Twin Bonanza???

D

DC871F

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2
Display Name
Display name:
DC871F
Looking for a 160+ kt twin.

Been entertaining older 310's (Tuna Tank) types etc. Stumbled on a Twin Bonanza that piqued interest.

I'm an A&P and do all my own maintenance. Anyone give the good bad ugly on the supercharged 480 powered airplanes? How about the fuel injection system on these as well?

Reliable cruise speed, fuel burns, economy cruise etc?

I have done as much reading as I can find. Treating the gearboxes right seems to be a big issue. I used to fly Beech 18's in the past, but other than that I have no experience in other Beech models.

This will be the family truckster, so if I'm willing to entertain an older 310, it seems the TBone should be in the running because the initial cost seems close. And the initial cost is also a consideration, dont have the money for a nice 310R or equivelent.

Thank you.
 
Gorgeous airplanes but MASSIVE! Engine parts are getting hard to find. Control surfaces even more so. I looked at one that needed an aileron and was quoted 4,000 for a used one. The propellers can be an issue to. It’s been a while since I looked into them but there is a 2 and 3 blade prop option. Pretty sure the 3 blade has a recurring AD note for a hub inspection that is pretty pricey. Lots of good info on Beechtalk.
 
I think people often overlook the sheer mass of that airplane. It is very large. Real big stance on the ramp. Not that it’s bad but it’s definitely a big bird
 
I jumped out of a twin-bo a few times at "Freakout in Freeport" in Illinois. Fun. Loud.
 
Not sure which engine I'd like to own less, the GSO-480 or the TIGO-541.

Thinking the GSO, sadly. That would've been an amusing airframe for a baby allison or RR300 conversion.
 
JustinD said:
I think people often overlook the sheer mass of that airplane. It is very large. Real big stance on the ramp. Not that it’s bad but it’s definitely a big bird
Click to expand...

The Twin Bonanza begat the Queen Air, which begat the King Air. The wing structure is very similar throughout the lineup, and the fuselage structure evolution is rather apparent under the skin as well. The 310 was designed to fit in a typical T hangar; the Tbone definitely did not have those limits on its size.

Check out Beechtalk for all the info you can use. They even have a special Tbone subforum.
 
flyer770 said:
The Twin Bonanza begat the Queen Air, which begat the King Air. The wing structure is very similar throughout the lineup, and the fuselage structure evolution is rather apparent under the skin as well. The 310 was designed to fit in a typical T hangar; the Tbone definitely did not have those limits on its size.

Check out Beechtalk for all the info you can use. They even have a special Tbone subforum.
Click to expand...
Just registered on the site, thanks.
 
2 of them flying in the Houston area. The owners have had them for awhile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We've got a member here who owns a Twin Bonanza.

Paging @bradg33

And I believe @Ted DuPuis has some experience with them also.

To the OP, if you need a family truckster and value for budget money is important, have you checked out Aztecs? Big airplane, hauls a load, roomy cabin, plenty of parts available, bulletproof engines, stable IFR platform, excellent in ice, under appreciated so they go comparatively cheap.

I've had one for 8 years. Have considered replacing it with something that will go higher and faster, but every alternate requires me to give up things I like about the Aztec.
Ted DuPuis can tell you about Aztecs as well. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Not going to lie, something like this would be pretty boss to own. The thing really is freaking huge, holy crap

Found this on the net:
upload_2020-3-12_1-42-56.png
 
Those things are about 3/4 ton heavier than a 310 (the real Twin-Bo is a Baron.) Whilst you are looking for low cost, I'm seeing that these things burn fuel like a, well, Duke.
 
flyingron said:
The only thing worse than one geared lycoming is two geared lycomings.
Click to expand...

That assessment leaves out important details.

The GO/GSO/IGSO series of Lycomings use a planetary reduction gearbox in the front of the engine. It is actually known to be quite reliable, not something I'd be concerned about. Nice low prop RPM... which is nice with those big giant props.

The TIGO-541s are a completely different story. Those just use a couple of spur gears for reduction (basically the same idea as the GTSIO-520s on the 421s, if you're familiar). The TIGO gearset IS problematic and earns its reputation.
 
