What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

gsengle said:
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
Click to expand...

You're too far gone for me to try to convince you on the internet. You need an in person intervention or to take a serious step back from the keyboard and look at your body of work on here. It isn't exactly unbiased - you're the epitome of the cherry picker on every little factoid you can think of. But I know you're just going to come back with some other BS because you just can't see it. I think other posters/readers do though so that's all that matters.

And please remember, I'm a big Mooney fan, I have never once disparaged your favorite airplane. Maybe think about that for a second before you type your next response.
 
RudyP said:
You're too far gone for me to try to convince you on the internet. You need an in person intervention or to take a serious step back from the keyboard and look at your body of work on here. It isn't exactly unbiased - you're the epitome of the cherry picker on every little factoid you can think of. But I know you're just going to come back with some other BS because you just can't see it. I think other posters/readers do though so that's all that matters.

And please remember, I'm a big Mooney fan, I have never once disparaged your favorite airplane. Maybe think about that for a second before you type your next response.
Click to expand...

Again BS, never cherry picked. It has pluses it has minuses. It isn't for every mission. But it's very good as a traveling machine.

If you care to quote an example go for it, I even started this post saying if I didn't fly Mooney I'd fly Bonanza, and talked about how a Bo is probably more pleasant on the controls and nicer to land. So honestly, not sure what you're talking about. But again, if you want to be credible, not some vague stuff about "body of work" go ahead, quote something that's unreasonable. I happily concede if i say anything incorrect. But I see you didn't refute anything just said... And what exactly do you think I'm leaving out?

And re warning me to think through my next post, cmon, let's be adults here. If you have something factual to say or something to refute go for it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
steingar said:
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...
Also, although your insurance _rate_ is higher (because it accounts for gear-up landings), your hull value being lower offsets it.
 
I've been looking the past few months, and a Mooney would fit my mission profile and budget really well.
From what I've learned (from this forum too), an M20C should get you around 140kts true, an E or F will bump that up, and then a J will see 160kts (ish)...every plane is different, etc.
But there's a recent ad on controller.com that I just can't make sense of:
Here's a guy listing an M20J that only gets 137kts on 10.9gph.
Something seems fishy. Any ideas?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18943681/1990-mooney-m20j
 
Speeds vary wildly between specific planes of the same model.

The M20J I flew got about 150 knots on 9.0gph. That seems on the slow side for what a J is normally advertised for. Flog it to go a few knots faster.

I'd be skeptical of any E owner claiming 150knts without going up and testing it myself.
 
I can't believe this thread has gone 5 pages, and no one's suggested a Comanche. 155kts @75%, solid landing gear system, alodined at assembly so corrosion's not a problem. Rock solid Lycosaur, comfortable cabin and plenty of room in the rear seats if you get a 260B or C. Nice flying, stable platform, and the baggage door's in the right place for pups.

Easier to work on than the Mooney, parts cost less than the Bo.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Haha! Maybe!
But it makes it really difficult to shop, being unfamiliar with the models.
All this conflicting data makes it hard to determine the "truth".

I mean, could I really expect to see 145-150kts in this M20E?
With a lower to mid-time engine at $35K?
This just seems like it's too good to be true!

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/19066255/1964-mooney-m20e-super-21
Click to expand...

I am by no means a Mooney expert, I have flown a couple, and I have spent time on Mooneyspace.
But what I have found is there is a pretty wide range of performance for the unmodified versions of most Mooney models.
This seems to do with rigging, maintenance and how you choose to fly the plane.
However, if you go onto Mooneyspace and state you are considering Mooneys and ask for a model by model basic range and backround. You will get reasonable data that will help. From there you should be able to start looking at potential modifications.


Tim
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Errrr....no. o_O

Almost have the last cylinder off....then they get set away for a while....engine comes out and let the house keeping begin.
Click to expand...

If you need an extra set of hands, lemme know.
 
The 201 is really a sweet spot for Mooneys. They're really the fastest still using an I0360. To get more speed Mooney started using bigger engines just like everyone else.

An M20J is about as fast as you will go on 10g/hr. That said, you loose the very simple mechanical gear and flaps (J's are electric) and you get a somewhat bigger back seat. I like them a lot but didn't spring for one. I didn't have the extra cash to get one, and like I've said I view the diminutive back seat and Johnson bar as pluses, not minuses.
 
Adam Weiss said:
I've been looking the past few months, and a Mooney would fit my mission profile and budget really well.
From what I've learned (from this forum too), an M20C should get you around 140kts true, an E or F will bump that up, and then a J will see 160kts (ish)...every plane is different, etc.
But there's a recent ad on controller.com that I just can't make sense of:
Here's a guy listing an M20J that only gets 137kts on 10.9gph.
Something seems fishy. Any ideas?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18943681/1990-mooney-m20j
Click to expand...
In part it's bringing back the power. 11 GPH is a best power/65% setting. But I get 140-150 with even less.
 
To answer the main question, I have flown both. Love both. But if I was in the market and had to choose between them, it would be a Bonanza, mostly for how downright comfortable they are (not to mention being the world's easiest airplane to land ;)). From the first time I flew one, it felt like I was flying a living room.

If you want a bit of Mooney-like performance, you might think in terms of the 4-seat Debonair/F-series. I used to fly a Debonair with the IO-550 conversion (300 HP instead of 285) and, although I was flying at high D-Alt, which increases endurance, was typically getting about 165 kts and a 11 GPH fuel flow.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In part it's bringing back the power. 11 GPH is a best power/65% setting. But I get 140-150 with even less.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark.
But part of the things that confuse me is the variation like you mentioned.
For example, you mentioned getting 140-150.
Do you get 140kts at 65% or do you get 150kts at 65%?
If you fly a consistent rpm/mp/altitude, shouldn't TAS always be the same?
 
Adam Weiss said:
Thanks Mark.
But part of the things that confuse me is the variation like you mentioned.
For example, you mentioned getting 140-150.
Do you get 140kts at 65% or do you get 150kts at 65%?
If you fly a consistent rpm/mp/altitude, shouldn't TAS always be the same?
Click to expand...
Yeah but I don't fly at the same altitude all the time. That accounts for most of the difference I see in the same aircraft. Have you had a chance to look at a J's Speed, Power, Altitude chart? Even at book numbers (and we all know how they lie) there's about a 10 KT difference going from sea level to 8,000' at 65% power. Beyond that, the reason for his performance could be most anything. Weight for one, whether due to passengers or added equipment.
 
Adam Weiss said:
If you fly a consistent rpm/mp/altitude, shouldn't TAS always be the same?
Click to expand...

I find temp and high/low pressure WILL have an effect. My -35 would get around 140KTS true - a little less in the hot humid summer and a little more in the cold dry winter. Nearly a 10 KT spread..
 
keep in mind....we're starting to throw 200 HP versions into the mix....and that can be confusing vs. 300-310 HP Mooneys and V-tail'd Bonanzas. Just a different breed in the model lineup.
 
I've found this chart helpful for understanding the models on the Mooney side. There are a ton of variations not including speed mods people have done. Anyone have something similar for Beech?

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I've found this chart helpful for understanding the models on the Mooney side. There are a ton of variations not including speed mods people have done. Anyone have something similar for Beech?

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


This has some info but no performance specs. Slightly annoying soundtrack.
 
Pick the model.

https://www.bonanza.org/aircraft-index/browse-by-model/

As six noted - this assumes factory stock and flown "by the numbers". With a well maintained Bo (and I'm sure a Mooney) that is slick, a big engine (like my 205 HP) in an airframe designed for something smaller (165 HP for me) and the engine is not approved for full power.

And everyone obeys the POH all the time ....
 
Adam Weiss said:
I've been looking the past few months, and a Mooney would fit my mission profile and budget really well.
From what I've learned (from this forum too), an M20C should get you around 140kts true, an E or F will bump that up, and then a J will see 160kts (ish)...every plane is different, etc.
But there's a recent ad on controller.com that I just can't make sense of:
Here's a guy listing an M20J that only gets 137kts on 10.9gph.
Something seems fishy. Any ideas?

