Saratoga or Mooney or CirrusSR22 or Cessna400

H

h_saria

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
Kumar
Hello All,

First off all, thanks to everyone here. Enjoyed reading the threads and the feedback everyone shared. I have a CPL/IFRand it has been about 6 years since I flew a GA. Today was the first day to get back in the air on a GA and it was fun. Slowly getting back in the game. Starting with the smallest one that I can find and then go up and looking to get my own airplane down the road. My budget is 350K and want to get a SE low wing IFR airplane which is 2000 or newer. Retract or fixed gear. I don't want a ME or an experimental.

Most likely will be flying with 2 people (me and my wife) and luggage (maybe some foldable electric bicycle about 50 lbs each) and be able fly for at least 3-4 hrs about 500-600 NM. However, would be interested in an airplane that could at least carry 4 adults, a kid and some luggage and with a possibility of 6 adults and be able to go for a sight seeing flight, grab lunch etc. (though six seat is not a mandatory requirement; 4 seat is though).
Speedier the better and something that is fun to fly. I am looking for an airplane that would be able to cruise 150KTAS+ at 10,000 and have a burn of less than 15gph. Turbo charger is not a requirement. Not sure if I will be flying up high often (based in Tampa Bay Area). However, wouldn't mind having that either. Anti-icing or de-icing would be good but not a deal breaker. Air conditioning would be great.

Would be great to get feedback on the choices I have lined up so far (not in order of preference), all of them have a similar useful load of about 1000 lbs.

i) Piper Saratoga ii TC or ii HP: Seems like this is a good IFR platform and has 6 seats. Not sure if it can carry six adults though. Most of them have a useful load of 1000 lbs. I have flown Arrow in the past, so that should help. Couldn't really find what are the major differences between the HP and the TC (besides the turbo charger). Retractable gear might add to the maintenance cost but it is not an issue. Is this is a fast aircraft or middle of the pack and gets you there when it gets you there? How do you take 6 adults on this airplane or is it more like a 4 adult and 2 kids kinda deal?

ii) Cessna 400/TT/TTx: This airplane is fast but than it burns a lot more gas to go that fast. Not sure if that is very ideal. But seems like a very fun aircraft to fly and has all the bells and whistles. But seems like with a 1000 lbs useful load. What are the negatives besides expensive parts? Read that it is a pilot's airplane.

iii) Cirrus SR22 G3 (with AC/TKS): Seems like a great plane to get from point A to B but not fun to fly. Company offers great resources and offers a lot of bells and whistle. Is it really not a pilots airplane? Besides repacking the chute, any other major cost that one has to account, besides the usual Annuals and overhaul of Prop and engine etc. ? Also, read that this might not fit a normal sized T-hangar. That might be a deal breaker in some cases!

iv) Mooney (Ovation 2/3): Really like the Mooney package. Seems like a fast economical airplane. Also, the prices are much lower. Can put the extra money away for maintenance reserve etc. Does this burn like 20 gph to go fast? The POH says 20 GPH but read that you burn 12 gph at cruise? Bit confused there. How about the single door for passengers and the small cargo door. How much of an issue is that? Given the Mooney's history and unstable characteristics as a company, do they have a good support with parts and maintenance?

Trying to make an informed decision. Appreciate your feedback.
 
I’m interested in opinions too. I’m in the same boat but swap the 400 for an A36. I don’t need 6 sheets but the space..... that’s the kicker for me. Don’t let Mooney’s history play too far into it for you, there are parts available and the factory is still shipping parts. Of the planes you list, only the SR22 is in production.
For an Ovation 2/3, they are solid planes that like any, will burn fuel when all three knobs are forward. I think the good number for a 2400-2500rpm cruise is 15gph. Don’t discount a nicely upgraded Ovation 1 either, both the 1 and 2 can be upgraded to the O3 310hp with a prop change and fuel flow adjustment for reasonable. Take off roll is significantly improved but will sip fuel if you pull it back as well. But do consider the G1000 aircraft do have some avionics limitations, WAAS and such is not likely to happen unless it’s been upgraded already due to Garmin discontinuing components.
 
Hello!

Preamble: almost all 400 hours in the last 3 years have been in SR22T/TN G3/G5 with fiki/ac for me. I am partial to low wings and I've always been a fan of the larger Piper planes. The Cirrus is a fantastic cross-country platform. Big comfortable cabin and with fiki/ac it almost feels like your own personal airliner. It *might* be perfect for your mission but it is definitely more of a two or maybe three person plane. The weight and balance on the G3 is rather limited.. so if you do plan to put four people in one you're going to have to really plan out your fuel

Other thoughts:

h_saria said:
Cirrus SR22 G3 (with AC/TKS): Seems like a great plane to get from point A to B but not fun to fly. Company offers great resources and offers a lot of bells and whistle. Is it really not a pilots airplane? Besides repacking the chute, any other major cost that one has to account, besides the usual Annuals and overhaul of Prop and engine etc. ? Also, read that this might not fit a normal sized T-hangar. That might be a deal breaker in some cases!
Click to expand...
This is a grossly inaccurate misconception about its handling.. it is fantastic to hand fly. It handles much like the way a five series BMW does.. heavy, but very responsive. The people who say it is not a pilot's airplane are people who have never flown one and base their opinions off what other people say, these are generally the same people who think the Bonanza is the ultimate airplane with that massive bar sticking across the cockpit and the narrow cabin with the big gentle controls.. my only critique to the handling of the Cirrus is that it is much more sensitive in pitch. The role is smooth and relatively heavy but the pitch is super responsive.. but whatever, you get used to that if you are a competent pilot. I have done plenty of hand flying in it into various small and somewhat challenging fields to get into

h_saria said:
Mooney
Click to expand...
I was going to say that this might in fact be the perfect plane for you however if you plan to ever take more than one other person then it's going to be a miserable experience for the people in the back.. someone will be along in a few minutes to say that they've had four people in theirs and it was perfectly comfortable, and comfort is relative, but compared to all the other planes you listed this is going to be by far the least comfortable thing to travel in for a majority of people, especially non-pilots

h_saria said:
Cessna 400/TT/TTx
Click to expand...
Absolutely love this airplane and it has very smooth balanced controls.. it's like a Cirrus but one better. However it is out of production and Textron absolutely hates the general aviation piston single market. Cirrus has an entire competent certified dealer and maintenance network.. and since you're not flying a Textron jet I doubt they'll give you any real attention. You're 'on your own' so to speak. But it is an awesome airplane, shame they stopped building it

h_saria said:
Piper Saratoga ii TC or ii HP
Click to expand...
Yes! That's the one! Since you mentioned sometimes needing four people or maybe even six then this is the best overall comfortable well-built solid cross-country airplane. Piper has built a solid stable product
 
h_saria said:
Hello All,

First off all, thanks to everyone here. Enjoyed reading the threads and the feedback everyone shared. I have a CPL/IFRand it has been about 6 years since I flew a GA. Today was the first day to get back in the air on a GA and it was fun. Slowly getting back in the game. Starting with the smallest one that I can find and then go up and looking to get my own airplane down the road. My budget is 350K and want to get a SE low wing IFR airplane which is 2000 or newer. Retract or fixed gear. I don't want a ME or an experimental.

Most likely will be flying with 2 people (me and my wife) and luggage (maybe some foldable electric bicycle about 50 lbs each) and be able fly for at least 3-4 hrs about 500-600 NM. However, would be interested in an airplane that could at least carry 4 adults, a kid and some luggage and with a possibility of 6 adults and be able to go for a sight seeing flight, grab lunch etc. (though six seat is not a mandatory requirement; 4 seat is though).
Speedier the better and something that is fun to fly. I am looking for an airplane that would be able to cruise 150KTAS+ at 10,000 and have a burn of less than 15gph. Turbo charger is not a requirement. Not sure if I will be flying up high often (based in Tampa Bay Area). However, wouldn't mind having that either. Anti-icing or de-icing would be good but not a deal breaker. Air conditioning would be great.

Would be great to get feedback on the choices I have lined up so far (not in order of preference), all of them have a similar useful load of about 1000 lbs.

i) Piper Saratoga ii TC or ii HP: Seems like this is a good IFR platform and has 6 seats. Not sure if it can carry six adults though. Most of them have a useful load of 1000 lbs. I have flown Arrow in the past, so that should help. Couldn't really find what are the major differences between the HP and the TC (besides the turbo charger). Retractable gear might add to the maintenance cost but it is not an issue. Is this is a fast aircraft or middle of the pack and gets you there when it gets you there? How do you take 6 adults on this airplane or is it more like a 4 adult and 2 kids kinda deal?

ii) Cessna 400/TT/TTx: This airplane is fast but than it burns a lot more gas to go that fast. Not sure if that is very ideal. But seems like a very fun aircraft to fly and has all the bells and whistles. But seems like with a 1000 lbs useful load. What are the negatives besides expensive parts? Read that it is a pilot's airplane.

iii) Cirrus SR22 G3 (with AC/TKS): Seems like a great plane to get from point A to B but not fun to fly. Company offers great resources and offers a lot of bells and whistle. Is it really not a pilots airplane? Besides repacking the chute, any other major cost that one has to account, besides the usual Annuals and overhaul of Prop and engine etc. ? Also, read that this might not fit a normal sized T-hangar. That might be a deal breaker in some cases!

iv) Mooney (Ovation 2/3): Really like the Mooney package. Seems like a fast economical airplane. Also, the prices are much lower. Can put the extra money away for maintenance reserve etc. Does this burn like 20 gph to go fast? The POH says 20 GPH but read that you burn 12 gph at cruise? Bit confused there. How about the single door for passengers and the small cargo door. How much of an issue is that? Given the Mooney's history and unstable characteristics as a company, do they have a good support with parts and maintenance?

Trying to make an informed decision. Appreciate your feedback.
Click to expand...

You mentioned sightseeing. Are high wings off the block?
 
You said fun to fly. That is not a Saratoga (I have a Lance). They fly like a truck and they carry like a truck.
 
Can you fit two foldable electric bikes into the baggage compartment of a Mooney or 400?

I think if I was doing that regularly I'd want the behind-the-wing doors of a 'Toga or an A36.
Of those two, the A36 is definitely the faster, but has more limited CG issues, and I wouldn't take one of those as a 6-place airplane (see below)

IMG_0536.JPG
 
h_saria said:
Most likely will be flying with 2 people (me and my wife) and luggage (maybe some foldable electric bicycle about 50 lbs each) and be able fly for at least 3-4 hrs about 500-600 NM. However, would be interested in an airplane that could at least carry 4 adults, a kid and some luggage and with a possibility of 6 adults and be able to go for a sight seeing flight, grab lunch etc. (though six seat is not a mandatory requirement; 4 seat is though).
Click to expand...

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/flying-with-e-bikes.128833/
 
Tantalum,

With respect, you obviously don’t know the Mooney model line. Your comment about the Moony being miserable for a passenger in the back is completely incorrect. The comment would be correct if he were considering any model up through an E. He is not. He is talking about an Ovation which is a long body which provides comfortable rear seats including more than adequate legroom for almost anyone.
 
The Toga is pretty much on the centerline of your requirements. Maybe not the most 'fun' if by fun you mean sporty. Other than that, yeah.
 
A turbo'd Bonanza is going to be the fastest and check all your boxes. And they still make em.
 
Don’t get a turbo if you don’t need one.

My J can do 150 knots on ~9 gph, the Ovation should be faster with some more fuel burn...something like 160 on 12 gph.
Retracts a little more maintenance, call it a $100/yr.
You need to sit in a Mooney...some don’t like it, it’s like sitting in a sports car as opposed to sitting in a SUV.
The single door is not the issue, it’s the low seating position, getting in and out, I know 80+ yo men can do it but some just don’t like it. Some removed the rear seat to fit more bulky items. The cargo door requires you to lift up and over, not up and slide in...maybe an issue if you lack upper body strength or have especially heavy stuff.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Guess what plane this was......it wasn't a Mooney. lol ;) View attachment 91099
Click to expand...

Wow, you found strong winds out of the NW....that only happens almost every day, just a question how low they go:
8f2e294b510005a08bd425336f0d1fc2.jpg
 
Might be a little slow for your liking... But what about the 6x/6xt? Essentially a fixed gear Saratoga. Little better useful.
 
The Cessna TTx was by far the most enjoyable GA aircraft I have ever flown. The controls were amazingly well balanced. You would enjoy the ride that’s for sure. If I was buying between the three you listed though I’d probably find myself in a Cirrus. You couldn’t go wrong though with any of what you listed.
 
The Ovation performance chart puts it at 176 knots at 12.2 gallons around 10000. If you put about 16 through it, 196. 21 is the Acclaim when you are trying to hit the magic numbers. That is absolutely incredible performance. The UL, however, generally is where Mooney falters. Of course, you can trade gas for weight.

That said, I think folks are right about the A36 Bonanza being a match for you. The UL works well for 4, so long as you don't get one of the porky G36 models. It will not lift quite like the Saratoga, but even with a 520 it will smoke the Saratoga. 550 or turbo will really leave it in the dust. Hell, as 225 HP 4 seater will often run ahead of one. The 550 powered A36 is really a sweet spot airplane. A well set up one will do nearly 170 knots on about 13 gallons LOP - nearly Mooney level efficiency.

At your price point, have you considered a Malibu?
 
Tantalum said:
Hello!

This is a grossly inaccurate misconception about its handling.. it is fantastic to hand fly. It handles much like the way a five series BMW does.. heavy, but very responsive. The people who say it is not a pilot's airplane are people who have never flown one and base their opinions off what other people say, these are generally the same people who think the Bonanza is the ultimate airplane with that massive bar sticking across the cockpit and the narrow cabin with the big gentle controls.. my only critique to the handling of the Cirrus is that it is much more sensitive in pitch. The role is smooth and relatively heavy but the pitch is super responsive.. but whatever, you get used to that if you are a competent pilot. I have done plenty of hand flying in it into various small and somewhat challenging fields to get into
Click to expand...

The market has clearly spoken with regards to the quality and design of the Cirrus platform, and I agree that many disparage Cirrus just because they want to hold on the the belief that an aircraft designed and manufactured 50 years ago somehow remains superior. The SR22 is a superb aircraft and the handling is fine, but the centering of the controls with springs instead of aerodynamic pressure + the electric trim mechanism do make the controls feel robotic and I would argue, less fun to fly than some others like Diamonds or Mooneys with push rod actuated control surfaces and more aerodynamic feedback.
 
JustinD said:
The Cessna TTx was by far the most enjoyable GA aircraft I have ever flown. The controls were amazingly well balanced. You would enjoy the ride that’s for sure. If I was buying between the three you listed though I’d probably find myself in a Cirrus. You couldn’t go wrong though with any of what you listed.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, the TTx is awesome. Given that Textron took that option away from us, a Cirrus would be great. Tons of nice gently used SR22s on the market right now for decent prices.
 
I dont care for mooneys. They just seem cramped to me and the seating position isn't the best. Saratoga is going to be slower than the bonanza or cessna350/400 AND burn more fuel because the Lycomings don't really normally operate well LOP. The cabin probably the best though. I have a bonanza f33a and it does 165-170ktas at 10000msl on 13.5GPH. The A36 bonanza will have the same performance numbers maybe a few knots slower and climb a little slower because the 6 seater is heavier. With tip tanks the A36 will give you well over 1000nm of range. You can find a nice 2000 model right in your price range. As far as the Cirrus goes i think its a great plane as well with the same performance numbers as the bonanza plus you get the chute. MX costs will definitely be higher as most cirrus aircraft are maintained by cirrus professional service centers. Any GA A&P will put his hands on the bonanza. The handling of the SR22 does feel a little bit artificial but I still thought it was nice to hand fly. Just my 2 cents.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
I dont care for mooneys. They just seem cramped to me and the seating position isn't the best. Saratoga is going to be slower than the bonanza or cessna350/400 AND burn more fuel because the Lycomings don't really normally operate well LOP. The cabin probably the best though. I have a bonanza f33a and it does 165-170ktas at 10000msl on 13.5GPH. The A36 bonanza will have the same performance numbers maybe a few knots slower and climb a little slower because the 6 seater is heavier. With tip tanks the A36 will give you well over 1000nm of range. You can find a nice 2000 model right in your price range. As far as the Cirrus goes i think its a great plane as well with the same performance numbers as the bonanza plus you get the chute. MX costs will definitely be higher as most cirrus aircraft are maintained by cirrus professional service centers. Any GA A&P will put his hands on the bonanza. The handling of the SR22 does feel a little bit artificial but I still thought it was nice to hand fly. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Your Bo is narrower than a Mooney. I'd take the logbook hours and the added comfort of shoulder room. But that's just me.
 
If the folding e-bikes and 4 adults is something you really want to do then I'd suggest either the Saratoga or a Beech A36. Both have lots of room in the back and bigger rear doors to make the loading easy. The A36 is probably the better of those two, but also generally the more expensive to buy.

An early SR22 G3 would be good. A 2007 model with Avidyne PFD and MFD (versus Perspective), TKS and AC often has ~1,050 useful load, which is the same as my 2006 G2 without AC. Not a bad option either, but you would most likely need to put folded e-bikes in the back seat or fold down the back seats. Either way you may need to go through the main doors, unless you get smaller wheel bike, but the luggage door may still be too small. I would imagine you'd have to put any bike in through the door on the Mooney, and probably on the 400/TTx as well.

Most of the four seaters are not going to go far with four adults and luggage. Just not enough useful load left for fuel. Now, if you have some lighter adults you can go farther. We flew a 2002 SR22 G1 while the kids were in high school and had no problem. The kids were two athletic girls, my wife and I were fairly light too, so it worked out fine; someone with two big boys would not find it to work as well.

All of those are good traveling planes. Just need to figure out what's your main driver. The differences in speed are not that great; the Saratoga being the slowest in the bunch. You're going to have to go far before you see a big difference in the time from take-off to landing in each of them.
 
A couple things on the Cirrus SR 22.

The G5 and G6 have a 200 lb higher GW than the earlier models. That translates to about 1150 avg UL. Add a full tank of TKS and oxygen and you are at about 1070 . Tabs are 60 gallons and basically my bladder limit so that leaves about 710 lbs for people and baggage. (about 540 for full tanks) . But you'll never get 6 people in there, you can get 5 if one is a small kid.

Handling, the 22 handles great, they are as Tantalum a little sensitive in pitch, but it doesn't take long to learn to deal with it. The stick is centered by a spring, but I only notice it when checking the controls in preflight, the spring eliminates the need for gust locks. The earliest models had the rudder / aileron interface, that made the stick a little heavier, but I believe that was gone by the G3. The one thing that is different about the Cirrus stick is the amount of "throw" from centered to full deflection of the ailerons. Most GA airplanes with yokes require about a 90 degree turn of the yoke to get to full deflection. The Cirrus stick is at full deflection with about half that amount of turning. I'm no expert on the design, but what I think is going on is you lose mechanical advantage versus a standard yoke. This makes some think the controls are heavy, they are not in my experience. I have no idea what the roll rate is in a Cirrus, nor do I have the desire or qualifications to find out, but from what I've seen it's pretty impressive and very responsive.

It is an airplane made to go fast and be comfortable. It has great capabilities weather wise and is a stabile predictable IFR platform. It does, like pretty much all airplanes, require respect while flying it. Airspeed, angle of attack, p-factor all need to be accounted for, especially in the pattern, where this fast plane can slow down quickly on you if you are not on top of it.

I'm not sure it's the best plane for your mission, but if you chose it I'm sure you would be happy with it.
 
Cessna 400 but I’m biased. Don’t worry about parts support, Textron still supports the plane despite what people assume.

Cirrus SR22T would be my backup or a turbocharged G36.
 
Maybe just take all of the above for fact and then go find one of each to take a ride in or fly. See what you fall in love with.
 
@Nick Pilotte - Good to see that you are in a similar boat. Good to read and learn about the upgrade option. I will dig into it a little bit more. I think the performance improvement with the 310hp STC is significant. Will have to look for one in the area and try to see if I can get a ride in it though.

@AlphaMike - Actually didn't look at the Bonanza's. They seemed on the pricier end of my budget when I was doing searches and put it off my list. One of my colleagues has one. I might message him and get feedback on that one. They seem an excellent aircraft and checks all the box except two- less than 350k and newer than 2000! But I will research more about it and read upon it. Seems like lot of positive reviews on them.

@Tantalum - Thanks for sharing the detailed info from your experience. I agree with you on most of the part. The Cirrus is a good airplane for sure. Talked to an instructor yesterday who owns a G3 SR22 (non-turbo). He says the wife loves it but isn't as fun to fly. But again fun can be subjective right! He is into racing airplanes. So for him fun has a complete different meaning than it would be for me! But will ask him to get a ride on it sometime and see how it goes down the road. The Mooney and Saratoga are my top two choices at the moment. Again I think the best is to get a ride on them. Btw any idea what kinda speeds you can get out of the ii TC or ii HP?

@bflynn - Tough choice isn't it, would be great to have them all. Hahaha!

@luvflyin - Yeah, no high-wing for me. I flew the 152/172/208 quite a bit. They are nice airplanes, but they just don't sing to me. Would fly them for a paycheck though ;)

@NealRomeoGolf - Hmm, fun when it is lightly loaded? Or even at low weights it is a truck?

@GRG55 - Thanks for the feedback. The picture is from a Saratoga or A36?

@GeorgeC - That was helpful! Thanks

@MBDiagMan -Good to know ovations are better for the rear seat passengers.

@George Mohr - Thanks. Fun to me means trying to just go in the air and enjoy some slow flight, go around patterns and practice STOL, not looking for a sports car, but something that can take the corner gracefully and something that is a stable platform and doesn't just bounce around on every movement of the yoke/stick! I hope I am doing a good job at explaining "fun".

@Checkout_my_Six - only if they were cheaper! That is some speed. Crazy! I remember going up on a 152 and the wind was so strong, I was moving backwards over the ground.

@MooneyDriver78 - Thanks for the insight. I will try to see if I can find one where I can try to seat in one and take a demo flight as well. We are in our early 30s and getting in and out shouldn't be a challenge. If it is comfy for the 3-4 hour ride, that is good enough. Plus you cover good distance. To me Mooney is a great looking airplane. The cockpit layout seems ideal as well.

@eman1200 - yeah no 5th or 6th seat on the mooney/cirrus/cessna but still no harm to check the others out.

@JustinD - I agree with you that all are great aircrafts. Just trying to find the something that will edge one over the other.

@Racerx - Didn't really see them on sale. Are those the Cherokee 6 (280 and 260 version)

@N1120A - The Piper Malibu is a great airplane, almost a jet airplane I'd say. Wasn't sure if that fell within my budget. Also not sure how the MX goes on that given it is pressurized vessel. But would be certainly to look into it. Thanks for the suggestion. Thanks for the Mooney numbers.

@Cervieres -Cirrus is a great product for sure. Maybe it was designed to take people from A to B and it does that pretty good. Plain and simple!

@AnthonyS1 -Thanks for the insight on the Cirrus.

@Racerx -How much narrower is the BO?

@wayne -Yeah we are pretty light couple and most of the people I would or might be carrying are lighter. I think the heaviest I know is about 170lbs. Rest are in the range of 110-160lbs. But yeah have to dodge the distance you can fly while carrying more pax. But making multiple stops on one of those occasions where you carry 4 or 6 is not an issue. Good time to stretch and get a small break.

@PaulS - That is another plus one for the Cirrus. Good to get detailed info on the handling.

@Rick182 - Good point. That is true about Cessna's is that they will support their aircrafts.

Thank you all for the feedback and sharing the insight. I'll keep doing my research and I guess try to find these airplanes locally so I can go take a look and if possible get up in the air in them too.

Another thing to consider would be Turbo or non-turbo. Turbo gets you higher and provides better performance, but again that adds to the cost of maintenance. All of the airplanes mentioned above and some new suggestions (bonanza and the malibu) or great aircrafts. I understand that the age of the plane doesn't make a huge difference when the airplane has been well maintained and has been cared for. I might be wrong but I think the newer airplanes might have better technological advantage especially if it is the same model and make which didn't get upgraded every other year like phones and cars these days! I mean to say a 1980 Bonanza's airframe thought maintained would not be as good as a 2005 Saratoga. Or that doesn't really make a difference?

Guess next step would be to actually find one of these airplanes and try to go take a look at them and then go from there.

thank you all.
 
h_saria said:
Hmm, fun when it is lightly loaded? Or even at low weights it is a truck?
Click to expand...

Flies like a truck at all times. Heavy controls but the plane is super stable. Not going to win a race, but it will win a hauling competition.
 
Well being the normal bonanza was suggested without even being asked about I will add in Malibu. I know he didn’t ask about it, showed no interest in his opening post so I’ll add my suggestions.

oh hell, I’m gonna add 182 as well. I know he wasn’t asking about it, but I feel I need to suggest it.
 
I wouldn't get a 2000+ model year Bonanza, they are heavy things.