Hopefully @bradg33 will chime in. He has a very pretty T-Bone with GO-435s. I've observed it and his ownership of it since he bought it about 3 years ago. While it's not without its maintenance issues, really it seems like it's been a good plane for him. No, they're not going to be as efficient as a 310 or a Baron (or even an Aztec) but not that much worse, and definitely a nicer cabin.

Biggest thing I would consider is hangar space. They are big, and need a big hangar.
 
An old C-310 vs. a T-Bone is almost a maintenance "draw". And as an A&P you know that "parts" is an issue. 310s can suck it right out of you, too.

If you really need the cabin space (as do I), look at 25 kts slower- Seneca is available with FIKI, later 58 Barons; and if you live in the mid states or north, FIKI is a big deal.
 
There is no flat-engined twin that compares to a TBone. Check the subforum on BeechTalk. Someone will offer you a ride.
 
I used to fly behind the gopher35. THe 480's are a little better, but still no bargain.
 
bbchien said:
An old C-310 vs. a T-Bone is almost a maintenance "draw". And as an A&P you know that "parts" is an issue. 310s can suck it right out of you, too.

If you really need the cabin space (as do I), look at 25 kts slower- Seneca is available with FIKI, later 58 Barons; and if you live in the mid states or north, FIKI is a big deal.
Click to expand...

I heard that Seneca's are more difficult aircraft to just pick up as compared to other twins like a Baron or Seminole (for example). Never flown one, but are they really that much more complex somehow?
 
Caramon13 said:
I heard that Seneca's are more difficult aircraft to just pick up as compared to other twins like a Baron or Seminole (for example). Never flown one, but are they really that much more complex somehow?
Click to expand...

Senecas are not to be confused with a nice flying aircraft. Also, a FIKI Seneca will not handle the ice as well as a deiced Aztec. Aztecs were never technically FIKI birds as Piper did not bother to so certify them, but they were essentially grandfathered as long as they had all the equipment.
 
Kristin said:
Senecas are not to be confused with a nice flying aircraft. Also, a FIKI Seneca will not handle the ice as well as a deiced Aztec. Aztecs were never technically FIKI birds as Piper did not bother to so certify them, but they were essentially grandfathered as long as they had all the equipment.
Click to expand...

The Aztec remains the best airplane I've ever flown in icing. The MU-2 does very well too, but its biggest tool it has is the performance to get out of icing quickly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That assessment leaves out important details.

The GO/GSO/IGSO series of Lycomings use a planetary reduction gearbox in the front of the engine. It is actually known to be quite reliable, not something I'd be concerned about. Nice low prop RPM... which is nice with those big giant props.

The TIGO-541s are a completely different story. Those just use a couple of spur gears for reduction (basically the same idea as the GTSIO-520s on the 421s, if you're familiar). The TIGO gearset IS problematic and earns its reputation.
Click to expand...

Prolly this was aimed at me rather than Ron. :D

The GSO-480 fear, for me at least, would be maintaining the babylonian-era supercharger and carburetor, the 480ci series jugs, and THEN the sturdy-if-well-kept gearbox. :D

My time is in GO-480 T-Bones, and it's a pleasant plane and who doesn't love a flying livingroom of space? But it's in the "I want to maintain an antique" category, along with E-series Bonanzas. A&Ps with an interest is awesome, but when T-Bones appear in newbie "what plane should I buy?" threads, I cringe, as it's a real disservice IMHO. That feels like recommending a Packard Clipper to a 16 year old as their first car.
 
schmookeeg said:
Prolly this was aimed at me rather than Ron. :D

The GSO-480 fear, for me at least, would be maintaining the babylonian-era supercharger and carburetor, the 480ci series jugs, and THEN the sturdy-if-well-kept gearbox. :D

My time is in GO-480 T-Bones, and it's a pleasant plane and who doesn't love a flying livingroom of space? But it's in the "I want to maintain an antique" category, along with E-series Bonanzas. A&Ps with an interest is awesome, but when T-Bones appear in newbie "what plane should I buy?" threads, I cringe, as it's a real disservice IMHO. That feels like recommending a Packard Clipper to a 16 year old as their first car.
Click to expand...

