What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

[Checkout_my_Six]

Lance and 300hp six and FG Toga vs retract are one of the few apples to apples comparisons for the fixed vs. retract question. And the answer is 15kts.

yup....and there are other variations of 260 HP vs 300HP vs 310 HP vs turbo'd 300HP....yada yada yada....to mix in with the fixed vs retract.

My Six would do 140 kts flat out at 7k ft and 15-16 ghp. But, it was a two bladed 260 HP version....and the flaps were adjusted up -2 deg per the TCDS (most aren't)

 

[brian]]

I've never seen a Velocity for old Skyhawk money. I've seen the occasion Vari-eze, but good luck getting your spouse and all her **** in one of those. You might find a Cozy, and yes those are nice aircraft though they have their quirks. Best to invest in lead shot if you get one. The most likely culprit is a 40's or 50's vintage Bonanza. Similar money, good speed, and yes they're gorgeous. That said, I worry a lot about a very old and hugely complex airframe that hasn't been worth much for a long time. Unless you really know what you're doing you could get badly burned. At least with the Mooney you have simple systems like Johnson-bar gear and hydraulic flaps that don't break easily and are easily repaired. Put it another way, no one ever suggested to me that I buy a book when I started looking at Mooneys.

Definitely +1 on "the book" if buying a 1956 (G35) Bonanza or earlier. I like them, but it took a while to understand what I had. And I continue to network with others that can help with the "special" items associated with owning something like that.

If you want cheap, relatively fast and something that won't scare an A&P under 50 years old, get an early Mooney. If you want a classic, get a 1956 or earlier Bonanza. But if you need speed and dispatch - well, ask someone else, I'm crazy ...

 

[MBDiagMan]

Lance/Saratoga are the retract versions of the Six, although there are also later model fixed gear Saratogas. Confused yet?

I thought that the Lance is a T Tail.

 

[Bill]

I thought that the Lance is a T Tail.

Some were, some weren't. The T-tails can be a good value.

 

[genna]

I am quite curious about folks in denial regarding the performance advantages of a retractible gear aircraft. Even if the difference were half as much as the examples that have been shown, they are still significant.

My personal belief is that regardless of the gear hanging in the airstream, aerodynamic or not, it induces significant drag. Even the most aerodynamic gear induces significant drag. The denial of the advantages of retractible gear is quite surprising to me.

My Cessna 140 is a restomod. It has many Cessna 150 components to included very sleek wheel pants. I have flown the aircraft with and without the wheel pants and can't tell one iota of difference in airspeed or any other performance criteria. If there is gear hanging down there, the drag is significant.

I don't know about C140, but in NA SR22 G2, the pants account for 25kts according to POH. It's a great way to take a 300 horse 165tas cruise plane close to 180 horse DA40(pantless) level(138ktas WOT)

 

[FloridaPilot]

Lance and 300hp six and FG Toga vs retract are one of the few apples to apples comparisons for the fixed vs. retract question. And the answer is 15kts.

What about fuel burn is it the same? (Just curious)!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Learn something new everyday around here. I didn't know that there was a retract version of the Cherokee Six. That would be a drastic I prove,eat IMHO. BTW, I wonder what the performance difference is with those two planes?

I prove,eat? That's a weird autocorrect from "improvement."

But yes - There's the Cherokee Six. Put retracts on it, you have the PA32R Lance, PA32RT if it's a T-tail. Put a tapered wing on the Lance and you have a Saratoga, or put a tapered wing on the Six and you have the Saratoga FG. Put a second engine on a Lance and you get the Seneca.

If you look at this line as starting with the original Cherokee, they got an awful lot of mileage out of that design, as there are a LOT of variants of the PA28, PA32, PA34, and PA44 that have been built over the last 57 years.

 

[Pilawt]

I thought that the Lance is a T Tail.

1976-77 PA-32R-300 Cherokee Lance:



1978-79 PA-32RT-300 Lance II (this one is the turbo version, first available in '78):



Piper built a prototype PA-32RT-301 Lance III, planned for the 1980 model year, with T-tail and tapered wings. But they instead decided to revert to the low tail and call it "Saratoga".

 

[weilke]

What about fuel burn is it the same? (Just curious)!

Engine doesn't care what airframe it is bolted to. The same angle-head 300hp IO540 with the same compression ratio will make the same amount of power for the same fuel burn. Its just that the plane with the lower parasitic drag will go a bit faster at the same power.

