What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

Hank S said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the kind of numbers that confuse a potential M20 buyer (me). Chip says a 180hp M20-C will get around 140, you say 147, and I was just down at the airport talking with a guy upgrading from his M20-C for the last 18 years to an -F, and he said he regularly got 135kts.
I know this kind of hi-jacked the original Mooney vs. Bo, but I can't figure out what the real numbers for an M20-C are! All equal, 8K, best performance (whatever that is, WOT, 2500, etc), should I expect 135kts or 147kts? Big difference.
 
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...
Not to change the subject ;) but what's the channel for these videos? I used to fly a Comanche 250 so wouldn't mind taking a peek.
 
Adam Weiss said:
This is exactly the kind of numbers that confuse a potential M20 buyer (me). Chip says a 180hp M20-C will get around 140, you say 147, and I was just down at the airport talking with a guy upgrading from his M20-C for the last 18 years to an -F, and he said he regularly got 135kts.
I know this kind of hi-jacked the original Mooney vs. Bo, but I can't figure out what the real numbers for an M20-C are! All equal, 8K, best performance (whatever that is, WOT, 2500, etc), should I expect 135kts or 147kts? Big difference.
Click to expand...

The Owners Manual says 165 mph, or 140 knots. But previous owners installed two speed mods (closed the oversized cowl opening, and put in the sloped windshield from the J model for improved aerodynamics; many people told me the 3 blade climbs well but cruises slowly, but I haven't found that second part to be true).

Part of the difference is that we are discussing planes that are 40-50 years old and have various modifications made. The E, F, J and all later models are fuel injected, so they may be flying LOP, which reduces fuel flow and speed but increases mpg. So ya gotta ask.

Then there is rigging. If the plane won't fly straight hands-off, it's out of whack and flying less than straight, increasing drag and decreasing speed. I fixed the flapper on my carb heat and picked up almkst 10 mph in cruise, from i dicating 133 moh to ~145 mph at 9500 (145 + [2% * 9.5 * 145] = 145 + 27.5 = 172.5 mph = 150 KTAS). Yes, i have panel shots, including the TAS page on my 430W showing 147 and 148 KTAS.

Investigate, talk to the seller or your friend, and go to ride.
 
Adam Weiss said:
but I can't figure out what the real numbers for an M20-C are! All equal, 8K, best performance (whatever that is, WOT, 2500, etc), should I expect 135kts or 147kts? Big difference.
Click to expand...
@Hank S just explained it very well. To summarize, there is no defined exact number. All planes this many years old are going to have differences. 2 vs 3 blade props. New vs tired engines. Perfect rigging vs a little sloppy. Lot of less than aerodynamic antennas vs not so much. LOP vs ROP. WOT and 2500 rpm or something less and 2300 rpm. Max gross weight or less. Summer vs winter. The list of variability's is long. I would take his word for his 147kts based on his exact listed operating procedures and mods. Test fly one you're interested in and verify. You could always clean up a few knots down the road. @Ted DuPuis has written nicely about getting quite a few extra knots out of his old 310.
 
Radar Contact said:
I say we find a couple Aztec and Baron drivers to argue with so we can mix up the POA Mooney, Bo, Cirrus arguments. What do you say @GRG55 ;)
Click to expand...

I agree completely! We seriously need a "Which Twin is Better..." thread. Eggman can weigh in with the oil burner arguments, Ted can argue the merits of pressurized hulls with piston turbochargers, the Baron folks can one up their Bonanza cousins (I noticed at OSH the EAA appropriately parked the B2O Barons in FRONT of the Bonanza rows, as they rightly should). We can really mix it up in the Piper versus Cessna twin debate (everyone knows those bird-like fragile Cessna gear legs are an accident waiting to happen :rolleyes: ) And the twin thread should have more picture evidence instead of all that baseless wordy invective the singles crowd are so fond of. ;) :D

I can feel the hate mail coming already...
 
