Beech Debonairs, any thoughts?

N2124v

N2124v

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
633
Location
Austin, TX
Display Name
Display name:
N2124V
Ok, I'm pretty sure I am going to end up with a C182, but Debs keep popping up. Any thoughts?
 
Love and hate. Well built machines, weird control placements. Flys like a dream. Dont know what else to tell you.
 
I looked at Debs, if you get one, get a later one with more HP. They were the little sister to the Bo. I wound up with a V-Tail and never really considered the Debs seriously because the ones in my price range were underpowered for my Mission, slower than the V and didn't really improve on the V-Tail in any area IMHO. Just get a 35 :) I looked at 182's they gave me a station wagon feeling and I wasn't really impressed with the useful load they get credit for, get in a Bonanza compare TAS then decide :) The only issue I have with the 35 I bought so far is the forward CG issues. If you want to haul stuff, don't write off a Cherokee 235 or a Cherokee 6.
 
bartmc said:
I looked at Debs, if you get one, get a later one with more HP. They were the little sister to the Bo. I wound up with a V-Tail and never really considered the Debs seriously because the ones in my price range were underpowered for my Mission, slower than the V and didn't really improve on the V-Tail in any area IMHO. Just get a 35 :) I looked at 182's they gave me a station wagon feeling and I wasn't really impressed with the useful load they get credit for, get in a Bonanza compare TAS then decide :) The only issue I have with the 35 I bought so far is the forward CG issues. If you want to haul stuff, don't write off a Cherokee 235 or a Cherokee 6.
Click to expand...

Cherokee 235 and a 182 have the same 'if it fits it flies' adage applied to them. It sounds great until you realize they don't fit much...:rofl:
 
Heh. Buy what you want. The crowd around here will give you the same answers they given in other threads of the same type. We might as well create a FAQ file with everyone's answers. ;)
 
i did my CFI in a deb and loved every minute of it
 
N2124v said:
Ok, I'm pretty sure I am going to end up with a C182, but Debs keep popping up. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
What do you want the plane to do? There is much a 182 will do that a BE33 won't, and much a BE33 will do that a 182 won't, even though there is also much they will both do.
 
Ron Levy said:
What do you want the plane to do? There is much a 182 will do that a BE33 won't, and much a BE33 will do that a 182 won't, even though there is also much they will both do.
Click to expand...

Outside of hauling skydivers, what will a 182 do that the Deb/Bo won't?
 
If you DON'T need a big payload, the early 225 hp Debs can run autogas.

Beechtalk and the ABS are probably better sources than here, if you get serious about this. :)
 
I'm running all over Texas right now and it's getting old spending 3 hours in a car for what would be a 45 minute flight. That will be the primary mission, but then want to be able to go on long cross countries since I have the time ( I've got a 4 day work week) and am pretty much a nomad right now. I'm bouncing all over the place and have never really considered Beechcraft. The Deb and V35 seem like you can get a little bit more plane for the money compared to a 182. Just a quick observation. I'm still a few months away from pulling the trigger on a deal, just looking and learning.
 
N2124v said:
I'm running all over Texas right now and it's getting old spending 3 hours in a car for what would be a 45 minute flight.
Click to expand...

Oh HO HO HO HO. That's rich. You have a line crew at both ends that'll have the airplane out ready for departure and fueled, and will put it away and fuel it at the other?

45 minutes. Suuuuuuure. Is the flight 15 minutes in the air? ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Oh HO HO HO HO. That's rich. You have a line crew at both ends that'll have the airplane out ready for departure and fueled, and will put it away and fuel it at the other?

45 minutes. Suuuuuuure. Is the flight 15 minutes in the air? ;)
Click to expand...

After having "ran all over Texas" this past weekend. if it was 15 minutes in a car or 3 hours in a plane. I'd take the plane.
 
bartmc said:
After having "ran all over Texas" this past weekend. if it was 15 minutes in a car or 3 hours in a plane. I'd take the plane.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. And agree.

Just don't lie to yourself that the airplane is much faster on a three hour drive distance. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
I hear ya. And agree.

Just don't lie to yourself that the airplane is much faster on a three hour drive distance. ;)
Click to expand...

I can smoke a 3 hour drive with the Debonair. Granted I can be airborne within 15 or 20 minutes of deciding I need to fly somewhere.

Call the FBO, tell them to pull it, grab my flight bag, file on iPad while driving to airport, read FSS briefing, jump out of truck, walk to airplane, preflight, and off I go. Takes no time at all :)

The larger issue is if you have transportation on the other side ready to go. If you do, works great.
 
