Cherokee 6 (260HP) Vs Bonanza A36 Which one is better?

Yeah that's the thing.... if I had a $250-$300k budget and I needed mostly more space not necessarily a lot of useful load it seems like the A36 is clearly better. However if I have a $150k budget it seems like it might be difficult to get a good A36 for that but you could have a Six and accomplish the same thing just slower.
 
labbadabba said:
I did a quick search on Controller of the A36s for sale with tip tanks, the most I've seen is 1,215lbs useful.
Click to expand...

They can definitely get up to 1400 with tip tanks. A few even higher. Just depends on the year and how it's equipped. It's more likely in '70s and maybe early '80s planes.
 
labbadabba said:
I did a quick search on Controller of the A36s for sale with tip tanks, the most I've seen is 1,215lbs useful.
Click to expand...
BrianNC said:
They can definitely get up to 1400 with tip tanks. A few even higher. Just depends on the year and how it's equipped. It's more likely in '70s and maybe early '80s planes.
Click to expand...

Here you go. Here's one 1400 lbs. Found a few more over 1300.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17356669/1981-beechcraft-a36tc-bonanza
 
Apology for the Necro post, but I’m literally asking myself this exact question.

I’m looking to buy in the next year or two after I rent for a while and regain my GA feel. I’ve mentally gone the gamut from 172 to 182, to M20J for economical speed, to the reality that I’m big and most of my family and friends are taller than most. Most 4 place a/c will barely be 3 since I’m 6’7” 300lbs. And I have an elderly mother and dogs and like to snowboard and camp etc. Those big doors in the back of both airplanes are appealing and of course the useful load.
So let me start simple without going down the rabbit hole of all my options. I’m seeing on this thread that the cabin of the Piper 6 is significantly bigger than the A36, but when I look up the cabin width, I see the piper measuring 41”, and the Bo 42”. Another article showed the piper at 43” and plane&pilot shows it at 49” which would be significant.
Which one is right?
That tackles the broad shoulders, how about the legs?
 
Scott Mitchell said:
Apology for the Necro post, but I’m literally asking myself this exact question.

I’m looking to buy in the next year or two after I rent for a while and regain my GA feel. I’ve mentally gone the gamut from 172 to 182, to M20J for economical speed, to the reality that I’m big and most of my family and friends are taller than most. Most 4 place a/c will barely be 3 since I’m 6’7” 300lbs. And I have an elderly mother and dogs and like to snowboard and camp etc. Those big doors in the back of both airplanes are appealing and of course the useful load.
So let me start simple without going down the rabbit hole of all my options. I’m seeing on this thread that the cabin of the Piper 6 is significantly bigger than the A36, but when I look up the cabin width, I see the piper measuring 41”, and the Bo 42”. Another article showed the piper at 43” and plane&pilot shows it at 49” which would be significant.
Which one is right?
That tackles the broad shoulders, how about the legs?
Click to expand...
for whatever reason, be it the overall shape of the fuselage or the interior finish or the design of the seats the piper feels significantly larger

But the overall quality and "niceness" of the Bonanza is superior.. and it's faster

Depends what is important to you.. speed and quality and slight less comfort.. or.. a little slower but more comfort and more overall what feels like rugged durability

everyone is different though, your best bet would be to try and at least sit in one and if you can fly a couple
 
I have an F33A, and I have flown a Cherokee 6. If front seat room is important to you, get the Cherokee. It is significantly wider and taller than the Beech. I'm 6'3" and barely get by. I have a friend that is 6'7" and he does not have enough headroom in the Bonanza. You will probably have issues with the yoke hitting your thighs unless you get an A36 with the post-1985 panel redesign.

My advice to you is find someone with either airplane near you, and sit in it. That will make the decision for you pretty quickly, I think.
 
I don’t think you’re going to have enough legroom in the PA-32. The seat doesn’t go back far enough. I’m 6’2” and have it at the far back position, and would still like another inch or two.
 
RussR said:
I don’t think you’re going to have enough legroom in the PA-32. The seat doesn’t go back far enough. I’m 6’2” and have it at the far back position, and would still like another inch or two.
Click to expand...

You must have very long legs. I'm 6'4" and if I put the seat all the way back in my Lance, I can't get full rudder travel. I wear 34" inseam.