Adam Weiss said:
This is exactly the kind of numbers that confuse a potential M20 buyer (me). Chip says a 180hp M20-C will get around 140, you say 147, and I was just down at the airport talking with a guy upgrading from his M20-C for the last 18 years to an -F, and he said he regularly got 135kts.
I know this kind of hi-jacked the original Mooney vs. Bo, but I can't figure out what the real numbers for an M20-C are! All equal, 8K, best performance (whatever that is, WOT, 2500, etc), should I expect 135kts or 147kts? Big difference.
Click to expand...
My m20C gets 140kts at 2500 wot at 8000 feet
 
Adam Weiss said:
This is exactly the kind of numbers that confuse a potential M20 buyer (me). Chip says a 180hp M20-C will get around 140, you say 147, and I was just down at the airport talking with a guy upgrading from his M20-C for the last 18 years to an -F, and he said he regularly got 135kts.
I know this kind of hi-jacked the original Mooney vs. Bo, but I can't figure out what the real numbers for an M20-C are! All equal, 8K, best performance (whatever that is, WOT, 2500, etc), should I expect 135kts or 147kts? Big difference.
Click to expand...
Rigging is HUGE with Mooneys. Just a little off and you see big speed differences.

Example: I dropped my flaps one turn on the up stop (roughly 2 degrees) and got 3KTAS more. They are that sensitive. Yes, checked with four-heading groundspeed.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
My "F" sits at 147 KTAS at 6500 msl on 9.8 GPH.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
mwagg737 said:
Rigging is HUGE with Mooneys. Just a little off and you see big speed differences.

Example: I dropped my flaps one turn on the up stop (roughly 2 degrees) and got 3KTAS more. They are that sensitive. Yes, checked with four-heading groundspeed.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Drag goes up at speed squared. The lower the drag coefficient the higher the top speed per hp. But also the more sensitive the airframe is to any imperfection, misrigging etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
I agree completely! We seriously need a "Which Twin is Better..." thread. Eggman can weigh in with the oil burner arguments, Ted can argue the merits of pressurized hulls with piston turbochargers, the Baron folks can one up their Bonanza cousins (I noticed at OSH the EAA appropriately parked the B2O Barons in FRONT of the Bonanza rows, as they rightly should). We can really mix it up in the Piper versus Cessna twin debate (everyone knows those bird-like fragile Cessna gear legs are an accident waiting to happen :rolleyes: ) And the twin thread should have more picture evidence instead of all that baseless wordy invective the singles crowd are so fond of. ;) :D

I can feel the hate mail coming already...
Click to expand...

You start the thread and I'll get the popcorn ready...:yikes:. This is going to be fun...:goofy:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
BS...maybe with a 20-30kt tail wind. :D
Click to expand...

TAS isn't affected by winds, GS is. On that trip, my TAS was 172 knots on 10.1 gph, like I stated. Groundspeed varied between 191 and 202 IIRC, so that would have been 19-30 knots of tailwind, not unexpected for an easterly leg at 13,000. Flight time from KSAF to KOVS via TAFOY2.FTI CIM TBI, a total distance of 879nm, took 4:37 (air time, takeoff to touchdown) and burned 53 gallons of fuel (total including taxi). So, including the climb, I averaged 190 knots GS and 11.48 gph. While we're at it, that's 16.6 nm/gal or 19.1 sm/gal, which is better than the Jeep we were driving at the time would have done at 1/4 the speed!

GRG55 said:
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
Click to expand...

Are you sure that wasn't a whine cellar? ;)

Chip Sylverne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I love me some Comanche... But let's be real, the newest ones were built in 1972. They're gonna be more difficult and costly to maintain than a bird that's 30-50 years newer.

But, if you're OK with that, the difference in purchase price will pay for a lot of mx and gas. I just don't look at them the same as I used to with their age.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
TAS isn't affected by winds, GS is. On that trip, my TAS was 172 knots on 10.1 gph, like I stated. Groundspeed varied between 191 and 202 IIRC, so that would have been 19-30 knots of tailwind, not unexpected for an easterly leg at 13,000. Flight time from KSAF to KOVS via TAFOY2.FTI CIM TBI, a total distance of 879nm, took 4:37 (air time, takeoff to touchdown) and burned 53 gallons of fuel (total including taxi). So, including the climb, I averaged 190 knots GS and 11.48 gph. While we're at it, that's 16.6 nm/gal or 19.1 sm/gal, which is better than the Jeep we were driving at the time would have done at 1/4 the speed!.
Click to expand...
well, ya, but....many don't really know how to calculate or use TAS.

I'm still doubtful that you were seeing 172 TAS on 10 gph....maybe 13-14 gph, but 10? nah, that's incredible....or phenomenal. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well, ya, but....many don't really know how to calculate or use TAS.

I'm still doubtful that you were seeing 172 TAS on 10 gph....maybe 13-14 gph, but 10? nah, that's incredible....or phenomenal. :D
Click to expand...

Seems possible, I regularly see 13nmpg on the Ovations which are a little less efficient generally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Drag goes up at speed squared. The lower the drag coefficient the higher the top speed per hp.
Click to expand...
Not exactly...Total drag is parasitic + induced.
Parasitic drag goes at speed cubed, but induced drag drops as a function of speed. So as the speed rises, induced drag goes down but parasitic drag goes way up. Once you get above 300 induced drag almost can be ignored. Even at 175 the parasitic drag is something the like 5x the induced drag.
 
teejayevans said:
Not exactly...Total drag is parasitic + induced.
Parasitic drag goes at speed cubed, but induced drag drops as a function of speed. So as the speed rises, induced drag goes down but parasitic drag goes way up. Once you get above 300 induced drag almost can be ignored. Even at 175 the parasitic drag is something the like 5x the induced drag.
Click to expand...

And all the drag from misrig or antennas etc is parasitic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
teejayevans said:
Not exactly...Total drag is parasitic + induced.
Parasitic drag goes at speed cubed, . . .
Click to expand...

Parasitic drag goes up as speed squared, power required goes up as speed cubed (ignoring the effect of induced drag).
 
Hank S said:
The Owners Manual says 165 mph, or 140 knots. But previous owners installed two speed mods (closed the oversized cowl opening, and put in the sloped windshield from the J model for improved aerodynamics; many people told me the 3 blade climbs well but cruises slowly, but I haven't found that second part to be true).

Part of the difference is that we are discussing planes that are 40-50 years old and have various modifications made. The E, F, J and all later models are fuel injected, so they may be flying LOP, which reduces fuel flow and speed but increases mpg. So ya gotta ask.

Then there is rigging. If the plane won't fly straight hands-off, it's out of whack and flying less than straight, increasing drag and decreasing speed. I fixed the flapper on my carb heat and picked up almkst 10 mph in cruise, from i dicating 133 moh to ~145 mph at 9500 (145 + [2% * 9.5 * 145] = 145 + 27.5 = 172.5 mph = 150 KTAS). Yes, i have panel shots, including the TAS page on my 430W showing 147 and 148 KTAS.

Investigate, talk to the seller or your friend, and go to ride.
Click to expand...

I have never just cobbed the throttle to see what kind of top speed My C could achieve. I did check true airspeed on a trip from Galveston to Mount Peasant July 4th. At 8,500' 21/24(about 70% power) calculations showed 160 TAS or about 136 or 137 knots. It burned less than 8.5 GPH, but I am not sure they topped off the fuel tank to the brim.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well, ya, but....many don't really know how to calculate or use TAS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're the ones who drive non-Mooneys. Haven't you heard about us Mooney guys? We'll pay $500 to get the plane waxed to get half a knot more out of it. ;)

I'm still doubtful that you were seeing 172 TAS on 10 gph....maybe 13-14 gph, but 10? nah, that's incredible....or phenomenal. :D
Click to expand...

