Bonanza V-Tail or Mooney M20x or ??

If you can swing it, a 310 would be doable, especially as an A&P. Most tasks and all of the service related jobs you can perform yourself at a greatly reduced cost. The second prop as well as the extra accessories will certainly cost you more, but the day one of the fans stops turning, at the worst possible moment will make it all worth it, and then some! A twin flown by a proficient pilot offers redundancy that no Bonanza or Mooney can compete with. Even a single-engine turboprop has to take a back seat when the mill stops turning.
 
Anyone else suspicious of a post that
1) Is from an A&P
2) Looking for an airplane under $75,000
3) That is more substantial than an powered parachute, such as maybe a 310, Mooney, Commander, or a Space Shuttle
- Speed - 150KTS+
- UL - 700 (After full fuel)
- Retract Gear (for no reason other that I just think its cool)
4) Oh, and don't forget costs $75,000 or less.

And how does an A&P not know this is impossible?
 
Not looking for a V35B. Looking at 1962 and below. I see them all day for under $100K.
For the Mooney, yeah that is what I hear. Have yet to sit in one. Trying to find someone anywhere even close to me that will let me sit in it.

I thought you are an AP, how have you not sat in a Mooney?
 
I thought you are an AP, how have you not sat in a Mooney?
you do know there are mechanics that cuss the thought of working on a Mooney. :D

A&P here too....and I've not worked on a Mooney...but mine is probably no better with all the turbo crap packed in there.
 
Before totally dismissing the guy, there are A&Ps out there that have never touched a piston plane and don’t know a lot about them past whatever they learn in school.

I have a cousin who only worked on jets until he started doing a day every two weeks to get some piston experience recently.
 
If that’s true then him being an AP is of little help in this situation. Which he would know and thus not postulate that he could do maintenance.
 
Hey all, I am looking at purchasing an airplane. Trying to decide on what to get.
Price is about $75K. Wife wants a Cessna 310, but the insurance will eat me alive the first few years. No one anywhere with 100 miles of me rents a twin or anything decent. Only C172 for rent near me. I am an A/P, so I can do quite a bit of the maintenance.
Must have Requirements:
- Speed - 150KTS+
- UL - 700 (After full fuel)
- Retract Gear (for no reason other that I just think its cool)

What is out there that fits this?
V-Tail N35 (I have time in one. Great plane and probably at the top of the list.
Mooney M20x?
Commander 112A (reviews are not that great and the 114 is way up there)
Bellanca Super Viking?
Piper Comanche? (Prices seems to be crazy)


Cessna T210.
 
If you don't mind a loud cabin, Cessna retract "fun," more fuel flow than knots, and all the joys of stuff crammed in every corner sometimes just done that way to screw with you (like, really!?)... then might I also suggest a 337? Centerline thrust is "safer" but it's still a twin.

Brokers have told me insurance companies aren't writing new policy for pre-70 twins.
 
Has something changed since ABS’ announcement last year?


I was also under the impression Textron later came back and said “oh, you can order undrilled skins, too. We just don’t know when they will be available to ship.” I am not aware of anyone yet receiving and successfully installing them. Have you heard different?
Yep they have been made, more will be made, and Biggs has reskinned new ones recently. There are a few firms working on carbon fiber ones as well..

I asked Tom Turner of the ABS about how many ruddervators per year are trashed. He told me on average 12 a year need reskinning and out of those most are heavily neglected in the first place. A pair corrosion free and treated well should last a life time. I would not stress or worry about it and I am a current 67' V35 owner.
 
I’ll take us down a rabbit hole.
So far, it sounds like it would be a stretch to find a plane that meets all of your criteria.
So, which of your requirements are you willing to compromise?
If you’re willing to go over $100k, I think you have several options that fit the bill, as described in this thread.

If you’re willing to compromise useful load, there are a ton of experimental planes that easily go faster than 150kts on 8gph. Mine (RV-9A) has fixed gear, but there are retracts out there (Glasair, Lancair) if that’s a hard requirement. And there are a few that can be had for $75k or less.

If money is a concern, not just acquisition, but maintenance as well, it’s hard to beat an RV. Fixed gear means low insurance ($850/yr). Maintenance is ridiculously low. I just put a $70 alternator in my plane. Avionics are less expensive. No such thing as unobtainium. And simple to work on.

I fly myself and my wife, full fuel and 100lbs of baggage cross country, IFR, at 155kts true on 8.5gph like clockwork. Over 300hrs in this bird. On rare occasions, I wish I had a third seat, but my 95% mission is met.

