David,

Have you tried the turbine Bird Dog? What a magic carpet ride!!

A T-Bird Dog on floats would have to be the ultimate toy.

I've always wanted a Birddog. Awesome airplane, classic war bird. love the visibility! Well done!

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.

I'm still confused by this post - specifically looking for the data to back it up since I fly a '59 C-182 (owned by a friend) as well as my '76 A36 and the C-182 isn't close in any of these categories.

Here's an example from my NA-550 days. From Camarillo, CA (within sight of the Pacific ocean) to San Angelo, TX non-stop. Stock 80 gallon fuel tanks. Virtually no winds aloft help (actually had a headwind for the first couple of states).

A direct route is 952 NM per my Garmin Pilot app (didn't have it back then, was using paper) but the actual route was longer due to MOA's, restricted airspace, etc. Actual track was closer to 1,000 NM.

Any of the short bodied Bonanzas with 80 gallons of fuel will go further and a bit faster.

Here's the flight aware graph. This flight was roughly 6:45 (I'm going from a distant memory here) so I averaged 148+ knots groundspeed. With some modest headwinds. I needed about 67 gallons to refuel at KSJT for about 15 NMPG.

I typically fly much faster and am unconcerned about range. This particular trip was a science experiment (plus I was going to Texas anyway) to see if I could get 1,000 NM on 80 gallons with legal reserves. I ran the right tank dry (just over 40 gallons) and needed 67.x to refuel meaning I had 13 gallons left (minus 3 gallons FAA "unusable") left me with 10 gallons.

During the last hour of the flight I was burning 9.x GPH in cruise.

These days at that altitude with the TAT TN system I'd be burning 15.x GPH and cruising around 190 KTAS.

Many Bonanza owners (and most TAT TN owners?) opt for tip tanks for an extra 40 gallons of fuel (120 total). That allows this type of trip to be non-stop at high cruise power. The tips only add a modest amount of empty weight and at modest cruise speeds don't increase drag (they do at higher indicated airspeeds).

Since SWMBO generally prefers shorter stage lengths and a comfort stop the 80 gallon tanks work just fine for us. We easily go to/from Chicago from SoCal with only a single fuel stop in Colorado each way.

It's worth noting that the short bodied Bonanzas (V tail and conventional) perform better (faster and further on the same fuel) than does our big, heavy A36.

Yet we still have a 1,638 lb. useful load and can carry 5 adults, full fuel and overnight luggage for 5 and have done so on multiple occasions (with 3 of the 5 being 200+ lb. men). 6 people are easily accommodated as long as at least one or two are children.

But most often for us the aft cabin these days is like a Suburban with all the rear seats removed. It's an area where my wife packs prodigious amounts of boxes of stuff. The Christmas flights are legendary. Not sure we could fit it all in a short bodied Bonanza or C-182. Probably not.

Jim,

What was the altitude for that trip? That's an impressive max range trip.
Kevin

The connection is MUCH older than people realize.

In 1924, Walter Beech (future founder of Beechcraft), Clyde Cessna (future founder of Cessna Aircraft), and Lloyd Stearman (of Boeing Stearman fame) formed the "Travel Air Manufacturing Company" and starting building the iconic Travelair series of airplanes.

There is a fascinating DVD: "Cessna: A Master's Expression" which goes into the history of Cessna and how it is tied to practically ever light airplane maker. They are ran around in the same circles.

So, 90 years later, all back together again...

Mike C.

Chip,

We all know the best Cessna built was the 180/185 line.

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.

which is a design parameter, and nothing to do with "build quality"

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.

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

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.