An aircraft for Jesse

You have an issue with your browser. I opened the link with Explorer and Firefox, and the pictures come up in each. If you see a little red "x" on the screen where the photos are at, then you may need to get your browser updated.

Hope that helps.
 
Allen C said:
You have an issue with your browser. I opened the link with Explorer and Firefox, and the pictures come up in each. If you see a little red "x" on the screen where the photos are at, then you may need to get your browser updated.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

I see all photos (even the avatars) in both Firefox and IE, but not your pictures... could it be that the photos on that board are only visible to logged-in members? It shows me as a guest.
 
That may be the case. Creating an account is very EZ. :D
 
We have an L39 on a field not far from me parked on the ramp. The guy at the FBO said the owner flys it about every 6 weeks or so because it costs him about $1500 per flight hour for fuel. :yikes:

Sure looks like alot of fun!
 
I talked to a guy at Osh who had an L-39. When I asked him what it cost to operate, he said "We won't talk about that." Definitely a case of the purchase cost is the least expensive part about the aircraft.

Bonanza might make sense, except I think Jesse specifically wants experimental.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I don't see any pictures there... ???
Click to expand...
If it's like most boards (including here?), you have to register before you can view the attachments to a post. Helps save bandwidth and prevent leaching.

(That's weird. I didn't see any of the above posts when I posted mine. Sorry for the duplication! :^)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, right. The Bonanza was LAST week. :rofl:
Click to expand...
I still think an early Bo is a good option. Bulletproof gear unlike most singles. Fast, IFR, cheap mx, reliable, and roomy. Won't have an issue with grass, and it stops in under 1,000'. The early ones are in your price range, too.
 
sba55 said:
I still think an early Bo is a good option. Bulletproof gear unlike most singles. Fast, IFR, cheap mx, reliable, and roomy. Won't have an issue with grass, and it stops in under 1,000'. The early ones are in your price range, too.
Click to expand...


Plus a E series engine that has not been supported by the factory for years, plus a AD list as long as your arm, mag skins, flutter problems that lead to inflight break up.

BLEC !
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I talked to a guy at Osh who had an L-39. When I asked him what it cost to operate, he said "We won't talk about that." Definitely a case of the purchase cost is the least expensive part about the aircraft.

Bonanza might make sense, except I think Jesse specifically wants experimental.
Click to expand...

My hangar partner owns several T-28s and has a part interest in an L39, none of which are flying. But he said the L-39 is cheaper to fly than the T-28 (which isn't cheap either but a lot less than $1500/hr). IIRC, the engine in a L-39 is a medium bypass turbofan which is fairly efficient for a jet.
 
NC19143 said:
Plus a E series engine that has not been supported by the factory for years, plus a AD list as long as your arm, mag skins, flutter problems that lead to inflight break up.

BLEC !
Click to expand...
No, I'm not talking that old. An early S Bonanza, maybe? With a partner, that's within his price range.

-Felix
 
NC19143 said:
Plus a E series engine that has not been supported by the factory for years, plus a AD list as long as your arm, mag skins, flutter problems that lead to inflight break up.

BLEC !
Click to expand...

The E has a mod to use 470 parts, plus you can stick a 470 or 520 on with a bunch of different mods. No lack of mods for a Bo. Most of the big ADs were one timers long ago taken care of. Mag skins are a bit of a pain, but typically do ok when cared for. There hasn't been an in flight break up for a long time of a properly maintained Bo, and the only reason they came apart was that they got the speed above redline or were poorly rigged and/or maintained.

The PITA with the old ones is updating the panel and replacing the fuel bladders. If it has new style panel and less than decade old bladders (and hopefully a Speed Slope Windshield), I'm pretty good with the old ones.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, right. The Bonanza was LAST week. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Ahh, perhaps. I'm just thinking of the many times when Jesse has told me that experimentals are the way to go, period, especially from a cost standpoint. Clearly, I haven't been paying too much attention. ;)
 
lancefisher said:
My hangar partner owns several T-28s and has a part interest in an L39, none of which are flying. But he said the L-39 is cheaper to fly than the T-28 (which isn't cheap either but a lot less than $1500/hr). IIRC, the engine in a L-39 is a medium bypass turbofan which is fairly efficient for a jet.
Click to expand...

Interesting, how is he defining "cheaper to fly"? Is he looking at $/hour total including maintenance, or miles per gallon? I'm just curious.

At $1500/hour, you could bet I wouldn't be flying very much if I had one... but you could also bet I'd really want to! :yes:
 
Airplanes that are cheap are that way for a reason. When you can buy an older Bo for the price of a Cessna 150, there is a good reason for it. If they were a good old airplane it would be reflected in the price.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Interesting, how is he defining "cheaper to fly"? Is he looking at $/hour total including maintenance, or miles per gallon? I'm just curious.

At $1500/hour, you could bet I wouldn't be flying very much if I had one... but you could also bet I'd really want to! :yes:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the $/mile vs $/hr but I think he meant both. As to the maint aspect, comments he made included something about the T-28 requiring multiple hours of maint per hour flown and the L-29 requiring virtually no maint if it's in good condition.
 
Dean said:
Airplanes that are cheap are that way for a reason. When you can buy an older Bo for the price of a Cessna 150, there is a good reason for it. If they were a good old airplane it would be reflected in the price.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked good old Bo's went for 2-4 times whant a good 150 sold for. And contrary to Tom, I and a very large number of other pilot/owners think that an early BE35 can be very practical. Like Henning pointed out, there are several engine upgrades if you don't like the E series (predecessor to the IO-470) and maintaining a E-225 isn't all that big a deal either. The only significant issue I'm aware of is the prop. The crankshaft has a spline instead of a flange so the choices are rather limited (and expensive) plus there was an AD on the Hartzel CS prop that many E powered Bonanzas went to which pretty much requires a new prop. The original electric prop is still OK but spares are getting hard to come by for that and it's a bit unusual WRT operation.
 
Henning said:
The E has a mod to use 470 parts, plus you can stick a 470 or 520 on with a bunch of different mods. No lack of mods for a Bo. Most of the big ADs were one timers long ago taken care of. Mag skins are a bit of a pain, but typically do ok when cared for. There hasn't been an in flight break up for a long time of a properly maintained Bo, and the only reason they came apart was that they got the speed above redline or were poorly rigged and/or maintained.

The PITA with the old ones is updating the panel and replacing the fuel bladders. If it has new style panel and less than decade old bladders (and hopefully a Speed Slope Windshield), I'm pretty good with the old ones.
Click to expand...

This all equates to $$$$$$$$ Bo's are not cheap to maintain. 1 wrong move /mistake they kill ya. The AD for the speed reduction is the big reason they stopped breaking up.
 
NC19143 said:
This all equates to $$$$$$$$ Bo's are not cheap to maintain. 1 wrong move /mistake they kill ya. The AD for the speed reduction is the big reason they stopped breaking up.
Click to expand...

Tom, that AD has been complied with on virtually every BE35 Bonanza flying and it applies to the very latest models produced. As to your "1 wrong move/mistake", either you are kidding or just plain wrong. It is true that a Bo will get you into trouble faster than a 172 simply because it goes faster and can cover a lot more ground (and weather) in a single hop. They are definitely less stable in roll than your typical Cessna but not enough so that it matters. And any model 35 Bonanza is easier to land than any 172 (or Fairchild for that matter).

Most if not all of the "Forked tail doctor killer" rep resulted from too many pilots with more money than flying skill and/or common sense. Virtually all of the V-tail inflight breakups involved flight well beyond the design flight envelope and/or with seriously improper rigging (loose cables/linkages leading to flutter issues).
 
lancefisher said:
Tom, that AD has been complied with on virtually every BE35 Bonanza flying and it applies to the very latest models produced. As to your "1 wrong move/mistake", either you are kidding or just plain wrong. It is true that a Bo will get you into trouble faster than a 172 simply because it goes faster and can cover a lot more ground (and weather) in a single hop. They are definitely less stable in roll than your typical Cessna but not enough so that it matters. And any model 35 Bonanza is easier to land than any 172 (or Fairchild for that matter).