Now if you look at fuel burn on a per nautical mile basis, the retract is going to be about 10% better.

 

[Pilawt]

Lance and 300hp six and FG Toga vs retract are one of the few apples to apples comparisons for the fixed vs. retract question. And the answer is 15kts.

Piper's published book 75% power cruise speeds (taken with appropriate granules of sodium chloride):

1977 PA-32-300 Cherokee Six (fixed-gear, old-style wheel fairings), 146 KTAS; PA-32R-300 Cherokee Lance (retract, low tail), 158 KTAS = 12 KTAS difference

1980 PA-32-301 Saratoga (fixed-gear, new-style wheel & brake fairings), 150 KTAS; PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP (retract), 159 KTAS = 9 KTAS difference

1980 PA-32-301T Turbo Saratoga (fixed-gear), 165 KTAS; PA-32R-301T Turbo Saratoga SP (retract), 171 KTAS = 6 KTAS difference

 

[Pilawt]

Some months ago I took off for a short flight and was having trouble with the manual gear retraction and started to fly the trip with gear down. About two minutes of that and I decided to slow down to gear retration speed and try again. I wrestled slightly and got the gear to retract. That thing was a slug with the gear hanging in the slipstream. I am quite sure that even if it had been the sleekest fixed gear ever attached to an aircraft, it would not have been much better.

You can't compare a fixed-gear airplane with a corresponding retractable with gear extended. The gear doors and open wheel wells cause enormous drag. Ever hear the whistling from a gear-down Arrow flying overhead? That's the sound of drag.

I once had occasion to fly a Turbo Arrow about 200 nm after the gear free-fell due to loss of hydraulic pressure. We were "zipping" along at about 125 KTAS at 10,500'. I'm sure Clark's Turbo Dakota (same airframe, same engine, but with fixed gear) would do considerably better.

 

[Pilawt]

Now, does retractible gear appear to be a worthwhile feature? Just imagine what a retractible Cirrus could do.

In 940 hours of retract time I've had three inflight gear "issues", one in an Arrow, one in a Saratoga, one in a Bonanza. All resolved successfully, but each made for tense times and lengthy delays.

In 3400 hours of FG time, I've had, um, let me see ... [carry the one ... ] ... zero inflight gear issues.

 

[GeorgeC]

Seriously people... 8 pages of this and I still don't know if it's easier to get a Bo or an M20 on the step.

 

[GLMS_NC]

Landing gear servicing--Bonanza? What have you been drinking?

My Mooney has one (1) electric motor, and the ten years / 800+ hours I've owned it, the only servicing the gear has required has been to jack it up every annual, swing the gear and repack the bearings. Its hard to get better than that, especially with the complicated system the Bo uses (but it's better than the horrible hydraulic transmission used by some others . . . )

Please share your experience removing the entire landing gear system from both birds, rebuilding, reinstalling and doing all the required checks.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Seriously people... 8 pages of this and I still don't know if it's easier to get a Bo or an M20 on the step.

with or without flaps?.....

 

[USAF JD]

Gee wiz. 8 pages in and I found out that my 158 knot Lance does 158 knots. What were we talking about?

 

[MBDiagMan]

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.

Different mission type manufacturers, You are going somewhere with family...Bonanza, Going with just a friend Mooney and it will generally get you there faster with more efficiency.

With that said I love the Bonanza A36/G36 series of aircraft!

 

[MBDiagMan]

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.

Different mission type manufacturers, You are going somewhere with family...Bonanza, Going with just a friend Mooney and it will generally get you there faster with more efficiency.

With that said I love the Bonanza A36/G36 series of aircraft!

There are all sorts of arguable points regarding fixed gear vs. Retractible but "hassle?" Really? You flip a switch or pull a lever. That simple act gets you increased air speed and decreased fuel flow. Is flipping the switch or pulling the lever really not worth such a reward?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

There are all sorts of arguable points regarding fixed gear vs. Retractible but "hassle?" Really? You flip a switch or pull a lever. That simple act gets you increased air speed and decreased fuel flow. Is flipping the switch or pulling the lever really not worth such a reward?

Only if you don't get your reward when you're done pulling or flipping.....

 

[GRG55]

with or without flaps?.....

Front or back porch?

