BKlott

But let history reflect that we Pilots actually flew our airplanes.

The Runway Cafe at Sebring (KSEF) is usually very good.

Gee, it even came primed rather than bare aluminum. Have they finally learned?

VERY, VERY, VERY NICE!!!

It is just a fraud protection program. They claim that most fraudulent purchases are made out of state. Both my Credit Union and my B of A cards have website screens to remove the territorial restrictions from the cards. You plug in the desired date range then check off the different States that you may be visiting during your trip. You’ll normally receive a confirmation along with a phone number to call if you run into any problems while traveling. Has always worked well for me.

There is a special bond that forms between fathers, sons and airplanes.

It would be interesting to know if the aircraft logs indicate whether or not the engine mount had ever been pulled and sent out for inspection during the fifty three years it has been in service? This is something that really should take place at the time of an engine overhaul.

But hand painting the screw heads to match the paint scheme can be a fun Father / Son activity, one my Dad and I shared in 1970 while touching up his 1964 C model.

That has been my understanding for both the C and the E models.

No or decreasing fuel flow / fuel pressure comes to mind. Happened to me once in a PA28-140. Was rolling down the runway with the boost pump on. As it started getting light I glanced at the fuel pressure gauge, which was now reading zero, and aborted. Hadn’t behaved that way on the left tank earlier that morning or during the run up on the right tank just prior to the takeoff. Only manifested itself after the application of full power. I would recommend checking fuel flow / fuel pressure before rotation on every takeoff. It became my routine after experiencing two power losses on departure in my otherwise beloved Cheetah. Good thing I had learned that lesson before the Cherokee had it’s chance to get me.

Unfortunately, no factory corrosion proofing in the wings is quite common.

My Dad’s 1964 model had the armrest. Something I’ve specifically looked for in the interior pictures of C models for sale. 1963 and older, unless modified, don’t seem to have them 1964 and newer do. Yours is the first that I’ve heard of not having one.

1964 or newer will get you an armrest on the Pilot side. 1967 or older will get you more flush rivets on the wings, adjustable cowl flaps and a typically better cruise speed. The 201 windshield will not make your Avionics Shop happy as access to behind the panel is more difficult for them. 1965 or newer gets you slightly larger fuel capacity. 1968 or newer will probably mean fixed boarding step, fixed cowl flaps and may or may not provide the dorsal fin. A good, clean C or E with slick finish, young engine and prop is plenty fast as it left the factory.

Having lived in Florida since 1984 I wish to extend my deepest sympathies for your upcoming move. We are afflicted by humidity which will make your worst NM summer days seem pleasant, six varieties of venomous snakes ... all of which reside in the panhandle region, alligators and a general affliction of dumbness which is pervasive throughout the state. You are sincerely welcome to join us...if you are up to it.

