The Lycoming "Bonanza" - anything?

pkuhns

pkuhns

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
65
Display Name
Display name:
pkuhns
Is there any 'equivalent' to the awesome Bonanza but with a Lycoming engine? I guess the closest is the Saratoga but... well... it's pretty nice but just doesn't seem to be as efficient. Does it handle so sweetly as the Bo? I haven't been in one. Maybe?

Can you think of a Lycoming-powered plane as goldilocks as the Bonanza? Thank you!
 
Flown both (well a Lance but close enough) and they're both fine machines. Sorta a Chevy vs Buick comparison if you will.
 
Be careful! :D
Around these parts suggesting there is any substitute or comparable to a Bo is like calling for the substitution of St. Joseph of Cupertino. :cool:
Such matters best left to divine interpretation only ;)
 
Why are you so worried about a Lycoming? Continental 6 cylinder engines are every bit as good as a Lycoming. If for what ever reason you are dead set on a Lycoming, the Bellanca super Viking was available with a Lycoming and is a better flying airplane than a Bonanza.
 
Call me crazy/brain-washed but I just want to stay with a Lycoming when I upgrade to something faster... The Super Viking is interesting just such a strange beast.
 
Grum.Man said:
Why are you so worried about a Lycoming? Continental 6 cylinder engines are every bit as good as a Lycoming. If for what ever reason you are dead set on a Lycoming, the Bellanca super Viking was available with a Lycoming and is a better flying airplane than a Bonanza.
Click to expand...
I've owned both PA-32 and V35A....and from an engine stand point I prefer the Lycoming over the TCM. The TCM has a history with weak cylinders....and heat issues. However, there are several Bonanza conversions with IO-540s.:drool: They end up being a bastard step child....as the Bonanza purest poo-poo them. :ohsnap:
 
The SR-20 now has a Lycoming.;)
What will be their next sacrilege to the Cirrus brand...save the weight & cost of the chute on the -20 as it's no longer needed? :rolleyes: :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I've owned both PA-32 and V35A....and from an engine stand point I prefer the Lycoming over the TCM. The TCM has a history with weak cylinders....and heat issues. However, there are several Bonanza conversions with IO-540s.:drool: They end up being a bastard step child....as the Bonanza purest poo-poo them. :ohsnap:
Click to expand...

I didn't think the 470s or 520s were having frequent problems in that respect. There's a lot of Cessna floatplanes in the backcountry with variations of these two engines in them. I thought it was the 550s that are the issue?

But I have to admit if someone came up with an F33 with a Tornado Alley TN Lyc IO-540 in it,that would be an irresistible personal sportscar airplane for me.
 
GRG55 said:
I didn't think the 470s or 520s were having frequent problems in that respect. I thought it was the 550s that are the issue?
Click to expand...
TCM's weakness IMHO are the cylinders. Lycoming cylinders are much more robust and need fewer tops. My TSIO-520, if I don't watch the CHTs, will heat very easily....#5 is my problem child. I run lean and am able to keep them cooler than 380F...but I do have to be cognizant of that and work it. The Lycoming was much easier to operate.
 
Some Navions (like mine) came with Lycoming GO-435's originally. Some were upgraded to 480's.

I've had catastrophic failures of both the GO and the Continental that replaced it. I still think I like the Continental better.
 
flyingron said:
Some Navions (like mine) came with Lycoming GO-435's originally. Some were upgraded to 480's.

I've had catastrophic failures of both the GO and the Continental that replaced it. I still think I like the Continental better.
Click to expand...

Operator error? :confused:

I kid I kid! ;)
 
One problem I find is that most of the best faster airplanes have Continentals in them. Lycoming counterparts at Bonanza level and higher are usually lacking from an airframe side.

So you can have the plane you want or the engine you want.
 
GRG55 said:
I didn't think the 470s or 520s were having frequent problems in that respect. There's a lot of Cessna floatplanes in the backcountry with variations of these two engines in them. I thought it was the 550s that are the issue?
Click to expand...


That.

Most large backcountry planes and working planes have Continentals, you just have to manage the engine, probably wouldn't make a good beginner or flight school engine.

I have a rule about flying behind my IO520, I lean for CHTs, 380 max climb, 350 max cruise, and that's apretty easy goal even on floats.

The early 550s had some issues, but the later ones are great, there's a good chance that I'll do the 520 to 550 conversion on mine when I hit TBO, ofcourse that will take me a good long time lol


But if you want a lycoming Bo, I'd be looking at PA24s, one of the better GA planes and also one of the best bangs for your buck in flying.

ktup-flyer said:
Commander 115
Click to expand...

