Well, since neither of us have our multi, I figure I’ll run left engine, you can run the right engine … Oh and if you want to go with me to kick this TBone’s tires, it’s downstate…
Where? How good…e.g. someone you know has put eyes on it or digital trail clear enough it’s not BS? Just reminiscing on 6PC’s knack for finding over represented turds.
LL45. The internet says it’s good - that counts for quite a lot. Also, word on the street is that it’s going for annual soon.
I know this airplane well (I've flown it from Kansas City to Virginia and back, and I checked the current owner out in it when he bought it). If anyone really wants info about it, let me know. It's actually located near Dallas.
The biggest issue is hangar space. Needs probably a 46’ door minimum…. Which of our airports have that?? I do fly a lot. There was a thread where folks concluded when they switched from renting to owning their flying increased. I rented 180 hrs last year.
You really need a 50' door for a normal tbone, as the published wingspan is 45' 11 3/8". But, the airplane in question, "Brownie," has extra long wingtips and needs a >50 foot door.
Hell, geared Lycomings sound so good I'd even consider pitching in a few bucks for a fund to see someone keep one of these airworthy...
So $6-7/g fuel has me second guessing TBones at the moment... but what about this baby... WOOFF!!! https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/212444335/1964-piper-comanche-400-piston-single-aircraft Commanche 400 with the RayJay Turbo STC... I mean you could be north of 200 in the mid-Teens I have to imagine! (and only 22gph!)
I thought the NA Comanche 400s did 22gph in cruise. I have to imagine a rayjay lets you run quite a bit more through it?
I'm no expert but I think all the RayJay kits were turbonormalizing. They don't increase the power, just let you maintain it higher in thinner air, allowing you to go faster.
I have no personal experience, but I would expect that you'd simply still run the same (high) fuel flow at any realistic altitude you'd want to fly the thing at, but the fuel rate wouldn't be any higher. That has been my experience with other turbo applications anyway.
Yeah, that matches my assumption -- I assume the low cruise numbers are quoted somewhere in the 65% neighborhood or wherever the best spot is for that engine/wing combo (I'd have to assume it's 14K or so with a 400hp donk on the same wing the PA24-180 uses) Don't the 260/300hp IO-540s run 22 at 75%? Actually I think in typing this out loud, I know less than I initially did I'm pretty big-Lyc ignorant.
Book for my 300hp io540 says 18 @ 75%, 16@65%. I usually run 65% and get closer to 15. Simple math says the 720 should burn about 24@ 75%. And 21ish at 65%. I wonder if cooling becomes a factor at some altitude.
That would be an extremely high fuel rate for one of those engines. 22 gph is what I run the 350hp TIO-540 at, rich of peak. Painting with broad brush strokes, fuel rate is based on horsepower. Engine design is somewhat of a factor but not knowing much about a Lycoming shouldn't be a major factor in this discussion.
T-Bones sound awesome! I would of bought one if hangar space wasn’t such an issue here in FL. Plus you can’t put a price on the vintage looks of it… Every airport you see a Cirrus or RV but how about a T-Bone? I was told several times the fuel burn is comparable to a Baron but it cruises a lot slower on the flip side there’s a lot more room in the cabin.
Is that abandoned T-bone still at Deer Valley? @Sluggo63 It was parked next to that early 310 near the access road to the t-shades.
Saw a queen air for sale somewhere recently. But that doesn’t really solve my AMU/hr in fuel burn issue. but what about one of these? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...ium=Transient2407496&utm_campaign=July11_2022 No way it burns 40-60gph, right?
Man, that's kinda cool. I love that the motors had the "unprecedented 1500 hour TBO" in 1945 per wikipedia. I'd assume somewhere in the 7.5 per side range.. plus some undisclosed quantity of castor oil?
a hair better than C150 performance... doing the math... C150 @ 5gph for 2 seats = 2.5gph per seat The Dick Dastardly Dragon @ 15gph for 7 seats = ~2.14gph per seat. It's like a 48-foot winged prius!
I mean, come on... 800 HP... http://courtesyaircraft.com/aircraft/n2400z-1957-beechcraft-twin-bonanza-d-50/
Ugh. and now I can't work the rest of the day as I'll plunge down another "t-bones are cool" Google-hole. It's the ultimate "light" GA twin. Beautiful! Although I'm told the Excalibur version doesn't have that same augmented exhaust growl. Still, 800 hp.. 16 cylinders, I'm not man enough to handle that much displacement Incidentally, there's one (not an Excalibur though) slowly disintegrating at Hemet with the Eisenhower steps. T-Bone would be a cool plane to own.
The real achilleas heel of the T-bone isn't the engine, it's the propellers and control surfaces. There is a frequent AD on the original propellers and the control surfaces are very susceptible to corrosion. The amount of good spare control surfaces is drying up. Last time I looked they were getting 7-10k for a good used surface. Get stuck putting props on one, or having corrosion in the flight controls and free is still too much. They are always tempting though when one pops up for sale.
a bargain generally isn’t a bargain because your lucky, could be the seller is the lucky one. BTW, I love the T-Bones
First - there's a bit of premium associated with this at that price point, especially with a high time 720. Second - I heard the 720s in these are a bit iffy/fragile Give me an old carb'd GO-480 any day. I don't care if I have to overhaul the gearboxes a couple of times. It sure is pretty though. I'd probably have one if it wasn't for the fuel burn, or if I had a giant hangar.
The planetary gearboxes that were used in the GO/GSO/IGO/IGSO series were known for being reliable and not something you generally had to mess with. Ham-fisted pilots can destroy just about anything if given the opportunity, but the design itself was good and reliable. It was the spur gear setup on the TIGO-541s (used in P-Navajos) that was known for being a rotten design and prone to failure, even if you treated it well. It was similar in design to what's on the GTSIO-520s used in 421s, but that design seems to be more robust, just still intolerant of ham-fisted pilots doing ham-fisted pilot things. If I were looking at a T-Bone, I wouldn't be worried about the engine gearbox, and my worries about the engine in general would be fairly limited.
I'm in love with the sound of the 720. The thought of two of them just gets me all lathered up. A Comanche 400 is pretty high on my list when I no longer need 7 seats.
So one of the T Bones I’ve been watching is slowly coming out of annual (with a few upgrades), and will be on the market again soon. Apparently given the hard market, insurance is tough to come by - which is the stated reason for why it hasn’t sold. Worst case, one has to also have a backup plan. https://www.platinumfighters.com/inventory/1954-dehavilland-dh-114-2x-heron/