Most if not all of the "Forked tail doctor killer" rep resulted from too many pilots with more money than flying skill and/or common sense. Virtually all of the V-tail inflight breakups involved flight well beyond the design flight envelope and/or with seriously improper rigging (loose cables/linkages leading to flutter issues).
Click to expand...

I have very little Bo time--but the time that I do have--leads me to believe the above. I found it to be a very simple airplane to fly provided you aren't an idiot and can think ahead a minute or two.

As far as landing? Easier than a 172 as Lance says.
 
lancefisher said:
Tom, that AD has been complied with on virtually every BE35 Bonanza flying and it applies to the very latest models produced. As to your "1 wrong move/mistake", either you are kidding or just plain wrong. It is true that a Bo will get you into trouble faster than a 172 simply because it goes faster and can cover a lot more ground (and weather) in a single hop. They are definitely less stable in roll than your typical Cessna but not enough so that it matters. And any model 35 Bonanza is easier to land than any 172 (or Fairchild for that matter).

Most if not all of the "Forked tail doctor killer" rep resulted from too many pilots with more money than flying skill and/or common sense. Virtually all of the V-tail inflight breakups involved flight well beyond the design flight envelope and/or with seriously improper rigging (loose cables/linkages leading to flutter issues).
Click to expand...
Thanks, Lance, that was well put.

Y'all realize that Bonanzas with the AD have a significantly stronger structure than any Cessna single you can buy? They're certified up to 4.4 Gs. Your 182 ain't.

Lance is right. They're way easier to control than any Cessna single you'll ever fly. Amazing control harmonics make landing very easy, too. According to an ex engineer at Beech, the V will start to come apart at Vne+40 knots. That's ~240 knots. Not exactly a small margin.

-Felix
 
lancefisher said:
Tom, that AD has been complied with on virtually every BE35 Bonanza flying and it applies to the very latest models produced. As to your "1 wrong move/mistake", either you are kidding or just plain wrong. It is true that a Bo will get you into trouble faster than a 172 simply because it goes faster and can cover a lot more ground (and weather) in a single hop. They are definitely less stable in roll than your typical Cessna but not enough so that it matters. And any model 35 Bonanza is easier to land than any 172 (or Fairchild for that matter).

Most if not all of the "Forked tail doctor killer" rep resulted from too many pilots with more money than flying skill and/or common sense. Virtually all of the V-tail inflight breakups involved flight well beyond the design flight envelope and/or with seriously improper rigging (loose cables/linkages leading to flutter issues).
Click to expand...

Read the AD list and tell me how cheap the Bo's are to maintain..

2007-08-08 Landing gear uplock rollers
2002-21-13 Never exceed speed, Vne
2001-23-10 Flap flex shaft assemblies
99-05-13 W Withdrawal of AD 99-05-13
99-05-13 Fuel selector position placard - Withdrawn
98-13-02 Never exceed speed, Vne - Superseded by AD 2002-21-13
97-06-11 Ruddervator differential tail control rod assembly
94-20-04 Structural failure of V-tail - Revised by AD 94-20-04 R1
89-05-02 Elevator control fittings
87-20-02 R1 Structural failure of V-tail - Superseded by 94-20-04
84-09-01 Window emer. egress prov
76-05-04 Stabilizer attach fitting
75-15-08 Engine lubrication
75-05-02 Engine oil
72-22-01 Landing gear uplock rollers - Superseded by AD 2007-08-08
72-18-01 Fuel selector valve warning light
72-11-02 Engine fuel interruption
69-18-01 Fuel system modification
63-25-01 Fuselage modification
62-08-03 Control wheels
57-18-01 Structural failure of V-tail - Superseded by 94-20-04
55-22-01 Oil outlet check valve
53-01-02 Fuel selector valve rework
51-14-01 Fuel booster pump removal
49-48-01 Thompson fuel pump
49-31-01 Emergency fuel pump "O" rings
49-26-01 Trailing antenna rework
49-04-01 Aileron chain
48-08-01 Starter rework
47-47-08 Fuel line chafing
47-47-07 Engine identification plate

