Bonanza V-Tail or Mooney M20x or ??

Anything I get will get an extensive pre-buy and at least an hour flight. If the seller does not want to go for a flight, to me that would be a red flag and I will no longer be interested.
I do not mind at all small repairs and upgrades. That is a non-issue. I actually like it. Keeps me busy. I am planning on an avionics suite probably after flying the plane for 30-50 hours and working out all the little bugs. I know I won't find anything in my price range with good avionics. I can install it all myself and I know I/As that will sign off with me. Saves me a bunch of money. I just need a low time engine in excellent shape.
I like the Bo because of the looks and the excellent landing gear system. Simple and beefy. Cabin was nice and roomy too. Did not care much for the layout of certain items though. Landing gear lever, pitch trim wheel and a couple others.
I like the Mooney for its looks and speed with efficiency. I am on MooneySpace. Hoping to get a ride in one one day. Speed coming in might be an issue. Previous airport in my Bo, we pretty much were always told to keep speed up (120+kts) due to larger aircraft behind us. So I always came in quick and slammed on the brakes, if not they would tell you to go around and get re-sequenced. Hated that airport.
I like the Comanche, but it would need to be the 250. It does have an older look to it inside, but I already know what I would do to them to get them to where I want. Not to thrilled about the hand brakes though. Maybe it can be changed to brakes on the pedals?

I am not buying the aircraft this month, so I have plenty of time and I am not going to buy just to buy. I will wait for the best that comes up in my price range, even if it takes me a year. Would not hurt, more time and should have my IFR and complex. Should help with insurance.
 
There was just a mooney posted for sale on mooneyspace for about 70k, barebones avionics. I feel you can find a mooney in that range that needs work, or a decent J for roughly 130kish. I am not trying to talk u into a mooney, I’m just able to provide actual feedback on them over other models. Hopefully you’re able to weed thru some of the garbage feedback you’re getting from people who just regurgitate cr@p they read on the internet but don’t know wtf they are talking about.
 
I'd not touch a V-tail for anything. They're great airplanes, but the tail feathers are corroded on all of them, you can't avoid galvanic corrosion on them. Textron won't make the ruddervators anymore, hence they're unobtainium. No how no way, not for something that corrodes no matter what you do. I'm selling a Mooney, but it is ten knots slower than your specifications and well within your budget. I think if you get a complex aircraft at that price it is likely to turn into a money pit. The one nice thing about vintage Mooneys is they're undervalued on the market. That, and with manual gear and flaps there isn't much to break or fix.

I'd put mine up against any prepurchase inspection you want to do. And I'll happily take you flying, I took a guy last week. Gives me an excuse to fly the aircraft.
 
Supereri said:
You won't get it for 75K but a 182RG or a TR182 would fit the bill from a performance and load perspective.
Click to expand...

Cessna 182RG and 177RG are just crazy prices. Probably close to $200K right now. Not worth it to me.
The 310 would be great, and I can probably buy one, but I would barely be able to fly it due to insurance and maintenance cost. Just not what I want. I want something that I will enjoy flying and can afford with no issue.
Bo, Mooney and Comanche, the insurance quotes I have received are all in my budget. Fuel is easily affordable averaging $5per gal here. I do have a maintenance budget set aside and will keep building it and also another bucket that money goes into for the avionics upgrades I want.

Would be great if there was a club near me that I can join for a year to build time and train, but nothing near me, just C172 rentals.
 
steingar said:
I'd not touch a V-tail for anything. They're great airplanes, but the tail feathers are corroded on all of them, you can't avoid galvanic corrosion on them. Textron won't make the ruddervators anymore, hence they're unobtainium. No how no way, not for something that corrodes no matter what you do. I'm selling a Mooney, but it is ten knots slower than your specifications and well within your budget. I think if you get a complex aircraft at that price it is likely to turn into a money pit. The one nice thing about vintage Mooneys is they're undervalued on the market. That, and with manual gear and flaps there isn't much to break or fix.

I'd put mine up against any pre-purchase inspection you want to do. And I'll happily take you flying, I took a guy last week. Gives me an excuse to fly the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, Textron is making the ruddervators again. I believe they started selling them again last year? I think they were about $20K plus of the course you need someone that knows what they are doing to to install them. Probably looking at $30K maybe a little more? Yes, something I would not want to get into. Hence the extensive pre-buy.
 
Jorge Gonzalez said:
…Bo, Mooney and Comanche, ….
Click to expand...

Sounds like either a Bo, Mooney or Comanche would fit the bill….find the best one of any in your price range and don’t look back, you won’t hate any of those planes….except maybe the Bo or Comanche but regardless, any of those will do.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
To be specific, Mooneys have springs/weights on the elevators to center them when hands off, so that’s the heavy feeling, they also have wider wingspan which reduces roll rate…combined they make a Mooney very stable in IFR/turbulent conditions.
Click to expand...

The ailerons are also heavy and FWIW heavy controls and stability are two different things. Mooney added a full time wing leveler for a period, to reduce the effort of picking up a wing in rough air. This came at the expense of having to push a button on the yoke to turn and was eventually discontinued. It does give some insight into the plane and its design intent - they are meant to go places in a straight line. I’m used to flying a plane designed to be pleasant to maneuver, and when flying a Mooney a bit last year found it less than ideal in that way relative to my preferences. The OP might have the same reaction so needs to try one.

Otherwise I like the simplicity and overall design of the Mooney, the four cylinder Lycoming in many of them, the angled firewall to create leg room. Al Mooney was a sharp guy.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I'd not touch a V-tail for anything. They're great airplanes, but the tail feathers are corroded on all of them, you can't avoid galvanic corrosion on them. Textron won't make the ruddervators anymore, hence they're unobtainium. No how no way, not for something that corrodes no matter what you do. I'm selling a Mooney, but it is ten knots slower than your specifications and well within your budget. I think if you get a complex aircraft at that price it is likely to turn into a money pit. The one nice thing about vintage Mooneys is they're undervalued on the market. That, and with manual gear and flaps there isn't much to break or fix.

I'd put mine up against any prepurchase inspection you want to do. And I'll happily take you flying, I took a guy last week. Gives me an excuse to fly the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Steiney - You've been led astray by fear mongering posts from people who don't know the facts about Bonanzas.

Saying that all ruddervators have corrosion is flat out wrong. I have lots of Bonanza owning friends with perfect ruddervators. If you have good ruddervators that are properly painted, then they will stay good for a very long time. When you paint a Bo it's important that the work is done by a shop that understands the requirements for painting magnesium. Yes, you do need to inspect ruddervators on any V-Tail that you are considering to buy. Doing a diligent pre-buy with someone who really knows the type being inspected is smart - regardless of brand.

You're wrong about ruddervators being impossible to replace. I have two friends who had theirs re-skinned in the last year. Textron manufactured fresh stock of the magnesium skins recently and is planning to make more in the future. There is also progress being made by people developing alternatives to the magnesium (carbon fiber). Yes, V-tails add a curve ball to ownership - you need to be aware of the potential issues and maintain your plane accordingly, but then again... Cessna retracts have issues with gear saddles and Mooneys and Pipers have their own special quirks.

I own a Beech A36 - straight tail and longer airframe than the model 35s with the V-Tails. Yes, I think it's a better choice than a V-Tail. Of course I do - it's my plane. I'm sure you like Mooneys just as much.
 
eman1200 said:
Sounds like either a Bo, Mooney or Comanche would fit the bill….find the best one of any in your price range and don’t look back, you won’t hate any of those planes….except maybe the Bo or Comanche but regardless, any of those will do.
Click to expand...
Yup....airplanes are good. ;)
 
Thats the reason i keep my arrow in spite the terrible underutilization in present circumstances. 2013 prices kinda lock you into an alternate universe i guess. When the thing crashes, ill get my check and dealer's out, cuz lord knows todays prices are out to lunch.

