G

gjs525

I'm New Here
Over the last 15 + years I have been flying an N35 Bonanza - it is a nice airplane, but it is 46 years old - and after spending most of 2 days watching a group of RVs practicing formation flying at SQI prior to OSH this year, ---

Do any of you have any flight experience in a Bonanza, and if so, give me your "unbiased" flight comparison. I am not interested in aerobatics, most of my flying is weekend pleasure flights, business flights of 200 miles or less, and about 2 - 3 flights per year to Colorado to see our daughter. I prefer the cabin set up of the 7 or 9 - what sort of realistic cruise speeds could I expect with a 9 / 160hp / cs prop??

thanks in advance - this is a great site -

Gary Schopp
N35 Bonanza N1388Z
 
Don't give it another though. Your transition time should be 1-2 hours at best. The RV's are easy to fly, very responsive at low speeds with great rudder command at all speeds. They offer great sport performance that will leave you breathless compared to the Bonanza.
 
Go for it!

I can address this, sort of. My last airplane was a B55 Baron. A typical Beechcraft, well built, great to fly, and very expensive to own. You have experienced the plus side of the RV, performance and fun. Compared to the Bonanza, you are giving away two seats, some bagage room, expensive annuals, and a bunch of fuel burn.

The speed and range issues vary according to type, engine, prop, and (dare I say it) build quality. If it helps, several months ago on a trip to Phoenix, I passed an A36 in level flight. ATC gave me the traffic, I kept him in sight and drove past slowly. Very satisfying!

John Clark
RV8 N18U
KSBA
 
Gary:
I fly an O320-D1A powered 9A with FP prop. My Bonanza experience is limited to about 500 hours in an an A36 going back about 15 years ago. Some numbers to compare:
Cruise (TAS @ 8,000, 2450 RPM, GW 1800) - 155 kts.
Climb (Std temp/press., best rate) - 1450 fpm
Stall (landing config.) - 44 kts.

You'll find the RVs similar to the Bonanza in terms of planning letdowns and entry into traffic area - they don't bleed speed as quickly as say a C210, where you can add gear at 165 and approach flaps at 155. You can improve this situation by going with a CS prop, which will add about 55 pounds to the AC as well as maintenance and annual considerations.

Interestingly, of all the RVs, the 9A has handling characteristics most similar to a Bonanza. From my point of view, if you're not interested in acro, the 9 offers a roll rate which is about half that of an 8 and about 30% less than a 6 or 7. Might be important if you're looking to maximize stability for instrument flight. You can see extensive comparative test data on the RVs by going to:
www.cafefoundation.org
You'll have to page thru their menus to find the reports, but they're worth a read.
Hope this helps.
Terry
 
Gary Bricker

I have a 64 Deb( 250 HP) and just finished a 7A, IO360-180Hp/cs. The 7A is lots more fun to fly. I have not taken a trip in it. Just local. It comes off the runway lot's faster and climb is no comparison. I flew both yesterday and the 7 had a slight chop and the Deb was smooth. The controls are very light on the 7 and the deb is like a truck. If you want to carry lots and drive a big caddy then the deb what you want. If you want fun and speed the 7 is the way to go. I drive a F350 dually and a corvette. I fly the same. (ha)
 
MY RV-9

I have flown the Bonanza and Debonair and enjoyed them very much. Not much comparison though to RV's.

I chose the Rv-9 because I, like you, have given up aerobatics, and, if the engine quits, or I run a tank dry on final, it glides.................................
Like the Debonair, when the prop goes flat following an engine failure, the 6,7 and 8 drop like anvils, because of their high wing loading, and the drag of the flat pitched windmilling propeller. True, engine failures are rare, but after 18,000 hrs, I don't want to push my luck.

The RV-9 glides so well, especially when a fixed pitch prop is installed, it is actually hard to get it to slow down in the pattern. Yet it will do 190!

Go to Van's, look at the factory and get a ride in both with a factory pilot. They will help you decide. If you like to build things, you will love this kit. If you don't, buy one complete from someone who does. Lot's of good ones for sale. (Some junk too, so be careful!).