E-225 Series
98-17-11 Crankshaft failure
97-21-02 Side loading of the piston
97-15-01 PL Side loading of the piston - Superseded by AD 97-21-02
95-21-15 Detonation due to low octane
94-14-12 PL Detonation due to low octane - Superseded by AD 95-21-15
63-15-01 Exhaust valves
60-12-01 Piston pin assembly
60-06-04 Generator drive gear retaining nut internal tooth lockwasher
56-06-01 Piston pin assembly

The one mistake that will kill you is not being proficience, or allowing a non Beech mechanic work on your elevons or flight controls.

Name one beech shop that is a cheap place to have your Bo worked on.
 
<take out stick, poke bear>:devil:

Flew from Roanoke KROA to Big Sandy K22, 122 miles one way. Flew formation with a Piper Cherokee and an RV7. The Piper set the pace at 110 knots. Round trip was 244 miles on 7 gallons ($26). Lunch cost $31.

Conditional inspection this year cost me $0. (We do not have annual)
Prop overhaul was $750 after a FOD.

No documented case of inflight breakup.

Canard was fail tested to 14g's

<drop stick… run like h3ll> :D
 
Allen C said:
<take out stick, poke bear>:devil:

Flew from Roanoke KROA to Big Sandy K22, 122 miles one way. Flew formation with a Piper Cherokee and an RV7. The Piper set the pace at 110 knots. Round trip was 244 miles on 7 gallons ($26). Lunch cost $31.

Conditional inspection this year cost me $0. (We do not have annual)
Prop overhaul was $750 after a FOD.

No documented case of inflight breakup.

Canard was fail tested to 14g's

<drop stick… run like h3ll> :D
Click to expand...
They are a hell of an airplane--that is for sure--if I could have several airplanes the EZ would be one of them.
 
Allen C said:
<take out stick, poke bear>:devil:

Flew from Roanoke KROA to Big Sandy K22, 122 miles one way. Flew formation with a Piper Cherokee and an RV7. The Piper set the pace at 110 knots. Round trip was 244 miles on 7 gallons ($26). Lunch cost $31.

Conditional inspection this year cost me $0. (We do not have annual)
Prop overhaul was $750 after a FOD.

No documented case of inflight breakup.

Canard was fail tested to 14g's

<drop stick… run like h3ll> :D
Click to expand...

Tell me about the EZ in icing conditions? how about how well they last in hail,

there is no perfect aircraft, they all have a weak spot.
 
NC19143 said:
Tell me about the EZ in icing conditions? how about how well they last in hail,

there is no perfect aircraft, they all have a weak spot.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In the two scenarios you mention above, the weak spot is the pilot. I simply do not fly under either situation. :yikes:

However, with that said, I know of several people who have with mixed results.

In the case of encountering hail, flox and “balloons” are mixed and placed into the damaged areas. Once hard, sand back into shape, shoot with paint and go fly. By contrast, what is required to repair the same damage of a Cessna, Piper, and Lear? You get the idea. The point being that just about any airplane will take damage in this scenario, but with an experimental, you have the option of fixing the damage yourself at a rather substantially reduced cost.

As for icing conditions, canards do not tolerate well at all. The canard generates about 20% of the total lift. Change the airfoil shape and things go bad quickly. That said, the FAA has a thing or two to say about who gets to fly under known icing conditions anyway, and those rules exclude most GA folks.

No plane is a complete solution to be sure. However, on a very limited budget, I would submit that the canard line of aircraft give enormous bang for the buck.