 

[AdamZ]

Without a doubt Bonanzas are better. Why is that? Well because thats what I own. Seriously they are both fantastic planes. Mooney is bit more efficient and the bigger ones are a bit faster than the bonanzas but not too much. Bonanzas are a bit stouter and handle grass a bit better but there are those that have no issues in a Mooney on grass. Mooney have a roll cage that I credit in part to saving my friends life. You also feel the bumps a good bit more in a Mooney. But like I said both great aircraft.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I will take a 1990 A36. Saving pennies now.

 

[skier]

Seriously people... 8 pages of this and I still don't know if it's easier to get a Bo or an M20 on the step.

I've never seen a Mooney or Bonanza get on step, perhaps because I've never seen one on floats.

Google images came in handy though. People who play with flight simulators apparently think that a Bonanza would get on step better than a Mooney. Google didn't have any photos of a Mooney that could get on step.

 

[rbridges]

In 940 hours of retract time I've had three inflight gear "issues", one in an Arrow, one in a Saratoga, one in a Bonanza. All resolved successfully, but each made for tense times and lengthy delays.

In 3400 hours of FG time, I've had, um, let me see ... [carry the one ... ] ... zero inflight gear issues.

but those 3400 hours in a FG would have only required 2800 hours in an RG.

 

[mwagg737]

And the backwards tail on a Mooney is not marketing? LOL.
Who told you this nonsense, a Mooney salesman?

Give it a moment of thought and you'll see the fallacy of this old wives tale...

Actually, Al Mooney designed the tail for that purpose. Wether or not it actually makes the rudder more effective, who knows. There was that thought behind the design though. Nevertheless, it does make the airplane look cool!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

There are all sorts of arguable points regarding fixed gear vs. Retractible but "hassle?" Really? You flip a switch or pull a lever. That simple act gets you increased air speed and decreased fuel flow. Is flipping the switch or pulling the lever really not worth such a reward?

What is the trite expression?
There are those who have landed gear up and those who will.

Tim

 

[weilke]

Please share your experience removing the entire landing gear system from both birds, rebuilding, reinstalling and doing all the required checks.

Dont you know, overhauling the gear is for suckers. Only lesser planes wear out bushings, require gear motor overhauls etc. Mooneys are born perfect and anyone who has to do work on their gear probably did something wrong.

 

[gsengle]

Actually, Al Mooney designed the tail for that purpose. Wether or not it actually makes the rudder more effective, who knows. There was that thought behind the design though. Nevertheless, it does make the airplane look cool!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Of course it does. It's designed so the higher the angle of attack the closer to perpendicular to the direction of flight is the rudder. Look at the trailing edges of aerobatic airplane rudders, or say a P51 mustang. Marketing (well known) was the sweep Cessna put on their tails. They became less effective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

Of course it does. It's designed so the higher the angle of attack the closer to perpendicular to the direction of flight is the rudder. Look at the trailing edges of aerobatic airplane rudders, or say a P51 mustang. Marketing (well known) was the sweep Cessna put on their tails. They became less effective.

I suppose marketing must be responsible for the "less effective" swept tails and rudders on all these aircraft as well?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

ever see a drone with a Mooney tail?.....now just think about that for a second.

 

[GRG55]

ever see a drone with a Mooney tail?.....think about that for a second.

Hope that thing came with the leading edge cuffs to keep those ruddevators from flying off into the slipstream.

 

[brian]]

Hope that thing came with the leading edge cuffs to keep those ruddevators from flying off into the slipstream.

It's an early model - no cuffs required ....

 

[zaitcev]

Actually, Al Mooney designed the tail for that purpose. Wether or not it actually makes the rudder more effective, who knows. There was that thought behind the design though. Nevertheless, it does make the airplane look cool!

I highly doubt that the effectiveness of rudder at high AoA was a major consideration, because all surfaces on M20 series have exactly the same shape, including wings and the stabilizer, not just the vertical tail: the front edge is straight and the rear edge is slanted. Note that M18 was exactly the same. I suspect that Al Mooney simply had a personal preference for the design like that at the time.

 

[gsengle]

I suppose marketing must be responsible for the "less effective" swept tails and rudders on all these aircraft as well?

Higher speed aircraft with swept wings have other aerodynamic considerations. Our 100-200kt aircraft don't qualify. You sure you're a pilot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gsengle]

I highly doubt that the effectiveness of rudder at high AoA was a major consideration, because all surfaces on M20 series have exactly the same shape, including wings and the stabilizer, not just the vertical tail: the front edge is straight and the rear edge is slanted. Note that M18 was exactly the same. I suspect that Al Mooney simply had a personal preference for the design like that at the time.

