? The other day I did a checkride with a
young instructor (20 ish) and when I started a forward slip in the 172 on my
forced lob he was not impressed, saying Cessna products were not designed
for this?? News to me!
Anyway, I am a great exponent of the slip so would welcome any comments.
BobV
A35 ZS-BYG with IO 470
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Slowing down an early 35 |
In a message dated 9/19/2002 5:37:28 AM Central Standard Time,
skymaster(at)icon.co.za writes:
> Further to Ron's comments about slipping his aircraft to slow down to
> placarded speeds; how well does the early Bonanza slip agressively say in a
> quest to shorten final approach?
Good Morning BobV,
The Bonanzas, and all of the single engine derivatives, slip beautifully.
Fact is, the V-tails slip nicer than do the straight tail derivatives.
The only caution concerns the potential for unporting a fuel tank if the slip
is toward the side of the tank from which the engine is feeding. For most
slipping conditions, that shouldn't be a problem. If it is a concern, just
switch to the high side fuel cell.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stutzman <stutzman(at)stutzman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Slowing down an early 35 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bob Verwey wrote:
> Further to Ron's comments about slipping his aircraft to slow down to
> placarded speeds; how well does the early Bonanza slip agressively say in a
> quest to shorten final approach? The other day I did a checkride with a
> young instructor (20 ish) and when I started a forward slip in the 172 on my
> forced lob he was not impressed, saying Cessna products were not designed
> for this?? News to me!
> Anyway, I am a great exponent of the slip so would welcome any comments.
Sigh. Its a sad situation when we have to instruct our instructors. I
would have tossed him the POH and told him "find where its prohibited."
My experiances are limited to my A35. With only 20 degrees of flaps, I
find a slip much more effective in slowing down/comming down. The plane
does great. The only time I avoid them is when I have a passenger who is
not used to small planes. Tends to unnerve the uneasy ones.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Slowing down an early 35 |
This was one of my biggest challenges when I first got my Bonanza.
The BPPP doesn't recommend slipping because it really isn't that effective.
Slips aren't prohibited. The whole unporting thing is something to consider
also, especially after a trip and the tanks are low.
Cessna lawyers placarded the 172 against slips when the 172 had 40 degrees
of flap travel. They will fall out of the sky like a brick when slipped with
full flaps. There were appearantly accidents where people didn't arrest the
steep descent and pancaked in.
In the slick Bonanza, staying ahead of the airplane, planning the descent,
leveling off ahead of time, and allowing to space to slow down are just good
planning. Nothing takes the place of that.
If I get in a pinch and find myself a bit fast to drop the gear when
entering the pattern, I just load the wing momentarily. A bank and slight
pitch up is all that is needed.
If you find you are consistently high on final, pull the throttle back to
idle, pitch up to slow to about 65 kts, trim it there, and the thing will
drop like a rock. 65 to 70 knots with a touch of power (15-17 inches for my
bird) will get nice steep descents, VERY short landing rolls, and a giant
grin on the pilot's face.
Jon Alston
N2191D
D35
Dallas Redbird
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stutzman" <stutzman(at)stutzman.com>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: FW: Slowing down an early 35
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> > Further to Ron's comments about slipping his aircraft to slow down to
> > placarded speeds; how well does the early Bonanza slip agressively say
in a
> > quest to shorten final approach? The other day I did a checkride with a
> > young instructor (20 ish) and when I started a forward slip in the 172
on my
> > forced lob he was not impressed, saying Cessna products were not
designed
> > for this?? News to me!
> > Anyway, I am a great exponent of the slip so would welcome any comments.
>
> Sigh. Its a sad situation when we have to instruct our instructors. I
> would have tossed him the POH and told him "find where its prohibited."
>
> My experiances are limited to my A35. With only 20 degrees of flaps, I
> find a slip much more effective in slowing down/comming down. The plane
> does great. The only time I avoid them is when I have a passenger who is
> not used to small planes. Tends to unnerve the uneasy ones.
>
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Max" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Pre-Buy Inspection |
I am considering a 1959 K35 Bonanza located in Knoxville, TN. I am in
California and would lie to get someone Bonanza qualified to do a
pre-buy inspection for me. Any recommendations in that area?
Thanks,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 09/22/02 |
There is supposed to be an excellent Bonanza guy over there. I heard about
him when I was looking at a straight 35 a couple of years ago.
I'll try and find out his name and get back with you tonight.
--
Shelby Smith
http://www.myplaneonline.com/N4004T.html
68 B-23 N4004T serial #1110 located @
The EAA Complex / Smyrna TN
> From: Beech-List Digest Server <beech-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:55:01 -0700
> To: Beech-List Digest List
> Subject: Beech-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 09/22/02
>
>
> I am considering a 1959 K35 Bonanza located in Knoxville, TN. I am in
> California and would lie to get someone Bonanza qualified to do a
> pre-buy inspection for me. Any recommendations in that area?
>
> Thanks,
> Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
hey guys I recently had an electric motor go out on my
beech prop. prior to that it worked fine on automatic
since we put the new motor on it now won,t hold the
rpm. It constantly hunts up and down in about a 500
rpm swing. any ideas what could be wrong. I appreceate
any help.
n4211b d4222
gene smirl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: electric prop |
Gene,
My first guess is that the new motor may have the wrong motor brushes in it,
or that they are almost done.
Beech used the friction pressure of the brushes as brakes to slow the motor
down. Cheaper than the dynamic braking system used on the landing gear.
When the brushes are almost shot, then they don't provide the braking
friction anymore, and the blades will drift more. I believe new FAA-PMA
brushes are about $40.00, but there ought to be someone somewhere that can
give you a brush equivalent that ought to be about $5.00
My second guess is that it isn't a pitch motor at all, but really a flap
motor. The worm gears are different, and the flap motor gears makes it spin
faster, so it would overshoot and need correcting more often.
My third guess is that the motor isn't happily grounded, so it is operating
intermittently. I believe that the original Flight Research prop governor
harness needs something like FIVE ground wires. Sheesh.
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, Calif.
gene smirl wrote:
>
> hey guys I recently had an electric motor go out on my
> beech prop. prior to that it worked fine on automatic
> since we put the new motor on it now won,t hold the
> rpm. It constantly hunts up and down in about a 500
> rpm swing. any ideas what could be wrong. I appreceate
> any help.
>
> n4211b d4222
> gene smirl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Buy Inspection |
>
>I am considering a 1959 K35 Bonanza located in Knoxville, TN. I am in
>California and would lie to get someone
You don't have to lie to get someone, just inquire for an IA to do an
annual inspection. Check especially that the tail fall off mods have been
done.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
820 Jackson Drive
Paso Robles, CA 93446-1812
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | judgemental input |
Howdo
My friend and I find myself ourselves in a quandary and would like some
objective input.
Presently, I own a well kept straight 35 which sports a long list of
extras i.e.:
Jourdan/Flannigan spar kit.. (800 hrs remaining till next inspection.)
Relatively new (200 hrs.+/-) Hartzell prop, governor, etc. complete.
Later version of the upper instrument panel including recent
instruments, gauges, canted radio stack, and late model keyed
ignition/starter, master, battery and avionics switches.
IFR certified with existing, decent, legal but not new: radios: ( Audio
panel with markers, 2 nav/coms, one glide slope, loran, ADF and Century
One autopilot coupled to the loran and #1 VOR.
Later model flow through ventilation system with eyeball outlets, Yaw
damping skeg, (M) model wing tips, recently reskinned rudders balanced
to the new specs;
E-185-11 (205) Continental with 600 hours; 50 amp alternator, air oil
separator, recent fuel pump, mags, prop governor and battery.
10 gal aux tank, later model fuel selector valve/wobble pump (suits a
225 hp)
One piece tinted windshield good; remaining glass serviceable but not
top notch.
My friend is hanging up his pilot's spurs and divesting of his B model;
it sports a different set of characteristics : a very clean bird with
relatively new paint, glass, interior, reskined ruddervators (prior to
the new specs) and 20 gal aux tank but with its'original instrument
panel, instruments, gauges, ho hum radios. generator and sans autopilot.
It has a 600 hr. 225 Continental with a recent carb overhaul and a Beech
electric prop.
Assuming that he and I value both planes about the same and that there
are no hidden flaws or agendas, would you recommend that we
exchange..ie: he'd then sell my 35 and I'd take on his B model project?
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: judgemental input |
No. The grass is always greener on the other side, and you have what sounds
like to be, an excellent flying aircraft. For the price of just radios and
autopilot, you could put a 225 into your present bird. Just for starters,
you have a $14K prop and a $7K panel conversion. If you upgrade to a B
model, you'll still have the pesky AD on the tail. If you're longing for a
newer plane, consider selling yours and moving up to something with an IO470
in it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Scott" <winginit(at)jps.net>
Subject: Beech-List: judgemental input
>
> Howdo
>
> My friend and I find myself ourselves in a quandary and would like some
> objective input.
>
> Presently, I own a well kept straight 35 which sports a long list of
> extras i.e.:
> Jourdan/Flannigan spar kit.. (800 hrs remaining till next inspection.)
> Relatively new (200 hrs.+/-) Hartzell prop, governor, etc. complete.
> Later version of the upper instrument panel including recent
> instruments, gauges, canted radio stack, and late model keyed
> ignition/starter, master, battery and avionics switches.
>
> IFR certified with existing, decent, legal but not new: radios: ( Audio
> panel with markers, 2 nav/coms, one glide slope, loran, ADF and Century
> One autopilot coupled to the loran and #1 VOR.
>
> Later model flow through ventilation system with eyeball outlets, Yaw
> damping skeg, (M) model wing tips, recently reskinned rudders balanced
> to the new specs;
>
> E-185-11 (205) Continental with 600 hours; 50 amp alternator, air oil
> separator, recent fuel pump, mags, prop governor and battery.
> 10 gal aux tank, later model fuel selector valve/wobble pump (suits a
> 225 hp)
> One piece tinted windshield good; remaining glass serviceable but not
> top notch.
>
> My friend is hanging up his pilot's spurs and divesting of his B model;
> it sports a different set of characteristics : a very clean bird with
> relatively new paint, glass, interior, reskined ruddervators (prior to
> the new specs) and 20 gal aux tank but with its'original instrument
> panel, instruments, gauges, ho hum radios. generator and sans autopilot.
>
> It has a 600 hr. 225 Continental with a recent carb overhaul and a Beech
> electric prop.
>
> Assuming that he and I value both planes about the same and that there
> are no hidden flaws or agendas, would you recommend that we
> exchange..ie: he'd then sell my 35 and I'd take on his B model project?
>
>
> Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: judgemental input |
Peter,
I agree with Al DeM. here.
While you already have an exemplary aircraft, it would be "nice" to have
MORE POWER, but its always at a rather considerable cost.
If you really have the itch for more power and speed, then I would recommend
selling your plane, adding the amount of money necessary to have upgraded
the old plane, and buy a newer one, say with the IO-470 engine.
Or, you could always upgrade your own, you know.
One thing you have to watch on the newer models is the useful load. As
Beech made "improvements" to the model years, they also got heavier and
heavier, with the result that the payload didn't really change that much.
All in all, we first-decade-Bonanza owners will have to cough up over
$25,000 more to upgrade to a newer and faster model, with a relatively small
improvement is cruise speed, almost no increase in payload, an increase in
fuel burn, and a loss of the wonderful handling that the early Bo's have.
You pay your money and you live with the consequences.
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, Calif.
1954 E35 "N3218C"
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Howdo
>
> My friend and I find myself ourselves in a quandary and would like some
> objective input.
>
> Presently, I own a well kept straight 35 which sports a long list of
> extras i.e.:
> Jourdan/Flannigan spar kit.. (800 hrs remaining till next inspection.)
> Relatively new (200 hrs.+/-) Hartzell prop, governor, etc. complete.
> Later version of the upper instrument panel including recent
> instruments, gauges, canted radio stack, and late model keyed
> ignition/starter, master, battery and avionics switches.
>
> IFR certified with existing, decent, legal but not new: radios: ( Audio
> panel with markers, 2 nav/coms, one glide slope, loran, ADF and Century
> One autopilot coupled to the loran and #1 VOR.
>
> Later model flow through ventilation system with eyeball outlets, Yaw
> damping skeg, (M) model wing tips, recently reskinned rudders balanced
> to the new specs;
>
> E-185-11 (205) Continental with 600 hours; 50 amp alternator, air oil
> separator, recent fuel pump, mags, prop governor and battery.
> 10 gal aux tank, later model fuel selector valve/wobble pump (suits a
> 225 hp)
> One piece tinted windshield good; remaining glass serviceable but not
> top notch.
>
> My friend is hanging up his pilot's spurs and divesting of his B model;
> it sports a different set of characteristics : a very clean bird with
> relatively new paint, glass, interior, reskined ruddervators (prior to
> the new specs) and 20 gal aux tank but with its'original instrument
> panel, instruments, gauges, ho hum radios. generator and sans autopilot.
>
> It has a 600 hr. 225 Continental with a recent carb overhaul and a Beech
> electric prop.
>
> Assuming that he and I value both planes about the same and that there
> are no hidden flaws or agendas, would you recommend that we
> exchange..ie: he'd then sell my 35 and I'd take on his B model project?
>
>
> Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David P. Walen Sr." <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
| Subject: | Re: judgemental input |
You should probably get the better end of the deal.
Keep in mind (and this is something i constantly see misunderstood) that the
E185 and the E225 are virtually identical once you pull the prop back. The
185 should have been called the 205 (its rated T.O. power. The only
difference is 20 more HP at Takeoff only by increasing the engine RPM by 50.
I am continually amazed that people seem to think they are gaining cruise
power with the 225. Claims of getting "more true airspeed" are probably
only true because the owner was replacing a weak engine with a stronger one.
Just a pet peeve of mine.
Otherewise it seems you have the upper hand equipment wise and unless you
are flying 100 hours a month the engine times are not all that big of a
deal.
Anyway just an opinion from a former D35 now T-Bone owner.
Good Luck
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net>
Subject: Beech-List: judgemental input
>
> Howdo
>
> My friend and I find myself ourselves in a quandary and would like some
> objective input.
>
> Presently, I own a well kept straight 35 which sports a long list of
> extras i.e.:
> Jourdan/Flannigan spar kit.. (800 hrs remaining till next inspection.)
> Relatively new (200 hrs.+/-) Hartzell prop, governor, etc. complete.
> Later version of the upper instrument panel including recent
> instruments, gauges, canted radio stack, and late model keyed
> ignition/starter, master, battery and avionics switches.
>
> IFR certified with existing, decent, legal but not new: radios: ( Audio
> panel with markers, 2 nav/coms, one glide slope, loran, ADF and Century
> One autopilot coupled to the loran and #1 VOR.
>
> Later model flow through ventilation system with eyeball outlets, Yaw
> damping skeg, (M) model wing tips, recently reskinned rudders balanced
> to the new specs;
>
> E-185-11 (205) Continental with 600 hours; 50 amp alternator, air oil
> separator, recent fuel pump, mags, prop governor and battery.
> 10 gal aux tank, later model fuel selector valve/wobble pump (suits a
> 225 hp)
> One piece tinted windshield good; remaining glass serviceable but not
> top notch.
>
> My friend is hanging up his pilot's spurs and divesting of his B model;
> it sports a different set of characteristics : a very clean bird with
> relatively new paint, glass, interior, reskined ruddervators (prior to
> the new specs) and 20 gal aux tank but with its'original instrument
> panel, instruments, gauges, ho hum radios. generator and sans autopilot.
>
> It has a 600 hr. 225 Continental with a recent carb overhaul and a Beech
> electric prop.
>
> Assuming that he and I value both planes about the same and that there
> are no hidden flaws or agendas, would you recommend that we
> exchange..ie: he'd then sell my 35 and I'd take on his B model project?
>
>
> Pete
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: judgemental input |
In a message dated 9/28/02 12:49:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
radavis2522(at)netzero.net writes:
> While you already have an exemplary aircraft, it would be "nice" to have
> MORE POWER, but its always at a rather considerable cost.
>
Good Evening Ron and Peter,
Remember, adding a 225 to a straight 35 does NOT allow more power to be used.
The E-225 will allow the full 185 takeoff horsepower to be obtained up to
approximately a three thousand foot elevation, but regardless of what engine
is installed in a straight 35, it is still restricted to a maximum of 185
horsepower for one minute and 165 horsepower continuously. If the E-225 is
installed, the allowable numbers are a maximum of 26.5 inches of Manifold
Pressure at 2300 RPM and 27.5 inches at 2050. The 2300 is allowed for one
minute at takeoff. At all other times, the engine is to be operated at no
higher RPM than 2050.
I agree with Al and Ron. If you want more horsepower, go to an H35 or later.
The 35, A35 and all the rest with E series engines are wonderful airplanes
just the way they are.
Leave them alone and don't try to convert them into something which they
cannot be.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
Howdo members,
I need a right rear (passenger) window frame for a straight 35..
supposedly interchangeable up through the D model but the earlier the
better for me. Last glass change was made by a hay hand resulting in a
deformed unit with way too many holes/rivits.
The early ones, I am told, were spot welded together; not riveted like
later ones and thus have a better chance of fitting the hole in my old
fuselage.. Later ones were made a little large and trimmed to fit so it
will be crap shoot to expect one of these to fit..
I have a perfect unit that came off an E model which I would be happy to
exchange but that is not a prerequisite if you have one I can use.
thanx.
Pete
4579V
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: window frame |
Peter,
My first try would be with:
Arrell Aircraft
701 Del Norte Blvd., Suite 220
Oxnard, CA 93030
805-604-0439
805-604-0429 (fax)
Rick Leatherwood:
http://www.arrellaircraft.com/
For salvage yards, the ABS always spouts Dodson, White, and a couple of
others. I tend to prefer:
Surprise Valley Aviation
Cedarville Airport
Cedarville, CA 96104
530-279-2111
530-279-6173 (fax)
email:
http://www.comancheparts.com/index.html
Of course, if you are on the East Coast, then you may want to try someone
more local.
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, Calif.
1954 E35 "N3218C"
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Howdo members,
>
> I need a right rear (passenger) window frame for a straight 35..
> supposedly interchangeable up through the D model but the earlier the
> better for me. Last glass change was made by a hay hand resulting in a
> deformed unit with way too many holes/rivits.
>
> The early ones, I am told, were spot welded together; not riveted like
> later ones and thus have a better chance of fitting the hole in my old
> fuselage.. Later ones were made a little large and trimmed to fit so it
> will be crap shoot to expect one of these to fit..
>
> I have a perfect unit that came off an E model which I would be happy to
> exchange but that is not a prerequisite if you have one I can use.
>
> thanx.
>
> Pete
>
> 4579V
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: window frame |
>
>For salvage yards, ................
>others. I tend to prefer:
>Surprise Valley Aviation
> Cedarville Airport
> Cedarville, CA 96104
> 530-279-2111
> 530-279-6173 (fax)
> email:
> http://www.comancheparts.com/index.html
Be careful out there, I was badly ripped off by Surprise Valley.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
820 Jackson Drive
Paso Robles, CA 93446-1812
805.239.8112
805.674.5140 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Fw: [LML] EngineAir V8 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Pohl" <dpohl(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: [LML] EngineAir V8
> Dear Group,
>
> I just returned from the Beech Duke Flying Association convention in Sault
> St. Marie where the newest EngineAir V-8 project was unveiled - a Duke
> powered by two EngineAir V8's, each making in excess of 500 horsepower.
As
> you may or may not know, the Duke is a beautiful executive class twin
engine
> aircraft that has been plaqued by underpowered and unreliable Lycoming
> powerplants that have severely limited the mission of this aircraft, not
to
> mention the expense of maintaining such engines. (It is my understanding
> that the Duke group are contemplating a class action lawsuit against
> Lycoming because of the many problems. Not surprisingly, a representative
> of Lycoming was present at the convention.) Ron Comeault, the head of
DFA,
> approached Engine Power Systems a year ago and asked if the company would
be
> willing to develop an application for the Duke. Talks ensued with the FAA
> to determine how such an application would be allowed to fly under current
> rules. The details of this FAA project will be revealed in the future.
The
> Duke project was kept secret at Mr. Comeault's request and thousands of
> hours of time (and hundreds of thousands of dollars) were spent developing
> this newest application. For those of us present at the convention, the
> engineering that went into this installation just blew us all away. The
> engine was adapted to fit into the existing Duke cowling and work with a
24
> volt aircraft system. The standard EngineAir V8 features (dual computers
> driving redundant electronic ignition and fuel injection systems,
wastegate
> control etc) were of course present in the engine. One start of the
engines
> brought people right to the plane - instant start, smooth idle and QUIET.
> Fly-bys performed by Mr. Comeault were impressive - fast and VERY quiet.
In
> the cockpit, it was so quiet that you could talk to each other without
> wearing headphones! In terms of performance, the aircraft gets off the
> ground substantially quicker than its certified brother, in less than 2000
> feet with climb performance in the 2000 feet per minute range. Speeds
were
> significantly better by at least 35-40 knots. The plane is now capable of
> flying at its redline at cruise power. Obviously, performance is best
> achieved during pressurization and at altitude with cruise speed of
250-270
> knots burning 21 gallons per hour on each side. The engine is 50 pounds
> lighter than the Lycoming application, in part due to the use of a four
> blade MT propeller. Obviously, the use of an AeroComposites prop would
> further lighten this figure.
>
> My congratulations to Al Joniec, Stefan Scoppe and all the other
individuals
> who made this project happen. This is Engine Power Systems' first step
> toward the certified aircraft market and after eight years in business,
with
> many well performing engines hanging on Lancairs, it is clear that this is
a
> technology that has proven itself and whose time has come.
>
> Doug Pohl
> On behalf of Engine Power Systems, LLC
> N488SD
> Lancair IV-P
>
>
> #############################################################
> For archives see the LML website:
http://www.lancaironline.net/maillist.html
> LML members receive a 10% discount at http://www.buildersbooks.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Beech Party 2002 |
Hi All,
Beech Party 2002 is two weeks from this weekend. For those unfamiliar this
is the Beech Staggerwing/18 convention in Tullahoma, TN(THA)60 miles
southeast of Nashville. It is from Oct 16-20 and has been a great event in
the past.
I have reserved some rooms at the Jamison Inn for Friday and Saturday night.
If anyone would like one let me know - they are double/non smoking.
I haven't really been promoting the event this year, but I am planning on
going so if anyone needs any help feel free to contact me.
--
Staggerwing Convention Registration/Activity Link
http://www.staggerwing.com/
http://www.pbase.com/shelbyrv6a/beech_party_2001
Shelby Smith
615-726-3030
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
Walt & The List:
I changed my oil today for the first time since your original post. I
drained the oil (after warmup) from the oil tank, the engine sump and of
course, the oil screen. I have a E-185-8. I drained it pretty quick after
running the engine and measured not quite 1/2 gallon in the engine sump,
about half a cup came out with the screen and rest came from the tank.
About 8 qts total. None would show on the dipstick when I started, even
after runup. I put 9 qts in the oil tank, when I checked the dipstick
before running, it read 9 qts. I ran up the engine for the leak check, and
immediately upon shutdown, checked the dipstick and it only showed 7.5 qts.
I always assume 8 plus qts. are in the engine if anything shows on the
dipstick. I might add a quart if taking off cross country, but on local
flights, if oil shows on the dipstick, it's enough. Of course you check the
ramp and if there is a 3 foot wide pool of oil under the ship it might be a
clue that the oil has left the engine. The big point: There's always
enough oil in the sump to warrant draining it during a change, I always do
and it's always a pain to safety wire.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Model 35, Las Vegas, NV
Subject: Beech-List: Quick Drains
>
> The conversations on quick drains for oil got me to thinking about the
> set-up that is on my "E" model Bonanza. When I purchased it, there was a
> quick drain located with an adapter on the bottom of the remote mounted
oil
> tank. I have been making my oil changes by warming up the oil and draining
> it there instead of at the drain on the bottom of the engine (there is a
> chip detector installed there). Any thoughts about doing it this way and
> infrequently if ever removing the drain into the nose gear well?
>
> Regards,
>
> Walt Cannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
I have a "push and twist" type quick drain at the bottom of the case.. by far
the cleanest part of an oil change for me; simply apply the appropriate ID hose
over the outlet, push, twist and get out of the way; the oil-screen-check is
a
messy exercise which I haven't whipped yet but, rigging up a funnel and drain
hose under the oil tank gets the reservoir oil nicely into the bucket. I would
suggest that it is a good idea to always drain the case.
ps. Any guru theories about the relative value of straight 50 weight vs: 15/50
as to a better way to maintain above minimum oil pressure on hot days?
"Randy L. Thwing" wrote:
>
> Walt & The List:
> I changed my oil today for the first time since your original post. I
> drained the oil (after warmup) from the oil tank, the engine sump and of
> course, the oil screen. I have a E-185-8. I drained it pretty quick after
> running the engine and measured not quite 1/2 gallon in the engine sump,
> about half a cup came out with the screen and rest came from the tank.
> About 8 qts total. None would show on the dipstick when I started, even
> after runup. I put 9 qts in the oil tank, when I checked the dipstick
> before running, it read 9 qts. I ran up the engine for the leak check, and
> immediately upon shutdown, checked the dipstick and it only showed 7.5 qts.
> I always assume 8 plus qts. are in the engine if anything shows on the
> dipstick. I might add a quart if taking off cross country, but on local
> flights, if oil shows on the dipstick, it's enough. Of course you check the
> ramp and if there is a 3 foot wide pool of oil under the ship it might be a
> clue that the oil has left the engine. The big point: There's always
> enough oil in the sump to warrant draining it during a change, I always do
> and it's always a pain to safety wire.
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing, Model 35, Las Vegas, NV
>
> Subject: Beech-List: Quick Drains
>
> >
> > The conversations on quick drains for oil got me to thinking about the
> > set-up that is on my "E" model Bonanza. When I purchased it, there was a
> > quick drain located with an adapter on the bottom of the remote mounted
> oil
> > tank. I have been making my oil changes by warming up the oil and draining
> > it there instead of at the drain on the bottom of the engine (there is a
> > chip detector installed there). Any thoughts about doing it this way and
> > infrequently if ever removing the drain into the nose gear well?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Walt Cannon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Scott <winginit(at)jps.net>
>the oil-screen-check is a
> messy exercise which I haven't whipped yet
I take a empty one gallon plastic milk, water or windshield wiper fluid jug
and cut it in half top to bottom. I then shove it in under the oil screen
housing, the material is thin enough so you can kind of crumple it around to
fit in there. I place a paper towel in it to catch the oil flow to inspect
for metal. You back out the oil temp probe, then unscrew the screen,
everything is caught in this little drip pan. When the drainage stops, you
drain off the oil, inspect for metal with magnet etc., and then throw the
whole mess away. Next time you just make another.
Randy, Las Vegas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
Walt,
It seems that the "dry" sump always seems to contain about 2 quarts of oil
in there, which a significant fraction of the 8-9 quarts of oil in the plane
at the time of oil change, so I drain it, too. No need for all those
contaminants to go for another ride, and it keeps the new oil looking
cleaner longer.
Lurkers:
There are two oil drains on the early Bonanzas that have the E185-11/E25-8
engine. There's one on the bottom of the oil cooler tank, and a second
drain on the "dry" sump, accessed from the nosewheel gear wheel well.
Draining oil from the dry sump is a pain. You have to remove the metal
plate around the drain plug, clip the safety wire, unscrew the oil plug, let
hot oil dribble down your arm to about your elbow, quickly position the
drain pan somewhere underneath the oil stream and catch most of it as the
afternoon breeze whips the dribbling oil stream every which way. Clean up
the mess, put the plug back in, safety wire the plug, put the plate back on,
and do this all within the confines of your greasy nosewheel gear well.
--- PLAN B: ---
Install a quick drain on the dry sump. An Aeroquip quick oil drain will set
you back about $100, but its worth it. Put a drain hose on the quick drain,
move the oil collection bucket into position, twist-push-twist the drain
open, and leave it there for 15 minutes or so as you go about doing
something else, like gapping spark plugs. When you're done, untwist the
drain, and its closed. Remove the oil hose and pull the oil bucket out of
the way. That's it.
A quick drain has two small drawbacks:
1) the drain fitting's little exhaust pipe sticks up a bit into the sump, so
the -very- bottom of the sump doesn't get drained. I'd say about 1/2 cup.
2) the drain's opening is a lot smaller than the oil plug hole, so it takes
longer for the oil to drain out. I'd say about 30% more time, but this is
subjective and unreliable. Also, times will change for hot vs. cold oil.
I have a quick drain on both locations. Makes oil changes soooo much easier.
Ask me later about Lew Gage's oil filter. A must-buy, in my opinion.
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, Calif.
>
> The conversations on quick drains for oil got me to thinking about the
> set-up that is on my "E" model Bonanza. When I purchased it, there was a
> quick drain located with an adapter on the bottom of the remote mounted
> oil tank. I have been making my oil changes by warming up the oil and
> draining there instead of at the drain on the bottom of the engine
> (there is a chip detector installed there). Any thoughts about doing
> it this way and infrequently if ever removing the drain into the nose
> gear well?
>
> Regards,
>
> Walt Cannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jdevany(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
Hi Ron:
Is that Aeroquip quick drain safe? I have wondered if it would have
any contact problem with the nose gear, etc. Does Aeroquip have an
approval for it and if so, do I need to get a 337 signed off for it?
I've blundered several times draining tne noswheel sump and I could
use a good fix.
I put Lew Gage's filter system on several years ago and it's great.
Jim Devany D4516
>
> Walt,
>
> It seems that the "dry" sump always seems to contain about 2
quarts of oil
> in there, which a significant fraction of the 8-9 quarts of oil in
the plane
> at the time of oil change, so I drain it, too. No need for all
those
> contaminants to go for another ride, and it keeps the new oil
looking
> cleaner longer.
>
> Lurkers:
> There are two oil drains on the early Bonanzas that have the E185-
11/E25-8
> engine. There's one on the bottom of the oil cooler tank, and a
second
> drain on the "dry" sump, accessed from the nosewheel gear wheel
well.
>
> Draining oil from the dry sump is a pain. You have to remove the
metal
> plate around the drain plug, clip the safety wire, unscrew the oil
plug, let
> hot oil dribble down your arm to about your elbow, quickly
position the
> drain pan somewhere underneath the oil stream and catch most of it
as the
> afternoon breeze whips the dribbling oil stream every which way.
Clean up
> the mess, put the plug back in, safety wire the plug, put the
plate back on,
> and do this all within the confines of your greasy nosewheel gear
well.
>
> --- PLAN B: ---
> Install a quick drain on the dry sump. An Aeroquip quick oil
drain will set
> you back about $100, but its worth it. Put a drain hose on the
quick drain,
> move the oil collection bucket into position, twist-push-twist the
drain
> open, and leave it there for 15 minutes or so as you go about
doing
> something else, like gapping spark plugs. When you're done,
untwist the
> drain, and its closed. Remove the oil hose and pull the oil
bucket out of
> the way. That's it.
>
> A quick drain has two small drawbacks:
> 1) the drain fitting's little exhaust pipe sticks up a bit into
the sump, so
> the -very- bottom of the sump doesn't get drained. I'd say about
1/2 cup.
> 2) the drain's opening is a lot smaller than the oil plug hole, so
it takes
> longer for the oil to drain out. I'd say about 30% more time, but
this is
> subjective and unreliable. Also, times will change for hot vs.
cold oil.
>
> I have a quick drain on both locations. Makes oil changes soooo
much easier.
>
> Ask me later about Lew Gage's oil filter. A must-buy, in my
opinion.
>
>
> _-
=====================================================================
==
> _-
=====================================================================
==
messages.
> _-
=====================================================================
==
list
> _-
=====================================================================
==
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
Jim,
As far as I know, the Aeroquip quick-drain (p/n AE99950G) is FAA-PMA
approved, priced at $133.50 out of the WAG-Aero catalog. I have two of
these and I'm happy with them. It was a simple logbook entry, and nobody
has said "boo" about it to me.
There is also a SAF-AIR quick-drain (thread size 5/8"-18) for $74.55. But,
it doesn't seem to have the FAA-PMA stamp of approval. Sigh.
I have not found any interference problem (i.e., the quick-drain being
actuated by the retracting gear), and has worked first time, every time for me.
Ron Davis
jdevany(at)olypen.com wrote:
>
> Hi Ron:
>
> Is that Aeroquip quick drain safe? I have wondered if it would have
> any contact problem with the nose gear, etc. Does Aeroquip have an
> approval for it and if so, do I need to get a 337 signed off for it?
>
> I've blundered several times draining tne noswheel sump and I could
> use a good fix.
>
> I put Lew Gage's filter system on several years ago and it's great.
>
> Jim Devany D4516
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net> |
I had a Curtis Valve quick drain put on my E-225 sump this past summer after a
discussion with Lew Gage. The part number is CCA-39550 and cost 19.95 + shipping
(drain hose was another $14). Lew recommended that the gear be swung to confirm
clearance, so I had the drain installed at an annual.
> Curtis can be reached at 802-230-2387.
> Rob Mayer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Alston <jalsto(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Drains |
Having taken my last oil bath, I installed Precision Aero's quick drain. At
$80, it wasn't cheap, but it is better than the mess I made of me and my
hangar floor every time I changed oil. It cleared the gear with no problem.
My first oil change is coming up soon, so we'll see how it works.
Jon Alston
N2191D
D35
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Beech-List: Quick Drains
>
> I had a Curtis Valve quick drain put on my E-225 sump this past summer
after a discussion with Lew Gage. The part number is CCA-39550 and cost
19.95 + shipping (drain hose was another $14). Lew recommended that the gear
be swung to confirm clearance, so I had the drain installed at an annual.
> > Curtis can be reached at 802-230-2387.
> > Rob Mayer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
Listers:
I've tired of fighting the junkie portable intercom in my ship and want to
purchase a 4 place, panel mounted unit and would appreciate any input as to what
brands are preferred and trouble free. I've been looking at Sigtronics Auto
squelch model, sounds good. Also, is the only reason one picks a "stereo" intercom
is the ability to pipe in music? I don't recall any tower frequencies
listed as "stereo".
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35, D-1373, Las Vegas, NV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Strong" <gstrong(at)att.net> |
I've got the older Sigtronics SPA-400. It's a 4 place mono intercom
that works great. It doesn't have the auto squelch stuff, but it hasn't
seemed to matter. They make great stuff, so I think any of their
products would work well.
Gary S.
1979 V35B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy L.
Thwing
Subject: Beech-List: Intercom advice
-->
Listers:
I've tired of fighting the junkie portable intercom in my ship and
want to purchase a 4 place, panel mounted unit and would appreciate any
input as to what brands are preferred and trouble free. I've been
looking at Sigtronics Auto squelch model, sounds good. Also, is the
only reason one picks a "stereo" intercom is the ability to pipe in
music? I don't recall any tower frequencies listed as "stereo".
Regards, Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35, D-1373, Las Vegas, NV
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carter DuBois <carter(at)yaksales.com> |
The PS Engineering Intercom is far superior to any other I have used.
Their portable is awesome as well. The auto-squelch circuitry works really
seamlessly. Stereo is for music and long trips are more enjoyable. The PS
Engineering units with stereo input cut the music at the first hint of an
input from the intercom or radio, then raises the volume slowly when the
input noise ceases.
Carter DuBois
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy L. Thwing [SMTP:n4546v(at)mindspring.com]
Subject: Beech-List: Intercom advice
Listers:
I've tired of fighting the junkie portable intercom in my ship and want
to purchase a 4 place, panel mounted unit and would appreciate any input as
to what brands are preferred and trouble free. I've been looking at
Sigtronics Auto squelch model, sounds good. Also, is the only reason one
picks a "stereo" intercom is the ability to pipe in music? I don't recall
any tower frequencies listed as "stereo".
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35, D-1373, Las Vegas, NV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom advice |
Randy,
I have the (stereo) Sigtronics ST-400 in my plane, and I like it. As you
suggest, there are no stereo ASOS reports yet, but you can hook up a tape
deck or CD player and get great music ... provided your headsets are stereo,
too. If they aren't, then the mono jack will introduce a deafening squeal
to all the headsets. So all four of my headsets are stereo Peltor 7004s.
Works great. Pilot isolate / Crew / All switch, etc. AM/FM/Tapedeck under
the dash for background music that immediately goes away when ATC or a
fellow flier talks, and comes back when things get quiet.
Installing a permanent intercom always seems to involve a real rat's nest of
wires. When I wired up mine,
* I put the pilot's jacks just under the dash at the left knee.
* I put the front right seat jacks under the seat outboard of the right knee.
* I put the rear seat jacks under the seat at the outboard knees.
This means a minimum of tangled headset cabling as the rear seaters can hang
their headsets on the open ash trays or the turned up loops of the window
emergency exit pull pins. The front seater puts them under the seat on the
little shelf. I hope you have some kind of barrier so they don't fall into
the landing gear gearbox. I hang the pilot's headset on the wobble pump handle.
* I added a couple of ounces of weight by having a separate set of wires to
each station. Easier to troubleshoot 10 years from now.
* I wired up the jacks with a ground wire going all the way back to the
intercom. I have *never* experienced any scratchiness due to poor grounding
that way.
Wiring took an afternoon, and final installation another afternoon.
It works great. I listened to "Lindbergh by A.Scott Berg" on tape (13
cassettes) while I flew from LA to Orlando and back earlier this year. I
donated the tapes to my library after that.
But if I were to do it all over again, I would get one of the new combo
audio panel / marker beacon / intercom systems.
I believe PS Engineering's models run over $1,000.00.
Steven Oxman will report about the PMA7000M-S audio panel/intercom he has in
his K35 in the November issue of ABS Magazine, but it isn't cheap, either.
There is another one, I forget which, that has two aux inputs. Chopin in
the front seats, The Ramones in the back.
If you are handy with a soldering gun, then you may want to try the
"Heathkit" of the avionics industry, RST.
http://www.rst-engr.com/
They have an audio panel/intercom, the (non-stereo) RST-564 and RST-565, and
with the RST-522 marker receiver option it sells for $380.00. Now you're
talkin' my language.
It also permits a "music input" that is muted if any other airplane radio
starts generating audio.
It seems to have only one PTT button, so its pilot-only. If you need to
have a pilot/copilot PTT feature, you will have to add a "select" switch to
toggle the input mic between the left or right seat. Handy/required for
flight training, I should think.
Also, no pilot isolate feature. Frankly, I haven't used mine but once.
Seems the pax like to hear the instructions of ATC. However, if you have
little ones, you may want such a feature so they can continue to hum along
to their Scooby Doo soundtrack while you get vectors to final.
I am currently toying with the idea of putting the 12 volt TV/VCR player in
the back seat and just stuffing the ear-mount headphones under the airplane
headsets. Let her watch "Legally Blonde" for the 50th time without bugging
the rest of us.
Happy listening. I said "Happy listening." CAN YOU HEAR ME?
Ron Davis
Randy L. Thwing wrote:
>
>
> Listers: I've tired of fighting the junkie portable intercom in my ship
> and want to purchase a 4 place, panel mounted unit and would appreciate
> any input as to what brands are preferred and trouble free. I've been
> looking at Sigtronics Auto squelch model, sounds good. Also, is the only
> reason one picks a "stereo" intercom is the ability to pipe in music? I
> don't recall any tower frequencies listed as "stereo". Regards, Randy L.
> Thwing, Straight 35, D-1373, Las Vegas, NV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom advice |
Listers:
Thanks for all the input so far, I built a RST intercom 25 years ago
when I was a Maule pilot, it took a weekend and was a fun project. When my
portable went T.U. last week, I drug it out and used it again, still works.
I have one question: Who are the "Ramones"?
Randy
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Intercom advice
Chopin in
> the front seats, The Ramones in the back.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom advice |
NAT is a good one but the PS Engineering ones are great, with fantastic
customer service and support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Intercom advice
>
> Listers:
> I've tired of fighting the junkie portable intercom in my ship and
want to purchase a 4 place, panel mounted unit and would appreciate any
input as to what brands are preferred and trouble free. I've been looking
at Sigtronics Auto squelch model, sounds good. Also, is the only reason one
picks a "stereo" intercom is the ability to pipe in music? I don't recall
any tower frequencies listed as "stereo".
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35, D-1373, Las Vegas, NV
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom advice |
Ron:
Thanks for the usual complete response, What level of soundproofing do
you have in your ship that allows all this to work so well? Factory or
something added? I have delusions of removing the remaining shreds of my
original interior and installing the intercom and soundproofing at the same
time. Then redoing the interior and putting it all back together.
Randy
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Intercom advice
>
> Randy,
>
> I have the (stereo) Sigtronics ST-400 in my plane, and I like it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom advice |
Randy,
The Sigtronics worked fine before the major interior re-do, when the money
pump was turning at 5,000 dpm (dollars per month). I just had to set the
volumes higher than I do now.