If you measure travel time "driveway to driveway" rather than "airport to airport" the fictitious advantage that pilots like to imagine shrinks to almost nothing. Either conveyance can be victimized by unplanned delays, whether orange cones or purple echoes.

jesse said:
I can smoke a 3 hour drive with the Debonair. Granted I can be airborne within 15 or 20 minutes of deciding I need to fly somewhere.

Call the FBO, tell them to pull it, grab my flight bag, file on iPad while driving to airport, read FSS briefing, jump out of truck, walk to airplane, preflight, and off I go. Takes no time at all :)

The larger issue is if you have transportation on the other side ready to go. If you do, works great.
Click to expand...
 
jesse said:
I can smoke a 3 hour drive with the Debonair. Granted I can be airborne within 15 or 20 minutes of deciding I need to fly somewhere.

Call the FBO, tell them to pull it, grab my flight bag, file on iPad while driving to airport, read FSS briefing, jump out of truck, walk to airplane, preflight, and off I go. Takes no time at all :)

The larger issue is if you have transportation on the other side ready to go. If you do, works great.
Click to expand...

You have to count the time arranging that far-end transportation. ;)

And 'round here, I'm the guy who has to "pull it". I have a powered tug, but still... Gotta get it out of the hangar and then park the Yukon in there...

You have line guys. Which is exactly what I asked the OP. :)
 
wabower said:
If you measure travel time "driveway to driveway" rather than "airport to airport" the fictitious advantage that pilots like to imagine shrinks to almost nothing. Either conveyance can be victimized by unplanned delays, whether orange cones or purple echoes.
Click to expand...
I've driveway to driveway left my house and made it to destinations that would take 3 hours to drive beating with a Debonair. Hell, I did it a few weeks ago - there was less than 3 hours left before a store was closing in Kansas City and it was a 3 hour drive. Airplane it was, no problem at all, part in hand and IT disaster diverted thanks to the airplane.

But yes I agree 3 hours can be tough to beat by much -- that said -- change that to 5 hours and it starts to make a LOT of sense.

What I find more interesting though is some people fail to grasp that some pilots just don't care. They'd rather spend their time in an airplane even if that means it takes longer. Who cares how they justify it in their head - let em be happy :)
 
Henning said:
Outside of hauling skydivers, what will a 182 do that the Deb/Bo won't?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, Land on skis? Land on floats? Allow ingress/egress from both sides, and without having to get up in a wing, either?

Admittedly, the first two are optional capabilities, but they aren't even optional in the Beech products. OTOH, they won't go as fast as the Beeches, either.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Oh HO HO HO HO. That's rich. You have a line crew at both ends that'll have the airplane out ready for departure and fueled, and will put it away and fuel it at the other?

45 minutes. Suuuuuuure. Is the flight 15 minutes in the air? ;)
Click to expand...

denverpilot said:
I hear ya. And agree.

Just don't lie to yourself that the airplane is much faster on a three hour drive distance. ;)
Click to expand...

denverpilot said:
You have to count the time arranging that far-end transportation. ;)

And 'round here, I'm the guy who has to "pull it". I have a powered tug, but still... Gotta get it out of the hangar and then park the Yukon in there...

You have line guys. Which is exactly what I asked the OP. :)
Click to expand...

For a spur of the moment trip, do the FSS thing via cell phone on the way to the hangar. For a trip like that though, I'll probably already know the weather, NOTAMs and TFR situation. In other words, if the weather was crappy, I probably wouldn't bother. For something planned in advance, I'll typically have the planning done the night before with a quick update of the big three items just before I leave whichever cave I happen to be sleeping in.

I can be flying 10 minutes after opening the hangar. I pull it out manually (no tug needed) and point it 90 degrees to the door. For a day trip, I just leave my car parked outside the hangar. I leave the keys on the seat in case someone needs to move it, but it's generally out of the way and I've never had it moved in the six years I've been there. I did have someone lock the doors for me once though. Good thing I keep a spare set hanging on a hook in the hangar.

For a 45 minute flight, I have plenty of fuel for the round trip and don't need to worry about the extra time it would take to fuel. Besides, unless it's self serve only, I can get the FBO guys on the other end to top off while I'm out running around. Driving three hours, each way would require at least two fuel stops, plus peeing.

If I need transportation, I can call in advance for crew/rental car. It will normally be waiting, depending on the FBO.