You don't have to suspect, he was explicit about it. It was a design feature. Lets a smaller tail be more effective and thus have less drag. Like a P51. Note rudder trailing edge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

I highly doubt that the effectiveness of rudder at high AoA was a major consideration, because all surfaces on M20 series have exactly the same shape, including wings and the stabilizer, not just the vertical tail: the front edge is straight and the rear edge is slanted. Note that M18 was exactly the same. I suspect that Al Mooney simply had a personal preference for the design like that at the time.

Bingo! We have a winner...
Falls into the same category as V-tails, T-tails, cruciform horizontal stabilizers and all manner of other aesthetic treatments to distinguish an airplane from everyone else's design.

"Of course it does. It's designed so the higher the angle of attack the closer to perpendicular to the direction of flight is the rudder. Look at the trailing edges of aerobatic airplane rudders, or say a P51 mustang. Marketing (well known) was the sweep Cessna put on their tails. They became less effective."​

I don't even know where to start. But let's try anyway:

1. Unless one is descending at a high angle of attack the direction of flight is usually aligned with the longitudinal axis of the airplane - the angle between the direction of flight and the trailing edge of the rudder won't change in that circumstance, regardless of the angle of attack.

2. On most airplanes the most effective part of the rudder is the top because it is in the least disturbed air. Because of this, most rudders are tapered from bottom to top (the chord at the top is less than at the bottom), in part to more evenly distribute the aerodynamic loads along the length of the rudder.

3. When an aircraft designer chooses to make the rudder hinge line vertical (such as the above cited examples of the P-51 or an aerobatic plane such as an Extra 300) the only practical way to taper the rudder is to bring the trailing edge forward.

4. A rearward swept tail puts the most effective part of the vertical stabiliser and rudder further back, which, for a given fuselage length, increases the moment arm from the airplane's center of mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of the rudder. It also means the rudder can be smaller and lighter than if it is positioned further forward. It's not just for marketing.

5. The Mooney hinge line is not vertical as a P-51 or Extra 300. It is canted forward, and the Mooney rudder is not tapered. That suggests maintaining the area at the top of the rudder was necessary to offset the loss of effectiveness from the decreasing moment arm from bottom to top.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

so....wait just a yaw moment?

 

[gsengle]

Bingo! We have a winner...
Falls into the same category as V-tails, T-tails, cruciform horizontal stabilizers and all manner of other aesthetic treatments to distinguish an airplane from everyone else's design.

"Of course it does. It's designed so the higher the angle of attack the closer to perpendicular to the direction of flight is the rudder. Look at the trailing edges of aerobatic airplane rudders, or say a P51 mustang. Marketing (well known) was the sweep Cessna put on their tails. They became less effective."​

I don't even know where to start. But let's try anyway:

1. Unless one is descending at a high angle of attack the direction of flight is usually aligned with the longitudinal axis of the airplane - the angle between the direction of flight and the trailing edge of the rudder won't change in that circumstance, regardless of the angle of attack.

2. On most airplanes the most effective part of the rudder is the top because it is in the least disturbed air. Because of this, most rudders are tapered from bottom to top (the chord at the top is less than at the bottom), in part to more evenly distribute the aerodynamic loads along the length of the rudder.

3. When an aircraft designer chooses to make the rudder hinge line vertical (such as the above cited examples of the P-51 or an aerobatic plane such as an Extra 300) the only practical way to taper the rudder is to bring the trailing edge forward.

4. A swept tail puts the most effective part of the vertical stabiliser and rudder further back, which, for a given fuselage length, increases the moment arm from the airplane's center of mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of the rudder. It also means the rudder can be smaller and lighter than if it is positioned further forward. It's not just for marketing.

5. The Mooney hinge line is not vertical as a P-51 or Extra 300. It is canted forward, and the Mooney rudder is not tapered. That suggests the area at the top of the rudder is necessary to offset the loss of effectiveness from the decreasing moment arm from bottom to top.

Have better things to do than debate you. It's well established that swept tails on slow prop planes was a marketing phenomenon. It's also established why Al Mooney made the tail the way he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coloradobluesky]

If forward leaning vertical stabilizers offered any advantage, all airplanes would have them. OTOH, they dont seem to be a disadvantage either.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Have better things to do than debate you. It's well established that swept tails on slow prop planes was a marketing phenomenon. It's also established why Al Mooney made the tail the way he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

here we thought you were an intelligent aerodynamics engineer....? No?