Several factors affect the noise level here:
1) When I redid the interior, I installed that black closed-cell foam rubber
soundproofing stuff. Got it from Aircraft Spruce, and I think I got a 10
foot roll 48" wide. Can't remember how thick the stuff is now. Took out
all the yellow fiberglass. Cut and fit bits and pieces for a week. Noise
factor went *way* down. :)
2) Running at only 2000-2100 rpm really helps, too. :)
3) I was at the AOPA convention in Palm Springs a few years back and got
caught at a weak moment. Bought two Headsets, Inc. ANR conversion kits for
my two front seat headsets. Peltor 7004. 15-16 hrs per 9v battery. They
*really* work, but if you can, just buy the Lightspeeds from the get-go.
Cheaper than the headsets + conversion, better noise reduction, and less
trouble on your part.
AOPA Convention is coming up in Palm Springs again in a couple of weeks.
I'll probably be weak and buy 2 more "convention special" headset
conversions for the back seat headsets, a 12-pak of AOA oil analysis kits, a
case of Exxon Elite, 6.50-8 tires, a gallon of Wash-Wax All (make that 2
gallons), and I hope I get out of there before I do something silly, like
get a KLN-94 GPS to replace my old Trimble TNL-1000D, or sign up for a slot
for an Eclipse. :)
I live some 90-odd miles away at Newport Beach, I'll probably be just a
day-tripper on Thursday the 24th.
Ron Davis
Randy L. Thwing wrote:
>
> Ron:
> Thanks for the usual complete response, What level of soundproofing do
> you have in your ship that allows all this to work so well? Factory or
> something added? I have delusions of removing the remaining shreds of my
> original interior and installing the intercom and soundproofing at the same
> time. Then redoing the interior and putting it all back together.
> Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weber, Barry [LFS]" <BWEBER1(at)lfsus.jnj.com> |
| Subject: | re: intercom advice |
I have replaced the intercom in several airplanes with the DRE 244 and have
been very pleased. Not only does it work well with great clear audio and
automatic squelch circuitry but the installation kit is superior to any
others I have installed. The price/quality ratio is exceptionally good,
both the intercoms and ANR headsets. Check out their website.
http://www.drecomm.com/
Regards,
Barry Weber
D-18 (under restoration)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ROBINFLY(at)aol.com |
Dear Listers:
I am sorting out the wiring behind my panel. I have a King KX-125. When
reading the "Quick Shot" pin-out, connector P100 has 44 pins labeled as "A"
to "Z" on top and 1 to 22 on bottom, and connector P501 has 36 pins labeled
as "A" to "V" on top and 1 to 18 on bottom.
Question 1, labels "A" to "Z" and "A" to "V" each has 4 more letters than
there are pins, which 4 letters should be ignored?
Question 2, King's "audio out hi" and "audio out lo", are they the same as
"audio out" and "audio ground" on other radios?
Question 3, does anyone have the pin-out on Icom A22 handheld radio? What
are the tip, center, and back connections on each of the speaker plug and
mike plug?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Robin Hou
54 E-35
N7303B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ROBINFLY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | re: Collins audio panel AUD-251H |
Dear Listers:
Thanks for your replies on my prior posting re: KX-125 connectors.
I continue to sort out the wiring in my Bonanza. I discovered that my audio
panel, a Collins AUD-251H, has connections labeled as "ICS MIC 1" through
"ICS MIC 5." New questions:
1. Does that mean the AUD-251H has a built-in intercom system (ICS)?
2. If it does, how come there were no volume nor squelch controls on the face
plate?
Thanks,
Robin Hou
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Collins audio panel AUD-251H |
Robin,
Can't say for sure. The website:
http://www.s-tec.com/products/acp.html
Describes that it has an intercom amplifier, but nothing about an intercom
itself. Odd.
Oh. I also found this website:
http://www.avionics.com/www/books/Avionics%20Install%20Hdbook.htm
advertising an avionics installation guidebook, with hundreds of pinout
diagrams for those of us with more "esoteric" installations.
Ron Davis
ROBINFLY(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Listers:
>
> Thanks for your replies on my prior posting re: KX-125 connectors.
>
> I continue to sort out the wiring in my Bonanza. I discovered that my audio
> panel, a Collins AUD-251H, has connections labeled as "ICS MIC 1" through
> "ICS MIC 5." New questions:
>
> 1. Does that mean the AUD-251H has a built-in intercom system (ICS)?
> 2. If it does, how come there were no volume nor squelch controls on the face
> plate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin Hou
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Beech Party 2002 |
Hi All,
Not sure I posted a link to the Beech Party 2002 pictures, but here they
are.
http://www.pbase.com/shelbyrv6a/beech_party_2002
--
Shelby Smith
http://www.myplaneonline.com/N4004T.html
68 B-23 N4004T serial #1110 located @
The EAA Complex / Smyrna TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech Party 2002 |
In a message dated 10/26/02 2:33:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
rvaitor(at)comcast.net writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Not sure I posted a link to the Beech Party 2002 pictures, but here they
> are.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shelbyrv6a/beech_party_2002
>
>
> --
> Shelby Smith
>
Good Afternoon Shelby,
Lots of very nice pictures.
Incidentally, The 1965 S35, N8939U, that you commented as having a nice paint
job when you posted a picture of it just before touchdown belongs to our
oldest son.
The Beech E18S, N929DV, that you captioned as having just flown the morning
wakeup call Is our youngest son's airplane. Thanks for all the family photos,
but you missed number two son's J35, N7264B and my V35B, N20318.
I hope you enjoyed your visit as much as we enjoyed ours. Be sure and come
back next year, if not before.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Semenuk <shsrv6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | New Elect. Intl. Inst. Package for sale |
zenith-list(at)matronics.com, piper-list(at)matronics.com,
lancair-list(at)matronics.com.europa-list@matronics.com,
beech-list(at)matronics.com, aviation-list(at)matronics.com
I am selling at a loss the following. $3200 and
they're yours, including shipping. That's
$650 less than you'll find anywhere and it includes a
fuel level gauge that is not included in most engine
monitors:
Brand new, never installed or used, still in original
boxes (opened only to inventory) Electronics
International instruments as a package only. Purchased
earlier this year. All necessary sensors and
transducers, wires, etc. are included.
1) UBG-16 CHT/EGT bar graph including 4 cht/4egt
probes and 1 OAT probe. Room for
7 other temperature/parameter readings.
2) FP-5L Fuel flow and pressure with GPS interface to
calculate fuel to destination
3) R-1 RPM including flight time
4) OPT-1 Oil pressure and temp
5) M-1 Manifold pressure
6) VA-1 Volt/Amp with 50 Amp external shunt
7) FL-2 Dual fuel level for resistance (standard
float) senders
Steve Semenuk
shsrv6a(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ROBINFLY(at)aol.com |
Dear Listers:
My E-225 was overhauled with new Continental cylinders 5 years ago by Dick at
Cruseair of Ramona, Ca. Dick did a great job and the engine has been running
fine for last 5 years and 258 hours (need to find time to fly more); no
visible leaks yet!!! I run into Dick last year at a show and he told me that
Continental has now required a hole to be drilled on the rocker arms for
lubrication. Without this modification, Continental would not honor their
warranty. The modification of rocker arms is $320 plus 3.5 hours of R&R.
Since my cylinders are over 5 year old, warranty is not my concerns any more.
I am bringing my E-35 to Dick so he can remove the Hartzell prop for the AD
inspection every 5 years (MV modification was not yet available when it was
overhauled). The down time is going to be 10 to 15 days. I want to use this
down time to have Dick do some work on the bird: gap seals, shoulder
hardness, and maybe the rocker arms.
Does any of you have information on this rocker arms modification and how
beneficial is it if Continental warranty is not a concern?
Robin Hou
P. S. Ron, thank you for the info on my audio panel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Crisp" <steve(at)theofficenet.com> |
Robin,
I also have a 225 in my C which is needing a top. I have been told that this is
the week point in the engine besides the leaks and blow by. 600 hrs is about
all you get out of one.
The later engines use a high flow lifter to get more oil up to the top and that
has improved guide life. My J is equipped with these and we are going through
825 hrs now.
My personal thought on the mater will be to change the rockers to rollers if they
are available. Many people have told me about and shown me valve guides that
look more like a key slot than a hole and all under 600 hours. Lubrication
is one factor and side load friction is another.
My feeling is the roller would help prevent wear on the guide, lower oil temp and
promote long life service.
I have seen them for the late engines and I'm looking for them for the 225. If
any one out there knows where to get them for the 225 perhaps you would be kind
enough to post where to get them.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "carmine pecoraro" <aeroauto(at)hotmail.com> |
Do yourself a favor and put 4 ring pistons in.
cheers carmine pecoraro
>From: "Steve Crisp" <steve(at)theofficenet.com>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Beech-List: rocker arms
>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:40:34 -0800
>
>
>Robin,
>
>I also have a 225 in my C which is needing a top. I have been told that
>this is the week point in the engine besides the leaks and blow by. 600
>hrs is about all you get out of one.
>
>The later engines use a high flow lifter to get more oil up to the top and
>that has improved guide life. My J is equipped with these and we are going
>through 825 hrs now.
>
>My personal thought on the mater will be to change the rockers to rollers
>if they are available. Many people have told me about and shown me valve
>guides that look more like a key slot than a hole and all under 600 hours.
>Lubrication is one factor and side load friction is another.
>
>My feeling is the roller would help prevent wear on the guide, lower oil
>temp and promote long life service.
>
>I have seen them for the late engines and I'm looking for them for the 225.
> If any one out there knows where to get them for the 225 perhaps you
>would be kind enough to post where to get them.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Davis <radavis2522(at)netzero.net> |
Steve,
Yeah, the 4-ring pistons are a given.
It won't magically increase power, but it will magically reduce oil burn.
Mine dropped to something like 1 quart every 12-15 hours.
As for the roller arms, I don't know of anyone that has done that to the
E-series engines. Probably too old and too few to be worthwhile. But check
with the Navion guys too. They use the E225 engine and probably still know
a few tricks.
Ron Davis
carmine pecoraro wrote:
>
> Do yourself a favor and put 4 ring pistons in.