I don't understand the reasoning with your model year requirement, but if you look at Bonanzas, compare a 1970 or so which has been "resto-modded" with TAT turbo and 550. You'll find about 400 or 500# of extra useful load that way, and a much sweeter flying plane as a result.

$0.02

- Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
MooneyDriver78 said:
Don’t get a turbo if you don’t need one.

My J can do 150 knots on ~9 gph, the Ovation should be faster with some more fuel burn...something like 160 on 12 gph.
Retracts a little more maintenance, call it a $100/yr.
You need to sit in a Mooney...some don’t like it, it’s like sitting in a sports car as opposed to sitting in a SUV.
The single door is not the issue, it’s the low seating position, getting in and out, I know 80+ yo men can do it but some just don’t like it. Some removed the rear seat to fit more bulky items. The cargo door requires you to lift up and over, not up and slide in...maybe an issue if you lack upper body strength or have especially heavy stuff.
Click to expand...

The sports car/SUV analogy is good. My Mooney is very much like sitting in my Mercedes two seater, as compared to a nose wheel Cessna where I feel as if I’m sitting on a bar stool. I personally strongly prefer the seating position and Pushrod control precision of a Mooney, but many people prefer stretchy cables and a bar stool. I all about what you get used to because most people are not open to change.
 
PlasticCigar said:
Funny how this brings up the same things over and over again. Cirrus guy dissing the Mooney although he’s clearly never been in a long-body Mooney and people loving the Bonanza (especially the Bonanza owners).

Go fly a Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza and Saratoga and see what you think.

Personally, I think the Saratoga would work well for you. I have a FIKI Mooney and absolutely LOVE it but as someone else pointed out, no way you’re getting 6 people in it. The ‘toga isn’t sexy, but it’s got a bulletproof engine and pretty much does everything reasonably well at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
That is the plan..
 
PlasticCigar said:
Funny how this brings up the same things over and over again. Cirrus guy dissing the Mooney although he’s clearly never been in a long-body Mooney and people loving the Bonanza (especially the Bonanza owners).

Go fly a Cirrus, Mooney, Bonanza and Saratoga and see what you think.

Personally, I think the Saratoga would work well for you. I have a FIKI Mooney and absolutely LOVE it but as someone else pointed out, no way you’re getting 6 people in it. The ‘toga isn’t sexy, but it’s got a bulletproof engine and pretty much does everything reasonably well at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

I love Mooney's just saw a guy's 1964 with a new paint job and pristine interior. What a machine.

Another airplane the op should look at is the Pipistrel Pantera it has a chute, 1100 pound useful load, deice (not sure if fiki though, probably not) and a 194 knot cruise at 75% 10,000 feet. They are touring the country, I just signed up for a flight, but might be too late. Nice machine.
 
PlasticCigar said:
Cirrus guy dissing the Mooney although he’s clearly never been in a long-body Mooney and people loving the Bonanza (especially the Bonanza owners).
Click to expand...
In fairness, most of the people will think whatever they own is the best plane even if they've never really sat in another one, or if they have, they go into it with so many conceptions already that there's strong confirmation bias

For a while I was big into the J model Moonies, killer performance for a reasonable price.. but that was with a 1-2 person mission. And the two door vs one door thing is a big deal when flying with non-pilots..

the car analogy is very good, some people like the small sports car feel, others like the bigger SUV feel.. how often have we heard that 182/210 etc are "like a pickup truck" and Mooney is like a sports car

The OP is actually in a great position, he doesn't yet have many misconceptions so he can fly these planes and approach the whole thing from a very pragmatic sense

I feel like a Saratoga would be a good option, if not only mainly because of the four person and occasional six-person need..
 
PaulS said:
Pipistrel Pantera
Click to expand...
Really cool to see this evolve through the years. There is a lot of vaporware out there but it looks like this one is coming to fruition
 
RE: comfort

This is a hugely subjective thing.. I like wide cabins and don't mind limited head or leg group, in my car I sit with the seat close enough so my knees are almost touching the dashboard, makes me feel more in control

But shoulder room is huge for me, as is the perception of lateral space in front of me between me and the panel <- that is where both the Bonanza and the Mooney fall short for me. For a plane as physically imposing and large as the Bonanza it's a mystery to me why they made the cabin so narrow. The Mooney is okay, but with the panel being right up in your face it really just feels cramped.. (to me)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top