The biggest advantage though isn't really the time saved. It's the negated hassle of traffic on the road. Nothing beats looking down at a traffic jam that you would have been in if you chose to drive the 3 hours. Also, in all my 33 years of flying, I've never seen a set of blue lights behind me, even though the authorities are using radar all the time.


It's a bit more than three hours driving, but I've done this deal several times between North Carolina and Florida.
 
bartmc said:
You never let an opportunity go to waste do ya? :D
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Just trying to help you guys see the light. Why settle for such poor performance when you can have a superior plane? Buy something that is fun to fly, cheap to fly, you can work on it yourself.... legally. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
:rofl:

Just trying to help you guys see the light. Why settle for such poor performance when you can have a superior plane? Buy something that is fun to fly, cheap to fly, you can work on it yourself.... legally. ;)
Click to expand...

Yet, you went for the RV-10 instead of the Foxtrot. :nonod:
 
Henning said:
Outside of hauling skydivers, what will a 182 do that the Deb/Bo won't?
Click to expand...
Operate happily out of a short/rough field, burn less gas hauling the same load, cost significantly less to insure, and not require a complex endorsement.

N2124v said:
I'm running all over Texas right now and it's getting old spending 3 hours in a car for what would be a 45 minute flight.
Click to expand...
If your main flight is only 45 minutes in what you're flying now, the extra speed of the Deb won't make much of a difference, but the cost of operation will. Choose wisely.

That said, I know there are pilots who feel their manhood is enhanced by flying a plane with wheels that go up and down. I'd guess they are also among the millions who've already bought ExtenZe. So, what's in your medicine cabinet? :D
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I looked at Debs, if you get one, get a later one with more HP. They were the little sister to the Bo. I wound up with a V-Tail and never really considered the Debs seriously because the ones in my price range were underpowered for my Mission, slower than the V and didn't really improve on the V-Tail in any area IMHO. Just get a 35 :) I looked at 182's they gave me a station wagon feeling and I wasn't really impressed with the useful load they get credit for, get in a Bonanza compare TAS then decide :) The only issue I have with the 35 I bought so far is the forward CG issues. If you want to haul stuff, don't write off a Cherokee 235 or a Cherokee 6.
Click to expand...
The Beech model 33 was originally offered as a lower priced version of the then king of the hill model 35 (v-tail) Bonanza with a spartan interior and sparse avionics. The very earliest ones did only come with slightly less power but the performance difference was mostly in climb rate and high DA performance. And many of the 35 Bonanzas produced before the 33 came out has less power as well. Not too long after the Deb was introduced Beech started offering the same power as it's sibling as an option and the vast majority of those came with the bigger engine. Many of the lower HP 33s and 35s have been upgraded to bigger engines as well. These days the Deb (later models were called Bonanzas but some aficionados still insist that only the v-tails should have that name and as far as they're concerned even the model 36 is just a "stretched" Debbie.

Aside from the tail, the biggest difference between a 33 and a 35 is that all but the latest 33s have the 2nd row windows fixed in place while the 35s have openable ones for ground ventilation that also serve as emergency exits. From the pilot's seat in the air it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a 33 and a 35 as they all fly about the same. The only clue I ever found was that on a 35 the rudder pedal travel is reduced when the wheel is nearly full aft but you aren't likely to experience that condition in the air unless you're practicing soft field landings at the forward limit of the CG range. BTW, on paper the CG range of the Deb appears to be better and less likely to put you at or beyond the aft limit but the reality is that on the average there's no improvement.
 
bartmc said:
I looked at Debs, if you get one, get a later one with more HP. They were the little sister to the Bo. I wound up with a V-Tail and never really considered the Debs seriously
Click to expand...

Hey congrats on the new plane! I remember you have been looking for awhile. Pics??
 
gismo said:
The Beech model 33 was originally offered as a lower priced version of the then king of the hill model 35 (v-tail) Bonanza with a spartan interior and sparse avionics. The very earliest ones did only come with slightly less power but the performance difference was mostly in climb rate and high DA performance. And many of the 35 Bonanzas produced before the 33 came out has less power as well. Not too long after the Deb was introduced Beech started offering the same power as it's sibling as an option and the vast majority of those came with the bigger engine. Many of the lower HP 33s and 35s have been upgraded to bigger engines as well. These days the Deb (later models were called Bonanzas but some aficionados still insist that only the v-tails should have that name and as far as they're concerned even the model 36 is just a "stretched" Debbie.

