182 vs early Bo?

alaskan9974

alaskan9974

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
204
Location
Alaska
Display Name
Display name:
alaskan9974
Evening, I was trying to plan ahead for engine and avionics overhauls on my 182L, and started to think about a new plane rather then buying new stuff. I generally fly 300 to 480nm flights nonstop, I had wanted to put a 430w and autopilot in the 182 for gps rnav but at those costs I could just sell the plane and buy something that has it cheaper.

I looked on vref and ballpark it shows around 60k, I'd be surprised if I got 50, but including just the cost of avionics it lands me in the v35 territory anyway. It has better load carrying, 1300s vs just 1050, better speed, 160-175ktas vs the 140ktas I plan for, higher fuel burn 14-16 vs 10.5-12gph but cuts out enough time to balance out.

Is my thinking on track or have I missed something
 
Just kind of depends if ongoing cost are more important or performance and purchase price. The Bo will cost more to annual, insure, and maintain but would be a more capable airplane. The V and S 35 Bonanza's hold their value and are an excellent platform for upgrades down the road. If you swap the IO-520 for an IO-550 when it comes time for an overhaul your fuel burn will go back down to 13 and your performance will go up.
 
The IO-550 has a better intake system that allows them to run better lean of peak thus reducing fuel burn. It is a bolt in replacement for the IO-520. The IO-550 (depending on version) is rated for continuous 310 hp where as the IO-520 only allows 300hp for 5 minutes.
 
Depends on the mission. Speed and the Beech quality are the only things I would get in a Bo that my 182 doesn't already fulfill. My useful is over 1300lbs and I have more shoulder room. You have to decide if the trade offs are worth it.
 
Grum.Man said:
He quoted V35 so mid to late 60's
Click to expand...

Many people say "V35" when they really don't know what the correct term is. Further, he writes "early bo" in the thread title, a V35 is absolutely not an "early bo". So which is it?
 
Grum.Man said:
He quoted V35 so mid to late 60's
Click to expand...
Yes correct, S35-V35.

Early to me meant late 50s to late 60s, perhaps middle aged is more appropriate

I looked into mooneys but would prefer the bonanza's gear as some of the dirt strips I fly into aren't the best.

I think the 182 is a great medium, it has a couple Garmin g5's, Horton Siebel speed and stol mods fuel injection etc but it seems cheaper to buy something rather then buying new and installing.
 
lsu_wildcatter said:
S35-V35B range, its relatively early to me, perhaps not to others sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...

Well, the V35 was the end of the road for the 35 series Bonanza, so I wouldn't call it early, nor would it be classified as an "early" or "E series" Bonanza by Bonanza owners/experts. ;)

I can tell you this, I own a Bonanza and have an acquaintance that owns a 182. We both live in the same area and have family in the same town about 350nm away. In the past we've shared rides quite a bit and almost always take the Bonanza because it does better on time and fuel than his 182 does. That time and money saved per trip comes at a price however. If I were to add up all the time and money I've spent getting the Bonanza into a good, airworthy airplane and keeping it that way I suspect I'd have a higher hourly operating cost than the 182.

If it were me, with all the stuff you're listing for features in your 182 I'd keep it and spend the money fixing whatever it is that you feel needs fixing or upgrading. You know the airplane and its condition, you won't know the condition of a new airplane and you can pretty much plan on having to fix some things after assuming ownership.
 
alaskan9974 said:
I looked into mooneys but would prefer the bonanza's gear as some of the dirt strips I fly into aren't the best.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want a Mooney for that either, plus they don't have a ton of prop clearance.

The Bonanza landing gear will take some punishment and they'll get in and out of some relatively short runways.
 
The difference is retractable gear. Thats a fairly big issue. You can never forget it. All it takes is once. Bo is going to be more expensive to own and burn more fuel. But it will go faster. They are both nice airplanes.
 
mondtster said:
Well, the V35 was the end of the road for the 35 series Bonanza, so I wouldn't call it early, nor would it be classified as an "early" or "E series" Bonanza by Bonanza owners/experts. ;)

I can tell you this, I own a Bonanza and have an acquaintance that owns a 182. We both live in the same area and have family in the same town about 350nm away. In the past we've shared rides quite a bit and almost always take the Bonanza because it does better on time and fuel than his 182 does. That time and money saved per trip comes at a price however. If I were to add up all the time and money I've spent getting the Bonanza into a good, airworthy airplane and keeping it that way I suspect I'd have a higher hourly operating cost than the 182.

