How would you be on less fuel? I climb at 120 at 1000fpm.

And.....

If I'm climbing to mid teens it's because there's a big tail wind.

So how long of a trip are we talking?

Larry; as a little aside; BTW great input on flight time AND doing a job on arrival. I had sorta come to the same conclusion in that I could do about 2 hrs flying and do a meeting etc in the same day. My question: How much do you think pressurization could change that equation? In other words, do you think pressurization would make one less tired afte 2-3 hrs of flight?

How would you be on less fuel? I climb at 120 at 1000fpm.

And.....

If I'm climbing to mid teens it's because there's a big tail wind.

So how long of a trip are we talking?

OK, so you'll be climbing at half the ROC but on the same fuel. So we'll both be at our desired altitude at the same time. Me at 14K and you at 7K.

I climb at 1000fpm

You climb at 500fpm.

OK, so you'll be climbing at half the ROC but on the same fuel. So we'll both be at our desired altitude at the same time. Me at 14K and you at 7K.

I climb at 1000fpm

You climb at 500fpm.

My total time to climb to 14K' is 14 minutes.

Your time to climb to 7k' is also 14 minutes.

So 20-40 knots over 14 minutes= 5-10nm down range of me once I reach 14k'.

What's your fuel burn in cruise? Mine is 16.5gph.

I think these differences regarding climb are negligible.

My total time to climb to 14K' is 14 minutes.

Your time to climb to 7k' is also 14 minutes.

So 20-40 knots over 14 minutes= 5-10nm down range of me once I reach 14k'.

What's your fuel burn in cruise? Mine is 16.5gph.

I think these differences regarding climb are negligible.

I'll make my point on this topic at the end of this post.

It's hard to beat a Beech 36 for overall speed, comfort and utility at a reasonable price.

As many experts have said: "Everything in aviation is a compromise."

Want more speed, load, range, comfort (roominess and pressurization), altitude? You can buy more of each, a lot more, but the cost is exponential as the amount of increase in each goes up. For the financially independent just keep moving up. Finally, you will have the latest Gulfstream or Global Express that will fly very fast, NY to Paris, at 40k', at airline speed in living room/bed room comfort.

My compromise? I stopped "moving up" when I bought a (now) forty year old V35B v-tailed Bonanza seven years ago. It would be difficult to find a plane that better suits my missions. What are they? Two trips a year of 1,000~3,000 nm. Around ten trips of 250~500 nm, and thirty to forty trips a year of 75~250 nm. All of these are round-trip distances. My typical load for the longer trips is a wife, 25# dog, and lots of baggage, maybe 200#. For the shorter trips it's often just me and my dog. I'm rarely near maximum gross weight. My heaviest calculated load with both of them was 3,179 #, 235# under max. ramp weight. CG is not an issue. I can fly TAS of 175+ at 17 gph, or 150+ at 10~11 gph or anywhere in between. I average around 13~14 nmpg.

FIKI capability? That would be of use to me maybe once or twice a year. Turbo-normalize my engine? That is just not a requirement for me, nor a desire, as I don't need it, nor want the complexity of engine management, cost to install and maintain, and need to fly high to justify that cost and complexity.

Many times I've flown between 13k' and 17.5k' feet for periods of time to avoid weather. Can I fly in the 18k'~23k' range? No.

Turbocharger? Not for me. On a 600 nm one-way trip I can fly at 14k' and land 45 minutes later than a TN'd version of my model plane that departed at the same time. I will burn five fewer gallons, however. That 45 minutes is not that important to me. Time to climb to 14k' is ten more minutes for me. However, unless weather was the deciding factor I would probably fly that trip at 8~12k', dependent upon wx, smooth air, etc. Not having to use oxygen is a big comfort/convenience factor. At 9k' I would land about 30 minutes later than the TN plane and burn 6~7 gallons less fuel.

So, of Don the OP, I would ask: How high do you need to fly? Getting oxygen into the lungs of small children via cannulas is no easy task. Pressurization solves that problem. Do you really need to fly above 10k' a lot on family trips? The roominess and comfort of a 36 Bonanza is just as good as the Pipers for four people, two of them being children is more of a plus. Training passengers to manage intake (and excretion) in the few hours before a flight is not a hard task and makes four-hour legs routine. It seems that pressurization is the real question, not load, endurance, nor comfort. I see that as the only reason to buy a Piper instead of a Beech 36 if you want to fly a piston single-engine plane.

Max,

Agree with your philosophy 100%. The best plane I ever had for cost/mission accomplishment/easy of ownership/easy of flying and reliability was my old 73 A36 (na). Kinda like yours... it just ran great. If I were shopping today, that would be my choice.

However, since the Baron is in place and a "known quantity", I'll keep it. The overall annual costs per mile is not significant enough to make a cost difference, and the added mission capability is a major plus. I've enjoyed some great family trips with 6 and luggage on board, that could not be done in the A36.

Yes, a lot depends on the mission.

I knew the regulars would chime in on the altitudes they fly. No one with a Turbo A36 is going to post on this thread and admit that they don't regularly fly in the high teens. It is like admitting it takes about 17.5GPH to get 180ish kts TAS on a three legged GPS course. Blasphemy!

I don't fly high teens. I've said it 1000 times.

Sweet spot for my plane is 12.5-13.5. No O2 and I cruise 185-190TAS on 16.5gph.

I don't fly high teens. I've said it 1000 times.

Sweet spot for my plane is 12.5-13.5. No O2 and I cruise 185-190TAS on 16.5gph.

In my opinion, absolutely. And the difference is even greater as one gets older (and/or less physically fit). But pressurization comes with its costs (dollars, weight, one more thing that can go wrong, etc).

-Neal

In my opinion, absolutely. And the difference is even greater as one gets older (and/or less physically fit). But pressurization comes with its costs (dollars, weight, one more thing that can go wrong, etc).

-Neal

I think there are some very wise words posted above on this page from people who have been there and done that and have flown long term, 40+ years in all sorts of scenarios.

Another observation. I don't recall ever reading a post that someone did not like their TN 33 or TN36, as can be seen on this thread. People love this setup. That does mean something.