To be clear, Canards also do not do well in tornados, typhoons or during apocalyptic conditions. They also make terrible submarines, do not cure disease. :nono:

These were designed to be economy airplanes, nothing more. :rolleyes:
 
sba55 said:
I still think an early Bo is a good option. Bulletproof gear unlike most singles. Fast, IFR, cheap mx, reliable, and roomy.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I've ever heard "Bo" and "cheap mx" used together! :yikes:

No old airplane is going to be "cheap" to maintain. :no:
 
NC19143 said:
Read the AD list and tell me how cheap the Bo's are to maintain..

2007-08-08 Landing gear uplock rollers
2002-21-13 Never exceed speed, Vne
2001-23-10 Flap flex shaft assemblies
99-05-13 W Withdrawal of AD 99-05-13
99-05-13 Fuel selector position placard - Withdrawn
98-13-02 Never exceed speed, Vne - Superseded by AD 2002-21-13
97-06-11 Ruddervator differential tail control rod assembly
94-20-04 Structural failure of V-tail - Revised by AD 94-20-04 R1
89-05-02 Elevator control fittings
87-20-02 R1 Structural failure of V-tail - Superseded by 94-20-04
84-09-01 Window emer. egress prov
76-05-04 Stabilizer attach fitting
75-15-08 Engine lubrication
75-05-02 Engine oil
72-22-01 Landing gear uplock rollers - Superseded by AD 2007-08-08
72-18-01 Fuel selector valve warning light
72-11-02 Engine fuel interruption
69-18-01 Fuel system modification
63-25-01 Fuselage modification
62-08-03 Control wheels
57-18-01 Structural failure of V-tail - Superseded by 94-20-04
55-22-01 Oil outlet check valve
53-01-02 Fuel selector valve rework
51-14-01 Fuel booster pump removal
49-48-01 Thompson fuel pump
49-31-01 Emergency fuel pump "O" rings
49-26-01 Trailing antenna rework
49-04-01 Aileron chain
48-08-01 Starter rework
47-47-08 Fuel line chafing
47-47-07 Engine identification plate
Click to expand...

Tom, nothing in the list above has any significant cost to it.

E-225 Series
98-17-11 Crankshaft failure
97-21-02 Side loading of the piston
97-15-01 PL Side loading of the piston - Superseded by AD 97-21-02
95-21-15 Detonation due to low octane
94-14-12 PL Detonation due to low octane - Superseded by AD 95-21-15
63-15-01 Exhaust valves
60-12-01 Piston pin assembly
60-06-04 Generator drive gear retaining nut internal tooth lockwasher
56-06-01 Piston pin assembly
Click to expand...

I don't see anything about the E-225 AD list that goes cha-ching either, just normal run of the mill improvements made over time. Where's the beef?

The one mistake that will kill you is not being proficience, or allowing a non Beech mechanic work on your elevons or flight controls.

Name one beech shop that is a cheap place to have your Bo worked on.
Click to expand...

A lack of proficiency can kill you in any airplane, I'll wager that this is far more true in a Fairchild than a Bonanza (but that wouldn't deter me from flying one, given the chance).

It does help to utilize a mechanic experienced on Beechcraft as they often have learned a thing or two that's not in the service manuals. But rigging isn't one of them, the procedures called out in the manual are very explicit and comprehensive. Several specialized tools are required but one can rent them from the ABS for a reasonable fee. As to the "cheap place" to have your Bonaza worked on, I have one I've been going to for 20 years. The A&P-IA charges less than the shops that fix my cars, lets me supply parts to save money, and has been known to put time in on my airplanes for free because he likes working on them.

Tom, I don't expect to change your mind on this but I think your words are grossly unfair to the breed and I hope that others don't take them (incorrect IMO) too seriously.
 
lancefisher said:
Tom, nothing in the list above has any significant cost to it.

your cheap 35 isn't going to have them all complied with, the higher end may.what would you estamate the cost fora new owner to have all these ADs checked for compliance?

