Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:31 AM - Re: Mike Smith's speed conversion (smallfish@enid.com)
2. 08:45 AM - Straight 35 vs. Musketeer (Jeff King)
3. 09:44 AM - Re: Mike Smith's speed conversion (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 04:50 PM - Re: Straight 35 vs. Musketeer (Ron Davis)
5. 09:38 PM - pieces parts (Peter Scott)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mike Smith's speed conversion |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "smallfish@enid.com" <smallfish@enid.com>
Well, I am waiting? When is someone going to tell us who the affordable
speed Gurus are and what the best speed mods are. BTW I am only really
interested in those that will go on a straight 35.
I ususally Lurk the matronics sites. (Lurking in skydiving is the guy who
comes up to a freefall formation and then stops and watches everyone else
without participating.)
I seem to remember that someone in Lubbock Texas has a early Vtail. I am
moving there. Please drop me a line so that I can question you about the
area and who is there, aviation wise.
Blue Skies,
Steve D.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: Beech-List: Mike Smith's speed conversion
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/23/03 10:51:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
kempthornes@earthlink.net writes:
> Power is much less effective at increasing speed than drag reduction. I
> look at my Debonair and I see lotsa ways to reduce drag. But 20 to 40
> knots??? Skepticism here....
>
Good Morning Hal,
I have never heard anyone claim that Mike picked up 40 knots on an airplane
without a power increase.
I did discuss this with Mike on one occasion. At that time (early
nineties),
he said that the biggest increase he had been able get via clean up items
was
twenty-five knots. He also commented that at least ten knots of that
increase was due to the atrocious rig that the airplane had been in before
it
arrived at his shop.
>From the early seventies to the early eighties, the factory would shove
them
out the door almost regardless of how poorly they had been built and/or how
badly out of rig the airplane was found to be. Some owners brought brand
new
airplanes directly from the factory to his place for him to work his magic.
He said that it was not uncommon to be able to pick up ten knots by doing
nothing more than getting the airplane properly rigged.
He also commented that some airplanes were just plain slow and others were
just plain fast. He didn't have an answer as to why, but felt that it had
to
do with a combination of factors such as a bit of improper twist in the
wing,
stabilizers and control surfaces. His comment was that there seemed to be
as
much as a ten knot difference between the fastest and the slowest of
theoretically identical airframes.
Five knots was common.
That information dovetails nicely with my personal experience.
Via a combination of removing external drag producers, adding gap seals,
careful fitting and sealing of all doors, (including the wheel well doors)
and careful rigging, he claimed to be able to pick up about ten knots on an
average airplane.
That number seems doable to me. Add that to the factory ten knots that
nobody seems to be able to do anything about and it is easy to see that
there
can be as much as twenty knots difference between two airplanes that seem
to
be identical in all respects other than having Mike's clean up tricks.
Mike also had done some work on cleaning up the cooling drag by changing
the
location of the propellor and drastically modifying the cooling air inlets
along with redirecting the airflow within the cowling. I got the
impression
that he had not come to a conclusion as to how best to complete that task
when he decided to get out of the speed business.
Most of what Mike did is stuff that could be done by anyone who wanted to
spend the time required.
The biggest advantage to taking an airplane to Mike was that he had done a
lot of them and had a good feel for how much effort to spend and where to
spend it. There is nothing like experience and Mike had more experience
rigging and tweaking the Bonanzas than anyone else in the country.
I have heard many rumors as to reasons why Mike decided to sell out the
business and get back to crop dusting, but don't have any inside
information
as to why it happened.
I imagine it had to do with the hassles he found when he was trying to
build
that turbine powered, single engine, pressurized Bonanza derivative.
I wish he had never thought of leaving the rigging and tweaking field, but
that is the way things go!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Straight 35 vs. Musketeer |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
These planes have two things in common, the used price is similar and they
are made by beech. But I suspect that is it.
I am trying to decide if I should skip the Musketeer and go right for the
Straight 35. I realize I will take a hit on insurance and need to extend my
training longer to cover complex airframes. But I had some questions first
since this is the first time I considered a Straight 35.