@Scott Mitchell this thread is kind of apples and oranges. An A36 costs about 100k more than a comparable pa32, is smaller, and carries less. However it will be faster, more 'robust', and 'sexier'. As big as you are, comfort will be your biggest issue. Sit in both if you can. The bo feels much smaller. Even though high wings are silly looking, you should also look at the cessna 206/210.
 
RussR said:
I don’t think you’re going to have enough legroom in the PA-32. The seat doesn’t go back far enough. I’m 6’2” and have it at the far back position, and would still like another inch or two.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it varies by model year, cause I had to actually pull my seat forward to reach the controls comfortably.
 
Jim K said:
You must have very long legs. I'm 6'4" and if I put the seat all the way back in my Lance, I can't get full rudder travel. I wear 34" inseam.
Click to expand...

Groundpounder said:
I wonder if it varies by model year, cause I had to actually pull my seat forward to reach the controls comfortably.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, because I don't have long legs. Only 33" inseam.

I'm not sure how it could vary by model or year much, since it seems the rearward movement of the seat is restricted by the wing spar, which I thought was pretty much the same through the years. Maybe in the seat mounting design? My experience is with 1980's fixed-gear Saratogas and a 2007 retract Saratoga, same fit in both.
 
RussR said:
That's interesting, because I don't have long legs. Only 33" inseam.

I'm not sure how it could vary by model or year much, since it seems the rearward movement of the seat is restricted by the wing spar, which I thought was pretty much the same through the years. Maybe in the seat mounting design? My experience is with 1980's fixed-gear Saratogas and a 2007 retract Saratoga, same fit in both.
Click to expand...
Mines a 76 lance with forward facing seats. Ive read that the front seats hit the middle row seat backs in the club seat models. In mine the back of the front seat will literally touch the main spar.
 
Jim K said:
Mines a 76 lance with forward facing seats. Ive read that the front seats hit the middle row seat backs in the club seat models. In mine the back of the front seat will literally touch the main spar.
Click to expand...

These have all been with the club seats. I do know that with the front seats all the way back, the middle seats are unusable because the front seat backs push the middle seat backs over. Whether the front seat travel is limited because of the spar or because of the middle seats I'm no longer certain about after this conversation...

I'll be in a 1980's model with club seats on Tuesday, will take a closer look and report back!
 
I own a share of a 1971 A36 with a IO550 upgrade and luggage extension. Its a sweet flying aircraft with straightforward systems. We have the club seats without the table. It is rare that all the seats are installed as most of the travel is only with 2-4 seats occupied. With the last row out, there is plenty of room for bags. I am 6'3" and the pilot seat is snug. Works better with a in-ear headset than a traditional.

As for the merits of the various STCs to increase the weight carrying capacity of the aircraft: My prior aircraft was a A36TC with Osborne tips. Yes, through the magic of paperwork shuffling, the plane was legally allowed to carry 400lb more than what god and the Beech engineers intended, but that still doesn't increase the available power beyond the 300hp bolted to the nose. When using that capacity, there are allowances in the AFM supplement that one needs to adhere to. A full gross takeoff in a 300hp aircraft at 4000lbs requires skill, patience and a long runway. The tip-tanks also make the plane far less pleasant to fly, particularly when they are full. So, unless you really really need the additional payload and fuel carrying capacity for things like trips to the Caymans, I would try to stick with a version that doesn't have tips.
 
The pa-28 is 42" wide. The pa-32 is 49. Absolutely love shoulder room. My one gripe on the seats is at 5'11 Im not quite at the rear most detent I'm the seat, but the next one up is a little too close. I thought I remember reading somewhere that the 6 had the fuselage extension for the aft row of seats and baggage after the middle row. So picture 7" wider than a Pa-28 Cherokee with the middle row of seats exactly where they'd be in a 160 or 180. It'd be cruel and unusual punishment to have an adult in the middle row of seats if you're anything taller than 5'6. My sister who's 5'2 was in the right seat and I was in the middle row showing her foreflight in the air. I'm 5'11 and was happy it was a short flight.

Now with that said, it's usually just me and dad flying so the rest is just space. The forward facing seats works out well in that scenario as opposed to club seating just because the seats are a nice place to leave stuff you might need in flight.
 
