Bonanza turboprop groundspeed

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
474
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
What kind of groundspeed could you expect to get in a Prop Jet Bonanza? I read somewhere the cruise speed is around 220 kts, but someone in a video said it can cruise at 260. If that's true, I'm sure it's only true at the flight levels where oxygen would be required, but still impressive nonetheless, no matter the altitude.
 
Ground speed isnt static. You want TAS?
 
On the ground I wouldn't go that speed...at 220 kts turns on taxiways may be a little difficult

That's what you mean by groundspeed right? :D
 
Airspeed in relation to the ground. Also, it seems I accidentally posted this thread in the wrong forum. I meant to post in the Flight Following part of the board. :eek:
 
DMD3. said:
Airspeed in relation to the ground. Also, it seems I accidentally posted this thread in the wrong forum. I meant to post in the Flight Following part of the board. :eek:
Click to expand...
He wasn't trying to be a wise guy. You really want to know their airspeed. The groundspeed they get would change depending on whether or not you have a headwind or tailwind.

I know the spirit of the question that you're trying to ask which is essentially "how fast do they go"...but the distinction is an important one.
 
jason said:
He wasn't trying to be a wise guy. You really want to know their airspeed. The groundspeed they get would change depending on whether or not you have a headwind or tailwind.

I know the spirit of the question that you're trying to ask which is essentially "how fast do they go"...but the distinction is an important one.
Click to expand...

Oh yes understood. What would the true airspeed be not counting headwind/tailwind?
 
It's about a 200k airplane. Two friends on the field have them.
 
he could have meant SOG some older gps,loran used it as in speed over ground
 
Kind of off topic, but this thread made me think of it. Many years ago I flew in a Malibu with a Jetprop conversion. I remember being surprised that the Vno became the new redline, which was something like 175 knots. That seemed to really limit its capabilities until you got up high to realize the higher true airspeeds.

Is this the case for all piston->turboprop conversions?
 
It absolutely astonishes me at the number of people that talk about "groundspeed" as some sort of performance indication.
 
arkvet said:
It absolutely astonishes me at the number of people that talk about "groundspeed" as some sort of performance indication.
Click to expand...

Well, it DOES let you figure fuel required for the trip . . .
 
Typical 172 gs = cruises around 100kts
Typical airliner gs = maybe in the vicinity of 500kts.
You can see it has some usefulness in that regard. Shows great differences when used as a coarse measure.

Now if your goal is something more precise, then certainly gs is not so useful.
 
Hank S said:
Well, it DOES let you figure fuel required for the trip . . .
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Did not say it was irrelevant. However, as I clearly implied it has nothing to do with performance.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Typical 172 gs = cruises around 100kts
Typical airliner gs = maybe in the vicinity of 500kts.
You can see it has some usefulness in that regard. Shows great differences when used as a coarse measure.

Now if your goal is something more precise, then certainly gs is not so useful.
Click to expand...
"More precise"???

Hell when I flew to the gulf a few weeks ago my GS was about 135 knots. A few days later I flew home at 175 knots GS. TAS for the trip was 145 knots both ways. So which leg did my plane perform better?

Other than for fuel burn and trip planning GS means absolutely nothing.

Comparing a 737 with a 172. Lol. Not sure what the point is with that one. So in order to demonstrate that GS has value you pick two planes with an average TAS difference of 4-5x? Ok. I'd say "coarse" would be a gross understatement.
 
kayoh190 said:
Kind of off topic, but this thread made me think of it. Many years ago I flew in a Malibu with a Jetprop conversion. I remember being surprised that the Vno became the new redline, which was something like 175 knots. That seemed to really limit its capabilities until you got up high to realize the higher true airspeeds.

Is this the case for all piston->turboprop conversions?
Click to expand...
I believe that is the case, turbine airplanes don't have a yellow arc, only a red line or barber pole for max indicated airspeed, it varies slightly with altitude. It does seem to limit some of these turbine conversions. The other thing is fuel capacity, turbines are thirsty down low, they are usually most efficient in the low to mid 20's some are best in the upper 20's. Not a good place for a Bonanza!
 