If it were me, with all the stuff you're listing for features in your 182 I'd keep it and spend the money fixing whatever it is that you feel needs fixing or upgrading. You know the airplane and its condition, you won't know the condition of a new airplane and you can pretty much plan on having to fix some things after assuming ownership.
Click to expand...

IOW, what you're saying is the time difference between a Bonanza and a 182 is not significant enough to warrant the extra cost of mx when it's over only 350NM. I think this has been known for a while when it comes to people's mission radii not really supporting the case for 170KTAS worth of mx expense and complexity.

ETA: The one caveat I'd place on that assessment is the case of headwinds. There can be a combination of winds where the pax comfort-endurance is exceeded in one but not the other, and that does make a significant difference in the general enjoyment of ownership of whatever airplane we're talking about. So really, this should be a two variable thought, one is pax target endurance, the other is time delta with average yearly winds on the leg with headwind for the city pair in question.
 
mondtster said:
Many people say "V35" when they really don't know what the correct term is. Further, he writes "early bo" in the thread title, a V35 is absolutely not an "early bo". So which is it?
Click to expand...
Considering they are still made I would absolutely consider a mid 60’s Bonanza an early Bonanza.
 
hindsight2020 said:
IOW, what you're saying is the time difference between a Bonanza and a 182 is not significant enough to warrant the extra cost of mx when it's over only 350NM. I think this has been known for a while when it comes to people's mission radii not really supporting the case for 170KTAS worth of mx expense and complexity.

ETA: The one caveat I'd place on that assessment is the case of headwinds. There can be a combination of winds where the pax comfort-endurance is exceeded in one but not the other, and that does make a significant difference in the general enjoyment of ownership of whatever airplane we're talking about. So really, this should be a two variable thought, one is pax target endurance, the other is time delta with average yearly winds on the leg with headwind for the city pair in question.
Click to expand...

Even on longer trips than that I don't think the time savings is enough to really justify the difference in cost between a 182 and a Bonanza. Especially when you factor in how few hours most recreational pilots actually fly their airplanes each year. I've taken some really long trips in a 100 knot Super Cub and taken some equally long trips in a 175 knot Baron and when you sit down to total the hours spent flying on each trip they're closer to the same than a person would initially guess, and the Super Cub is obviously cheaper to operate and maintain.

I agree on the wind comment. That was one of the reasons I bought the Bonanza.
 
mondtster said:
Many people say "V35" when they really don't know what the correct term is. Further, he writes "early bo" in the thread title, a V35 is absolutely not an "early bo". So which is it?
Click to expand...

mondtster said:
Show me a current production 35 series Bonanza and I'll concede.
Click to expand...
I can see all you like to do is argue about superficial terminology. He already said he was referring to mid to late S35-V35’s in the 50’s and 60’s. Admittedly he said ‘middle-aged’ would’ve been a better word. Give it up now, k?
 
I own a 182 and regularly do 250nm XC trips in it...as you know it is super comfortable to fly but the one thing I wish I had more of is speed. It is a tradeoff for useful load and both Pilot and PAX comfort. If you mission was every few months, choose comfort and useful load...every few weeks I would go for the speed.
 
Note that many of the early Bo's won't have either a 520 or 550. You'll likely have a hard-to-maintain E-225. If you're really unlucky, you'll have the egregious X or V hub Hartzell prop to boot. Comparing an early Bo to a current 182 isn't really a fair comparison anyhow, unless you like antiques.
 
I own a 75 F33A Bonanza. I flew and still have access to a 75 182P. The Bonanza is faster and in my opinion and the opinion of my Chief Executive Officer flies, rides etc better. Her term was...it just feels solid.