With very few exceptions, I have never flown my 6/260 at less than MGW on initial departure. 6 hours of fuel and an additional 996lbs of load is enough to convince me to lose 20 kts.
 
k9medic said:
With very few exceptions, I have never flown my 6/260 at less than MGW on initial departure. 6 hours of fuel and an additional 996lbs of load is enough to convince me to lose 20 kts.
Click to expand...
Most bladders can't last that long. But the useful sure is nice!
 
Yep. I have a 2 hour butt or a 2hour bladder.

I need the fuel reserves though so I can fly to the Bahamas without refueling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The A36 is a great 4 adult airplane. If you need to haul more, go with the six. If flying quality and speed is important to you, go with the A36. The six is a truck, the A36 is a Mercedes. I disagree with the comment on construction, the A36 is much better construction than the six and will last.
 
John Collins said:
The A36 is a great 4 adult airplane. If you need to haul more, go with the six. If flying quality and speed is important to you, go with the A36. The six is a truck, the A36 is a Mercedes. I disagree with the comment on construction, the A36 is much better construction than the six and will last.
Click to expand...

This is a great comparison. The Six is like a Tahoe - performance is OK, but the key is utility. The A36 is an S Class or 7 Series.

One thing I'll say about the A36, or really any Bonanza, is their ability to operate economically is often pretty underrated. People mention Mooney all the time, but Bonanzas of all varieties really hold their own in the cost/speed equation. The big fuel tanks on most of them also makes a huge difference for those of us who can handle longer flights.
 
N1120A said:
This is a great comparison. The Six is like a Tahoe - performance is OK, but the key is utility. The A36 is an S Class or 7 Series.

One thing I'll say about the A36, or really any Bonanza, is their ability to operate economically is often pretty underrated. People mention Mooney all the time, but Bonanzas of all varieties really hold their own in the cost/speed equation. The big fuel tanks on most of them also makes a huge difference for those of us who can handle longer flights.
Click to expand...

Having flown an Aerostar for about 300 hours, I always laugh at the expression that Bo is a sports car.
Part of what makes the Bo so nice to fly, is how sloppy the and forgiving the airfoils are. Not as sloppy or forgiving as a Cessna 172, but still so sloppy it makes pilots "look good".
If you want an auto analogy, the Bo flies closest to a big American sedan from the 70s, like a Chrysler Cordoba.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Having flown an Aerostar for about 300 hours, I always laugh at the expression that Bo is a sports car.
Part of what makes the Bo so nice to fly, is how sloppy the and forgiving the airfoils are. Not as sloppy or forgiving as a Cessna 172, but still so sloppy it makes pilots "look good".
If you want an auto analogy, the Bo flies closest to a big American sedan from the 70s, like a Chrysler Cordoba.

Tim
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. I own both a Tiger, which most who have flown them agree is pretty much the best handling light single ever, and a Bonanza (a 33, which most honest Bonanza pilots agree is the best handling of the 3 main types). The Tiger handles like a car designed by Colin Chapman. Direct, maneuverable, but still stable in the hands of someone who understands it. A Bonanza is like a solid German sedan, in part because of just how easy the airplane is to fly well.
 
tspear said:
Having flown an Aerostar for about 300 hours, I always laugh at the expression that Bo is a sports car.
Part of what makes the Bo so nice to fly, is how sloppy the and forgiving the airfoils are. Not as sloppy or forgiving as a Cessna 172, but still so sloppy it makes pilots "look good".
If you want an auto analogy, the Bo flies closest to a big American sedan from the 70s, like a Chrysler Cordoba.

Tim
Click to expand...

My F33A is the nicest flying airplane I've ever flown.
 
N1120A said:
I don't agree with that. I own both a Tiger, which most who have flown them agree is pretty much the best handling light single ever, and a Bonanza (a 33, which most honest Bonanza pilots agree is the best handling of the 3 main types). The Tiger handles like a car designed by Colin Chapman. Direct, maneuverable, but still stable in the hands of someone who understands it. A Bonanza is like a solid German sedan, in part because of just how easy the airplane is to fly well.
Click to expand...
Fine, a 1975 240D Benz.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Much better than German crap. I have an M5 that we’ve spent more time under than in.
 
