Hey guys, I was playing with my weight and balance app on my phone, and I decided to compare the Bonanza to the Comanche. I used online POHs to set up the W&B parameters.
Anyway, using a full load for each. Full Fuel (no tip tanks for either), 2 170lb male in front, 2 150lb female in back, and whatever leftover for bags. For a 3.5 hr trip @ 75% power.
You can really see how generous the Comanche is for bags, 4 adults with 100lbs of bags (25lbs each) and well within CG range. The V35B is at the extreme aft limit, with the same adults, each only allowed 5lbs of bags. Notice the landing CG has shifted AFT as well.
Cheers
TJ
PS...Note to Scott, do you think you guys could add some kind of interactive CG calculator or chart on the Bonanza's Loadout popup, since maintaining CG for the 'Bo is more of a challenge and a serious consideration for it's flight planning.
V35B (520) vs Comanche 250 Weight and Balance comparison
Re: V35B (520) vs Comanche 250 Weight and Balance comparison
I would also like to add a plug for the CG calculator
Re: V35B (520) vs Comanche 250 Weight and Balance comparison
How does the V-tail fly at maximum allowable rear-CoG? I'd figure if the type is prone to being not as directionally stable as some other types, the limiting criteria for the aft limit might have actually been the yaw characteristics, not the lack of longitudinal stability.
-Esa
-Esa
Re: V35B (520) vs Comanche 250 Weight and Balance comparison
I think that is kind of the tradeoff of what your mission is. If your average flight is a mission with 1 or 2 people and some bags, the Bonanza is a fantastic, speedy all around good airplane. If your average mission is to carry stuff with reasonable economy and speed, the Comanche is the better choice. That might be why Beech dropped the V35 in favor of the A36 line, which has a much more generous W&B.
It is an interesting case. I looked at the POH numbers again and realized that the rear seats have two positions, forward and aft. I assume the Aft position is for when you have no rear passengers and just want to use the extra floor space for luggage, perhaps a Bonanza owner can clarify. I redid the W&B chart with the rear seat in the forward position, and now we are within limits, still aft leaning, and I would be cautious on a longer trip. I am allowing 40lbs of bags this time so we stay within limits. I think one of the 'gotchas' of the Bonanza is, if you reduce fuel to carry more cargo, you must be very wary of the CG.
Here is our corrected comparison. Just for ducks, I did the same load in my 'dream plane', the Diamond DA42-VI (had to reduce some fuel in for this load).
Cheers
TJ
It is an interesting case. I looked at the POH numbers again and realized that the rear seats have two positions, forward and aft. I assume the Aft position is for when you have no rear passengers and just want to use the extra floor space for luggage, perhaps a Bonanza owner can clarify. I redid the W&B chart with the rear seat in the forward position, and now we are within limits, still aft leaning, and I would be cautious on a longer trip. I am allowing 40lbs of bags this time so we stay within limits. I think one of the 'gotchas' of the Bonanza is, if you reduce fuel to carry more cargo, you must be very wary of the CG.
Here is our corrected comparison. Just for ducks, I did the same load in my 'dream plane', the Diamond DA42-VI (had to reduce some fuel in for this load).
Cheers
TJ
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests