Bo vs. Arrow

Glen R said:
Feel free to provide a list of planes that have never had issues.
Click to expand...
That's easy, wood rag and tube aircraft, name one that has had a the inflight break up problems the the bonanza has.
The Fairchild 24 series has been around since the 30s not one single in flight break up.
 
Tom-D said:
That's easy, wood rag and tube aircraft, name one that has had a the inflight break up problems the the bonanza has.
The Fairchild 24 series has been around since the 30s not one single in flight break up.
Click to expand...

Let me know how many are flying around in IMC at 160+ knots. You are really reaching. Get serious.

Edit: I also owned a Viking. An inspection showed the wing spar was 90 percent compromised. Had to replace the wings.
 
kgruber said:
Do you value "control feel?" The Bonanza is much better than the Arrow, and light years better than the truck like control feel of a Mooney.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, it’s a Bo. He’s just going to turn the autopilot on and watch movies on his iPad anyway, right? :)
 
Glen R said:
Let me know how many are flying around in IMC at 160+ knots. You are really reaching. Get serious.

Edit: I also owned a Viking. An inspection showed the wing spar was 90 percent compromised. Had to replace the wings.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that speed and weather cause the brake up? Is that why the AD placed a speed restriction a lot of the early Bonanzas?

Vikings= all wood wing,, I guess in your case the termites quit holding hands. :)
 
Tom-D said:
I would suggest that when buying any Bonanza the buyer verify every AD is properly complied with and signed off correctly. The list is long and complicated as per S/N and is often screwed up.
Click to expand...
why is that any different than any other model?o_O
 
Glen R said:
I'm well aware of the AD's on my plane. None are remotely problematic or expensive. Since you brought it up, why don't you share with us all the onerous ones?
Click to expand...
When you find a bonanza that has not had a ECI cylinder issue already taken care of, would you call that expensive or not?

The AD requires that after September 15, any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new be removed from service before reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new. Assemblies with between 680 and 1,000 operating hours TIS since new would need to be removed from service either within the next 320 operating hours TIS or within 1,160 operating hours TIS since service, whichever comes first. Assemblies with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS since new must be removed from service either within the next 160 hours of operation or at the next engine overhaul, whichever happens first. Finally, cylinder assemblies that have been overhauled must be removed from service within the next 80 operating hours TIS.

The affected cylinders were produced by Danbury Aerospace under the ECi brand name from September 2002 through June 2009. CMG bought Danbury Aerospace’s assets in July 2015 but never produced any ECi cylinders.
 
Tom-D said:
When you find a bonanza that has not had a ECI cylinder issue already taken care of, would you call that expensive or not?

The AD requires that after September 15, any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new be removed from service before reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new. Assemblies with between 680 and 1,000 operating hours TIS since new would need to be removed from service either within the next 320 operating hours TIS or within 1,160 operating hours TIS since service, whichever comes first. Assemblies with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS since new must be removed from service either within the next 160 hours of operation or at the next engine overhaul, whichever happens first. Finally, cylinder assemblies that have been overhauled must be removed from service within the next 80 operating hours TIS.

The affected cylinders were produced by Danbury Aerospace under the ECi brand name from September 2002 through June 2009. CMG bought Danbury Aerospace’s assets in July 2015 but never produced any ECi cylinders.
Click to expand...

That's an issue with any Continental with those cylinders. Not just Beech. You seem to be dragging the bottom here. Is that your m o? Any pre buy would disclose that condition and pricing adjusted accordingly. C'mon, bring on another straw man.
 
bnt83 said:
Want a lycoming engine or a continental? Want more power or better economy? Which feels better to you?
Click to expand...
does it matter? it has already been said: "I wouldn't mind having more room." which translates to: "you are in trouble if u spend money buying this"
 
hindsight2020 said:
No harm no foul, takes all kinds. For us it's not enough of a difference to trade airplanes betweeen those two. Ditto for the Bo.

Now, it bears making a distinction between pre-66 Comanches and those post-66 here. The reason is actually important for a family mission. 2+bag mission? Nah. But a rear seat-centric mission? Heck yeah. The resale prices reflect that. So when I was looking into them for a potential upgrade I parked my Arrow next to a 24-250 and took a no-kidding tape measure to both. Cabin width, as fragged, the comanche was indeed 45 inches and thus wider than the Arrow. That's never been disputed. But the surprise came in the back seat. The bench seat comanche has LESS leg room (tailbone to tailbone as seated) than the stretch PA-28. The wife sat down and gave me one look and pointed at the car seat and I knew right then. No-go.

This problem disappeared in 1966 when they got smart and went individual seats in the comanche (PA-260, then 260B then C) and the tailbone of the seat went back much further. The other no-go for us was the sealed bag compartment of the bench seat Cos. The official reason Piper did that of course was to sell the 5th and then 6th seat in the B model, but in practice it merely opened up the volumetrics of the luggage compartment to be more family friendly and flexible. Which again, for a mission that actually cares more about the middle row than any other place in the airplane, is a rather important inflection point.

I will say, if the OP doesn't care about the back seat, the 250 offers the most bang for the buck imo, and certainly more comfortable in the front than any PA-28.
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
I don't see the correlation between IMC and flight control flutter.
Click to expand...

Theres no systemic flutter issue with the V-tail Bonanza that I've heard of? From the C model the chord of the ruddervators (that's what they are called btw) was extended and if the plane ended up outside the design flight envelope the tail separated first, usually followed by the wings failing downward. The leading edge cuff seems to have solved that problem. Doesn't mean they still won't break up in flight if flown beyond the design limitations, usually IMC roll into a spiral dive it seems, but the tail is usually still attached apparently.

As for the speed restrictions, I thought those were only applicable to the early 35/A/B models and were removed or largely modified by the FAA circa late 2002?

To the OP: unless you must have a low wing, you might want to test fit a Cessna 210. Your wife might find the entry/egress and the space appealing.
 
Last edited:
I've been contemplating a move up from my Sierra to a V-Tail (or something) and I have to say that I was disappointed in the comfort afforded by of the "pre-S" models. The cabin is 2 inches narrower than the Sierra and it took about 10 seconds of me sitting in the back seat to know that my wife wasn't going to enjoy it. I did sit in the back of an "S" model as well afterward, which is the first year they were stretched I believe, and it was better, but still seemed a bit cramped and marginal to me. Buying airplanes is a pretty annoying process because of all the trade-offs you have to make.
 
One thing that about the pa 24 is the back seat is bench seating. My wife will climb in the back seat, lay down and take a nap. It is very comfortable. The back bench is actually 42" wide and flat. In my opinion, bench seating is much better than the modern day, individual single seats based on comfort and better use of space, but that is another discussion.
If you can find an old Bo with flat bench like seats, put an old comforter across the back, the two pugs will have a blast, unless your wife pushes them off the bench and puts them on the floor and takes a nap herself.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
So a properly maintained and balanced v tail, flown within the POH guidelines, the ruddervators are just going to fly off all of a sudden?

Not buying it.
Click to expand...

eman1200 said:
You got that from my one word response? Wow, well done! Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
The Key word is properly maintained Bo or Arrow more and more are not being maintained properly, they all have a safety margin built in. Magnesium, find someone who knows what they are doing otherwise they can cause you all sorts of problems. Beechcraft Bo find a Beechcraft Maint center to work on it very few A&P have the tools to work on them and those are not the ones you want working on your Bo, remember properly maintained. If your working with someone who use AC jacks to lift a Bo instead of the Bo stand they probably do not have any other Bo tools, you don't want them working on your Bo. Working on a Arrow most A&P are more than capable of working on them with normal tools a local shop would have.
 
GRG55 said:
Theres no systemic flutter issue with the V-tail Bonanza that I've heard of? From the C model the chord of the ruddervators (that's what they are called btw) was extended and if the plane ended up outside the design flight envelope the tail separated first, usually followed by the wings failing downward. The leading edge cuff seems to have solved that problem. Doesn't mean they still won't break up in flight if flown beyond the design limitations, usually IMC roll into a spiral dive it seems, but the tail is usually still attached apparently.

As for the speed restrictions, I thought those were only applicable to the early 35/A/B models and were removed or largely modified by the FAA circa late 2002?
Click to expand...
You had best know what you are doing when buying A bonanza, And like I've said before, The AD list is a long one. They are complex with a multitude of props, engines, and problems over their 70 years of production.

Do your home work, do it well.
 
Tom-D said:
You had best know what you are doing when buying A bonanza, And like I've said before, The AD list is a long one. They are complex with a multitude of props, engines, and problems over their 70 years of production.

Do your home work, do it well.
Click to expand...
mine isn't all that bad.....;)
 
Tom-D said:
You had best know what you are doing when buying A bonanza, And like I've said before, The AD list is a long one. They are complex with a multitude of props, engines, and problems over their 70 years of production.

Do your home work, do it well.
Click to expand...

I made an offer on this one yesterday. Do you think that was a mistake?

IMG_0298.JPG
 
WannFly said:
does it matter? it has already been said: "I wouldn't mind having more room." which translates to: "you are in trouble if u spend money buying this"
Click to expand...

I'm a mechanic, of course it matters! Which money pit do you want to own? The one that has aftermarket parts available for them or the one that doesn't (meaning only OEM parts)?
 
bnt83 said:
I'm a mechanic, of course it matters! Which money pit do you want to own? The one that has aftermarket parts available for them or the one that doesn't (meaning only OEM parts)?
Click to expand...

I hear ya man, just kidding. His boss has already spoken


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It has never happened.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top