Anyway, I know that’s not exactly what you (OP) specified, but thought I’d throw it out there.
 
A bit of apples/oranges. 114 will carry more than an Mooney and most are a true 4-seat aircraft (useful loads ~1,200lbs) where most Mooneys don't break 1,000 useful. No one's going to be happy in the back seat of a Mooney, lol. The benefit of that smaller frontal area and narrower cross-section is great speed and miserly fuel burns. If I need a 4-seat or frequent 3-adult plane, the Mooney isn't likely on my list. If I need a 2 seater with occasional 3rd wheel, the Mooney is a perfect option. The panels are usually decent in the 114B or 115 as they are newer, but I can certainly see the 114A having the same aging panel as most of the 70's fleet.

Mine has 1119 UL. And the back seats in the mid or long bodies is not that bad.

Other makes/models had a wider range of panels. The 114/115 seemed to be pretty much original with a GPS.
 
Anyone else suspicious of a post that
1) Is from an A&P
2) Looking for an airplane under $75,000
3) That is more substantial than an powered parachute, such as maybe a 310, Mooney, Commander, or a Space Shuttle
- Speed - 150KTS+
- UL - 700 (After full fuel)
- Retract Gear (for no reason other that I just think its cool)
4) Oh, and don't forget costs $75,000 or less.

And how does an A&P not know this is impossible?

Lots of A&P's don't work on piston engines so not that odd.
And under 75k is not that hard depending on what he's looking for from an avionics perspective.
Plenty of solid airframes out there for 75 or less.
Hell this one here has decent avionics and a 320SMOH engine.
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...35+BONANZA&listing_id=2412560&s-type=aircraft
 
Hey all, I am looking at purchasing an airplane. Trying to decide on what to get.
Price is about $75K. Wife wants a Cessna 310, but the insurance will eat me alive the first few years. No one anywhere with 100 miles of me rents a twin or anything decent. Only C172 for rent near me. I am an A/P, so I can do quite a bit of the maintenance.
Must have Requirements:
- Speed - 150KTS+
- UL - 700 (After full fuel)
- Retract Gear (for no reason other that I just think its cool)

What is out there that fits this?
V-Tail N35 (I have time in one. Great plane and probably at the top of the list.
Mooney M20x?
Commander 112A (reviews are not that great and the 114 is way up there)
Bellanca Super Viking?
Piper Comanche? (Prices seems to be crazy)


I bought my Debonair knowing that I love Beechcraft airplanes, they are more substantial feeling than most others and handle better (opinion obviously).
A buddy has a super viking that's a great flying plane as well, if you have a hangar it's worth the consideration, a bit different handling (very fast roll rate) and landing is a bit trickier than a BO but very comfortable and a great plane overall.
Mooneys are mooneys. Fast, efficient and small. Some love them some hate them.
I haven't been in a commander but they seem like a great plane, slower than the others because they are so wide and comfortable.

The only way you're going to really know is to go fly the planes you're looking at. Just go down to the airport and ask people for rides everyone likes to show off their plane.
 
Anyone else suspicious of a post that
1) Is from an A&P
2) Looking for an airplane under $75,000
3) That is more substantial than an powered parachute, such as maybe a 310, Mooney, Commander, or a Space Shuttle
- Speed - 150KTS+
- UL - 700 (After full fuel)
- Retract Gear (for no reason other that I just think its cool)
4) Oh, and don't forget costs $75,000 or less.

And how does an A&P not know this is impossible?
Glad to know I wasn't the only one thinking that. 'tis suspicious indeed.

As was the reference in post #41 where the op mentions "Previous airport in my Bo, we pretty much were always told to keep speed up (120+kts) due to larger aircraft behind us."... then mentions he doesn't have his complex yet. I'm not sure how many PICs in Bonanzas are missing their complex. He also mentioned he only has 10h in HP/complex. So clearly not much bonanza flying was going on there.
Lastly, IDK how many 160TT, non-IFR, non-multiengine trained, non-complex endorsed pilots are going to be shopping for a C310. A single call to literally *any* insurance company should be perfectly capable of killing that dream.
That said if the OP's sincerity is genuine, I hope they find a plane they're excited about.
 
Some Ks have 220 HP.

The original K, the 231 had a turbo, but no intercooler and no automatic waste gate. The 252 added those, plus came stock with speed brakes. The Encore was the last of the Ks with the -SB engine at 220 HP. Lower service ceiling than the 252, but higher gross weight. A 252 can be converted to a Encore (what I have), that is probably the best, as it has the Encore GW, but a lower Empty weight. I have 1119 UL

Thanks for catching my encore miss - at 75k, there are no encores in that ballpark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for catching my encore miss - at 75k, there are no encores in that ballpark.

