Beech-Archive.digest.vol-ad
November 04, 2000 - March 19, 2001
what about putting in 10 degrees of flaps-down on the take-off (?) seems this
would assist
in lifting-off quicker,,, have you found 10 degrees of flaps on take-off to
assist with quicker lift-off ?
(country)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CountVoo(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/03/00 |
<< From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Re: Beech-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/25/00
Hello Voo! Do you still have that straight model? I thought someone
finally got smart and bought it from you!
AL >>
= = =
Yes,,, AL,,, someone "got smart" and bought my Bonanza,,,,
and ever since I have missed it!
(have a friend who was looking to getting a cessna,, but ive "swayed" him on
geting a Bonanza (ha)
But he will be operating out of a relative short length field,,, and i really
didn't have any real 'short-field' operating
techniques to advise him on,,, I was thinking that possibly using 10 degrees
flaps on take-off would be advantageous,,, however don't wanna go
telin/suggesting something to another of which i really have no experience.
p.s. eventually when ever i am financially able,,, my next plane is going to
be a bonanza 35,,, there is nothing likem for that good airplane feeling!
(Voo)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/25/00 |
Wow! That was a nice airplane. At the time, if I wasn't involved in the
restoration of my A model, I would have snapped it up, pronto! Good luck
with it.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bourget" <falconaviation(at)home.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Re: Beech-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/25/00
>
> AJ,, ole Count Voo, was kind enough to fly his beautiful N8708A, out to
> Ottawa Canada and it became C-GFPG
>
>
> MIke
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Re: Beech-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/25/00
>
>
> >
> > Hello Voo! Do you still have that straight model? I thought someone
> > finally got smart and bought it from you!
> > AL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <CountVoo(at)Aol.com>
> > To: ;
> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Beech-List: Re: Beech-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/25/00
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What is a good 'technique' for short-field T/O and LANDING ?
> > > >>> For Bonanza 35 w/ 205 0r 225 HP full fuel w/ 3 souls onboard.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net> |
| Subject: | Be35 Short Field |
Wowee.... I can not add much to Capt Milt's advice.... Make a fairly
long approach.... Keep to chosen speed within close tolerance; carry
some power so that it may be used to control descent. If one flies a steep
apph without power then there is little way to shorten the apph if appears
landing long. With power one may adjust the rate of descent and adjust for
wind vagaries and touch down at the desired point.
A key issue is to make a steep descent so that the momentum is more in a
down direction than in a forward direction for a minimum ground run
landing. As Capt Milt suggested work with the plane at a safe altitude
until you are familiar with the flight characteristics of your OWN
PLANE. tHEY MAY DIFFER FROM THE "BOOK" VALUES !
I regularly operate a Travel Air Be95 out of a 2600 foot grass
strip. Landing is no problem... getting out is another deal.
Regards,
Mac
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
The 10 deg question has been around for over 50yrs... In my 30 yrs with
N5155C, I have found little difference in performance, but the 10 deg works
well for soft fields. My personal feeling is that the 10 deg actually slows
acceleration, and only gives you moral support in that you won't be nosing
it up so high for short fields.. It does seem to help a little when you are
going out at max gross, but then it's just because you can lift off at a
little slower airspeed.( gives you better stall margin)
As an anecdote on that; Back in about '74, I went out of Cortez CO on a
hot 90 deg. afternoon (field elevation 6000') with full tanks and four
people plus baggage. I lifted off at about 2500' of runway, and couldn't get
out of ground effect until I retracted the gear. Luckily, Cortez is on a
plateau, and after clearing the end of the runway, the ground dropped away
rapidly... I only had about a 200 fpm climb rate after cleaning up to
120mph.
>
> ah ha! THANKS Milt! appreciate your specific explanation....on what to
look
> for
> Now,,, let me ask,,,
> what about putting in 10 degrees of flaps-down on the take-off (?) seems
this
> would assist
> in lifting-off quicker,,, have you found 10 degrees of flaps on take-off
to
> assist with quicker lift-off ?
> (country)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 11/04/00 |
Ref: Using flap for take off in Be35. 10 or even 15 or 20 degrees flap
will certainly get the ship off the ground more rapidly. Excellent for
soft field; tall grass etc etc. HOWEVER THAT ADVANTAGE IS LOST IN GETTING
OVER AN OBSTACLE ! One might find himself in the air but with drag from
the flaps unable to climb well. [or at all]. Observe the previous note of
getting off on a high hot day and being literally unable to climb. Keep
in mind also if a gusty day or if still with a lot of thermal
activity... the loading and unloading of the wing may eliminate climb
ability at all.
Turbulence can destroy 100 or even 200 or 300 FPM of climb. This has been
found many times by hapless pilots who have lost an engine in rough
Wx.. Yes the "book" says it will climb 250FPM on one engine so why is it
going down at 100FPM ? I have all the right speeds; gear up; power set; ?
? ? ? Turbulence is alternately loading and unloading the wing so that
average lift may go negative.
This comment from a fellow who held the record for flight time in ground
effect. About 45 minutes !
So I have explored the regime whereof I speak. [Actually there are some
longer flights recorded in ground effect]
Also remember that an airplane climbs on "excess power". That is the power
beyond that required for level flight. Therefore reduced engine power when
hot and high is a big factor.
Every year some of our "flat land furriners" from Florida die in the high
mountains of the west, courtesy of Density Altitude and thermal turbulence.
Regards, Mac
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jalsto(at)flash.net |
Having just gone thru the routine with my "new" D35 with all 205 horses rearing
to go, I can offer this.
The deck angle at the appropriate climb attitude/ speed will seem ridiculously
high. The 1.3 Vso rule is very important. Getting comfortable with the lower
end of the airspeed range is too.
I somehow had convinced myself that the Bonanza just would not fly that slowly
and be safe, sane, and controllable. Totally untrue. It is rock steady at the
slower speeds and, if held to the correct numbers just after liftoff and
initial climb, it will reward you with a spectacular rate of climb. I now
routinely see 1,300 fpm with just myself and full tanks. A couple of weeks ago
I got a solid 1000 fpm with three adult men and 3/4 tanks on a 80F day. The
correct attitude and speeds are truly the key.
The same control of the proper speed will reward you with some insanely short
landings. It is VERY possible to land a Bonanza in a spot that you can't take
off from. Not good.
John Eckalbar's book "Flying the Beech Bonanza" explains all of the theory
behind the correct techniques. It points out that the correct technique is not
clearly stated in the Beech POH. It is only vaguely referenced in the takeoff
distance chart as the "speed at 50 feet". The published Vx and Vy figures in
the POH are with the gear and flaps retracted and are very misleading. They are
as much as 22 kts fast when just coming off the ground and trying to clear
obstacles with the gear hanging out.
Get a CFI to go up with you and explore the low end of the airspeed indicator.
I did and found it of tremendous help. "Flying the Beech Bonanza" is available
from the American Bonanaza Society at www.bonanza.org.
Happy and Safe Flying!!!
Jon Alston
N2191D
RBD, Dallas, Tx
On Sat Nov 4 11:48:59 2000, beech-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> The 10 deg question has been around for over 50yrs... In my 30 yrs with
> N5155C, I have found little difference in performance, but the 10 deg works
> well for soft fields. My personal feeling is that the 10 deg actually slows
> acceleration, and only gives you moral support in that you won't be nosing
> it up so high for short fields.. It does seem to help a little when you are
> going out at max gross, but then it's just because you can lift off at a
> little slower airspeed.( gives you better stall margin)
> As an anecdote on that; Back in about '74, I went out of Cortez CO
on a
> hot 90 deg. afternoon (field elevation 6000') with full tanks and four
> people plus baggage. I lifted off at about 2500' of runway, and couldn't get
> out of ground effect until I retracted the gear. Luckily, Cortez is on a
> plateau, and after clearing the end of the runway, the ground dropped away
> rapidly... I only had about a 200 fpm climb rate after cleaning up to
> 120mph.
>
> >
> > ah ha! THANKS Milt! appreciate your specific explanation....on what to
> look
> > for
> > Now,,, let me ask,,,
> > what about putting in 10 degrees of flaps-down on the take-off (?) seems
> this
> > would assist
> > in lifting-off quicker,,, have you found 10 degrees of flaps on take-off
> to
> > assist with quicker lift-off ?
> > (country)
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CountVoo(at)Aol.com |
Jon Alston
N2191D
RBD, Dallas, Tx
<< Having just gone thru the routine with my "new" D35 with all 205 horses
rearing
to go, I can offer this.
The deck angle at the appropriate climb attitude/ speed will seem
ridiculously
high. The 1.3 Vso rule is very important. Getting comfortable with the lower
end of the airspeed range is too.
[Please Explain in specific terms as you are referring],,,,
"The deck angle at the appropriate climb attitude/ speed will seem
ridiculously high." (???)
I somehow had convinced myself that the Bonanza just would not fly that
slowly
and be safe, sane, and controllable. Totally untrue. It is rock steady at
the
slower speeds and, if held to the correct numbers just after liftoff and
initial climb, it will reward you with a spectacular rate of climb.
[Please Explain in specific terms as you are referring],,,, is this referring
to the 1.3 VSO Speed (???)
I now routinely see 1,300 fpm with just myself and full tanks. A couple of
weeks ago
I got a solid 1000 fpm with three adult men and 3/4 tanks on a 80F day.
The correct attitude and speeds are truly the key.
[O.K. this is fantastic,,, except what is "the correct attitude and speeds"
in which you commonly use (???)
The same control of the proper speed will reward you with some insanely
short
landings. It is VERY possible to land a Bonanza in a spot that you can't
take
off from. Not good.
John Eckalbar's book "Flying the Beech Bonanza" explains all of the theory
behind the correct techniques. It points out that the correct technique is
not
clearly stated in the Beech POH. It is only vaguely referenced in the
takeoff
distance chart as the "speed at 50 feet". The published Vx and Vy figures in
the POH are with the gear and flaps retracted and are very misleading. They
are
as much as 22 kts fast when just coming off the ground and trying to clear
obstacles with the gear hanging out.
[Again],,, what(?) are the speeds you find most beneficial, and in what (?)
confrigration?
I am following your concepts,,,, and have upmost confidence in your personal
Bonanza experience,
however as I crawl in the cockpit, I am still without what "specific numbers
to look for(?)" only that
if I use the "correct speeds" (?) the Bonanza will preform well.
(thanks for the input)
(countvoo)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jalsto(at)flash.net |
The deck angle for initial climb is around 10-12 degrees-- I dont look at the
attitude indicator at this time so I cannot give you a precise angle. I am
looking outside with occasional glances at the airspeed indicator.
The speeds vary by many things. The earlier, lighter Bonanzas I sure have
different speeds from my D model and I am sure they are different on the later
heavier airplanes.
I lift of at around 65 kts ( my airspeed indicator is in knots) and carefully
and in a continuous move pitch the nose up to maintain between 70-75 knots,
depending on weight. I leave the gear down until all obstacles are cleared or
approximately 100 feet off the runway. As soon as the gear is up, I lower the
nose and maintain the published Vy, 90 kts, until reaching 300-500 feet, reduce
power to climb setting (full throttle, 2,300 rpm in my E185-11/Hartzell prop
airplane) and accelerate to 110 kts indicated for a cruise climb.
I did not offer exact speeds in my first response as they vary for the
different year models and at various weights, making no one answer correct. In
all cases, you can experiment to find the actual stalling speed of your
airplane in a given configuration and multiply that speed by 1.3.
Jon
On Mon Nov 6 03:36:23 2000, beech-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> Jon Alston
> N2191D
> RBD, Dallas, Tx
>
> << Having just gone thru the routine with my "new" D35 with all 205
> horses
> rearing
> to go, I can offer this.
> The deck angle at the appropriate climb attitude/ speed will seem
> ridiculously
> high. The 1.3 Vso rule is very important. Getting comfortable with the lower
> end of the airspeed range is too.
>
> [Please Explain in specific terms as you are referring],,,,
> "The deck angle at the appropriate climb attitude/ speed will seem
> ridiculously high." (???)
>
> I somehow had convinced myself that the Bonanza just would not fly that
> slowly
> and be safe, sane, and controllable. Totally untrue. It is rock steady at
> the
> slower speeds and, if held to the correct numbers just after liftoff and
> initial climb, it will reward you with a spectacular rate of climb.
>
> [Please Explain in specific terms as you are referring],,,, is this referring
> to the 1.3 VSO Speed (???)
>
> I now routinely see 1,300 fpm with just myself and full tanks. A couple of
> weeks ago
> I got a solid 1000 fpm with three adult men and 3/4 tanks on a 80F day.
> The correct attitude and speeds are truly the key.
>
> [O.K. this is fantastic,,, except what is "the correct attitude and speeds"
> in which you commonly use (???)
>
> The same control of the proper speed will reward you with some insanely
> short
> landings. It is VERY possible to land a Bonanza in a spot that you can't
> take
> off from. Not good.
> John Eckalbar's book "Flying the Beech Bonanza" explains all of the theory
> behind the correct techniques. It points out that the correct technique is
> not
> clearly stated in the Beech POH. It is only vaguely referenced in the
> takeoff
> distance chart as the "speed at 50 feet". The published Vx and Vy figures in
> the POH are with the gear and flaps retracted and are very misleading. They
> are
> as much as 22 kts fast when just coming off the ground and trying to clear
> obstacles with the gear hanging out.
>
> [Again],,, what(?) are the speeds you find most beneficial, and in what (?)
> confrigration?
>
> I am following your concepts,,,, and have upmost confidence in your personal
> Bonanza experience,
> however as I crawl in the cockpit, I am still without what "specific numbers
> to look for(?)" only that
> if I use the "correct speeds" (?) the Bonanza will preform well.
> (thanks for the input)
> (countvoo)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CountVoo(at)Aol.com |
<< I lift of at around 65 kts ( my airspeed indicator is in knots) and
carefully
and in a continuous move pitch the nose up to maintain between 70-75 knots,
depending on weight. I leave the gear down until all obstacles are cleared
or
approximately 100 feet off the runway. As soon as the gear is up, I lower
the
nose and maintain the published Vy, 90 kts, until reaching 300-500 feet,
reduce
power to climb setting (full throttle, 2,300 rpm in my E185-11/Hartzell prop
airplane) and accelerate to 110 kts indicated for a cruise climb.
I did not offer exact speeds in my first response as they vary for the
different year models and at various weights, making no one answer correct.
In
all cases, you can experiment to find the actual stalling speed of your
airplane in a given configuration and multiply that speed by 1.3.
Jon >>
Thanks a bunch Jon!
Yes, I appreciate what you're saying about the 'variations' from model to
model,,, however this gives a very good description for one to start out
with,,,and as you so appropriatly say,,, "experiment with one's own
particular Bonanza.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway... |
Hi Listers,
Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway
and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your
contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The
continued operation and improvement of these services are directly
enabled by the generous contributions of its members.
You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using
the Matronics SSL Secure website at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or with a personal check to:
c/o Matt Dralle
Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | Homebuilt-List: 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway... |
--> Homebuilt-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Hi Listers,
Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway
and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your
contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The
continued operation and improvement of these services are directly
enabled by the generous contributions of its members.
You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using
the Matronics SSL Secure website at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or with a personal check to:
c/o Matt Dralle
Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | Zenith-List: 2000 List Fund Raiser Underway... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Hi Listers,
Just a quick reminder that the 2000 Email List Fund Raiser is underway
and participation so far as been good. If you haven't made your
contribution yet, won't you take a moment and make one today? The
continued operation and improvement of these services are directly
enabled by the generous contributions of its members.
You may make a contribution with either your Visa or Mastercard using
the Matronics SSL Secure website at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or with a personal check to:
c/o Matt Dralle
Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
Thank you to all those that have already made a contribution!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | Huge Apology for "List Malfunction"... |
Dear Listers,
I am so embarrassed by the List-gone-crazy tonight! I'm not sure
exactly went wrong. I'm suspecting that someone with an email account
at msm.com may have been reposting my message from this morning over
and over again maliciously spamming the system, but I can't really
prove that.
In any case, I am hugely embarrassed and sorry for the ton of messages
that went out tonight regarding the 2000 Fund Raiser. Something went
wrong on the system or somebody did me wrong; in either case I
apologize for the huge dump of messages.
My sincerest apologies...
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brandon and Nikki Jines <jines(at)semo.net> |
I would like to unsubscribe to the Beech List. Thank you.
Brandon Jines
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | New List MIME/HTML/Enclosure Filter Implemented... |
Dear Listers,
With the pervasiveness of email applications using HTML (web formatting)
and MIME encoding such as AOL 6.0, Netscape, Eudora and others it was
clear that I needed to come up with an improved method for limiting how
messages posted to the various Lists was handled.
As of today, November 13 2000 you should be able to configure your email
program any way you like - with or without special formatting - and your
message will still be accepted my the Matronics system. Also, if you
include any sort of enclosure data, your message will also still be
accepted instead of bounced back.
But wait, it gets even better! Everything except for the plain text
will be automatically stripped from the incoming post including any
HTML, MIME, and/or enclosure data prior to redistribution. This should
serve to both ease the configuration burden on the many users, and to
increase the readability of both the posted messages and the archives.
I had a few 'bugs' with the filter on Sunday and Monday morning, so if
you received a few messages that seemed "odd", than this was probably
why.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ivey <jim(at)jimivey.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List: New List MIME/HTML/Enclosure Filter Implemented... |
Everything you need to know can be found at the following url:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution/
I just used the secure credit-card option. There is also a snail-mail
address for you old-fashioned types (i.e. back in the good old days when
folks wouldn't abscond with your credit card info) ;)
Jim Ivey
N46YK
Matt Dralle wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> With the pervasiveness of email applications using HTML (web formatting)
> and MIME encoding such as AOL 6.0, Netscape, Eudora and others it was
> clear that I needed to come up with an improved method for limiting how
> messages posted to the various Lists was handled.
>
> As of today, November 13 2000 you should be able to configure your email
> program any way you like - with or without special formatting - and your
> message will still be accepted my the Matronics system. Also, if you
> include any sort of enclosure data, your message will also still be
> accepted instead of bounced back.
>
> But wait, it gets even better! Everything except for the plain text
> will be automatically stripped from the incoming post including any
> HTML, MIME, and/or enclosure data prior to redistribution. This should
> serve to both ease the configuration burden on the many users, and to
> increase the readability of both the posted messages and the archives.
>
> I had a few 'bugs' with the filter on Sunday and Monday morning, so if
> you received a few messages that seemed "odd", than this was probably
> why.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Admin.
>
> --
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
> Great minds discuss ideas,
> Average minds discuss events,
> Small minds discuss people...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Thompson Fuel Pump on Ebay |
There's a Thompson TF1900 on Ebay. Look for #497365256
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Broste" <spiritmoves(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List: What Listers Are Saying... |
Matt,
I think what you're doing is great for those of us flying and building Kolb
aircraft. You're probably saving Kolb a full time employee in tech support
just by providing the communication between builders. I know I have had a
half dozen questions answered here on the list and saved Kolb support a few
phone calls. You should forward this letter to Kolb, maybe they'd ante up,
too. It would be great PR for the TN Kolb a/c. Thanks a bunch, Matt!
Ken Broste
Building a Firestar
Tucson, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:33 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: What Listers Are Saying...
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> During this year's List Fund Raiser I have been receiving a number of
> very nice comments from members regarding what the Lists mean to them.
> I'm sure most everyone can echo one or more of the thoughts expressed
> below. Won't you take a moment to make a Contribution to support the
> continued operation and improvment of your Lists?
>
> A special 'thank you' to everyone that has made a contribution so far
> and for all of the wonderful and supportive comments I've received!
>
>
> To make a contribution with a credit card over an SSL Secure Web Site,
> please go to the following URL:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> or, to make a contribution with a person check, please mail it to:
>
> Matronics
> c/o Matt Dralle
> PO Box 347
> Livermore, CA 94551
>
>
> Thank you!!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Email List Admin.
>
>
> ===================== Comments From List Members
========================
>
>
> * You helped make this dream a reality... -Terry C.
>
> * Thanks for a wonderful resource! -Rick J.
>
> * Thanks for providing a quality product. -Bill C.
>
> * Have found [the List] invaluable for education while building... -Rick
H.
>
>
> * I learn so much from the List! -Robert R.
>
> * [The List] is better than any aviation magazines I subscribe
o. -Roger H.
>
> * I enjoy the pages and find them very helpful. -Noel G.
>
> * The "List" is a great place to both receive and exten help and ideas
for
> building and making flying safer. -Jack B.
>
>
> * The discussions are very helpful. -James B.
>
> * ...I believe this List will be a better value than the
ewsletter. -Roger T.
>
> * [The List] has helped me with the construction of my RV-9. -Marty S.
>
> * VERY good reading. Excellent entertainment value. -Jerry I.
>
>
> * [The List] has saved me many hour on wild goose chases. -Billy W.
>
> * Thanks for keeping my passion for flying as piqued as ever. -Terry W.
>
> * Keep up the nice work. -Daniel H.
>
> * Thanks for all the effort on behalf of Sport Aviation! -Elbie M.
>
>
> * ...Great information source! -Richard W.
>
> * ...Thanks for your help and patience with a very difficult
ask. -Louis W.
>
> * [The List] has been a great asset. -Edward C.
>
> * Just started and already received some valuable tips. -Scott S.
>
>
> * Thanks for the List to let up share our passion. -Brian A.
>
> * ...This List is good stuff. -Russ D.
>
> * ...The single most helpful resource I've come across in
uilding. -Craig P.
>
> * ...Enjoy [the List] a lot. -John H.
>
>
> * The List is a most important tool to help building. -Brad R.
>
> * ...Really found the List to be great! -Geoff T.
>
> * Excellent contribution to the aviation community. -Larry B.
>
> * Great source of information... -William G.
>
>
> * The Lists ... make building a real hoot! -Jeff O.
>
> * The List has been invaluable. -Matt P.
>
> * Thanks for letting me use the site. It's great! -Larry M.
>
> * ...This List has been very helpful. -Larry H.
>
>
> * Greatest support ever for the builders and I have met many
riends. -Fred H.
>
> * ...I love this List and have met many new friends... -Tom E.
>
> * Love both the List and the Search Engine. -Roy G.
>
>
> ===================== Comments From List Members
========================
>
>
> --
>
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
> Great minds discuss ideas,
> Average minds discuss events,
> Small minds discuss people...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net> |
| Subject: | I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza purchase |
Hi,
I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
Here are the particulars......
1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
cylinders.
0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
compiled with. All logs since new.
Asking price is approximately $15,000.
I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I can't
lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
commit myself to buying it.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
Brian:
Sounds like a great ship except for the engine time. If you want a
guage of the value of that Zero time 215 prop, I picked my 215 prop up from
Aero Propeller in Hemet, CA last week after complete overhaul, all my parts
were useable, pitch change bearing had to be rebuilt (bearing balls replaced
etc.) for a tab of $2760.00. If that engine goes anytime soon, I haven't
heard of a reputable "E" series overhaul for less than $17,000.00 with 20
plus being the norm considering the high cost of accessory overhaul. Keep
this in mind when chiseling the price. Also, check that the ruddervator
balance & rigging AD's have "REALLY" been complied with.
Best of luck,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas, NV 1948 "Straight 35" D-1373, N4546V.
E-185-8/215 prop
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
> 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> cylinders.
>
> 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
> Asking price is approximately $15,000.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic |
bonanza purchase
| From: | "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com> |
----------
>From: "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net>
>To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza
purchase
>Date: Fri, Nov 24, 2000, 8:20 PM
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
>
> Here are the particulars......
>
> 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> cylinders.
I believe that is a 1500hr TBO engine.
>
> 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
I heard the electric prop is the way to go(because of the hartzell
AD($7000))
>
> Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
> condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
>
> King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
>
> Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
> compiled with. All logs since new.
>
> Asking price is approximately $15,000.
Sounds like a good price to me let me know if you decide you want to let it
go.
>
> I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I can't
> lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
> commit myself to buying it.
>
> Thanks.
--
Shelby Smith
68 B-23 N4004T serial #1110
See Beech Party 2000 Pictures at
http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293462197
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic |
bonanza purchase
This one piques the intellect... Are the struts overdue and wobbly? Is the
paint peeling? filiform corrosion? Are the tires near bald? Does the
avionics really work? are the windows crazed? Is the upholstery in ribbons?
Is the landing gear motor growling? Does it have Goodyear brakes? Why is the
price so low?.... Does the engine fling oil? Does it run hot? Only a 25A
generator? Total airframe hours?
The old rule of thumb on the E-185-11 is that the bottom end is good for
about 3000hrs before the case halves have to be re-surfaced and machined, so
if it isn't drooling oil, has good oil pressure, and running cool, you might
make it.(asuming the cam lobes do)... Just don't take on any commercial
operations.
Remember, Continental states that hot oil pressures (200F) should be 45+/-15
at cruise, and 10 at idle on 50wt oil, and you can use up to 5 AN washers as
spacers under the oil regulator spring. If you run lower than this, your
cam bearings may be going...
Regards, Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: Shelby Smith <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
bonanza purchase
>
>
> ----------
> >From: "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net>
> >To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
bonanza
> purchase
> >Date: Fri, Nov 24, 2000, 8:20 PM
> >
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
> >
> > Here are the particulars......
> >
> > 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> > engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> > cylinders.
>
> I believe that is a 1500hr TBO engine.
> >
> > 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
>
> I heard the electric prop is the way to go(because of the hartzell
> AD($7000))
> >
> > Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
> > condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
> >
> > King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
> >
> > Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
> > compiled with. All logs since new.
> >
> > Asking price is approximately $15,000.
>
> Sounds like a good price to me let me know if you decide you want to let
it
> go.
>
> >
> > I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I
can't
> > lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
> > commit myself to buying it.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> --
> Shelby Smith
> 68 B-23 N4004T serial #1110
> See Beech Party 2000 Pictures at
> http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293462197
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CountVoo(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
do NOT buy that Bonanza at any cost
It will only cost you more money,,,
and won't slow down, causing you to fly on past everything!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHebestrei(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purch...
Where is this plane i WANT IT !?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MMMARKMM(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purch...
Hi
Here's a thought, You can buy a used 225hp with decent times, out of
trade a plane for somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000.00. With the
correct investigation of where the engine came from you could possibly get it
installed for about $10k. If the rest of the aircraft is serviceable, you
will have stolen a 47 bonanza. Ain't life grand.......
Mark Mullahey
mmmarkmm(at)aol.com
Ps. As someone has already stated, if the rest of the aircraft is doggy, run,
do not walk, to the nearest exit.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible |
classic bonanza purchase
Brian,
1. Have a thorough prebuy done by someone who knows the early Bonanza's. It
takes 8 hours to just check the minimum. More like 16 hours to be
reasonably detailed.
2. Check the spar on the straight 35's (AD on it) and note any wrinkles on
wing skins since they are lighter (0.016 vs 0.020) than any other model.
3. Realize that unless you overhaul the engine yourself, you will spend $14
to $16 K at that time, which will put you at about retail into the plane.
4. The E-series engine has a strong bottom end and a weak top end. I have
had ones with 1900 hours SMOH with good compressions, however, if you
carefully check cruise speeds and climb performance, you will note that it
will be lacking. You will see this when flying with other Bonanza's with
low time engines. When you tear it down, what you will find is severe wear
on the cam lobes. This is robbing you of needed power, but giving you a
false warm fuzzy because of the high compressions.
Good luck,
Joe
>
>Hi,
>
>I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
>
>Here are the particulars......
>
>1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
>engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
>cylinders.
>
>0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
>
>Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
>condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
>
>King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
>
>Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
>compiled with. All logs since new.
>
>Asking price is approximately $15,000.
>
>I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I can't
>lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
>commit myself to buying it.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MRSMIRL47(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | maintenance and repairs |
Hey guys I have recently moved to Port Arthur, Tx. can anyone tell me if
there is a good mechanic on these birds in the Beaumont / Port Arthur, Tx.
area. Would appreciate your input.
N4211B D4222 F35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
There is something wrong with this picture! You get what you pay for. Look
into this further and Good Luck!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:20 PM
Subject: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza
purchase
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
>
> Here are the particulars......
>
> 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> cylinders.
>
> 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
>
> Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
> condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
>
> King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
>
> Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
> compiled with. All logs since new.
>
> Asking price is approximately $15,000.
>
> I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I can't
> lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
> commit myself to buying it.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
Have the steel spar checked very carefully. There is an AD for a very good
reason.
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
bonanza purchase
>
> There is something wrong with this picture! You get what you pay for.
Look
> into this further and Good Luck!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:20 PM
> Subject: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
bonanza
> purchase
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
> >
> > Here are the particulars......
> >
> > 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> > engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> > cylinders.
> >
> > 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
> >
> > Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
> > condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
> >
> > King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
> >
> > Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
> > compiled with. All logs since new.
> >
> > Asking price is approximately $15,000.
> >
> > I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I
can't
> > lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
> > commit myself to buying it.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
I pretty much agree with Randy, Really inspect the thing and know what
fixing things will cost and then make your decision. In many cases it is
better to buy something that someone else has fixed up. If a fix or mod
costs $1000 then the value reflected on the price is about half of that
$500. Of course, I bought a 48 model that needed lots of TLC, but the
airframe and engine were solid with good instruments and radios. I have
spent over a year, off and on, working on it and it should be flying by Jan
1. Yes, lots of work, but I will be very happy with it and I know almost
everything about this plane. Right now the right tank may be leaking and I
really dread that but if I fix it I will know that it is fixed.
Blue Skies
Steve Dortch
1948 Straight 35
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
bonanza purchase
>
> Brian:
> Sounds like a great ship except for the engine time. If you want a
> guage of the value of that Zero time 215 prop, I picked my 215 prop up
from
> Aero Propeller in Hemet, CA last week after complete overhaul, all my
parts
> were useable, pitch change bearing had to be rebuilt (bearing balls
replaced
> etc.) for a tab of $2760.00. If that engine goes anytime soon, I haven't
> heard of a reputable "E" series overhaul for less than $17,000.00 with 20
> plus being the norm considering the high cost of accessory overhaul. Keep
> this in mind when chiseling the price. Also, check that the ruddervator
> balance & rigging AD's have "REALLY" been complied with.
> Best of luck,
> Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas, NV 1948 "Straight 35" D-1373, N4546V.
> E-185-8/215 prop
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
> > 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> > engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> > cylinders.
> >
> > 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
>
> > Asking price is approximately $15,000.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic bonanza |
purchase
Brian,
As others have said, this plane sounds like it is a realtive bargain, and may be
an inexpensive way to get a Bonanza.
I am *not* a steely-eyed used airplane buyer/seller, so your opinion may vary,
but here's my take on this potential deal (not seeing the plane, and going
strictly on what you have told us):
a) The high time on the engine is ... predictable. It will cost upwards of
$15,000-18,000 to get it and the accessories properly overhauled when the day
comes. That puts your cost up to 30,000-ish, which is more in line for the
price of the straight 35 (in fair to middling condition). Yours will be better
than that, so it seems that you'll still be ahead -- barring unforeseen
circumstances during the overhaul. You may be able to fly the plane for another
100-200 hours before overhaul, maybe not. Its not a call I can make. If you
have the additional funds, you may be able to *buy* a replacement E185-11 or
even an E225-8 engine, and just replace it when yours poops out. Then overhaul
the worn out one at your leisure for a considerable savings.
b) The zero time on the prop is good. A full overhaul on a Beech 215-series
electric prop is a minimum of $2,000, and is more like 3.
c) The freshly painted plane & surfaces sort of concern me. Folks usually don't
do that to planes they plan to sell, unless it is *so* bad no one will buy the
hulk. This may be a cover-up for corrosion, or other crummy condition. Be
careful here. New wing bolts? Well, that's nice, and it may be because the
owner got nervous. It may also be because the wings were removed (for some
*interesting* reason) and replaced.
NOTE: "Owner lost medical" is a usual explanation given here, but when it
comes to Bonanzas, I can name 3 men who have kept their planes for 15 years
after they lost their third class certificate because they just couldn't bear to
let it go. Bonanza owners just don't seem to sell them right away just because
some goofy FAA doctor says they can't fly this year. If you hear the phrase
"owner recently lost their medical," then I'd consider it a red flag, and be
extra-careful.
d) The radios are adequate for VFR, but I'm sure you will want to upgrade them
in the future. As it is, it will probably do fine for a couple of years (with
your handheld), so I wouldn't worry about it much right away. It shouldn't
affect the sale of the plane -- just keep in mind you aren't getting a plane
that is "heavy IFR" capable.
e) A recent annual is always good, but it would tell a bigger story if you could
find out from the logs if the annual was a "Parker 51 job" (annual in ink only),
or if there was actual repairs done at the annual. More so than usual? Less so
than usual? Time to check the log history to see if there was constant, steady
maintenance, or constant, steady neglect.
f) I have always believed in an annual inspection at the time of sale (even if
the seller claims to have done one last week), and by a mechanic who knows
Bonanzas, and one you believe and trust. If you have gone this far, then you
will probably buy the plane, but the annual will give you a good negotiating
position for adjusting the price. Remember, the annual should mean that *all*
systems work, or are placarded if they don't, and *all* AD's are complied with
(but perhaps not the way you had in mind), and that it is considered "airworthy"
(today). It does NOT mean "this baby is showroom fresh."
If you are an A&P, or are handy and know an A&P who will sign off your work,
this may be the perfect opportunity to get a good aircraft and turn it into a
great one. Also, be forewarned that the $15,000-ish sales price is probably
only be a starting point for the destination of a good portion of your income.
In any case, this deal sounds too good to just dismiss with a wave of the hand.
I think you may have found a diamond in the rough.
Good luck,
Ron Davis
"Brian J. Henry" wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering the purchase of a 1947 model 35 Bonanza.
>
> Here are the particulars......
>
> 1900 hours (600 hours since top end overhaul) on a E-185-11
> engine (past TBO) with compression in excess of 75 psi on all
> cylinders.
>
> 0 hours on Beech 215 series electric prop
>
> Freshly painted exterior with control surfaces in excellent
> condition, interior in good condition. New wing bolts.
>
> King NAV/COM, mode C transponder, Loran
>
> Recently passed annual inspection and all ADs have been
> compiled with. All logs since new.
>
> Asking price is approximately $15,000.
>
> I enjoy reconditioning things, and I feel like this is a deal that I can't
> lose on, but.... I would really appreciate some opinions before I
> commit myself to buying it.
>
> Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic |
Dear Ron and the rest of the list:
Thank you for your insight! :)
Here's a little more to the story on the '47 Bonanza that I found......
The man who owns the plane is 77 years old and did in fact lose
his medical. He is an A&P and bought it last year from the estate
of a person who had recently passed away. HIs original intention
was to clean it up and fly it. I have been keeping my eye on it for
the past nine months as he has worked at getting it airborne
again. The previous owner was a TWA mechanic.
I had an opportunity to look at the plane and took pictures of it
before it was painted. There was some damage to the front of
each wing where they had bumped against a metal pole that was
repaired and the right wing flap was replaced with a new one due
to damage that was incured in a wind storm. The rest of the
surfaces looked good. The owner told me that the control
surfaces have been updated to aluminum, but I couldn't really tell.
The ruddervators had rivets in them which makes me wonder if
they are magnesium as they are supposed to be. I need to figure
out a way to check that for sure. He has told me that any structure
work that was done prior to his ownership was done by
Beechcraft. That leads me to believe that things were done
correctly over the years.
He also rebuilt the landing gear. I am not sure why he had the
wings off, but it may have been to transport it. He told me that the
reason he replaced the wing bolts was because they were past
their recommended service life.
I wish that he hadn't painted the plane. I wanted to strip it and go
through it throughly myself. I sort of understand his reasoning as
to why he did it, though. He had already purchased the paint and I
was not beating down his door to hand him $15,000 cash right
then and there. I have not seen it since it has been painted.
It has complete records and logs since new, as well as the
maintenance manual, parts manual, and pilots operating
handbook. I have not looked at them.
I sent him a copy of the Beechcraft service bulletin for the speed
AD, but I am unsure if he actually did the necessary proceedure to
comply with it. The ruddervators had to be rebalanced after the
plane was painted, so one would tend to think that everything is in
order.......
It has the aluminum spar update, Cleveland brakes, 10 gallon
auxiliary fuel tank, steerable nose wheel, the original instrument
panel, and a one piece windshield.
The electric prop has zero hours on it. The engine is operating
with compresssions in excess of 75 psi with 1900 hours on it.
It is now flying and has just undergone an annual inspection.
I would rate the interior as a "5." Rough but useable. Ideally, it
would be nice to redo the whole thing and make it look like new.
I too have been trying to figure out the deal on this plane. I
honestly believe that has become an old pilot's hobby that is
keeping him busy. He has told me that all he wants is to get his
money out of it and isn't looking to profit from his labor. He hasn't
been in any real hurry to sell it, either
The plane had been located in Arizona since 1963 so corrosion
appears to be very minimal.
Brian
Ron Davis wrote:
> Brian,
>
> As others have said, this plane sounds like it is a realtive bargain,
> and may be an inexpensive way to get a Bonanza.
>
> I am *not* a steely-eyed used airplane buyer/seller, so your opinion
> may vary, but here's my take on this potential deal (not seeing the
> plane, and going strictly on what you have told us):
>
> a) The high time on the engine is ... predictable. It will cost
> upwards of $15,000-18,000 to get it and the accessories properly
> overhauled when the day comes. That puts your cost up to 30,000-ish,
> which is more in line for the price of the straight 35 (in fair to
> middling condition). Yours will be better than that, so it seems that
> you'll still be ahead -- barring unforeseen circumstances during the
> overhaul. You may be able to fly the plane for another 100-200 hours
> before overhaul, maybe not. Its not a call I can make. If you have
> the additional funds, you may be able to *buy* a replacement E185-11
> or even an E225-8 engine, and just replace it when yours poops out.
> Then overhaul the worn out one at your leisure for a considerable
> savings.
>
> b) The zero time on the prop is good. A full overhaul on a Beech
> 215-series electric prop is a minimum of $2,000, and is more like 3.
>
> c) The freshly painted plane & surfaces sort of concern me. Folks
> usually don't do that to planes they plan to sell, unless it is *so*
> bad no one will buy the hulk. This may be a cover-up for corrosion,
> or other crummy condition. Be careful here. New wing bolts? Well,
> that's nice, and it may be because the owner got nervous. It may also
> be because the wings were removed (for some *interesting* reason) and
> replaced.
> NOTE: "Owner lost medical" is a usual explanation given here, but
> when it
> comes to Bonanzas, I can name 3 men who have kept their planes for 15
> years after they lost their third class certificate because they just
> couldn't bear to let it go. Bonanza owners just don't seem to sell
> them right away just because some goofy FAA doctor says they can't fly
> this year. If you hear the phrase "owner recently lost their
> medical," then I'd consider it a red flag, and be extra-careful.
>
> d) The radios are adequate for VFR, but I'm sure you will want to
> upgrade them in the future. As it is, it will probably do fine for a
> couple of years (with your handheld), so I wouldn't worry about it
> much right away. It shouldn't affect the sale of the plane -- just
> keep in mind you aren't getting a plane that is "heavy IFR" capable.
>
> e) A recent annual is always good, but it would tell a bigger story if
> you could find out from the logs if the annual was a "Parker 51 job"
> (annual in ink only), or if there was actual repairs done at the
> annual. More so than usual? Less so than usual? Time to check the
> log history to see if there was constant, steady maintenance, or
> constant, steady neglect.
>
> f) I have always believed in an annual inspection at the time of sale
> (even if the seller claims to have done one last week), and by a
> mechanic who knows Bonanzas, and one you believe and trust. If you
> have gone this far, then you will probably buy the plane, but the
> annual will give you a good negotiating position for adjusting the
> price. Remember, the annual should mean that *all* systems work, or
> are placarded if they don't, and *all* AD's are complied with (but
> perhaps not the way you had in mind), and that it is considered
> "airworthy" (today). It does NOT mean "this baby is showroom fresh."
>
> If you are an A&P, or are handy and know an A&P who will sign off your
> work, this may be the perfect opportunity to get a good aircraft and
> turn it into a great one. Also, be forewarned that the $15,000-ish
> sales price is probably only be a starting point for the destination
> of a good portion of your income.
>
> In any case, this deal sounds too good to just dismiss with a wave of
> the hand. I think you may have found a diamond in the rough.
>
> Good luck,
> Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic |
Brian,
Well, your story addendum certainly cranks up the "interest level" a couple of
notches. Beech maintained, A&P owned, restoring it, etc., etc. This sounds
sounds just a step below the "old airplane in a barn" treasure that so many
search for.
The original flaps and ailerons were magnesium, and many have been replaced with
aluminum ones. Perfectly acceptable. The ruddervators were originally
magnesium and must stay that way. When they came from Beech, they were built
using spot-welds instead of rivets. Tricky, using an arc of electricity, since
magnesium will burn until its gone should it catch fire. So, when it comes time
to rebuild them, rivets are used to bond the new (magnesium) sheet metal
together. Perfectly acceptable, but the weight and balance can be, er,
challenging.
New wing bolts are okay. They are expensive, and are usually not summarily
replaced just because they are "old." Since he did, its a good indication that
other problems were taken care of, but not a guarantee. "Trust, but verify..."
Having all the logs are good. Having all the Beech parts manuals is also good.
Shows that the owner is serious about knowing the Bonanza and maintaining it.
Rebuilt landing gear is good. Lots of loose joints that would otherwise need
expensive bushings. Cleveland brakes are good. Single piece windshield is ..
your call. I like it. Some like the 1-piece speed slope windshield even
better.
Original dash is ... again, your call. With only 12 holes for instruments, it
can be a challenge to fill them up in a way that lets you use the modern T-style
layout for the primary instruments. Especially if you need to fly in "heavy"
IFR. If you need to, you can convert the dash to a more modern layout, but the
STC for the work (and the instruments to fill it) can easily exceed $10,000. If
it were up to me, I'd leave it the way it is and get used to it. It won't take
long.
Freshly painted plane is ... not my cuppa tea. I would've preferred to get a
plane that needs paint so I could be super-picky about the workmanship and also
get my preferred paint scheme. Oh, well. Fresh paint can hide a lot of bad
things. But from what you said, I don't think that's the case here.
Damage history to a plane (wing flap and the leading edges) is supposed to count
against it, but as long as the repairs were properly done AND logged, then
there's nothing to worry about here. Hey, old planes are supposed to have a
ding or two. Gives 'em character. Grass stains on the gear door tips are
okay. Grass stains on the cowl flaps are not. Slightly twisted tiedown rings
are okay. Slightly twisted tailcone is not.
The "provenance" of this Bonanza sounds considerably better now, and no longer
seems to be a diamond in the rough, but a diamond half-polished.
Here's my crystal ball opinion: Pursue this one if ...
* You can tolerate the additional bucks to have the engine overhauled "soon,"
maybe in a year or so.
* You can live with the radios for at least a year. Remember that a whole new
radio stack can easily cost $8,000 or more.
- - -
That said, I'll also add in some psychology:
When I looked for a Bonanza to buy, I called several that had already sold
them. EVERY ONE (with the exception of two) were already sorry they had sold
them. The other two were stepping into Barons. Even the guy who sold me mine
said to me later that the day he sold me the plane, he thought he was making the
biggest mistake of his life. He has since gotten a partner and they have an
1949 A35.
Another guy was forced by financial reasons to sell his A36. Sold it to a guy
who kept it at the same airport. The new owner couldn't get rid of the old
owner. Kept coming around for months and bugging him like it was still his
airplane.
I suppose you could start counting out $100 bills until the guy says "okay, its
yours," but most of us won't part with our Bonanza, period. The fact that he
hasn't really put it up for sale is a good indication.
If this plane is relatively local, then I would probably find a way to purchase
the plane with the proviso that the now-previous owner stay on as "Mechanic
Emeritus." Maybe even a partnership (with a buyout option later). He doesn't
have to let go all at once, he can pass on a ton of knowledge about the Bonanza
to you, you can take him flying in it, and you'll get a great airplane. A
win/win situation.
Keep us posted on this,
Ron Davis
PS: Please remember that my opinion is worth the price you paid for it. You may
still want to get a full annual inspection done at the time of purchase -- if it
goes that far.
"Brian J. Henry" wrote:
>
>
> Dear Ron and the rest of the list:
>
> Thank you for your insight! :)
>
> Here's a little more to the story on the '47 Bonanza that I found......
>
> The man who owns the plane is 77 years old and did in fact lose
> his medical. He is an A&P and bought it last year from the estate
> of a person who had recently passed away. His original intention
> was to clean it up and fly it. I have been keeping my eye on it for
> the past nine months as he has worked at getting it airborne
> again. The previous owner was a TWA mechanic.
>
> I had an opportunity to look at the plane and took pictures of it
> before it was painted. There was some damage to the front of
> each wing where they had bumped against a metal pole that was
> repaired and the right wing flap was replaced with a new one due
> to damage that was incured in a wind storm. The rest of the
> surfaces looked good. The owner told me that the control
> surfaces have been updated to aluminum, but I couldn't really tell.
> The ruddervators had rivets in them which makes me wonder if
> they are magnesium as they are supposed to be. I need to figure
> out a way to check that for sure. He has told me that any structure
> work that was done prior to his ownership was done by
> Beechcraft. That leads me to believe that things were done
> correctly over the years.
>
> He also rebuilt the landing gear. I am not sure why he had the
> wings off, but it may have been to transport it. He told me that the
> reason he replaced the wing bolts was because they were past
> their recommended service life.
>
> I wish that he hadn't painted the plane. I wanted to strip it and go
> through it throughly myself. I sort of understand his reasoning as
> to why he did it, though. He had already purchased the paint and I
> was not beating down his door to hand him $15,000 cash right
> then and there. I have not seen it since it has been painted.
>
> It has complete records and logs since new, as well as the
> maintenance manual, parts manual, and pilots operating
> handbook. I have not looked at them.
>
> I sent him a copy of the Beechcraft service bulletin for the speed
> AD, but I am unsure if he actually did the necessary proceedure to
> comply with it. The ruddervators had to be rebalanced after the
> plane was painted, so one would tend to think that everything is in
> order.......
>
> It has the aluminum spar update, Cleveland brakes, 10 gallon
> auxiliary fuel tank, steerable nose wheel, the original instrument
> panel, and a one piece windshield.
>
> The electric prop has zero hours on it. The engine is operating
> with compresssions in excess of 75 psi with 1900 hours on it.
>
> It is now flying and has just undergone an annual inspection.
>
> I would rate the interior as a "5." Rough but useable. Ideally, it
> would be nice to redo the whole thing and make it look like new.
>
> I too have been trying to figure out the deal on this plane. I
> honestly believe that has become an old pilot's hobby that is
> keeping him busy. He has told me that all he wants is to get his
> money out of it and isn't looking to profit from his labor. He hasn't
> been in any real hurry to sell it, either
>
> The plane had been located in Arizona since 1963 so corrosion
> appears to be very minimal.
>
> Brian
>
> Ron Davis wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > As others have said, this plane sounds like it is a realtive bargain,
> > and may be an inexpensive way to get a Bonanza.
> >
> > I am *not* a steely-eyed used airplane buyer/seller, so your opinion
> > may vary, but here's my take on this potential deal (not seeing the
> > plane, and going strictly on what you have told us):
> >
> > a) The high time on the engine is ... predictable. It will cost
> > upwards of $15,000-18,000 to get it and the accessories properly
> > overhauled when the day comes. That puts your cost up to 30,000-ish,
> > which is more in line for the price of the straight 35 (in fair to
> > middling condition). Yours will be better than that, so it seems that
> > you'll still be ahead -- barring unforeseen circumstances during the
> > overhaul. You may be able to fly the plane for another 100-200 hours
> > before overhaul, maybe not. Its not a call I can make. If you have
> > the additional funds, you may be able to *buy* a replacement E185-11
> > or even an E225-8 engine, and just replace it when yours poops out.
> > Then overhaul the worn out one at your leisure for a considerable
> > savings.
> >
> > b) The zero time on the prop is good. A full overhaul on a Beech
> > 215-series electric prop is a minimum of $2,000, and is more like 3.
> >
> > c) The freshly painted plane & surfaces sort of concern me. Folks
> > usually don't do that to planes they plan to sell, unless it is *so*
> > bad no one will buy the hulk. This may be a cover-up for corrosion,
> > or other crummy condition. Be careful here. New wing bolts? Well,
> > that's nice, and it may be because the owner got nervous. It may also
> > be because the wings were removed (for some *interesting* reason) and
> > replaced.
> > NOTE: "Owner lost medical" is a usual explanation given here, but
> > when it
> > comes to Bonanzas, I can name 3 men who have kept their planes for 15
> > years after they lost their third class certificate because they just
> > couldn't bear to let it go. Bonanza owners just don't seem to sell
> > them right away just because some goofy FAA doctor says they can't fly
> > this year. If you hear the phrase "owner recently lost their
> > medical," then I'd consider it a red flag, and be extra-careful.
> >
> > d) The radios are adequate for VFR, but I'm sure you will want to
> > upgrade them in the future. As it is, it will probably do fine for a
> > couple of years (with your handheld), so I wouldn't worry about it
> > much right away. It shouldn't affect the sale of the plane -- just
> > keep in mind you aren't getting a plane that is "heavy IFR" capable.
> >
> > e) A recent annual is always good, but it would tell a bigger story if
> > you could find out from the logs if the annual was a "Parker 51 job"
> > (annual in ink only), or if there was actual repairs done at the
> > annual. More so than usual? Less so than usual? Time to check the
> > log history to see if there was constant, steady maintenance, or
> > constant, steady neglect.
> >
> > f) I have always believed in an annual inspection at the time of sale
> > (even if the seller claims to have done one last week), and by a
> > mechanic who knows Bonanzas, and one you believe and trust. If you
> > have gone this far, then you will probably buy the plane, but the
> > annual will give you a good negotiating position for adjusting the
> > price. Remember, the annual should mean that *all* systems work, or
> > are placarded if they don't, and *all* AD's are complied with (but
> > perhaps not the way you had in mind), and that it is considered
> > "airworthy" (today). It does NOT mean "this baby is showroom fresh."
> >
> > If you are an A&P, or are handy and know an A&P who will sign off your
> > work, this may be the perfect opportunity to get a good aircraft and
> > turn it into a great one. Also, be forewarned that the $15,000-ish
> > sales price is probably only be a starting point for the destination
> > of a good portion of your income.
> >
> > In any case, this deal sounds too good to just dismiss with a wave of
> > the hand. I think you may have found a diamond in the rough.
> >
> > Good luck,
> > Ron Davis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic |
Sounds like a good one. Go for it!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian J. Henry" <bhenry(at)saber.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:18 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Re: I would like your opinion on a possible classic
>
> Dear Ron and the rest of the list:
>
> Thank you for your insight! :)
>
> Here's a little more to the story on the '47 Bonanza that I found......
>
> The man who owns the plane is 77 years old and did in fact lose
> his medical. He is an A&P and bought it last year from the estate
> of a person who had recently passed away. HIs original intention
> was to clean it up and fly it. I have been keeping my eye on it for
> the past nine months as he has worked at getting it airborne
> again. The previous owner was a TWA mechanic.
>
> I had an opportunity to look at the plane and took pictures of it
> before it was painted. There was some damage to the front of
> each wing where they had bumped against a metal pole that was
> repaired and the right wing flap was replaced with a new one due
> to damage that was incured in a wind storm. The rest of the
> surfaces looked good. The owner told me that the control
> surfaces have been updated to aluminum, but I couldn't really tell.
> The ruddervators had rivets in them which makes me wonder if
> they are magnesium as they are supposed to be. I need to figure
> out a way to check that for sure. He has told me that any structure
> work that was done prior to his ownership was done by
> Beechcraft. That leads me to believe that things were done
> correctly over the years.
>
> He also rebuilt the landing gear. I am not sure why he had the
> wings off, but it may have been to transport it. He told me that the
> reason he replaced the wing bolts was because they were past
> their recommended service life.
>
> I wish that he hadn't painted the plane. I wanted to strip it and go
> through it throughly myself. I sort of understand his reasoning as
> to why he did it, though. He had already purchased the paint and I
> was not beating down his door to hand him $15,000 cash right
> then and there. I have not seen it since it has been painted.
>
> It has complete records and logs since new, as well as the
> maintenance manual, parts manual, and pilots operating
> handbook. I have not looked at them.
>
> I sent him a copy of the Beechcraft service bulletin for the speed
> AD, but I am unsure if he actually did the necessary proceedure to
> comply with it. The ruddervators had to be rebalanced after the
> plane was painted, so one would tend to think that everything is in
> order.......
>
> It has the aluminum spar update, Cleveland brakes, 10 gallon
> auxiliary fuel tank, steerable nose wheel, the original instrument
> panel, and a one piece windshield.
>
> The electric prop has zero hours on it. The engine is operating
> with compresssions in excess of 75 psi with 1900 hours on it.
>
> It is now flying and has just undergone an annual inspection.
>
> I would rate the interior as a "5." Rough but useable. Ideally, it
> would be nice to redo the whole thing and make it look like new.
>
> I too have been trying to figure out the deal on this plane. I
> honestly believe that has become an old pilot's hobby that is
> keeping him busy. He has told me that all he wants is to get his
> money out of it and isn't looking to profit from his labor. He hasn't
> been in any real hurry to sell it, either
>
> The plane had been located in Arizona since 1963 so corrosion
> appears to be very minimal.
>
> Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Sunrise Oil Filter Assy. |
Gang;
Before I place this on Ebay, I'd like to know if anyone is in the market for
a new in the box (never even been near an engine) Sunrise Oil Filter assy
for the E 185 or E 225. This is complete as shipped from Lew Gage to me. I
bought this for the project airplane and I no longer have a need for it.
All the original unmarked paperwork, sealed small parts, filter, Champion
oil filter cartridge, original shipping box, bla, bla, bla is included!
$325 plus the shipping. I'll also consider an even trade for a new STEC 60!
;-) Seriously, let me know soon, thanks!
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Help me find an A&P |
Hey guys if anyone can help I need a good mechanic on these birds in the Beaumont,
Port Arthur, tx area. Or anywhere close I have just moved here and I don't
know anyone who works on them here. I would appreciate any input.
thanks guys cruiser50 N4211B D4222 F35
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help me find an A&P |
Gene;
If you want to fly north a bit, Gary Hammock is the local Bonanza guru.
He's in Ennis, just south of Dallas. 972-875-4279. Do you belong to the
Classic Bonanza Association? Based here, it's mainly a social group that
has at least one activity per month. You can ask Gary, or his son Jerry,
about it if you care! Good luck.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "gene smirl" <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:01 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Help me find an A&P
>
>
> Hey guys if anyone can help I need a good mechanic on these birds in the
Beaumont, Port Arthur, tx area. Or anywhere close I have just moved here and
I don't know anyone who works on them here. I would appreciate any input.
>
> thanks guys cruiser50 N4211B D4222 F35
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRSProAds(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sunrise Oil Filter Assy. |
I am interested in your oil filter adapter. If you still have it, e-mail me
at
JRSProAds(at)aol.com
Thanks
John Smith
Bonanza 5092B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MRSMIRL47(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help me find an A&P |
THANKS AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Survival gear ... |
Along with a soft-sided 6-pack cooler bag toolkit, I keep some survival gear in
the plane - A $25 automotive first aid kit augmented with large bandages, some
real scissors, various other bits, 4 life preservers (for those trips to
Catalina island), 4 waterproof flashlights, 4 plastic whistles, and I forget
what else. I keep the whole kit-n-kaboodle in a clear plastic zippered bag that
used to house a king-size comforter.
Aside from the (4 x) $50 life jackets, its relatively cheap to accumulate these
items, and its a big selling point to my non-aviation inclined wife. It shows
I
care.
One of the things that I never did add were emergency signaling mirrors.
Sporty's wants something ridiculous like $10 for a stupid hand mirror, so I
never picked up four of those.
During Thanksgiving vacation, my father-in-law gave me a bunch of AOL CD-ROMS
that he got in the mail, figuring I could make good use of their free online
time offer. I don't have the heart to say that they are useless, so I accepted
them graciously, intending to toss them out when I got home ... until I saw my
reflection in one of them. Hey! A handy sighting hole right in the middle,
too!
So, America Online is now an unsuspecting addition to my survival gear -- as a
set of 4 *very* cheap signaling mirrors. Sorry, Sporty's.
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Txgroup(at)home.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 11/29/00 |
Beech-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> *
So, America Online is now an unsuspecting addition to my survival gear
-- as a
set of 4 *very* cheap signaling mirrors. Sorry, Sporty's.
Are you using AOL 5.0 or the new 6.0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Classic Bonanza Props |
Greetings,
I am in the early stages of searching for a G model or earlier Bonanza. I
have been paying close attention to this list, joined the ABS, bought a few
books, and have been looking at a lot of planes. One of the items that I
would appreciate some advice on is the types of props on these older
Bonanzas.
Seems like everyone is fairly positive about the Beech 215 electric
props...dependable and affordable is what I have heard.
Of course there is a lot of unhappiness with the Hartzell prop and the AD
(is there only one model of Hartzell for these birds). Once the AD is taken
care of properly is the Hartzell a good performing prop? What should I keep
my eye out for if the "V tail" I fall for has one of these props? Any
special advice as to what to look for on prop AD compliance? Anybody know if
there are any good articles covering this in past issues of the ABS
magazine?
What is the Beech 278 prop?
Any advice would be appreciated, I asking for opinions, so feel free to
offer them.
Thanks,
Walt Cannon
Seattle WA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Classic Bonanza Props |
Walt,
No shortage of opinions here :-)
I think you will find that the group on this email list will have no problem
agreeing that the early series Bonanzas are the nicest handling, least
expensive, and most fun of the Bonanza line, if not the fastest. The E-series
engine has its faults, but if you are nice to it (and feed it lots of oil), you
will be rewarded with long and dependable service.
The Beech Bonanza propellers are an interesting story and I hope I can tell some
of it correctly.
When the Bonanza was being developed, Walter Beech wanted the best performance
possible from a new engine developing about 165 hp., so he had to go to a
constant speed prop to do it. Beech had been using the Curtis design
electrically controllable pitch propellers with good success on its war models,
and it was adapted for the new Bonanza. A small electric motor changes the
pitch of the propeller blades (instead of hydraulic pressure from motor oil,
regulated by a pressure governor). The electric pitch motor is controlled by an
up/down toggle in the cockpit.
The first was the R200 series wooden propeller. The prop pitch change motor is
mounted quite a ways back, and has a long drive shaft that engages the ring gear
that changes the blades' pitch. Legend has it that this was the most efficient
propeller ever made for the Bonanza. These are only used on the model 35 and
A35. The blades were BIG. 88" in diameter. Wide. 11" across, I think.
A note here -- the electric pitch change mechanism was NOT a "constant speed
prop." it was an "electrically adjustable prop." The engine's rpm will drift
over time, meaning that you had to manually ajdust the pitch using an up/down
toggle switch to maintain the same rpms. YOU were the constant speed governor.
Beech did introduce an electronic pitch governor unit, and it *did* make the
system a constant speed prop, but it was an option that cost more money.
Something like $495 back in the 50's, if I remember correctly. Not everyone
coughed up the extra dough.
The original Beech electric prop governor unit made by Flight Research (not THAT
Flight Research) is a cantankerous marvel, using vacuum tubes and light sensors
to maintain the propeller's rpm. The system is tricky to repair, and, like
everything else, the parts are hard to find. Airborne Electronics, a company in
N. Calif., came out with a solid state electronic governor unit that replaces
the original one, and is a zillion times more reliable. (I have it and it is
brainless to install and use.)
The next series was the B200. The electric motor that changes the props' pitch
is mounted right next to the ring gear, and the hub is beefed up a bit, larger
blade bearings were used, and there were some other changes. The engine that
Beech used wasn't 165 hp. after all. It was a 185 hp. E185-8 (ad later, the
E185-11) engine. Still used the same birchwood propeller blades, though.
I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD forcing them to
essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if I am in error
here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades would probably be
relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes them very expensive to
maintain.
In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new 215
series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop pitch
change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the biggie. They
were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The aluminum blades
were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series hubs, but not
the R200. The aluminum blades are *NOT* as efficient as the original wooden
ones, but only by something like 1%, so the experts say.
With the new E225-8 engine, you could use 2600 rpm on takeoff (for one minute),
and at that speed, the 88" prop was getting pretty close to the speed of sound.
A recommendation was made to trim the blades from 88" to 84", reducing the tips'
speed enough so it didn't scream so much. Earlier takeoff limits were, I think,
2300 rpm, so this was a BIG improvement for the ever-heavier airplanes and their
payloads.
Beech made changes to the type certificate so you could retrofit the aluminum
blades on earlier models if you wanted, and practically everyone did. 88"
aluminum blades for the E185-11 engine, and 84" blades for the E225-8 engine.
(A little empirical data here -- My 1954 E225-8 powered E35 Bonanza originally
had the 84" blades on it, and I had to have 'em replaced. Found an 88" set, and
put them on without trimming them. I can do that with the E35 model. My data
showed that the additional 4" of prop disc gives me about 2 kts higher speed. So
there's another 1-1/2% loss most of the planes suffer)
In 1957, Beech changed the engine (again) from the E225 series to the IO-470
series. This engine has the hollow crankshaft capable of using a hydraulically
controlled propeller pitch mechanism, so they discontinued the Beech electric
propeller, developed the Beech 278 series prop for the Hartzell controller.
Unsubstianted claims state that the 278 series propeller loses, again, about
1-2% efficiency over the previous (215-series) blades. But, since there was a
more powerful 260 hp. engine, nobody cared.
Hartzell also developed a hydraulic pitch governor for a set of Hartzell blades
which was a direct swap for the Beech B200 / R200 / 215 series propellers, so
those that wanted nice, smooth, trouble-free constant pitch could have it. So,
lots of people switched to the Hartzell blades/governor, and they were in
ignorant bliss until a few years ago when the onerous AD came out requiring a
mandatory 5,000 hr. (or X years?) inspection. Lots of folks found out that
their props were in poor shape (Surprise! See what 0 maintenance over 10 years
will do?). Once the AD is complied with, the Hartzell is again trouble-free and
you won't have to give it another thought.
HOWEVER, The Hartzell conversion is a nightmare of parts that are different from
a "normal" hydraulic prop system, and the installation guides are, in some
places, vague. In other places, they are incorrect. Who knows how many units
were damaged by inexperienced mechanics? If you have this system, you NEED to
get the back issues of ABS magazine, and read, nay, memorize all of Lew Gage's
"Currents" columns dealing with the Hartzell propeller installation and service.
The Beech electric props, on the other hand, have never had an AD against them,
although the recommended service time is a removal and inspection every 250
hours, and an overhaul every 1,000 hours. The big bugaboo is parts
availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor that
looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to overhaul. The
pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil is
over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading away
mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
Ron Davis
Walt Cannon wrote:
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am in the early stages of searching for a G model or earlier Bonanza. I
> have been paying close attention to this list, joined the ABS, bought a few
> books, and have been looking at a lot of planes. One of the items that I
> would appreciate some advice on is the types of props on these older
> Bonanzas.
>
> Seems like everyone is fairly positive about the Beech 215 electric
> props...dependable and affordable is what I have heard.
>
> Of course there is a lot of unhappiness with the Hartzell prop and the AD
> (is there only one model of Hartzell for these birds). Once the AD is taken
> care of properly is the Hartzell a good performing prop? What should I keep
> my eye out for if the "V tail" I fall for has one of these props? Any
> special advice as to what to look for on prop AD compliance? Anybody know if
> there are any good articles covering this in past issues of the ABS
> magazine?
>
> What is the Beech 278 prop?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated, I asking for opinions, so feel free to
> offer them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walt Cannon
> Seattle WA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CountVoo(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Classic Bonanza Props |
<< Subj: Re: Beech-List: Classic Bonanza Props
Date: 00-12-01 12:26:12 EST
From: rdavis(at)imetinc.com (Ron Davis) >>
Thanks so much! for the good information on the 'Bonanza Props'
Appreciate the time you spent in sending us this historical-background on
the Bonanza Propeller(s).
(Count)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Classic Bonanza Props |
Director Ron;
You have the making of an excellent article here. Add some pics and send
'er in! Walt's questions are the same EVERY other guys wants to ask but
doesn't have internet access!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Classic Bonanza Props
>
> Walt,
>
> No shortage of opinions here :-)
>
> I think you will find that the group on this email list will have no
problem
> agreeing that the early series Bonanzas are the nicest handling, least
> expensive, and most fun of the Bonanza line, if not the fastest. The
E-series
> engine has its faults, but if you are nice to it (and feed it lots of
oil), you
> will be rewarded with long and dependable service.
>
> The Beech Bonanza propellers are an interesting story and I hope I can
tell some
> of it correctly.
>
> When the Bonanza was being developed, Walter Beech wanted the best
performance
> possible from a new engine developing about 165 hp., so he had to go to a
> constant speed prop to do it. Beech had been using the Curtis design
> electrically controllable pitch propellers with good success on its war
models,
> and it was adapted for the new Bonanza. A small electric motor changes
the
> pitch of the propeller blades (instead of hydraulic pressure from motor
oil,
> regulated by a pressure governor). The electric pitch motor is controlled
by an
> up/down toggle in the cockpit.
>
> The first was the R200 series wooden propeller. The prop pitch change
motor is
> mounted quite a ways back, and has a long drive shaft that engages the
ring gear
> that changes the blades' pitch. Legend has it that this was the most
efficient
> propeller ever made for the Bonanza. These are only used on the model 35
and
> A35. The blades were BIG. 88" in diameter. Wide. 11" across, I think.
>
> A note here -- the electric pitch change mechanism was NOT a "constant
speed
> prop." it was an "electrically adjustable prop." The engine's rpm will
drift
> over time, meaning that you had to manually ajdust the pitch using an
up/down
> toggle switch to maintain the same rpms. YOU were the constant speed
governor.
> Beech did introduce an electronic pitch governor unit, and it *did* make
the
> system a constant speed prop, but it was an option that cost more money.
> Something like $495 back in the 50's, if I remember correctly. Not
everyone
> coughed up the extra dough.
>
> The original Beech electric prop governor unit made by Flight Research
(not THAT
> Flight Research) is a cantankerous marvel, using vacuum tubes and light
sensors
> to maintain the propeller's rpm. The system is tricky to repair, and, like
> everything else, the parts are hard to find. Airborne Electronics, a
company in
> N. Calif., came out with a solid state electronic governor unit that
replaces
> the original one, and is a zillion times more reliable. (I have it and it
is
> brainless to install and use.)
>
> The next series was the B200. The electric motor that changes the props'
pitch
> is mounted right next to the ring gear, and the hub is beefed up a bit,
larger
> blade bearings were used, and there were some other changes. The engine
that
> Beech used wasn't 165 hp. after all. It was a 185 hp. E185-8 (ad later,
the
> E185-11) engine. Still used the same birchwood propeller blades, though.
>
> I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD forcing
them to
> essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if I am in
error
> here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades would probably
be
> relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes them very
expensive to
> maintain.
>
> In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new
215
> series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop
pitch
> change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the biggie.
They
> were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The aluminum
blades
> were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series hubs, but
not
> the R200. The aluminum blades are *NOT* as efficient as the original
wooden
> ones, but only by something like 1%, so the experts say.
>
> With the new E225-8 engine, you could use 2600 rpm on takeoff (for one
minute),
> and at that speed, the 88" prop was getting pretty close to the speed of
sound.
> A recommendation was made to trim the blades from 88" to 84", reducing the
tips'
> speed enough so it didn't scream so much. Earlier takeoff limits were, I
think,
> 2300 rpm, so this was a BIG improvement for the ever-heavier airplanes and
their
> payloads.
>
> Beech made changes to the type certificate so you could retrofit the
aluminum
> blades on earlier models if you wanted, and practically everyone did. 88"
> aluminum blades for the E185-11 engine, and 84" blades for the E225-8
engine.
>
> (A little empirical data here -- My 1954 E225-8 powered E35 Bonanza
originally
> had the 84" blades on it, and I had to have 'em replaced. Found an 88"
set, and
> put them on without trimming them. I can do that with the E35 model. My
data
> showed that the additional 4" of prop disc gives me about 2 kts higher
speed. So
> there's another 1-1/2% loss most of the planes suffer)
>
> In 1957, Beech changed the engine (again) from the E225 series to the
IO-470
> series. This engine has the hollow crankshaft capable of using a
hydraulically
> controlled propeller pitch mechanism, so they discontinued the Beech
electric
> propeller, developed the Beech 278 series prop for the Hartzell
controller.
> Unsubstianted claims state that the 278 series propeller loses, again,
about
> 1-2% efficiency over the previous (215-series) blades. But, since there
was a
> more powerful 260 hp. engine, nobody cared.
>
> Hartzell also developed a hydraulic pitch governor for a set of Hartzell
blades
> which was a direct swap for the Beech B200 / R200 / 215 series propellers,
so
> those that wanted nice, smooth, trouble-free constant pitch could have it.
So,
> lots of people switched to the Hartzell blades/governor, and they were in
> ignorant bliss until a few years ago when the onerous AD came out
requiring a
> mandatory 5,000 hr. (or X years?) inspection. Lots of folks found out
that
> their props were in poor shape (Surprise! See what 0 maintenance over 10
years
> will do?). Once the AD is complied with, the Hartzell is again
trouble-free and
> you won't have to give it another thought.
>
> HOWEVER, The Hartzell conversion is a nightmare of parts that are
different from
> a "normal" hydraulic prop system, and the installation guides are, in some
> places, vague. In other places, they are incorrect. Who knows how many
units
> were damaged by inexperienced mechanics? If you have this system, you
NEED to
> get the back issues of ABS magazine, and read, nay, memorize all of Lew
Gage's
> "Currents" columns dealing with the Hartzell propeller installation and
service.
>
> The Beech electric props, on the other hand, have never had an AD against
them,
> although the recommended service time is a removal and inspection every
250
> hours, and an overhaul every 1,000 hours. The big bugaboo is parts
> availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
> Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor
that
> looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to
overhaul. The
> pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil
is
> over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
> brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading
away
> mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
>
> Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
> Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
> Walt Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I am in the early stages of searching for a G model or earlier Bonanza.
I
> > have been paying close attention to this list, joined the ABS, bought a
few
> > books, and have been looking at a lot of planes. One of the items that I
> > would appreciate some advice on is the types of props on these older
> > Bonanzas.
> >
> > Seems like everyone is fairly positive about the Beech 215 electric
> > props...dependable and affordable is what I have heard.
> >
> > Of course there is a lot of unhappiness with the Hartzell prop and the
AD
> > (is there only one model of Hartzell for these birds). Once the AD is
taken
> > care of properly is the Hartzell a good performing prop? What should I
keep
> > my eye out for if the "V tail" I fall for has one of these props? Any
> > special advice as to what to look for on prop AD compliance? Anybody
know if
> > there are any good articles covering this in past issues of the ABS
> > magazine?
> >
> > What is the Beech 278 prop?
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated, I asking for opinions, so feel free to
> > offer them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Walt Cannon
> > Seattle WA.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Beech 215 props & digging up old Bonz |
Listers:
Here are a few additional comments and questions regarding early
Bonanzas and props, to fill in some blanks:
> least expensive,
Only to buy, see comments below
> Beech had been using the Curtis design
> electrically controllable pitch propellers
> and it was adapted for the new Bonanza.
Would someone confirm the following questions:
1. Is the Beech prop design really a adaptation of the Curtis electric?
The only picture I have of a Curtis prop has the entire pitch change
mechanism in the spinner, unlike the Beech.
2. I have been told the original wood blades were made by Flotorp
(spelling?), Can anyone tell me if Beech truly made their Aluminum blades,
or if they purchased them?
> These are only used on the model 35 and A35.
And the B35!
The C35 in 1951-2 was where the 215 prop with Aluminum blades appeared along
with the E-185-11 engine which is the same as the E-185-8 engine with
different engine mounts. The Beech parts catalogue list the mount parts
required to convert a -8 to a -11 engine.
> In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8.
> With the new E225-8 engine, you could use 2600 rpm on takeoff
E-185-8 and E-185-11 engines, serial no. 5122D and after are also rated for
2600 rpm for takeoff.
> although the recommended service time is a removal and inspection every
>250 hours, and an overhaul every 1,000 hours.
The service interval is as follows:
250 hours: lubricate pitch change bearing only
500 hours: lubricate pitch change bearing and prop blade bearings
750 hours: lubricate pitch change bearing only
1000 hours overhaul complete prop, which includes the above.
>The big bugaboo is parts availability.
During my two recent visits to Aero Propeller in Hemet, CA, to drop off and
pick up my 215 prop, they told me they had all parts in stock for the 215
prop EXCEPT blades. They no longer work on the earlier props with wood
blades.
> pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil
is
> over $1,000 -- when you can find it.
I specifically asked Paul Burrows if one showed up needing a pitch change
bearing without any rebuildable parts, how much is one from their stock?
Answer: $3000.00. WOW!
> Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
> Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
>
> Ron Davis
Now, Some opinion for those who are seeking early model 35's. If you are
capable of writing checks in large amounts, as often as necessary, read no
further. If you are like the rest of us, with a normal budget for our
aviation interest, consider the following:
The early Bonanza is a wonderful ship, but with the high cost of replacement
parts, it can very easily "thousand dollar" you right out of aviation. A
great many of Beech components seem to cost about a thousand bucks to
replace or overhaul, sure some are cheaper, but some are greater too!
My ship is N4546V, a 1948 Straight 35, Serial D-1373, TTAF 1735, SMOH 634
in 1974 . I purchased it in 1996 for $16,000.00, in license (it shouldn't
have been). I have owned two other airplanes so I had a fair idea of what I
was looking at, but I had a prebuy inspection done at a local FBO to insure
engine condition as well as overall shape. The airplane was very original,
nearly nothing except radios and a few instruments had been updated. I knew
I was buying a ship with a very good engine, a very low-time sound airframe,
but because of the age, all the "soft parts" i.e. hoses, gaskets, interior,
paint etc. were crumbling. The following is a list from my logs of things I
have done to an airplane that was flying when I bought it. The major point
is that I have been able to afford ALL the parts necessary to keep her
flying as they are spaced over time, BUT, if I were paying labor to
accomplish all repairs, I would have been grounded long ago. My experience
is an early Bonanza is a great airplane to own IF AND ONLY IF you can do the
major part of the work yourself, under supervision as necessary.
I belong to EAA Chapter 163 in Las Vegas, NV which is a great resource of
assistance and knowledge. Sometimes I have had far more supervision than I
needed, but that's better than too little. I am listing below the things
this ship required since purchase, along with rough estimates of component
prices. I will only make reference to times where large portions were
required. I am not complaining about the labor required, I spend most
weekends and summer evenings at the airport by choice so I am glad I am able
to do most of this without the great expense it would otherwise cost, which
allows me to own this type of airplane. Most of these things went bad or
sprung a leak after purchase. I apologize in advance if this appears windy,
but everyone keeps asking what they will get into buying a early 35.
Airframe: resealed leaky compass, kit $14.00 Would not pass VFR
static/pitot check, installed OH VSI $150.00 replaced leaking static
hoses under panel replace fuel tank quick drain replaced
leaking upper "O" rings in hand fuel pump new fuel strainer quick
drain new cabin door latch return spring new cabin door seal
new fuel strainer door fastener Walker air/oil separator $350.00
Cleveland wheels and brakes used $600.00 annual inspection (several
days) complied with ruddervator push rod mandatory service bulletin
(little expense, lot of labor) stripped and repainted ruddervators to
comply with AD (much labor) removed ALL landing gear, replaced strut
seals, re-installed twice to get it right (lots of labor) resealed
shimmy dampner nose wheel tire $35,00 replaced missing flap
track stops replaced seals on gas caps next annual rebuilt
landing gear actuator gear box $ 70.00 parts, much labor removed and
had rebuilt oil temp guage & thermocouple $160.00 rigged landing gear
system, several days labor, no expense new landing gear retract rod
used $160.00 left hand fuel bladder $975.00, much labor
rebuilt brake master cylinders "O" rings = $2.00, full day labor elt
battery $45.00 replaced all cabin windows (7 pieces, no third
windows) $1100.00, two weeks labor (nites & weekends) next annual,
year with no major repairs! next annual new elt battery
$45.00 transponder antenna $40.00 new battery $100.00
trace fuel system lines to locate seeping fuel lots of labor new ELT
$195.00
Engine: leaking starter gasket replaced all induction & cabin
heat hoses $200.00 new annual replaced all cylinder intake
gaskets $12.00 lots of labor replaced three exhaust gaskets $6.00
removed no. 5 cyl replaced all gaskets & seals (several hours)
removed generator and complied with service bulletin $20.00 next
annual no major repairs next annual replaced drive pin in fuel
pump $25.00, several hours labor.
Propeller: Beech 215 prop removed, delivered to Aero Prop for overhaul
$2760.00, I removed, installed and adjusted prop (four test flights so far,
one adjustment left to achieve correct static rpm). That happens tomorrow!
So we're up to date, the ship is on-line and I will fly tomorrow.
My experience may or may not be typical for a model 35 this age, note most
of above is not "major repairs" I hope this provides real world insight to
prospective owners. It's a great airplane that requires a lot of hands-on
attention.
Best Regards,
Randy L. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Txgroup(at)home.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/01/00 |
Beech-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> *
In 1957, Beech changed the engine (again) from the E225 series to the
IO-470
series. This engine has the hollow crankshaft capable of using a
hydraulically
controlled propeller pitch mechanism, so they discontinued the Beech
electric
propeller, developed the Beech 278 series prop for the Hartzell
controller.
Unsubstianted claims state that the 278 series propeller loses, again,
about
1-2% efficiency over the previous (215-series) blades. But, since there
was a
more powerful 260 hp. engine, nobody cared.
Ron, very well done. This should be an article. I do however have a
minor suggestion/correction. The H model (1957) was actually a
carburated o470 at 240 hp. From the J-M they were 250hp fuel injected,
with the I/O 470N being offered beginning with the N through the P
(260hp) Minor detail.
I have the 278, which like the 215 has been almost bullet proof with
only 2 ad's through its life cycle. One when it first came out, the
later simply a visual inspection of the steel hubs during annual for
cracks. A no brainier. Unfortunately these great props are also becoming
troublesome when it comes to finding parts. A local prop shop even
suggested to me that they can technically no longer overhaul them, but
rather just service them.
At any rate they are real work horses as is the 215.
Thanks again for the great explanation.
bob stephens
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Bradley" <wabpilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survival gear ... |
Ron,
Might I suggest a hand held EPIRB, especially one of the water activated
ones. If you have to ditch the plane, the ELT will be useless. The EPIRB
will speed your rescue. Inflateable life boats are very important for
over-water trips. The Pacific is cold, even between California and Catalina.
I don't know how long I'd want to float around out there depending just on a
life vest.
Alan Bradley
A36 N16SF
>From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To: Classic Bonanza Mailing List
>Subject: Beech-List: Survival gear ...
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:14:39 -0800
>
>
>Along with a soft-sided 6-pack cooler bag toolkit, I keep some survival
>gear in
>the plane - A $25 automotive first aid kit augmented with large bandages,
>some
>real scissors, various other bits, 4 life preservers (for those trips to
>Catalina island), 4 waterproof flashlights, 4 plastic whistles, and I
>forget
>what else. I keep the whole kit-n-kaboodle in a clear plastic zippered bag
>that
>used to house a king-size comforter.
>
>Aside from the (4 x) $50 life jackets, its relatively cheap to accumulate
>these
>items, and its a big selling point to my non-aviation inclined wife. It
>shows I
>care.
>
>One of the things that I never did add were emergency signaling mirrors.
>Sporty's wants something ridiculous like $10 for a stupid hand mirror, so I
>never picked up four of those.
>
>During Thanksgiving vacation, my father-in-law gave me a bunch of AOL
>CD-ROMS
>that he got in the mail, figuring I could make good use of their free
>online
>time offer. I don't have the heart to say that they are useless, so I
>accepted
>them graciously, intending to toss them out when I got home ... until I saw
>my
>reflection in one of them. Hey! A handy sighting hole right in the
>middle,
>too!
>
>So, America Online is now an unsuspecting addition to my survival gear --
>as a
>set of 4 *very* cheap signaling mirrors. Sorry, Sporty's.
>
>Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Bradley" <wabpilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Classic Bonanza Props |
Walt:
You wrote: "What is the Beech 278 prop?"
It is a hydraulic, constant speed prop offered on the H-P 35 Bonanzas. It is
the best propellor available for the IO-470 and Bonanza airframe. There are
only 2 ADs that I am aware of, and they are not recurring. The thing is just
outstanding. The only real draw-back is that it is out of production. Parts
are getting hard to find. There are only a few shops who can overhaul it.
But, I had one on my J35, and it gave flawless service. It is not available
to put on the E series engines.
Alan Bradley
A36 N16SF
>From: "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Beech-List: Classic Bonanza Props
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:49:39 -0800
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>I am in the early stages of searching for a G model or earlier Bonanza. I
>have been paying close attention to this list, joined the ABS, bought a few
>books, and have been looking at a lot of planes. One of the items that I
>would appreciate some advice on is the types of props on these older
>Bonanzas.
>
>Seems like everyone is fairly positive about the Beech 215 electric
>props...dependable and affordable is what I have heard.
>
>Of course there is a lot of unhappiness with the Hartzell prop and the AD
>(is there only one model of Hartzell for these birds). Once the AD is taken
>care of properly is the Hartzell a good performing prop? What should I keep
>my eye out for if the "V tail" I fall for has one of these props? Any
>special advice as to what to look for on prop AD compliance? Anybody know
>if
>there are any good articles covering this in past issues of the ABS
>magazine?
>
>What is the Beech 278 prop?
>
>Any advice would be appreciated, I asking for opinions, so feel free to
>offer them.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Walt Cannon
>Seattle WA.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Beechcraft props |
All,
Thanks so much for the time you spent putting together responses on my
questions about propellers. As usual, I am amazed and impressed at the
breadth of knowledge that is available on this list. I had heard about a
number of the details covered, but now am able to pull it all together into
a coherent story.
Regards,
Walt Cannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survival gear ... |
Alan,
I agree! A handheld EPIRB, or one of the newer hand-holdable ELTs with voice
capability is a big improvement, and a 4-man life raft is also a worthwhile
addition.
I have only three tiny obstacles I need to overcome: cargo space, payload
weight, and money.
I suppose I could add a life raft, a marine EPIRB, marker dye, better emergency
rations, tent, sleeping blankets, hunting rifle, Hudson Bay axe, and so on.
(Actually, I have thought about getting a super cheapie $50 play inflatable
boat. Better than nothing.)
If I was really paranoid about about overwater flights, or even flights over
rough/sparse terrain, I'd just get a spare engine. Like on a Baron.
With an A36, your payload isn't as nearly restricted as my E35 - 960 lbs total.
Take away (4*170) for the passengers and (6*40) for gas, and I'm left with 40
lbs. Right now, I have a plastic "banker's box" of miscellaneous odds and ends
that I take with me. It has the brief flotation emergency stuff, some brief
on-ground emergency stuff, a tiny toolkit (that I use all too often), a couple
of spare quarts of oil, a 3-ring binder of the required FAA paperwork, an
umbrella, a lightweight jacket, a small folder of stationery supplies, a
hand-squeeze no-battery generator flashlight. I'm sure there's other flotsam
back there, but I haven't looked in it in months -- except to get at the
toolkit. So, I feel I've stuck a space/weight/money balance I can live with.
As it is, I have what I consider to be a little bit more than the minimum
required emergency stuff. A quick review of the stuff in my buddies' planes,
I'm the *only* one that has life vests. True, a sample of 4 aircraft may not be
statistically valuable, but it does give you an indication, especially here at
SNA.
An aside here for you geographically challenged -- I'm in Southern California,
based at Orange County's John Wayne airport (SNA), and we are roughly "26 miles
across the sea" to Santa Catalina Island's Airport-In-The-Sky (AVX), with the
best-tasting buffalo burgers you've ever eaten at the Airport Cafe and Gift
Shop. Catalina is a popular $100 hamburger destination. Technically, if you
fly over water and beyond gliding range of land, then you are required to carry
over water life saving equipment. Most people fool themselves into thinking that
they will always fly high enough to be within gliding distance of land. I
preferred to remove the doubt from my passengers' minds.
But again, Alan is right. If you think the ELT is going to save you, your
belief won't hold water (yuk, yuk). A marine Emergency Position Indicating
Radio Beacon, as long as it doesn't go down with the ship, will bring a much
faster response. Your cell phone will have a hard time picking up a cell
station within radio range if you are sitting in the water.
If you really want to get paranoid about survival gear, visit:
http://www.equipped.com/
...And I'll meet any of you on this board at AVX for lunch at Catalina, as long
as the weather is good. (It's been mighty foggy/hazy these past few days). I
named the place. You name the time.
Ron Davis
PS: As a spin-off of this thread, if you want to think about tool kits, visit:
http://www.avweb.com/articles/toolkit.html
(http://www.avweb.com/ > maintenance > The Travelling Toolkit)
Alan Bradley wrote:
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Might I suggest a hand held EPIRB, especially one of the water activated
> ones. If you have to ditch the plane, the ELT will be useless. The EPIRB
> will speed your rescue. Inflateable life boats are very important for
> over-water trips. The Pacific is cold, even between California and Catalina.
> I don't know how long I'd want to float around out there depending just on a
> life vest.
>
> Alan Bradley
> A36 N16SF
>
> >From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
> >Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: Classic Bonanza Mailing List
> >Subject: Beech-List: Survival gear ...
> >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:14:39 -0800
> >
> >
> >Along with a soft-sided 6-pack cooler bag toolkit, I keep some survival
> >gear in the plane - A $25 automotive first aid kit augmented with large
> >bandages, some real scissors, various other bits, 4 life preservers
> >(for those trips to Catalina island), 4 waterproof flashlights, 4 plastic
> >whistles, and I forget what else. I keep the whole kit-n-kaboodle in a
> >clear plastic zippered bag that used to house a king-size comforter.
> >
> >Aside from the (4 x) $50 life jackets, its relatively cheap to accumulate
> >these items, and its a big selling point to my non-aviation inclined wife.
> >It shows I care.
> >
> >One of the things that I never did add were emergency signaling mirrors.
> >Sporty's wants something ridiculous like $10 for a stupid hand mirror, so I
> >never picked up four of those.
> >
> >During Thanksgiving vacation, my father-in-law gave me a bunch of AOL
> >CD-ROMS that he got in the mail, figuring I could make good use of their
> >free online time offer. I don't have the heart to say that they are
> >useless, so I accepted them graciously, intending to toss them out when
> >I got home ... until I saw my reflection in one of them. Hey!
> >A handy sighting hole right in the middle, too!
> >
> >So, America Online is now an unsuspecting addition to my survival gear
> >-- as a set of 4 *very* cheap signaling mirrors. Sorry, Sporty's.
> >
> >Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Bradley" <wabpilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survival gear ... |
Ron,
I am in Columbus, IN, but I get to the LA area every once in a while on
business. Next time I'm out, I'll take you up on the buffalo burger. I was
fortunate enough on my last trip to SFO to be able to borrow a friend's 172
and make the trip down to Avalon. Interesting airport!
I have one of the new 406 MHz EPIRBs. It floats, is water activated and
water proof. I clip it on to my crew life vest for over water flights. For
the rest of the time, I just keep it in the back pocket of the pilot seat. I
figure that if I survive any crash, the EPIRB will get CAP, the USCG and the
USAF's attention a lot quicker than my 121.5/243.0 MHz ELT. Figure a good 6
hours before enough satellite passes just to narrow down the search area.
With 406 MHz, they will have me within an hour, or less, if a satellite is
overhead. Further, the search area will be tiny, less than one mile square.
Alan Bradley
A36 N16SF
>From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: Survival gear ...
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:30:50 -0800
>
>
>Alan,
>
>I agree! A handheld EPIRB, or one of the newer hand-holdable ELTs with
>voice
>capability is a big improvement, and a 4-man life raft is also a worthwhile
>addition.
>
>I have only three tiny obstacles I need to overcome: cargo space, payload
>weight, and money.
>
>I suppose I could add a life raft, a marine EPIRB, marker dye, better
>emergency
>rations, tent, sleeping blankets, hunting rifle, Hudson Bay axe, and so on.
>(Actually, I have thought about getting a super cheapie $50 play inflatable
>boat. Better than nothing.)
>
>If I was really paranoid about about overwater flights, or even flights
>over
>rough/sparse terrain, I'd just get a spare engine. Like on a Baron.
>
>With an A36, your payload isn't as nearly restricted as my E35 - 960 lbs
>total.
>Take away (4*170) for the passengers and (6*40) for gas, and I'm left with
>40
>lbs. Right now, I have a plastic "banker's box" of miscellaneous odds and
>ends
>that I take with me. It has the brief flotation emergency stuff, some
>brief
>on-ground emergency stuff, a tiny toolkit (that I use all too often), a
>couple
>of spare quarts of oil, a 3-ring binder of the required FAA paperwork, an
>umbrella, a lightweight jacket, a small folder of stationery supplies, a
>hand-squeeze no-battery generator flashlight. I'm sure there's other
>flotsam
>back there, but I haven't looked in it in months -- except to get at the
>toolkit. So, I feel I've stuck a space/weight/money balance I can live
>with.
>
>As it is, I have what I consider to be a little bit more than the minimum
>required emergency stuff. A quick review of the stuff in my buddies'
>planes,
>I'm the *only* one that has life vests. True, a sample of 4 aircraft may
>not be
>statistically valuable, but it does give you an indication, especially here
>at
>SNA.
>
>An aside here for you geographically challenged -- I'm in Southern
>California,
>based at Orange County's John Wayne airport (SNA), and we are roughly "26
>miles
>across the sea" to Santa Catalina Island's Airport-In-The-Sky (AVX), with
>the
>best-tasting buffalo burgers you've ever eaten at the Airport Cafe and Gift
>Shop. Catalina is a popular $100 hamburger destination. Technically, if
>you
>fly over water and beyond gliding range of land, then you are required to
>carry
>over water life saving equipment. Most people fool themselves into thinking
>that
>they will always fly high enough to be within gliding distance of land. I
>preferred to remove the doubt from my passengers' minds.
>
>But again, Alan is right. If you think the ELT is going to save you, your
>belief won't hold water (yuk, yuk). A marine Emergency Position Indicating
>Radio Beacon, as long as it doesn't go down with the ship, will bring a
>much
>faster response. Your cell phone will have a hard time picking up a cell
>station within radio range if you are sitting in the water.
>
>If you really want to get paranoid about survival gear, visit:
>http://www.equipped.com/
>
>...And I'll meet any of you on this board at AVX for lunch at Catalina, as
>long
>as the weather is good. (It's been mighty foggy/hazy these past few days).
> I
>named the place. You name the time.
>
>Ron Davis
>
>PS: As a spin-off of this thread, if you want to think about tool kits,
>visit:
>http://www.avweb.com/articles/toolkit.html
>(http://www.avweb.com/ > maintenance > The Travelling Toolkit)
>
>
>Alan Bradley wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > Might I suggest a hand held EPIRB, especially one of the water activated
> > ones. If you have to ditch the plane, the ELT will be useless. The EPIRB
> > will speed your rescue. Inflateable life boats are very important for
> > over-water trips. The Pacific is cold, even between California and
>Catalina.
> > I don't know how long I'd want to float around out there depending just
>on a
> > life vest.
> >
> > Alan Bradley
> > A36 N16SF
> >
> > >From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
> > >Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To: Classic Bonanza Mailing List
> > >Subject: Beech-List: Survival gear ...
> > >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:14:39 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >Along with a soft-sided 6-pack cooler bag toolkit, I keep some survival
> > >gear in the plane - A $25 automotive first aid kit augmented with large
> > >bandages, some real scissors, various other bits, 4 life preservers
> > >(for those trips to Catalina island), 4 waterproof flashlights, 4
>plastic
> > >whistles, and I forget what else. I keep the whole kit-n-kaboodle in a
> > >clear plastic zippered bag that used to house a king-size comforter.
> > >
> > >Aside from the (4 x) $50 life jackets, its relatively cheap to
>accumulate
> > >these items, and its a big selling point to my non-aviation inclined
>wife.
> > >It shows I care.
> > >
> > >One of the things that I never did add were emergency signaling
>mirrors.
> > >Sporty's wants something ridiculous like $10 for a stupid hand mirror,
>so I
> > >never picked up four of those.
> > >
> > >During Thanksgiving vacation, my father-in-law gave me a bunch of AOL
> > >CD-ROMS that he got in the mail, figuring I could make good use of
>their
> > >free online time offer. I don't have the heart to say that they are
> > >useless, so I accepted them graciously, intending to toss them out when
> > >I got home ... until I saw my reflection in one of them. Hey!
> > >A handy sighting hole right in the middle, too!
> > >
> > >So, America Online is now an unsuspecting addition to my survival gear
> > >-- as a set of 4 *very* cheap signaling mirrors. Sorry, Sporty's.
> > >
> > >Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MRSMIRL47(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Survival gear ... |
If you read your FARAIM book very closely unless you are commercial, for
hire, or part 125 you are not required to carry any special gear over water.
I have had this argument with several flight instructers at one time. All
water survival gear is listed under part 125 or commercial. none listed
anywhere else.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survival gear ... |
Gene,
Actually, there *are* some regulations in part 91.500 or so about overwater
survival gear, but it is mainly for oceanic crossings. As long as I'm within 50
miles of land, or the overwater part of the flight is less than 30 minutes, it
doesn't apply. (Hmmm. I wonder if it applies during a 2-hour flight over the
Mississippi river? Better not go there. I don't want an FAR war here.)
I probably go a bit overboard (yuk yuk) about making non-aviation people
comfortable in my airplane. I have a little "emergency" card made up (just like
"real airlines") and a little souvenir booklet that describes stuff in an
airplane, and what to expect on a typical flight. The life vests are just
another comforting item for them. Heaven forbid I should actually need them...
Ron Davis
MRSMIRL47(at)Aol.com wrote:
>
>
> If you read your FARAIM book very closely unless you are commercial, for
> hire, or part 125 you are not required to carry any special gear over water.
> I have had this argument with several flight instructers at one time. All
> water survival gear is listed under part 125 or commercial. none listed
> anywhere else.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M T Barksdale" <skyranger(at)hartcom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/00 |
>If you read your FARAIM book very closely unless you are commercial, for
>hire, or part 125 you are not required to carry any special gear over water.
>I have had this argument with several flight instructers at one time. All
>water survival gear is listed under part 125 or commercial. none listed
>anywhere else.
>
>The above info is correct HOWEVER: don't for get that if you visit the
>Bahamas or other countries; the regs there MAY be that you may not
>dispatch for the return home flight without survival gear. Thus providing
>and "up the creek" situation.
Mac Barksdale, DVM
4270 Aloma Ave Suite 124-33A
Winter Park, Florida 32792
skyranger(at)hartcom.net
407 342 0938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MRSMIRL47(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/00 |
ah point well taken.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David P. Walen" <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
I finally got all this together for anyone interested
David P. Walen
221 N. FRONT ST.
Suite 301
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
OFFICE (910) 763-1925
FAX (910) 815-0133
davewsr(at)wilmington.net
FOR SALE
1953 D35 BEECHCRAFT BONANZA
$40,000.00
*TTAF 3042.8
*Prop TSO 80.0
Continental E225-8
*ETSOH 514.9SOH
Recent OH Starter
Alternator conversion
Electric tach
FEATURES
KX125
Narco At 150 w/encoder
Narco ADF 31A (inop)
Bendix KMA 20 audio panel
October 2000 annual
Cleveland brakes
EGT
No damage history
New interior 3/99 Navy Blue cloth & Vinyl
Panel refinished
Paint is all white: Complete strip and repaint in 1994
54 gallons fuel
Single piece windshield
Third side window
New side rear pax windows
New right hand ruddervator
Right fuel bladder recent OH
Stabilizer mod
Yaw Damper Fin
Oil Filter adapter
Vapor Separator
New Tires
*times as of 10/1/00
Inspection at discretion and expense of buyer. Specifications subject to
verification upon inspection. Aircraft subject to prior sale or removal
from market.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | beda(at)NETCOURRIER.COM |
DEAR ALL MY 35 SN D677 BUILT 1947
I WILL HELP TO BE ABLE TO DO AN OVERHAUL ON LANDING GEAR
ANYBODY CAN TELL ME WHERE TO GET THE OVERHAUL MANUAL
LET ME KNOW
GILLES BEDA
BEDA GILLES
TEL FAX 33 1 42 05 05 49
E MAIL BEDA(at)NETCOURRIER.COM
----- La messagerie itinrante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web : www.netcourrier.com Minitel : 3615 et 3623 NETCOURRIER
Tl : 08 36 69 00 21
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
Gilles,
You can get the Beech Parts Book, and Shop service manual from Raytheon Beech,
and I believe the price for each book is about $75.00.
You can also get a CD-ROM from Aircraft Technical publishing (ATP) which has
the Beech parts book, shop manual, and all service bulletins that pertain to
your airplane for $225.00. however, at this price, there are no updates to
this CD.
You can find various manuals on eBay from time to time, but since you are in
France, this will probably not be a workable solution.
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, California
beda(at)NETCOURRIER.COM wrote:
>
>
> DEAR ALL MY 35 SN D677 BUILT 1947
> I WILL HELP TO BE ABLE TO DO AN OVERHAUL ON LANDING GEAR
> ANYBODY CAN TELL ME WHERE TO GET THE OVERHAUL MANUAL
> LET ME KNOW
> GILLES BEDA
>
> BEDA GILLES
> TEL FAX 33 1 42 05 05 49
> E MAIL BEDA(at)NETCOURRIER.COM
>
> ----- La messagerie itinrante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
> Web : www.netcourrier.com Minitel : 3615 et 3623 NETCOURRIER
> Tl : 08 36 69 00 21
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Vtail Enthusiasts"
| Subject: | Bonanza/Debonair cover on ebay |
Bonanza/Debonair cover on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=525860456
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRSProAds(at)Aol.com |
Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays!
I have a 1955 F model Bonanza with the E-225-8 engine. I am having problems
with the oil temp climbing into the red whenever the airplane is operating at
lower manifold pressure...like on final approach and during the flare and
landing sequence. Once on the ground, the temp begins to move slowly back
down.
Oil temp, oil pressure, and CHT are normal during take-off, climb, and
cruise. The engine has about 900 hours SMOH. I have checked the oil
pressure relief valve, serviced the oil cooler tank ( had it chemically
cleaned and inspected), replaced all of the baffling, replace the oil temp
sending unit and the wire to it, had the oil temp gauge checked, have had oil
lines checked, etc.
I am stumped. Any ideas out there?
J.R. Smith
Bonanza 5092B
e-mail: JRSProAds(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
It might be running lean and thus hot. When you are running full throttle,
the mixture is rich.
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRSProAds(at)Aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 8:56 PM
Subject: Beech-List: High Oil Temp
>
> Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays!
>
> I have a 1955 F model Bonanza with the E-225-8 engine. I am having
problems
> with the oil temp climbing into the red whenever the airplane is operating
at
> lower manifold pressure...like on final approach and during the flare and
> landing sequence. Once on the ground, the temp begins to move slowly back
> down.
>
> Oil temp, oil pressure, and CHT are normal during take-off, climb, and
> cruise. The engine has about 900 hours SMOH. I have checked the oil
> pressure relief valve, serviced the oil cooler tank ( had it chemically
> cleaned and inspected), replaced all of the baffling, replace the oil temp
> sending unit and the wire to it, had the oil temp gauge checked, have had
oil
> lines checked, etc.
>
> I am stumped. Any ideas out there?
>
> J.R. Smith
> Bonanza 5092B
>
> e-mail: JRSProAds(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRSProAds(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
Full rich mixture.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
Is the knob hitting the instrument panel or is there a little room between
the knob and panel when full in? The carb could also be out of calibration
internally. I am presuming that you have a pressure carb. The diaphragms go
bad after many years. There also could be an induction leak that makes the
mixture lean under the high vacuum of a closed throttle.