Sure, just because something is cheap doesn't mean you should buy it. Look at the number of MU-2 crashes in the 90s.

I also agree there are maintenance concerns associated with the old 435s and 480s since they're long discontinued. But my point was, the gearboxes on them are stout unlike the TIGOs.
 
schmookeeg said:
But it's in the "I want to maintain an antique" category, along with E-series Bonanzas. A&Ps with an interest is awesome, but when T-Bones appear in newbie "what plane should I buy?" threads, I cringe, as it's a real disservice IMHO. That feels like recommending a Packard Clipper to a 16 year old as their first car.
Click to expand...

This is my kind of thought on this as well. You aren't buying an airplane so much as a passion. It won't make any financial sense, and is going to come with a lot of headaches, but if you are passionate about the type and are willing to bear the cost and aggravation then go for it.

If you are looking for an airplane that makes the best financial sense and will be easy to own, stick to the typical avgas burners.
 
I've got a 1954 B50 Twin Bonanza w/ GO-435s. I've flown the GO-480, GSO-480 and GSIO-480 models. It's a wonderful, HUGE, airplane. Handling is honest but not exactly "sporty." Maintenance has proven to be quite easy on mine; it's very easy to work on due to the size and ease of access. Aside from a handful of very specific items, parts are actually pretty easy to come by as long as you know who to call (hint: not Beech). The Supercharged models actually have a pretty good supply of engine parts due from the military surplus side. Mine, with 435s, is by far the hardest engine to support but so far I've not had much trouble (knock on wood). It's a very stout airplane that was well built.

As noted though, hangar space and ground handling can be a bit of a chore. You need a hangar with 50' doors and it's very, very difficult to move on the ground without a powered tug. I can move mine around with a hand towbar, but barely (and I'm fairly young and in shape).

Many have useful loads in the 1800-2000lb range. Most of the NA airplanes have 180 gallons of fuel; supercharged 230 gallons.
 
N1120A said:
T Bones are super cool, but also very specialized. If I were looking at that territory, I'd look closer at an older 414.



The Baron is definitely a Twin Bonanza. The 55 is a Deb the 58 is an A36.
Click to expand...

A TBone will be way, way, way cheaper to maintain than a 414.
 
I've always liked the looks of the T-bone, great ramp presence.
 
bradg33 said:
A TBone will be way, way, way cheaper to maintain than a 414.
Click to expand...

Your just basing that on my experience.

Of course, I happen to agree with you. :)
 
Parts for the 435 are getting hard to find. You can't just call up Lycoming or Superior or whatever and buy a cylinder. The 435 also has oddball prop governors (if you even have a model that supports them) and the only LEGAL mags are also problematic (many of the coils for the heavy weight bags even NOS are BAD).

The only legal prop for the thing I believe are the Hartzell X/V/MV and the old versions of that have an onerous AD.
 
flyingron said:
Parts for the 435 are getting hard to find. You can't just call up Lycoming or Superior or whatever and buy a cylinder. The 435 also has oddball prop governors (if you even have a model that supports them) and the only LEGAL mags are also problematic (many of the coils for the heavy weight bags even NOS are BAD).

The only legal prop for the thing I believe are the Hartzell X/V/MV and the old versions of that have an onerous AD.
Click to expand...

The only truly hard to find parts are the piston rings; I've got 35-40 of them, and I know where to get quite a few more.

Mine has actual Beechcraft propellers.
 
I've owned a couple and never had any trouble with either. They are a strong airplane.
 
Caramon13 said:
I heard that Seneca's are more difficult aircraft to just pick up as compared to other twins like a Baron or Seminole (for example). Never flown one, but are they really that much more complex somehow?
Click to expand...

There's a total of 6 Senecas (all IIs) in the fleets of the three fixed wing flight training operators at my home airport.

They are basically a two-engine Piper Six. Nothing difficult about learning to fly them for beginners, despite the turbocharged engines. But they do have a propensity towards collapsed nose gears when flown with a forward CG by hamfisted pilots.
 
They feel like you're sitting in a 1955 Buick Roadmaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top