At least not flyable ones. :)

But just wanted to set the record straight.
 
Yes, I am an A&P, but most of my 20+ years of experience has been on commercial airlines. I am also an FAA DER-Electrical.
I was in a club quite a few years back that had a Grumman Tiger, an AA5B. I did all the maintenance and avionics work. Last year I did have a 1/4 share of a 1961 BO N35. I did some maintenance on it. Helping with the annual, Mag replacement, GPS install, some panel work, brakes and some wiring replacement. No, I have never sat in or worked on a Mooney. I can find 100's of other A&Ps that have never worked on a Mooney. I don't even know anyone that has a Mooney and none anywhere near me. I am near KTSP. Of course some stuff will need to be taken to a shop, but I do know enough to save me a ton of money.

My wife saw a C310 and said that is what she wanted. I would love a C310, but after speaking to the insurance company, I am not going to pay $9200 a year. Right now, it actually looks like the Mooney M20F is going to be the airplane for me. I only need two seats and room in the back for my German Shepherd. I don't need the 700UL, but I prefer to have it and not need it. I am not looking for an airplane with 0 SMOH and full glass for $75K. I just need an airplane with low engine time and no corrosion. Avionics I do not care what it has. I will be replacing the avionics with full Dynon suite. I picked Dynon because I can install it all myself and not have to take it to a shop like I would for Garmin. I have seen plenty of Mooneys in that price range.

The 10 hrs I have for complex/HP is in the Bo I had the share in. I did the time with an instructor. The instructor never signed me off because after the 10 hours, I asked for the sign-off. He wanted me to do a 2 hour cross country to four different airports. So I basically told him to take a hike and figured he was just wasting my time in order for him to build time and since I was about to move anyway, I said forget it and I will get the endorsement after moving in a rental and worry about it later.
 
Last edited:
I think you’re exactly on the right track.

Save for the added engine, the 310 would eat you out of house and home - fuel consumption for those 2 nice engines would be uuuuffffff.

The F model is a mid body with a nice performance curve - basically an unclean J model, which is as good as it gets. Some F models have the speed mods and look like J’s, but people also like to price them as J’s.

I just did another install of a full dynon 3 screen suite on a Lance - the owner had been waiting 8 months for it to be completed at the avionics shop…

I think I wired it complete in 3 days - Avidyne 540, PMA8000, ADSB, not including the autopilot. The amount other shops are charging is crazytown…and I don’t see the justification of the price difference on brand G.

The F model can also have long range tanks installed - Monroy just sold the STC to Don in Texas.

The only better value at that speed in my opinion is an under appreciated Bellanca- but you best get your doping skills up to task and have a hangar. Termites say yummmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The F model is a mid body with a nice performance curve - basically an unclean J model, which is as good as it gets. Some F models have the speed mods and look like J’s, but people also like to price them as J’s.

Not to be pedantic but there’s other differences other than some speed mods.
The 1st year the J was introduced (77) was a transition year, it retained a lot of the Fs design features, except in addition to speed mods the engine intake design was modified, this resulted in the ram air mechanism becoming superfluous and it was eventually dropped.
In 78 the gear was modified, which up the speed you can drop the gear, the new aerodynamics made it harder to slow down, and speed brakes weren’t available yet. They added an annunciator to cleanup the panel a bit and add additional fuel/electric warnings.
They beefed up the support structure that allowed them to up the MGW around 87, which they needed as it was getting heavier because of other improvements like fully adjustable seats, winglets, etc. Even with the higher MGW the useful load isn’t that much different than early models. A 1000lbs is considered quite good for any J, but Fs can be 1050.
That’s just the highlights.

The F went through changes as well through the years, don’t assume they’re all going to be exactly the same.

BTW, all Js have a serial number of the form: 24-####. I have seen Fs and even Es with a few J speed mods that listed themselves as Js in a effort to get a premium price or some claiming to be better than a J…buyer beware.
 
fwiw, useful load potato absent power loading discussion is a specious quantity, see cherokee six-260 et al.
 
fwiw, useful load potato absent power loading discussion is a specious quantity, see cherokee six-260 et al.

Could you say this again in English?

I am following all of these type of discussions now that I am plane hunting for my first one (that partnership deal on a Sundowner dissolved) but that also means I don't follow "slang" yet. Still learning all the oddball abbreviations and acronyms ...
 
Could you say this again in English?

I am following all of these type of discussions now that I am plane hunting for my first one (that partnership deal on a Sundowner dissolved) but that also means I don't follow "slang" yet. Still learning all the oddball abbreviations and acronyms ...