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18943681/1990-mooney-m20j
Click to expand...

He used MPH, but meant knots. This airplane stuff gets so confusing ;-)
 
teejayevans said:
He used MPH, but meant knots. This airplane stuff gets so confusing ;-)
Click to expand...
I thought so too, but if you take the 412nm divided by the 3hrs he states, you come up with 137kts.

From the ad, "This is a “Super Flying Aircraft” and frankly a joy to fly!! All things work and it is a top notch Aircraft! We use this aircraft for a 412 n.m. trip regularly. This trip is done in 3/hrs at a speed of 158 MPH with a fuel burn of exactly 10.9 g.p.h.!"
 
a guy on YT posts videos of his comanche 250. he can only get 145 true at 6k and 75pct. i was surprised so I messaged him, though the videos confirmed it. his is stock and has a 3 blade prop. most people would expect a comanche to get closer to 157-160 at wot altitudes and 75pct (aka 6-8k).

so there's certainly enough performance variance to require a test flight. 145 @ 14gph is terrible for a comanche imo. you can get that out of a lance, or even worse, a 182rg goes that fast on less gas, which is insane considering a 182 is as aerodynamically cleaned up as my arrow, if you catch my drift lol.
 
hindsight2020 said:
so there's certainly enough performance variance to require a test flight.
Click to expand...
I think that's the key.
Whether I settle on a Mooney, an RV, or anything else, I'll have to fly it to see how it actually performs.
All the research will get me in the ballpark to narrow in a few specific models, but ultimately, a test flight will be the litmus test.
 
Adam Weiss said:
I think that's the key.
Whether I settle on a Mooney, an RV, or anything else, I'll have to fly it to see how it actually performs.
All the research will get me in the ballpark to narrow in a few specific models, but ultimately, a test flight will be the litmus test.
Click to expand...
What state are you in?
 
Bonchie said:
Speeds vary wildly between specific planes of the same model.

The M20J I flew got about 150 knots on 9.0gph. That seems on the slow side for what a J is normally advertised for.
Click to expand...
I flew several different mid-80s M20Js and Ks (252s) in the early '90s, all stock and seemingly identical, all maintained to the same standards by the same operator. The variation in cruise speeds between individual Mooneys was much more than I've seen in other types.

Interestingly, one of the Js was the "Lean Machine" model, without an outside entry step. It was slower than others that did have the fixed step hanging out in the breeze.

I liked flying them a lot; just something I noticed.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
a guy on YT posts videos of his comanche 250. he can only get 145 true at 6k and 75pct. i was surprised so I messaged him, though the videos confirmed it. his is stock and has a 3 blade prop. most people would expect a comanche to get closer to 157-160 at wot altitudes and 75pct (aka 6-8k).

so there's certainly enough performance variance to require a test flight. 145 @ 14gph is terrible for a comanche imo. you can get that out of a lance, or even worse, a 182rg goes that fast on less gas, which is insane considering a 182 is as aerodynamically cleaned up as my arrow, if you catch my drift lol.
Click to expand...

He's got something out of rig, ailerons, gear doors, flaps...something. three blade might slow him a couple knots, but not that much. My buddy get 155Kts true out of his 260B with a two blade. I get 163 and have a three blade, but all the LoPo mods. I can get 140kts at 55% @ 10.1 gph just loafing around. Heck, a 180 can get 140kts on 4 cylinders at 10 gph.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
He's got something out of rig, ailerons, gear doors, flaps...something. three blade might slow him a couple knots, but not that much. My buddy get 155Kts true out of his 260B with a two blade. I get 163 and have a three blade, but all the LoPo mods. I can get 140kts at 55% @ 10.1 gph just loafing around. Heck, a 180 can get 140kts on 4 cylinders at 10 gph.
Click to expand...

Shoot, my 180 hp M20-C trues at 147 knots at 8000-10,000 msl, a little below WOT and 2500, and I have a 3-blade on the front . . . . . No fuel flow, but I've been running 9gph block time for the last decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top