The 182 is a fantastic airplane that does everything well but not great. Slower but carries a ton with a CG range that is almost without peer. Funny thing about Bonanza people...they will tell you “I have a 75 F33A and invariably will give you the serial number. (CE-565) Makes a difference on loads, engines an CG AND when you see a late 50 model that has been modified with the third window, speed sloped windshield and tip tanks...it is hard to tell how old they are.

The Bonanza is faster, just feels fantastic and let’s face it, it is the plane that just says “success”. Growing up, the Bonanza was the Dr and Lawyer and company president plane...not a farm boy from East Texas! I was wrong.

Maintenance costs. Having worked on and maintained both, the cost differential is minimal. Some will disagree but I know what my bills say. Insurance will be slightly higher depending upon your experience for a while. Mine runs about $1300 a year and a quote for the 182 was $800. (Again EXPERIENCE). A quote for a 182 RG was the same as the Bonanza.
If you learn about and keep the gear maintained properly, the cost might be a couple of hours of shop time.

I spent well over a year looking for my plane and it was never placed on the market as the former owner contacted me due to my questions on Beechtalk. We had prayed for the right one and we were given it.

Your facing a tough choice and whichever way you decide you will be happy and sad.

PS...the IO-520 is 285 hp and I operate wide open throttle and lean of peak and plan 160 knots and about 13 gph
 
Why choose. Get both. Embrace the brilliance of And.

What, you aren't made of money. Ok, get the Bo. Save it from the doctor.
 
For the mission defined: sit in each and make a decision.

Do watch the year on the 35as there are essentially three different “generations” of the v tail. The early ones (like mine) are a little harder to find parts for. The H35 and later are essentially modern airplanes but the S35 and later are when beech got all the details right. Also- I’ve seen a 550 in an A35 (1949) and I’m talking to a guy in Idaho that just bought a C35 with a 550 to get in and out of back country strips. Ignoring vertical take off (ok not really) finding parts for the C35 with the 550 won’t be too bad.

And to that comment on antiques- P~~~~~~

9681FCAC-7ACA-4C49-939B-F032AD12A263.png
 
MD11Pilot said:
I own a 75 F33A Bonanza. I flew and still have access to a 75 182P. The Bonanza is faster and in my opinion and the opinion of my Chief Executive Officer flies, rides etc better. Her term was...it just feels solid.

The 182 is a fantastic airplane that does everything well but not great. Slower but carries a ton with a CG range that is almost without peer. Funny thing about Bonanza people...they will tell you “I have a 75 F33A and invariably will give you the serial number. (CE-565) Makes a difference on loads, engines an CG AND when you see a late 50 model that has been modified with the third window, speed sloped windshield and tip tanks...it is hard to tell how old they are.

The Bonanza is faster, just feels fantastic and let’s face it, it is the plane that just says “success”. Growing up, the Bonanza was the Dr and Lawyer and company president plane...not a farm boy from East Texas! I was wrong.

Maintenance costs. Having worked on and maintained both, the cost differential is minimal. Some will disagree but I know what my bills say. Insurance will be slightly higher depending upon your experience for a while. Mine runs about $1300 a year and a quote for the 182 was $800. (Again EXPERIENCE). A quote for a 182 RG was the same as the Bonanza.
If you learn about and keep the gear maintained properly, the cost might be a couple of hours of shop time.

I spent well over a year looking for my plane and it was never placed on the market as the former owner contacted me due to my questions on Beechtalk. We had prayed for the right one and we were given it.

Your facing a tough choice and whichever way you decide you will be happy and sad.

PS...the IO-520 is 285 hp and I operate wide open throttle and lean of peak and plan 160 knots and about 13 gph
Click to expand...
I dug through my old books, I actually bought a few POH's from various planes and one of the books I bought was by Larry Ball I didn't realize he signed it, but I read about his story afterwards and talk about passion for these planes. I think a 35 is in my future. I'd rather find one with a 430 or 530 and a decent autopilot then try to add on to my plane.
 
alaskan9974 said:
I dug through my old books, I actually bought a few POH's from various planes and one of the books I bought was by Larry Ball I didn't realize he signed it, but I read about his story afterwards and talk about passion for these planes. I think a 35 is in my future. I'd rather find one with a 430 or 530 and a decent autopilot then try to add on to my plane.
Click to expand...
bingo....the reason for my last purchase and Six sale.
 
brian] said:
The H35 and later are essentially modern airplanes but the S35 and later are when beech got all the details right.
Click to expand...
@brian], what details did they get right on the S35 that they didn't get right on the N or P?
 
Last edited:
GeorgeC said:
@brian], what details did they get right on the S35 that they didn't get right on the N or P?
Click to expand...

I would have to look at my copy of "Those Incompareabe Bonanzas" to be sure. Since Beech continued to improve the 35's each year, it really is more of a continuum and most "gurus" (I'm just a dumb pilot) say the "S" could be considered the best overall compromise in GW and performance. Personally, I don't see enough difference between the N/P/S to really care. This is especially true given that most of these airplanes have been updated in many ways since they left the factory.

But, yea, given the OP's thinking, an N35 would be a true 200MPH (170KT+) airplane with the 470N. I did consider one earlier this year that also had an STEC 30 autopilot for 65K. Add in tips (for more GW) I'm betting an N35 would do nearly what the 182 would do and go faster.
 
Six is a guru there.

For the early 35s, there are lots of spares from parted out airplanes for now. I’ve also heard there is more to the story.
 
If you want to turn them into planes sporting a modern panel with modern autopilot on reasonable budget, the choice is obvious. The C182 will have the Dynon, TruTrak, Trio, and Garmin STC approved avionics long before the Bonanza line. Garmin GFC500 was just approved for the 182. Trio says they hold approvals for the 182 as well.
 
Paulie said:
Bonanzas and doctors. Isn't there a saying about that?
Click to expand...

Lawyers too. Flew for a trial attorney whose wife was also an attorney. Told us he was let her get her pilot certificate and buy her a Bo.
 
bnt83 said:
If you want to turn them into planes sporting a modern panel with modern autopilot on reasonable budget, the choice is obvious. The C182 will have the Dynon, TruTrak, Trio, and Garmin STC approved avionics long before the Bonanza line. Garmin GFC500 was just approved for the 182. Trio says they hold approvals for the 182 as well.
Click to expand...
That's the route I was considering, a dynon and trio once it's certified with a 430w. My motor has about 1400smoh though so add in a PPONK....airplanes seem to cost money even when they aren't going anywhere.

I didn't realize that about the rudder skins, I'll look into it.

I see early examples, M and Ns pop up sometimes with decent avionics and run out motors. I imagine they'd haul the mail with an upgraded engine. To me it seems that at the same cost of upgrading my plane, I could find a beech similarily equipped, anecdotally it looks like more were equipped and used for IFR work.

I commute every week or two for work, I'd much rather fly direct 350-400nm then spend a day and interact with the tsa.
 
josephbelt01 said:
I was reading a discussion on 35s the other day. Apparently the magnesium tail skins are no longer available because old stock has dried up and the raw sheet material is no longer in production globally. Apparently, they can’t be reskinned with aluminum due to W/B issues, so the concern is any minor tail corrosion or hanger rash requiring a skin repair could net you a beautiful but unairworthy lawn ornament.

Something to investigate to find the ground truth. Those skins may be unobtanium. Beyond that minor detail a V35B would be my #1. Beautiful planes.
Click to expand...

Here's what the control surfaces end up like when they are left to the elements. All the people I know that have Bonanzas hangar them, and this is one reason.

Does anybody know if the straight tail Debonair/33 control surfaces were also magnesium?

IMG_0324.JPG
 
GRG55 said:
Here's what the control surfaces end up like when they are left to the elements. All the people I know that have Bonanzas hangar them, and this is one reason.

Does anybody know if the straight tail Debonair/33 control surfaces were also magnesium?

View attachment 58890
Click to expand...
I can’t remember if all of them started as aluminum, but all the 33s can become aluminum tail feathers.

Here is another interesting item I read somewhere- there are few if any in flight breakups of a 33. There are even acrobatic veariants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top