Bonanza is a great bird - no need for a turbine for perfection to exist there.

Fwiw I've only got time in 2 turboprops (caravan and pc12) and neither one of them had a yellow arc.
 
The company that made the turbine bonanza conversion is no longer in business. TAS is around 200 down low, but obviously increases in the teens. It lacks pressurization, which can be a drawback compared to a Meridian. Endurance is also a bit limited, even with the tip tanks. Even without the pressurization I would still rather fly a Beech product over a Piper. The other option might be a turbine conversion for a P-210. Hot sections and prop overhauls can be very expensive.
 
omparing a 737 with a 172.
Click to expand...

Ok you got me there. I am guilty of always trying to get the global picture, ie stepping back and taking in the entire scene. In fact, my wife is always zooming in on things with her camera and I am, "zoom all the way out so we can see what is around it and get some perspective!"

Anyway, if the OP were to search for turbine Bo's on flightaware and take the gs, as I mentioned, from a couple dozen flights, he'd get a decent idea of what they are capable of and would be easily able to know how it compares to many other a/c.
 
All the OP needs to know is that power is a terrible way of increasing cruise speeds. As such, turbine on a unpressurized 4-pax spam can is not a particularly useful conversion. That power production mechanism is simply not optimized for low altitudes compared to piston pulsing. Apples and grapefruits.

Turbocharged pistons offer the sub 700NM weekend warrior a lot more flexibility at a much smaller cost penalty, while the cruise speed is still largely a function of the airframe aerodynamics.
 
For the cost of converting a P-baron or a Duke you could buy an older King Air C-90. I think the Duke conversion was over a million. The problem with these is maintenance on an orphaned plane (out of business on the turbine Bonanzas) and they are really endurance limited since they can only carry so much fuel. I seem to recall around 3.5 hours as being realistic. So, some of the speed advantage is countered by the need to stop for fuel.

The advantages are the extra speed and reliability of the turbine conversions. If you need one worked on, will the average mechanic know how it's put together with so few out there?

The turbine bonanza conversion also has a relatively low TBO on the props- I think 1000h. Then, think about a twin turbine and doing hot sections- the hourly cost will end up being pretty close to that of a King Air, a plane that has a ton more room and is well supported.

The turbine bonanzas are fast and still fly like a bonanza, but whether it's worth the additional outlay in maintenance and service need to be considered.
 
AcroBoy said:
For the cost of converting a P-baron or a Duke you could buy an older King Air C-90. I think the Duke conversion was over a million. The problem with these is maintenance on an orphaned plane (out of business on the turbine Bonanzas) and they are really endurance limited since they can only carry so much fuel. I seem to recall around 3.5 hours as being realistic. So, some of the speed advantage is countered by the need to stop for fuel.

The advantages are the extra speed and reliability of the turbine conversions. If you need one worked on, will the average mechanic know how it's put together with so few out there?

The turbine bonanza conversion also has a relatively low TBO on the props- I think 1000h. Then, think about a twin turbine and doing hot sections- the hourly cost will end up being pretty close to that of a King Air, a plane that has a ton more room and is well supported.

The turbine bonanzas are fast and still fly like a bonanza, but whether it's worth the additional outlay in maintenance and service need to be considered.
Click to expand...

Maybe. King Airs have lots of mandatory calendar items that can get ridiculous per hour for lower utilization owner flown.
 
Maybe. Figure a turbine Bonanza costs in the range of around $600/hr while a turbine Baron or Duke would be in at least $1000/hr burning around 70gph. All three have pretty short endurance due to inability to carry a lot of fuel.

A KA probably costs around 12-1500/hr including all of the ridiculous time limited inspections, with a lot more room, endurance, and parts and service availability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top