>
>
> cheers carmine pecoraro
>
>
>
>>From: "Steve Crisp" <steve(at)theofficenet.com>
>>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Beech-List: rocker arms
>>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:40:34 -0800
>>
>>
>>Robin,
>>
>>I also have a 225 in my C which is needing a top. I have been told that
>>this is the week point in the engine besides the leaks and blow by. 600
>>hrs is about all you get out of one.
>>
>>The later engines use a high flow lifter to get more oil up to the top and
>>that has improved guide life. My J is equipped with these and we are going
>>through 825 hrs now.
>>
>>My personal thought on the mater will be to change the rockers to rollers
>>if they are available. Many people have told me about and shown me valve
>>guides that look more like a key slot than a hole and all under 600 hours.
>>Lubrication is one factor and side load friction is another.
>>
>>My feeling is the roller would help prevent wear on the guide, lower oil
>>temp and promote long life service.
>>
>>I have seen them for the late engines and I'm looking for them for the 225.
>> If any one out there knows where to get them for the 225 perhaps you
>>would be kind enough to post where to get them.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Steve
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2002 List Fund Raiser - Please Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
During November of each year, I have a voluntary Email List Fund Raiser to
support the continued operation, development, maintenance and upgrade of
the Email Forums sponsored here. Your Contributions go directly into
improvements in the systems that support the Lists and to pay for the
Internet connectivity primarily dedicated to supporting the Lists.
The traffic on the Lists continues to grow and the numbers are nothing
short of impressive! Here are some statistics that show much traffic the
Lists generated last year alone:
11/01/2001 - 10/31/2002
Web server hits: 8,700,000 (727,000/mo)
Incoming Email Posts: 51,259 (4,271/mo) *
* This number is multiplied by the total number of email addresses
subscribed to the given List. The actual number of email message processed
is in the 50,000,000 range for last year!!
The new Internet provider, Speakeasy, has been providing extremely fast and
reliable service over the last year, and this has certainly been a
refreshing change from previous providers!
There were a couple of new features added at the tail-end of last year
including the new List Browse Feature ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
), and the List Photoshare which have been both very popular. Many people
have written to say how much they enjoy the on-line browsing capability of
current week's messages. The 184 new Photoshares (
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ) added over the last year attests to
its acceptance and appreciation in the community as well.
I have upgraded both the email and web server OS systems recently to the
latest - well almost the latest - version of Redhat Linux and Kernel
2.4.19, both of which have been working very well and quite reliably.
What does the future hold? Well, something pretty exciting I'm
hoping... I am currently evaluating a new, commercially available software
package that runs under Linux and provides a complete web-based Email List
service akin to what those other guys use. The difference will be that
there won't be any annoying advertisements and popup ads on the Matronics
system!! The system will continue to be dedicated to furthering Lists
activities and not trying to sell you something you don't want. My hope is
to keep most if not all of the current functionality in place and add the
new software system over the top. Some of the system will be replaced
(like majordomo), but the lists will work much like they do today - only
BETTER! As I mentioned, I am currently in the evaluation stage of this and
have yet to select a final product. Suffice to say some facelifts are
definitely on the way!
Unlike many of the other "list servers" on the web these days, I have a
strict no-commercial-advertisement policy on the Matronics Lists and
associated List websites. I have been approached by a number of vendors
recently with advertising deals that have been very tempting. However, my
commitment to providing a grass-roots, non-commercial environment
prevails! Commercialism on the Internet seems to be increasing
exponentially every year with more and more SPAM and pop up ads, not to
mention the ever increasing Virus attacks. My goal with the Matronics List
Service is to provide my members with a commercial-free, safe, and
high-performance system in which to share information, ideas, and
camaraderie.
I recoup my upgrade, maintenance, and operating costs by having a List Fund
Raiser once a year during November. During this time, I ask List members
to donate a small amount of money to support the continued operation of the
Lists over the upcoming year. Contributions in the $20, $30, and $50 range
are common. This year I have completely revamped the Contribution website,
and have added the ability to use PayPal to make your Contribution in
addition to the traditional Visa/MC and Personal Check Options. Its easier
and faster than ever before to make your Contribution!! For those who are
accustomed to using PayPal to make Internet purchases, will appreciate the
ease and speed of using this handy method of payment to make their List
Contribution.
The best news this year, however, is that I have a couple of fantastic Gift
offers to support the List Fund Raiser! Andy Gold of The Builder's
Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ) will be generously donating a
FREE Jeppesen Flight Bag to anyone making a $50 or more List Contribution
during the Fund Raiser! This is a great bag and something you'll surely
what to get your hands on. Thanks Andy, for this great incentive!!
In addition to the great Flight Bag, I will also be offering a FREE
Matronics List Archive CDROM for a $50 or greater Contribution! This is a
complete set of archives for all Email Lists currently hosted by
Matronics. The Archives date back to the beginning of the each List. In
the case of the RV-List, for example, this includes archives all the way
back to 1990! That's about 133Mb alone! Also included on the CD is a copy
of Chip Gibbion's Windows Archive Search Utility and a precompiled
search-index for each archive on the CD.
Better yet?! You can get BOTH the Flight Bag AND the Archive CD for a
Contribution of $75 or more which is actually LESS than the combined retail
price on the two items!!! How can you go wrong? Get some great stuff AND
support your Lists at the same time!
Over the next month I'll be posting a few reminder messages about the List
Fund Raiser, and I ask for your patience and understanding during the
process. Remember that the Lists are *completely* funded through the
generous Contributions of its members. That's it! There's no support from
a bloated advertising budget or deep pockets somewhere. Its all made
possible through YOUR support!
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who supports the
List this year. Your generosity contributes directly to the quality of the
experience here.
To make your List Contribution using a Visa or MasterCard, PalPal, or with
a Personal Check, please go to the URL link below. Here you can find
additional details on this year's great free Gifts as well as additional
information on the various methods of payment.
SSL Secure Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Again, I would like to thank everyone who supports the Lists this
year! Your Contributions truly make it all possible!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Lead washers for ruddervators |
Listers:
Now that AD 2002-21-13 requires rebalancing ruddervators on early ships to
18 inch pounds, can anyone advise what Raytheon charges for the required, part
numbered lead washers?
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jdevany(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Propeller advice |
I got a message from a friend of mine in Thailand about propellers
and I don't have any bright ideas for him. Perhaps someone out
there has some advice for him.
"Propeller for Beech V35... Bernhard need to change his Prop due to
AD and he has the choice between normal replacement (3 blade 80
inch Prop 7500 US$ ) and the so called Super Scimitar Propeller
which is announced to be better in performance but higher in price
(8500 US$). do you have any feedback or user references in terms of
scimitar prop?"
If anyone has some experience or information to answer this
question, I would appreciate the feedback.
Jim Devany
D-4516
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New List Digest Feature!! [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I've added a new feature to the Digest format of the Lists tonight. At the
top of each digest you will find a new Index Listing of all of the messages
found within that Digest including the Message Number, Subject, Poster, and
Time of Day posted.
I've also added a "Message Number" header to each message within the Digest
so that its easy to find 'just the message' you were looking for!
Sorry for the double posting of the digests tonight - the first time I
didn't quite have the code right and a few "bogus" entries made it into the
Index. I went ahead and reposted the Digest so that everyone could see how
the Index-to-Message mapping really worked.
Special 'thanks' to Gary Hall for not only suggesting a Digest Index, but
also supplying a few samples on how it might look. Gary, I think you'll be
quite pleased with the format!
Don't forget that were right in the middle of this year's List Fund Raiser
and if you haven't already made your Contribution, you own it to yourself
to check out the great free Gifts that are available this year with your
qualifying Contribution.
The Lists are operated completely though the support of it members, and so
its up to YOU to get that credit card out and make that $20, $30, or $50
show of support for the continued operation of the Lists.
Won't you take a couple of minutes and make a quick Contribution on the all
new, streamlined List Support web site? I've also added a
Payment-through-PayPal option this year, and this is proving a very popular
method of payment. Don't forget to check out the great free gifts you can
get with a qualifying Contribution this year. I can't believe how popular
they've been this year! Hurry and get your's today and support the Lists
at the same time!
Here's the SSL Secure URL for making your Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your Support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser - What Listers Are Saying... |
Dear Listers,
First, I'd like say *thank you* to everyone that's already made a
Contribution to this year's List Fund Raiser! Thank you! If you haven't
already made a Contribution, won't you take a movement and show your
support for these valuable services? Since there's no advertising or other
forms of direct commercialism on the forums to support the Lists, its soley
YOUR GENEROSITY that keeps them running!!
Won't please take a minute and make a Contribution via the SSL secure web
site via Credit Card, Paypal, or personal check. Here's the URL:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
This year, I've been getting some *really* nice comments from Contributors
and I thought I'd pass along a few of them below. What does the List mean
to *you*?
Thank you for your support!!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
_________________ What your fellow Listers are saying... _________________
...great service!!
Greg B.
They have been a great assistance to me in building my RV-8.
Kevin H.
...very much appreciated.
Donald M.
Great site...
Angus F.
...invaluable resource.
Ronald C
[The List] has played a big part in continuing my project at
those times when I got stuck for some reason.
Jeff D.
Although I am only a reader, I find the list very helpful.
Oswaldo F.
The lists are a fantastic resource and are helping me very much...
Kenyon B.
The list is part of my life.
Ron C.
The CD will free up some hard disk space on my personal PC.
Jeff D.
...unbelievably useful.
Dan O.
...dependable and valued source of builder information.
Jerry C.
My daily lifeline!
Owen B.
...frequently get questions answered on the List.
Billy W.
Don't know how any first-time builder could get by without the lists.
Rick R.
...great source of information and motivation.
Jef V.
Super resource!
David P.
The information presented is very helpful to the building process.
James B.
Wonderful Service!
Wendell D.
The lists are great!
F. Robert M.
...very valuable to this builder.
William C.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser Continues... |
Marie Murillo
Dear Listers,
Just a quick reminder this morning that we're well into this year's Email
List Fund Raiser. Response has been great so far and there has been a lot
of interest in the Gift options. Speaking of those Gifts, I received a
sample of the Jeppesen Flight Bag from Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore
http://www.buildersbooks.com this weekend, and let me just say that this is
an extremely fine quality unit. Its very light, folds down into a very
small form for storage, and will hold a whole lot of your "pilot
stuff"! For a mere $50 List Contribution, one of these very nice bags
could be yours! You'll be the envy of all your friends.
