15 May 2025, 15:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 15 posts ] |
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 28 Aug 2011, 22:05 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 08/19/11 Posts: 3 Company: Soloy Aviation Solutions
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Interested in any and all comments in the viability of the Rolls-Royce 250 powered G36.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 28 Aug 2011, 23:26 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/29/09 Posts: 1770 Post Likes: +533 Location: KCRS
|
|
At 230KTAS I think the new factory supported G36TC will take care of any interest in the turbine conversion FrankenPlane.
I know turbines are cool, but not in an unpressurized single.
The new G36TC should be awesome.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 28 Aug 2011, 23:40 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 08/19/11 Posts: 3 Company: Soloy Aviation Solutions
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Tradewinds was unable to covnert G36 models becuase Garmin will not participate and they hold the cards.
The exhaust smell in the cabin can be minimized with sealing the wheelwells as shown on the original conversion drawings.
The costs may be reduced with the new RR500 engine.
What if Hawker was to participate?
Can't fix the lack of pressurization.
An STC done properly can be better than the OEM configuration, look at the Soloy MKII Cessna 206.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 08:06 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13079 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Guys; Mr. Stauffer is from, easily, the most reputable aftermarket turbine conversion company. This could be a historic thread.  In that case. He can convert mine. 
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 09:11 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/14/08 Posts: 3133 Post Likes: +2672 Location: KGBR
Aircraft: D50
|
|
It'd be sad in way to see the current premiere piston single franken-chopped, especially when there are so many a36's that would have all the functionality with a g600.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 11:04 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/09/09 Posts: 4280 Post Likes: +2972 Company: To be announced
Aircraft: N/A
|
|
Why would you want spend all those AMUs and end up with a Bonanza that can back up on the ramp?
_________________ God created Aircraft Mechanics so Pilots could have heros. I'd rather be fishing with Andy and Opie
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 11:34 |
|
 |

|


|
 |
Joined: 12/12/07 Posts: 7963 Post Likes: +3473 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Why would you want spend all those AMUs and end up with a Bonanza that can back up on the ramp? ...you answered your own question!
_________________ PP, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, A&P Texas Construction Law: http://www.TexasConstructionLaw.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Turbine Powered G36 Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 14:20 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/16/09 Posts: 7216 Post Likes: +2095 Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
|
|
found it. A G36 with the same engine is obviously going to be pretty much the same deal as described (except you would have nice integration to the avionics suite). viewtopic.php?f=4&t=590&p=505479#p505479Username Protected wrote: I've owned a Tradewinds Bonanza for 6 years. The motor is an Allison 250 B17 F-2. There are pluses and minuses to all aircraft this one included. My mission profile is typically VFR, under 500nm and in mountainous country. For my mission- it is the perfect airplane.
Much misinformation has been percolated around- mainly by people who really don't know what they are talking about.
I rarely take this aircraft into the flightlevels. In my opinion GA non pressurized aircraft all have rinky-dink O2 systems and anyone who takes one up to 25K (as the ads often brag about are foolish) Therefore- regardless of my turbine bo's capability to fly up to 25K - I never do- unless I find myself in an extremus situation. So to summarize: if you want to fly into the flight levels- get a pressurized plane.
So if the plane is not pressurized is there any reason to get a turbine? In my opinion for my mission- yes. In mountain airports I want to land slow (due to higher TAS/GS) - I want to get off the ground quickly and climb out fast. My turbine allows for all of that. Iam practically a STOL airplane- except I get 200kts every flight. I cruise climb around 140IAS and get 1200fpm fully loaded. Mid weight climbouts are well over 2500fpm @ 120IAS.
I typically fly between 10 and 18K. The best of all worlds is around 14-16K On most days @ 16K I see the following performance: Max Cont Pwr: 212-215 KTAS@ 26gph Cruise 1: 205KTAS @ 23gph cruise2: 200KTAS @ 22gph cruise3: 190KTAS @ 20gph cruise4: 180KTAS @ 18gph
For cooler days add 5 knots TAS to everything and add 1gph warmer days- subtract 5 knots and subtract 1 gph
The fastest speed I ever saw occured on an exceptionally cool day (-20 ISO I believe) and that was 226KTAS. On a straight ISO day in mid teens I can hit the 220KTAS Tradewind Turbines advertises
I should note that while many owners fly their airplane @ max cont power all the time- I know far too much about turbine aircraft to do this with my own aircraft. I fly 50 deg C below max cont on all missions for engine life and general respect- this almost always yields me 200KTAS on 22gph. Iam happy and so is airplane.
Regarding lower mission profiles- its no big deal. If I have to fly low- I just fly low. My IAS and fuel flows stay exactly the same only my true airspeed decreases. These high efficiency turboprops are not turbojets. Down low- figure you will loose about 10% range.
Regarding range- I've already said most of my mission profiles are inside of 500nm. More than that and iam usually itching to stretch my legs or take a leak. The longest leg I ever flew was about 800nm with a very slight headwind- didn't land with much fuel- so I would call that the aircrafts max effective VFR range. I've had flights longer than 5hrs before and don't think I made it to the fbo before I started leaking- so again- not my thing to do long flights
For me this is the perfect mid teens airplane. As for the rocket engineering design- they've done a great job on the B36 model with a PT6 (and I think it even looks a little more "right") - and the aircraft has greater performance (by about 10%) - but the PT6 is a more high alt eng- not nearly as efficient as the allison in the mid teens and so those guys are driven more into filing IFR into the low-mid 20s - which goes back to my original premise- these planes are not designed for high altitude flight. Until they have a positive pressure military style oxy system they are unsafe flown at those altitudes- even then that's an iffy situation without pressuriztion. But either way- rockets plane flown high against the tradwind flown in mid teens- the tradewind wins handsdown in nm per gal. I have had 11 nm (true not wind assisted) per gallon of jet A with this aircraft. Name me another certified turboprop that gets that kind of performance.
Oh yeah- great ramp prescence- the G-4 guys get ignored and you get a crowd!
Let me know if you would like me to answer any questions!
Jim
|
|
Top |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 15 posts ] |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|