Talk:Beechcraft Bonanza/Archive 1

Archive 1

11/18/04

11/18/04 - Rewrote top section, corrected factual errors, added links and new information.

Incorrect conversion between mph and knot

The page lists the maximum speed of the 1953 model D35 bonanza as 166knot or 191mph. This is consistent. However, for the 2009 model G36, the maximum speed is listed as 203mph (192kn). This is NOT correct, 203mph is NOT equal to 192kn. I am not sure whether the max speed is actually 203mph (177kn) or 192kn (221mph). The proper formula for converting between knot and mph is: Knots = 1.151 * Mph, as listed on the wikipedia Knot (unit) page. I've never edited wikipedia before, and since Im not sure whether the speed is actually supposed to be 203mph or 192kn, I didn't change it.

aileron/rudder interconnect

The commentary about the interconnect is misleading. The aileron and rudder systems are interconnected by bungees, as opposed to a mechanical system deflecting aileron and rudder in exactly correct increments. Indeed, such as system would be nigh impossible, because the amount of rudder necessary is different depending on aircraft attitude, speed and the amount of power the engine is developing.

Think of the bungee interconnect system as "power assist" for the rudders and ailerons and you'd be close.

Contrast the Bonanza's system with the true mechanical interconnect on the Ercoupe, which from the factory had no rudder pedals. The above mentioned problems in yaw accuracy were simply accepted in that aircraft, and it was engineered towarded that purpose, and with much lower performance than the Bonanza.

NOTABLE THAT THE PRESS IN THE WORLD [AT THAT TIME] DID NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THIS RE TYPE OF AIRCRAFT AND RESULTANT CAUSE/ES.

The rudder/aileron interconnect is a flexible bungee which can be over-ridden by the pilot by use of control input. It allows the pilot to make coordinated turns with his feet on the floor using the yoke alone. This system is most useful in cruise flight. On takeoff increased right-foot pressure is still required to overcome torque and P-factor. In the landing phase the bungee system must be over-ridden by the pilot when making a cross-wind landing and cross-control inputs are required to keep the airplane aligned with the runway centerline without drifting left or right. Tom Fleischman 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Odom

The ref to "Captain William Eldridge Odom" is wrong. The late Lt. Gen. William Eldridge Odom was a kid like me in 1947-1948. The "Bill Odom" related to the Bonanza flights was an earlier William (C. or G.) Odom who made the long range Bonanza flights. He was later killed while flying a Modified P51, the "Begin the Beguine", at the 1949 Cleveland air races.

Incidentally, that airplane and Odom had been touted by Radio personality Arthur Godfrey prior. I remember this stuff personally, but it's on the net, too.

So, there are two "Bill Odom"s of note.

Fubartu (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this too - according to his article, the Lt Gen wasn't commissioned until the 1950s. I'll remove the link. Lovingboth (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove notable events and incidents?

All the miscellanous facts are intersting but none of them with the exception of the "Day The Music Died" crash even together would merit their own section in the article so that entire section seems out of place and forced just to push that crash into the article in a somewhat akward way. If there's a better way to add the info about the famous crash then I'm all for doing it encyclopedically but creating a half-assed section of misc. facts just to do so doesn't seem to me to be the best way to do it. 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as Merge. No prejudice to restoring the article if more information, such specs, is forthcoming, thoush discussion first would be good. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Merge Beechcraft Model 40 → Beechcraft Bonanza

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

• Rationale - The Model 40 was a one-off, minimum-change variant of the Bonanza. While unique, there just isn't likely to be enough content to warrant a separate page. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It was not a "minimum change variant" even though it superficially resembled the Bonanza. It was more a modification of the Bonanza airframe than the Model 95 Travel Air which while it did go into production, still merits its own article. Crwesq@gmail.com (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support There does not appear to be enough coverage for an independant article at the moment. This could be merged into the main Bonanza article without losing anything. It could easily be split out again if more information became available.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Model 40 was a substantially changed plane.

• Support. the model 40 was based on the bonanza, so it's clearly a sub-type. also, there's very little information that would not be lost with the merger.--camr ^nag 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Practically all Beech's products up to the King Air were derived from the Bonanza (yes, early King Airs used Bonanza wing panels on their outer wings). The Baron and Travel Air were just twin-engined copies of the Bonanza and they merit their own aritcles. The Model 40 was more complex and more of a change than the Travel Air or Baron. Crwesq@gmail.com (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unfortunately, all the article says is "The plane had a different engine cowl than a standard Bonanza and the nose gear could not fully retract, but otherwise it greatly resembled the production Bonanzas of the time." We can't make decisions based on information that isn't there. If this info is in reliable sources, then add it to the article with citations, and perhaps your points will be accepted. If not, thne there isn't enough info for a stand-alone article anyway. - BilCat (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like to support articles for each type but as this has little info cant see a problem in parking it in Bonanza without prejudice to split out if any more info appears in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...and, almost a year later, finally done. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of different model Bonanzas

Hi,

I added a photograph of a 1957 H35 Bonanza. I don't know if there is a particular layout or criteria others wish to see for these. I put it in line with the H model entry in the "Variants" section. This seemed like a good idea, although I didn't go so far as to move the S Model down to sit next to its entry in the list. That, too might make sense.

Also, I was considering adding some photographs and information on the panels on different models. I think showing changes through the years may be interesting and useful. For example, models with throw-over yokes, center stacks, the "piano key" switches on early variants, etc. Let me know if these contributions run counter to the consensus for what ought to be where. Thanks and cheers! Cgettings (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

abbreviation for Knots

Hello,

I see on this page where airspeeds are given in knots, 'knots' is abbreviated as 'kn.' Does anyone object to changing this to be 'kts?' Pls. comment, thanks. Cgettings (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would probably be better just to use knots - the is no necessity to use an abbreviation just for the sake of it.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• I believe the orphan stub Waikiki Beech would be better off worked into this article. Thoughts? - The Bushranger (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Done - The Bushranger (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

---

• Bay Super V Bonanza is another stub that would probably be better off merged into this article... - The Bushranger (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This one needs discussion... - The Bushranger (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Bay Super V belongs here. It is treated as a different aircraft by the FAA; it wasn't done under an STC, it has a completely new Type Certificate (actually it has two Type Certificates, one for US-modified aircraft and one for Canadian-modified aircraft). I have been collecting info on the type for some time now and have the beginnings of a revamped article sitting in my Sandbox, I will make the revamp a higher priority. YSSYguy (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specifications

Isn't it the usual practice to list the specs of the most built version, in this case the A36 by a very substantial margin, or in the case of currently in production aircraft we go with the latest model? Roger (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we have a particular guideline that defines which variant to pick, normal practice is to have only one variant. This normally is the one the original article creator picked, and it is unusual that this is subsequently changed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The standard for this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_specifications which says: "Note that these specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labelled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous one. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." Originally the article had specs for the 2009 model G36 and also the 1953 model D35, but I removed the latter as per the standard cited. If you want to put forward an argument for a different set of specs then go ahead and let's look at that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, by my own personal standards, I would have put a Model 35's (the V-tail Bonanza) specs, as the most "iconic" aircraft (and the one most people will think of when "Beech Bonanza" is mentioned (if they know it at all, of course)). Here's an interesting question though - should the Model 35 and the Model 33 (Debonaire)/36 have seperate pages? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly a topic for debate whether the 33 and 35 should be different articles, presumably the 36 as well then? - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure if the 36 should be seperate, or lumped in with the 33 (so there'd be a "V-tail Bonanza" article, and a "Straight-tail Bonanza" article). Three might make more sense, perhaps - Beechcraft 33 Debonair, Beechcraft 35 Bonanza and Beechcraft 36 Bonanza? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think three different (33/35/36) may be better so I would support a split. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support a split along those lines as long as someone is willing to take the task on and do the splitting. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's really not much text to work with here, and the Operators list makes no distinction in models. As such, the 3 articles will have to be written almost from scratch, or they'll be not more than stubs. I know next to nothing about the series, so it would be a major research project for me to try to expand the articles while splitting them. I'd recommend sandboxing or incubating the three proposed articles and working on them that way, and they can be moved to mainspace as they are completed. Once the last on is completed, this title can become a DAB page or redirect. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds eminently reasonable! - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I might try to see if the QU-22 has enough on it to make a fourth, stand-alone article as well. (And I assume the recently-merged Model 40 would fall under the Model 35 article!) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A very sensible idea! Maybe this article can be left as a summary for the overall history and to contain the "odd" variants with "main article" links to the 33, 35 & 36 models. Roger (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The QU-22 and summary overview pages are good ideas too, but we can see how it all works out in practice. Does anyone know if projects are permitted to host sandbox pages? If so, that might be a better alternative to use-hosted pages for the project. If not, I'm willing to host them unless someone esle really wants to do it. All that really needs to be done to strt them is to copy the main article into the sandboxes under the respective titles (remebering to deactivate the cats!), and then we can start one them as we have time. The specs would probably be the first item to change on each page. - BilCat (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A summary page would probably be advisable so that interwikis could point there...and I've gone ahead and created the QU-22 Sandbox. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have the other 3 sandboxes up at:

• User:BilCat/Sandbox/Beechcraft 33 Debonair
• User:BilCat/Sandbox/Beechcraft 35 Bonanza
• User:BilCat/Sandbox/Beechcraft 36 Bonanza

Have at 'em! Also, I think the current Beechcraft Bonanza page can be converted to the summary/overview fairly easily once the other articles are completed, as that is basically what it is now, the text anyway. - BilCat (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a typo for you, BilCat. The link to the BE36 sandbox is now correct. Roger (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a great start! - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I must be getting old - I hardly remembered this discussion, or the sandboxes! I'll try to work on these soon, and hopefully we can get them to mainspace in a few months. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Revision

My revision was deleted by BilCat for unclear reasons. May I ask, by way of clarification, what were the objections to my revision? I have no problem with a re-write if there is any concern about the manner in which I phrased my revision, or if there appears to be, in anyone's mind, an aura of non-objectivity. However, the facts as outlined are correct: 1) The V-tail was a flawed design 2) It lacks stability in turbulence 3)It was the cause of multiple fatal accidents 4) The lack of a spar web was the cause of wing failures in the early Bonanzas, especially the "straight 35" model 5) Beech has never admitted that there was a design flaw in the Bonanza, even while modifying the aircraft to fix those flaws 6) A Beech test pilot was killed in 1947 while test-flying a Bonanza whose V-tail fell off. Need I say, etc., etc.? I think the most clear indication that the V-tail Bonanza was a defective design is that the conventional-tail Bonanza, identical in all other respects, is a perfectly good and safe aircraft. I think readers who are considering purchasing a Bonanza, and look to Wikipedia for information, need to be informed about the aircraft; they don't need to read what is essentially a Beech Aircraft advertisement.98.170.214.201 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The catch is, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - while the V-Tail was a problematic issue, having the statements in the article without references makes them unverifiable, and prone to removal. If you can find reliable sources to use as references, feel free to re-add the information. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the unclear edit summary. I've rechecked the your edit, and I realize that I was mixed up in reading what had happened, so the summary was misleading: I had thought that you restored old material that had been deleted before - instead, you had added new material. However, BushRanger is quite right in that the material must be cited from reliable published sources to remain. Some of what you wrote is simple fact, but it cane be misleading, while other parts are opinion and/or conjecture. Feel free tgo present some sources here, and we'll be happyh to help you rewrite it in as neutral a way as possible. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

More on Deleted Revision

My data came from the following sources. The first article researching the problem and criticizing the Bonanza came from Brent Silver, aviation engineer consultant, who wrote the article for The Aviation Consumer. Second, a point paper for a course, Studies in Ethics, Safety, and Liability For Engineers, at the University of Texas at Austin. This was written by Kurt Hoover, Wallace T. Fowler, and Ronald O. Stearman. This paper is well researched, and references another article in The Aviation Consumer: "Beech 35 Airframe Failure Report," by Richard B. Weeghman, as well the following: "Instrumented Flight Test of the Beechcraft V-tail Bonanza" by Coffey, Long, Moralez, McCullough, and Stecklein, and "Reduction and Analysis of Flight Test Data for the Beechcraft V-tail Bonanza" by Baade, Hazelhurst, and Lyons. Both of those papers are from the University of Texas at Austin. In addition, Brent Silver's 1980 Aviation Consumer article, "The V-tail Bonanza--Breaking of a Legend" is also noted.

The V-tail problem is not a matter of opinion. It has been well studied and referenced for years, as even a cursory internet search will show. I am an FAA certificated Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic with Inspection Authorization, and I am very familiar with aircraft structures and aircraft maintenance and accident histories. The history of the V-tail Bonanza is both paradoxical and counter-intuitive. This is a terrible design whose flaws caused untold tragedies, yet the aircraft retains a terrific reputation among owners. The article in Wikipedia as it presently stands sustains this denial of the obvious, and in my opinion it should be edited to reflect the true experience with this misbegotten wretch of aerodynamic design (ok, that was not NPOV!). Seriously, Wiki readers need to know the full story, and I would be happy to accept any help in formulating a proper edit. Thanks74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed it should, but proper referencing, in the article, would be necessary. If you want, you can post your information, with the relevant publication for each fact (the bare minimum standard for reasonable referencing is "one per paragraph", although more is better, and the more sources, the better)inside <ref></ref> tags, and we can work on it from there to give a fully formatted citation. It's true that the V-Tail Bonanza had a rather...shall we say, dubious safety record (and thankfully talk pages don't have to be NPOV! ;) ), at least until the ADs were issued anyway, and that should indeed be covered, but I Know It doesn't pass the verifiablity test, reliable sources do. Thankfully those should be easy to find, and all of us working together can make Wikipedia a better, more inclusive, and more accurate place! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, I've traced the Silver and Weeghman papers, they are of course out of print, even The Aviation Consumer publisher does not have them, but I found that the Embry-Riddle Hunt Library has copies. I'll arrange an inter-library transfer through our local library, and let you know as soon as I get them. The papers are good sources to start from. There are other references, but I want to start with those. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.2.104 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's over a year later, and this information is still not present. Here are a few hints for researchers.

On February 16, 1983, N4687D (a 1956 H35, s/n D4878), on approach to TUS (Tucson, Arizona), encountered a vortex from a 727 and had an in-flight tail failure. Pilot Bruce Gerald Wood managed to land the plane successfully. NTSB report LAX83FA098 concluded that it was pilot error: significantly exceeding maneuvering speed although he'd been cautioned about wake turbulence.

On July 27, 1984, N5685K (a 1964 S35, s/n D7614) piloted by Walter L. Haning broke up in flight near Bedias, Texas on penetrating a thunderstorm while VFR. NTSB report FTW84FA326 concluded that it was pilot error (no surprise under the circumstances). Haning was a friend of Donald L. Monday, then president of the American Bonanza Society (ABS). This accident triggered a change in the ABS's stance on the possibility that the Beech 35 tail might have a problem.

The first airworthiness directive (AD) to address the tail problem was 87-20-02, superseded by 87-20-02 R1, 94-20-04, 94-20-04 R1, and finally 94-20-04 R2; the last was promulgated in 68 Fed. Reg. 93 (May 14, 2003) at pages 25811-25814. — Doug Pardee (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

'Grounded' in Australia

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued an airworthiness directive late yesterday(13th) requiring the mandatory inspection of flight control cables on the Beechcraft Debonair and Bonanza aircraft. per ref "CASA issues directive on light planes" AAP January 13, 2012. Retrieved January 14, 2012" Has a grounding like this happened to the Debonair/Bonanza before? Is it encyclopaedic enough for mention? - 220 of ^Borg 09:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good question to ask. ADs like this, especially on very old aircraft, (some Bonanzas are now over 65 years old) are pretty routine and in this case there was no accident involved or other significant issue beyond just replacing old cables. It will ground most aircraft for a few days and cost a few hundred Australian dollars to fix, so I would say it is not worth mentioning in the article. That said, I would be interested to hear from other editors watching this page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Will the AD flow on to overseas aircraft? Surely the Federal Aviation Administration will look at the issue in the US? ("over 65 years old" !) Wondering now, how old is the oldest flying Bonanza, or for that matter, oldest (in years) flying aircraft of any type. - 220 of ^Borg 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the airworthiness authority for the design is the US FAA (they issued the original type certificate upon which the rest are based) they will have been normally informed by CASA of this Australian AD before it was issued. CASA will probably have asked the FAA to issue the AD itself first, which would then most likely have been reissued and endorsed by CASA, Transport Canada, EASA and the other worldwide airworthiness authorities. The fact that the US hasn't issued the AD means that either they disagree with it, that they feel that their own "aging aircraft program" general guidance already covers it, or that they are still working on their own AD and haven't got it out the door yet, but CASA thought it was enough of a priority to move more quickly than the FAA. It will be interesting to see if other airworthiness authorities pick up on this.

The first production Bonanzas were sold in 1947 and some of them are still flying, so that makes them 64 years old. I know that some original aircraft from the 1920s, like at least one Fokker Super Universal, are privately owned and still being flown, although they are generally not certified, since certification really didn't come about until the 1930s. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I passed this story onto some contacts I have at AVweb and they have run it as their headline story this morning. They also managed to research some more about it and added some more text to the original general media story. Given what they found and the indication that this grounding will probably spread to other countries, I now think that it should be added to the article, so I will do that. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Structural Defects and Failiures Section

From its initial debut in 1947, to its end of production in 1982, the plane had suffered about 250, in-flight structural failures which resulted in hundreds of deaths of its pilots and innocent passengers.

An engineering ethics study done at the University of Texas found that depending on year model, either the wings separated or the v-tail assembly failed. In 1952, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a 12-year study and found out what they already knew; the airplane had an unusually high incidence of in-flight structural failures. No further action was taken and the study was terminated.

Why is this not included?

Dwdallam (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:V if you can cite a reference it can be included. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The aircraft in the infobox photo (OO-JKM) is not a proper "representative example" of the type. It has been modified with the addition of aftermarket wingtip fuel tanks. I believe the "main" image should be representative of the type as the original manufacturer intended it to look - without any obviously visible STC add-ons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a better photo in mind? - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Of those already on the page I like File:Ifta-a36-N812AD-071115-01-16.jpg or File:Ntps-b35-N8718A-071012-02-12.jpg. Off-WP possibilities are [1] or [2], both found on Flikr using the CC search option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually all of those are pretty good. As per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES an in-flight photo is definitely preferred and those all meet the bill, but I think this one is the best of them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that that is probably the best, and ticks all the boxes being an in-flight photo of the classic V-tailed Bonanza.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem! The flikr.com search lied about the licensing of the photo! Even though I specified Creative Commons and ticked the "commercial use"box, the two I posted here are not actually CC licensed at all! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually that photo we all like says that the licence is CC 2.0 which allows commercial use

"Fastest Bonanza"

This discussion was transcribed from User talk:Ahunt

______________ ///NEW/// Thanks for your comments about my edits to the Bonanza page. Aside from the curt commentary to me and the presumption of self-aggrandizement, I completely appreciate your concerns for referencing proclamations. My multiple posts were actually my poor attempts at properly editing on a wiki page, something I am obviously new at. It did further fail to validate my claim, and my lack of word precision complicated what you presumed to be my assertion. As a former career military aviator, a CFII/MEI, owner of several aircraft including a Bo, I had been approached - and bought the Bo - *not* because **this specific aircraft** was the fastest, but that the overall Model S35 variant has been _commonly known_ to be the lightest per horsepower of all the piston Bonanzas, and the fastest... With it's lightest basic weight, V-Tail, and most horsepower (with a TCM IO-520 engine), it has a Vne of 227 MPH, which exceeds the Vne and cruise speeds of the A36, newer (but heavier) models, even sporting their 15HP-higher-but-heavier IO-550 engines.

It is why I bought that model, and is based on common knowledge in the Bonanza arena. That said, it is NOT rigorous to post 'common knowledge' here, without references, per your complaint to me. While I don't have time to publish a comparative aero paper on this, or even collect all the base weights, HPs, and ref those, I can look about for easy reference; and I will write to Beechcraft's front office to see if there is any comparative works on performance out there; and approach the American Bonanza Society (where threads do exist, about "the Fast One" [probably-insufficient]....). I will let you know if I get anything useful.

I also am unsure why you say I need to prove why a fastest model is interesting.... I can ask that question of every single posting in wiki; some folks would find such info interesting. Maybe not you?

I know it's easy to get exasperated with newbies wobbling imperfectly about the wiki pages, so I appreciate your patience, and just ask for a tad more patience when you make your own presumptions about the postings, however incorrect, on wiki. If you are going to to presume I am posting for gain, then I am going to ask you to have valid references for your posted assertions of same <wink>.

Thanks.... Kind regards, P.D. Shankland, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibalicker (talk • contribs)

OBTW: though these are not rigorous refs, but while I await replies for same, you should know I didn't make up the 'fastest' moniker:

http://www.aviatortrader.com/ads/1965-beechcraft-s35-bonanza-aka-the-fast-one/

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Beech-Bonanza-S35-The-FAST-One-IO-520-285hp-Garmin-530-Ready-to-GO-/141361179438

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69398

http://www.racing-vehicles.com/detail/airplanes-single-engine/1964-Beech-Bonanza-S35-The-FAST-One-IO-520-285hp_141361179438.html

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-57482.html

Thanks for your note here. As I indicated in my edit summaries the place for this discussion is Talk:Beechcraft Bonanza, so that everyone watching that page can participate, so I will move the discussion over there. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First off editor's qualifications aren't relevant here. I'm a former military test pilot who has ten aviation books in print and has owned six different aircraft, but so what? The question here in adding the claims that you have, that the S-35 is the fastest Bonanza model, are two fold. First are there reliable sources that back this claim up and second is it notable enough to include in a general encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, as opposed to a specialist aviation publication, like Janes All the World's Aircraft?

So let's start with reliable sources. All the refs you have cited above are classified ads and forum posts, which fall into self-published sources. None of them are reliable and in fact in most cases people are trying to sell a product which makes them very suspect. To even consider including this we need a real reliable source, like a published review or similar.

The second part is a bit less obvious. Every aircraft that has ever been built in multiple model years has some years that are faster, some that have more useful load, some that climb faster, have a higher service ceiling and so on. There is a model year of Cessna 150 that is somewhat faster, there is a model year of Cessna 172 that carries more, there is a model year of Cirrus SR22 that climbs faster and so on. So what? If you look though all the aircraft type articles you will find that these are almost never mentioned because it is a phenomena that affects all aircraft types and is generally just not that notable. Basically it is WP:TRIVIA.

I indicated in my edit summary "Removed - no evidence this is correct, looks fairly promotional, please explain this and make a case for it on the talk page." because it was pretty obvious that you owned one of these. I realize that people get excited about the aircraft they own, but even if yours isn't currently for sale, that is still not a reason to include this bit of information in the encyclopedia.

I note that another editor has once again removed your changes. You have already reverted twice, so I would caution you to read WP:3RR before reverting again and instead make your case to include this information here instead. As noted you will need to provide a better reliable source and then an argument why this should be included in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

.........................

Gentle folk - I would concur that my credentials do not define the proper answer, facts do; but all rigorous information is based on review by credentialed people. And I disagree about credentials; your listing yours helps me to understand the paradigm from which you speak, so I may make sense (if I can), based on YOUR background (Are you a Pax or Edwards grad? Primary platform? TPS platform?). Also, if you look closely, I did note that the links I first posited were only meant to indicate that there was in fact 'lore' about speed, which I did not self-generate. That's it. I'd conversely note that my owning a particular aircraft does not make my adding interesting points about it, of less merit to readers. Experience with a subject begets interesting points. It would be interesting if Wiki elected to remove all items when someone believed it was trivia; trivia proclamations are always subjective, and most Nobel prizes were once glimmers of trivia turned into a PhD thesis and a life of research in a curious aspect of a field, trivially speaking. But I am not here to debate all that. I would concur that better rigor is mandated - and I'd prefer to do that by not citing each POH of every model Bonanza. But several at ABS have noted that this would make it clearer on Wiki, should I have that energy. I am working on better rigor; below is is where I am at, and my request to you to let me know if it's "enough". If not I will continue. By the way, I agree that people love their own planes; rest assured this one is not for sale and will not be in any future of mine. But the inference you make for this case, is incorrect - and the reason why I provided my credentials, as more relevant. And credentials are based on facts. If you need these, I can provide same.

can you provide the reference to the assertion: 'in fact in most cases people are trying to sell a product which makes them very suspect.' above? Does Wiki have a statistical assessment of this? How can it be validated and to what rigor? While I see why you might say that, to me it seems a claim that can bite one without knowing the statistics to that end. After all, that perspective seems to bias the facts in Wiki, and poisons the statistics. If there are any I would love your pointer to them; thanks.

I asked the American Bonanza Society And Beech to each direct me to an accurate understanding of speed of models perhaps collected in a single document, or definitive review. ABS and Bonanza dot org referred me to John Eckalbar who authored the books "Flying the Beech Bonanza", "Flying High Performance Singles and Twins", and "IFR: A Structured Approach". As a test pilot you might in fact enjoy these texts.

So, I pass the following pers communication from John: "I've always heard the same thing...the S35 is the fastest normally-aspirated Bonanza. I agree with the common sense aerodynamic explanation (lower weight, one less tail member...), though I've never tried to prove it. I do have an old book by Joe Christy, "The complete guide to single-engine Beechcrafts," which gives the S about a two knot advantage. Christy seems to have just copied POH values, for what that is worth.

I trust your Naval Aviator instincts. John". I believe in the case of John, you might find his credentials sufficient if mine are irrelevant; if not please feel free to email him, or read his books on Bonanzas to determine his veracity for your own comfort level. I have his email address if you wish it. Here is his own bio- http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/John-Eckalbar/

As you saw, John notes Joe Christy's book lists POH numbers. I also compared POH knot values in Larry Ball's "Those Incomparable Bonanzas" , which also gives a 2 knot advantage to the S35, as John noted above. Sea-level top speeds are enumerated for each Bonanza Model p65 - 198. Here p 110 shows the S35 at 212 MPH; no other normally aspirated models reviewed meet or exceed that value (shall I list them all here from his text?). This also aligns with John's comments above, "normally aspirated". One thing to note - my piston-proclamation was actually incorrect, in that turbocharged piston Bo's can exceed these speeds at altitude (for obvious reasons). So my statement would only be proper to say, 'of normally aspirated Bonanzas, S-35 is fastest.

In sum - would the References to Christy and Ball meet external referencing criteria per your perspective? What about pers comm. with Eckalbar? Jane's as you know, won't go this far into an analysis, but at this point if this doesn't meet the rigor requirements (which would surprise me), I will start collecting POH's. Again, I appreciate your help in getting the rigor required, understood. And let me know if consistent 2KT advantage makes this Bo's speed not trivia; if it is trivia I have a concern. And thanks for getting me to the proper discussion page -

Thanks r/PDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibalicker (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One model being 2 knots faster than other models is plain WP:TRIVIA, especially when no published author has even noted it in text. While this sort of information might find a home on the ABS website or in a buyer's guide, it doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ahunt that I cant see the need to mention speed or that fact one is slightly faster, it doesnt appear to be a defining aspect of the type. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also a Bonanza pilot having learned to fly in a K35 in the late 1960s. What I want to comment on here, however, is Kibalicker's posting above about the value of an editor's personal credentials, knowledge, and experience, and disclosing them, with which I fully agree. The philosophical concept pushed by so many in here that a "strength" of Wikipedia is the anonymity of its contributors, and that information added by those known to be expert in a field is treated with suspicion and/or as being "original research" is to me bizarre and counterproductive to advancing the project. No other encyclopedia or reference source works that way. The disclosed credentials and bona fides of the authors there are among the main things that help give what they write credibility. (That is the reason that I fully disclose my own interests, background, and areas of expertise on my user page which enables readers and other editors to better evaluate my contributions to the project.) I have no problem at all with citing published sources as foot notes, but obviously just because something has been "published" someplace does not in and of itself make it reliable, verifiable gospel or accurate information, nor does the fact that it has not been published someplace make something false. The disclosed background, experience, knowledge, expertise and judgement of WP editors is to me often just as important (if not more so) in evaluating the reliability and credibility of their entries as the sources they cite. Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Centpacrr, WP collects what has already been published in Reliable published sources. The reason no other "encyclopedia or reference material works that way" is because they vet (or at least should vet) their experts before publishing their material. WP has no capacity for verifying an editor's credentials, thus it cannot accept OR. WP's "contributors" aren't actually contributing in the sense you mean - they are just adding what has been published elsewhere, and anonymity has nothing to do with it. Yes, "the fact that it has not been published someplace make something false." It just means that WP can't be the first to publish it. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, experts can play a role on WP, especially behind the scenes on talk pages. Ahunt wrote, " a former military test pilot who has ten aviation books in print and has owned six different aircraft." I can't verify that User:Ahunt is actually the person who wrote those ten books, so I don't try. I have interacted with him for several years, and I've learned to trust his opinions and judgments on aviation matters, primarily because it's consistent with I have read in published reliable sources. His knowledge has been useful in clarifying things that are difficult for non-pilots to understand. I've also used him as a "BS detector" when someone has added dubious claims to articles. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am primarily concerned about "sourced" material being included by editors who are unfamiliar with a subject that another editor who is expert in that field or topic knows to be false, misleading, and/or suspct. Not all material cited on WP (especially that which is only "published" on the internet) has been vetted or is it accurate or reliable. To me one of the strengths of WP is that among the broad spectrum of its contributors are those with expertise in many fields who are able to do that vetting for the project themselves in the areas in which they have direct knowledge by spotting and then removing and/or correcting material which is wrong. The reason I have personally provided so much background on myself on my userpage (most of which can be independently verified from the links I include) is to give anybody who is interested a basis to evaluate my contributions, discussions in talk pages, the sources I chose to cite, and most especially the sources I challenge as being unreliable. That is not true for IP editors and registered editors who do not provide any information about themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I was primarily responding to your point that "information added by those known to be expert in a field is treated with suspicion and/or as being "original research" is to me bizarre and counterproductive to advancing the project." - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree being knowledgeable in the subject is helpful in that you can more easily determine when things added by other editors sound wrong, but ultimately here we relay on verifiability, which means that anyone who can do research and find reliable sources can meaningfully contribute to any subject. The one drawback to subject experts on Wikipedia has often been that they "can't see the forest for the trees" and sometimes insist on getting into minutia that doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia, even though it might belong in a scientific paper or a specialist publication. That is where less subject-knowledgeable editors are so helpful, as they can point out when something is not important to the topic. Even people with no subject knowledge at all can improve wording, readability, spelling and grammar so that lay-readers can understand the subject. On the whole we have a place for everyone here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, BilCat, and I understand your position. However I still stand by statement and view about the issues of anonymity and OR because of a number of my personal experiences in here (and others that I have seen) of being challenged on areas in which editors have demonstrated, disclosed professional (or amateur) expertise by those without any of that who insist that false or inaccurate information should be added or retained because they have a "published" source. (The same goes for information challenged because it comes from a primary source such as an original document, etc, as opposed to a secondary source, i.e., something somebody had written about it.) I have even had material I have added challenged as "OP" because the source I cite is one of my seven published (and vetted) books (three on ice hockey and four on North American railroad history) or hundreds of articles and being told all of these would be fine for any other editor to cite, but I "could not" because I was the author so it was OR. Really. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks everyone for a very informative dialog/thread. I will accede the 2 knot consideration then being trivia, most particularly here in the wiki world. More than that, your discourse was a good learning point for me WRT Wiki. I have no problem with a mandate for verifiable data - and with this discussion, I now completely get the level wiki wants that rigor. I can understand why AHunt could potentially see such postings in the wrong light; to some extent I see this a weakness of the Wiki peer review system itself, and again I might return to the issue of personal credentials, and the current system too easily causing suspicion. Centpaccr nicely reiterated my concerns above - thanks. And seeing his comments about disclosure of personal credentials, I like that - and I now put a link to my own military bio (hopefully it is a reliable source, coming from a dot mil <wink>) on my user talk page (talk). I have yet to build a User page itself... Not right now, though; the format language for wiki is mixing in my noggin with my need to write in my 'day (sort of) job', using dissimilar LaTex <grin>. I would note that, owed to my second profession since retiring as a career military pilot - astronomy, astrophysics, astrometry, space operations - two comments come to mind:

One, I have done a little (I hope helpful) editing there, and it was well received. Maybe it was luck of the draw, but it seems you generally get a different "type" of editor, so the experience is alot different, as is the level of detail. If an editor does not agree with a fact, those editors seem to do their own checking. I'd not this as a point of editor consistency -- which tends to rely on editor credentials, and background. Not a major deal - just easier for a newbie editor like myself, to deal with editors who seem to act more like mentors in general 'over there'...

Two; in the astrophysical world, one does see in peer-reviewed journals, reviewers' identities usually being undisclosed to an author who has submitted to a major journal. I think this is common in other sciences, too. As an aside, I am not sure anonymity is good in that arena, as it leads to politics (a euphemism), even though the idea is to avoid politics (or the 'god complex' anon editors can unwittingly slip into). However, credentialing IS assured by the journal selecting reviewers with known exceptional experience in a given field; and the editors 'ride herd' on reviewers whose evaluations exceed their "job". Maybe Wiki is sort of doing this, but the difference is, that protection of the "knowledge, by credential assurance" is not nearly so obvious in the Wiki world, whereas, in science, an author is known to have credentials presenting a paper, and the reviewers are known to have them too (even if you don't know the person specifically). And as for technical minutae - called trivia above - maybe I have been around the technical minutiae too much lately... time to go fly.... Again, really -thanks to a person, for all the perspective. r/PDS (talk)

US civil date formatting (MDY)

This article about a US designed and produced civilian aircraft type, the Beech Model 35 "Bonanza", which is built in Wichita, KS, contained dates formatted as both US (MDY) and Commonwealth (DMY). In conformance with WP:MOS and what I find to be the case in the many other articles relating to US designed and produced civilian aircraft types that I checked, I corrected the few instances where the dates were in Commonwealth formatting to that of US, non-military formatting used elsewhere for both internal and external consistency. Another editor, who according to his/her user page is based in a Commonwealth country (Canada) reverted these corrections, with a claim that "DMY is preferred in aircraft articles" however the WP citation on date formatting makes no mention whatsoever of such a preference. I have therefore restored MDY US non-military formatting for the reasons stated above. Centpacrr (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I don't know of any guideline or practice for aircraft articles that prefers DMY. - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beechcraft Bonanza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016115122/https://www.beechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_publications/docs/nontechnical/serializationList.pdf to https://www.beechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_publications/docs/nontechnical/serializationList.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beechcraft Bonanza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325201657/http://www.avbuyer.com/PDFs/Beech%20Bonanza%20Anniversary%20Profile.pdf to http://www.avbuyer.com/PDFs/Beech%20Bonanza%20Anniversary%20Profile.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702214720/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/bonanza_g36/specifications.aspx to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/bonanza_g36/specifications.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628180232/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/bonanza_g36/performance.aspx to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/bonanza_g36/performance.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)