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRSProAds(at)Aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: High Oil Temp
>
> Full rich mixture.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRSProAds(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
Cy: I hadn't given much thought to the mixture situation, assuming that all
the way in was indeed all the way in. I'll check it and see if the knob
indeed goes all the way to the panel. Will also have my mechanic check the
carb and induction leak. Thanks.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
They call it cushion and both the mixture and throttle should have a little
so you know you are getting full throw and not being stopped by the
instrument panel.
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRSProAds(at)Aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: High Oil Temp
>
> Cy: I hadn't given much thought to the mixture situation, assuming that
all
> the way in was indeed all the way in. I'll check it and see if the knob
> indeed goes all the way to the panel. Will also have my mechanic check
the
> carb and induction leak. Thanks.
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
Reeally sounds odd... What does the CHT do? If the mixture is the problem,
one would expect the CHT to reflect it first.. What is the flight attitude
when the oil temp goes up? If you keep a constant attitude (slightly nose
down) does the temp still rise? What air speeds are we talking about? Cowl
flaps open? DO the cowl flaps open?
Had a buddy with a G model (225-8) that always ran hotter (oil temp and cht)
than my B (185-8) and it had 1000hrs on it... finally found it was blowby
associated, and less noticeable at hi rpm's.. He ran some AvBlend throuugh
it and apparently cleaned up the rings and the problem eased off, but didn't
go away until overhaul.
Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRSProAds(at)Aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 6:56 PM
Subject: Beech-List: High Oil Temp
>
> Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays!
>
> I have a 1955 F model Bonanza with the E-225-8 engine. I am having
problems
> with the oil temp climbing into the red whenever the airplane is operating
at
> lower manifold pressure...like on final approach and during the flare and
> landing sequence. Once on the ground, the temp begins to move slowly back
> down.
>
> Oil temp, oil pressure, and CHT are normal during take-off, climb, and
> cruise. The engine has about 900 hours SMOH. I have checked the oil
> pressure relief valve, serviced the oil cooler tank ( had it chemically
> cleaned and inspected), replaced all of the baffling, replace the oil temp
> sending unit and the wire to it, had the oil temp gauge checked, have had
oil
> lines checked, etc.
>
> I am stumped. Any ideas out there?
>
> J.R. Smith
> Bonanza 5092B
>
> e-mail: JRSProAds(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Walen, Sr," <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
To the gentleman with the high oil temp
It would be almost impossible for a marginally lean mixture to cause high
oil temp
If it were that lean the engine would either quit or be barely running.
I had a similar problem with oil temp that caused me to ground my plane for
5 months.
Thought I had flushed out my oil cooler properly until I read an article in
the ABS magazine stating that only Methyl Chloride liquid stripper would
break the sludge out of the cooler. I bought two gallons at ACE hardware
(the article gives the ACE part number) and when I flushed my cooler 6 or 7
times with it as the article recommended I got literally about a quart and
a half of thick sludge. Reinstalled the cooler and lo and behold the
problem was gone. In fact some small leaks in the tubing showed up that
had been clogged with sludge for God knows how many years.
DO NOT flush your cooler at a radiator shop!!! Some of their chemicals
will dissolve the metal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Frymire" <tfrymire(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 12/15/00 |
I suggest that you check the intake port seals.. when leaking can cause your
engine to run extra lean. I had the same problem. All six seals were
leaking and hard as rocks. They look like large o-rings.
Terry Frymire
A35 N756B
> From: JRSProAds(at)Aol.com
> Subject: Beech-List: High Oil Temp
>
>
> Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays!
>
> I have a 1955 F model Bonanza with the E-225-8 engine. I am having
problems
> with the oil temp climbing into the red whenever the airplane is operating
at
> lower manifold pressure...like on final approach and during the flare and
> landing sequence. Once on the ground, the temp begins to move slowly back
> down.
>
> Oil temp, oil pressure, and CHT are normal during take-off, climb, and
> cruise. The engine has about 900 hours SMOH. I have checked the oil
> pressure relief valve, serviced the oil cooler tank ( had it chemically
> cleaned and inspected), replaced all of the baffling, replace the oil temp
> sending unit and the wire to it, had the oil temp gauge checked, have had
oil
> lines checked, etc.
>
> I am stumped. Any ideas out there?
>
> J.R. Smith
> Bonanza 5092B
>
> e-mail: JRSProAds(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Santa's View of the World |
Take a look at what Santa's view will be on Christmas Eve from the new space
station! Do you think Old Saint Nick could possibly miss your house? Night
VFR if you ask me.
Enjoy!
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Dear Liters:
I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over the
cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to do
it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying. I
have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM, MM
or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is bolted
to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
here.
Thanks & Regards,
Randy I. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
If your "upper rear" or back rest has been bolted to the fuselage, your
airplane has been modified.. The back rest should plug into the seat bottom,
and have spring plungers holding it to the sides of the airframe just aft of
the second window
Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
> Dear Liters:
> I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over the
> cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to do
> it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying. I
> have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM, MM
> or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is bolted
> to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> here.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Randy I. Thwing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jalsto(at)flash.net |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Just re-checked the POH for my '53 D35 and the weight and balance section is
the only reference to removing the back seat. The reference is to the maximum
weight the floor can handle with the rear seat removed. The POH doesn't tell
you how to remove the seat, just that it is okay to fly without it.
I don't think the seat is structural.
Jon Alston
N2191D
On Sun Dec 17 10:35:37 2000, beech-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
>
> Dear Liters:
> I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over the
> cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to do
> it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying. I
> have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM, MM
> or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is bolted
> to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> here.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Randy I. Thwing
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Milt:
What model do you have? In my Straight 35, the rear seat is one unit,
the seat back does not separate from the bottom, I believe the frame is one
welded unit. It is a real joy to remove. Three bolts are removed under the
seat bottom, and at the upper corners of the seat back, the upholstery
(original) has slots to access bolt heads that engage (nut plates) mounted
in the fuselage side bulkheads. I appreciate later models have spring pins
for removal, mine doesn't, and everything is very original. Other Straight
35 owners, could you confirm this? Still looking for the answer.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing
>
> If your "upper rear" or back rest has been bolted to the fuselage, your
> airplane has been modified.. The back rest should plug into the seat
bottom,
> and have spring plungers holding it to the sides of the airframe just aft
of
> the second window
> Milt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:35 AM
> Subject: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
>
>
> >
> > Dear Liters:
> > I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> > which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over the
> > cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to do
> > it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying. I
> > have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM, MM
> > or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is bolted
> > to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> > in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> > where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> > here.
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Randy L. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Randy,
I believe that the original Model 35's back seats were bolted in, and were
considered "structural," theefore they had to be in all the time. Later
models (don't know if it started with the A35 or the B35) allowed the rear
seat to be removable.
In any case, if you have a baggage aux. fuel tank, you are supposed to *not*
remove the rear seat. Well, the seat bottom, anyway.
As usual, the authoritative information will be in your POH, somewhere.
My original handbook has *NO* information about weight and balance, but the
new lawyer-fied one has the blurb about removing the rear seats for cargo.
Ron Davis
"Randy L. Thwing" wrote:
>
>
> Dear Liters:
> I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over the
> cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to do
> it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying. I
> have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM, MM
> or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is bolted
> to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> here.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Randy I. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp |
J.R.,
It sure sounds like your plane has got cooling problems, but what kind?
Normal engine temps in cruise are easy to do -- there's so much air passing
though the engine cowling, it'd be hard to screw it up.
I would tend to suspect poor baffling if you were also getting hot readings
during a climb, but you don't see that. I imagine you are climbing at 125 mph
(or less), and a full rich mixture.
Sure sounds like there's a buildup of heat when you slow down that the engine
can't get rid of. A high angle of attack, say, with the nose high and
descending in the approach, *does* present a smaller opening to the relative
wind to enter the cowling, no matter where the cowl flaps are.
If you have to make slam-dunk approaches, then you may want to try slipping
the plane to the right (to present the left cowl side, where the oil cooler
is) to descend, rather than chopping the throttle and pulling the nose up.
Grabbing at straw #2: Try a thinner oil. Thinner will show a lower pressure,
but it ought to be better at carrying heat away. Maybe the 15W-50 stuff. Hey,
its worth a shot during your usual oil change. This can change the temps by
10 degrees (lower friction), depending on what you're using now. If you are
in the Southwest, then I doubt if you are using a multiviscosity winter oil,
and are sticking with round-the-year usage of a typical 50 wt, like Aeroshell
100.
Otherwise, I'd say you've done all you can do. Keep us posted on this...
Ron Davis
E35 Bonanza @ SNA, Calif.
(where warm weather and slam-dunks are the norm)
JRSProAds(at)Aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays!
>
> I have a 1955 F model Bonanza with the E-225-8 engine. I am having problems
> with the oil temp climbing into the red whenever the airplane is operating at
> lower manifold pressure...like on final approach and during the flare and
> landing sequence. Once on the ground, the temp begins to move slowly back
> down.
>
> Oil temp, oil pressure, and CHT are normal during take-off, climb, and
> cruise. The engine has about 900 hours SMOH. I have checked the oil
> pressure relief valve, serviced the oil cooler tank ( had it chemically
> cleaned and inspected), replaced all of the baffling, replace the oil temp
> sending unit and the wire to it, had the oil temp gauge checked, have had oil
> lines checked, etc.
>
> I am stumped. Any ideas out there?
>
> J.R. Smith
> Bonanza 5092B
>
> e-mail: JRSProAds(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Just observing from my experience, I've gopt a B model, and Warren in the
hangar next door has a straight 35... both of us have two piece snap in rear
seats.. I just presumed his wasn't modified.. guess we ALL learn something
here.. Now my curiosity is REALLY piqued...
Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
>
> Milt:
> What model do you have? In my Straight 35, the rear seat is one unit,
> the seat back does not separate from the bottom, I believe the frame is
one
> welded unit. It is a real joy to remove. Three bolts are removed under
the
> seat bottom, and at the upper corners of the seat back, the upholstery
> (original) has slots to access bolt heads that engage (nut plates) mounted
> in the fuselage side bulkheads. I appreciate later models have spring
pins
> for removal, mine doesn't, and everything is very original. Other
Straight
> 35 owners, could you confirm this? Still looking for the answer.
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing
>
>
> >
> > If your "upper rear" or back rest has been bolted to the fuselage, your
> > airplane has been modified.. The back rest should plug into the seat
> bottom,
> > and have spring plungers holding it to the sides of the airframe just
aft
> of
> > the second window
> > Milt
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:35 AM
> > Subject: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Liters:
> > > I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> > > which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over
the
> > > cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to
do
> > > it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying.
I
> > > have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM,
MM
> > > or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is
bolted
> > > to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> > > in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> > > where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> > > here.
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Randy L. Thwing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Milt:
I also received a private message from another Straight 35 owner who
says his rear seat is one piece and bolted into the ship. Check Warren's
logs and see if the later model seat installed in his ship was properly
entered. Does Warren fly without the seat installed? Still seeking an
answer and trying to sort through the "legends" Will also review POH for
mention of flight with or without seat.
Randy L. Thwing
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
> Just observing from my experience, I've gopt a B model, and Warren in the
> hangar next door has a straight 35... both of us have two piece snap in
rear
> seats.. I just presumed his wasn't modified.. guess we ALL learn
something
> here.. Now my curiosity is REALLY piqued...
> Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net> |
Greetings All,
I am in the initial phases of looking at purchasing a 1951 C35 that has been
upgraded to an IO470-C with a three blade Hartzell prop. I have yet to look
at the log books, but the owner describes the work as being done about ten
years ago under a Form 337 field approval and using parts for the front keel
and tunnel from an M35. I know that there are STCs to accomplish the same
modification and have looked at the Hammock Aviation web site. They don't
give any details of what is involved in their STC, but describe it as being
"extensive". Does anybody have any experience in doing this type of upgrade
by STC or field approval? Assuming the paperwork was handled properly, any
comments about doing this work on a 337? Any experience with this engine and
prop combination in a vintage Bonanza? If so, what is the performance like?
This bird also has 20 gal tip tanks...seems like I also read something once
about the interaction of three bladed props and tip tanks on older Bonanzas.
Any information or thoughts would be appreciated.
Regards,
Walt Cannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified C35 |
Walt;
As Hammock says on his website, nothing is in stone with the FAA, not even
an STC! With that in mind, the person that did the work originally
submitted it for a one time field approval. More than likely, either
someone looked at it,or the person had a good enough reputation with his
FSDO to have the conversion approved. Remember, without an STC work like
this needs to be on a 337.
I've seen a conversion taking place at Hammock's and it is quite extensive,
but of course not impossible. It just takes work. And the "keel and
tunnel" is definitely what needs to be changed. As a side note, when I was
recently shopping I asked Hammock if I should stay away from the conversion
airplanes and he said definitely not!
If you're near a shop that does these, it may be a good idea to let them do
the prebuy. If not, look real hard at the workmanship up front. Metal
aligned? Rivets flush? Rivets loose? Any signs of black dust? And of
course, don't forget to look at the entire airplane. It certainly would be
a shame if you concentrated on the engine area and missed something else.
Performance should be a bit better in cruise than with a 225. The older
airframes are light and responsive. Where you'll really notice the
difference is in takeoff and climb. You can run that IO470C wide open for
quite a while. Because of the small amount of fuel the pre F model carries,
you'll need the tips. I do seem to recall something about a 3 blade and
tips, but I'm not sure if it was for the 470C. If they're D'Shannon's, give
them a call and ask (but don't tell too much).
Good luck and I know you'll enjoy flying this combination! Keep us posted!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net>
> Greetings All,
>
> I am in the initial phases of looking at purchasing a 1951 C35 that has
been
> upgraded to an IO470-C with a three blade Hartzell prop. I have yet to
look
> at the log books, but the owner describes the work as being done about ten
> years ago under a Form 337 field approval and using parts for the front
keel
> and tunnel from an M35. I know that there are STCs to accomplish the same
> modification and have looked at the Hammock Aviation web site. They don't
> give any details of what is involved in their STC, but describe it as
being
> "extensive". Does anybody have any experience in doing this type of
upgrade
> by STC or field approval? Assuming the paperwork was handled properly, any
> comments about doing this work on a 337? Any experience with this engine
and
> prop combination in a vintage Bonanza? If so, what is the performance
like?
> This bird also has 20 gal tip tanks...seems like I also read something
once
> about the interaction of three bladed props and tip tanks on older
Bonanzas.
>
> Any information or thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Walt Cannon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modified C35 |
| From: | John C Mihealsick <calpilot(at)juno.com> |
Walt,
Hammock Aviation converted my aircraft last year, using P model keel
replacement parts, an IO-470N, and two blade McC. Prop. Prior to this
conversion, where an STC was obtained, 337's were used to convert the
airplane. It sounds as though the aircraft in question was done
correctly. Speed at cruise power should be about 186 MPH true. Tip tanks
with the two bladed prop sets up a slight vibration until tip tanks are
3/4 full. So you might want to fly this aircraft with full tanks to check
out the vibration, each airplane is different.
John M. (281-363-9263) or (832-689-7090)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Randy, We are contemplating the same thing.The main difference stems from
the rear spar being tube and not like the later models. I am glad you
brought this up before I paint (or bolt) myself into a corner. Also, If it
is OKed to replace the back seat with a later seat does anyone have any
ideas for the modification? We are looking a making an aluminium Box that
will bolt back to the origional bolt holes, be attached to the floor and
provide a frame for the newer model rear seat to clip onto. Since I have the
20 Gallon Aux tank I will need to limit the amount the seat can recline. We
are looking at installing a bar from the box tube that frames part of the
small third window.
Anouther idea is to create a clip that will simply bolt to the rear spar
and bolt the seats to a bar that will go from the origional seat back holes.
let me know how this goes. I am materially interested.
Blue Skies
Steve Dortch
N4512V
Straight 1948 Vtail in restoration.
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
>
> Milt:
> What model do you have? In my Straight 35, the rear seat is one unit,
> the seat back does not separate from the bottom, I believe the frame is
one
> welded unit. It is a real joy to remove. Three bolts are removed under
the
> seat bottom, and at the upper corners of the seat back, the upholstery
> (original) has slots to access bolt heads that engage (nut plates) mounted
> in the fuselage side bulkheads. I appreciate later models have spring
pins
> for removal, mine doesn't, and everything is very original. Other
Straight
> 35 owners, could you confirm this? Still looking for the answer.
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing
>
>
> >
> > If your "upper rear" or back rest has been bolted to the fuselage, your
> > airplane has been modified.. The back rest should plug into the seat
> bottom,
> > and have spring plungers holding it to the sides of the airframe just
aft
> of
> > the second window
> > Milt
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 8:35 AM
> > Subject: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Liters:
> > > I would like to start re-doing the cabin of my 1948 Straight 35
> > > which has the original interior torn, shredded and hanging all over
the
> > > cockpit. I would like to remove all the panels and the rear seat to
do
> > > it in whatever sections it takes to keep the ship on line and flying.
I
> > > have either read, heard or heard mention somewhere other than my PM,
MM
> > > or other official literature that because the upper rear seat is
bolted
> > > to the fuselage sides, it is "structural" and is required to be bolted
> > > in place for flight. Can anyone tell me if this is true and if so,
> > > where is it authoritatively stated. I am trying to avoid "legends"
> > > here.
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Randy L. Thwing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Steve:
I have yet to receive an authoritative answer as to if the rear seat is
required to be installed for flight in a Staraight 35. I have neither third
windows or baggage compartment Aux tank so I have no issues there. I am not
seeking to "upgrade" to a late model seat or make any other alterations so I
can't help you there. I have a later issue POH (the lawyer filled model per
Ron), I reviewed it thoroughly and no mention is made of removing the rear
seat for added cargo capacity. If it prohibited to do so, it should be
mentioned in the POH, right? So the upshot here is I've heard plenty of
"legend" but I still haven't had my question answered, so the quest
continues.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
> Randy, We are contemplating the same thing.The main difference stems from
> the rear spar being tube and not like the later models. I am glad you
> brought this up before I paint (or bolt) myself into a corner. Also, If it
> is OKed to replace the back seat with a later seat does anyone have any
> ideas for the modification? We are looking a making an aluminium Box that
> will bolt back to the origional bolt holes, be attached to the floor and
> provide a frame for the newer model rear seat to clip onto. Since I have
the
> 20 Gallon Aux tank I will need to limit the amount the seat can recline.
We
> are looking at installing a bar from the box tube that frames part of the
> small third window.
>
> Anouther idea is to create a clip that will simply bolt to the rear
spar
> and bolt the seats to a bar that will go from the origional seat back
holes.
>
> let me know how this goes. I am materially interested.
> Blue Skies
> Steve Dortch
> N4512V
> Straight 1948 Vtail in restoration.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Randy,
I'm thinking that if your original rear seat is bolted in (as in Steve D.'s
plane), then it would be considered part of the aircraft's structure, like the
landing gear doors. For that reason, the Handbook won't mention anything
about removing it.
Hey, my FRONT seats are probably a lot more removable than your rear seats,
and there's no mention of removing *them* in my POH.
You *may* be able to fly without it, but the POH isn't going to list that you
can take off the wing tips, the gear doors, the tailcone, spinner, back
windows, and so on, and go flying.
Only in the later models, when you *can* remove the rear seat, did the
Handbook mention what the limits are when you *do* take it out.
Ron
"Randy L. Thwing" wrote:
>
>
> Steve:
> I have yet to receive an authoritative answer as to if the rear seat is
> required to be installed for flight in a Staraight 35. I have neither third
> windows or baggage compartment Aux tank so I have no issues there. I am not
> seeking to "upgrade" to a late model seat or make any other alterations so I
> can't help you there. I have a later issue POH (the lawyer filled model per
> Ron), I reviewed it thoroughly and no mention is made of removing the rear
> seat for added cargo capacity. If it prohibited to do so, it should be
> mentioned in the POH, right? So the upshot here is I've heard plenty of
> "legend" but I still haven't had my question answered, so the quest
> continues.
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Vtail Enthusiasts"
| Subject: | USAF Museum AIrcraft of The Week |
Try this! Although no mention of GAMI's, JPI's, LOP, Virus' or George's
boy, the president-elect, I'm sure you'll find this interesting
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/santa.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Bradley" <wabpilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Randy, and all,
Just for the record, unless there is an AD note requireing the new POH, only
the CAA Approved Flight Manual is authoritative on the need for a seat. The
old POH was never authoritative. It should be regarded as advice from the
factory is all. The performance section was probably written by the
marketing department. As were several other sections of the book.
Alan Bradley
A36 N16SF
>From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:42:35 -0800
>
>
>Steve:
> I have yet to receive an authoritative answer as to if the rear seat
>is
>required to be installed for flight in a Staraight 35. I have neither
>third
>windows or baggage compartment Aux tank so I have no issues there. I am
>not
>seeking to "upgrade" to a late model seat or make any other alterations so
>I
>can't help you there. I have a later issue POH (the lawyer filled model
>per
>Ron), I reviewed it thoroughly and no mention is made of removing the rear
>seat for added cargo capacity. If it prohibited to do so, it should be
>mentioned in the POH, right? So the upshot here is I've heard plenty of
>"legend" but I still haven't had my question answered, so the quest
>continues.
>Regards,
>Randy L. Thwing
>
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
>
> >
> > Randy, We are contemplating the same thing.The main difference stems
>from
> > the rear spar being tube and not like the later models. I am glad you
> > brought this up before I paint (or bolt) myself into a corner. Also, If
>it
> > is OKed to replace the back seat with a later seat does anyone have any
> > ideas for the modification? We are looking a making an aluminium Box
>that
> > will bolt back to the origional bolt holes, be attached to the floor
>and
> > provide a frame for the newer model rear seat to clip onto. Since I have
>the
> > 20 Gallon Aux tank I will need to limit the amount the seat can recline.
>We
> > are looking at installing a bar from the box tube that frames part of
>the
> > small third window.
> >
> > Anouther idea is to create a clip that will simply bolt to the rear
>spar
> > and bolt the seats to a bar that will go from the origional seat back
>holes.
> >
> > let me know how this goes. I am materially interested.
> > Blue Skies
> > Steve Dortch
> > N4512V
> > Straight 1948 Vtail in restoration.
>
>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Is Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
Listers;
I called Raytheon Tech Support and spoke to Paul Peterson regarding my
questions as to if the rear seat is required to be installed for flight in a
straight 35. He checked a few things, had no answer, said he would look
deeper into it and call me back that afternoon. He called and said that
they really had no information available, but he had looked through the
paperwork for all the "kits" (read: modifications) available for the
Straight 35, and found there was a "stretcher" kit offered which allowed a
stretcher to be installed by removing the rear seat, and the co-pilot's seat
back. Further, a small jump seat was installed next to the stretcher,
behind the pilot's seat, bolted to the rear wing spar carrythrough. Because
of this kit being available, and having never heard specifically that the
rear seat is structural, Paul's opinion was that the rear seat was not
required for flight. Besides the above though, he had no other
documentation, one way or the other. He lamented that one problem regarding
the old airplanes is that a great amount of their material has been
discarded. I look forward to hearing from anyone with further documented
information regarding this subject.
Best Regards and Happy Holidays,
Randy L. Thwing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is Straight 35 rear seat structural? |
I had the "stretcher" or ambulance kit in my A model. An Aeronca seat was
placed in the rear for the attendant.
I've listened about the rear seat thing and can tell you that from what I
learned a few years back, there is a starting serial number where the back
seat was not necessary for flight. If memory serves me, if the seat BACK
was not bolted in, the rear seat could be removed for flight. Obviously
this was due to structure. Since I no longer have any of the documentation,
I can't tell you where I obtained it.
My advice is to climb over to the other email list - you know, the one that
has all the non V-Tail Bonanza, Baron, King Air, Starship and Beechjet
drivers, break into the current conversations about how best to spend 25K on
nothing and ask! There are still a few good old boys that fly these ancient
and outdated V Tail contraptions that will probably give you the answer.
And there are still a few old boys that fly the expensive stuff that still
remember when they were poor ;-) . If not, try ABS, there's a new staffer
for technical advice. Good luck
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:01 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Is Straight 35 rear seat structural?
>
> Listers;
> I called Raytheon Tech Support and spoke to Paul Peterson regarding my
> questions as to if the rear seat is required to be installed for flight in
a
> straight 35. He checked a few things, had no answer, said he would look
> deeper into it and call me back that afternoon. He called and said that
> they really had no information available, but he had looked through the
> paperwork for all the "kits" (read: modifications) available for the
> Straight 35, and found there was a "stretcher" kit offered which allowed a
> stretcher to be installed by removing the rear seat, and the co-pilot's
seat
> back. Further, a small jump seat was installed next to the stretcher,
> behind the pilot's seat, bolted to the rear wing spar carrythrough.
Because
> of this kit being available, and having never heard specifically that the
> rear seat is structural, Paul's opinion was that the rear seat was not
> required for flight. Besides the above though, he had no other
> documentation, one way or the other. He lamented that one problem
regarding
> the old airplanes is that a great amount of their material has been
> discarded. I look forward to hearing from anyone with further documented
> information regarding this subject.
> Best Regards and Happy Holidays,
> Randy L. Thwing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
| Subject: | Propellor options on E225 |
Hey Listers,
I have a straight 35 with the E-185-11 (205HP) Engine and have a Beech
215 prop.
My friend just bought a C model with a E225 Engine but no prop. He has to do
an extensive restoration but he is very experienced as a mechanic and has
owned a B model Bonanza before (and regrets letting it go.) He is not up to
speed on the Different props that come on the E series engine. Could y'all
(Yes, I am from the South) tell us the different types of props that fit and
where they stand on the Big AD scene. Here is my Experience on two Props.
Beech 215 Electric: Great prop No Serious ADs but parts are getting rare. Do
any parts from this interchange with the Beech 278 that fits on the O-470
engine?
Hartsunk 12X20 Hydrolic prop: Took mine to the prop shop and the Blades and
clamps failed, didn't even get to the Hub.(I bought the 215 then) I
understand that even if you meet the AD, on this it keeps recurring. I don't
recommend this prop but perhaps I am jaded due to my bad experience.
What about the other props, including the $18,000 Hartsunk?
(Why can McCauly offer a new prop for the O-470 for less than $9000 and
this prop costs so much?)
Blue Skies
Steve Dortch
4512V straight 1948 35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | ANR Headsets ... |
Dear beech-listers,
As you may remember, I bought a two Active Noise Reduction (ANR) conversion
kits from Headsets, Inc. at the AOPA convention last October, and converted my
front-seat Peltor 7004 headsets into ANR headsets. The Heathkit-style
changeover took about 2-1/2 hours for the two of 'em, and while I was pleased
with the results, the main thing that I wanted to pass on was what nobody ever
told me about ANR headsets.
I used them on a couple of short hops since I did the changeover, but I really
hadn't been able to appreciate them until this past Christmas, where I did my
usual 2:15 trip from John Wayne, California, up to Santa Cruz (well,
Watsonville, really), and back again on the 26th. The noise reducer really
works, as everyone tells you. I'm a believer now. The original Peltor 7004
headsets cost me about $200 each. The H.I. kit was about $175, so the total
cost is about the same as buying ANR headsets to begin with. But ... if you
already have a nice pair, and you are handy with a soldering iron, H.I. seems
to be a good way to go. The noise reduction quality of H.I.'s converted units
is going to vary with what you are starting out with, but on the whole, they
will be lower grade than buying, say, the $550 Lightspeeds. The offset is
that you get to keep your investment in headests, and just add to them rather
than throw them away and start over.
Okay, so everyone tells you how much quieter they are, but they don't tell you
that the noises you *do* hear are ... different. I hear a bunch of strange
chunkety noises from the engine I never heard before. I had to keep taking
off the headsets to listen to the engine. I thought there might be something
wrong, like the dreaded electric prop pitch bearing dying again, or a broken
exhaust pipe somewhere. All the way up, I kept thinking "This just doesn't
sound right." I even popped the cowl after landing to see if everything was
okay (it was).
Lew Gage of ABS Magazine, wrote some years back that he wouldn't ever use ANR
headsets because he *wants* to listen to the engine and detect all those
little clinking noises. Now I understand.
On the way back home, I still wasn't used to the new sounds, it was another
2-hour guessing game of "does it REALLY sound like this, or is there something
wrong?" I can tell its gonna take quite a while for me to get used to this.
I've been "listening" to my engine for several hundred hours without ANR
technology, and now I have to relearn all those noises all over again.
I wish someone had warned me that the noise that do hear would be different,
and not to worry so much about it. In any case, I must admit that they *are*
a real asset to flying, and I'm keeping them.
So when am I going to do the other two back-seat headsets? I dunno. My
plane's usual occupants are me and my wife in the front seat, and my
father-in-law (who is *almost* as deaf as a post), and my 6-year old daughter
(who falls asleep about 15 minutes into the flight, and wakes up when I start
descending to land) in the back seat. Sure, their hearing is important too,
but its harder to justify spending about $175 per unit since it seems they
won't be using the full benefit of ANR technology.
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANR Headsets ... |
Sounds like an article is in the making. See if they will donate a couple
of kits for the next convention's door prize for the good publicity.
I bought the Lightspeed 20's for my wife and myself. Sure is a difference!
Won't go anywhere without them now!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Subject: Beech-List: ANR Headsets ...
> Dear beech-listers,
>
> As you may remember, I bought a two Active Noise Reduction (ANR)
conversion
> kits from Headsets, Inc. at the AOPA convention last October, and
converted my
> front-seat Peltor 7004 headsets into ANR headsets. The Heathkit-style
> changeover took about 2-1/2 hours for the two of 'em, and while I was
pleased
> with the results, the main thing that I wanted to pass on was what nobody
ever
> told me about ANR headsets.
>
> I used them on a couple of short hops since I did the changeover, but I
really
> hadn't been able to appreciate them until this past Christmas, where I did
my
> usual 2:15 trip from John Wayne, California, up to Santa Cruz (well,
> Watsonville, really), and back again on the 26th. The noise reducer
really
> works, as everyone tells you. I'm a believer now. The original Peltor
7004
> headsets cost me about $200 each. The H.I. kit was about $175, so the
total
> cost is about the same as buying ANR headsets to begin with. But ... if
you
> already have a nice pair, and you are handy with a soldering iron, H.I.
seems
> to be a good way to go. The noise reduction quality of H.I.'s converted
units
> is going to vary with what you are starting out with, but on the whole,
they
> will be lower grade than buying, say, the $550 Lightspeeds. The offset is
> that you get to keep your investment in headests, and just add to them
rather
> than throw them away and start over.
>
> Okay, so everyone tells you how much quieter they are, but they don't tell
you
> that the noises you *do* hear are ... different. I hear a bunch of
strange
> chunkety noises from the engine I never heard before. I had to keep
taking
> off the headsets to listen to the engine. I thought there might be
something
> wrong, like the dreaded electric prop pitch bearing dying again, or a
broken
> exhaust pipe somewhere. All the way up, I kept thinking "This just
doesn't
> sound right." I even popped the cowl after landing to see if everything
was
> okay (it was).
>
> Lew Gage of ABS Magazine, wrote some years back that he wouldn't ever use
ANR
> headsets because he *wants* to listen to the engine and detect all those
> little clinking noises. Now I understand.
>
> On the way back home, I still wasn't used to the new sounds, it was
another
> 2-hour guessing game of "does it REALLY sound like this, or is there
something
> wrong?" I can tell its gonna take quite a while for me to get used to
this.
> I've been "listening" to my engine for several hundred hours without ANR
> technology, and now I have to relearn all those noises all over again.
>
> I wish someone had warned me that the noise that do hear would be
different,
> and not to worry so much about it. In any case, I must admit that they
*are*
> a real asset to flying, and I'm keeping them.
>
> So when am I going to do the other two back-seat headsets? I dunno. My
> plane's usual occupants are me and my wife in the front seat, and my
> father-in-law (who is *almost* as deaf as a post), and my 6-year old
daughter
> (who falls asleep about 15 minutes into the flight, and wakes up when I
start
> descending to land) in the back seat. Sure, their hearing is important
too,
> but its harder to justify spending about $175 per unit since it seems they
> won't be using the full benefit of ANR technology.
>
> Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MMMARKMM(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ANR Headsets ... |
Hi All and Ron,
Bought the lightspeed 20's about 3 months ago, Won't leave home without
them. Cockpit is quit as a 72. Radio's turned way down. Love'mm.... If you
haven't tried anr beg borrow or steal a set an try them out. Engine noise is
not different just quieter. Worth every dime.
Mark Mullahey
N3246C E-35
mmmarkmm(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
sending me my old parts.
Dear Mr. Hammock;
I called you and asked for a price to convert my F35
bonanza generator to an alternator. You quoted me 600
to 700 dollars for the kit and about the same for
labor. Since I had already priced the kit and this was
in line with the price I had been quoted for it I
elected to have it done. There were 2 ten hour
automobile trips involved to bring you the plane and
pick it up, but because of your reputation with
bonanza's I decided it would be worth that. I also
then asked to have the oil changed while it was their
that week since it was due a 50 hour service.
Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and the
bill was over $2,000.00. Then was told that the oil
did not get changed but that you added 2 quarts
instead and charged me for the oil. Then was told the
Thompson fuel pump had to be removed to do the
conversion. Again a disappointment, being the bonanza
experts that you are I would have thought that you
would have suggested a drive pin inspection while the
pump was on the bench saving me considerable expense
in the near future to have it done. Then after an hour
and a half flight home I check the oil and find it a
little over 2 quarts low indicating that you forgot to
add the oil that you charged me for. Then I looked in
the cargo compartment for my removed generator and
regulator and they were not there. Please ship them by
the way to Gene Smirl
116 Skylark
Bridge City, Tx 77611
I am in the automobile business and if I had misquoted
a job like that, no one would pay me and with this
kind of service I certainly could not expect any
repeat business. I hope that you will consider this
and respond accordingly.
Maybe I just expected too much. Or did I?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Gene;
I'm truly sorry about your experience as I'm one that recommends Hammock!
If there's anything I can do let me know.
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: "gene smirl" <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:39 AM
Subject: Beech-List: bad experience
>
> I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
> email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
> To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
> sending me my old parts.
>
> Dear Mr. Hammock;
>
> I called you and asked for a price to convert my F35
> bonanza generator to an alternator. You quoted me 600
> to 700 dollars for the kit and about the same for
> labor. Since I had already priced the kit and this was
> in line with the price I had been quoted for it I
> elected to have it done. There were 2 ten hour
> automobile trips involved to bring you the plane and
> pick it up, but because of your reputation with
> bonanza's I decided it would be worth that. I also
> then asked to have the oil changed while it was their
> that week since it was due a 50 hour service.
>
> Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and the
> bill was over $2,000.00. Then was told that the oil
> did not get changed but that you added 2 quarts
> instead and charged me for the oil. Then was told the
> Thompson fuel pump had to be removed to do the
> conversion. Again a disappointment, being the bonanza
> experts that you are I would have thought that you
> would have suggested a drive pin inspection while the
> pump was on the bench saving me considerable expense
> in the near future to have it done. Then after an hour
> and a half flight home I check the oil and find it a
> little over 2 quarts low indicating that you forgot to
> add the oil that you charged me for. Then I looked in
> the cargo compartment for my removed generator and
> regulator and they were not there. Please ship them by
> the way to Gene Smirl
> 116 Skylark
> Bridge City, Tx 77611
>
> I am in the automobile business and if I had misquoted
> a job like that, no one would pay me and with this
> kind of service I certainly could not expect any
> repeat business. I hope that you will consider this
> and respond accordingly.
>
> Maybe I just expected too much. Or did I?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Gene;
Also, I can't find an email address. I'd like to tell them that I can't
recommend them any longer if this is becoming the status quo!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "gene smirl" <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:39 AM
Subject: Beech-List: bad experience
>
> I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
> email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
> To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
> sending me my old parts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walt Cannon" <grnlake(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve and the rest of the list... I asked almost the same question about
props just a while back and got the following great write up by Ron Davis.
Thought I would pass it along and save him the time of doing it again!!
Best Holidays to everyone
Walt,
No shortage of opinions here :-)
HISTORY OF BEECHCRAFT PROPELLORS
The Beech Bonanza propellers are an interesting story and I hope I can tell
some of it correctly.
When the Bonanza was being developed, Walter Beech wanted the best
performance possible from a new engine developing about 165 hp., so he had
to go to a constant speed prop to do it. Beech had been using the Curtis
design
electrically controllable pitch propellers with good success on its war
models, and it was adapted for the new Bonanza. A small electric motor
changes the pitch of the propeller blades (instead of hydraulic pressure
from motor oil, regulated by a pressure governor). The electric pitch motor
is controlled by an up/down toggle in the cockpit.
The first was the R200 series wooden propeller. The prop pitch change motor
is mounted quite a ways back, and has a long drive shaft that engages the
ring gear that changes the blades' pitch. Legend has it that this was the
most efficient propeller ever made for the Bonanza. These are only used on
the model 35 and A35. The blades were BIG. 88" in diameter. Wide. 11"
across, I think.
A note here -- the electric pitch change mechanism was NOT a "constant speed
prop." it was an "electrically adjustable prop." The engine's rpm will drift
over time, meaning that you had to manually adjust the pitch using an
up/down toggle switch to maintain the same rpms. YOU were the constant speed
governor. Beech did introduce an electronic pitch governor unit, and it
*did* make the system a constant speed prop, but it was an option that cost
more money. Something like $495 back in the 50's, if I remember correctly.
Not everyone coughed up the extra dough.
The original Beech electric prop governor unit made by Flight Research (not
THAT Flight Research) is a cantankerous marvel, using vacuum tubes and light
sensors to maintain the propeller's rpm. The system is tricky to repair,
and, like everything else, the parts are hard to find. Airborne Electronics,
a company in N. Calif., came out with a solid state electronic governor unit
that replaces the original one, and is a zillion times more reliable. (I
have it and it is brainless to install and use.)
The next series was the B200. The electric motor that changes the props'
pitch is mounted right next to the ring gear, and the hub is beefed up a
bit, larger blade bearings were used, and there were some other changes. The
engine that
Beech used wasn't 165 hp. after all. It was a 185 hp. E185-8 (ad later, the
E185-11) engine. Still used the same birchwood propeller blades, though.
I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD forcing
them to essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if I
am in error here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades would
probably be relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes them
very expensive to maintain.
In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new 215
series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop
pitch change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the biggie.
They were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The aluminum
blades were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series hubs,
but not the R200. The aluminum blades are *NOT* as efficient as the original
wooden ones, but only by something like 1%, so the experts say.
With the new E225-8 engine, you could use 2600 rpm on takeoff (for one
minute), and at that speed, the 88" prop was getting pretty close to the
speed of sound. A recommendation was made to trim the blades from 88" to
84", reducing the tips' speed enough so it didn't scream so much. Earlier
takeoff limits were, I think, 2300 rpm, so this was a BIG improvement for
the ever-heavier airplanes and their payloads.
Beech made changes to the type certificate so you could retrofit the
aluminum blades on earlier models if you wanted, and practically everyone
did. 88" aluminum blades for the E185-11 engine, and 84" blades for the
E225-8 engine.
(A little empirical data here -- My 1954 E225-8 powered E35 Bonanza
originally had the 84" blades on it, and I had to have 'em replaced. Found
an 88" set, and put them on without trimming them. I can do that with the
E35 model. My data showed that the additional 4" of prop disc gives me about
2 kts higher speed. So there's another 1-1/2% loss most of the planes
suffer)
In 1957, Beech changed the engine (again) from the E225 series to the IO-470
series. This engine has the hollow crankshaft capable of using a
hydraulically controlled propeller pitch mechanism, so they discontinued the
Beech electric propeller, developed the Beech 278 series prop for the
Hartzell controller. Unsubstantiated claims state that the 278 series
propeller loses, again, about 1-2% efficiency over the previous (215-series)
blades. But, since there was a more powerful 260 hp. engine, nobody cared.
Hartzell also developed a hydraulic pitch governor for a set of Hartzell
blades which was a direct swap for the Beech B200 / R200 / 215 series
propellers, so those that wanted nice, smooth, trouble-free constant pitch
could have it. So,
lots of people switched to the Hartzell blades/governor, and they were in
ignorant bliss until a few years ago when the onerous AD came out requiring
a mandatory 5,000 hr. (or X years?) inspection. Lots of folks found out that
their props were in poor shape (Surprise! See what 0 maintenance over 10
years will do?). Once the AD is complied with, the Hartzell is again
trouble-free and you won't have to give it another thought. HOWEVER, The
Hartzell conversion is a nightmare of parts that are different from a
"normal" hydraulic prop system, and the installation guides are, in some
places, vague. In other places, they are incorrect. Who knows how many units
were damaged by inexperienced mechanics? If you have this system, you NEED
to get the back issues of ABS magazine, and read, nay, memorize all of Lew
Gage's "Currents" columns dealing with the Hartzell propeller installation
and service.
The Beech electric props, on the other hand, have never had an AD against
them, although the recommended service time is a removal and inspection
every 250 hours, and an overhaul every 1,000 hours. The big bugaboo is parts
availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor that
looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to overhaul.
The
pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil
is over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading
away mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Gene,
Sorry to hear of your bad experience. I understand that the alternator
conversion can be difficult mainly because the alternator's mounting pad is a
bit larger than the alternator's, and there isn't much room to swing a wrench
back there. At $700 labor, it sounds like it was planned for.
But, that quote may not have taken into consideration the reduced clearance
with a Hartzell regulator pump on the fuel pump pad, requiring its
removal/reinstallation. Do you have the Hartzell prop, and does anybody know
for sure about this?
The Thompson fuel pump is ... his call. The odds are pretty good that once
you open it up, you *have* to replace the seals, and the springs, and the pin
as long as you've got it open, and the kit is a ridiculous $300 or so (!) But
you are right. This wasn't in the original estimate, and he should've called
you and given you the option on having this done.
The oil -- that's kind of indefensible. It should've been done. It takes me
about 10 minutes of activity to set up the cans and open the drains, an hour
or so waiting for it to drain, and another 20 minutes to replace the oil
filter and close the drains and refill it. I usually check the spark plugs
then, but a mechanic can go work on other stuff. Changing the oil is about as
basic as it gets. How could they *not* do it?
As for the parts, I agree. They should be in a box, and there should probably
have been a discussion on how good they were.
Aside from your unhappy experience with Hammock Aviation, how do you like the
alternator?
Ron Davis
gene smirl wrote:
>
>
> I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
> email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
> To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
> sending me my old parts.
>
> Dear Mr. Hammock;
>
> I called you and asked for a price to convert my F35
> bonanza generator to an alternator. You quoted me 600
> to 700 dollars for the kit and about the same for
> labor. Since I had already priced the kit and this was
> in line with the price I had been quoted for it I
> elected to have it done. There were 2 ten hour
> automobile trips involved to bring you the plane and
> pick it up, but because of your reputation with
> bonanza's I decided it would be worth that. I also
> then asked to have the oil changed while it was their
> that week since it was due a 50 hour service.
>
> Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and the
> bill was over $2,000.00. Then was told that the oil
> did not get changed but that you added 2 quarts
> instead and charged me for the oil. Then was told the
> Thompson fuel pump had to be removed to do the
> conversion. Again a disappointment, being the bonanza
> experts that you are I would have thought that you
> would have suggested a drive pin inspection while the
> pump was on the bench saving me considerable expense
> in the near future to have it done. Then after an hour
> and a half flight home I check the oil and find it a
> little over 2 quarts low indicating that you forgot to
> add the oil that you charged me for. Then I looked in
> the cargo compartment for my removed generator and
> regulator and they were not there. Please ship them by
> the way to Gene Smirl
> 116 Skylark
> Bridge City, Tx 77611
>
> I am in the automobile business and if I had misquoted
> a job like that, no one would pay me and with this
> kind of service I certainly could not expect any
> repeat business. I hope that you will consider this
> and respond accordingly.
>
> Maybe I just expected too much. Or did I?
>
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Come to think of it, you need to stay on top of him for those parts. I
"lost" an oil pressure sending unit because I didn't hound him for it. Last
time I asked, he didn't know where it was located ad I understand they're
high dollar!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Gene,
I do not believe that an email is the appropriate forum for the
communication in this situation.
If I was on the receiving end (thankfully not) I would have expected for my
customer to express these feelings in person. If that were not possible,
then a telephone call as second best, followed by US Postal Service (return
receipt requested) being third.
Call me old fashioned, but email is for quick exchange of data, not
conflict resolution.
On the issue of the charges, you should have been informed that the bill
was going to be above and beyond the $1200-1400 you were quoted. The price
sounds high, however, Gary is known for doing good work - not for being
fast or cheap. I will assume they forgot to put your old parts in the
plane, even though you asked them about it prior to departure.
I also want to point out in parting that I have heard that Gary had been
experiencing some health issues this past year and he has not been as
directly involved in the operation as in the past.
I am not in the habit of defending people I barely know. It just would
bother me if I never received an email that I was expected to answer, but
many others had heard about it.
Good luck in this matter.
Joe
>
>I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
>email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
>To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
>sending me my old parts.
>
>Dear Mr. Hammock;
>
>I called you and asked for a price to convert my F35
>bonanza generator to an alternator. You quoted me 600
>to 700 dollars for the kit and about the same for
>labor. Since I had already priced the kit and this was
>in line with the price I had been quoted for it I
>elected to have it done. There were 2 ten hour
>automobile trips involved to bring you the plane and
>pick it up, but because of your reputation with
>bonanza's I decided it would be worth that. I also
>then asked to have the oil changed while it was their
>that week since it was due a 50 hour service.
>
>Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and the
>bill was over $2,000.00. Then was told that the oil
>did not get changed but that you added 2 quarts
>instead and charged me for the oil. Then was told the
>Thompson fuel pump had to be removed to do the
>conversion. Again a disappointment, being the bonanza
>experts that you are I would have thought that you
>would have suggested a drive pin inspection while the
>pump was on the bench saving me considerable expense
>in the near future to have it done. Then after an hour
>and a half flight home I check the oil and find it a
>little over 2 quarts low indicating that you forgot to
>add the oil that you charged me for. Then I looked in
>the cargo compartment for my removed generator and
>regulator and they were not there. Please ship them by
>the way to Gene Smirl
> 116 Skylark
> Bridge City, Tx 77611
>
>I am in the automobile business and if I had misquoted
>a job like that, no one would pay me and with this
>kind of service I certainly could not expect any
>repeat business. I hope that you will consider this
>and respond accordingly.
>
>Maybe I just expected too much. Or did I?
>
>
>Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Hey Joe;
Your points are as always, very well positioned and written, but I
respectfully want to disagree with you on some views.
Even though I share your desires of the best way of communication (the old
fashioned way), businesses that use the internet as a marketing tool must
realize that email is now a preferred way of communication. Looks like Gene
sent two emails that were never answered. Since he didn't mention that they
were returned, we must assume that they were delivered to the ISP. If they
were never picked up, that shows a weakness on the vendor's part. Would be
that same as not picking up the registered mail or retuning phone messages
left on the answering machine? I think it actually would be!
I recommended Gary even though it was a bit out of Gene's desired area. The
recommendation was due to the fact that I feel Gary and Jerry are very, very
good (and are priced accordingly). There's no free ride down there, but you
do expect the best for your dollars. Gene made the decision to have his
work performed at their shop after considering all the elements, quality of
work and down time included!
There is no excuse for going $600 over the estimate without even a phone
call, and in the same situation, Al DeMarzo would not have paid it, end of
case, that's all, tough luck, period. Maybe the old parts were forgotten
about, maybe the oil was forgotten about, maybe they were going to call Gene
and something came up, maybe they were too busy to check the pin on the
Thompson, BUT, attention to those types of things are precisely why you
bring your flying machine to Hammock's!
Looks like there's been an accumulation of things gone wrong here and Gene
is obviously frustrated at what appears to be the inability to get this
situation rectified. That frustration caused him to inform others of what
to be wary of, and I appreciate it! Gene's in the auto business and it
sounds like he knows the drill. You pays your money and you takes your
chances. With the internet it now works both ways!
Email is a very fast way of communicating to the masses and with its
saturation, people in business must realize that the "word", good or bad,
could spread very quickly. (Remember Pierre the French bridge builder?)
Since my own business is 90% referral (I reward referrals), and this
referral was mine, I am deeply troubled and hope to get to those boys in
Ennis soon to see what's gone wrong. Until then, I don't know anyone south
of the Red River that I can recommend for Bonanza work.
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Brevetti" <brevetti@oklahoma-city.oilfield.slb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: bad experience
<brevetti@oklahoma-city.oilfield.slb.com>
>
> Gene,
>
> I do not believe that an email is the appropriate forum for the
> communication in this situation.
>
> If I was on the receiving end (thankfully not) I would have expected for
my
> customer to express these feelings in person. If that were not possible,
> then a telephone call as second best, followed by US Postal Service
(return
> receipt requested) being third.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but email is for quick exchange of data, not
> conflict resolution.
>
> On the issue of the charges, you should have been informed that the bill
> was going to be above and beyond the $1200-1400 you were quoted. The price
> sounds high, however, Gary is known for doing good work - not for being
> fast or cheap. I will assume they forgot to put your old parts in the
> plane, even though you asked them about it prior to departure.
>
> I also want to point out in parting that I have heard that Gary had been
> experiencing some health issues this past year and he has not been as
> directly involved in the operation as in the past.
>
> I am not in the habit of defending people I barely know. It just would
> bother me if I never received an email that I was expected to answer, but
> many others had heard about it.
>
> Good luck in this matter.
>
> Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
Thanks Walt, This is a great start. This covers the electric props really
well and starts to cover the Hartzell props. What I need now is more
information on the Hartzells for the E series engines and I hope the Listers
can help.
For example I had the 12x20 which I believe is the very early hydro prop. A
friend had the HC series prop and I have heard of a MV series. Does anyone
know more about those types. If you were shopping for a prop for a Early
Bonanza with a E-225 engine what would you be looking for?
Again Thanks Walt and Ron.
Blue Skies
Steve Dortch
----- Original Message -----
From: Walt Cannon <grnlake(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:11 AM
Subject: Propellors
> Steve and the rest of the list... I asked almost the same question about
> props just a while back and got the following great write up by Ron Davis.
> Thought I would pass it along and save him the time of doing it again!!
>
> Best Holidays to everyone
>
> Walt,
>
> No shortage of opinions here :-)
>
> HISTORY OF BEECHCRAFT PROPELLORS
>
>
> The Beech Bonanza propellers are an interesting story and I hope I can
tell
> some of it correctly.
>
> When the Bonanza was being developed, Walter Beech wanted the best
> performance possible from a new engine developing about 165 hp., so he had
> to go to a constant speed prop to do it. Beech had been using the Curtis
> design
> electrically controllable pitch propellers with good success on its war
> models, and it was adapted for the new Bonanza. A small electric motor
> changes the pitch of the propeller blades (instead of hydraulic pressure
> from motor oil, regulated by a pressure governor). The electric pitch
motor
> is controlled by an up/down toggle in the cockpit.
>
> The first was the R200 series wooden propeller. The prop pitch change
motor
> is mounted quite a ways back, and has a long drive shaft that engages the
> ring gear that changes the blades' pitch. Legend has it that this was the
> most efficient propeller ever made for the Bonanza. These are only used on
> the model 35 and A35. The blades were BIG. 88" in diameter. Wide. 11"
> across, I think.
>
> A note here -- the electric pitch change mechanism was NOT a "constant
speed
> prop." it was an "electrically adjustable prop." The engine's rpm will
drift
> over time, meaning that you had to manually adjust the pitch using an
> up/down toggle switch to maintain the same rpms. YOU were the constant
speed
> governor. Beech did introduce an electronic pitch governor unit, and it
> *did* make the system a constant speed prop, but it was an option that
cost
> more money. Something like $495 back in the 50's, if I remember
correctly.
> Not everyone coughed up the extra dough.
>
> The original Beech electric prop governor unit made by Flight Research
(not
> THAT Flight Research) is a cantankerous marvel, using vacuum tubes and
light
> sensors to maintain the propeller's rpm. The system is tricky to repair,
> and, like everything else, the parts are hard to find. Airborne
Electronics,
> a company in N. Calif., came out with a solid state electronic governor
unit
> that replaces the original one, and is a zillion times more reliable. (I
> have it and it is brainless to install and use.)
>
> The next series was the B200. The electric motor that changes the props'
> pitch is mounted right next to the ring gear, and the hub is beefed up a
> bit, larger blade bearings were used, and there were some other changes.
The
> engine that
> Beech used wasn't 165 hp. after all. It was a 185 hp. E185-8 (ad later,
the
> E185-11) engine. Still used the same birchwood propeller blades, though.
>
> I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD forcing
> them to essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if I
> am in error here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades would
> probably be relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes them
> very expensive to maintain.
> In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new
215
> series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop
> pitch change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the
biggie.
> They were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The
aluminum
> blades were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series
hubs,
> but not the R200. The aluminum blades are *NOT* as efficient as the
original
> wooden ones, but only by something like 1%, so the experts say.
>
> With the new E225-8 engine, you could use 2600 rpm on takeoff (for one
> minute), and at that speed, the 88" prop was getting pretty close to the
> speed of sound. A recommendation was made to trim the blades from 88" to
> 84", reducing the tips' speed enough so it didn't scream so much. Earlier
> takeoff limits were, I think, 2300 rpm, so this was a BIG improvement for
> the ever-heavier airplanes and their payloads.
>
> Beech made changes to the type certificate so you could retrofit the
> aluminum blades on earlier models if you wanted, and practically everyone
> did. 88" aluminum blades for the E185-11 engine, and 84" blades for the
> E225-8 engine.
>
> (A little empirical data here -- My 1954 E225-8 powered E35 Bonanza
> originally had the 84" blades on it, and I had to have 'em replaced. Found
> an 88" set, and put them on without trimming them. I can do that with the
> E35 model. My data showed that the additional 4" of prop disc gives me
about
> 2 kts higher speed. So there's another 1-1/2% loss most of the planes
> suffer)
>
> In 1957, Beech changed the engine (again) from the E225 series to the
IO-470
> series. This engine has the hollow crankshaft capable of using a
> hydraulically controlled propeller pitch mechanism, so they discontinued
the
> Beech electric propeller, developed the Beech 278 series prop for the
> Hartzell controller. Unsubstantiated claims state that the 278 series
> propeller loses, again, about 1-2% efficiency over the previous
(215-series)
> blades. But, since there was a more powerful 260 hp. engine, nobody cared.
>
> Hartzell also developed a hydraulic pitch governor for a set of Hartzell
> blades which was a direct swap for the Beech B200 / R200 / 215 series
> propellers, so those that wanted nice, smooth, trouble-free constant pitch
> could have it. So,
> lots of people switched to the Hartzell blades/governor, and they were in
> ignorant bliss until a few years ago when the onerous AD came out
requiring
> a mandatory 5,000 hr. (or X years?) inspection. Lots of folks found out
that
> their props were in poor shape (Surprise! See what 0 maintenance over 10
> years will do?). Once the AD is complied with, the Hartzell is again
> trouble-free and you won't have to give it another thought. HOWEVER, The
> Hartzell conversion is a nightmare of parts that are different from a
> "normal" hydraulic prop system, and the installation guides are, in some
> places, vague. In other places, they are incorrect. Who knows how many
units
> were damaged by inexperienced mechanics? If you have this system, you NEED
> to get the back issues of ABS magazine, and read, nay, memorize all of Lew
> Gage's "Currents" columns dealing with the Hartzell propeller installation
> and service.
>
> The Beech electric props, on the other hand, have never had an AD against
> them, although the recommended service time is a removal and inspection
> every 250 hours, and an overhaul every 1,000 hours. The big bugaboo is
parts
> availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
> Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor that
> looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to
overhaul.
> The
> pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil
> is over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
> brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading
> away mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
>
> Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
> Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BG Wells" <bgwells(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
I can sure sympathize with you Gene, I've had similar aviation anomalies
happen to me at several other shops in the past. I hope you can work it out
with the Hammock's, they have a very good reputation and I'm sure that you
do as well. I would venture to guess that they ran into unexpected
difficulties and extra time spent dealing with them on your plane. Since you
have to change out the voltage regulator and wiring etc., do you have allot
of equipment in the way of this or were there issues with the paper work,
logs, W&B sheets etc. Did you get a breakdown of work performed etc.?
It's not that easy to quote a price over the phone for something they can't
look at, kind of the nature of a estimate. True, would have been better to
get a call from them after the work was started, stating that it was taking
additional hours to do a good job. Either way it sounds like a
misunderstanding that can be remedied. No use in drawing any lines in the
sand, I'm sure the Hammock's would have a reasonable explanation. At least
you were instrumental in getting a email address listed on there web site
now.
Many of the quotes and actual receipts I've seen for the alternator work,
when all said and done ended up being around the $2,200 to $2,500 price at
other aviation shops around the Texas area.
Any way, tell us about the alternator, what amp generator did you have etc.
???
Bryan
----- Original Message -----
From: gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:39 AM
Subject: Beech-List: bad experience
>
> I thought this might be of some interest. I sent this
> email twice and waited a week each time for a reply.
> To date they have chosen to ignore me. Including
> sending me my old parts.
>
> Dear Mr. Hammock;
>
> I called you and asked for a price to convert my F35
> bonanza generator to an alternator. You quoted me 600
> to 700 dollars for the kit and about the same for
> labor. Since I had already priced the kit and this was
> in line with the price I had been quoted for it I
> elected to have it done. There were 2 ten hour
> automobile trips involved to bring you the plane and
> pick it up, but because of your reputation with
> bonanza's I decided it would be worth that. I also
> then asked to have the oil changed while it was their
> that week since it was due a 50 hour service.
>
> Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up and the
> bill was over $2,000.00. Then was told that the oil
> did not get changed but that you added 2 quarts
> instead and charged me for the oil. Then was told the
> Thompson fuel pump had to be removed to do the
> conversion. Again a disappointment, being the bonanza
> experts that you are I would have thought that you
> would have suggested a drive pin inspection while the
> pump was on the bench saving me considerable expense
> in the near future to have it done. Then after an hour
> and a half flight home I check the oil and find it a
> little over 2 quarts low indicating that you forgot to
> add the oil that you charged me for. Then I looked in
> the cargo compartment for my removed generator and
> regulator and they were not there. Please ship them by
> the way to Gene Smirl
> 116 Skylark
> Bridge City, Tx 77611
>
> I am in the automobile business and if I had misquoted
> a job like that, no one would pay me and with this
> kind of service I certainly could not expect any
> repeat business. I hope that you will consider this
> and respond accordingly.
>
> Maybe I just expected too much. Or did I?
>
>
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
I will try to answer all the questions in one email. I
have an electric prop so there was no hydraulic pump
to remove. There was no additional work or unknown
difficulty discussed when I asked in person. They knew
the plane because I had the pre-purchase inspection
done by them in februaray of this year. There were no
paper work problems that I am aware of.
The plane had a 50-amp generator which had new brushes
put in it this past april. It had a 2month old voltage
regulator in it. They worked fine. My problem was that
flying at night, if I ran the landing lights more than
5 minutes I would lose my radios because the generator
could not keep up. Plus after flying very long at
night and landing, I would have to jump start the
plane the next time I went out. It's really too soon
to tell but I can say that with the alternator I can
run everything in the plane except one landing light
and still get a positive charge indication at 1000
rpm.
I could not turn on either landing light without a
discharging indication at any rpm with the generator.
So maybe now I can land and take off at night without
fumbling around in the dark so to speak.
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | update to bad experience |
In fairness I did receive a reply from Mr. Hammock
here it is nothing added nothing deleted.
Gene, I would like to respond to your E mail. I did
now quote you anything. You called and asked about an
alternator for your aircraft and I told you I thought
they were 600 or 700 dollars assuming you were going
to buy one from one of the many suppliers and either
install it yourself or have your local mechanic
install it since I have never worked on your aircraft
since I did the pre-buy inspection for you when you
purchased the aircraft. You had already been shopping
around for the alternator as you indicated in your
letter so you knew the price of the kit better than I
did, so when I told you I thought is 6 to 7 hundred
dollars you had me order you one since you knew that
was cheaper than you had been quoted previously by
other people. The alternator kit was more than 700
dollars as you knew and shipping was added th that.
The alternator kit did not come with any wiring , wire
ends, hose clamps, Adele clamps, tie wraps, etc. and
the wiring harness had to be built up here. So the
price of the alternator kit and asociated parts did
run more than I thought. Of course there is a mark=up
in all parts and sales tax that also has to be added.
I'm sure with you being in the car dealer business you
better than most understands mark=up as well as taxes.
I did tell you that the labor would be about the same
as the alternator. Although it was more than the $700
it still was not as much as the alternator turned out.
Every aircraft is different depending on what mods
have been done in the engine compartment area and the
general condition and routing of wiring, cables,
hoses, etc. sa flat rate like you use in the car
business is not possible, even if it was, it would not
apply to anything other than the originally equipped
piece of equipment. You were charged fairly and just
for the time it took to do the work.
Your generator and regulator will be shipped ups
ground. We did not change your oil but we did add 2
qts. we also charged you for scat hose that did not
come with the kit but was required. Inspection of the
fuel pump would require additional parts and labor and
since you were not happy with anything else we did I'm
glad we didn't do anything else for you. signed Gary
Hammock.
I replied, The only shopping I did was see the kit
advertised in the trade-a-plane for just over $600
dollars I called no one but you Mr. Hammock.
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: update to bad experience |
Gene;
Oh well, thanks for the replies. I'm sorry that it hasn't worked out as
expected and will certainly use the points Gary makes about all parts not
supplied with the kit when shopping. Hope you will be happy with the
quality of the install.
Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David P. Walen" <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
I converted my D35 to the Jasco Alternator about 2 years ago for the same
reasons and have been very pleased with its performance. I still show a
slight discharge with one landing light on and flaps in motion, but nothing
like before. I am thinking that when it warms up I will adjust the voltage
up with both landing lights on and see if that helps. The regulator does
have a voltage adjust rheostat on it under a plug. I am an experienced A&P
and did the installation myself in my spare??time. I also had Beech
electric prop on my E185-11 and have since converted to the E225-8. I also
was able to install the S&K?? oil filter adapter with the alternator. I
have heard of some problem with this and it was not easy, but once done not
too bad to R&R. The installation required some machining of the tach drive
housing and I converted the ship to an electric tach to eliminate the dual
drive cable adapter. There is no way that would fit with the alternator
mod. I had to remove all of this earlier this year in order to rebuild my
accessory case and it wasn,t too bad. I also did that without pulling the
engine. Necessity (or laziness) is the Mother of Invention!! I think I can
improve alternator performance by lubing the flap cables too. They are a
little noisy.
ON another subject. Does anyone have a spare non-leaking oil tank/cooler???
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, December 29, 2000 6:47 AM
Subject: Beech-List: bad experience
>
>I will try to answer all the questions in one email. I
>have an electric prop so there was no hydraulic pump
>to remove. There was no additional work or unknown
>difficulty discussed when I asked in person. They knew
>the plane because I had the pre-purchase inspection
>done by them in februaray of this year. There were no
>paper work problems that I am aware of.
>
>The plane had a 50-amp generator which had new brushes
>put in it this past april. It had a 2month old voltage
>regulator in it. They worked fine. My problem was that
>flying at night, if I ran the landing lights more than
>5 minutes I would lose my radios because the generator
>could not keep up. Plus after flying very long at
>night and landing, I would have to jump start the
>plane the next time I went out. It's really too soon
>to tell but I can say that with the alternator I can
>run everything in the plane except one landing light
>and still get a positive charge indication at 1000
>rpm.
>I could not turn on either landing light without a
>discharging indication at any rpm with the generator.
>So maybe now I can land and take off at night without
>fumbling around in the dark so to speak.
>
>Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Gene,
I, too, have a 50-amp generator, and have a continuing case of electrical
gremlins.
For one, I have found that neither the original 35a generator nor the updated
50a generator can "keep up" with the electrical system if I use one, the
other, or both of the GE4522 250-watt landing lights. The two lights eat up
about 18 amps each, or 36 amps together. Quite a significant fraction of the
generator's output, especially since "50" is the rated, not actual, output.
I went the cheapskate way, and swapped out the 250w GE4522 bulbs for a pair of
100w GE4537 bulbs. They shine almost as brightly (actually, its hard to tell
the difference between the 250w and the 100w until touchdown), but both of
them eat less than half of the one of the GE4522's. It has solved my
electrical load problem, sort of. Its still dicey at night, when I have every
electrical gizmo in the plane turned on, low power approach to the pattern,
and then turn on the landing gear and the flap motor. See that ammeter needle
take a nosedive. On the taxiway, the radios have blipped out more than once
as I retract the flaps.
There is also a Halogen 50w bulb(H-7635) I could try, but I think I'll stick
with at least a 100w brightness and beam width. The Los Angeles basin is
probably the busiest airspace in the world, and it is almost foolhardy to fly
without beacons, strobes, landing lights, and anything else to keep other
airplanes from seeing you.
However, I have noticed that the GE4537 bulbs have a bad habit of lasting not
much more than 50 hours, and I would really prefer not having to undo the
30-odd screws on the light lens to replace it a couple of times a year. Maybe
I'll try using the 28v version of the 250w bulb, the GE4596. It oughta burn
half as bright (125w output @ only 14v), but last a lot longer. Either that,
or I'll put a resistor in with the bulb.
There was a Beech kit to do this to increase the landing light bulb in the
later models. Anyone know what that resistor is?
- - -
Second electrical gremlin:
I have the JPI engine analyzer, and it shows me the voltage to the 0.1 volt
every 20 seconds or so as it cycles through the readings. As I cruise, I will
see the volts jump from 13.1 to 13.4 regularly. Ammeter stands at attention
and doesn't budge. Once or twice a flight (!) the voltage drops below 10.5,
resetting the analyzer and my GPS. Grumble.
Once or twice, I've seen the ammeter needle in deep discharge, and I have
taken my flashlight, given the voltage regulator a whack, and the ammeter
starts behaving again. This is an indication that the voltage regulator's
contacts (similar to the points in an old distributor) were sticking. A good
kick dislodges them. Proof is when the regulator starts working again.
Okay, sounds like a voltage regulator problem. Pull it out. Open it up.
Everything looks good, but I do notice that the metal shell covering the coils
has a bare spot on the inside that is showing a bit of rust. Clean it out.
Polish the electromagnet contacts and give the voltage coil a tweak to
increase output a bit. Put it back in. No change (not even in the voltage).
Maybe I didn't tweak it enough, although these things are *real* sensitive.
Maybe I needed to un-tweak the current coil, too. Don't know enough about
these babies to know if you have to adjust both at the same time.
Okay, I happen to have a spare voltage regulator. Check its innards. Hmm.
BOTH units have has a bare metal spot on the inside of the metal shell where
rust had started up a bit. Manufacturing defect back in the 50's I guess.
Put it in, and no change, either.
Since there is no easy test-bench way to confirm that the regulator is
actually working without putting it in the plane and flying with it, I thought
about getting a (shudder) new voltage regulator from Raytheon. I lie down
until the thought passes. Go to the local Chevrolet dealer (the regulator IS
a Delco part) and have him look up the the price. The regulator has a number
stamped on one of the ears, but it is only a partial part number. Even the
Beech parts book has it wrong. The real part number is '1118891'. It is
discontinued (big surprise). But wait! It is superceded to 'D601' -- a 12v,
50a generator voltage regulator for heavy duty or marine applications. Price
is upwards of $90.00. Not in stock, so I go home and lie down. ABS Magazine
has an ad for a Zeftronics solid-state voltage regulator. $175.00 or more. I
lie down again.
When I have a spare $100 I'll probably go to the Chevy dealer and hope it
cures my problem for good.
- - -
Third electrical gremlin:
Just like Gene, my battery will slowly lose its charge and leave me needing a
jump start. I've done it with my car 3 times now, and I feel like a pro,
although it is very dangerous to park your car close to the blades, hook up
the jumper cables, start the plane, disconnect the cables, wrestle the battery
back into the battery box, close and fasten the cowl, Darn. That cowl lock
closest to the spinning prop sure is cranky. Back the car away from the
running airplane, hop in, and try to look at your passengers like its no
biggie.
I've tried the ever-popular Gill G35. Good for 2 years, and then, nothing.
Tried a Concorde G35-XC, the early version of the sealed battery with the
extra cranking power, and it *did* put out extra zip, but only for the first
six months or so. Plane went into the shop for about a year (long story here)
and came out with someone elses' battery, a Gill G35. Lasted a year. Got one
of the new Concorde G35-AXC, with *new-and-improved* chemistry, engineering,
marketing, whatever. So far, two years and counting, but it has conked out a
couple of times needing a jump start. Oh, and after about 6 months, the
"extra cranking power" is more like a normal Gill G35 battery. I read
somewhere that the sealed recombinant gas batteries need a higher recharge
voltage to get them to recharge fully. Oh, great. Won't ever happen with
*my* voltage regulator. I've gotten wiser, and if the plane sits more than a
month without getting airborne (sniff), I'll take the battery home and put it
on the trickle charger overnight.
Santa didn't bring me a solar charger to put in the dash, so I may have to
take care of matters myself. There's a cheapie solar charger for about $35,
or a non-sulfating charger that is about three tiems as much. Gee, I could
just buy another battery for that. Maybe I'll just trot down to the local
Chief auto parts and pick up that cheapie solar charger and put it in the
dash. I believe the cigar lighter socket is always hot, so I can just plug it
in. Gotta check the wiring schematic to see if that's true or if I have to at
least keep the BATT switch on.
- - -
Gee, with all these electrical problems, do you think it could be the
generator itself? Weak, maybe? 35-amp generator while I *think* its a
50-amp?
Checked the part number on the generator, and its a 1101908, 50-amp, but I
haven't pulled it to confirm its output. Annual's coming up in March. Maybe
I'll do it then.
Or maybe a $2,000 alternator insatllation will get rid of everything. That's
why I was no nosey about whether Gene really liked the alternator,
installation escapades notwithstanding.
Ron Davis
gene smirl wrote:
>
>
> I will try to answer all the questions in one email. I
> have an electric prop so there was no hydraulic pump
> to remove. There was no additional work or unknown
> difficulty discussed when I asked in person. They knew
> the plane because I had the pre-purchase inspection
> done by them in februaray of this year. There were no
> paper work problems that I am aware of.
>
> The plane had a 50-amp generator which had new brushes
> put in it this past april. It had a 2month old voltage
> regulator in it. They worked fine. My problem was that
> flying at night, if I ran the landing lights more than
> 5 minutes I would lose my radios because the generator
> could not keep up. Plus after flying very long at
> night and landing, I would have to jump start the
> plane the next time I went out. It's really too soon
> to tell but I can say that with the alternator I can
> run everything in the plane except one landing light
> and still get a positive charge indication at 1000
> rpm.
> I could not turn on either landing light without a
> discharging indication at any rpm with the generator.
> So maybe now I can land and take off at night without
> fumbling around in the dark so to speak.
>
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David P. Walen" <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Ron
Hope you read my comments on my alternator conversion. Once again it
eliminated ALL of the problems you mention. IN two years I have not had to
touch my battery and it is able to start the engine without a jump even in
20 degree weather ( and I use the small 25 battery). The lighter is not hot
all the time. Also you can jump the battery without opening the battery
box. Just hook your positive jumper cable to solenoid on the firewall where
the battery cable connects to it. NOT on the starter side as this could
immediately rotate the prop. Also use caution not to touch the cable to the
firewall unless you like sparks. You may want to slide a piece of rubber
between the cable and the firewall just in case. Then attach the ground
cable to the engine mount or any good ground point. You could also hook a
solar charger to these points with alligator clips.
In 3 years I have never had a landing light bulb burn out. Perhaps you have
a vibration problem?? Prop or flight controls??
If your generator voltage goes to 10.5 (likely battery voltage) either the
overvoltage relay is opening or your VR points are sticking open. If they
were closed you would get a high volt so it could be that and the OV relay
is working as advertised. Either way cleaning them a bit will help.
Reverse current limit relay opens only to prevent your battery from using
the generator as a motor. As long as you have the generator keep a spare
shoe handy (for malletizing)
Dave
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bad experience |
Al,
Rarely can disagree with your position and your points on the evolution of
email as a business tool is quite valid. However, I still maintain that if
you have a beef handle it in person or by phone.
Otherwise (in my narrowed mind), you are 100% right on target.
Gene,
I am glad that Gary responded (finally), however I was disappointed in how
he handled the situation. While most of his points are valid on the cost
issue, he won a battle and lost the war. I'm sure you, like myself and
others "bit the bullet" over customer relations' issues in the short term
that paid huge dividends in the long term. He didn't seem to understand that.
I was in a very similar situation to yours some years ago when quoted 4 hrs
for a simple job of changing a step cable on a 210 and had a 14 hour bill
when picking the plane up. I've done them and knew it takes about 3 hrs. No
matter what fuss I raised about paying for this shop's training program,
the owner didn't budge, so I paid and never again used him or anyone else
after that to work on our planes. This solution may not work for everyone,
but it did for us.
Sorry to drag this out. Hopefully, having the extra amps will make the
difference at night.
Joe
>
>Hey Joe;
>
>Your points are as always, very well positioned and written, but I
>respectfully want to disagree with you on some views.
>
>Even though I share your desires of the best way of communication (the old
>fashioned way), businesses that use the internet as a marketing tool must
>realize that email is now a preferred way of communication. Looks like Gene
>sent two emails that were never answered. Since he didn't mention that they
>were returned, we must assume that they were delivered to the ISP. If they
>were never picked up, that shows a weakness on the vendor's part. Would be
>that same as not picking up the registered mail or retuning phone messages
>left on the answering machine? I think it actually would be!
>
>I recommended Gary even though it was a bit out of Gene's desired area. The
>recommendation was due to the fact that I feel Gary and Jerry are very, very
>good (and are priced accordingly). There's no free ride down there, but you
>do expect the best for your dollars. Gene made the decision to have his
>work performed at their shop after considering all the elements, quality of
>work and down time included!
>
>There is no excuse for going $600 over the estimate without even a phone
>call, and in the same situation, Al DeMarzo would not have paid it, end of
>case, that's all, tough luck, period. Maybe the old parts were forgotten
>about, maybe the oil was forgotten about, maybe they were going to call Gene
>and something came up, maybe they were too busy to check the pin on the
>Thompson, BUT, attention to those types of things are precisely why you
>bring your flying machine to Hammock's!
>
>Looks like there's been an accumulation of things gone wrong here and Gene
>is obviously frustrated at what appears to be the inability to get this
>situation rectified. That frustration caused him to inform others of what
>to be wary of, and I appreciate it! Gene's in the auto business and it
>sounds like he knows the drill. You pays your money and you takes your
>chances. With the internet it now works both ways!
>
>Email is a very fast way of communicating to the masses and with its
>saturation, people in business must realize that the "word", good or bad,
>could spread very quickly. (Remember Pierre the French bridge builder?)
>Since my own business is 90% referral (I reward referrals), and this
>referral was mine, I am deeply troubled and hope to get to those boys in
>Ennis soon to see what's gone wrong. Until then, I don't know anyone south
>of the Red River that I can recommend for Bonanza work.
>
>AL
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Brevetti" <brevetti@oklahoma-city.oilfield.slb.com>
>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:07 PM
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: bad experience
>
>
><brevetti@oklahoma-city.oilfield.slb.com>
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > I do not believe that an email is the appropriate forum for the
> > communication in this situation.
> >
> > If I was on the receiving end (thankfully not) I would have expected for
>my
> > customer to express these feelings in person. If that were not possible,
> > then a telephone call as second best, followed by US Postal Service
>(return
> > receipt requested) being third.
> >
> > Call me old fashioned, but email is for quick exchange of data, not
> > conflict resolution.
> >
> > On the issue of the charges, you should have been informed that the bill
> > was going to be above and beyond the $1200-1400 you were quoted. The price
> > sounds high, however, Gary is known for doing good work - not for being
> > fast or cheap. I will assume they forgot to put your old parts in the
> > plane, even though you asked them about it prior to departure.
> >
> > I also want to point out in parting that I have heard that Gary had been
> > experiencing some health issues this past year and he has not been as
> > directly involved in the operation as in the past.
> >
> > I am not in the habit of defending people I barely know. It just would
> > bother me if I never received an email that I was expected to answer, but
> > many others had heard about it.
> >
> > Good luck in this matter.
> >
> > Joe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propellor options on E225 |
Aero Propeller told me they have all parts for Beech 215 except Blades.
Randy L. Thwing
>
> Beech 215 Electric: Great prop No Serious ADs but parts are getting rare.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bad experience with generator |
In regards to the generator working sometimes, then sometimes not. In my
particular plane, D-35 with 225 and generator, Upon startup, sometimes it
would charge,sometimes not, then in four to ten minutes (longest time) it
work normally. I eventually found bad connections on the switch labeled
generator. Everything looked could underneath the panel. But upon actually
grabbing it, taking it loose and then you could see the problem. I cleaned
the connection, then cleaned the rest of them and made sure they were tight
and haven't any more trouble. Rick Kindrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BG Wells" <bgwells(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience with generator |
A fellow C35 Bonanza owner is using the H7635 bulbs in his plane. He also
added pulse light, which increses visibility and cuts down on battery drain
in the pattern or busy traffic areas. during final he switches off the pulse
light. By the way, he still has the generator set up on his E225. I think
it's the 50amp. He maintains a positive charge on his gauge reading.
On my B35, w/E185-11, I had the 25amp generator. What was Beech thinking
when they put these on a airplane as electricaly challenged as a Bonanza. I
now have a Jasco alternator ready to bolt on.
And yes I have many stories of not being able to transmit over the radio due
to lack of power. The most memorable was at night at Addison , TX. (sort of
a busy place). Got ATIS and taxi info and TCA clearance, but during taxi to
the runway and in the hold position, I realized I had business jets lining
up behind me and I had lost radio communications to the tower. Had to turn
off my lights, rev up the engine just to get enough power to talk with the
tower.
I wish someone would take my 25amp generator, thank goodness for eBay !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bad experience with generator |
Good story! Not familiar with the installation procedures of the
alternator, but one of the things you should look at if it's not mentioned
is the gauge of your primary wire. My A originally had a 35 amp then was
changed to a 50 along the way. When I was refurbing it, I found a whole lot
of brown primary wire. Changed it all to 8 gauge!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "BG Wells" <bgwells(at)uswest.net>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: bad experience with generator
>
> A fellow C35 Bonanza owner is using the H7635 bulbs in his plane. He also
> added pulse light, which increses visibility and cuts down on battery
drain
> in the pattern or busy traffic areas. during final he switches off the
pulse
> light. By the way, he still has the generator set up on his E225. I think
> it's the 50amp. He maintains a positive charge on his gauge reading.
>
> On my B35, w/E185-11, I had the 25amp generator. What was Beech thinking
> when they put these on a airplane as electricaly challenged as a Bonanza.
I
> now have a Jasco alternator ready to bolt on.
>
>
> And yes I have many stories of not being able to transmit over the radio
due
> to lack of power. The most memorable was at night at Addison , TX. (sort
of
> a busy place). Got ATIS and taxi info and TCA clearance, but during taxi
to
> the runway and in the hold position, I realized I had business jets lining
> up behind me and I had lost radio communications to the tower. Had to turn
> off my lights, rev up the engine just to get enough power to talk with the
> tower.
>
> I wish someone would take my 25amp generator, thank goodness for eBay !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
Dual yoke with 2 big horns on Ebay, no trim. Currently at 1.5K with 8 days
to go!
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=533746129
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
Walt and Listers,
I know this is a stupid question but I have to ask. Based on the history
Walt sent me.(quoted below, after my question.)
If the 215 Metal blades will fit the B-200 Hub, Would the B-200 wood
blades fit the 215 Hub? It would be a reach, but A&E Enterprises in Goldsby,
OK makes a lot of Wood blades for various restorations and they could crank
out a set of Wood blades is someone had a blade problem on an otherwise
sound 215 prop. Also a friend (who is our local Mr. Bonanza) says that he
thinks the 100 hour inspection on the old blades has been lifted or changed
to a less onerous AD. (He also said that he was not sure about this, since
there is little call for Wood Blade work! He thinks is might be possible to
use the old blades.)
My 215 prop is in great shape but all it takes is a stress crack or an
accident of some sort to damage a blade and be left with a big tricycle. The
Wood blades could be an answer to this situation.
> I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD forcing
> them to essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if I
> am in error here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades would
> probably be relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes them
> very expensive to maintain.
> In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new
215
> series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop
> pitch change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the
biggie.
> They were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The
aluminum
> blades were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series
hubs,
> but not the R200.
The big bugaboo is parts
> availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
> Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor that
> looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to
overhaul.
> The
> pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little devil
> is over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
> brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading
> away mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
>
> Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
> Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Propellors |
Nice idea, but the efficiency of wooden blades are in the neighborhood of
30% less than metal blades. A prop shop can take care of cracks, dings and
such. Where the problem comes in is when the blades become too thin. I
think that if you're concerned, the best thing to do would be to constantly
hunt for good replacement parts. It's like money in the bank!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:41 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Fw: Propellors
>
> Walt and Listers,
> I know this is a stupid question but I have to ask. Based on the
history
> Walt sent me.(quoted below, after my question.)
> If the 215 Metal blades will fit the B-200 Hub, Would the B-200 wood
> blades fit the 215 Hub? It would be a reach, but A&E Enterprises in
Goldsby,
> OK makes a lot of Wood blades for various restorations and they could
crank
> out a set of Wood blades is someone had a blade problem on an otherwise
> sound 215 prop. Also a friend (who is our local Mr. Bonanza) says that he
> thinks the 100 hour inspection on the old blades has been lifted or
changed
> to a less onerous AD. (He also said that he was not sure about this, since
> there is little call for Wood Blade work! He thinks is might be possible
to
> use the old blades.)
>
> My 215 prop is in great shape but all it takes is a stress crack or an
> accident of some sort to damage a blade and be left with a big tricycle.
The
> Wood blades could be an answer to this situation.
>
>
> > I think the wooden blades are subject to a 100 hr. repetitive AD
forcing
> > them to essentially be refinished every 100 hours. (Correct me, guys, if
I
> > am in error here). So, even though getting replacement wooden blades
would
> > probably be relatively easy (just have a new set made), the AD makes
them
> > very expensive to maintain.
> > In 1954, Beech offered a new beefier engine -- the E225-8. The fancy new
> 215
> > series propeller came out, to go with it, and had the same electric prop
> > pitch change system, but with a few improvements. The blades are the
> biggie.
> > They were aluminum. Still 88" long, but something like 8" wide. The
> aluminum
> > blades were such a hit that they also became usable on the B200 series
> hubs,
> > but not the R200.
>
> The big bugaboo is parts
> > availability. Beech 84" and 88" 215-series blades are very hard to find.
> > Something like $4,000 if you do. The little electric prop pitch motor
that
> > looks like it comes out of a SkilSaw costs something like $400 to
> overhaul.
> > The
> > pitch change bearing is unique, and replacement cost for this little
devil
> > is over $1,000 -- when you can find it. So, like so many other
> > brilliantly-engineered wonders, the Beech electric prop is slowly fading
> > away mainly due to lack of parts, not poor performance.
> >
> > Anyway, I hope this helps your understanding.
> > Others, please fill in the gaps for Walt.
> >
> > Ron Davis
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Propellors |
Steven,
"Great minds think alike." I liked the idea of perhaps going to wood blades,
too. At least *they* could be rebuilt should one of them get dinged. I
checked into it to see if I could replace the 215-series prop with either the
R200 or the B200 series wood props. Nice thought, but they are not
interchangable.
First of all, only the straight 35, A35 and B35 had wood props. By the C
model, they went with the 215-series aluminum propeller. My E35 loses out,
then. Technically, I *could* mount the entire wood prop system on the E35 --
the splined shaft on the Continental E-series engine wouldn't know the
difference, but there is no certification for the later models. Sigh.
Okay, so maybe just some of the components interchangable? Sorry, no. The
wooden blade hubs are a different size than the aluminum blade hubs, so you
can't just switch them out. Different size hub bearings, I think. Even the
prop pitch bearing is different, and it, too, is a wierdo bearing that is hard
to find.
I expect that in a few years, someone is going to cross a plasma spray gun
(that sprays liquified metal like spray paint) to the inkjet printer
technology which would be able to create 3-D objects out of metal, building
them up layer after layer. Then, we should be able to get just about anything
we want replicated.
Ron Davis
Steven Dortch wrote:
>
>
> Walt and Listers,
> I know this is a stupid question but I have to ask. Based on the history
> Walt sent me.(quoted below, after my question.)
> If the 215 Metal blades will fit the B-200 Hub, Would the B-200 wood
> blades fit the 215 Hub? It would be a reach, but A&E Enterprises in Goldsby,
> OK makes a lot of Wood blades for various restorations and they could crank
> out a set of Wood blades is someone had a blade problem on an otherwise
> sound 215 prop. Also a friend (who is our local Mr. Bonanza) says that he
> thinks the 100 hour inspection on the old blades has been lifted or changed
> to a less onerous AD. (He also said that he was not sure about this, since
> there is little call for Wood Blade work! He thinks is might be possible to
> use the old blades.)
>
> My 215 prop is in great shape but all it takes is a stress crack or an
> accident of some sort to damage a blade and be left with a big tricycle. The
> Wood blades could be an answer to this situation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Propellors |
Thanks for the answers guys. Too bad. Though my streight 35 would be able to
use a B200 prop, where would you find one? Are there any Vtails still
running wood blades. You must admit laminated wood props are pretty.
Here is anouther hare brained idea. Could 215 replacement parts
(blade, bearing etc.) be created as "Owner Manufactured Parts"? (see the
linked articleon the Classic Bonanza web Page about Owner Manufactured
Parts.)
Also how hard would it be to get PMA aproval from the FAA, and could it be
made to pay for itself? (could the ABS get it?)
Blue Skies,
SteveDortch
1948 35
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Davis <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fw: Propellors
>
> Steven,
>
> "Great minds think alike." I liked the idea of perhaps going to wood
blades,
> too. At least *they* could be rebuilt should one of them get dinged. I
> checked into it to see if I could replace the 215-series prop with either
the
> R200 or the B200 series wood props. Nice thought, but they are not
> interchangable.
>
> First of all, only the straight 35, A35 and B35 had wood props. By the C
> model, they went with the 215-series aluminum propeller. My E35 loses
out,
> then. Technically, I *could* mount the entire wood prop system on the
E35 --
> the splined shaft on the Continental E-series engine wouldn't know the
> difference, but there is no certification for the later models. Sigh.
>
> Okay, so maybe just some of the components interchangable? Sorry, no.
The
> wooden blade hubs are a different size than the aluminum blade hubs, so
you
> can't just switch them out. Different size hub bearings, I think. Even
the
> prop pitch bearing is different, and it, too, is a wierdo bearing that is
hard
> to find.
>
> I expect that in a few years, someone is going to cross a plasma spray gun
> (that sprays liquified metal like spray paint) to the inkjet printer
> technology which would be able to create 3-D objects out of metal,
building
> them up layer after layer. Then, we should be able to get just about
anything
> we want replicated.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
> Steven Dortch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Walt and Listers,
> > I know this is a stupid question but I have to ask. Based on the
history
> > Walt sent me.(quoted below, after my question.)
> > If the 215 Metal blades will fit the B-200 Hub, Would the B-200 wood
> > blades fit the 215 Hub? It would be a reach, but A&E Enterprises in
Goldsby,
> > OK makes a lot of Wood blades for various restorations and they could
crank
> > out a set of Wood blades is someone had a blade problem on an otherwise
> > sound 215 prop. Also a friend (who is our local Mr. Bonanza) says that
he
> > thinks the 100 hour inspection on the old blades has been lifted or
changed
> > to a less onerous AD. (He also said that he was not sure about this,
since
> > there is little call for Wood Blade work! He thinks is might be possible
to
> > use the old blades.)
> >
> > My 215 prop is in great shape but all it takes is a stress crack or an
> > accident of some sort to damage a blade and be left with a big tricycle.
The
> > Wood blades could be an answer to this situation.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Propellors |
Steve,
There was an article some years ago about a guy who kept his straight 35
original, and used a set of aluminum blades for his "ordinary" flying, but had
a set of wooden blades he'd put on for shows. Very cool.
As it happens, there is a set of R201 blades for sale on eBay (!) right now,
and 3 days to go:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=537832911
I doubt if they are airworthy, but its still worth a look.
As far as the "owner produced parts" scheme goes, yes you can, but there are
limits:
A) You have to somehow specify, control, or supervise the methods and
materials used, and
B) it can only be for YOUR airplane. No "owner produced parts" getting sold
to others.
Oh, and you don't have to be the one actually making the part. You can tell
someone else to make it, but you have to tell them how, and it has to be as
good as the original (and you may have to prove it).
So, I *could* take a dead 215-series prop pitch bearing to a machinist, and
tell him that I need a new one, "just like this, using the same kinds of
materials." The machinist makes the part, and I had a hand in telling him how
to do it. Once its done, I have a hand in checking the quality, and supply it
to my A&P with the notation (should he ask) that it is an owner-produced part
where I specified the construction methods and materials, and that I checked
those methods and materials, and that the part is airworthy.
PMA approval? I suppose it could be done, but I've heard enough nightmare
stories about it that I wouldn't want to try. I don't have a few hundred
thousand bucks lying around that I don't know what to do with. I would think
that if anyone could do it, it would be Lew Gage of ABS Magazine fame. He
*did* get an STC for the spin-on oil filter, and he *does* know the
Continental E engine inside and out. If there's anyone who is qualified to
get a PMA blessing to make this stuff, it'd be him.
I don't know if that will be possible to do "owner produced" propeller blades.
Those things are hardened, so you can't just mill down a block of aluminum.
Nor do I know if you can take an existing (larger) propeller blade, and mill
*it* down to the size and dimensions of a 215-series blade. Somehow, I don't
think you can, mainly because nobody I know has ever done this to a prop.
You *may* be able to get someone like Hartzell to build you a run of
215-series lookalike blades as they *are* a propeller manufacturer, but I have
no idea what costs would be like. Somehow I don't think the price would be all
that attractive.
Ron Davis
Steven Dortch wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the answers guys. Too bad. Though my streight 35 would be able to
> use a B200 prop, where would you find one? Are there any Vtails still
> running wood blades. You must admit laminated wood props are pretty.
> Here is anouther hare brained idea. Could 215 replacement parts
> (blade, bearing etc.) be created as "Owner Manufactured Parts"? (see the
> linked articleon the Classic Bonanza web Page about Owner Manufactured
> Parts.)
> Also how hard would it be to get PMA aproval from the FAA, and could it be
> made to pay for itself? (could the ABS get it?)
> Blue Skies,
> SteveDortch
> 1948 35
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Davis <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Fw: Propellors
>
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > "Great minds think alike." I liked the idea of perhaps going to wood
> > blades, too. At least *they* could be rebuilt should one of them get
> > dinged. I checked into it to see if I could replace the 215-series
> > prop with either the R200 or the B200 series wood props. Nice thought,
> > but they are not interchangable.
> >
> > First of all, only the straight 35, A35 and B35 had wood props. By
> > the C model, they went with the 215-series aluminum propeller. My E35
> > loses out, then. Technically, I *could* mount the entire wood prop
> > system on the E35 -- the splined shaft on the Continental E-series
> > engine wouldn't know the difference, but there is no certification for
> > the later models. Sigh.
> >
> > Okay, so maybe just some of the components interchangable? Sorry, no.
> > The wooden blade hubs are a different size than the aluminum blade hubs,
> > so you can't just switch them out. Different size hub bearings, I think.
> > Even the prop pitch bearing is different, and it, too, is a wierdo bearing
> > that is hard to find.
> >
> > I expect that in a few years, someone is going to cross a plasma spray gun
> > (that sprays liquified metal like spray paint) to the inkjet printer
> > technology which would be able to create 3-D objects out of metal,
> > building them up layer after layer. Then, we should be able to get just
> > about anything we want replicated.
> >
> > Ron Davis
> >
> >
> > Steven Dortch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Walt and Listers,
> > > I know this is a stupid question but I have to ask. Based on the
> > > history Walt sent me.(quoted below, after my question.)
> > > If the 215 Metal blades will fit the B-200 Hub, Would the B-200 wood
> > > blades fit the 215 Hub? It would be a reach, but A&E Enterprises in
> > > Goldsby, OK makes a lot of Wood blades for various restorations and they
> > > could crank out a set of Wood blades is someone had a blade problem on
> > > an otherwise sound 215 prop. Also a friend (who is our local Mr. Bonanza)
> > > says that he thinks the 100 hour inspection on the old blades has been
> > > lifted or changed to a less onerous AD. (He also said that he was not sure
> > > about this, since there is little call for Wood Blade work! He thinks is
> > > might be possible to use the old blades.)
> > >
> > > My 215 prop is in great shape but all it takes is a stress crack or an
> > > accident of some sort to damage a blade and be left with a big tricycle.
> > > The Wood blades could be an answer to this situation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gene smirl <cruiser50(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey guys there's a how to build your own airplane prop
manual on Ebay Item #537853758.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
Okay Beech Fans, look at this one. It's slow loading so be patient!
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=540323262
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "spencer whitted" <b1bonanza(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Give A Look! |
it would be interesting to know if this is a fraud. i remember reading
several months ago on another web site of a warning to pilots regarding
aviation oriented sales/investment schemes generated from south america
>From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Classic Bonanza Enthusiasts" , "Beech
>List"
>Subject: Beech-List: Give A Look!
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:47:37 -0600
>
>
>Okay Beech Fans, look at this one. It's slow loading so be patient!
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=540323262
>
>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"fuel filler modification" (Jan 16, 7:54am)
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: fuel filler modification |
Hi Beech-List'ers,
I received the message below today in my personal email. I don't have
what he needs but I though someone on the List might be able to help him
out. I don't think he's on the Beech-List, so be sure to email him
directly at the address shown below.
Thanks!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin
>--------------
> From: Bilal Chaudhry <bilalch(at)pac.org.pk>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> We are looking for a fuel filler and fuel filler cap of Beechcraft
> aircraft which were modified through a Beechcraft Mandatory Service
> Bulletin (No. 2045, Rev. III) issued in May 1989.
>
> The part number of the fuel filler and filler cap modification kit
> applicable is Kit No. 36-5012-1 S, description "kit information - fuel
> filler neck restrictor installation, lightening".
>
> Kindly provide the complete details of parts in the above mentioned
> modification kit, availability, cost and delivery times.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Squadron Leader Bilal Chaudhry
> Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra
> Pakistan
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
PRECISION APPROACHES FOR SMALL AIRPORTS...
UPS Aviation Technologies is working on a GPS-based precision approach
system that it expects to be certified later this year, the company
announced last week. The UPS equipment uses signals from the FAA's Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) in conjunction with GPS technology to
provide pilots with vertical and horizontal guidance to the runway
without the need for extensive ground-based infrastructure. The system
includes a mechanism for ensuring the integrity of the signal, UPS said,
which should satisfy the FAA's concerns about the safety of such
approaches. If approved, the equipment could make hundreds of smaller
airports accessible in instrument conditions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | Matronics Web Server Upgrade... |
B
Dear Listers,
I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server this afternoon (1/21/01)
and will be taking it offline for a number of hours. I hope to have it
back online by this evening sometime, depending on how well the upgrade
goes.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Great minds discuss ideas,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com> |
Just a thought. How do you lister's think using the filter/wick from a room
humidifier would work in a Swamp Cooler? It can be cut to size and is very
good about wicking water up and evaporating it.
Later this year, I am going to put a swamp cooler in my Straight 35. I live
in Northwest Oklahoma and while there are times when it should not work due
to the humidity, Most of my trips are to the Texas Panhandle or New Mexico
or Colorado where Evaporative systems work great.
Blue Skies
Steve Dortch
1948 Straight 35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
Same thing! As a matter of fact you can buy the replacement wicks from
Grainger and coincidentally, they're for a room humidifier. Look in the
back issues of ABS magazine for an article that Ron Davis wrote about
rebuilding the cooler!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: Beech-List: Swamp coolers
>
> Just a thought. How do you lister's think using the filter/wick from a
room
> humidifier would work in a Swamp Cooler? It can be cut to size and is very
> good about wicking water up and evaporating it.
>
> Later this year, I am going to put a swamp cooler in my Straight 35. I
live
> in Northwest Oklahoma and while there are times when it should not work
due
> to the humidity, Most of my trips are to the Texas Panhandle or New Mexico
> or Colorado where Evaporative systems work great.
>
> Blue Skies
> Steve Dortch
> 1948 Straight 35
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jalsto(at)flash.net |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
I heard that you can also remove the wick elements from the swamp cooler and
put those re-freezable ice packs in the cooler box instead. I heard this too
late for last summer (and sure could have used it here in Dallas) but can't
wait to try it next summer.
My cooler works okay as it is, but I think the ice packs may provide dryer and
cooler air.
Jon Alston
D35
On Tue Jan 30 22:13:49 2001, beech-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> Same thing! As a matter of fact you can buy the replacement wicks from
> Grainger and coincidentally, they're for a room humidifier. Look in the
> back issues of ABS magazine for an article that Ron Davis wrote about
> rebuilding the cooler!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:21 PM
> Subject: Beech-List: Swamp coolers
>
>
> >
> > Just a thought. How do you lister's think using the filter/wick from a
> room
> > humidifier would work in a Swamp Cooler? It can be cut to size and is very
> > good about wicking water up and evaporating it.
> >
> > Later this year, I am going to put a swamp cooler in my Straight 35. I
> live
> > in Northwest Oklahoma and while there are times when it should not work
> due
> > to the humidity, Most of my trips are to the Texas Panhandle or New Mexico
> > or Colorado where Evaporative systems work great.
> >
> > Blue Skies
> > Steve Dortch
> > 1948 Straight 35
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
They probably will do well, and I've also heard about folks putting dry ice
in them. I guess it's all about the access point. It's a bear to get to my
cooler in the K. I'm wondering if the moist air wouldn't be more
comforting! Where in Dallas are you, Jon?
----- Original Message -----
From: <jalsto(at)flash.net>
>
> I heard that you can also remove the wick elements from the swamp cooler
and
> put those re-freezable ice packs in the cooler box instead. I heard this
too
> late for last summer (and sure could have used it here in Dallas) but
can't
> wait to try it next summer.
> My cooler works okay as it is, but I think the ice packs may provide dryer
and
> cooler air.
>
> Jon Alston
> D35
>
>
> >
> > Same thing! As a matter of fact you can buy the replacement wicks from
> > Grainger and coincidentally, they're for a room humidifier. Look in the
> > back issues of ABS magazine for an article that Ron Davis wrote about
> > rebuilding the cooler!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Dortch" <smallfish(at)enid.com>
> >
> > >
> > > Just a thought. How do you lister's think using the filter/wick from a
> > room
> > > humidifier would work in a Swamp Cooler? It can be cut to size and is
very
> > > good about wicking water up and evaporating it.
> > >
> > > Later this year, I am going to put a swamp cooler in my Straight 35. I
> > live
> > > in Northwest Oklahoma and while there are times when it should not
work
> > due
> > > to the humidity, Most of my trips are to the Texas Panhandle or New
Mexico
> > > or Colorado where Evaporative systems work great.
> > >
> > > Blue Skies
> > > Steve Dortch
> > > 1948 Straight 35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
Steve,
The air humidifier wick plates will probably work just fine. That's what I'm
using. Bought them from Grainger's for about $75 total, if I remember right.
If you fill up the entire tank with these fiberglass plates, then there won't
be any appreciable airflow between them for the water to evaporate into the
air. You need spacers of some kind.
The Beech method used an evaporator plate that was more ceramic in nature, and
they simply glued rubber strips to them as spacers. Won't work with the new
fiberglass plates. I used a plastic art supply material called Stratocore.