2005 peaks were a thing once too, and im sure people were saying the same "well you cant touch this for less than " drivel then. i still hold on to the hope of another trough in prices later in the decade. To each their own.
 
I believe next year, aircraft prices will drop some. I am seeing twins less than singles right now. One of the reasons I am not in a hurry to purchase. I can wait. Would be great to find someone that does not use their airplane much and offer to pay and maintain the airplane for use of it.
 
Jorge Gonzalez said:
Not to thrilled about the hand brakes though. Maybe it can be changed to brakes on the pedals?
Click to expand...

Lots of Pipers have toe brakes on the left, and some have them on both sides. The hand brakes do come in handy when you want to stop straight ahead, since it applies equal pressure on each side.
 
Jorge Gonzalez said:
Average numbers, yes, they do. Those numbers due tend to shrink as time goes by.
Seems the Bonanza V-Tail is 1st on the list and the Mooney will be 2nd unless I hit the jackpot and find a 310 with low time engines that flies regularly. :D
Click to expand...

Better have the wifey sit in a Mooney before you buy one. Especially if she wants a 310.
 
I vote Bonanza. My first 40 hrs stick time was my uncle's 47 Bo as a kid, best two finger plane I've flown. Spent years as engineer at Mooney and of course have stick time in them as well. I'm 6 1 and the Bo is more comfortable to me.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The Commander 114 would be my pick over any of the options you listed, but you aren't touching one of those for even double your $75K buy-in.
Click to expand...

I have one flight in a 114, and a number of hours in a 112A.

Nice flying airplanes. Comfortable. But slow for the fuel burn.
 
Jorge Gonzalez said:
I like the Mooney for its looks and speed with efficiency. I am on MooneySpace. Hoping to get a ride in one one day. Speed coming in might be an issue. Previous airport in my Bo, we pretty much were always told to keep speed up (120+kts) due to larger aircraft behind us. So I always came in quick and slammed on the brakes, if not they would tell you to go around and get re-sequenced. Hated that airport.
I like the Comanche, but it would need to be the 250. It does have an older look to it inside, but I already know what I would do to them to get them to where I want. Not to thrilled about the hand brakes though. Maybe it can be changed to brakes on the pedals?
Click to expand...

FYI the wing on the Comanche was designed by the same person that converted the Mooney wing to metal. Very similar wing.

The newer Mooneys have a 135 knot gear operation max speed and 165 knots once down. And some came from the factory with speed brakes.
 
Jorge Gonzalez said:
Piper Comanche? (Prices seems to be crazy)
Click to expand...

Dang I didn't realize they had gone up so much. They were lagging behind the rest of the market significantly when I bought mine. I paid less than your looking to spend for a 250 w/ 700 SMOH 18 months ago. I love my plane but the "funding parts" rumors are true.

Edit: finding autocorrected to funding but that's also accurate.
 
Pinecone said:
FYI the wing on the Comanche was designed by the same person that converted the Mooney wing to metal. Very similar wing.

The newer Mooneys have a 135 knot gear operation max speed and 165 knots once down. And some came from the factory with speed brakes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it’s the same airfoil design, similar wingspan…but different tail design, Comanche flaps are bigger and a extra 7° travel and fuselage designs are different.
 
I was in similiar boat OP. Im looking to upgrade from my beloved Cessna 140. She’s been great but it’s time for more seats and speed.

I beleive we have settled in on a Mooney. We’re thinking F model for the extra room. But im 5’9” and the wife is 5’5” we went and sat in a C, and rear seat passengers would have had room to sit- not like in a caddy but prob no worse than economy on Delta…

I loved the feel of the cockpit frankly. Probably coming out of a Cessna 140 helps the cabin not feel as small as it may to others.

Why I came to decide to hunt a Mooney was overall affordability, not just based on purchase price, but efficiency and maintenance and insurance. Also their beefy cabin- check out pics of accidents- the cabin doesn’t just crumple… I’ll definitely be installing shoulder harnesses if what I buy doesn’t have them tho.

with the mooneys efficiency you often don’t need full full tanks… 40 gallons would give me 3 hrs flight plus an hour reserve… not too shabby for 150kts or north if ya climb up a bit higher. many of the F model have 1050 useful give or take…

I also like that there are few recurring AD issues besides the prop hub, but there’s plenty out there that that doesn’t apply to as well.

good luck on your hunt! Let’s hope we don’t end up competing bidders ;)
 
Pinecone said:
I have one flight in a 114, and a number of hours in a 112A.

Nice flying airplanes. Comfortable. But slow for the fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Sure they are, but you're trading off a bit of airspeed for cabin width/comfort. The Comanche 260 is about as direct a comparison as you can make with it, and the Pa24 will be a bit faster but the trailing link gear and great interior on the 114 is worth that little bit of speed, for me. Running 150TAS vs 160TAS doesn't mean much in my world. Sure, the Bo is faster than both of them but unless you're talking A36 money, I'd still choose the 114/115.
 
yup....speed is just bragging rights. :cool:

cruising.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 38
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
I think the only acceptable answer to the question as-presented is "Duh" :D
 
steingar said:
I'd not touch a V-tail for anything.
Click to expand...

Your call.

steingar said:
They're great airplanes, but the tail feathers are corroded on all of them, you can't avoid galvanic corrosion on them.
Click to expand...

Utterly false. One should check for corrosion on Bonanzas, just as one should check for corrosion on every other airplane. Bonanza tail feathers are no more prone to corrosion than any others, but the ruddervators are magnesium, and bear strict scrutiny. Proper maintenance yields good results.

steingar said:
Textron won't make the ruddervators anymore, hence they're unobtainium.
Click to expand...

False - they just made a production run of them - likely will again - and there are serious efforts to engineer alternatives to the mag RVs.

steingar said:
No how no way, not for something that corrodes no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

False, full stop.

steingar said:
I'm selling a Mooney, but it is ten knots slower than your specifications and well within your budget. I think if you get a complex aircraft at that price it is likely to turn into a money pit.
Click to expand...

Yep - that's a risk.

steingar said:
The one nice thing about vintage Mooneys is they're undervalued on the market. That, and with manual gear and flaps there isn't much to break or fix.
Click to expand...

There are lots more than "one" nice thing about Mooneys, of course, and the manual gear and flap models are refreshingly simple. Great airplanes, built stout and very durable. Roomier than legend claims (easily as wide as a Bo inside, although one does sit lower). A good Mooney is oustanding in efficiency.

steingar said:
I'd put mine up against any prepurchase inspection you want to do. And I'll happily take you flying, I took a guy last week. Gives me an excuse to fly the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hate that you have to sell your bird, but bet someone will buy it and love it - and the love affair will continue!

And, Comanches: just wonderful birds.

And Bonanzas: I love mine!
 
Bonanzas are never cheap - and depending on model you’re lugging around extra seats and paying far more for fuel. Whyyyy????


My Cessnas are currently overpriced and about to enter the market for that reason with fresh paint, upholstery and modern avionics. 200k for a 182? What ever. 210? Pshaw.

Piper product has been and will continue to be boooooooring. Even an arrow. Not fast - not sleek - not a heavy hauler.

Mooneys do 150-165 knots all day depending on model. They’re all m20’s.

The old mooneys are “short bodies” - B, C and the fixed gear D most of which converted to retractable - 180hp. The same body with a fuel injected engine became the “E” - most efficient because it was a short body AND had 200hp. A body 10” longer became the F and G models, with G having a 180HP engine (booo), and the F becoming the basis for the most popular bird of all mooney time, the J model. J’s are aerodynamically super sleek F models that Roy Lopresti tuned and relabeled - clean, and most approach $200k these days…k’s are J models with a 6 cylinder TSIO360 210HP engine. These are “vintage” short and mid body mooneys.


C models are fast at 180hp. E’s and F’s are great values and super efficient at 155 knots for mostly under $100k.

I have an E model as well as a K model - the K has 104 gallon tanks , speed brakes, 28k ceiling, great radios and is a comfortable 3 person airplane. 4 people? I’d rather fly my Seneca for 4-6 seats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A 180 Comanche is in your price range and will out perform an Arrow. You might find a 250 with a higher time motor and slightly dated avionics at close to that price, but they are fairly rare. Parts are not a problem if you know where to look. Very good community of mutual support and information. Very robust airframe, comfortable, and with a Lycoming engine.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Sure they are, but you're trading off a bit of airspeed for cabin width/comfort. The Comanche 260 is about as direct a comparison as you can make with it, and the Pa24 will be a bit faster but the trailing link gear and great interior on the 114 is worth that little bit of speed, for me. Running 150TAS vs 160TAS doesn't mean much in my world. Sure, the Bo is faster than both of them but unless you're talking A36 money, I'd still choose the 114/115.
Click to expand...

But I run 175 KTAS on 10.3 GPH. So faster on less fuel. :)

What struck me as strange when I was looking, that the 114/115 for sale had basic panels. Not many upgraded.
 
Llk said:
k’s are J models with a 6 cylinder TSIO360 210HP engine. These are “vintage” short and mid body mooneys.
Click to expand...

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
 
charheep said:
What would be a good price range to be looking in, based on what the OP is looking for? Maybe that would steer the conversation a bit.
Vtail
Comanche
Mooney
S Viking
310
Click to expand...

Assuming in annual and IFR (meaning at least a WAAS navigator and preferably and HSI), you might get ranges like

V-tail: 75-150+
Comanche: 100-150
Mooney: no clue
S Viking: 75-125
310: 100-200

The maintenance on the 310 will be at least 2x and of the others. Each has their own set of weaknesses and ADs with which you'll have to become familiar with in order to make an informed decision on a candidate.

Assume at any time you'll have to pony up 50k for a new engine. The current hours and time since overhaul in my experience mean little. Have had low time engines barf and high time ones soldier on. Especially since you don't know how previous owner operated engine nor how often. Often is best, they'll all go forever if flown heavily.

The recommendation for a 182RG is a good one. It has it's own mostly gear related foibles, but once cleared and not abused can be a very good platform.
 
Pinecone said:
But I run 175 KTAS on 10.3 GPH. So faster on less fuel. :)

What struck me as strange when I was looking, that the 114/115 for sale had basic panels. Not many upgraded.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Steamflyer said:
Assuming in annual and IFR (meaning at least a WAAS navigator and preferably and HSI), you might get ranges like

V-tail: 75-150+
Comanche: 100-150
Mooney: no clue
S Viking: 75-125
310: 100-200

The maintenance on the 310 will be at least 2x and of the others. Each has their own set of weaknesses and ADs with which you'll have to become familiar with in order to make an informed decision on a candidate.

Assume at any time you'll have to pony up 50k for a new engine. The current hours and time since overhaul in my experience mean little. Have had low time engines barf and high time ones soldier on. Especially since you don't know how previous owner operated engine nor how often. Often is best, they'll all go forever if flown heavily.

The recommendation for a 182RG is a good one. It has it's own mostly gear related foibles, but once cleared and not abused can be a very good platform.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was thinking. Have the OP double his purchase price limit, and either use most of it to get a nice plane, or something less and save that extra money for maintenance.
 
