What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

kayoh190 said:
IMO the Bonanza has more sex appeal
Click to expand...

Well, you know what they say about opinions... I've long thought Mooneys we're some of the best looking piston singles (ok, the lancair legacy and velocity may beat them, but no way a Bonanza does). Mooneys are both sleek and sexy and they have beautiful forward swept tail. Al Mooney knew what he was doing. And the company didn't screw it up too much (at least not the looks) after they kicked him to the curb.
 
skier said:
Well, you know what they say about opinions... I've long thought Mooneys we're some of the best looking piston singles (ok, the lancair legacy and velocity may beat them, but no way a Bonanza does). Mooneys are both sleek and sexy and they have beautiful forward swept tail. Al Mooney knew what he was doing. And the company didn't screw it up too much (at least not the looks) after they kicked him to the curb.
Click to expand...
that's why you need to sit in one......:D
 
weilke said:
Not any further than a M20R pilot burning the same amount of fuel.
Click to expand...

An M20R pilot can't turn 2580 rpm, but yes in general given the same engine the fuel burns will be similar. An IO-550-G like what is in the Mooney M20R will typically see around 13 gph at 10k all in LOP.
 
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...

You might want to compare a new Mooney to a new Cirrus.
 
weilke said:
Not any further than a M20R pilot burning the same amount of fuel.
Click to expand...

Not true. I run wide open throttle at 6000 and above, with the prop at 2300, lean of peak as per the book thanks to the balanced induction in the Mooney (that all the A&P's rightfully hate). I couldn't spin my engine up to 2580 if I wanted to! Higher MP and lower RPM is more efficient than lower MP and higher RPM due to lower friction and pumping losses. Cirrus can't do that, no blue knob.

Grum.Man said:
An M20R pilot can't turn 2580 rpm, but yes in general given the same engine the fuel burns will be similar. An IO-550-G like what is in the Mooney M20R will typically see around 13 gph at 10k all in LOP.
Click to expand...

Minor point: *Most* M20R pilots can't turn 2580 RPM. The Ovation3, or anyone with the STC, has a different prop and gets 310 hp instead of 280 hp by spinning it up to 2700 RPM.

At 65% in cruise, I burn 12.2 gph. That's good for 170 KTAS at short-cross-country altitudes (5-6K), and 175 KTAS at the optimum altitude (9-10K). Above that, TAS starts to come down slightly but fuel burn comes way down. At 13K I can true 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph.
 
Grum.Man said:
An M20R pilot can't turn 2580 rpm, but yes in general given the same engine the fuel burns will be similar. An IO-550-G like what is in the Mooney M20R will typically see around 13 gph at 10k all in LOP.
Click to expand...

All the NA IO550s burn about the same amount of fuel for the same amount of power. Comparing the same vintage planes (2001 or later A36/G36/M20/SR22) the Mooney is going to be a couple of knots faster on the same gph/hp. It also has the option of bigger in-board tanks creating a slightly better range. The trade-offs between the three are not in the engine compartment.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
All the NA IO550s burn about the same amount of fuel for the same amount of power. Comparing the same vintage planes (2001 or later A36/G36/M20/SR22) the Mooney is going to be a couple of knots faster on the same gph/hp. It also has the option of bigger in-board tanks creating a slightly better range. The trade-offs between the three are not in the engine compartment.
Click to expand...

That is an incorrect statement unless you want to clarify if it's a G model or the later 550's. A G model will burn less fuel at 65% power than an N model at 65% power. So a 550 bonanza or Cirrus will always burn more fuel than a 550 M20R at 65% power.

65% Power 550N = 15.5 gph
65% Power 550G = 12.2 gph

Now If both engines are putting out 250 HP then yes they will be consuming the same fuel But that is 90% rated power in the Mooney vs. 80% rated power in a Cirrus or Bonanza
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not true. I run wide open throttle at 6000 and above, with the prop at 2300, lean of peak as per the book thanks to the balanced induction in the Mooney (that all the A&P's rightfully hate). I couldn't spin my engine up to 2580 if I wanted to! Higher MP and lower RPM is more efficient than lower MP and higher RPM due to lower friction and pumping losses. Cirrus can't do that, no blue knob.



Minor point: *Most* M20R pilots can't turn 2580 RPM. The Ovation3, or anyone with the STC, has a different prop and gets 310 hp instead of 280 hp by spinning it up to 2700 RPM.

