BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jan 2018, 19:34

Username Protected wrote:

Unless you are buying a new plane; the quality of the plane when it was built a few decades ago is almost meaningless.
Tim

I disagree.

Open up my '76 A36 and you won't see bare aluminum. What you'll see is zinc chromate throughout. That is indicative of the extra quality Beech built into the aircraft from the factory. 42 years later it still looks good on the inside.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jan 2018, 19:59

Username Protected wrote:

Um, seriously?

The evidence of poor quality is a neglected C-182?

The C-182 will be slower (and uglier) than the Beech but will:
* Carry more,
* go farther
* Land shorter
* and stall slower
* facilitate easier ingress/outgress
* have more mechanics familiar with it

The C-182 is also still in production...not so much for the debonair

Carry more than what? Go further than what?

Any chance you can be specific?

I fly a C-182 (1959 model) often. Very light empty weight as it's an early model with few creature comforts. Flew it last Saturday. It won't carry more, won't go farther, won't facilitate ingress/egress (ever try to get infants and child seats into the back of a 182? Double doors and club seating make it child's play. They're also phenomenal for senior citizens (my parents enjoyed flying with us before they passed on and they really liked the double doors). Oh, and it's a heck of a lot slower.

Or you could simply ask my wife how easy it was to change diapers in the club seating area of an A36 while enroute from SoCal to Chicago vs. how that would've gone in a 182 or 210. :lol:

I started out renting and flew Piper Tomahawks, 140's, Warriors, Archers and the Saratoga. I owned a Piper Arrow III. I also rented Cessna 150's, 152's, 172's and 182's.

If the economy turns and we ever have to take a step towards a less costly aircraft I'd be happy to consider a 182 or a 210. They're good airplanes for what they were designed to do, but if at all possible we'll just continue to keep our A36. After nearly 28 years we've got enough history with her to know just how fine an aircraft she is.

The other thing that has *always* bothered me about the 182 and the 210 was the visibility from the cockpit which is much poorer than in the Bonanza when trying to spot conflicting traffic. We knew a guy who owned a 210 and he sadly passed away in a traffic pattern midair collision on a sunny CA day.

One more thing - what about certification standards? Our A36 was certified in the utility category (4.4 G's if memory serves). As long as I keep our GW at 3,600 lbs. or less we've got that level of airframe strength. Many (including our A36) got a GW increase in conjunction with various STC's. Ours was to 4,000 lbs. but all it really does is put us back to a Normal category certification.

How are the Cessnas certified? Normal or Utility?

Obviously I'm more passionate about our choice of airframe than some of the others. Folks differ; there's nothing wrong with that. Plus we have different needs and expectations from our aircraft. But in it's class the Bonanza is clearly a superior product than the competition.

Back when we were buying it cost a lot more than the competition too. But we went for it have been so very glad we did. For nearly 28 years!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jan 2018, 20:04

Username Protected wrote:

Beechcraft and Cessna both built airplanes that have obviously withstood the test of time.

Considering the avionics going into new planes now, I think continuing aftermarket support should be part of the equation. Not just the rivet count.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jan 2018, 23:34

Username Protected wrote:

Unless you are buying a new plane; the quality of the plane when it was built a few decades ago is almost meaningless.
Tim

I disagree.

Open up my '76 A36 and you won't see bare aluminum. What you'll see is zinc chromate throughout. That is indicative of the extra quality Beech built into the aircraft from the factory. 42 years later it still looks good on the inside.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jan 2018, 23:56

Username Protected wrote:

Not extra quality, extra cost. It was an option on Cessna, not sure when it became standard. I believe Beech made it standard earlier, if rumor from a few sales brokers told me, Piper was the first one to make it standard among the big producers.

Until the 1980s when airplane production basically came to a halt, most people believed the useful life of a plane was roughly ten years. Putting corrosion protection on a metal plane which was only going to be around for ten years was rather specious and costly. Let alone the added weight.

So if in 1976 someone was selling me a plane (when I was four years old); and I was only going to keep the plane for a decade. Why would I pay extra for a feature I do not need?

Further, look how many old Cessna planes are still around. I think they have stood up to the tests of time just fine.

