What about a suck and blow(337)?

Service ceiling with an engine out is only 3700'?

Interesting...
I think I have seen some pusher configurations where they put a small stamped fan blade doohickey where the spinner backplate would be to help pull air thru the nacelle.

Might be worth mentioning to them.

No. I think it actually was more like 900 miles.

Metro Airlines from Clear Lake City (NASA folks) to Houston IAH saved countless hours compared to a car. Every plane has a perfect mission.

Absolutely correct, Glenn.

Second or third had info but I've heard that the Angel props are quite susceptible to FOD. True or not I'm not sure.

http://www.vulcanair.com/vr-aircraft
several variants and some used on market.

Sorry, I'm a bit late to this discussion, and while I dream about Shrike Commanders and 58 Barons and such, this is the exact mission (grandkids to FL & CO) that I bought into my 75 A36 for.
841 lbs payload with full fuel (74 gal) will easily fly 650 nm, baring huge headwinds. And tip tanks would push that over 1000nm.
What did they do to the 36 from A to B?

Roger

Grass strip. 1000 pounds for 1000 miles.

Sounds like a problem looking for a Tbone solution.

http://www.vulcanair.com/vr-aircraft
several variants and some used on market.

Because the US aircraft buyer is about as conservative as the Spanish inquisition. Unless it's American or a known entity, they won't buy. The Vulcan is Italian, therefore it won't sell in the US. Another one is the Tecnam P2006T. A very economical little twin, perfect for training. Virtually no sales in the US. In Europe it's a staple and a great success.

Because the US aircraft buyer is about as conservative as the Spanish inquisition. Unless it's American or a known entity, they won't buy. The Vulcan is Italian, therefore it won't sell in the US. Another one is the Tecnam P2006T. A very economical little twin, perfect for training. Virtually no sales in the US. In Europe it's a staple and a great success.

Tyler,

I seriously don't believe that Adam was being as aggressive as you perceived. When I picture him saying that "we" are conservative with a smile, I find humor.

I just don't think insult was intended. You have to remember that those Europeans have an inferiority complex that sometimes makes them appear aggressive toward us.

I'M KIDDING ADAM AND SMILING.

Jgreen

Oh, it wasn't meant that way. It was tongue-firmly-in-cheek cynicism on my behalf.

I would agree that Embraer have done very well here despite having similar US competition. The others lack a US counterpart, which I would argue is the main reason they've sold so well.

Just stumbled on to this thread. We have a D55 that has been the ultimate economical family hauler that can carry everything you can stuff in it. In 40+ years we haven't found anything better for our mission and it sounds very similar to yours. 1,900-lb useful means you can fill the seats and the tanks and go 4 hours (or more if LOP.) C/D/E55 have bigger nose baggage bin that can swallow Igloo ice chest and suitcases simultaneously. Aft baggage takes 3 or 4 more, but watch the CG.

As for short-field performance, I doubt there is any better twin out there except for (maybe) an Aztec but it's 20 knots slower. Book performance in original POH is 596-ft ground roll and 968 ft over a 50-foot obstacle at MGTOW of 5,300 lbs. Doesn't get much better than that! Beech abolished obstacle takeoff data in the 1980s but the airplane can match those numbers, you'll just be hauling it off below Vmc. It's one of the very few GA airplanes that can get out of any runway it can land on.

Here's a video of a normal takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJRtpQS2Gt4
0-100 mph in 13 secs. 2,000 fpm+ climb, reaches pattern altitude just off the end of the 4,200-foot runway.

Keep in mind that the best short-field Barons are those with the extended-chord flaps, which faded out of use sometime around the 1972-1973 model years. But they do make a huge difference in required runway.

We also added VGs and later did the IO-550 conversion. The combination has created an even better short-field performer and gives the option of a 200 KTAS cruise if you want to run the fuel through it.

You won't have the cabin volume of a 414 but then again you won't have the fuel burn, expense, and what I think is marginal performance. I have more than 100 hours in 414A and can assure you that I have FAR more confidence in the SE performance of the Baron than the 414. Same with Navajo series.

Hope this helps and feel free to bounce any questions you want off of me.

--Pete