Its looks like corrugated cardboard, but made of plastic. Another $15 or so
for a few large sheets. Orient the corrugations vertically (to allow air to
get down into the corrguations) and cut them at about the tank's waterline --
this will be at the height where the overfill drain is.
Put a chunk of screen door material over the top to keep out most of the dirt
and bugs, and you're ready. Fill with distilled water, if you can. As it
evaporates, it will leave all the dissolved minerals behind, so after about a
year or so, the plates will be gummed up. Using distilled water reduces the
amount of minerals in the water to leave behind.
NOTE: The colder the water, the more effective it is. If you can use water at
32-1/2, then that would be the best you can do.
NOTE2: At high speeds, like during arrival descents, the air blast may be
sufficient to actually splash dribbles of water out the vents. Not much, and
it *is* cool, but not what you really want.
NOTE3: Don't forget to drain out the excess water when you're done flying for
the day. The stagnant water will eventually allow mold/algae to grow in the
tank.
If this is too much trouble, then you could try simply placing blocks of the
frozen "Blue Ice" blocks in the empty cooler tank, but lack of adequate
airflow around the Blue Ice will diminish the expected returns. Still,
cheaper than buying all those wick plates, and less maintenance worries about
leaving water in the tank and letting it get moldy.
The back issue of ABS magazine has a few more details, like the Grainger wick
part number and such, but this oughta get you on the right track.
Best regards,
Ron Davis
Steven Dortch wrote:
>
>
> Just a thought. How do you lister's think using the filter/wick from a room
> humidifier would work in a Swamp Cooler? It can be cut to size and is very
> good about wicking water up and evaporating it.
>
> Later this year, I am going to put a swamp cooler in my Straight 35. I live
> in Northwest Oklahoma and while there are times when it should not work due
> to the humidity, Most of my trips are to the Texas Panhandle or New Mexico
> or Colorado where Evaporative systems work great.
>
> Blue Skies
> Steve Dortch
> 1948 Straight 35
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Walker <walkmet(at)usa.net> |
I find my D-35 20gal aux tank very hard to fill. Can only introduce fuel at a
trickle and, so far, I've only been able to get about 12 gallons in there. I
pulled the sending unit when the gauge showed empty, and there's only a couple
of inches left. It is the stand-up type luggage compartment tank. The
original 337 indicates it's a 20 galon tank. Has anyone else out there
experienced this problem?
Brian Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "usendme" <davewsr(at)wilmington.net> |
are you sure it's a 20 gallon tank. There were two options 20 and I believe
10 gallons. If your gauge is reading empty when full it's either
1. The piano key gauge selector switch on the panel or wiring
2. bad sending unit (this is assuming it works normal on the other tank
positions
To check the sneding unit and switch circuitry
a. remove the wire at the sending unit
b. with the panel selector switch in the aux position put the positive lead
of your voltmeter on the lead and the negative on a good ground.
if there is power the circuitry is good
if no power either switch or wiring is open
c. if the lead has voltage then just hold it to ground and watch the gauge.
It should go to full. If it moves then your sending unit is bad.
Have fun
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Walker <walkmet(at)usa.net>
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: Beech-List:
>
>I find my D-35 20gal aux tank very hard to fill. Can only introduce fuel
at a
>trickle and, so far, I've only been able to get about 12 gallons in there.
I
>pulled the sending unit when the gauge showed empty, and there's only a
couple
>of inches left. It is the stand-up type luggage compartment tank. The
>original 337 indicates it's a 20 galon tank. Has anyone else out there
>experienced this problem?
>
>Brian Walker
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Baggage aux tank |
Brian,
There were two different designs of 20-gallon aux. tanks, and (as far as I
know) only one design 10-gallon aux. tank. I believe there was a company in
Texas that started making them and Beech snapped up the STC from them, but I
can't be sure on this part of the history. My E35's 10-gal. aux. tank was a
factory option.
The 10 gal. is easy -- it fits almost entirely underneath the rear seat, and
only a filler neck pokes out on the far wall to the left fuselage side. The
10 gallon tank is supposed to hold exactly 10 gallons, and all of it is
usable. Mine holds, I think, 9.8 usable. Runs for 43-48 minutes (depending
on the power setting) before running dry. About 2 gallons of it gets returned
to the left main, so that's somewhere around 8-9 gals/hr.
The 20 gal design designs were a sort of L-shaped tank that fit underneath,
and behind, the rear seat.
Design #1 has the filler cap on the left side of the fuselage like the
10-gal., but the door is usually placed a bit higher up to accommodate the
extra gallons. I believe the top of the tank is about even (or just below)
the top of the baggage compartment door. I'll have to go check the next time
I see John or Sam at their planes, but I don't remember seeing stuff piled on
top of the tank when they have the baggage door open.
Design #2 (rather rare) has the filler cap on the *inside* of the baggage
compartment. You have to open the baggage door to fill it up. I have two
friends with A35s, and both have the 20-gallon aux. tank. Again, almost
exactly 20 gallons to fill it up. I can't remember what they claim they get
out of it, but I imagine its roughly the same performance as I get, doubled.
All three designs are metal tanks, with fuel lines running inside the left
sidewall to the fuel selector valve. A 3rd position pointing backward, is the
"aux." position. Since its metal, it can't collapse and cause false readings
on the fuel sender, or refuse to fill back up.
Soooo, if you say you can only put in 12 gallons before its full, then I'm
pretty sure it really is a 20 gallon tank, especially if you state its a
"stand up" fuel tank.
Hmmm. you say that you can only refill it at a trickle? My fuel filler neck
is about as wide as the Thermos-style filler cap, so there's noooo problem
pouring gas in mine. My friends' A35s are the same way. Why do I feel your
tank has some kind of foreign object in it? Oh. You pulled the fuel sender,
and I'm *sure* you would've noticed if there was 50 lbs. of cocaine hidden in
there from some past owner's adventure. :-) But, if you say you can only fill
it at a trickle, maybe there *is* something in there...
Okay, you'll have to do some more legwork and get back to us.
Fill it up as best you can, so gas is visible at the top of the filler neck.
Now go fly somewhere and note the actual duration that the aux. tank burns
gas.
If your fuel burn is like mine, it should be right around 1:30:00 before you
hit empty, if the really was 20 gallons in there. That would be 16 gallons
burned, and about 4 gallons will have been returned to the left tank.
If your burn time was less, then:
A) Your tank isn't *really* a 20-gallon tank after all, or
B) there's something in the tank taking several gallons' worth of space, or
C) your fuel intake line is not at the very bottom of the tank.
If you are a skinflint and don't want to burn the gas flying, you can always
fill it up to the top, then use the sump drain to drain it all back out. (Be
forewarned, those sumps don't drain very fast, and the slightest breeze will
catch that gas and blow it onto your most expensive clothing. Measure what
drains out. It had *better* be 20 gallons, give or take a half.
If there was less than 20 gallons that drained out, then:
A) Your tank isn't *really* a 20-gallon tank after all, or
B) there's something in the tank taking several gallons' worth of space.
Let us know how this turns out. A 12-gallon tank would be quite a find.
Ron Davis
Brian Walker wrote:
>
>
> I find my D-35 20gal aux tank very hard to fill. Can only introduce fuel at
a
> trickle and, so far, I've only been able to get about 12 gallons in there. I
> pulled the sending unit when the gauge showed empty, and there's only a couple
> of inches left. It is the stand-up type luggage compartment tank. The
> original 337 indicates it's a 20 gallon tank. Has anyone else out there
> experienced this problem?
>
> Brian Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Baggage aux tank |
"Let us know how this turns out. A 12-gallon tank would be quite a find.
Ron Davis"
Especially if the "coke' was still O.K.!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Baggage aux tank
>
> Brian,
>
> There were two different designs of 20-gallon aux. tanks, and (as far as I
> know) only one design 10-gallon aux. tank. I believe there was a company
in
> Texas that started making them and Beech snapped up the STC from them, but
I
> can't be sure on this part of the history. My E35's 10-gal. aux. tank was
a
> factory option.
>
> The 10 gal. is easy -- it fits almost entirely underneath the rear seat,
and
> only a filler neck pokes out on the far wall to the left fuselage side.
The
> 10 gallon tank is supposed to hold exactly 10 gallons, and all of it is
> usable. Mine holds, I think, 9.8 usable. Runs for 43-48 minutes
(depending
> on the power setting) before running dry. About 2 gallons of it gets
returned
> to the left main, so that's somewhere around 8-9 gals/hr.
>
> The 20 gal design designs were a sort of L-shaped tank that fit
underneath,
> and behind, the rear seat.
> Design #1 has the filler cap on the left side of the fuselage like the
> 10-gal., but the door is usually placed a bit higher up to accommodate the
> extra gallons. I believe the top of the tank is about even (or just
below)
> the top of the baggage compartment door. I'll have to go check the next
time
> I see John or Sam at their planes, but I don't remember seeing stuff piled
on
> top of the tank when they have the baggage door open.
> Design #2 (rather rare) has the filler cap on the *inside* of the baggage
> compartment. You have to open the baggage door to fill it up. I have two
> friends with A35s, and both have the 20-gallon aux. tank. Again, almost
> exactly 20 gallons to fill it up. I can't remember what they claim they
get
> out of it, but I imagine its roughly the same performance as I get,
doubled.
>
> All three designs are metal tanks, with fuel lines running inside the left
> sidewall to the fuel selector valve. A 3rd position pointing backward, is
the
> "aux." position. Since its metal, it can't collapse and cause false
readings
> on the fuel sender, or refuse to fill back up.
>
> Soooo, if you say you can only put in 12 gallons before its full, then I'm
> pretty sure it really is a 20 gallon tank, especially if you state its a
> "stand up" fuel tank.
>
> Hmmm. you say that you can only refill it at a trickle? My fuel filler
neck
> is about as wide as the Thermos-style filler cap, so there's noooo problem
> pouring gas in mine. My friends' A35s are the same way. Why do I feel
your
> tank has some kind of foreign object in it? Oh. You pulled the fuel
sender,
> and I'm *sure* you would've noticed if there was 50 lbs. of cocaine hidden
in
> there from some past owner's adventure. :-) But, if you say you can only
fill
> it at a trickle, maybe there *is* something in there...
>
> Okay, you'll have to do some more legwork and get back to us.
> Fill it up as best you can, so gas is visible at the top of the filler
neck.
> Now go fly somewhere and note the actual duration that the aux. tank burns
> gas.
> If your fuel burn is like mine, it should be right around 1:30:00 before
you
> hit empty, if the really was 20 gallons in there. That would be 16
gallons
> burned, and about 4 gallons will have been returned to the left tank.
> If your burn time was less, then:
> A) Your tank isn't *really* a 20-gallon tank after all, or
> B) there's something in the tank taking several gallons' worth of space,
or
> C) your fuel intake line is not at the very bottom of the tank.
>
> If you are a skinflint and don't want to burn the gas flying, you can
always
> fill it up to the top, then use the sump drain to drain it all back out.
(Be
> forewarned, those sumps don't drain very fast, and the slightest breeze
will
> catch that gas and blow it onto your most expensive clothing. Measure
what
> drains out. It had *better* be 20 gallons, give or take a half.
> If there was less than 20 gallons that drained out, then:
> A) Your tank isn't *really* a 20-gallon tank after all, or
> B) there's something in the tank taking several gallons' worth of space.
>
> Let us know how this turns out. A 12-gallon tank would be quite a find.
> Ron Davis
>
>
> Brian Walker wrote:
> >
> >
> > I find my D-35 20gal aux tank very hard to fill. Can only introduce
fuel at a
> > trickle and, so far, I've only been able to get about 12 gallons in
there. I
> > pulled the sending unit when the gauge showed empty, and there's only a
couple
> > of inches left. It is the stand-up type luggage compartment tank. The
> > original 337 indicates it's a 20 gallon tank. Has anyone else out there
> > experienced this problem?
> >
> > Brian Walker
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Walker <walkmet(at)usa.net> |
Thanks so much to all you Forked Tail Doctor Killer drivers who responded to
my question about problems filling my Aux tank! I've since removed the filler
neck and sending unit to check the tank for obstructions. Unfortunately, I
didn't find any cocaine(could have bought that new GPS!)
nor where there any mice or shop rags in the system. In fact, the tank appears
to be spotless. Still slow to fill, though. As to capacity, it seems the
bottom three or four inches of tank (that resides under the back seat) carries
about half the fuel (the tank is L shaped). I suspect the gauge is not going
to show half full when the level drops to the bottom of the L . On a trip
yesterday, I ran an hour and a half on the aux and the engine never quit! The
last 30 or so minutes where after the gauge hit empty, which perhaps proves my
theory about not reading at the bottom of the L. This also leads me to believe
I am carrying 20 gallons (or I was way over leaned!). Thanks again for all the
responses. It's a pleasure to know there are so many helpful folks out there.
Brian Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Running tanks dry ... |
Here's a question I posed to the "other" Beech list.
It quickly degraded into another discussion altogether, and never answered my
question.
Here we go...
For some time I have been regularly running my tanks dry before switching the
fuel selector to another tank. The main benefit of this is that as you
approach your destination, your 30 minutes of fuel is not spread across 3
tanks as 10 minutes each. There would be one tank with 30 minutes worth in
it.
But, to run the tank dry means that the fuel pump runs dry, too (for a short
time anyway).
Since the Thompson TF-1900 fuel pump's rotor is "rather expensive" to replace,
it it unwise to run a tank dry, and subject the fuel pump to unnecessary
stress, or is it not really a problem?
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running tanks dry ... |
Ron;
Regarding your question of running a tank dry, I think that if you were to
spend a measly $25,000 to upgrade your present avionics package to at least
a new Garmin 530 and 430, backed up by the UPS MX30, coupled to an HSI and
STec 50, there would be no need to run tanks dry. You would be able to
carefully calculate all fuel stops and know what you are to spend per gallon
for fuel, using the onboard database that you must have in order to legally
fly IFR. This would help greatly by allowing you to carry less cash or
credit cards, thus decreasing overall weight. Further, with a JPI
monitoring your engine for peak performance, you shouldn't burn less than
7.925 gals. per hour. In order to verify this, the new JPI fuel totalizer
can be configured to literally sniff out any fuel fumes that may be present
in the tanks and display them for fast and accurate readings. Now to be
sure that you are extrapolating only correct and accurate data, a new
digital tachometer would certainly be in order, as long as the aircraft is
at the avionics shop. On the other hand, there's a fellow working on an STC
for the bonanza to allow for in flight fueling. Imagine, never worry about
running the tanks dry or overheating a fuel pump again. Hope this helps!
On the other hand, I feel the only "damage" that may occur to a pump by
running it dry would be to overheat the bearing, there is no load on the
impellers. Since you aren't able to overheat it very long, I wouldn't think
that an occasional dry run would hurt.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Beech-List: Running tanks dry ...
>
> Here's a question I posed to the "other" Beech list.
> It quickly degraded into another discussion altogether, and never answered
my
> question.
> Here we go...
>
> For some time I have been regularly running my tanks dry before switching
the
> fuel selector to another tank. The main benefit of this is that as you
> approach your destination, your 30 minutes of fuel is not spread across 3
> tanks as 10 minutes each. There would be one tank with 30 minutes worth
in
> it.
>
> But, to run the tank dry means that the fuel pump runs dry, too (for a
short
> time anyway).
> Since the Thompson TF-1900 fuel pump's rotor is "rather expensive" to
replace,
> it it unwise to run a tank dry, and subject the fuel pump to unnecessary
> stress, or is it not really a problem?
>
> Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Bradley" <wabpilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running tanks dry ... |
A. J.
Come on, you don't need a database to fly IFR, just to file /g, and replace
a DME and/or ADF.
On a more serious note, running tanks dry causes major blood pressure
problems among passengers. When I had my J35 (I know, not exactly a classic)
I calculated fuel burn for 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 thousand feet. I would
slavishly adhere to the schedule, switching tanks only seconds before my
calculations showed I was about to run a tank dry. I found that I had my
times down pretty well, and this avoided the BP problem.
Alan Bradley
A36 N16SF
>From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
>Reply-To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Beech-List: Running tanks dry ...
>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:06:36 -0600
>
>
>Ron;
>
>Regarding your question of running a tank dry, I think that if you were to
>spend a measly $25,000 to upgrade your present avionics package to at least
>a new Garmin 530 and 430, backed up by the UPS MX30, coupled to an HSI and
>STec 50, there would be no need to run tanks dry. You would be able to
>carefully calculate all fuel stops and know what you are to spend per
>gallon
>for fuel, using the onboard database that you must have in order to legally
>fly IFR. This would help greatly by allowing you to carry less cash or
>credit cards, thus decreasing overall weight. Further, with a JPI
>monitoring your engine for peak performance, you shouldn't burn less than
>7.925 gals. per hour. In order to verify this, the new JPI fuel totalizer
>can be configured to literally sniff out any fuel fumes that may be present
>in the tanks and display them for fast and accurate readings. Now to be
>sure that you are extrapolating only correct and accurate data, a new
>digital tachometer would certainly be in order, as long as the aircraft is
>at the avionics shop. On the other hand, there's a fellow working on an
>STC
>for the bonanza to allow for in flight fueling. Imagine, never worry about
>running the tanks dry or overheating a fuel pump again. Hope this helps!
>
>On the other hand, I feel the only "damage" that may occur to a pump by
>running it dry would be to overheat the bearing, there is no load on the
>impellers. Since you aren't able to overheat it very long, I wouldn't
>think
>that an occasional dry run would hurt.
>
>Al
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
>To: "Classic Bonanza Mailing List"
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:34 AM
>Subject: Beech-List: Running tanks dry ...
>
>
> >
> > Here's a question I posed to the "other" Beech list.
> > It quickly degraded into another discussion altogether, and never
>answered
>my
> > question.
> > Here we go...
> >
> > For some time I have been regularly running my tanks dry before
>switching
>the
> > fuel selector to another tank. The main benefit of this is that as you
> > approach your destination, your 30 minutes of fuel is not spread across
>3
> > tanks as 10 minutes each. There would be one tank with 30 minutes worth
>in
> > it.
> >
> > But, to run the tank dry means that the fuel pump runs dry, too (for a
>short
> > time anyway).
> > Since the Thompson TF-1900 fuel pump's rotor is "rather expensive" to
>replace,
> > it it unwise to run a tank dry, and subject the fuel pump to unnecessary
> > stress, or is it not really a problem?
> >
> > Ron Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running tanks dry ... |
Ron:
From an engineering standpoint, there should be no problem with the rotary
pump running on air for a few moments... The only downside is that if you
run it long enough to overheat (no fuel cooling it) you would definitely
scrap the pump.. I've run my tanks dry on long X-C's for the same reason as
you for over 30yrs now.. This amounts to about 4dry spells on the pump per
year.. never had a problem..
Milt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Calloway" <tcalloway(at)datatechnique.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Beech-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 02/05/01 |
I think you are missing the point. If you think running this close on
fuel margin is safe than I'd say go for it.
I used to do this on my M with the aux tanks but one day I realized how
close I was coming to having to perform a restart in the air. Are you
ready for such and event? Does your airplane have any difficulty
restarting when hot? Can you do a restart while looking for a place to
ditch, and flying a glider?
These are the questions I would ask and if you are sastisfied, then send
this same email to your insurance carrier and get his reply.
After all is said and done, then and only then should the question of the
pump be important.
Life is too short to not just add another stop in your trip. Just my 2
cents.
tc
I think you are missing the point. If you think running this close on
fuel margin is safe than I'd say go for it.
I used to do this on my M with the aux tanks but one day I realized how
close I was coming to having to perform a restart in the air. Are you
ready for such and event? Does your airplane have any difficulty
restarting when hot? Can you do a restart while looking for a place to
ditch, and flying a glider?
These are the questions I would ask and if you are sastisfied, then send
this same email to your insurance carrier and get his reply.
After all is said and done, then and only then should the question of the
pump be important.
Life is too short to not just add another stop in your trip. Just my
2 cents.
tc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRSProAds(at)Aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe the seat was
designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been shorter then as I
have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. My knees are
pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder pedals adjusted
all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so the instrument
panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the bench
back?
John in Phoenix
N5092B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
You can get a field approval to put in the later style seats. All the
hardware must be installed, and if you find it, it will be expensive. Good
luck!
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRSProAds(at)Aol.com>
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Swamp coolers
>
> I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe the seat was
> designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been shorter then
as I
> have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. My knees are
> pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder pedals adjusted
> all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so the instrument
> panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
>
> Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the
bench
> back?
>
> John in Phoenix
> N5092B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Milton J." <ateam(at)foothill.net> |
Hey John, Years back, I saw a C model that had been modified with L angles
installed on the backrest hinges.. This essentially moved the backrest aft
about 2".. I think it was done (at that time) with a 337, no STC.. I
presume you have already adjusted your backrest stops to their full down
position? I guess I can empathize, when tall guys try to fly mine, they end
up with knees on the piano keys, and can't get full throw on the yoke... I'm
only 5'8, and it fits me like a second pair of pants...
Milt
D-2440
>
> I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe the seat was
> designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been shorter then
as I
> have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. My knees are
> pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder pedals adjusted
> all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so the instrument
> panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
>
> Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the
bench
> back?
>
> John in Phoenix
> N5092B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
John:
Aviation Research in Sandy, Oregon can do this conversion, they
advertise in the ABS magazine. I only have their address and phone numbers
at work, so if you can't find their ads, or if no one else responds, let me
know tomorrow, and I can furnish more info.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 1948 Straight 35
>
> Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the
bench
> back?
>
> John in Phoenix
> N5092B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Devany" <jdevany(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming O-235-N2C engine for sale |
Hi:
Has anyone seen a spare E-225-8 engine around?
Jim Devany (G-35)
(360) 928-2173
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
John,
At 6'-4" in an E35, I share your pain.
There is an outfit that can replace the bench seat with the later model
adjustable seats. I think they are Oregon Aero, but I'm not sure.
Also, in one of the earlier issues of ABS Magazine (pre 80's), there was an
article about a guy who built brackets for the front seat seatbacks so they
could be moved about two inches aft. The bench seat stayed where it was. I
believe this was a Form 337 event.
Ron Davis
JRSProAds(at)Aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe the seat was
> designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been shorter then as I
> have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. My knees are
> pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder pedals adjusted
> all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so the instrument
> panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
>
> Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the bench
> back?
>
> John in Phoenix
> N5092B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Swamp coolers |
Wonder who that guy was! ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Swamp coolers
>
> John,
>
> At 6'-4" in an E35, I share your pain.
>
> There is an outfit that can replace the bench seat with the later model
> adjustable seats. I think they are Oregon Aero, but I'm not sure.
>
> Also, in one of the earlier issues of ABS Magazine (pre 80's), there was
an
> article about a guy who built brackets for the front seat seatbacks so
they
> could be moved about two inches aft. The bench seat stayed where it was.
I
> believe this was a Form 337 event.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
> JRSProAds(at)Aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe the seat was
> > designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been shorter then
as I
> > have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. My knees
are
> > pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder pedals
adjusted
> > all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so the instrument
> > panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets, or move the
bench
> > back?
> >
> > John in Phoenix
> > N5092B
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aberle Custom Aircraft <airacer(at)redrock.net> |
| Subject: | Lycoming O-235-N2C engine for sale |
I have a 185-1 with 500 hours since overhaul ( I think ) and a 225-8 with
1700 since overhaul ( I think ) both have good to very good compression.
Let me know if your interested?
I'll be out of state for a couple of weeks so it may be a bit before I get
back to you.
Thank You,
Jerry
>
>Hi:
>
>Has anyone seen a spare E-225-8 engine around?
>
>Jim Devany (G-35)
>(360) 928-2173
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Devany" <jdevany(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming O-235-N2C engine for sale |
Jerry:
When you're back in town, please contact me about the E-225.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Elbie(at)Aol.com (by way of Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>) |
2/9/2001
Fellow Pilots and Builders:
EM aviation is pleased to announce that the RiteAngle III Angle of
Attack system is in production. I know this has been a long, long wait for
some of you, however I will not sell a system that is not up to my standards.
The long delay was partially caused by the total new design required
after the RiteAngle 2000 system was terminated. The remainder of the delay
was insuring the system met all our requirements such as both hot and cold
environment testing. The first production group of systems off the line
are being again extensively tested for approximately 2 weeks before we
deliver any systems to insure there are no "bugs" appearing.
When all production testing is accomplished I will ship according to who
has sent in the order form via fax or US mail. (Again, DO NOT send your
credit card number via e-mail! I DO NOT have a secure e-mail line.)
If you want a spot in line for early delivery you can request this via
e-mail, and mail your check or CC number.
At present time I estimate 4- 10 weeks before your delivery, depending on
when I receive your payment.
To those of you who have been in correspondence with me for the last year,
thanks for your belief in EM aviation's product, and soon you will have a
product in your hands. I honor my correspondence of the quoted price.
Current price $295 + mount & options see web site for information.
www.riteangle.com
Elbie Mendenhall
President
EM Aviation, LLC
P NE Prairie Rd
Brush Prairie WA 98606
360-260-0772
www.riteangle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Arzdorf" <zekerat(at)qconline.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:21 AM
Subject: FAA
FAA ADDS NEW TERM FOR PILOTS IN URGENT SITUATIONS
There has been a small but important change to the Aeronautical Information
Manual (AIM), designed to help pilots communicate an urgent situation
without declaring an emergency. When in contact with ATC, pilots can use the
word "immediately" to avoid an imminent situation. The change was based on
the analysis of accidents by ASF and the FAA. Weather situations such as
icing, heading changes near thunderstorms, and weather where an IFR
clearance is needed quickly may all qualify for some extra ATC
consideration. ASF recommends using the "I-word" as required, but realize
that by then you may have let things go too far. ASF also recommends that
pilots file a NASA ASRS report so that others can learn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Beech folks;
I'm redoing the interior of my K model and just received a set of placards
from Raytheon for too much money (naturally). there's a load I'm not using,
like the Oxygen ones and the one for the big trim wheel. If anyone needs
one or two, let me know, via private email. If I'm not using it I'll
certainly part the set out.
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aberle Custom Aircraft <airacer(at)redrock.net> |
| Subject: | Lycoming O-235-N2C engine for sale |
Anyone interested in an E-185-1 with about 500 hours since major.
The cylinders were rebarreled and overhauled by Gibson with tags.
The engine has the 5th and 6th order counterweights (225 HP ?).
$7000 + cost of crate and shipping.
Also have disk brakes and calipers $600.
Many other items,
Thanxs,
Jerry
P.S. I should be here for two weeks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James D. Ivey" <jim(at)iveylaw.com> |
Sorry it took me so long to find this. I was looking for panel mods a while
back and remember one of the venders had a seat mod. Finally found it; here
it is:
http://www.hammockaviation.com/seat_conversions_frame_main.htm
Main site:
http://www.hammockaviation.com/
I hope that's helpful.
Regards,
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-beech-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Milton J.
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 9:54 PM
> To: beech-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Beech-List: Re: Seats
>
>
> Hey John, Years back, I saw a C model that had been modified
> with L angles
> installed on the backrest hinges.. This essentially moved the
> backrest aft
> about 2".. I think it was done (at that time) with a 337, no STC.. I
> presume you have already adjusted your backrest stops to
> their full down
> position? I guess I can empathize, when tall guys try to fly
> mine, they end
> up with knees on the piano keys, and can't get full throw on
> the yoke... I'm
> only 5'8, and it fits me like a second pair of pants...
> Milt
> D-2440
>
> >
> > I have an F model Bonanza with the bench seat. I believe
> the seat was
> > designed in the late 40's...the average male must have been
> shorter then
> as I
> > have a heck of time fitting comfortably in the pilot's
> seat. My knees are
> > pretty scrunched up under the panel, and I have the rudder
> pedals adjusted
> > all the way out. My airplane has a panel mod as well, so
> the instrument
> > panel is lower than the original piano keys panel.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a mod to convert the bench to buckets,
> or move the
> bench
> > back?
> >
> > John in Phoenix
> > N5092B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GILLES BEDA <beda(at)NETCOURRIER.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming O-235-N2C engine for sale |
DEAR ALL
I AM LOOKING TO BUY A FRESH OVERHAUL ENGINE E185 8 OR UPDATE ENGINE
CAN I IMPROVE TO AN E 225 DO I HAVE TO CHANGE SOMETHING LIKE PROP ETS
LET ME KNOW
GILLES BEDA PARIS FRANCE
35 SN D677 FBGPP
BEDA GILLES
TEL FAX 33 1 42 05 05 49
E MAIL BEDA(at)NETCOURRIER.COM
----- La messagerie itinrante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web : www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
Tlphone : 08 36 69 00 21
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aberle Custom Aircraft <airacer(at)redrock.net> |
I also have a Hartzell HC-A2V20-4A1 prop. The AD has not been complied with
yet. It comes with the "T" drive and recently overhauled govn. If anyone is
interested the price is $5000. If requested I can have it overhauled and
comply with the AD for another $2000 or so, assuming all the parts are good.
Thank You
Jerry
435-635-3600
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine overhaul options on a '35' |
Gilles,
You may be able to purchase a freshly-overhauled E series engine from several
different sources. You may be able to get a better bargain if you can use
your existing E engine as a trade-in core.
If you want to have your engine overhauled, then again, there are several
overhaul sources here in the States. I could list several places, but I
expect you will want to have it done there in France.
There is a procedure to upgrade your E185-11 to an E225-8 engine which can be
done during the overhaul. It involves additional crankshaft counterweights, a
new camshaft, and some other items that I can't remember offhand. I believe
there is a service bulletin or pamphlet by Teledyne Continental that describes
what you need to do.
If you overhaul your Continental E185-11 engine, or replace or upgrade it with
an E225-8 engine, then you can keep your existing propeller.
If you want to *upgrade* from the E series engine to a Continental IO-470
engine (that was used in later model Bonanzas), then:
1) There is a Supplemental Type Certificate to do this.
I believe that Hammock Aviation in Ennis, Texas
(http://www.hammockaviation.com/) has one.
Also, I think that Beryl D'Shannon (http://www.beryldshannon.com/) also has
an STC for this.
2) You will need to replace your engine accessories (starter, generator,
magnetos, fuel pump) with the ones for the IO-470 engine.
3) You will need to replace your propeller, too.
Most of the time, an upgrade like this is very expensive -- more expensive
than simply trading in your airplane and buying a newer model. Think
carefully if you are considering this.
Finally, there is a firm that is working on replacing the E series engine's
cylinders with IO-470 cylinders for an increase to about 250 hp. (I think its
Aviation Research in Sandy, Oregon.) As far as I know, there is no STC for
this, only a form 337 (field modification) approval. Even though you would
keep your starter, generator, propeller and so on, I cannot recommend this to
you, mainly because it would be such an "unusual" installation that I fear
that no one in France would understand the details.
Let us know what you decide.
Bonne chance,
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, California
GILLES BEDA wrote:
>
>
> DEAR ALL
> I AM LOOKING TO BUY A FRESH OVERHAUL ENGINE E185 8 OR UPDATE ENGINE
> CAN I IMPROVE TO AN E 225 DO I HAVE TO CHANGE SOMETHING LIKE PROP ETS
> LET ME KNOW
> GILLES BEDA PARIS FRANCE
> 35 SN D677 FBGPP
>
> BEDA GILLES
> TEL FAX 33 1 42 05 05 49
> E MAIL BEDA(at)NETCOURRIER.COM
>
> ----- La messagerie itinrante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
> Web : www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
> Tlphone : 08 36 69 00 21
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
Let me throw this out there as long as we're speaking about avionics. I
seem to remember a thread not too long ago, but can't seem to find it in the
archives.
I just completed installing a Garmin 340 audio panel, a Garmin 250 (the
older one) GPS/Com and an MX170B nav/com. I haven't really tested it fully,
as I only finished the install, had my IA give a look see, cranked it up and
flew it to the interior shop. Problem I'm having is that the Garmin seems
to be receiving some junk when I transmit on the MX170B. This is not
sidetone or anything of the like, it appears to be RF! Naturally, when I
turn the volume down or turn the radio off, it disappears. I didn't test it
the other way around!
This morning I contacted the folks that did the prewire for me and naturally
they tested for crosstalk when they had the units. They see this type of
problem when the antennas are too close. I have two comm antennas, one on
top in the rear section and one on bottom, under the cabin section. The
bottom antenna (Garmin is hooked to it) is new and I used RG400U (the "good"
stuff). there may be a 2 or 3 foot section where the antenna wires are
running next to each other. When I get the plane back, I was first going to
try swapping the antennas at the radios. Any other suggestions out there on
what I can check prior to removing them and sending the whole lot back to
Florida?
Thanks
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Problem |
Al,
I seem to remember this discussion, too, but it may have been on the
"gold-plated Bonanza list" as they talk about Garmin 530's like they were
cheap as fuses.
I believe the result (after about 40 messages) was that there was some
crosstalk from the antenna cables, and that they had to be separated by
something like 6 or 8 inches before the noise went away.
Ron Davis
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
>
> Let me throw this out there as long as we're speaking about avionics. I
> seem to remember a thread not too long ago, but can't seem to find it in the
> archives.
>
> I just completed installing a Garmin 340 audio panel, a Garmin 250 (the
> older one) GPS/Com and an MX170B nav/com. I haven't really tested it fully,
> as I only finished the install, had my IA give a look see, cranked it up and
> flew it to the interior shop. Problem I'm having is that the Garmin seems
> to be receiving some junk when I transmit on the MX170B. This is not
> sidetone or anything of the like, it appears to be RF! Naturally, when I
> turn the volume down or turn the radio off, it disappears. I didn't test it
> the other way around!