I don't see anything about the E-225 AD list that goes cha-ching either, just normal run of the mill improvements made over time. Where's the beef?

The Beef comes at overhaul time, the 225 is not cheap to overhaul and the up grade isn't eigher.


A lack of proficiency can kill you in any airplane, I'll wager that this is far more true in a Fairchild than a Bonanza (but that wouldn't deter me from flying one, given the chance).

I went 7 years and never flew the F-24, got into it and made a great landing. the 24 is a pussycat, but would you jump into a B35 with out a high horse and complex endorsement?

It does help to utilize a mechanic experienced on Beechcraft as they often have learned a thing or two that's not in the service manuals. But rigging isn't one of them, the procedures called out in the manual are very explicit and comprehensive. Several specialized tools are required but one can rent them from the ABS for a reasonable fee. As to the "cheap place" to have your Bonaza worked on, I have one I've been going to for 20 years. The A&P-IA charges less than the shops that fix my cars, lets me supply parts to save money, and has been known to put time in on my airplanes for free because he likes working on them.

Tom, I don't expect to change your mind on this but I think your words are grossly unfair to the breed and I hope that others don't take them (incorrect IMO) too seriously.
Click to expand...

I'm just stirring the pot to get input for folks. but any Bonanza drivers I've been involved with were complaining about the cost of annuals, and complying with ADs.
 
Last edited:
NC19143 said:
I'm just stirring the pot to get input for folks. but any Bonanza drivers I've been involved with were complaining about the cost of annuals, and complying with ADs.
Click to expand...

you must be charging too much!! :D:D
 
NC19143 said:
I'm just stirring the pot to get input for folks. but any Bonanza drivers I've been involved with were complaining about the cost of annuals, and complying with ADs.
Click to expand...

Well, IME the vast majority of decent Bonanzas have had all the necessary AD's complied with. The one that lifted the speed restriction was actually done for free by Beechcraft (if any significant corrosion was found that still cost the owner).

Certainly one needs proper training to fly a Bonanza safely, and I would agree that a pilot who's never flown anything but a C-150 would be a lot more likely to manage a flight complete with an uneventful landing in a C-172 than in a Bonanza but I can't quite see how that detracts from the value of a Bo.

As to the annual cost, in the ten years I owned an E model (1954) the most expensive annual was around $3000 and most were less than half that.
 
lancefisher said:
Well, IME the vast majority of decent Bonanzas have had all the necessary AD's complied with.

Your decent Bonazas won't be the low end of the Bo market

The one that lifted the speed restriction was actually done for free by Beechcraft (if any significant corrosion was found that still cost the owner).

Certainly one needs proper training to fly a Bonanza safely, and I would agree that a pilot who's never flown anything but a C-150 would be a lot more likely to manage a flight complete with an uneventful landing in a C-172 than in a Bonanza but I can't quite see how that detracts from the value of a Bo.

As to the annual cost, in the ten years I owned an E model (1954) the most expensive annual was around $3000 and most were less than half that.
Click to expand...

I have been involved with 3 bonanza insurance repair quotes,

1. A nose gear failure that bent the forward fuselage which is the engine mount. my estamated time and material was 80K. and I was the low bidder.
the insurance totaled it.

2. The owner pilot had a hard landing, and the rear of the fuslage broke away at the rivet seam behind the cabin. Cause, every rivet seam had severe corrosion, estamated cost to repair was over the value of the aircraft.
cause, aircraft was stripped and not treated properly for mag skins.

3. The aircraft taxied off runway and hit a old light stantion (6 inches tall concrete block) with the right main gear, which tweeked the main spar center section, I suggested a wing change out, I never heard back for the Insurance company, but I did see the salvage company tow it away on a trailer.

Any other aircraft type and all three of these accidents would have been repaired and would still be flying.

they are very strong aircraft, but you bend one and it is a very expensive repair.

Remember I see these aircraft as a mechanic when they have problems, not as a pilot, simply because I don't do that type of flying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top