Well it depends if he wants a plane that just looks fast, or one that is fast, those commanders don't go too quick, especially for all the complex stuff and style.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One problem I find is that most of the best faster airplanes have Continentals in them. Lycoming counterparts at Bonanza level and higher are usually lacking from an airframe side.

So you can have the plane you want or the engine you want.
Click to expand...

Seems the proximity to Piper in Lock Haven gave Lycoming the cost advantage. But the Wichita firms used mostly Continentals.

Unfortunately Piper's airframe apogee was arguably the Comanche, and its leadership stalled about then, followed by the flood. Even the Comanche suffered an ignominious fate when Piper shoehorned a 400 inch 8 cyl Lyc into it, instead of going the turbo route a la Cessna, and later Beech (the Comanche 400, as it came from the Piper factory, might qualify as one of the worst airplane ideas from major manufacturer).The only recovery for the firm was Vero Beach Cherokee variations in endless re-configurations, and repeated financial restructurings in the years after, which have left no development funds to create truly new products. Seems the company simply cannot outgrow the DNA of its origins.

I love every Piper I have ever owned, including my Aztec. But I have been selective in the choice of each type. Before I am gone I want to own one high performance Beechcraft. Either an IO-550 F33 or a Colemill Baron.
 
Last edited:
The Lycoming Bonanza's are called "Machens", and use a TIO-540. There are a few floating around.
 
GRG55 said:
Seems the proximity to Piper in Lock Haven gave Lycoming the cost advantage. But the Wichita firms used mostly Continentals.

Unfortunately Piper's airframe apogee was arguably the Comanche, and its leadership stalled about then, followed by the flood. Even the Comanche suffered an ignominious fate when Piper shoehorned a 400 inch 8 cyl Lyc into it, instead of going the turbo route a la Cessna, and later Beech (the Comanche 400, as it came from the Piper factory, might qualify as one of the worst airplane ideas from major manufacturer).
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've ever heard the Comanche 400 described as anything but "awesome".

I have a friend who owns one, and it is just a spectacular plane. You need deep pockets when it comes to TBO, but that's true about every plane at that level.

What's not to like about the 400?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I've owned both PA-32 and V35A....and from an engine stand point I prefer the Lycoming over the TCM. The TCM has a history with weak cylinders....and heat issues. However, there are several Bonanza conversions with IO-540s.:drool: They end up being a bastard step child....as the Bonanza purest poo-poo them. :ohsnap:
Click to expand...
Funny isn't it! The old time purest fellas get a bit cranky when you change things ! Reminds me of when they brought out the new Great Lakes and the old timers threw a hissy fit because it was yellow! They said it was a travesty because it wasn't red.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That's the first time I've ever heard the Comanche 400 described as anything but "awesome".

I have a friend who owns one, and it is just a spectacular plane. You need deep pockets when it comes to TBO, but that's true about every plane at that level.

What's not to like about the 400?
Click to expand...

You will note I qualified my comment with "as it came from the Piper factory".
Talk to your friend. I am quite certain you will find his airplane has been extensively modified to deal with the numerous issues, including the notorious cooling problems, as it was delivered by Piper.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Hard to beat as far as comfort goes
Click to expand...

Personally I find Stinsons are VERY comfy, ofcourse you'll be lucky to get much over 100kts, not a Bo by any means

A commander is more like a fancy looking 172 performance wise.
 
James331 said:
Personally I find Stinsons are VERY comfy, ofcourse you'll be lucky to get much over 100kts, not a Bo by any means

A commander is more like a fancy looking 172 performance wise.
Click to expand...
Where have you seen a 160kt 172?
 
Grum.Man said:
If for what ever reason you are dead set on a Lycoming, the Bellanca super Viking was available with a Lycoming and is a better flying airplane than a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

My hangar mate has a Super Viking he's trying to get rid of. I've flown it with him several times - it's a 3 person with bags plane and he flight plans 140 knots. "Better flying" plane than the Bo is subjective but it certainly doesn't fit the same profile/mission as the Bo.

To the OP: My buddy's Commanche is nice and a lot of bang for the buck. Saratoga's and 210's are in a similar category for carrying capability and (close to) speed.
 
GRG55 said:
Before I am gone I want to own one high performance Beechcraft. Either an IO-550 F33 or a Colemill Baron.
Click to expand...

I've got 10 or so hours in an F33A with a 550. Performance is underwhelming to me. 170ish on 14 gph. An A36 with a 550 is about the same speed on the same fuel. Now a Colemill Baron would be fun. I've also always found the P-Baron appealing.
 
>>To the OP: My buddy's Commanche is nice and a lot of bang for the buck. Saratoga's and 210's are in a similar category for carrying capability and (close to) speed.


Hi yes - the Comanche seems like a great airplane. Fast and affordable (the 250's at least). Definitely on the short list. I guess the closest I'll ever get to Lycoming, fixed-gear, fast however is the SR-20 ($$$$$)...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've got 10 or so hours in an F33A with a 550. Performance is underwhelming to me. 170ish on 14 gph. An A36 with a 550 is about the same speed on the same fuel. Now a Colemill Baron would be fun. I've also always found the P-Baron appealing.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, since the F33 is smaller and lighter, one would expect better. I wonder if it was the specific example you were flying (not a clean airframe?) or if there is another limitation (e.g. prop dia limit, or something like that)?

Regardless, I eliminated the A36 from my short list on the last plane purchase and went with the Aztec. Far more useful (and usable) load, a true 6-place cross country airplane at 60% of the cost of a comparably equipped, similar vintage/time A36. No regrets (so far) :)
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
That's interesting, since the F33 is smaller and lighter, one would expect better. I wonder if it was the specific example you were flying (not a clean airframe?) or if there is another limitation (e.g. prop dia limit, or something like that)?
Click to expand...

It's possible. While it was very well maintained, that doesn't mean it was as slick as it could be.

On frontal area, the two planes are basically identical. The difference is the cabin aft of the pilot and copilot.

It wasn't a bad plane, don't get me wrong, but a Baron or 310 with 550s is way better.
 
pkuhns said:
Hi yes - the Comanche seems like a great airplane. Fast and affordable (the 250's at least). Definitely on the short list. I guess the closest I'll ever get to Lycoming, fixed-gear, fast however is the SR-20 ($$$$$)...
Click to expand...

I second the Comanche 250. I scratched it off my list only because I sat in the back and the seating room was a regression from my Arrow II so no-go for the fam. You need a 260 B model or higher (the straight 260 is still bench seat cabin) to get a comparable rear dimensions to a stretch PA28. And the price on the B+ models get right back up to later Bonanzas, so it becomes a non-difference again. They're [260Bs and Cs] also less common on the market than Bonanzas.

So, if you don't need the back seat as a primary aspect of the upgrade, the 250 is by far the choice and Lyco-friendly alternative to a Bo on the cost front. Significant savings on the entry cost as well, which for those of us who reject the notion of the "financed millionaire" cost computations, capital costs represent a large portion of the ownership affordability question.

As to fixed gear Lyco? Experimentals like RVs offer decent choices for Bonanza money. But who cares about fixed gear, you're comparing to a Bonanza which isn't a FG airplane, so keep it apples to apples.
 
EvilEagle said:
My hangar mate has a Super Viking he's trying to get rid of. I've flown it with him several times - it's a 3 person with bags plane and he flight plans 140 knots. "Better flying" plane than the Bo is subjective but it certainly doesn't fit the same profile/mission as the Bo.

To the OP: My buddy's Commanche is nice and a lot of bang for the buck. Saratoga's and 210's are in a similar category for carrying capability and (close to) speed.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everyone who has flown both agrees the BSV is a better flying airplane. Most Bonanzas of the same price are 3 person plus baggage planes as well.
 
but....doesn't it have a wood wing? :eek: ....not everyone wants to deal with that.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I've owned both PA-32 and V35A....and from an engine stand point I prefer the Lycoming over the TCM. The TCM has a history with weak cylinders....and heat issues. However, there are several Bonanza conversions with IO-540s.:drool: They end up being a bastard step child....as the Bonanza purest poo-poo them. :ohsnap:
Click to expand...
And Lycoming engines have cam Issues so you are trading one issue for another.
 
EvilEagle said:
My hangar mate has a Super Viking he's trying to get rid of. I've flown it with him several times - it's a 3 person with bags plane and he flight plans 140 knots. "Better flying" plane than the Bo is subjective but it certainly doesn't fit the same profile/mission as the Bo.

To the OP: My buddy's Commanche is nice and a lot of bang for the buck. Saratoga's and 210's are in a similar category for carrying capability and (close to) speed.
Click to expand...

Your buddy is doing something wrong if he's only getting 140kts out of his BSV. I flight plan at 155kts, but routinely see closer to 160 TAS. That's running WOT at 6-8k, lean of peak at about 14gph. It's a little slower than a Bo on the same fuel flow, and I would personally prefer a Bonanza, but for the money the Viking is very, very hard to beat. Mine (an early 70s, normally aspirated Continental model) has the useful load for 4 adults, bags, and around 3.5 hours of fuel. The cabin is snug, for sure, but it'll haul a load. Biggest issue I have, other than general cabin comfort with 4 people, is baggage space. The earlier versions have a somewhat small baggage area. It'll carry bags for 4 adults if you can make them fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top