1. Is the cabin room as big as the Musketeer?
2. How about safety? Has the breakup problem ever been solved or is this why
Straight 35's seem to have such a bargain basement price?
3. What does a rebuild on a 185 engine typically cost?
4. Is the weight and balance as picky on the Straight 35 as it is on later
V's?
Thanks for the tips ahead of time.
Regards,
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 05/02/2003
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mike Smith's speed conversion |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/2/03 10:32:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
smallfish@enid.com writes:
> Well, I am waiting? When is someone going to tell us who the affordable
> speed Gurus are and what the best speed mods are. BTW I am only really
> interested in those that will go on a straight 35.
>
Good Morning Steve,
I don't think there is any speed guru operating today in the manner that Mike
Smith did.
If you want to increase the speed of your straight 35, just start taking
things off.
Get rid of all the antennas.
More on this later.
Make sure your airplane is rigged as close to the book as is possible.
The first step is to be sure that the flaps and ailerons are rigged as the
book shows. That requires special travel boards. Next you use the special
travel jigs to set the ruddervators. There were instructions on how to make
your own travel boards and ruddervator jigs in the early maintenance manuals.
If you still have one of those manuals, make your own. If not, ABS has them
for rent. Or, alternatively, you can nose around and see if you can find
that rare shop that has a set and borrow theirs!
The next step is to level the airplane accurately on the ground and check
that you have a properly oriented inclinometer installed. The one in your T&
B may be adequate if it is properly adjusted.
Then, and only then, test fly the airplane and see if it flies straight. If
not, follow the sequence in the manual and adjust the ruddervator cables to
get the directional factor under control. Move the wings to take care of any
roll irregularity.
Rigging the wings with the leading edge as low as it will go and the trailing
edges as high as can be done and still be in trim is best for the Bonanza.
Checking the fit of all the doors and eliminating any air leaks will help a
LOT. Every little air leak is like a porcupine quill sticking six inches out
into the airstream. The bigger the leak, the bigger the quill.
Some folks, Mike included, felt that redirecting the exhaust flow so that it
heads aft instead of down will help.
The original factory stacks on your airplane were cut off flush with the
fuselage. They later started to extend them further down below the fuselage
to reduce noise. Even Beech admitted that the exhaust flow was equivalent to
a stick the size of the exhaust pipe sticking down two feet beyond where the
pipe terminated. Turn that flow smoothly aft and that two foot stick should
be gone.
Once that is done, you can add gap strips if you like. They have been
reported to help the speed a little. Mike used them.
Remember, add weight and the airplane slows down. Regardless of the trim,
lighter is faster. The only exception to that is when the airframe is driven
beyond the speeds at which it was designed to travel.
Adding weight will move the best L/D speed higher. That means that the
heavier airplane will be more efficient at very high speeds. It is even
possible that a heavy V35B might go faster pulling 225 horsepower than would
a straight 35 at the same horsepower.
So, a light weight Bonanza will hit that "brick wall" faster than will a
heavy one. If you fly alongside an early Bonanza being driven by a lot of
horsepower, you will see that the top of the fuselage is almost level with
the horizon. That is getting the tail and the back of the fuselage up into a
position where it causes a LOT of drag.
The Bonanza was designed to fly using a 165 horsepower engine. It was also
designed to operate at a gross weight of 2550 pounds. They found that 165
just wasn't enough and the early airplanes came out with 185 for one minute
during takeoff.
Since it is never legal for you to EVER pull more than 165 horsepower
continuously out of any engine that you have in that airframe, it is unlikely
that you will have the problem of hitting the "Brick Wall."
Back to removing all of the antennas. You can use the Mike Smith idea of
mounting a whip inside the plastic tail cone for a com antenna and there is
an after market plastic wing tip available which contains a VOR antenna. Put
those on your airplane. It absolutely has to go faster if there are no
antennas on the outside of the airplane.
Just few things to get you started!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Straight 35 vs. Musketeer |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Ron Davis <radavis2522@netzero.net>
Jeff King wrote:
> --> Beech-List message posted by: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
>
> These planes have two things in common, the used price is similar and they
> are made by beech. But I suspect that is it.