Aside from the tail, the biggest difference between a 33 and a 35 is that all but the latest 33s have the 2nd row windows fixed in place while the 35s have openable ones for ground ventilation that also serve as emergency exits. From the pilot's seat in the air it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a 33 and a 35 as they all fly about the same. The only clue I ever found was that on a 35 the rudder pedal travel is reduced when the wheel is nearly full aft but you aren't likely to experience that condition in the air unless you're practicing soft field landings at the forward limit of the CG range. BTW, on paper the CG range of the Deb appears to be better and less likely to put you at or beyond the aft limit but the reality is that on the average there's no improvement.
Click to expand...

I was looking at early 60's models, the 33's had 225 HP and their 35 counterparts had 250-285HP. Wouldn't the biggest difference be the ASI in cruise? :D
 
Ron Levy said:
Operate happily out of a short/rough field, burn less gas hauling the same load, cost significantly less to insure, and not require a complex endorsement.
Click to expand...

The Bonanza/Debonair are designed to fly out of a short/rough field. It will burn less gas hauling the same load at the same speed, but offers the pilot the choice of burning a little more gas at a faster speed. I flightplan my V35A at 165 Kts and 12.4 GPH.
 
My only advice to the OP is don't fly in the Bonanza unless you plan on buying one. It is the same concern with the WWI GI's, how do you keep them on the farm after they have seen Paris.
 
a6934816-e4e6-ef74.jpg


This is essentially the route I drove yesterday. Austin to Waco to Corsicana to do title work. Back through Fairfield, Mexia and Hearne to see if rigs were drilling on certain leases. Just needed to put eyeballs on the ground. I left my house at 6:15am and got home at 7:45pm.

I never said I wanted flying to be faster or cheaper. It's just more fun and I can avoid all of the ground bound idiots.
 
225's are getting a bit difficult to get overhaul parts for. Lots of 225 Navions up for sale.

In addition, Hartzell has pretty much made it illegal to service the old double shouldered props anymore. If you've not converted over to the the MV-hub, you're pretty much screwed. Your prop options on the splined-shaft 225's are somewhat limited (the beech prop is no bargain either).
 
Geico266 said:
:rofl:

Just trying to help you guys see the light. Why settle for such poor performance when you can have a superior plane? Buy something that is fun to fly, cheap to fly, you can work on it yourself.... legally. ;)
Click to expand...

If only one could just "buy" and work on it legally...

Technically we can all work on things legally, but we need that magic signature.
 
Geico266 said:
:rofl:

Just trying to help you guys see the light. Why settle for such poor performance when you can have a superior plane? Buy something that is fun to fly, cheap to fly, you can work on it yourself.... legally. ;)
Click to expand...

I have a buddy, fresh PPL holder, he's seeing experimentals and thinking of buying them, asked me what I thought. My reply was:

"The good thing about them is that you can work on them yourself, the bad thing is, somebody else already has"

I've never seen an experimental I would fly, I'm sure there's some out there. I'd build one myself, but I won't even commit to green bananas and I like flying more than riveting.

I do most of the work on my plane, my A&P peeks over my shoulder (and he still has to safety wire everything for me). I like that arrangement. He would rather me do it, he's too busy working on planes owned by people with money.
 
flyingron said:
225's are getting a bit difficult to get overhaul parts for. Lots of 225 Navions up for sale.
Click to expand...

Doggone it Ron, there you go messing up my perception of an airplane I thought would be a good acquisition. 225 hp is plenty for a lowland flyer like me, and the 225hp engine can run mogas. But if parts are a problems, I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for a 150 knot airplane with 4 useable seats and elbow room. There isn't a long list of airplanes which fit that mission...
 
kyleb said:
Doggone it Ron, there you go messing up my perception of an airplane I thought would be a good acquisition. 225 hp is plenty for a lowland flyer like me, and the 225hp engine can run mogas. But if parts are a problems, I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for a 150 knot airplane with 4 useable seats and elbow room. There isn't a long list of airplanes which fit that mission...
Click to expand...

an E225 or an IO-470J? I thought the J was just a de-tuned version of an IO-470? I didn't think any Deb's came with the E225? I'd figure parts were plentiful for the IO-470? No?
 
bartmc said:
an E225 or an IO-470J? I thought the J was just a de-tuned version of an IO-470? I didn't think any Deb's came with the E225? I'd figure parts were plentiful for the IO-470? No?
Click to expand...

Yep, the IO470, which, IIRC, is a 225 hp engine. Maybe Ron was talking about the E225's, not the 470. I need to check with an engine shop...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top