Myth: It’s the Pilot’s fault. All of these airframe failures were the fault of the Pilot who was invariably a Doctor. Reality: Error prone Pilots must have only flown the V-tail model and not the straight tail model. Again, the facts from the report: The Problem The statistics leave little doubt that the V-tail Bonanzas have a safety problem not shared by their straight-tail counterparts. Over the years there have been more than 200 fatal in-flight breakups in V-tails (as of 1978). There has been just one in a straight-tail Bonanza. The Aviation Consumer's 1979 study of in-flight breakups during the years 1964-77 showed the V-tail to have a rate of 0.65 breakups per 100,000 flight hours, compared to just 0.03 for the straight-tail 33 and 36 models combined. Early in 1979 the FAA released a study of aircraft dynamic characteris­ tics. This study (see The Aviation Con­ sumer, May 15, 1979) took particular interest in the in-flight failure rate of the Bonanza. Over a 10-year period the FAA report noted that “the Beech 35’s in-flight airframe failure accident rate, at 0.779 per 100,000 hours, is 20 times that of its straight-tailed compa­ nion and, in fact, is exceeded only by a few aircraft with substantially less exposure ... In May 1979 the NTSB released its own study of general aviation accidents (report No. NTSB-AAS-79-1). Even though they did not separate V-tail from straight-tail Bonanzas, they found their combined in-flight failure rate to be “considerably higher than the mean rate of the selected aircraft group” for the five-year period studied. NTSB then commented, “It is significant that all 40 of the in-flight airframe failures of the Beech 33/35/36 involved the V-tailed models (Beech 35). Obviously attention should be focused on this model.” Three studies—an NTSB study of five years of data, an FAA study of 10 years, and an Aviation Consumer study of 14 years of accident data—have all shown the same fact. Yet this is not the first time in the history of the Bonanza that this failure pattern has been observed. The evidence suggests that both Beech and the FAA have studied it extensively over the years and should have long been aware of the problem. Chinese Water Torture The first in-flight failure of a Bonanza occurred in 1946. During a dive test, an experimental prototype, serial number D-4, disintegrated. The observer parachuted to safety, but the pilot was killed. In the years since, there have been fatal in-flight airframe failures in every year for which data are available. As of 1978, the total of known in-flight failures of V-tail Bonanzas was 208. There was one straight-tail failure. We do not know how many people died in these 208 accidents. However, if a sample of recent data is represen­ tative, there have been about 2Vi deaths per in-flight failure. We estimate approximately 500 deaths in Bonanza in-flight breakups. Thus, probably twice as many people died in V-tail structural failures as in the worst U.S. air disaster in history, last year’s American DC-10 crash in Chicago. Like Chinese water torture, the bad news has trickled in over the years. Bad years, like 1953 with 14 accidents, were sometimes followed by relatively good years, such as 1954 with three ac­ cidents. Such swings must have en­ couraged apprehensive Beech designers. They were not idle. Beech made several significant structural changes to the Bonanza design as they tried to chase the gremlins out of the wing, the fuselage, the tail. The external posture Beech adopted (and to a large extent, their internal one also) was that these accidents were due to pilot error, pure and simple. Meanwhile, Beech kept beefing up the airplane, but they did little for Bonan­ zas already in the field as they strengthened subsequent models. My comments: There was a program to modify the original 35 with structural improvements to correct design issues that Beech discovered. These aircraft were re-designated as Model 35R. I believe that there were 13 of them. None of the improved aircraft experienced an inflight airframe failure. If the airplane is up to specification (something that needs to be regularly checked and maintained) and is operated within it’s limitations, it should be perfectly fine. The problem is that so many of the airplanes have been found to be out of spec over the years and that is where you are exposed to having an issue. Ruddervators that are out of balance or become out of balance, control and trim cable tensions that are not correct, fuselage rear bulkhead cracks, fuselage skin that is no longer as thick as it used to be or is supposed to be, etc. This is what you are dealing with. No, Beechcraft did not foresee the effects of twisting loads being placed on the tail spars and that is why the tail cuffs came into being. All the concerns about the center section and wing spar cracks were probably overblown because the wings typically failed outboard of the landing gear mounts and landing light location, WS 66, where there was no spar web until the later, beefed up models. I read somewhere that Ralph Harmon, who was involved in the design of the V-tail, was also responsible for metalizing the Mooney. He wanted to make sure that the Mooney was overbuilt (built right) and not something that JUST made Certification standards.

Another sobering comment from the report was that 71 of the 1,500 original, straight 35 model Bonanzas built, suffered a fatal inflight airframe failure. That represents 4.8% (nearly 5%) of that models entire production! Now you know why they are so inexpensive to purchase.

Copied from the report: Where Does It Fail? Perhaps the most significant of the Beech studies of the problem of in­ flight structural failures was written in December, 1958. This restricted docu­ ment, Beech Service Engineering Re­ search Study No. 103, summarized the locations of failure for each of the Bonanza models then built. What was found was that the origi­ nal 35 tended to fail in the wings, and the later models tended to fail more frequently in the tail. The original model 35 failed most frequently at Wing Station 66, the weak point that had been pointed out by the CAB a decade earlier. Beech Study 103 also compared the structural failure rate of the Bonanza against that of other four- or five-place aircraft. For every year from 1948 to 1957 (1947 was not listed) the Bonanza rate was higher than that of the com­ parison group. Over the 10-year period, the Beech data showed the Bonanza’s failure rate was 50 percent higher than the comparison group’s. However, this comparison group itself contained the Bonanza. When the Bonanza is removed from the compari­ son group (Beech did not do this), its in-flight failure rate is actually 133 per­ cent higher than that of other four- or five-place aircraft. It appears fairly clear to us that both Beech and the CAA should have known there was a serious problem of in-flight failures early in the history of the Bonanza. Indeed, we were told by an ex-Beech engineer who asked to remain anonymous: “Yes, we realized there was a problem within the first three or four years.” My Comments: The mention of Wing Station 66 being the weak point in the early models was due to there being no spar web in the wing beyond that point. This was addressed in later model 35 Bonanzas.