At 65% in cruise, I burn 12.2 gph. That's good for 170 KTAS at short-cross-country altitudes (5-6K), and 175 KTAS at the optimum altitude (9-10K). Above that, TAS starts to come down slightly but fuel burn comes way down. At 13K I can true 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph.
Click to expand...

All hail the beauty of Lean-of-Peak ops in sleek airframes! It cracks me up when someone laments how much fuel I burn when I am traveling - my rate may be higher than your 172/Cherokee, but my speed is way higher. If you're going places, these machines just plain rock.
 
Grum.Man said:
That is an incorrect statement unless you want to clarify if it's a G model or the later 550's. A G model will burn less fuel at 65% power than an N model at 65% power. So a 550 bonanza or Cirrus will always burn more fuel than a 550 M20R at 65% power.
Click to expand...

You are arguing with your own straw man. I never mentioned percentage power.

There is no great magic involved. 12-13gph while running LOP is going to make the same hp with single digit percentages difference depending on throttle position and rpm. It is independent from the airframe the engine is bolted to.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
All the NA IO550s burn about the same amount of fuel for the same amount of power. Comparing the same vintage planes (2001 or later A36/G36/M20/SR22) the Mooney is going to be a couple of knots faster on the same gph/hp. It also has the option of bigger in-board tanks creating a slightly better range. The trade-offs between the three are not in the engine compartment.
Click to expand...

While it's not fair to compare a 6 seat Bonanza to a 4 seat Mooney M20R the speed difference at simlar fuel burns is more like 20 knots. Even the 520 powered G33 is 20 knots slower at the same fuel burn.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You should experience both before you go repeating old wives' tales...
Click to expand...

Not an old wives's tale at all. Just my humble opinion after my experiences and talking to mechanics and owners. "Comfort" is in the eye of the beholder of course as the Mooney would be at or near the bottom of my list in the single-engine true 4 seat category. Top of my list if I want to go places fast and economically though.
 
pilotmichael said:
Not an old wives's tale at all. Just my humble opinion after my experiences and talking to mechanics and owners. "Comfort" is in the eye of the beholder of course as the Mooney would be at or near the bottom of my list in the single-engine true 4 seat category. Top of my list if I want to go places fast and economically though.
Click to expand...

Well I'm an owner. I think it's comfortable, and wider than a Bo. And my mechanic says that the issues working on Mooneys mostly apply to the really old ones, but that the new ones are good solid easy enough to work on airplanes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
An M20C or E is not really a four place aircraft unless a couple of the occupants are darn small and want to be in the backseat. A normal size person can sit side saddle in the back pretty comfortably, but two adults in the back will likely be squealing pretty soon after take off. An F, J or the later models on the other hand will work well four place as long as none of the occupants are wide.

My C commonly has myself plus one and occasionally plus two. I don't consider it a four place airplane. Weight is no problem, but comfort for four is only possible if the two in the back are very small people.
 
MBDiagMan said:
An M20C or E is not really a four place aircraft unless a couple of the occupants are darn small and want to be in the backseat. A normal size person can sit side saddle in the back pretty comfortably, but two adults in the back will likely be squealing pretty soon after take off. An F, J or the later models on the other hand will work well four place as long as none of the occupants are wide.

My C commonly has myself plus one and occasionally plus two. I don't consider it a four place airplane. Weight is no problem, but comfort for four is only possible if the two in the back are very small people.
Click to expand...
Impossible....Ginseng sez they're bigger.:lol:
 
SCCutler said:
All hail the beauty of Lean-of-Peak ops in sleek airframes! It cracks me up when someone laments how much fuel I burn when I am traveling - my rate may be higher than your 172/Cherokee, but my speed is way higher. If you're going places, these machines just plain rock.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get better mileage than many if not most of your cars in a machine built in 1962 going 160 miles an hour ROP.

True story. The guy in the hangar across from me flies a Skyhawk. I asked him what he paid for the thing and was shocked to learn it cost more than my Mooney, burns about as much gas to go way way slower. I might have made a convert.
 
gsengle said:
Dude you do realize they come in three sizes right? But that only impacts back seat and cargo space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So....riddle me this....why are they 500 to 800 lbs lighter?
 
The difference in price M20 vs.172 has a lot to do with myth. Most every pilot I talk to that has no Mooney knowledge will tell you that they are super cramped, and nobody works on them. Those who take time to learn more sometimes decide that there are choices other than a 172. A 172 is a great plane with a great reputation and lots of people are comfortable with them, so they are in high demand even though there is an adequate supply.
 