RV-9 QB
 
Last edited:
A couple of weeks ago a friend and I were flying home when out of nowhere we got hit with a -3.5G gust load. That's negative 3.5G. Glad I had a nice, beefy -7!
 
Yukon said:
...the 6,7 and 8 drop like anvils, because of their high wing loading, and the drag of the flat pitched windmilling propeller...
Click to expand...
Well, the 6, 7 and 8 do not glide very well, but the wingloading at about 14.5 lbs/sq. foot, for the 6 is very similar to the 14.1 of the 9 and not far from the 12 or so of a modern high performance glider, which incidently carries a bunch of water ballast to get the wing loading up that high. If higher wingloading caused reduced glide, I doubt gliders would have to be weighed daily, at contests, to keep people from cheating by using a higher than legal wing loading.

Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere?
 
-3.5G

Dan, could you describe how it felt? I have a lot of time in gliders and while soaring in mountains I get a lot of big ?kicks?, but I never had a G-meter in any of the gliders I flew to quantify the load. I just rated them by the pain when hitting canopy with my head.
 
jantar said:
Dan, could you describe how it felt? I have a lot of time in gliders and while soaring in mountains I get a lot of big ?kicks?, but I never had a G-meter in any of the gliders I flew to quantify the load. I just rated them by the pain when hitting canopy with my head.
Click to expand...
I've had lots of jolts before, but not quite like this. My passenger and I were strapped in tight, and with my QT Halo headset I didn't hit the canopy, but my legs were lifted abruptly and the dust literally came out of the carpet.
 
From whence

Dan,
That is a very strong gust.
Do you think it was thermal generated or possibly associated with mountain wave.
Pete.
 
fodrv7 said:
Dan,
That is a very strong gust.
Do you think it was thermal generated or possibly associated with mountain wave.
Pete.
Click to expand...
No doubt a wave. We were doing about 210 knots over the ground crossing a ridge line...put it this way...we were NOT surprised when it happened.
 
jantar said:
Dan, could you describe how it felt? I have a lot of time in gliders and while soaring in mountains I get a lot of big ?kicks?, but I never had a G-meter in any of the gliders I flew to quantify the load. I just rated them by the pain when hitting canopy with my head.
Click to expand...

I was dan's passenger, and let me tell you it was much harder than any "hit" I've had in a sailplane. I've nearly been knocked out from a very hard parachute opening, enough to break a couple of lines and make me see stars, and this was nearly as violent. Luckaly my head didnt contact the canopy too hard (belts were cinched down uncomfortably tight), but my legs were swung up with enough force to skin my shins through jeans and leave scabs. I also am also glad the -7 is built beefey :)
 
Wow.

Thanks Dan and mike. Spooky,........... but reassuring.

Now back to the Bonanza. Nice aeroplane.
The RV has slightly less drag per horsepower and so is a little faster. Much better Power to weight and so climbs like a home sick angel and is happy to rush up to 14,000' to cruise.

It is however, less roomy, but an absolute delight to fly with much lighter stick forces than the Banana and far greater response rate.

My first annual cost me $250 (I had a LAME tutor me through it and that was his fee.) Additional costs were three oil changes and 31 Litres (divide by 4 for medieval units.) per hour fuel cost.

Pete.
PS. My wife would prefer a Bonanza. Well, actually.... First Class in a B777.
 
G-force said:
but my legs were swung up with enough force to skin my shins through jeans and leave scabs. I also am also glad the -7 is built beefey :)
Click to expand...
Sounds like you found the rotor! This gives me some hope for the fitness of the 7 for doing battle with the terrain around here. I've never had the dust shake out of the carpet in the 182, but I've had some wave jolts big enough to make me hit my head, and otherwise make doing anything but keeping the airplane under control impossible. Just curious- were there any other indications of a rotor, like the shredded cotton type clouds or a cap cloud over the ridge? How high were you guys above the ridgeline?

Cheers,
Dave
 
Clear, sunny day, no clouds pretty good tailwind (30-40 knots IIRC?) I'm guessing 1,000 or so feet above the ridge.
 