It is interesting to note that while the OP has made very favorable comments about the handling characteristics of his S35, many sources report that the earlier model 35 Bonanzas were much nicer handling airplanes. My Dad flew them from the first straight 35 up to and including the J35 model, back when they were all new airplanes. He said the same thing. Kind of makes you want to fly an earlier model just for comparison.

An Aviation Consumer report entitled “V-tail Breaking of a legend” stated that from 1946 thru 1978 there were 208 instances of a fatal inflight airframe failure in a model 35 Bonanza. The article was dated February 1, 1980. There have been others since then.

I will make a confession. Earlier this year there was a 1964 C model for sale in Trade-a-plane that was unmodified and had a vintage paint scheme somewhat reminiscent of my Dad’s 1964 C model. I did call the owner and had a nice, lengthy discussion with him. Even had the Wife’s blessing. Came very close but took a good long hard look at the $$,$$$ it was going to need and decided not to pull the trigger. This was the first call I have made on an airplane ad since 2001. One thought that did cross my mind was that next summer will be the 50th anniversary of the family cross country flying trip that my Dad took us on...in his 1964 C model. Torrance to Philadelphia and back again. Would be kind of special to re-fly that trip again. Torrance to Winslow to Tucumcari to Tulsa...day 1. Torrance to Rolla to Lawrenceville-Vincennes...day 2. LV to Dayton...day 3. Dayton to Philadelphia International...day 4. (Weather issues days 2 - 4) There is still a lot of affection for Mooney’s inside of me. It was a difficult decision to not pursue the purchase. If I do buy a Mooney, it will be an unmodified 1964 C model. That is the ONE that really tugs at my heart.

I am at the “crossroads” too. Have two TKM MX-300 NAV/COMs, one seventeen years old and the other eighteen. Also two Cessna ARC CDI indicators, a remote glideslope receiver, ARC ADF and separate 3LMB. All forty five+ year old technology matched with a Lynx 9000 NGT transponder. I’ve ordered a Garmin 342 Audio Panel, GTN 650 WAAS GPS/NAV/COM and GI-106B Indicator with a tentative install date of mid-September. This will provide me with state-of-the-art gear, all the available instrument approaches, an intercom which my current Cessna switch panel doesn’t have and, hopefully, improved avionics reliability. I am retaining one TKM, the better CDI and the remote glideslope receiver for an interim backup. It just didn’t make sense to me to keep spending money on 45+ year old technology that adds no value to my airplane and actually hurts it’s future marketability. With three year old paint, leather interior and UV glass, I should be in pretty good shape in that regard. I am also laying the foundation for future upgrades whether I do them or the next caretaker does them. The other line of reasoning behind this is that if I ever do decide to upgrade to a Cirrus or Corvalis, I need to start becoming familiar with these modern GPS systems, RNAV approaches and IFR direct routing. This will give me a head start in that direction.

The other factor that we learned with the last storm is that there is not enough fuel to evacuate a significant portion of Florida. We are already seeing lines at gas stations and stations out of fuel.

Several years ago I was researching paint shops for my airplane. There was an outfit at Leesburg that was going by the name Flying Colors Aircraft Painting and I ran across some very negative reviews of their work. Multiple negative comments appear on the Vans Air Force forum. This First Class Aerospace appears to be operating out of the same location that Flying Colors was. Search both outfits and I believe you’ll come up with the same address. According to First Class BBB profile, they claim to be in business for nine years. Consequently, caution is recommended. You should avoid East Coast Aircraft Painting at Deland.

That is good feedback. I appreciate it but still wonder why there seems to be an increase in the 24 hour Holter monitor test requirements.

Sorry to hear that...