MBDiagMan said:
The difference in price M20 vs.172 has a lot to do with myth. Most every pilot I talk to that has no Mooney knowledge will tell you that they are super cramped, and nobody works on them. Those who take time to learn more sometimes decide that there are choices other than a 172. A 172 is a great plane with a great reputation and lots of people are comfortable with them, so they are in high demand even though there is an adequate supply.
Click to expand...

The 172 is totally overvalued... A Cherokee is almost always more for your money, as too many people just want to own what they know and trained in, imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
So....riddle me this....why are they 500 to 800 lbs lighter?
Click to expand...

How about being specific instead of talking in riddles?

Exactly which models are what weights. It sounds like you are comparing oranges to apples. An apple to Apple comparison would be an M20E as compared to alan M20F. What are the specofic weights for these two in the same production year with the same options?
 
Since you are not answering, I will tell you that the difference in an E and an F is less than 200 pounds and there is 10" difference in length. They both have the same engine. As gs points out, later long body versions have more engine, so are not a proper comparison.
 
steingar said:
Yeah, I get better mileage than many if not most of your cars in a machine built in 1962 going 160 miles an hour ROP.

True story. The guy in the hangar across from me flies a Skyhawk. I asked him what he paid for the thing and was shocked to learn it cost more than my Mooney, burns about as much gas to go way way slower. I might have made a convert.
Click to expand...

That is pretty cool! Mooneys are impressively efficient.

In a somewhat similar way, as a sports car guy, it has been important to me that my plane was faster than any car I own. My first naturally aspirated Cirrus barely made it. I don't think I could have gotten comfortable with having a 205MPH car and a 160 KT airplane.
 
MBDiagMan said:
The difference in price M20 vs.172 has a lot to do with myth. Most every pilot I talk to that has no Mooney knowledge will tell you that they are super cramped, and nobody works on them. Those who take time to learn more sometimes decide that there are choices other than a 172. A 172 is a great plane with a great reputation and lots of people are comfortable with them, so they are in high demand even though there is an adequate supply.
Click to expand...

There is some truth to that and Mooneys do have a lot going for them, but for every person spouting off uninformed negative nonsense like that you have 10,000 posts from gsengle telling us that every Mooney goes Mach 2.4, seats 25 NFL players in utter comfort, has a built in hot tub and sips 0.3 ounces /hour of avgas or any handy liquid so you have to balance it all out.

Oh... and the mechanics pay you to work on them.
 
RudyP said:
There is some truth to that and Mooneys do have a lot going for them, but for every person spouting off uninformed negative nonsense like that you have 10,000 posts from gsengle telling us that every Mooney goes Mach 2.4, seats 25 NFL players in utter comfort, has a built in hot tub and sips 0.3 ounces /hour of avgas or any handy liquid so you have to balance it all out.
Click to expand...

Enough really. Quote me one unrealistic thing I have ever said. I started this post with screen grabs from flightaware of my actual most recent flight. No photoshopping.

They are the fastest certified piston four seater you can buy, both for a given engine and period. They are wider than a bo. They do have in many cases including mine 1000 useful load, and are very efficient. Efficient is the flip side of speed. Efficient equals useful load in the form of fuel not needed to be carried. And finally fuel stop skipping range is the ultimate speed mod in some cases.

So instead of vague insults, call out falsehoods. If there are any.

Is a Mooney perfect for everyone? Nope. But it's a damn good airframe. I usually only speak up when a Mooney is a good plane for someone's mission, or more likely because yet another individual is spouting uninformed nonsense, and that's just annoying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I have a pic of the panel of my 1948 -35 level with the stec 30 engaged and the gns430 reporting 182KTS! That was burning 10gph of car gas. That's better than some cars.

With the 1949 A35 I have now I hope to get anothe 10KTS for 20 more HP and anothe 10KTS because it is polished :)

Gentleman- enjoy your aircraft. If you ever decide your tired of it, I'll take it off your hands for a very small fee- that include those lowly C172s nobody seems to like.
 
RudyP said:
There is some truth to that and Mooneys do have a lot going for them, but for every person spouting off uninformed negative nonsense like that you have 10,000 posts from gsengle telling us that every Mooney goes Mach 2.4, seats 25 NFL players in utter comfort, has a built in hot tub and sips 0.3 ounces /hour of avgas or any handy liquid so you have to balance it all out.

Oh... and the mechanics pay you to work on them.
Click to expand...

Yah, but Mulligan's Cirrus has a wine cellar (he posted pics of it when the plane was being built ;)) so top that Mooniacs! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top