G-force said:
Clear, sunny day, no clouds pretty good tailwind (30-40 knots IIRC?) I'm guessing 1,000 or so feet above the ridge.
Click to expand...
Not sure that this was the case this time, but perhaps to help others avoid this, most mountain flying guidelines generally suggest that anytime the winds are more than 20 knots over a mountain ridge, you should fly at least half again the height of the mountain range.** For example, if the range were 12,000 feet (common in Colorado) and the surrounding terrain was around 6000 feet, you should fly across the range at least 3000 feet above the height of the mountains (15,000 feet). This will help you avoid most, though never all, the associated wave turbulence. RV7, RV9, Bonanza not much difference... avoid mountain wave turbulence whenever possible and fly at or near maneuvering speed to minimize possible damages if the turbulence that might be expected in this case does actually show itself.

** over 30 knots and Sparky Imeson suggests one consider postponing the flight period.
 
Last edited:
I've hit +/- 3G turbulance in a Glasair IRG before. It threw headsets off the heads, anything loose hits the canopy. Airplane goes into a semi-controlable state at best... I don't think I would fly in it if I had the choice, I certainly would stick to Va. I did get into some Severe turb last thurs in the C177. I hate the 113mph Va, it's horrible! Had to run 17" 2350RPM at 4500'!
 
L/D

n5lp said:
Well, the 6, 7 and 8 do not glide very well, but the wingloading at about 14.5 lbs/sq. foot, for the 6 is very similar to the 14.1 of the 9 and not far from the 12 or so of a modern high performance glider, which incidently carries a bunch of water ballast to get the wing loading up that high. If higher wingloading caused reduced glide, I doubt gliders would have to be weighed daily, at contests, to keep people from cheating by using a higher than legal wing loading.

Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Yes, higher wing loading isn't the only factor involved here. Aspect ratio is certainly a player too. Whatever the exact reason, a 9 descends at about 500 FPM with the engine idling. I really like that!

Sailplanes achieve higher L/D at higher weights because of extremely high aspect ratios and light wing loading. They do it of course, like all aircraft, at higher airspeeds.
 
Wing loading affects the speed for best glide, and hence the descent rate. But changing the wing loading does not affect the best glide ratio. You just need to fly faster to be at the best glide speed if you add weight.

All the above assumes that the Cd does not change. If you've got a failed engine, and the prop is windmilling, then the windmilling drag probably increases with speed, which screws up all the comments in the first paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Gary:
Looks like you got more answers than you asked for. I have a 9A, O-320, 160 hp, fp. I cruise at 2450 RPM, 165 mph. At 3500 ft WOT level will do 2600 rpm, 184 mph. I like 2500 RPM and about 168 - 170 mph. It takes me 4.5 hrs. from OK. City to OSH. 7.5 hrs from OK City to Daytona Beach, FL. I don't have any time in a Bonanza so comps.????? Just my speeds.
Mitchell Alexander
RV9A
2 years flying
245 hrs. No problems
 
RV9APILOT said:
Gary:
Looks like you got more answers than you asked for. I have a 9A, O-320, 160 hp, fp. I cruise at 2450 RPM, 165 mph. At 3500 ft WOT level will do 2600 rpm, 184 mph. I like 2500 RPM and about 168 - 170 mph.
Click to expand...

Hi - are those indicated or true air speeds?
 
Dave:
Go to
www.cafefoundation.org
click on research and reports.
Go to APRs
You'll see comprehensive data on RV6, 8, and 9. Numbers here are pretty reliable. Of course, you'll have to account for differences in engines and props.
Terry
 
Sorry for continuing to hijack this thread...

In Dan's case, what would be the highest negative G rating one might expect, if airspeed was at Va, instead.

Or, this should be an equivalent scenario, when flying along in level flight at Va speed, if you yank the control stick forward all the way, what would the G meter read?

For completeness, what would the meter read if you yanked the control stick back all the way?

Even if i had my own plane to fly, i doubt i would have the guts to perform the above tests on my own!