>
> I am trying to decide if I should skip the Musketeer and go right for the
> Straight 35. I realize I will take a hit on insurance and need to extend my
> training longer to cover complex airframes. But I had some questions first
> since this is the first time I considered a Straight 35.
>
> 1. Is the cabin room as big as the Musketeer?
> 2. How about safety? Has the breakup problem ever been solved or is this why
> Straight 35's seem to have such a bargain basement price?
> 3. What does a rebuild on a 185 engine typically cost?
> 4. Is the weight and balance as picky on the Straight 35 as it is on later
> V's?
>
> Thanks for the tips ahead of time.
>
> Regards,
Jeff,
1. Not sure of the Musketeer's cabin size, but the v-tail Bonanza (all
years) has a cabin width of 42". This is about the same as the early VW
Beetle. Fatter cabins make for slower flying speeds, unless you make up for
it with gobs of horsepower. The Mooney gets a good deal of its speed and
economy from a 36" wide cabin.
2. There's a long story about the Bonanza v-tail safety record, but it
boils down to this: The v-tail is trickier than it appears in terms of
weight and balance and in terms of corrosion maintenance. Balance the
ruddervators according to the (new) spec's, fly it gently, keep corrosion
away from it, and no harm will ever come to you.
If you are shopping for a Bonanza, read in the logbooks to see if AD
2002-21-13 has been done, and if so, how. (You can live with the speed
restriction by putting placards in the cabin, or eliminate it by performing
the directions therein. Find out which one they did. It may cost upwards
of $5,000-$6,000 to have ruddervators with corrosion rebuilt and rebalanced,
but money well spent. Hopefully they spent it, so you won't.
3. The overhaul of a Continental E185-8, E185-11, or E225-8 engine will
cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000-$20,000.
Accessories may or may not be included in the price quote you get.
Bendix PS-5C Caruburetor is about $1,200
Bendix S6LN-21 magnetoes are about $700 each,
Vacuum pump is about $500,
Thompson TF-1900 fuel pump is about $500,
(Note: you can have them re-done for about $1,500
which eliminates the 300-hour inspection forever.)
Starter and Generator are somewhere around $500-$1,000
TBO is officially 1,500 hours, but sadly, a more realistic time is 1,200.
It may get better as more people put JPI or GEM engine analyzers in their
planes to monitor cylinder head temps.
4. Weight and balance is not as tricky, because there are only 4 seats and
no extended baggage compartment. The later models had the same airframe,
but they tried to push the cargo area aft another two feet and add two seats
back there. Sure, a heavier engine was put in the front, but still ...
So the original Bonanza is pretty simple to W&B, really. Mine is a '54 E35,
and I can fill it like so without getting out of limits:
. Fuel Fuel
Front Rear Luggage (mains) (aux)
seat seat (lbs) 40 max 10 max
----- ----- ------- ------- ------
1 0 255 40 0
1 0 140 40 10
1 1 185 40 0
1 1 140 40 10
1 2 85 40 0
1 2 40 40 10
2 0 255 40 0
2 0 240 40 10
2 1 185 40 0
2 1 140 40 10
2 2 25 40 0
2 2 0 40 5
(4) 170-lb people in, full 40 gallons of gas, and 25 lbs of cargo in the
back. Or 10 additional gallons in the aux tank and a whopping 5 lbs of
baggage. Not much, but certainly no extraordinary math skills are needed to
figure this out.
I usually fly with 3 occupants and about 100 lbs of junk for a weekend. It
flies fine.
Your weight and balance will vary, but I don't think it will be by much.
You will have roughly a 950 lb. payload, which you have to admit wasn't too
shabby for 1947.
Ron Davis
Newport Beach, Calif.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Beech-List message posted by: Peter Scott <winginit@jps.net>
Howdo members,
I have need for a fuel quantity sender for my straight 35 with the 10
gallon aux tank in the baggage compartment, mine is inop.
Right now I just fill it and run 'till she sputters but I'd like to be a
little more hi tech.
My parts manual only shows the 20 gal tank which seems to have the
sender located in a different location from mine which is on the right
(co:pilot) side.
If you don't have a serviceable one.. do you have the correct part
number?
Hopefully
Pete Scott N4579V ss 1221 Northern California (AUN)
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|