Preparing for a Bonanza
I seek your advice on how best to transition to a complex, high-performance, single-engine aircraft (i.e., Beech 33, 35, or 36 Bonanza). Almost all of my 90 hours have been in a Cessna 172 (although I have some time in a Bonanza, Grob, and Aerostar). I'm currently renting a C172 from an FBO for local flights and cross-countries of 250-mn-plus distances.
I would prefer to purchase a transitional aircraft that I could sell without too much hassle or financial loss, but I'm just not sure if this would be the best way to go. I would appreciate your advice about the best way to transition from a Cessna 172 to perhaps a Bonanza.
R.R.
Greetings Mr. R.R:
At your level of experience, the best way to eventually transition to a Bonanza is to fly a Bonanza. In my opinion, you don't need a transitional airplane. The only issue you should consider is the flight requirements that the insurance company demands for you to fly solo in a higher-performance airplane. If you feel you can meet the insurance company's requirements without excessive burden, then find yourself a good Bonanza and have fun. There's no reason you can't be trained safely and be safe in one of these wonderful airplanes.
Obstacle-clearance climb speeds
Dear Rod:
I realize you are a very busy person, and I will be so grateful for your response as I have yet to receive anything close to what I think is correct from my local flight instructors.
My Cessna 172 pilot's operating handbook lists VX, best angle of climb, as 64 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), no flaps, at sea level.
Yet for the obstacle clearance climb, no flaps, it says to climb at 59 KIAS. If the best angle of climb is 64, why wouldn't that also be the best way to climb over an obstacle? Would 59 KIAS not be behind the power curve and therefore creating unnecessary drag? Thanks again for your response.
Darryl
Greetings Darryl:
Your airplane doesn't have two VX speeds. If flaps were being used for the short field takeoff, it's possible there might be a different VX speed for a partial flap condition. The real question here is, "Why is there a stated 50-foot speed," for an airspeed at 50 feet above ground level when climbing to clear an obstacle? The most likely answer is that it's regulatory. FAR Part 23 certification requirements for single-engine airplanes state the following:
- VR (rotation speed) may not be less that VS1 (clean takeoff stall speed).
- The speed at 50 feet after takeoff will be the higher of:
- The speed shown to be safe under all reasonably expected conditions, including turbulence, and complete engine failure, or
- 1.2 VS1
The test pilot will chop (it's a karate chop if he's a martial arts master) the power at 50 feet, and 1.2 VS1, and see what happens (that's why these people get paid a lot of money). If there is not enough elevator authority to provide for a safe landing, the speed is increased until such a point is reached.
The answer here lies in the fact that the "obstacle" used for takeoff performance determination is only 50 feet high. While rotating at VS1, the airplane is still accelerating toward VX (64 KIAS) and passing through (no slower than) 59 KIAS as the aircraft clears the obstacle. It's my guess that the 59 KIAS is probably real close to 1.2 VS1, so it's the lowest speed you could (or should) have as you pass the 50-foot obstacle and accelerate to 64 KIAS.
Said another way, if you raise the nose on takeoff at a speed no lower than VS1 and pitch for the attitude that would give you 64 KIAS, you'll pass through 59 KIAS (and still be accelerating to 64 KIAS) as the airplane clears the 50-foot obstacle.
Glideslope intercept altitudes
Dear Rod:
I've held my certificated flight instructor credentials since 1974; recently retired after a 25-year airline career flying "heavies"; and have flown, managed, and instructed in corporate jets for the past 20 years, accumulating some 24,000 hours. Recently, a friend of mine had an encounter with a local designated pilot examiner who failed one of his instrument students because, while shooting an ILS approach, the student when cleared for the approach did not descend from the last assigned ATC altitude down to the minimum glideslope intercept altitude.
In my entire aviation career, which encompasses some 40 years now, I have never encountered any training environment where it is taught that, once cleared for an ILS approach, you are required to descend to the minimum glideslope intercept altitude. I have always told students that it is OK to do so, but in keeping with the stabilized approach concept, it is best to remain at the last assigned ATC altitude, which according to the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook must be a glideslope-intercept-compatible altitude.
The DPE stated to my instructor friend that she is required to descend to 1,500 feet (the minimum glideslope intercept altitude in this instance). I disagree and told my instructor friend this, and the DPE still insists that we are wrong. So, what's your take on this?
Regards,
Dan
Greetings Dan:
I'm sorry to hear that this student friend failed the checkride. There is no requirement of any sort in the federal aviation regulations that a pilot must descend to a minimum altitude on an instrument approach unless a mandatory altitude is published. Now, there is a requirement in the instrument practical test standards that says an applicant shall descend to the MDA on a nonprecision approach, but there's nothing that says that the applicant must descend to the intermediate segment altitude (the minimum glideslope intercept altitude) to intercept the glideslope.
It's true that controllers are instructed to vector pilots to intercept the glideslope from below. The reason for this is to prevent intercepting a false glideslope. But if you're on the glideslope and descending prior to crossing the final approach point and the descent is normal for that glideslope and groundspeed, then this definitely isn't a false glideslope, is it? Besides, false glideslopes typically exist at extreme altitudes, not at the typical intercept altitudes shown on instrument charts.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot since 1970 and a CFI since 1974, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.