Tim

Quite true. I randomly picked a price list from my crazy collection of GA stuff from back in the day. For a 1967 320E SkyKnight, internal corrosion proofing (including stainless steel control cables) was offered for $925.00 at a weight of 4.8 lbs. Considering the base price of the 320E was $82,500.00 that was a considerable sum. My 1968 B55 Baron does not have internal corrosion proofing and when you look at the internals it is no factor. I'll be long dead before this "unprotected" airframe becomes unairworthy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 01:18

Username Protected wrote:

Not extra quality, extra cost. It was an option on Cessna, not sure when it became standard. I believe Beech made it standard earlier, if rumor from a few sales brokers told me, Piper was the first one to make it standard among the big producers.

Until the 1980s when airplane production basically came to a halt, most people believed the useful life of a plane was roughly ten years. Putting corrosion protection on a metal plane which was only going to be around for ten years was rather specious and costly. Let alone the added weight.

So if in 1976 someone was selling me a plane (when I was four years old); and I was only going to keep the plane for a decade. Why would I pay extra for a feature I do not need?

Further, look how many old Cessna planes are still around. I think they have stood up to the tests of time just fine.

Tim

We disagree. Significantly. I'm glad I have zinc chromate and a utility category airframe and many other Beech qualities. If that increased the cost it's fine by me. After 28 years with the same aircraft you might expect I'm in it for the long haul. You'd be correct on that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 05:51

Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 10:10

Username Protected wrote:

Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.

Then I must be unloved since I am planeless...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 10:21

Username Protected wrote:

Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.

Then I must be unloved since I am planeless...

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 10:40

Username Protected wrote:

Once again, much of our opinion is a matter of loving what we have. Makes perfect sense.

Perhaps we simply bought the aircraft that best suited our needs and desires?

I "had" a Piper Arrow III for 5+ years. I enjoyed flying it, but it's no Bonanza.

As far as all the small Cessnas and Pipers I have flown and considered are concerned - no, I'm not willing to go back. I'd be giving up too much in exchange for too little.

The only feature I don't have that I long for is pressurization. The only realistic step for me is into a Malibu. Maybe one day....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 11:16

I’d consider it a step backwards to give up my T210 for a Bo but I’m still an avid Bo enthusiast. Maybe I should take on a Bo restoration project.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 11:19

Username Protected wrote:

I recently bought an old Cessna L19 Birddog. I'm really impressed with the build quality. I'm even more impressed with the handling qualities but that's not the topic here. I've only owned six airplanes so not an expert nor am I a mechanic but I have to say that the old Birddog is a stout airframe. You'd think, or at least I thought, that planes destined for combat would be certified to some crazy high G ratings. It's only certified in the utility category yet it's a very tough bird. Here's a photo of one that survived 37MM cannon fire.

Beechcraft wing damage after hit with the same 37MM cannon fire

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 12:07

Username Protected wrote:

Beechcraft wing damage after hit with the same 37MM cannon fire

I thought Beech added the infamous "Diving Platforms" in a humanitarian attempt to control the cost of healthcare by reducing the loss of Doctors...

On a serious note, why is it that when a manufacturer comes up with an aerodynamic fix they seem to do it in the ugliest way possible?? The Beech "Diving Platforms" and the Piper "Water Rudder" on the A* are two that come to mind. Thank god my A* has the Machen mod...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 12:15

Username Protected wrote:

I’d consider it a step backwards to give up my T210 for a Bo but I’m still an avid Bo enthusiast. Maybe I should take on a Bo restoration project.

Is your T210 a utility category airplane?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 16 Jan 2018, 12:42

Kevin,
Another plus in the Bonanza column - not even the paint is scratched!!!
Dave

Username Protected wrote:

I recently bought an old Cessna L19 Birddog. I'm really impressed with the build quality. I'm even more impressed with the handling qualities but that's not the topic here. I've only owned six airplanes so not an expert nor am I a mechanic but I have to say that the old Birddog is a stout airframe. You'd think, or at least I thought, that planes destined for combat would be certified to some crazy high G ratings. It's only certified in the utility category yet it's a very tough bird. Here's a photo of one that survived 37MM cannon fire.

Beechcraft wing damage after hit with the same 37MM cannon fire

Beech vs Cessna Quality