SCCutler said:
…
False - they just made a production run of them - likely will again - and there are serious efforts to engineer alternatives to the mag RVs...
Click to expand...
Has something changed since ABS’ announcement last year?
Mr. Boyd Duckett of Textron Aviation Aftermarket Engineering asked we tell members that new, complete ruddervator assemblies (minus the trim tab and hinge) may be ordered from Textron Aviation. Part number: 35-660002-653/-654 Elevator Assy V-Tail CAT 74259. This is applicable to S35 through V35B models (1964-1982 model years).

The price is $23,800 per ruddervator. None are in stock and Mr. Duckett tells me there is a one year lead time.

I asked, and was told there are no current plans to sell replacement ruddervator skins to repair existing ruddervators.

Order parts through www.txtav.com.
Click to expand...

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?
 
310 for sure, I had a 310D over 30 years ago great plane fast and plenty of room and a great heater to stay warm in the winter. 25 listed on trade a plane and you might have to spend a little more, several have been listed for a long time that you probably could get for less. If you want the best aircraft for the $$ money it's hard to beat the twin market for about 1/2 of the price of a fast single.You can put a lot of gas in a 310 for the 80 to 90K price savings over the price of a single.
 
brien23 said:
310 for sure, I had a 310D over 30 years ago great plane fast and plenty of room and a great heater to stay warm in the winter. 25 listed on trade a plane and you might have to spend a little more, several have been listed for a long time that you probably could get for less. If you want the best aircraft for the $$ money it's hard to beat the twin market for about 1/2 of the price of a fast single.You can put a lot of gas in a 310 for the 80 to 90K price savings over the price of a single.
Click to expand...

You’ll need to save that gas money for twin engines overhauls.
 
You could go with this (it needs some panel upgrades) and the Bo folks might let you hang around with them ...

1961 BEECHCRAFT 33 DEBONAIR • $99,900 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • 4,371 Total Time, 787 Since Overhaul by Pacific Airmotive. 225 HP, IO-470K, Intercom, Sky Beacon ADSB - Out, EGT, 63 Gallons Usable, 1-Piece Windshield, Complete Logs. • Contact Brad Willette - LANE AVIATION CORP. , - located Columbus, OH 43219 United States • Telephone: 614-237-3747 x. 159 • Posted March 9, 2023 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Images

Thought from POA a few years ago:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/debonair-the-poor-mans-bonanza.71507/
 
SCCutler said:
Your call.



Utterly false. One should check for corrosion on Bonanzas, just as one should check for corrosion on every other airplane. Bonanza tail feathers are no more prone to corrosion than any others, but the ruddervators are magnesium, and bear strict scrutiny. Proper maintenance yields good results.



False - they just made a production run of them - likely will again - and there are serious efforts to engineer alternatives to the mag RVs.



False, full stop.



Yep - that's a risk.



There are lots more than "one" nice thing about Mooneys, of course, and the manual gear and flap models are refreshingly simple. Great airplanes, built stout and very durable. Roomier than legend claims (easily as wide as a Bo inside, although one does sit lower). A good Mooney is oustanding in efficiency.



Hate that you have to sell your bird, but bet someone will buy it and love it - and the love affair will continue!

And, Comanches: just wonderful birds.

And Bonanzas: I love mine!
Click to expand...

Isnt there an AD or SB on Mooneys for corrosion due to the moisture getting into the sound proofing on the side walls of the cabin?
 
Rcmutz said:
Isnt there an AD or SB on Mooneys for corrosion due to the moisture getting into the sound proofing on the side walls of the cabin?
Click to expand...

Mooney SB 208B.

MODELS AFFECTED: Part A only
All M20 Series air craft manufactured prior to Jan.1, 1976 excluding S/N’s listed under Part B.

Part B only
M20C S/N 20- 1186 thru 20- 1258;
M20F S/N 22- 1246, 22- 1306 thru 22- 1438;
M20J S/N 24- 0001 thru 24- 1607, 24- 3000 thru 24- 3017;
M20K S/N 25- 0001 thru 25- 1093.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top