>
> This morning I contacted the folks that did the prewire for me and naturally
> they tested for crosstalk when they had the units. They see this type of
> problem when the antennas are too close. I have two comm antennas, one on
> top in the rear section and one on bottom, under the cabin section. The
> bottom antenna (Garmin is hooked to it) is new and I used RG400U (the "good"
> stuff). there may be a 2 or 3 foot section where the antenna wires are
> running next to each other. When I get the plane back, I was first going to
> try swapping the antennas at the radios. Any other suggestions out there on
> what I can check prior to removing them and sending the whole lot back to
> Florida?
>
> Thanks
> AL
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Problem |
That's a good one, but oh so true! Thanks for your help. While the side
panels are off, I think I'll have the interior guy remove the antenna wire
from the pack and try to reroute it! Can't hurt, anyway! Too bad the
plane's so far away or I'd do it myself. It's probably a 5 hour drive!
I'll keep you posted.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Radio Problem
>
> Al,
>
> I seem to remember this discussion, too, but it may have been on the
> "gold-plated Bonanza list" as they talk about Garmin 530's like they were
> cheap as fuses.
>
> I believe the result (after about 40 messages) was that there was some
> crosstalk from the antenna cables, and that they had to be separated by
> something like 6 or 8 inches before the noise went away.
>
> Ron Davis
>
>
> A J DeMarzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let me throw this out there as long as we're speaking about avionics. I
> > seem to remember a thread not too long ago, but can't seem to find it in
the
> > archives.
> >
> > I just completed installing a Garmin 340 audio panel, a Garmin 250 (the
> > older one) GPS/Com and an MX170B nav/com. I haven't really tested it
fully,
> > as I only finished the install, had my IA give a look see, cranked it up
and
> > flew it to the interior shop. Problem I'm having is that the Garmin
seems
> > to be receiving some junk when I transmit on the MX170B. This is not
> > sidetone or anything of the like, it appears to be RF! Naturally, when
I
> > turn the volume down or turn the radio off, it disappears. I didn't
test it
> > the other way around!
> >
> > This morning I contacted the folks that did the prewire for me and
naturally
> > they tested for crosstalk when they had the units. They see this type
of
> > problem when the antennas are too close. I have two comm antennas, one
on
> > top in the rear section and one on bottom, under the cabin section. The
> > bottom antenna (Garmin is hooked to it) is new and I used RG400U (the
"good"
> > stuff). there may be a 2 or 3 foot section where the antenna wires are
> > running next to each other. When I get the plane back, I was first
going to
> > try swapping the antennas at the radios. Any other suggestions out
there on
> > what I can check prior to removing them and sending the whole lot back
to
> > Florida?
> >
> > Thanks
> > AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Ruddervator Needed |
Gangs,
I received a call from a fellow in CA. that desperately needs a ruddervator
for a B model. His name is Bob Lankford, his # is 562-598-6149 and his
email is ddr805(at)aol.com . If anyone can help, the GPS gods will certainly
smile on you.
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Fw: needed1 A cONTINENTAL w-670 eNGINE |
This is a forward... Might get a couple of copies. Just delete the extras,
but contact Buck if you have a possible lead. - Cy Galley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Buck Hilbert" <buck7ac(at)mc.net>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: needed1 A cONTINENTAL w-670 eNGINE
> Help! Help!
> Looking for a 220 to put on the EAA Swallow so it can become an airmail
> replica Varney Airlines Machine. Really need Firewall forward but would
> appreciate any leads. This year at AirVenture we'll (Vntage ) will be
> hosting Airline Firsts to honor 75th anniversary of Airlines. Hope to
> hae a number of Early Airmail planes on site. Swallow, Pitcairn,
> Travelaire, Waco, etc. Maybe even the Stinson & Ford(s). Promises to be
> an exciting time.
> Again, any leads would be appreciated. Would like a bolt on package, but
> asI said, any leads would be appreciated.. Over? Buck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | New Control Lock 35 to G35 |
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=567081913
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
Hey Beech Bums!
Picked up 05D yesterday with the new leather interior installed. I'm very
satisfied with the design and overall workmanship. While it's not a PN&J or
any of the other high priced deals (I know first hand what goes into the
inside of these), it is very pleasurable to the eye as well as extremely
cost efficient (way less than half of the best price I've ever gotten) and
FAST! How about a two week turnaround? I'd dare say that there IS an honest
guy out there that'll do you right! He's in Clinton (hear that Cy?) OK.,
about 90 miles west of OK City. He'll shuttle you if you'd like to visit
the FAA (you'd be there just to help) or catch a commercial flight home and
back! I'm thinking someone on the list made the recommendation about 3 or 4
months ago.
http://www.greatplanesint.com/index.html
Go to the "Services" link, give a look, and you'll see the style he did for
me. I added an Ultra Leather headliner/rear bulkhead and Space Foam to all
seats. He found the foam at half of the price I told him about from the
www.seatfoam.com folks! I'll have picture later in the day for anyone
that's interested. Also, I'd be happy to tell you what you need to request
as well as what to be aware of.
Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHebestrei(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | BEECH SWAMP COOLERS |
Im fairly new to the beech bonanza and dont know what to use in the swamp
cooler -( CONTAINER UNDER COOLER ASSEMBLY MEASURES 10x7x5 ) there appears to
be somekind of verticle wafers in the unit now. Do they need to be replaced
periodicly as these apper quite dry, im afraid to try and remove them as they
are very brittle. I know nothing of there maintence or care. What type of
replacement filter? Special water? how much? Any and all help would be much
appreciated. THANKS IN ADVANCE KEVIN HEBESTREIT N4234B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BEECH SWAMP COOLERS |
Hi Kevin;
Welcome to the wonderful world of classic bonanzas! The "plates" are
replaceable and most of us get hold of humidifier plates from Graingers,
it's a large national chain that handles industrial supplies. Probably best
to use only distilled water in the unit, as there are minimal natural
elements that can start to clog.
If he hasn't gotten to you already, Mr. Ron Davis, our ABS delegate, classic
bonanza promoter and all round nice guy from SoCal wrote an excellent
article for the ABS magazine a few years back. He gives Grainger part
numbers and a real good step by step process for replacing the plates and
separators. Try him at radavis2522(at)netzero.net , or you may be surprised
because he monitors the list just like us regular folks, and could be
sending you the file. If you own a classic, now's the time to look into
joining the ABS and taking advantage of their CD Rom with ALL of the back
issues of the magazines. Books are also available that you'll be spending
hours with containing a wealth of info that is sorely needed and becoming
quickly lost. Ask me how I know! Good luck!
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHebestrei(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 9:53 PM
Subject: Beech-List: BEECH SWAMP COOLERS
>
> Im fairly new to the beech bonanza and dont know what to use in the swamp
> cooler -( CONTAINER UNDER COOLER ASSEMBLY MEASURES 10x7x5 ) there appears
to
> be somekind of verticle wafers in the unit now. Do they need to be
replaced
> periodicly as these apper quite dry, im afraid to try and remove them as
they
> are very brittle. I know nothing of there maintence or care. What type of
> replacement filter? Special water? how much? Any and all help would be
much
> appreciated. THANKS IN ADVANCE KEVIN HEBESTREIT N4234B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BEECH SWAMP COOLERS |
Kevin,
Welcome to the family of Bonanza owners!
If you haven't used the air conditioner system before, then here's a quickie
rundown:
The swamp cooler air conditioner unit in the early Bonanzas essentially uses
the cooling property of evaporating water to cool the air, and blows this cool
air into the cabin. The cooler assembly is a water tank that holds a series
of vertical evaporator plates. The water is absorbed by the plates, and is
more easily evaporated by the blast of air blowing through the tank.
There is a pull knob on the dashboard (that ought to be the rightmost knob)
that controls the overhead air scoop. Open it for air conditioning. The air
comes in, passes through the damp plates and evaporates some of the water,
cooling the air. The air passes forward through the overhead duct and comes
out into the cabin, cooling the occupants. The air is usually 5-10 degrees
cooler than ambient, which isn't too bad considering it cost you zero
horsepower for this. Just don't expect it to work too well without a good
airflow or in humid climates.
There should also be a shutoff valve on the rear baggage bulkhead. It is the
swamp cooler tank drain valve. Open it to drain the tank. Close it to fill
and fly.
To fill the tank, close the drain, open the air scoop, and pour distilled
water in from above. It takes about a half a gallon or so. There had better
be an overflow drain hooked up so that if you overfill it, the exeess water
dribbles out underneath the plane just behind the assist step.
The water will last about an hour or two (depending on temperature and
humidity) before you need to fill it up again.
When you are done flying for the day, open the drain to let the excess water
out to prevent mold.
The last time I checked, the original Beech evaporator plates were something
like $30.00 PER PLATE if you needed to replace them. I found that you could
use a replacement furnace humidifier wick plate available from Grainger's
(formerly W. W. Grainger's) for about $75 for a whole tankful. The Beech
plates are more like pottery, while the Grainger plates are fiberglass mats.
Same shape, though.
In any case, it sounds like yours are still intact, so you needn't bother
them.
I wrote an article about the swamp cooler unit in a past issue of ABS
Magazine, but I'll email it to you on the side if you wish.
- - - BEGIN COMMERCIAL
If you are not a member of the American Bonanza Society, then you need to
join.
The American Bonanza Society is a great association of about 10,000 Bonanza
owners, and their monthly magazine describes loads of technical Bonanza
detail. Annual subscription is about $50/yr.
We print a monthly magazine (its about 80 pages, I'd say) with articles on
travel, flying your Bonanza, a Q/A column, a medical column, insurance,
avionics, and so on. The entire set of back issues of the ABS Magazine from
1967 to date is available on CD-ROM for about $100.00. Searchable, too.
Being a member means you can call the ABS (or email them) with a question, and
they will answer you (!). It may take a while, but they usually answer all
questions, eventually. At least they are supposed to.
You could join the ABS for this single reason alone, and come out ahead. All
it takes is one single nugget of information to save you $1,000, and you're
ahead of the game. Of course it *could* save your life, too, but $1,000 is
real money here :-)
The ABS, through its Air Safety Foundation, hosts Bonanza Service Clinics, a
3-hour inspection of your plane that looks for the stuff that the usual
non-Bonanza mechanics seem to miss. This is a good alternative to an annual or
a pre-buy if you refuse to do them.
The Air Safety Foundation also hosts the Bonanza Pilot Proficency Program
(BPPP) that is a 3-4 day "weekend" refresher course (both classroom and
in-your-cockpit training) on how to fly your Bonanza well. The course is about
$1,000 but it is worth every dime. Courses are scheduled across the country.
Sign up early.
The ABS also has an annual convention (this year in Mobile, AL) and offers
discounted rates on insurance through Falcon Insurance Agency for ABS members.
- - - END COMMERCIAL (sort of...)
I could go on, but I kinda get carried away...
As long as you're new to Bonanza ownership, I also heartily recommend getting
at least:
* Beech Parts Book (35-G35)
* Beech Shop Manual
* Continental E185/E225 Engine Parts Book
to add to your library. There are many other books you can get, but these
ought to go a long way in understanding your aircraft.
Best regards,
Ron Davis
1954 E35 "N3218C"
KHebestrei(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Im fairly new to the beech bonanza and dont know what to use in the swamp
> cooler -( CONTAINER UNDER COOLER ASSEMBLY MEASURES 10x7x5 ) there appears to
> be somekind of vertical wafers in the unit now. Do they need to be replaced
> periodically as these appear quite dry, im afraid to try and remove them as they
> are very brittle. I know nothing of there maintenance or care. What type of
> replacement filter? Special water? How much? Any and all help would be much
> appreciated. THANKS IN ADVANCE KEVIN HEBESTREIT N4234B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHebestrei(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BEECH SWAMP COOLERS |
Ron thanks for the info on beech swamp coolers, i will look through my back
issues of ABS for your article on the same. I have owned a bonanza previous
to this one and an abs member for 2 years. Thanks again for the prompt
response. Kevin Hebestreit N4234B. The cooler will come in handy im sure here
in scottsdale az
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Fw: VikingChat> Fw: IO 520K for sale- its a running engine |
FYI It might be a good deal if it can be used in a Bonanza
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Russ" <vikingdrvr(at)att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: VikingChat> Fw: IO 520K for sale- its a running engine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Cooley" <jwcooley(at)axs2000.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:50 PM
> Subject: IO 520K for sale- its a running engine
>
>
> Tom,
>
> I haven't been on the chat in some time as I found it a bit cumberson to
> access it. I am not the most computer literate person and frankly I have
> forgotten how to get on the chat. My purpose of this email is that I am
> considering selling my engine and would like to know if anyone would be
> interested. It is a 520K with about total time (as of about 10 hours ago)
> 3237.32 and 1436 SMOH. There was a major repair (not from a prop strike)
> 949 hours ago and the bottom was overhauled with time to continue on the
> top. It has a phase 3 heavy case and a VAR crankshaft.
>
> The engine is running fine and is maintained by Witmer. I have come upon
a
> new engine that I got for a good price and would like to sell mine.
>
> Anybody interested?
>
> John Cooley
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
> in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
> high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l3joGB/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/SFPVlB/TM
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To administer your subscription to this email group, just visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VikingChat
>
> Need a April Viking of the Month---I'd hate to go three months straight
w/o a featured plane...www.BellancaViking.com
>
> Next fly-in: Harris Ranch, CA (3O8) April 21, 2001
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Faulty Money Pump |
The money pump failed on my Bonanza last Thursday. It seems it had
not been properly pumping money out of my wallet and into my
mechanic's bank account for some time.
A long process to troubleshoot the problem, remove the part, inspect it
and contact RAPID for an AOG request. While they had it out, they
also found that the cash filter was clogged, which as we all know, would
slow down the flow of cash. That problem has been cured, and the Bo
successfully pumped an easy $1,000 out of me yesterday.
I expect the new money pump will work rather well for some time. I have
the part number if anyone needs it.
Ain't flyin' life grand?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Money Pump |
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
>
> The money pump failed on my Bonanza last Thursday. It seems it had
> not been properly pumping money out of my wallet and into my
> mechanic's bank account for some time.
>
> A long process to troubleshoot the problem, remove the part, inspect it
> and contact RAPID for an AOG request. While they had it out, they
> also found that the cash filter was clogged, which as we all know, would
> slow down the flow of cash. That problem has been cured, and the Bo
> successfully pumped an easy $1,000 out of me yesterday.
>
> I expect the new money pump will work rather well for some time. I have
> the part number if anyone needs it.
>
> Ain't flyin' life grand?
Al,
I believe that there are two ADs on the money pump, but I forget the numbers.
The first AD says that the money pump's wire transfer unit needs to be
checked. They can be disabled from lack of use, and will fail when you need it
to run large volumes through the pump. You will have to send it out to be
checked for account number verification, and if they don't match your current
accounts, then the wire transfer unit will need to be realigned.
Normally the money pump is manually activated at the ignition key, but the
second AD now requires that the money pump have the manual switch bypassed,
and must run continuously.
Don't forget, depending on your model of money pump, you may have the "old"
style pump, which can be inadvertently installed in either direction. The new
ones can only be installed to deliver a negative cash flow. Make sure yours
is reinstalled properly upstream of the money pit, or the pocketbook aft of
the firewall may overfill with dangerous lucre.
Yep, flyin' life is grand. Usually "two" grand. :-)
Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Money Pump |
Thanks for the heads up!
I usually do all the work myself under the scrutiny of a very picky IA. I
like it that way, I get to learn and know quality work from junk, but he's
out of the country. I couldn't find anyone that would allow me to do the
job myself and then inspect it and sign the logs! Imagine that!
Now I realize the importance of having the latest the CD-Rom. I'll order
the latest edition from the ABS today!
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Faulty Money Pump
> I believe that there are two ADs on the money pump, but I forget the
numbers.
>
> The first AD says that the money pump's wire transfer unit needs to be
> checked. They can be disabled from lack of use, and will fail when you
need it
> to run large volumes through the pump. You will have to send it out to be
> checked for account number verification, and if they don't match your
current
> accounts, then the wire transfer unit will need to be realigned.
>
> Normally the money pump is manually activated at the ignition key, but the
> second AD now requires that the money pump have the manual switch
bypassed,
> and must run continuously.
>
> Don't forget, depending on your model of money pump, you may have the
"old"
> style pump, which can be inadvertently installed in either direction. The
new
> ones can only be installed to deliver a negative cash flow. Make sure
yours
> is reinstalled properly upstream of the money pit, or the pocketbook aft
of
> the firewall may overfill with dangerous lucre.
>
> Yep, flyin' life is grand. Usually "two" grand. :-)
> Ron Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
"Beech List"
| Subject: | Vacuum Relief Valve |
Here's one for the real mechanics. My suction relief valve doesn't relieve
the suction. Took it off and apart, cleaned it up and although I was able
to bring the suction down, it still lingers around 8 at 2000 RPM (should be
5.5). Replaced it with a good ebay item and I'm back in the chips, but I'd
like to rebuild this little deal with new innards. When I call around and
ask for a kit, you would think I was speaking in the native Vulcan tongue.
Since the new Beech replacement is around $800.00, (I'm glad I got one on
Ebay for $9.99), I figure there is a way to repair the old ones. Until I
start drinking $800 bottles of wine, that's still a good hunk of change for
this boy. The valve is an ARO, model #9520, and if anyone could give me
some insight as to where I could get a kit or even send it off, I'd
appreciate it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Al,
Aw, c'mon. The vacuum relief valve has gotta be one of the simplest gizmos on
the Bonanza.
Inlet air from the gyros on one side, outlet suction to the vacuum pump on the
other, a relief inlet opening on the bottom, and the relief spring setscrew on
the top.
As the suction increases (from the vacuum pump), it overpowers the spring that
closes the relief opening. additional air enters the regulator until the
vacuum pressure and the spring pressure equalize.
Want more vacuum? Screw the spring setscrew down, and increase pressure on
the relief valve so it stays closed longer. Want less? Back it off a bit.
Once set, you shouldn't have to mess with it until you add or remove a
vacuum-powered instrument, or change the vacuum pump.
Since you replaced the relief valve and your problem went away, we can
conclude that the valve was indeed the cause of your problem. Usually, you
don't need a rebuild kit for these things -- just a good cleaning. There is
usually a screen on the bottom of the relief valve to keep the larger debris
from getting sucked in. Its weave is comparable to a screen door. Air goes
past the screen, through a pipe, and out the top of the pipe into the center
cavity of the relief valve. The top of the pipe will have a plate on it which
is held down by a spring. The plate rides up, letting some relief air in, and
the spring pushes down on it to only the -right- amount gets in.
It sounds like your valve is gummed up. Gummy oil and soot, over years of
operation, will clog the plate so it doesn't move freely, and may stick
closed. The cure is a good cleaning in solvent.
You could probably just dunk the entire regulator into a tank of solvent and
in a couple of days it ought to be as good as new. I suppose that the intake
screen could be totally clogged, too, but this method will cure both problems.
Or, you could be a glutton for punishment, and disassemble it, and clean each
part separately. This isn't brain surgery. The hardest part will be removing
it from the other vacuum lines without tearing the hoses, and you've already
done that.
I know I've got a photo or two lying around of a disassembled relief valve.
I'll see if I can send it to you directly, as the email list has a maximum
byte limit.
Best,
Ron Davis
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
>
> Here's one for the real mechanics. My suction relief valve doesn't relieve
> the suction. Took it off and apart, cleaned it up and although I was able
> to bring the suction down, it still lingers around 8 at 2000 RPM (should be
> 5.5). Replaced it with a good ebay item and I'm back in the chips, but I'd
> like to rebuild this little deal with new innards. When I call around and
> ask for a kit, you would think I was speaking in the native Vulcan tongue.
> Since the new Beech replacement is around $800.00, (I'm glad I got one on
> Ebay for $9.99), I figure there is a way to repair the old ones. Until I
> start drinking $800 bottles of wine, that's still a good hunk of change for
> this boy. The valve is an ARO, model #9520, and if anyone could give me
> some insight as to where I could get a kit or even send it off, I'd
> appreciate it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Probably another reason not to smoke in your plane... Tobacco tar probably
gummed up the regulator.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> Al,
>
> Aw, c'mon. The vacuum relief valve has gotta be one of the simplest
gizmos on
> the Bonanza.
>
> Inlet air from the gyros on one side, outlet suction to the vacuum pump on
the
> other, a relief inlet opening on the bottom, and the relief spring
setscrew on
> the top.
>
> As the suction increases (from the vacuum pump), it overpowers the spring
that
> closes the relief opening. additional air enters the regulator until the
> vacuum pressure and the spring pressure equalize.
>
> Want more vacuum? Screw the spring setscrew down, and increase pressure
on
> the relief valve so it stays closed longer. Want less? Back it off a
bit.
> Once set, you shouldn't have to mess with it until you add or remove a
> vacuum-powered instrument, or change the vacuum pump.
>
> Since you replaced the relief valve and your problem went away, we can
> conclude that the valve was indeed the cause of your problem. Usually,
you
> don't need a rebuild kit for these things -- just a good cleaning. There
is
> usually a screen on the bottom of the relief valve to keep the larger
debris
> from getting sucked in. Its weave is comparable to a screen door. Air
goes
> past the screen, through a pipe, and out the top of the pipe into the
center
> cavity of the relief valve. The top of the pipe will have a plate on it
which
> is held down by a spring. The plate rides up, letting some relief air in,
and
> the spring pushes down on it to only the -right- amount gets in.
>
> It sounds like your valve is gummed up. Gummy oil and soot, over years of
> operation, will clog the plate so it doesn't move freely, and may stick
> closed. The cure is a good cleaning in solvent.
>
> You could probably just dunk the entire regulator into a tank of solvent
and
> in a couple of days it ought to be as good as new. I suppose that the
intake
> screen could be totally clogged, too, but this method will cure both
problems.
>
> Or, you could be a glutton for punishment, and disassemble it, and clean
each
> part separately. This isn't brain surgery. The hardest part will be
removing
> it from the other vacuum lines without tearing the hoses, and you've
already
> done that.
>
> I know I've got a photo or two lying around of a disassembled relief
valve.
> I'll see if I can send it to you directly, as the email list has a maximum
> byte limit.
>
> Best,
> Ron Davis
>
>
> A J DeMarzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's one for the real mechanics. My suction relief valve doesn't
relieve
> > the suction. Took it off and apart, cleaned it up and although I was
able
> > to bring the suction down, it still lingers around 8 at 2000 RPM (should
be
> > 5.5). Replaced it with a good ebay item and I'm back in the chips, but
I'd
> > like to rebuild this little deal with new innards. When I call around
and
> > ask for a kit, you would think I was speaking in the native Vulcan
tongue.
> > Since the new Beech replacement is around $800.00, (I'm glad I got one
on
> > Ebay for $9.99), I figure there is a way to repair the old ones. Until
I
> > start drinking $800 bottles of wine, that's still a good hunk of change
for
> > this boy. The valve is an ARO, model #9520, and if anyone could give me
> > some insight as to where I could get a kit or even send it off, I'd
> > appreciate it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Thanks Ron;
Always detailed instructions as only you know how to pen. Good thing your
company makes gadgets that the common man uses. Where else would you get
all that instructional experience? I'll call your boss in the morning and
see if I can get you a good raise!
You're right, the valve is probably the simplest thing on the airplane
(other than the owner/pilot). I've performed all of the backbreaking work
you've described and that's how I got it down to 8 lbs. from 12! The action
is nice and smooth as the unit is sparkling clean, in and out. Possibly
along the line, someone replaced the spring with a wrong one as I can't get
it any lower than 8. The reason this was never detected is because maximum
vacuum was allowed past this valve going to the "sub" valve of the Tactair!
Yup, even uninstalled, the damn thing is troublesome! Thanks for the
effort.
AL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> Al,
>
> Aw, c'mon. The vacuum relief valve has gotta be one of the simplest
gizmos on
> the Bonanza.
>
> Inlet air from the gyros on one side, outlet suction to the vacuum pump on
the
> other, a relief inlet opening on the bottom, and the relief spring
setscrew on
> the top.
>
> As the suction increases (from the vacuum pump), it overpowers the spring
that
> closes the relief opening. additional air enters the regulator until the
> vacuum pressure and the spring pressure equalize.
>
> Want more vacuum? Screw the spring setscrew down, and increase pressure
on
> the relief valve so it stays closed longer. Want less? Back it off a
bit.
> Once set, you shouldn't have to mess with it until you add or remove a
> vacuum-powered instrument, or change the vacuum pump.
>
> Since you replaced the relief valve and your problem went away, we can
> conclude that the valve was indeed the cause of your problem. Usually,
you
> don't need a rebuild kit for these things -- just a good cleaning. There
is
> usually a screen on the bottom of the relief valve to keep the larger
debris
> from getting sucked in. Its weave is comparable to a screen door. Air
goes
> past the screen, through a pipe, and out the top of the pipe into the
center
> cavity of the relief valve. The top of the pipe will have a plate on it
which
> is held down by a spring. The plate rides up, letting some relief air in,
and
> the spring pushes down on it to only the -right- amount gets in.
>
> It sounds like your valve is gummed up. Gummy oil and soot, over years of
> operation, will clog the plate so it doesn't move freely, and may stick
> closed. The cure is a good cleaning in solvent.
>
> You could probably just dunk the entire regulator into a tank of solvent
and
> in a couple of days it ought to be as good as new. I suppose that the
intake
> screen could be totally clogged, too, but this method will cure both
problems.
>
> Or, you could be a glutton for punishment, and disassemble it, and clean
each
> part separately. This isn't brain surgery. The hardest part will be
removing
> it from the other vacuum lines without tearing the hoses, and you've
already
> done that.
>
> I know I've got a photo or two lying around of a disassembled relief
valve.
> I'll see if I can send it to you directly, as the email list has a maximum
> byte limit.
>
> Best,
> Ron Davis
>
>
> A J DeMarzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's one for the real mechanics. My suction relief valve doesn't
relieve
> > the suction. Took it off and apart, cleaned it up and although I was
able
> > to bring the suction down, it still lingers around 8 at 2000 RPM (should
be
> > 5.5). Replaced it with a good ebay item and I'm back in the chips, but
I'd
> > like to rebuild this little deal with new innards. When I call around
and
> > ask for a kit, you would think I was speaking in the native Vulcan
tongue.
> > Since the new Beech replacement is around $800.00, (I'm glad I got one
on
> > Ebay for $9.99), I figure there is a way to repair the old ones. Until
I
> > start drinking $800 bottles of wine, that's still a good hunk of change
for
> > this boy. The valve is an ARO, model #9520, and if anyone could give me
> > some insight as to where I could get a kit or even send it off, I'd
> > appreciate it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Agreed! Now if I can get those gremlins to stop smoking in the engine
compartment, the suction regulator may stay a bit cleaner.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> Probably another reason not to smoke in your plane... Tobacco tar probably
> gummed up the regulator.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Sorry, My Bellanca and Cessna have them in the pilot's compartment but even
then they have a filter sock,
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> Agreed! Now if I can get those gremlins to stop smoking in the engine
> compartment, the suction regulator may stay a bit cleaner.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
>
> >
> > Probably another reason not to smoke in your plane... Tobacco tar
probably
> > gummed up the regulator.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Al,
Oh! A TACTAIR! Tactair was a new (1955) concept in autopilot design in that
it used air gauges for both sensing and operation of the controls. Weighing
less than ten pounds, the pneumatic system used no electric motors or vacuum
tubes, nor a demand of any kind on the electrical system. The autopilot is
ready to go as soon as the engine is running -- no warmup time required.
It'll hold a heading to 1 degree and an altitude to 20 feet. Price back in
the late 50's was about $2,500.00, installed. Ouch.
The only demand it put on the plane was an increased appetite for instrument
vacuum air. You had to crank up the vacuum from 4-1/2" to 8-1/2" at the
vacuum regulator, and a second Tactair regulator split off 4-1/2" for the
instruments and 8-1/2" to drive the bellows-style servos to tug on the
appropriate control cable. Rather idiot-proof, if you ask me. I like mine --
a lot.
Are you dumping the Tactair to upgrade a Lear L-2 autpilot? :-) Installed
weight of the L-2 is only some 18-34 lbs, and it will track VORs and a
glideslope. Takes some 10 amps of juice to power those vacuum tubes, though.
Well, give Bim Babis a call. He has some Tactair parts (tho' not all) for the
vacuum regulator. He has a different spring for the regulator to give it a
bit more oomph. If yours has such a spring, you need to trade it back in for
the ordinary kind.
Tim Babis ("Mr. Tactair")
Tactair Autopilots
Hangar 3, Lunken Airport
Cincinnati, OH 45226
513-871-8569
tsbabis(at)goodnews.net
Tim's website is:
http://w3.goodnews.net/~tsbabis/tactair.htm
Ron Davis
A J DeMarzo wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Ron;
> Always detailed instructions as only you know how to pen. Good thing your
> company makes gadgets that the common man uses. Where else would you get
> all that instructional experience? I'll call your boss in the morning and
> see if I can get you a good raise!
>
> You're right, the valve is probably the simplest thing on the airplane
> (other than the owner/pilot). I've performed all of the backbreaking work
> you've described and that's how I got it down to 8 lbs. from 12! The action
> is nice and smooth as the unit is sparkling clean, in and out. Possibly
> along the line, someone replaced the spring with a wrong one as I can't get
> it any lower than 8. The reason this was never detected is because maximum
> vacuum was allowed past this valve going to the "sub" valve of the Tactair!
> Yup, even uninstalled, the damn thing is troublesome! Thanks for the
> effort.
> AL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> >
> > Al,
> >
> > Aw, c'mon. The vacuum relief valve has gotta be one of the simplest gizmos
on
> > the Bonanza.
> >
> > Inlet air from the gyros on one side, outlet suction to the vacuum pump on
the
> > other, a relief inlet opening on the bottom, and the relief spring setscrew
> > on the top.
> >
> > As the suction increases (from the vacuum pump), it overpowers the spring that
> > closes the relief opening. additional air enters the regulator until the
> > vacuum pressure and the spring pressure equalize.
> >
> > Want more vacuum? Screw the spring setscrew down, and increase pressure on
> > the relief valve so it stays closed longer. Want less? Back it off a bit.
> > Once set, you shouldn't have to mess with it until you add or remove a
> > vacuum-powered instrument, or change the vacuum pump.
> >
> > Since you replaced the relief valve and your problem went away, we can
> > conclude that the valve was indeed the cause of your problem. Usually, you
> > don't need a rebuild kit for these things -- just a good cleaning. There is
> > usually a screen on the bottom of the relief valve to keep the larger debris
> > from getting sucked in. Its weave is comparable to a screen door. Air goes
> > past the screen, through a pipe, and out the top of the pipe into the center
> > cavity of the relief valve. The top of the pipe will have a plate on it which
> > is held down by a spring. The plate rides up, letting some relief air in,
and
> > the spring pushes down on it to only the -right- amount gets in.
> >
> > It sounds like your valve is gummed up. Gummy oil and soot, over years of
> > operation, will clog the plate so it doesn't move freely, and may stick
> > closed. The cure is a good cleaning in solvent.
> >
> > You could probably just dunk the entire regulator into a tank of solvent and
> > in a couple of days it ought to be as good as new. I suppose that the intake
> > screen could be totally clogged, too, but this method will cure both problems.
> >
> > Or, you could be a glutton for punishment, and disassemble it, and clean each
> > part separately. This isn't brain surgery. The hardest part will be removing
> > it from the other vacuum lines without tearing the hoses, and you've already
> > done that.
> >
> > I know I've got a photo or two lying around of a disassembled relief valve.
> > I'll see if I can send it to you directly, as the email list has a maximum
> > byte limit.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ron Davis
> >
> >
> > A J DeMarzo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's one for the real mechanics. My suction relief valve doesn't relieve
> > > the suction. Took it off and apart, cleaned it up and although I was able
> > > to bring the suction down, it still lingers around 8 at 2000 RPM (should
be
> > > 5.5). Replaced it with a good ebay item and I'm back in the chips, but I'd
> > > like to rebuild this little deal with new innards. When I call around and
> > > ask for a kit, you would think I was speaking in the native Vulcan tongue.
> > > Since the new Beech replacement is around $800.00, (I'm glad I got one on
> > > Ebay for $9.99), I figure there is a way to repair the old ones. Until I
> > > start drinking $800 bottles of wine, that's still a good hunk of change
> > > for this boy. The valve is an ARO, model #9520, and if anyone could
> > > give me some insight as to where I could get a kit or even send it off,
> > > I'd appreciate it.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
This one has a little screen as an inlet. Looks like the strainer in a
faucet! Pretty common that they clog, especially in the engine compartment.
Youda thought that there would have been some type of replaceable filter,
but if you know it's there it's easy to clean.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
> Sorry, My Bellanca and Cessna have them in the pilot's compartment but
even
> then they have a filter sock,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
>
>
> >
> > Agreed! Now if I can get those gremlins to stop smoking in the engine
> > compartment, the suction regulator may stay a bit cleaner.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Beech-List: Vacuum Relief Valve
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Probably another reason not to smoke in your plane... Tobacco tar
> probably
> > > gummed up the regulator.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A J DeMarzo" <aerome(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Relief Valve |
Ah ha! I figured the spring was a sturdy one. No, I'm still struggling
with a new business and will just have to put all those Garmins and STecs
and Sandels off for a while. I really took the tactair out to put gyros
that work into the plane, but that's another story.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <rdavis(at)imetinc.com>
November 04, 2000 - March 19, 2001
Beech-Archive.digest.vol-ad