Won't you make a Contribution today to support the these valuable Email
List Services? Please remember that its YOUR generosity that entirely
supports the continued operation and upgrade of the Lists. That's it - no
ads, no banners - just good clean fun; that is, with your support of course!
Please take a moment and make a generous Contribution today. It only takes
a minute using the newly redesigned Contribution Web Site where you can use
either a Credit Card, PayPal, or a Personal Check to make your donation.
The URL for the SSL Secure Contribution web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
And I'd like to say a special "thank you!" to everyone one who has made
Contribution so far this year!! I really appreciate your generosity!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Wow, I can't belive some of the nice things people have been saying about
the Lists in that little message box on the Contribution form! I've
included more of the great comments since the last WLAS. Thank you to
everyone that has made a Contribution thus far and for all the great
feedback! Please know that I really appreciate the comments and support!!
Have a look at some of your fellow members thoughts below and decide if the
Lists mean at least that much to you or perhaps even more...
Won't you take a moment and make a Contribution to support these
Commercial-Free, SPAM-Free, Virus-Free, high-performance List
services? Its your direct support through this yearly Fund Raiser that
enables all of these valuable services you've come to expect of the
Matronics Lists.
Thank you for your Contribution!!
SSL Secure Web Site - http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Matt Dralle
EMail List Administrator
=====================================================================
=================== What Listers Are Saying - II ====================
=====================================================================
I check this List 4 to 5 times a day...
-Bruce B.
These are without a doubt among the best managed
Lists to which I subscribe.
-Terry W.
Thank you for providing such a wonderful service.
-Roy W.
...fine service!
-Christopher A.
Best list on the Internet!
-Geroge A.
Great list with a host of features.
-David A.
Having built part of a kit... ...I know exactly how
much this list means to me and others.
-Curtis H.
As always... you've got a real cool & very useful
service going...
-Chuck R.
I shudder to think of the trouble I would have had
getting this project airborne without this list!
-Grant C.
...enjoy everyone's input.
-Doug P.
I read the [the List] every day...
-Ronald S.
Whenever I feel like not building on my day
off....I open my mail and the [the List] gets me
pumped and ready to hit it!
-Tom E.
The Digest Message subject list is an excellent
addition.
-Kevin S.
Certainly the [the List] has been a valuable source
for building support and advice, but there's another
benefit,... the wonderful friends that we meet and
keep for years and years!
-Fred H.
What a great forum to exchange ideas and info.
-Terry L.
The List is my daily RV fix.
-Neil H.
I always received comments and suggestions when
I requested them.
-Thomas G.
Best resource a builder could ever have. A daily
must!
-Robert C.
Thanks for your gift - these web sites!
-Tom P.
...great info.
-Richard W.
The List empowers all RV builders to achieve success...
-Mark G.
I've been reading the postings for a month now and
decided to take the plunge as a result of the
helpfulness and spirit of cooperation I observed.
-Tim P.
...invaluable service.
-Ford F.
I check in at least twice daily for my e-mail "Fix".
-John S.
Its worth every penny of my contribution.
-Paul M.
Wonderful web site and it keeps getting better.
-Jim H.
A valuable list which has certainly helped me.
-Andrew G.
...the List helps so many.
-Don J.
I really appreciate the site and find it interesting
to speak to people who are into this type of aircraft.
-Larry M.
This is a great recreation for me.
-Larry B.
[The List] keeps me up to date and provides a fantastic
resource for information.
-Terry F.
Lists are a great resource!
-Daniel S.
...great service and professional administration of
the Lists.
-Chris R.
I really appreciate the List.
-Edward O.
Worth every penny, and then some!
-Kenyon B.
...great service.
-Ralph H.
Your unselfish contribution to the experimental
aircraft movement is very much appreciated!
-Alex M.
Great help on the Aeroelectric list.
-Bruce B.
It helps on a daily basis.
-Tim G.
Thanks for providing this outstanding service to us!
-Michel T.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | LOC Coming Soon... |
Dear Listers,
This year's List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner. I'll be
posting the LOC on or about December 1. The List of Contributors is a
directory of everyone's name that made a Contribution during this year's
List Fund Raiser. Its kind of my way of publicly thanking everyone that so
generously made a Contribution to support the continued operation and
upgrade of these Lists.
Support your Lists today and make sure that your name is on the upcoming
LOC! Your friends will be checking no doubt to see if YOU make your
Contribution because THEY did! :-)
Support Contribution Info - http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Ken Braddock ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Ken Braddock
Subject: Boys asleep at 8k
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/kenbrad3@mchsi.com.11.16.2002/index.html
--------------------------------------------
o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
o Main Photo Share Index:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello all,
I have a question I hope someone can answer. I have a 1959 K
model Beech Bonanza. Recently, I changed the yoke out to a large rams horn
wheel to accommodate my push to talk button. I had to change the control
wheel adapter assy. as well. I also installed the yoke clock. I have seen
this done to several Bonanza's. I need to know what kind of paper work I need
for the log books. Is it just a log book entry because, I can't find anywhere
that the Illustrated parts manual says the yoke part number is superseded by
the large rams horn yoke. If it is a form 337, where can I find supporting
documentation to allow the yoke swap? I am an I.A. and have asked other
I.A.'s with a result of "a shrug of the shoulders." Please help.
Thank you,
Jonathan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ruddervator counterweight |
I recently purchased a 1959 K model Beech Bonanza. I'll probably be bending
ya'lls ear for a while.
I noticed that the ruddervators had some material loss. I noticed that the
plane had been recently painted so I assumed that the ruddervators were not
prepared properly and I didn't like the color anyway. I stripped and mag
koted the ruddervators. Had them primed and painted. The problem is that when
I checked the balance, per the maintenance manual, the left ruddervator had
to have an additional pound added to the counterweight to be properly
balanced. The right ruddervator balance was perfect. The maintenance manual
only advises adding a few lead washers (oz). I had to add a full pound. I
contacted Beech and had no luck. Any suggestions on what kind of paper work I
need to make it right? Has anyone else had to add that much? And, if so, what
did you do?
Thanks,
Jonathan
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello,
I was given a set of aluminum V35 Beech Bonanza wing tips (M tip
style). I installed them on my K35 Beech Bonanza. There was no drilling
needed. Bolt straight on. My question is, does anyone have supporting
documentation so that I can submit a form 337? I would gladly pay for a copy.
I have researched and cannot find anyone with a current stc for this mod.
Thank you,
Jonathan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Beech had a kit that replaced the old tips with the newer (M-Style) ones.
Cite the installation per the kit on your paperwork.
----- Original Message -----
From: <AV8TRQA(at)aol.com>
Subject: Beech-List: wing tips
>
> Hello,
> I was given a set of aluminum V35 Beech Bonanza wing tips (M tip
> style). I installed them on my K35 Beech Bonanza. There was no drilling
> needed. Bolt straight on. My question is, does anyone have supporting
> documentation so that I can submit a form 337? I would gladly pay for a
copy.
> I have researched and cannot find anyone with a current stc for this mod.
> Thank you,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ruddervator counterweight |
Need to delve into the service manual for this as there are listed
parameters. Your balance problem is not due to material loss, although I
would certainly wonder how much material is gone, but rather the application
of too much primer/paint. Unless you're experienced in painting rv's, it's
a bear to get right. Suggest you speak with someone who regularly paints V
Tails. Good luck.
----- Original Message -----
From: <AV8TRQA(at)aol.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Ruddervator counterweight
>
> I recently purchased a 1959 K model Beech Bonanza. I'll probably be
bending
> ya'lls ear for a while.
> I noticed that the ruddervators had some material loss. I noticed that
the
> plane had been recently painted so I assumed that the ruddervators were
not
> prepared properly and I didn't like the color anyway. I stripped and mag
> koted the ruddervators. Had them primed and painted. The problem is that
when
> I checked the balance, per the maintenance manual, the left ruddervator
had
> to have an additional pound added to the counterweight to be properly
> balanced. The right ruddervator balance was perfect. The maintenance
manual
> only advises adding a few lead washers (oz). I had to add a full pound. I
> contacted Beech and had no luck. Any suggestions on what kind of paper
work I
> need to make it right? Has anyone else had to add that much? And, if so,
what
> did you do?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ruddervator counterweight |
Sounds like something wrong to me! One pound of Beech parts? Did the left
one have the same amount of lead as the right one? You are talking about 25%
of the total lead weight Did you bore scope inside the elevators for FOD?
Bruce Bell
A35 Bonanza
----- Original Message -----
From: <AV8TRQA(at)aol.com>
Subject: Beech-List: Ruddervator counterweight
>
> I recently purchased a 1959 K model Beech Bonanza. I'll probably be
bending
> ya'lls ear for a while.
> I noticed that the ruddervators had some material loss. I noticed that
the
> plane had been recently painted so I assumed that the ruddervators were
not
> prepared properly and I didn't like the color anyway. I stripped and mag
> koted the ruddervators. Had them primed and painted. The problem is that
when
> I checked the balance, per the maintenance manual, the left ruddervator
had
> to have an additional pound added to the counterweight to be properly
> balanced. The right ruddervator balance was perfect. The maintenance
manual
> only advises adding a few lead washers (oz). I had to add a full pound. I
> contacted Beech and had no luck. Any suggestions on what kind of paper
work I
> need to make it right? Has anyone else had to add that much? And, if so,
what
> did you do?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Jonathan;
Not sure about the experience of the IA's you've spoken to, but if they're
all airline guys that would explain their ignorance in the matter. I guess
you can say it's simplicity threw them for a loop. A logbook entry should
be enough citing the use of a more modern part with the newer Beech part
number. All the mumbo jumbo should be written down such as no change to the
workability of the controls, freedom of movement, w&b change and the like,
but you already know that. Don't forget that with the change you are now
subjected to the A/D regarding the adaptor. That should be signed off by
your IA immediately or no later than the next annual.
>
> Hello all,
> I have a question I hope someone can answer. I have a 1959 K
> model Beech Bonanza. Recently, I changed the yoke out to a large rams horn
> wheel to accommodate my push to talk button. I had to change the control
> wheel adapter assy. as well. I also installed the yoke clock. I have seen
> this done to several Bonanza's. I need to know what kind of paper work I
need
> for the log books. Is it just a log book entry because, I can't find
anywhere
> that the Illustrated parts manual says the yoke part number is superseded
by
> the large rams horn yoke. If it is a form 337, where can I find supporting
> documentation to allow the yoke swap? I am an I.A. and have asked other
> I.A.'s with a result of "a shrug of the shoulders." Please help.