Sure thing. I meant people waxing about high useful loads without giving consideration to power loading is a stupid flex, because hauling a bunch of extra weight legally on the same horsepower isn't going get you over the fence when the invariable balked landing occurs, even though you're legally allowed to. What you want to normalize for is power loading, not useful load. Then analyze whether the payload requirements for your mission allows for that power loading to be met, cuz that's what's gonna get ya over the hump in proverbial rising terrain in the summer, unless you're a coastal dweller in the Southeast and climb rate doesn't matter to you. That's why you'll hear engines on 4 seaters typically are meant for 2, and engines on common 6 seaters are more appropriate for 4 seaters. You'll see the market price these understood differences fairly consistently.

Manufacturers of newer airplanes played that game a lot, where in order to save face for the fact the airplanes got piggy, they paper-increased the maximum gross weights in order to be able to market the airplane as having the same useful load as the older variants. But they're doing it on the back of a higher power loading (that's worse, not better), removing the safety factor. Sure, people will point to the inclusion of newer crush-zone seats. Cool, that's only one piece of the weight increase, which usually has to do with heavier sound proofing, along with said interior refinements that don't do a damn thing to help you climb better, which is one of the more common ways in which weekend warriors get in trouble when traveling, second to losing control of the airplane in IMC (often inadvertently).
 
Except that many times the GW limit is not due to take off or climb performance, but landing gear strength or stall speed. So some slight changes can allow a a high gross weight with acceptable take off and climb performance.
 
Then using that logic and maybe modifying the OP's question ... what type of aircraft would be good recommendations? Especially not grossly over priced tarts if they still exist. Personally I'd be happy with anything that does 172 speed or better, definitely don't want a retract at this stage (well maybe for a Mooney I'd go through he trouble/expense), and I really don't care about status. Does that just leave Sundowners, Warriors, and Cherokees? 172's apparently started getting gold plated at some point based on prices .... Anything bigger and faster is a crap shoot on selection and price and renting locally is not ideal. I only have the flight school I get my private at and they don't do anything other than block times so no overnights or long trips etc. I have no idea how to find a club or partnership since I don't know anyone. The only one I've stumbled into turned out to be a dud and a dead end so yeah ... how do folks find a plane ... lol
 
Except that many times the GW limit is not due to take off or climb performance, but landing gear strength or stall speed. So some slight changes can allow a a high gross weight with acceptable take off and climb performance.

Decathlon is a good example. Original models had MGW of 1800# due to reuse of flimsy Citabria gear legs. In 2002 ACA designed longer, stronger gear which increases MGW to 1950#, which increases useful load by 150 lbs with no change in flight performance. A common and easy upgrade.

The MGW in that instance is actually set by a drop test to see how close the prop gets to the ground.
 
Last edited:
Not looking to max out useful load. I will probably be at 400lbs max plus full fuel which should put me at around 700-750ish. Most Mooneys should be fine with that. That would leave me with 200 lbs to spare for 1 passenger, if I ever have one. As of now, I believe the Mooney M20F would be my best bet. I do like the V Tail, but some have issues with aft CG and it would be expensive to "fix" and a good one is quite expensive.
 
Are you planning to step up to something more capable than the M20F in a few years? If not, sounds like a good plan. If you do see yourself wanting more speed and more useful load down the road, then my advice would be to buy your last airplane first. Fixing up two (or more) aircraft can really add up.
 
If I do, it will be a twin. Can’t buy that now. I need lots more hours and training so I can afford the insurance.
 
Not looking to max out useful load. I will probably be at 400lbs max plus full fuel which should put me at around 700-750ish. Most Mooneys should be fine with that. That would leave me with 200 lbs to spare for 1 passenger, if I ever have one. As of now, I believe the Mooney M20F would be my best bet. I do like the V Tail, but some have issues with aft CG and it would be expensive to "fix" and a good one is quite expensive.
Check out mooneyspace and related sites as there are differences in the model run from 1967-1976 M20Fs brought about by a bankruptcy or two. Nothing is stock anymore on 50 year old planes but you will still find some quirks such a svernier vs push-pull controls or scattershot instrument panels. Great planes. Mine has a UL of 1050 and trues at 150kts when you get around 10K.
 
Right now, it actually looks like the Mooney M20F is going to be the airplane for me. I only need two seats and room in the back for my German Shepherd.
You might think about a C. Just a smidge slower but plenty of back seat for your dog. Way less money spent. Mine is for sale and has good bones, by they way.
 
Back
Top