What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

mrjones30 said:
I just had a 25,000 annual including a parachute repack. The most I ever spent in an annual flying airplanes. Something with an io 550 or similar performance.
Click to expand...

What is the breakdown on the 25K?
I have seen a 20K repairs on a Bo, that did not include anything in the engine. (Wing Spar inspection found needed to replace bolts was the big one that I recall).
I have also seen wing replacement on a Mooney caused by corrosion which were also in the five digit area for a salvage wing, owner suspected it is related to TKS.

Tim
 
pilotmichael said:
Retractable and reliability really don't go that well together as far as I'm aware. Comfort and Mooney don't really either (AFAIK).
Click to expand...

You should experience both before you go repeating old wives' tales...

Some gear systems aren't particularly reliable. Mooneys are NOT part of that group, and AFAIK ;) Bonanzas aren't either. One bushing on my first annual with the Mooney, plus a swing at each annual like any retract is it. The manual-gear Mooneys are the only retractable certified airplane that has no backup gear extension system, so the FAA considers it to be very reliable! The electric-gear ones use the same system with the addition of a motor. It has a backup, but I'm not aware of a single instance of anyone ever having to use it.

The Mooney is the most comfortable four-seat single I've flown, and I'm 6'4" 300#. Al Mooney was 6'5", and he built himself an airplane.

tspear said:
In the Mooney your caboose is about 3 inches off the floor. While on the Bonanza you are in a more normal seated position. With pilots as a general rule getting "older" and older generally means sitting on the floor is harder. The end result is more people will prefer the Bonanza.
Click to expand...

It's all about how you get in and out. I have a technique that works very well - Knee on the right seat, roll in (or out). I have terrible knees (see that 300# thing) and it works fine. I'd probably do the same in the Bo.

Speed. Define it. Short range, Bonanza often wins due to bigger brute force engine. Long range, Mooney often wins because it sips gas.
At the end of the day, your mission, and the related example aircraft will have a larger factor than any other on the above.
Click to expand...

Both Bonanzas and Mooneys come in a few different sizes with different engine options. Compare apples to apples and you'll find they're very similar in performance.

RudyP said:
the Cirrus airframe is pretty clean compared to the other two (no exposed rivets
Click to expand...

FWIW, Mooney uses flush rivets anywhere where it matters. Really no difference there.

mrjones30 said:
I just had a 25,000 annual including a parachute repack. The most I ever spent in an annual flying airplanes. Something with an io 550 or similar performance.
Click to expand...

:hairraise:

bnt83 said:
Why on earth would you wanna go from two doors and airconditioning to _______________.
Click to expand...

You can get a Mooney with two doors and air conditioning too... :p And you won't have your junk dangling below you in flight. That's just embarrassing. :rofl:
 
I wanted a Mooney for my next plane but can't get over the baggage door. I like flying dogs and that high door won't work too well. Might be a Bo for me later.
 
FloridaPilot said:
A common thread with an uncommon mission. From what I have read in the past most pilots would like to do it the other way around. For some retractable gear is too much of a hassle.
Click to expand...

Dunno how common it is, but I love flying complex aircraft. All those levers and knobs, it's the closest an otaku can get to piloting a Gundam in this life. Look, personal airplanes are already useless for transportation (for most people), unless you step up to a jet. Might as well have fun.
 
zaitcev said:
Dunno how common it is, but I love flying complex aircraft. All those levers and knobs, it's the closest an otaku can get to piloting a Gundam in this life. Look, personal airplanes are already useless for transportation (for most people), unless you step up to a jet. Might as well have fun.
Click to expand...

Not useless! I beat the airlines to most destinations under 750nm, unless I'm going to a hub, and can go IFR and am certified known ice. Took me and the family that distance nonstop to see the eclipse and visit Savannah GA just the other day... I fly to where we go on Cape Cod regularly in 45 mins, skipping a 3-5 hour drive.

Just checked, the airlines would be the same 4.5 hours for me best case, one stop from BDL. But then add extra hour driving to BDL and extra hour with security.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrjones30 said:
And why....

Speed, Reliability, comfort. Interested in flying retractable gear airplanes and going to sell my Cirrus soon for one.
Click to expand...

OK, now, back to the original question.

Bonanzas and Mooneys both come in different sizes. Bos have the 33, 35, 36 models and Mooney has the short, mid, and long body.

It sounds like you're coming from an SR22 based on your IO-550 comment, so let's compare apples to apples as much as possible and go with the A36 and long-body Mooney.

