BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 20:52

Quote:

"Why is it that human beings are so incredibly insecure?" Apparently especially Bo drivers.

Nice.
Do you go on Cessna Boards & post tripe like this; or are we special?

Quote:

The apparent need to prove, at least themselves, their toys are better than yours is really rather sad....

As though Bonanza drivers are the only competitive Aviators....this is comedic.

Quote:

Utility vs. normal category, zinc chromate, I can fly this far on a tank of gas, and so on...

Precisely.
Evidently Howard Hughes & ALL of our Aviation Pioneers were also "so incredibly insecure" too, because all of them wanted to be faster, fly longer, go higher, land shorter, and deliver more payload....SUCH insecure people!

Quote:

It's more telling about the owner than the airplane.

Damn right.
These "insecure people" are what gave you the ability to own & fly (3) different planes, (not that you've ever thought of yourself as being "in competition" with anyone...or that any of your (3) planes were better than anyone else's planes....

I think what's REALLY sad is when Americans think that competition is a "Sad" thing, instead of the legitimate & awesome driving force that natural competition has always been, and will always be.

BTW, my plane is better than your (3). :lol:

Laugh it up with me Brother.... :bud:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 20:53

Username Protected wrote:

If nothing else this has made for some interesting reading... JGG hit the nail on the head a few pages back: "Why is it that human beings are so incredibly insecure?" Apparently especially Bo drivers. The apparent need to prove, at least themselves, their toys are better than yours is really rather sad.... Utility vs. normal category, zinc chromate, I can fly this far on a tank of gas, and so on...

It's more telling about the owner than the airplane.

Why are humans so incredibly judgmental?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 20:55

Username Protected wrote:

I’m in the normal category.
I guess that makes a 172 more robust than a 210.

Um, no. The worst the 210 will be in is the normal category. If it was designed stronger it will be in the utility category like the Bonanza.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 22:49

Username Protected wrote:

As far as utility category, the only thing I know about that term is from my 172 days. If loaded properly you could spin it when it fell within the utility category envelope.
I’ve done spin entries with the 210 but have not let it develop into a spin. I’ve not tried that in a Bonanza but I’ve “heard” they do a nice roll.

The fundamental differences between normal and utility categories are load factors.
Normal category airplanes are within the envelope of -1.52G to +3.8G.
Utility category airplanes are within the envelope of -1.76G to 4.4G.
Thus, utility category airplanes are more structurally robust.[/quote]

I would just point out that an airframer has nothing to gain by certifying a plane in utility category over normal category except simply for advertising. It does not allow anything more to be done with the plane, and lest someone start doing light aerobatics in it, all you have done is increased your liability, and the likelihood some yahoo is going to wish to test it. Almost all planes are certified to normal category, even if they are much stronger. A cirrus would be a good example, but the TBM, M600, Eclipse or any other aircraft that has a Vmo above Mach 0.5, is going to have way more airframe strength than necessary for normal category certification, but are all certified to normal category. There is no benefit to doing anything else. I doubt the Cessna 400 is meaningfully stronger than the Cirrus, or the Diamond DA40 stronger than the SR20 for that matter, but Columbia and Diamond went for the utility certification. My Cirrus definitely felt stronger to me than my Diamond, both were plenty strong though.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:16

Username Protected wrote:

I doubt the Cessna 400 is meaningfully stronger than the Cirrus, or the Diamond DA40 stronger than the SR20 for that matter, but Columbia and Diamond went for the utility certification. My Cirrus definitely felt stronger to me than my Diamond, both were plenty strong though.

I can’t speak to the Diamond, but the Cessna 400 is a heavier, stouter airframe. Lance Neibauer acknowledges that it was probably a mistake to certify the Lancair Columbia 300 / 350 / 400 under the Utility category. According to his engineers the airplane is overbuilt by 225%

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:25

If your like me - and I know I am- then you can appreciate the positives of a variety of designs. I think that design capabilities and execution of design are variabe parameters that allow the for a number of planes to all stand out.

The V tail Bo is a classic and because of my dads friend is iconic. More recently with me being a PPL and having delved into the world with both friends and my IA, i have a great appreciation. But realizing it comes at a cost. Literally

Trained in and have delved into the mechanics of a lot of small Cessnas. Performance wise the have their nitch - nicely done. Built OK and fly OK.

But, being a meager Piper Cherokee owner - very involved in owner assist work - i marvel at the simplicity of its design. To one who has never delved into one, the minimal number of parts, etc might seem like a lack of quality. But ot works, and provides a great useful load. And it allows great flexibility in owner assist. If that's low quality, I'll take it.

I could flip this all around and point out the quality of a number of homebuilts. I know of several composites- Long EZ and the like- that put legacy Beech, Piper and Cessna to shame.

I'd rather sit back and admire /take advantage of the pluses of every design. Since I'll probably never have the mission to justify a PC12 orM600.

YMMV

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:32

Username Protected wrote:

I doubt the Cessna 400 is meaningfully stronger than the Cirrus, or the Diamond DA40 stronger than the SR20 for that matter, but Columbia and Diamond went for the utility certification. My Cirrus definitely felt stronger to me than my Diamond, both were plenty strong though.

I can’t speak to the Diamond, but the Cessna 400 is a heavier, stouter airframe. Lance Neibauer acknowledges that it was probably a mistake to certify the Lancair Columbia 300 / 350 / 400 under the Utility category. According to his engineers the airplane is overbuilt by 225%

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:45

Agreed Chuck!

Thing is way too heavy!

I called Lance and said “why’s your plastic airplane so much heavier than our 182?”

So he told me the utility category story.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:54

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

"Why is it that human beings are so incredibly insecure?" Apparently especially Bo drivers.

Nice.
Do you go on Cessna Boards & post tripe like this; or are we special?

Quote:

The apparent need to prove, at least themselves, their toys are better than yours is really rather sad....

As though Bonanza drivers are the only competitive Aviators....this is comedic.

Quote:

Utility vs. normal category, zinc chromate, I can fly this far on a tank of gas, and so on...

Precisely.
Evidently Howard Hughes & ALL of our Aviation Pioneers were also "so incredibly insecure" too, because all of them wanted to be faster, fly longer, go higher, land shorter, and deliver more payload....SUCH insecure people!

Quote:

It's more telling about the owner than the airplane.

Damn right.
These "insecure people" are what gave you the ability to own & fly (3) different planes, (not that you've ever thought of yourself as being "in competition" with anyone...or that any of your (3) planes were better than anyone else's planes....

I think what's REALLY sad is when Americans think that competition is a "Sad" thing, instead of the legitimate & awesome driving force that natural competition has always been, and will always be.

BTW, my plane is better than your (3). :lol:

Laugh it up with me Brother.... :bud:

I am laughing it up with you, and you know it. :bud:

You could pick a fight with a fence post, but you always keep it interesting. :thumbup:

John Grady

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:55

It’s a design parameter. Our Sukhoi has a +/- 12g carbon fiber wing and more titanium than any other light aircraft in the world, and it was built for a mission without a budget: to destroy the Pitts Special in WAC. It was successful. Our Zlin was the pinnacle of unlimited aerobatic capability almost 20yrs prior to that, but is now simply a primary acro trainer. NTSB report? Google Neil Williams Zlin 526 and read how he successfully landed after breaking the main spar attach location while preparing for the WAC.

My Bonanza is an impressive aircraft, and I fully understand the chest beating. It is a well executed design.

So is the Mooney M20 series.

So is the PA28 lineage.

These planes get stacked against each other as competitors, but were never designed with the exact same design parameters... I mean, sure they were similar in their design, but there was no “benchmark” that each manufacturer was seeking to reach.

In aviation, the best benchmarks are in the military and competition aerobatic areas. That’s the only time you can see which manufacturer truly succeeded in their aircraft design.

At the end of the day, quality is the definition of how well a manufacturer repeatedly produces an aircraft that meets its initial design.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 23:59

Donald,

Very good, i.e. intelligent, post. :thumbup:

John Grady

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2018, 00:07

Just to stir the pot in this hysterical thread (and maybe add some needed levity):

"If God had meant an airplane to be built that way, Beech would have done it." :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2018, 00:18

Quote:

Google Neil Williams Zlin 526

I got to fly a 526 back around 1969... I can't remember if I had read about Neil Williams before or after, but what a cool head. Unbelievable.
Edit: (just checked, it was after I had flown it)

And then someone let him borrow a plane to compete.

I just checked the Log Book. 12-22-1969 N3466 from Lincoln Park, NJ
Light, really light controls...(as I recall)
Edit again: I had to print it.... http://www.historynet.com/the-10-greate ... ndings.htm

Quote:

Snapped Wing Spar

While practicing for the 1970 world aerobatic flyoff, British champion Neil Williams felt the wing spar of his Zlin 526 suddenly fail during a pullout from a vertical dive. As he instinctively closed the throttle and tried to level off, Williams realized that the left wing was folded at nearly a 45-degree angle to the fuselage, severed at the root but still somehow held in place.

Sure that he was about to die, Williams flashed back to a Bulgarian Zlin pilot who’d snapped an upper wing bolt while flying inverted. When that airplane flick-rolled upright in reaction to the suddenly askew spar, the wing flopped back into position under positive Gs and held until the stunned pilot landed. Williams figured that if he’d had the opposite failure upright, maybe he could invert the Zlin and hold the wing in place with negative Gs long enough to at worst crash-land inverted, perhaps into trees to cushion the impact.

With the airplane on its back and the broken wing indeed maintaining a tenuous connection, Williams now had another problem: The Zlin’s engine died. He’d inadvertently jostled the fuel cock closed during the confusion, but he got the engine restarted, remembering to select the correct tank for inverted flight.

The airfield from which he’d departed, RAF Hullavington, was now nearby, and his ground crew had already summoned crash trucks, so Williams decided to land there. He flew the pattern and final approach inverted and at the last possible moment rolled the Zlin upright and flopped onto the ground just as the left wing totally failed.

At the last possible moment? Consider this: The Zlin’s left wingtip briefly furrowed the airstrip grass for six yards while the airplane rolled from inverted to level, yet never broke the plastic cover of the wingtip nav light.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2018, 00:22

I make silk purses from a sows ears everyday, so I love 'em all

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Jan 2018, 00:40

I have to wonder how many Bonanza pilots regularly push the limits of the utility category? Probably about as often as I push the limits of the normal category limits in my T210. If this were really a issue there wouldn’t be many 210’s left as they haven’t made one in over 30 years. I hardly ever see a Corvette doing what it can really do either. Most of the guys I know that have Corvettes drive them around like they are trying to balance a half dozen raw eggs on top of one another.

Beech vs Cessna Quality