Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Load)

Find or share aviation knowledge
new reply
McDonnell-Douglas
Senior Airman
Posts: 140
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 13:09

Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Load)

Post by McDonnell-Douglas »

With the release of the Bonanza, a welcome addition to the GA stable, I have become intrigued with the further development of the Bonanza and the attraction/incentive of its cousin the Baron. Perhaps someone can further clarify my particular interest here.

I remember a couple of years ago, maybe more, when Beechcraft were offering the G36 with additional options. I used to browse, its wasn't like I could ever afford it :lol:
A Turbo-normalised engine and 40 gallon wing tanks (20 each). It caused renewed interest in the Bonanza as the resulting maximum weight increased from ~3,650 to ~4,000 giving a useful load of around ~1,400. Considering the single engine this was a lot of useful load even after the main fuel tanks and tip tanks had been filled and enabled those converted Bonanzas to compete with the Baron when carrying four or five persons (three or four passengers). I believe the options are still around and popular.

On the hand I remember the G58 Baron being criticised for being around 300 lbs heavier than its predecessor, the original 58 Baron, hence 300lbs less of useful load. At the time Tornado Alley Turbo, who did the Turbo-normalised engine for the Bonanza, were planning to offer a conversion but I have never seen the STC or product live. I would love to know what happened to that product.
A company called Merlyn now offers the Turbo-normalising engine package but it only adds 134lbs to useful load.
Only the B58TC Baron is able to offer significantly useful load and/or improved range over the G36 Bonanza with the turbo-normalised engine and tip tanks but they do not produce the B58TC anymore.

Queries:

1. Unless you really require the ability to carry six persons or four passengers/five passengers with 20kg of baggage each how does one justify the additional purchase and operating cost of the G58 Baron?

2. Another angle on this. I find it hard to believe that the Turbo-normalised engine for the G58 Baron only adds 134lbs to the maximum take-off weight in useful load when the Turbo-normalised engine for the Bonanza over 300lbs. Is there an FAA regulation or part of the STC that is limiting the Baron's Maximum Take-off Weight? Perhaps the requirement for single engine performance?

3. Is there an aerodynamic issue causing diminishing returns between power, number of engines and take-off weight?

4. Edit - Why would you purchase the G58 model over the original 58 Baron?

I remain wedded to Lockheed Constellation at this present moment in time but I would be on board for a twin piston. :D
Thank you.

Best Regards,
Colin

Rarebear
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 438
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 19:56

Re: Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Lo

Post by Rarebear »

I believe the maximum takeoff weight has more to do with the gear and wing design.

I used to have a 182 and I added an stc that beefed up the spar and allowed me to carry 400lbs more I believe it was. Its not just a simple matter of adding more power to get more weight in the aircraft. its gotta be designed to do it.


JDW

McDonnell-Douglas
Senior Airman
Posts: 140
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 13:09

Re: Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Lo

Post by McDonnell-Douglas »

Hi Rarebear,
That is an interesting bit of information. Thank you for replying.

I think you are onto something there, I suspect it is the wing design.

It is possible that the G58 Baron has gained too much weight for its wing design, its barely longer than the Bonanza and same cabin, with an additional 1,500 lbs to generate lift for.
I did a bit of reading on the development and sister aircraft such as the Duke (the ultimate Baron) and the Queen Air.

The G36 Bonanza with modifications has a useful load of 1,400 lbs on one engine. The G58 Baron has a useful load of around 1,450 but with two engines. This this is a lower useful load.
The original 58 Baron has a useful load of around 1,700-1,800 which is enough for six FAA adults and baggage.

When you consider that the G36 Bonanza with modification can comfortable carry four adults with luggage it make the G58 Baron look poor value for money. It costs $1.4m versus around $0.8-0.9m for the Bonanza. Around $500-600k more for five adults with luggage, a marginal speed advantage, a weather radar etc.

It could be argued that the weight increases have changed the Baron from a defacto six seater to a defacto five seater. The Bonanza on the other hand has remained a defacto four seater. To move the Baron back into six seat territory a wing re-design may be required. The Twin Bonanza would be a good starting point.

Thanks,
Colin

Rarebear
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 438
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 19:56

Re: Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Lo

Post by Rarebear »

You gotta remember the twin version is carrying an entire new engine which is almost 400 more lbs. I am not sure about the whole story behind it but I think this is why most twins are total redesigns.

There was a Time that it seemed like everyone except Cessna mounted a bunch of engines on their airplanes(theres some photos floating around of a trimotor Piper cherokee). there was even some testing done with a twin champ. I think they realized nothing works as good as something that was designed to work that way.

There are a couple other models that went from single to twin like the twin comanche but even so not sure how much they share between their counterparts. For example the North American P82 has only 5 interchancheable parts between it and the P-51 even thought it looks like the same stuff was used.

also, there are a lot of fat twins out there. Compare to Pipers Aztec. huge difference. It could just be that they were pushing the envelope on that one particular aircraft and not much came of it? or maybe they just like that size and want to target an audience that wants 2 engine security. not sure.

Its one of the reasons I really like Cessna Twins. they have huge capacity and fly great. Ive always thought that Barons and bonanzas are overpriced when you consider space and carrying performance.
A bonanza is faster than pretty much any cessna except for maybe a turbo 210 or the occasional 185. I have also always considered Barons and bonanzas more of a Executives aircraft than someone who is flying cargo or lots of people all the time.

think of them as like reaaaallly big mooneys haha.

JDW

McDonnell-Douglas
Senior Airman
Posts: 140
Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 13:09

Re: Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Lo

Post by McDonnell-Douglas »

Haha, yes, really big Mooney's :mrgreen:
Though it could be argued, at least from the front, most aircraft look bigger than the Mooney. I have heard that the cabins are a close fit, whether this is true I have unfortunately never been able to verify.

I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the twin designs. I guess manufacturers apply a lot of different models and approaches in the development process with some aircraft designed from the outset as twins, some stretched singles, some complete redesigns etc. It is also plausible that a particular approach/idea simply didn't occur to the manufacturer or that an improvement on one model would cannibalise sales of another.

Additionally I think I was premature to rule out the potential of more powerful engines before a wing redesign. The Piper Aerostar, which I hope A2A model, has a slightly smaller wing than the Baron and higher weight. However it has two 360hp engines and thus more useful load. The short lived B58TC (Turbo Baron) also applied this principle successfully with some more powerful engines.

To be honest I think the current performance profile of the G58 Baron probably explains the strong second hand market for the original 58. A couple of modifications and you have an arguably better plane.

I guess this is the reality of a small twin piston market with few competitors. And the prices. How am I ever going to afford the fuel cap never mind the plane :lol:

Looking forward to an A2A Twin Piston.

Rarebear
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 438
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 19:56

Re: Question on Twin Pistons versus Single Piston (Useful Lo

Post by Rarebear »

Hehe
What I meant about the “big mooneys” is that beechcraft has a much smallercabin size compared to a lot of other twins.

Cessnas have twins that have a 30% bigger cabin with same engines and speeds and for the price?! Man, look at the performance on a Cessna 340. 15800 feet single engine ceiling! I think cessna really nailed the twin goals.

Im just about convinced that the baron (new) sells only for people with unlimited credit and they want one.

Also its interesting that Cessna doesnt make any new piston twins. I think the used twin market is very lucrative and probably not a great time to put out more twins. Look at all those diamond g58s etc. Very few are privately owned.

Another fail that can be observed (like you said about stretched fuselages) is the cessna 207 way underpowered. But they just kept stretching that 182 fuselage hehehe.

new reply

Return to “Flight Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests