Forget pay day.  I have just pawned my car so I can get this.

12 minutes ago, TangoSierraMike said:

I'm curious about the turbine Bo as well. Not being a r/l pilot my understanding of the pro and cons of such conversions is pretty limited - it just feels they were trying to turn the Bonanza into a hotrod. 

I did find this conversation about the good and the bad of turbine Bo and found it quite interesting.

 

Turbine Bonanza | Pilots of America 

In the rw I never flew anything with a turbine conversion. A point to notice is the yellow arc on the airspeed indicator is removed  so it will be necessary to go higher to take advantage of more TAS and reduce fuel flow. I'll be following this aircraft after BS releases it.

It was nice seeing those fancy liveries haha!

Nice intro video - I'm excited for you guys!

17 minutes ago, TangoSierraMike said:

I'm curious about the turbine Bo as well. Not being a r/l pilot my understanding of the pro and cons of such conversions is pretty limited - it just feels they were trying to turn the Bonanza into a hotrod. 

I did find this conversation about the good and the bad of turbine Bo and found it quite interesting.

 

Turbine Bonanza | Pilots of America 

The turbine is of course limited by the airframe.  But you'd probably have a better useful load and definitely would be able to get in and out of shorter airfields during warmer temperatures.

Unfortunately it's not FIKI certified (I think there are mods irl) and it's not pressurized.  There is oxygen piped in though.

28 minutes ago, TangoSierraMike said:

I'm curious about the turbine Bo as well. Not being a r/l pilot my understanding of the pro and cons of such conversions is pretty limited - it just feels they were trying to turn the Bonanza into a hotrod.

Turbine conversions are almost always going to be exercises in compromise.  The original airframe just isn't built to do what works best in the turbine world (climb fast, get to altitude and stay there as long as you can) and will always have limitations that a purpose built turbine plane doesn't have.  In particular for this implementation, note the VERY  limited normal range of 594 nautical miles.  That's pretty limiting.  Sure you can slow down and stretch that a bit, but then... why fly a turbine?

And the airframe just isn't built the way a purpose built turbine plane is.  Vno is a paltry 165 and Vne 171 IAS.  You absolutely HAVE to get high to get a reasonable true airspeed for the fuel you're burning, and you have to be very careful not to over-run those speeds, especially in descents.  And so on.

I'm sure they're a blast to fly - and a challenge - and I'll certainly give it a go, but the turbo-normalized piston plane will still be my go-to, as it is now with the current version.  It's just far more practical.

 

Scott

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by tttocs
Clarification

10 minutes ago, tttocs said:

Turbine conversions are almost always going to be exercises in compromise.  The original airframe just isn't built to do what works best in the turbine world (climb fast, get to altitude and stay there as long as you can) and will always have limitations that a purpose built turbine plane doesn't have.  In particular for this implementation, note the VERY  limited normal range of 594 nautical miles.  That's pretty limiting.  Sure you can slow down and stretch that a bit, but then... why fly a turbine?

And the airframe just isn't built the way a purpose built turbine plane is.  Vno is a paltry 165 and Vne 171 IAS.  You absolutely HAVE to get high to get a reasonable true airspeed for the fuel you're burning, and you have to be very careful not to over-run those speeds, especially in descents.  And so on.

I'm sure they're a blast to fly - and a challenge - and I'll certainly give it a go, but the turbo-normalized piston plane will still be my go-to, as it is now with the current version.  It's just far more practical.

 

Scott

Why go turbine conversion? Because if you've got the money, you can. (Attempt at humour ).

RW Example.... Beech Duke conversation with the PT6-21/34. I've flown both engines extensively.....spend the extra bucks and go with the -34. Same with the Allison/RR/ whatever, C20-XX. Go with the most powerful version you can.

Realistically maybe because you like what you already fly with a piston engine nearing overhaul anyway. Simplicity of turbine operation. A derated turbine retains power up higher, less affected by density altitude, availability of fuel. Then there is the reliability aspect. Re reduced range the demographic of potential purchaser, as this is generally a personal aircraft, is older with the decreased bladder range, lol. 

One last thought is doing a turbine conversion and a general spruce up of aircraft systems etc is much less expensive than a new turbine single machine. 

I think this turbine bonanza will be a really enjoyable add-on for flt simming if the engine is replicated accurately in this sim application. Wish I had the wallet for it in the rw.

What is the weight difference between the piston engine and the turbine engine?

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by bobcat999

2 hours ago, dbw1 said:

I am curious about the turbine bonanza. I bought only the Baron as the piston bonanza wasn't of interest but the turbine..... I spent many years operating that engine in rotary wing machines.

Do you mean the RR Allison? This is actually the somewhat less common PT6A-21 Bonanza conversion by Rocket Engineering, the same company behind the Turbine Duke conversions.

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Forget pay day.  I have just pawned my car so I can get this.

Looks like i will be getting my second Black Square product when released. The Bonanza looks mighty nice !

It will be my birthday, two weeks today. Be nice, crowdfund my sim aeroplanes and my cake! 🛩️🎂

I think I'll definltely treat myself to the two aircraft. (Payday a week today!) 

2 hours ago, outermarker said:

Do you mean the RR Allison? This is actually the somewhat less common PT6A-21 Bonanza conversion by Rocket Engineering, the same company behind the Turbine Duke conversions.

Yes. Dating myself I started flying Bell 206 with the Alison 250c18, C20 and C20B & R.

RR apparently acquired them eventually.

The 250C20 eventually grew into the C28 and C30.

Interesting article about the Turbine Bonanza here:

https://planeandpilotmag.com/tradewind-turbine-bonanza/

This is about the conversion with the Allison engine rather than the PT6 that will be in the Black Square addon, but I assume they're broadly comparable.

One advantage of a turboprop conversion that I think hasn't been mentioned yet is runway performance. Quoting the article:

"A normal A36 will roll 1,900 feet on takeoff, while a turbine A36 will need 580 feet. For landing, the normal A36 will need 960 feet, while the turbine A36 will need only 320 feet."

Those numbers are insane. Must be a hoot to fly.

I thought I'd give this addon a pass, given that I already have too many airplanes in my virtual hangar, but the Turbine Bonanza has me seriously tempted...

2 hours ago, martinboehme said:

One advantage of a turboprop conversion that I think hasn't been mentioned yet is runway performance.

This is one of the most exhilarating things about the Turbine Duke.  Takeoffs and landings are simply insane - and smile inducing.

 

Scott

20 hours ago, dbw1 said:

Realistically maybe because you like what you already fly with a piston engine nearing overhaul anyway. Simplicity of turbine operation. A derated turbine retains power up higher, less affected by density altitude, availability of fuel. Then there is the reliability aspect. Re reduced range the demographic of potential purchaser, as this is generally a personal aircraft, is older with the decreased bladder range, lol. 

Can't argue with anything you say here, but unless I truly had money to burn I would neither invest in a turbine conversion nor buy into a converted plane.  The economics just aren't there.

That said, please don't misunderstand.  This is a sim, where RW economics don't matter if you don't want them to.  I've flown the last 20 hours or so of sim time in the Turbine Duke, because it's an unbelievably well done simulation that's fun to fly.  Frankly, I don't think either the Turbine or Piston Duke make much RW sense, pretty as they are.  It was a flawed plane that never found much traction IRL.  But here in sim-land, they're two of my favorite planes.   I'm sure I'll have a lot of fun in the Turbine Bo as well.

 

Scott

Of all the models included in the 36/58 bundle, which one would be the fastest in the 8.000/12.000 ft range?.