If you want Turbo, there are TN A36s, and the Mooney Bravo (1989-2006) or Acclaim (2007-present). If you want two front doors like the Cirrus, the newest Mooneys (Ovation Ultra and Acclaim Ultra) have that.

But, let's compare the normally aspirated SR22, A36/G36, and Mooney Ovation. All have IO-550s (except pre-1984 A36s, which had an IO-520).

Speed: All will cruise at 170 KTAS, though the Mooney does so with lower fuel burn - I burn 12 gph in the Ovation, the A36 will run 14-15 gph, and the SR22 in the upper end of 17 gph.

Reliability: You have a good idea of Cirrus' reliability and I don't. Beech has a good reputation, though they also have a reputation for expensive parts. I can't speak to either.

However, the Mooney is built like a tank. I've only ever had one maintenance-related cancellation, and that was due to a bad mag which would affect all three airplanes equally. The only Mooney-specific part I've ever had to replace was a landing gear bushing. Other than that, inspections, and regular maintenance, all of my maintenance dollars have gone to avionics, engine, and other non-Mooney specific parts.

Comfort: This is going to depend on how you're built and how many people you're taking with you. Cirrus did a good job here. Mooney is also very comfortable, with the caveat being the low seating position. My main problem with the Bonanza is that its cabin cross-section is pretty much a semi-circle at the top, so I bump my head on the "corner". The Bonanza's major differentiator is an extra two seats and a nice, big back door to get into.

Like I said, this really depends on how you're built and your pax. I would say the Mooney is most comfortable for 1-2 people, Cirrus for 3-4 (composite airframe allows for a wider back seat), and obviously Bonanza for 5 or 6 since being tied to the top of the plane is definitely uncomfortable. ;)

Happy to answer any other questions you may have. Good luck in your search!
 
Ryanb said:
I'd keep the Cirrus. You're really not making an advancement by upgrading to either one of these. If you're just wanting to get into something just for the sake of it being a retract, you're going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

+1

It would be fine to pick Bo, Mooney or Cirrus, but I wouldn't sell an SR22 to get the others. They all solve pretty much the same mission need.

It's your money, so do what you want, but....
 
I think you glossed right over the best Bonanzas.....the IO-550 and the TSIO-550 V35A/B versions. Those will meet or exceed the capabilities of the others.

....and why are you comparing a 6 seat aircraft with a 4 seat?
 
Why are you comparing a 6 seat bo to 4 seaters?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I think you glossed right over the best Bonanzas.....the IO-550 and the TSIO-550 V35A/B versions. Those will meet or exceed the capabilities of the others.

....and why are you comparing a 6 seat aircraft with a 4 seat?
Click to expand...
jinx
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I wanted a Mooney for my next plane but can't get over the baggage door. I like flying dogs and that high door won't work too well. Might be a Bo for me later.
Click to expand...

When you say "flying dogs", do you mean you have your own dogs that you want to be able to jump into the baggage compartment themselves, or do you mean Pilots 'n' Paws or something else where you'll have them crated up? If it's the latter, the high door is an advantage: It's *WAY* easier to actually fill up the baggage compartment when you're loading it from the top instead of the bottom!

gsengle said:
Not useless! I beat the airlines to most destinations under 750nm, unless I'm going to a hub, and can go IFR and am certified known ice. Took me and the family that distance nonstop to see the eclipse and visit Savannah GA just the other day... I fly to where we go on Cape Cod regularly in 45 mins, skipping a 3-5 hour drive.
Click to expand...

Yep. From WI, I can beat the airlines basically anywhere east of the Rockies, with a few possible exceptions like Miami. But I use it to fly west of the Rockies too, because airlines suck. :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
When you say "flying dogs", do you mean you have your own dogs that you want to be able to jump into the baggage compartment themselves, or do you mean Pilots 'n' Paws or something else where you'll have them crated up? If it's the latter, the high door is an advantage: It's *WAY* easier to actually fill up the baggage compartment when you're loading it from the top instead of the bottom
Click to expand...

The latter. But when you've got cages already setup and need to get the dogs in, up and over doesn't sound fun.
 
weilke said:
First time you buy a couple of $1500 bits and a box of bushings because they have worn outside of tolerances, your love for the Beech gear may sour. But that's just a function of cycles, once your mooney hits 6 or 7000hrs you are going to start replacing stuff as well.

Not sure whcih beech uses a trailing link, the Bo sure doesn't. They are just easier to land than a Mooney.
Click to expand...
My A23-24 had trailing link gear, and they were awesome.
I put that thing down in some serious cross wind...it could handle a beating!
If it were only 20kts faster, it would have been a great plane.
 