If I were 6'7" and 300#, I'd be looking for two front doors, which neither the Cherokee 6 or the A36 has.
 
What about a Sierra? Not as wide as the 6, but wider than the A36...I think. Cheaper to run than either. Slower. Runway hog. But an interesting option for some
 
N1120A said:
I own both a Tiger, which most who have flown them agree is pretty much the best handling light single ever, and a Bonanza (a 33, which most honest Bonanza pilots agree is the best handling of the 3 main types). The Tiger handles like a car designed by Colin Chapman. Direct, maneuverable, but still stable in the hands of someone who understands it.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a 16 year kid boasting about his Ford Mustang. Try any of the following and reevaluate.

Any RV
Marchetti SF260
Falco
BO 209
Chipmunk
Pup & Bulldog
Any Zlin
Any Bücker
And so on.

Of those I think the RVs are most Chapman-esque.
 
Last edited:
Were talking about 6 passenger traveling airplanes....you're straight and level 99% of the time, and the most extreme maneuver you make is the base to final turn. Cost, speed, comfort, payload, & efficiency.

You guys are arguing extra vs pitts when the discussion is 737 vs a320.
 
Bonanza was designed for the official FAA pilot (and typical 1940's man) - 5'10" @ 150 lbs.

I don't know if people were really that much smaller back in 1946 when the Bonanza was designed, but I can assure you that if for some reason Textron designed a new single engine piston in 2020 it would not be as narrow and low ceiling as the Bonanza.

But nothing sounds better I can tell you that.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
If I were 6'7" and 300#, I'd be looking for two front doors, which neither the Cherokee 6 or the A36 has.
Click to expand...

But I do yoga so ;)
(Aka, I love flying enough to be a well adjusted big and tall- the world doesn’t make much for people like me, much less in aviation. But if I can deadhead 5 hours in a middle coach airline seat, I’ll be alright)

After realizing I really don’t need that 6th seat, (reality check- I’ll be solo more often than I’d hope) I’m back to a 182 and surprisingly.,.a Cirrus. ( I couldn’t care less about having a glass panel at anytime in my life, but especially in the iPad/Jepp/ForeFlight era...the early model steam gauge Cirrus are the same or less expensive to acquire than a similar year steam 182- and both are in the wheelhouse.)

But that conversation is for another thread....

Thank you all for the great info on those two airplanes. Appreciate all the responses.
 
Last edited:
k9medic said:
With very few exceptions, I have never flown my 6/260 at less than MGW on initial departure. 6 hours of fuel and an additional 996lbs of load is enough to convince me to lose 20 kts.
Click to expand...
I did the math on my 36 with the same numbers. If I carry 6 hours of fuel I'd only have 940lbs of load to haul. But I'd go 990NM in that 6 hours. How far do you go in the 6 in 6 hours? I'd say mile for mile I can carry at least as much as you if not more.
 
I would be around 800nm for mine.

I've never seen a 36 that can haul both a full fuel load and an additional 940lbs. of cargo but you might be correct here. Of course you can't load and fly a piano in an A36.

Don't get wrong, I would love to have an A36 but overall the 6/260 does just as well and is cheaper per mile to operate.
 
k9medic said:
I would be around 800nm for mine.

I've never seen a 36 that can haul both a full fuel load and an additional 940lbs. of cargo but you might be correct here. Of course you can't load and fly a piano in an A36.

Don't get wrong, I would love to have an A36 but overall the 6/260 does just as well and is cheaper per mile to operate.
Click to expand...

That's not full fuel for me; that's 6 hours of fuel (your original post). I did a 6 hour flight from Denver to New Orleans and landed with 35 gallons (basically just me and gas in it for that one so I got better gas mileage).

My fuel burn is 13.5 gph at 165 ktas and my useful is 1482lbs. I can carry 110 gallons if I'm tankering gas - rarely need that for 1-hop.

I have only a few hours in the 6/260 but for me the Bo does it better for about the same operating cost as the 6's that my friends own. It sure is nicer to have the extra 30 ktas when there's a 20 kt headwind.

*edit to add* I must admit I'm jealous of that forward baggage area!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top