> Thank you,
> Jonathan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Bell" <rv4bell(at)door.net> |
Are they Beech parts? Beech had a kit to replace early tips with the M style
tips.
Bruce Bell
A35
----- Original Message -----
From: <AV8TRQA(at)aol.com>
Subject: Beech-List: wing tips
>
> Hello,
> I was given a set of aluminum V35 Beech Bonanza wing tips (M tip
> style). I installed them on my K35 Beech Bonanza. There was no drilling
> needed. Bolt straight on. My question is, does anyone have supporting
> documentation so that I can submit a form 337? I would gladly pay for a
copy.
> I have researched and cannot find anyone with a current stc for this mod.
> Thank you,
> Jonathan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Crisp" <steve(at)theofficenet.com> |
Jonathan,
I went through that a while back and find it impossible to be that far out on the
balance. A couple of things come to mind.
One is did your painter use any kind of filler on surface like Bondo? if he wasn't
and aircraft painter maybe he dinged it filled it and just painted over it.
The other thing is that when we did mine it required a special primer for the
magnesium. Did you use that? Other than that check for an old bees nest inside
it or the like.
Steve
PS
Listers, as a service to Beech Listers I will post your for sale or wanted ads on http://www.aerobuysell.com for free if you contact me and tell me you are a Lister.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] - Why Do I Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? |
Dear Listers,
I got to thinking today that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund
Raiser and also take the opportunity to express why I think the List
Services here provide a far better experience than the commercial
equivalents.
I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with
running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the
annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I
have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the
members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to
sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From
the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great
majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List
systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage
members to support the Lists.
I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer a great many
benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first
feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you *cannot*
receive a computer v*rus from any of my Lists directly. I've been on a few
other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected
files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their
posts. This just can't happen with my Lists; each incoming message is
filtered and attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo
and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with
other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be
prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and
simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives
don't get loaded up with a huge amounts of bitmap "data" that slows the
Archive Search times.
Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are
available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the
way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search
Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the
data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives, in my opinion,
is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header
data and all the other header garbage that seems to build up in a typical
email thread.
I have received an extremely positive response from Listers regarding the
List Browse feature and the consensus is that the format and ease of use is
outstanding. Members report that having the previous 7 days worth of
messages online for easy browsing and sorting is hugely beneficial. And
again, as with the real time distribution of List email, the messages are
stripped of all the unnecessary email headers and potentially dangerous
v*ruses. I am currently working on the additional ability to post and/or
reply directly from the List Browse interface. More on this upcoming
feature in the next week or so.
I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain
since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys who I knew and who where
also building RVs. It has grown into over 40 different aviation-related
Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 9,000,000 hits
each year!! Additionally, the List email system forwards well over
50,000,000 (yes, that 50 MILLION) email messages to subscribers each
year! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value in
supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and
improving a high quality service at a price that's nearly free.
I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows
in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email
Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be
here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free,
that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and
receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
List Fund Raiser!
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
We are quickly approaching the end of November and the official end of the
List Fund Raiser. If you look forward to checking your List email everyday
(and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably
getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each
year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some lame magazine or
even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to
you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that same amount and get a
well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to
think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support
YOUR Lists.
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution
thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made
possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser Free Gift Shipping Status... |
Dear Listers,
A couple of people have written asking what the shipping status was of
their free List Contribution Gifts. Seemed like some status was in order
and I thought I detail where we're at...
Flight Bag Requests
-------------------
On 11/20/02 I shipped out the first batch of Flight Bag-Only (FBO) gift
requests. I shipped all FBO gift requests I had received from 11/1 to
11/19 except for 3 (Sorry guys!) - I ran out of my first shipment flight
bags! Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com
) is supplying me with another batch flight bags which should arrive in
about 2 weeks.
By the way, these are REALLY nice Flight Bags. Extremely well built and
very professional looking. Folds down into a very small size, but will
hold a huge amount of stuff. If you fly, and you've got a lot of stuff,
they you WANT one of these guys. Surf over to the List Contribution page
for details on how to get one of your own!!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The Flight Bags have been shipped out US Mail Parcel Post in a large, and I
mean LARGE, padded white plastic envelope. According to the Post Office,
worse case delivery time would be 8 days to destinations on the East Coast,
but indicated it would likely take a lot less time.
Archive CDROM Requests
----------------------
The Archive CDROMs will be mastered and burned on or about December 1 and
should ship out shortly there after. Shipping will be US Mail, Media Rate
in a big padded white envelope. The Archive List data included will be up
to November 30th.
Flight Bag and Archive CDROM Requests
-------------------------------------
These combination orders will ship out when the Archive CDROMs are complete
as described above, likely a little after December 1. The Flight Bag and
the CDROM will be shipped together in the same Giant white padded envelope!
Again, I want to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore for providing
these awesome Flight Bags to support the List Fund Raiser. Andy has gone
way beyond the call of duty with regard to his support of the Lists this
year and to show your gratitude I would ask that you have a look at his web
site and great media offerings. You'll find some excellent deals on some
very useful material. http://www.buildersbooks.com
And finally, I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a
Contribution so far this year! Your generosity and kindness is greatly
appreciated. If you've been putting off making a Contribution, now's a
great time show your appreciation in plenty of time to make it onto this
year's List of Contributors AND get your free gift with qualifying
Contribution!!!
List Contribution Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution/
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | All New List FAQs! |
Dear Listers,
I got to looking at the Email List FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) today
and realized that they where miserably out of date. I spent a wad of time
today completely revising them and adding in documentation on all of the
many new features such as the List Browse and Photoshare. Many of the
little-known features are documented in there now, too, so even if you're a
seasoned List veteran, you might want to give it a read. Never know what
you might discover.
At the bottom of this message in the Trailer you will find a new link item
called "List FAQ" with a URL for this specific List. Just click on it and
print it out or read it online.
Don't forget that November is the List Fund Raiser month! The "2002 List
of Contributors" is just days away and I know you'll want to make sure your
name is on it!! Please make your Contribution today to support the
continued operation of these List Services!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
There are only a few days left until the November List of Contributors. I
thought I'd take another opportunity to pass along some of the really nice
things people have been saying recently about the Lists and how much they
mean to them.
If you receive value from the Lists in the form of ideas, assistance,
comradery, moral support, inspiration, or just plain 'ol good
entertainment, then won't take a moment to make a Contribution to support
the continued operation and upgrade of them?
Secure List Contribution Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
What does the List mean to you? Here's what some of your fellow
contributing List members have said...
------------------------- What Listers Are Saying -------------------------
Great service for aviation types like me.
Larry H
Best investment I've made.
Harley B
I've been on this list since around 1996 and used it to
help me finish my RV-6A three years ago. I'm still here
because I still learn from it and use it to help others
like me who may be where nobody else is building a RV.
Thanks for your service to our community. It's appreciated.
Jim S
[List] people are a great break away from politics, religion
and other sordid subjects.
Robert B
This site is a great confidence builder for the amateur builder.
Gene L
Great service!
Barry P
Very handy list to have, a good place for a beginner to
get great answers from those who already experienced it.
...sure enjoy reading it.
Joel R
...valuable service!
Chris & Indira K
This is the better than any morning paper - the best and
most frequent service that I use on the Internet. Great
job! This will make building the RV doable for me.
Pete E
I enjoy all of the ideas, suggestions and humor that comes
with this list. I don't think I could build my RV4 with
out everyone's help.
Ross S
GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!
James W
The list is a great source of information, motivation,
entertainment, passionate debate, and light-hearted back
slapping. I wouldn't be without it.
Roger H
...would still be looking for plans to hook-up s-tec auto
pilot without your service!
David S
The new [digest] format is good.
Graham S
Great information you can't get anywhere else. Lots of nice
people who have "Been there...done that."
George D
My normal morning routine:
1 Kiss "the princess"
2 Good cup of coffee
3 Log onto "List"
A wonderful means of exchanging ideas, asking questions,
gathering information, and sharing experiences.
Robert G
Great lists. Not only are the lists professionally and efficiently
managed, but the *people* on the lists are very helpful, friendly
and fun to chat with. Thank you for this wonderful resource.
Ihab A
Thanks a million, well maybe not a million!!! (:
Ken H
I need this fix every morning or I get grumpy...
Wayne P
Very useful lists
Paul E
This communication medium that you created, nurtured and
continue to maintain is the best thing since AN rivets!
Jim J
The information I gleaned off the list has always been
helpful.
Kenneth B
I've been a subscriber to varied lists for several years
now. The knowledge provided has been extremely useful
throughout.
David P
Enjoy everyone's input even though I am not a
builder...just a flyer.
Douglas P
Just laughin' and a scratchin'
Dennis N
It is a real asset and good for comic relief.
Ross S
I can't build my plane without your service!
Kent H
Great info on the lists!
Wesley H
I'm very new to the List but have already benefited
greatly.
Jim S
The "List" has been my best source for information
concerning my aviation projects. Besides, it also
brings a bunch of people together to share their
interests and knowledge. Thanks for providing a
state of the art, easy to use resource tool.
David A
I have saved a lot of grief and dollars from referencing
this site. It is truly an extension of Van's product
support.
Joseph C
Terrific asset this List is to the builder!
Scott J
Great service!
Tony B
Look forward to the list each and every day.
John B
I could not cope up here in this lonely island without
the help of the List and all the wonderful helpful
people that have the experience of aircraft building
and flying for fun.
Johann J
This list is part of my daily routine. I'm addicted.
Terry D
Great forum!
John H
This list is my main interest in the Internet.
George R
Great list. The best out there on any subject.
Kevin H
Been on the list since 1998 and I still look forward to
reading the list every day. A most valuable tool. I have
picked up many useful tips during the construction of
my RV-4.
Jerry I
Thanks for all of your hard work on the lists. It is
one of the reasons I bought a CJ-6A. Without the
Yak-list, I believe it would have been much more
difficult to get all the information that I need
for safe operation and maintenance of this fine
aircraft.
David L
The List has been an amazing source of useful
information. I consider it one of my best builder
tools.
Gunter M
June 18, 2002 - November 28, 2002
Beech-Archive.digest.vol-ah