Jae
 
RV-9A speed

Just another reference point on RV-9A. O320-D2A, FP propeller, with gear leg fairings and wheel pants, without paint but polished (polishing added a few kts). 110 hours Hobbs time. Solo with full fuel.

airspeed.jpg


Ted
 
Dave:
Sorry about the delay in response to true or IAS. These are IAS on the Dynon D10.
Mitchell Alexander
RV9A s/n 90293
245hrs
 
Gary, how about we trade some numbers? I'm just as curious about your Bonanza as you are the 9A. How about info on the price of your last several annuals, cost of general ownership, realistic cruise speeds at various power settings, and fuel burns to achieve those? How about useful load? Like many I've always kind of dreamed of owning a Bonanza.

As for my 9A, here are some numbers. Yesterday I flew from Northern CA to Southern CA to take a friend to pick up his plane. Flying at 7500' on the way and 8500' on the way back at full throttle and 2300rpm the true air speed was around 159 knots. For this speed the fuel burn averaged 7.7gph which included the climbs. If RV's are new to you the airbox and filter setup gives a slight boost of about 1 1/2" of manifold pressure over what you would see on your normally aspirated production planes so at 7500' the power setting was sitting at 24" and 2300rpm, and at 8500" was 23sq. Experience with power settings shows that running it harder doesn't pay for itself with significant gains. By turning the prop faster the fuel burn goes up dramatically, but the speed doesn't. For each additional 100rpm up to 2700 the speed goes up by around 2 knots. Fuel burns to get these extra few knots goes up by up to 2gph. Climbs are great and can easily be so steep that you can't see forward if there are other planes that have taken off ahead of you. Between 1800 and 2000fpm are typical with full gas and two people except on really hot days where they will drop by 200 or so fpm. Hope this helps in your decision. Also you should seriously consider a 7A. It's a great airplane and has some advantages over the 9A. Another to consider is a 4! From talking to pilots that have flown most of the RV models a light RV-4 with an 0-320 and a fixed pitch light prop is a delight to fly and possibly the best of them all! I haven't had the pleasure but have no reason to doubt it.

Seriously, share more about your Bonanza. I'm very interested in learning.

Regards,
 
Owned a Bonanza, loved it.........................sold it, sending my 7 out for paint.

Nuff said:)
 
response to Bryan Wood's about N35

Bryan - I have about 800 hours in an N35 - you'll likely be a bit disappointed that Bonanza pilots ( at least this one ) tend not to keep as detailed records as do the RV pilots. I can tell you that our N35 has 74 gallons in the mains and 20 gal tip tanks for a total 114 gallons - we have never topped it off. N35's are powered by the I/0 470 Contiental engines / 260 hp. We usually fly between 4000 & 8000 feet at 24 square and get about 160 KIAS - fuel burn at that power setting is 12 to 13 GPH. Above 6000+ ft usually can;t get 24" at full throttle. The gross wt of our N35 is 3225 - emply weight is 2150. If you loaded the fuel tanks you could fly for about 9 + hours, but you would need to be by yourself. Our last several annuals have been around $1000 each - we tend to pay attention to any squawks and fix them as they occur, so sometimes the annual cost isn't a true picture of the cost to maintain. We have been fortunate in not having any major issues, but suffice to say that Raytheon is very proud of their parts!! Compared to most ga aircraft the visability from a Bonanza is great - compared to an RV it's not quite so good - I've ridden in both a tipup and a slider - . One of the comfort features of a Bonanza is that you sit nearly at chair height - so it's a comfortable ride and easier to get in and out of then an RV.
the Bonanza is a great traveling machine - I was involved with a rebuilding project on a Bonanza around 1990 and really enjoyed the work. I believe builidng an RV would be very rewarding, and when you get done building it, you have an RV to fly -

Gary N1388Z Our Bonanza is hangared at Whiteside Co Airport in Rock Falls IL. Stop by and see me - my office is on the airport property.
 
Thanks Gary. It's hard to imagine a private pilot that hasn't dreamed of an airplane like yours. There's a "P" model on "The Controller" that has had me drooling for a couple of weeks. I don't know why the lure of the sales sites pull me in, but I'm a sucker for them.

Thanks again,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.