Last edited:
Speed is a relative thing that everyone will has different views on, but it gets a little blurry at 145kts and over. Think in terms of % difference. Then look at the clock for a 450 leg. If the difference is over 30 mins, it may have an appeal, but anything less is nearly considered a draw in my book while some will argue time is money. Fuel consumption would be a bigger factor for me to consider, in terms of yearly hours flown against fuel burn, to dollars spent at the pump. (Where the gear goes after take off and landing, aside). -- This doesn't even open the can of worms on differences of purchase price, cost of parts, wet wing/dry wing/bladders... ;)
 
IMO the Bonanza has more sex appeal, but the Mooney is the better airplane for many missions.

As I'm currently without an airplane, whatever decision you make will make you the envy of me regardless. :)
 
How about a V-tail mooney?
 
Meh, all the same and kinda boring.

Get a glasair with super short wings and a 550 or better, or a lanceair, or a white lighting if you can find one.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
That's a sr22t all out.
Click to expand...

This. And they're doing a lot better than 170 ktas.

I have had an NA SR22 and it was an honest 170-174 ktas airplane at 12-14 gph (depending on altitude) and I now have a turbo SR22 that is anywhere from 180-220 KTAS at 16-17gph (again depending on altitude).

With a tailwind, it can get pretty quick (note 352 Kt ground speed below)
IMG_5183.JPG
 
RudyP said:
This. And they're doing a lot better than 170 ktas.

I have had an NA SR22 and it was an honest 170-174 ktas airplane at 12-14 gph (depending on altitude) and I now have a turbo SR22 that is anywhere from 180-220 KTAS at 16-17gph (again depending on altitude).

With a tailwind, it can get pretty quick (note 352 Kt ground speed below)
View attachment 55798
Click to expand...
237 ktas at 80% power? Pretty sure that plane is in a dive.

The gallons used and short magenta line behind the plane tells a different tale.
 
weilke said:
That's a sr22t all out.
Click to expand...

I would hope an SR22T would be faster than that. IIRC the last one I saw was 17.7 gph and 169 KTAS.

EDIT: Found it. Level 7000 feet, 168 KTAS, 17.6 gph at 75%. Looked on FlightAware and it hasn't filed any higher than that even for long trips. Who files at 3,000 with an SR22T?
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I would hope an SR22T would be faster than that. IIRC the last one I saw was 17.7 gph and 169 KTAS.

EDIT: Found it. Level 7000 feet, 168 KTAS, 17.6 gph at 75%. Looked on FlightAware and it hasn't filed any higher than that even for long trips. Who files at 3,000 with an SR22T?
Click to expand...

Ok. How about this one?
IMG_2991.JPG
 
Salty said:
237 ktas at 80% power? Pretty sure that plane is in a dive.

The gallons used and short magenta line behind the plane tells a different tale.
Click to expand...

That plane is my plane so you can just ask me directly. Yes, that's top of descent and there's a honking tailwind. I never claimed that 352 kts is real world performance. But come on, it's 352 kts! That's pretty sweet when you see it in a piston single no matter what, isn't it? I've posted typical normal, no wind, no descent figures. 200 KTAS at 17GPH at 17,000 ft or up to 217 KTAS at the same fuel burn at FL250
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Why do people keep posting SR22 panel pics at 17.5+ gph then?!?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Maybe ROP way down low, but then it will go a bit faster than 170 knots under those conditions. I flew one for 4.5 years and put over 370 hours on it and consistently got 12.5 gph at 10k LOP. That's an NA SR22 at 2580 rpm.
 
weilke said:
So you had an $10,000 annual with a $15,000 scheduled maintenance event.
Click to expand...

The 10 year recurring parachute repackaged is now up to $15k? :eek:
 
weilke said:
Operating a G36/SR22/M20R for 10 years costs somewhere aroud 200-400k. Whether 12-15k is 'a lot of money' or 'little money' within that total bill depends on whether you like Cirrus or not.
Click to expand...

Those sorts of numbers make my late '70s twin look downright economical.
I feel better already. :D
 
wayne said:
I have no idea. Maybe ROP way down low, but then it will go a bit faster than 170 knots under those conditions. I flew one for 4.5 years and put over 370 hours on it and consistently got 12.5 gph at 10k LOP. That's an NA SR22 at 2580 rpm.
Click to expand...

to do that you have to have the manifold pressure pulled back pretty far
 
flyingcheesehead said:
...Yep. From WI, I can beat the airlines basically anywhere east of the Rockies, with a few possible exceptions like Miami. But I use it to fly west of the Rockies too, because airlines suck. :)
Click to expand...

Amen. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top