Well, we can do this a few different ways:

1) Calculation. I was LOP, which means my 10.1 gph = 150.49 hp, or 54% power. The atmospheric pressure ratio at 13,000 feet is 0.6113 * 2300/2500 for the reduced RPM = 56% power.

2) POH performance charts. Book fuel flow for best economy and 55% at 12,000 and 2300 RPM is 10.2 gph.

Book cruise speed for 55% at 13,000 feet and standard temp is 175 KTAS. Alas, I do not have any record of the temp, but it was April so it was likely somewhat colder than ISA, which would reduce TAS slightly.

3) Photo evidence. Unfortunately, my autopilot wasn't working so I was hand-flying and had gotten bumped up a bit (+40 feet) so the TAS went down a hair to 168 in this pic, but you can see the fuel flow. And yes, my fuel flow unit is accurate to within a gallon on every fillup, so less than 2.5% error which wouldn't change the number here.

IMG_2662.JPG
 
MBDiagMan said:
I have never just cobbed the throttle to see what kind of top speed My C could achieve. I did check true airspeed on a trip from Galveston to Mount Peasant July 4th. At 8,500' 21/24(about 70% power) calculations showed 160 TAS or about 136 or 137 knots. It burned less than 8.5 GPH, but I am not sure they topped off the fuel tank to the brim.
Click to expand...

Thats not wide open . . . I pull the throttle back until the MP needle starts to move, set RPM (at 8000 msl and up, 2500) and lean to 50° ROP. In the Owners Manual, flying light with this power setting, is 158 mph at 7500 and 160 mph at 10,000. The 201 windshield helps some, and I've got a 3 blade pulling me along.
 
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...

This is why a Mooney is better than a 172:

 
flyingcheesehead said:
3) Photo evidence. Unfortunately, my autopilot wasn't working so I was hand-flying and had gotten bumped up a bit (+40 feet) so the TAS went down a hair to 168 in this pic, but you can see the fuel flow. And yes, my fuel flow unit is accurate to within a gallon on every fillup, so less than 2.5% error which wouldn't change the number here.

View attachment 55866
Click to expand...

Still pictures are not evidence, I can go into a dive, level out, and be 20 knots above cruise speed. I'm not saying you would do that but you need to post video!
Edit: I just saw the 172 video, that's great!
 
So in all this chest beating.
How many have run multiple four course speed calibrations?
I have found some pretty wild inaccuracies, especially on older planes.

Tim
 
My experience almost to the letter. 8k feet 2400 rpm and whatever fuel pressure remains, I think 19 or 20 inches. 140 knots on what looks like 8.5 gallons an hour. Not in the descent, not on a winters day. All day. Find me another aircraft that can do that.

The fellow reporting 147 knots runs a bit hotter than I and has some airframe modifications. I believe his numbers. What amazes me is you can buy this kind of speed and efficiency for Skyhawk money.

I honestly apologize for being so repetitive and geeky. But I am still amazed at what the Mooney will do.
 
steingar said:
My experience almost to the letter. 8k feet 2400 rpm and whatever fuel pressure remains, I think 19 or 20 inches. 140 knots on what looks like 8.5 gallons an hour. Not in the descent, not on a winters day. All day. Find me another aircraft that can do that.

The fellow reporting 147 knots runs a bit hotter than I and has some airframe modifications. I believe his numbers. What amazes me is you can buy this kind of speed and efficiency for Skyhawk money.

I honestly apologize for being so repetitive and geeky. But I am still amazed at what the Mooney will do.
Click to expand...

I did that yesterday in a rental Cirrus SR20 for fuel flow (RPM was higher). Now, not old skyhawk money. But other planes can do it.
I am willing to bet a Super Viking can also, and many RVs, and a Lancair 320, or a Columbia 350 or a Velocity.....


Tim
 
tspear said:
I did that yesterday in a rental Cirrus SR20 for fuel flow (RPM was higher). Now, not old skyhawk money. But other planes can do it.
I am willing to bet a Super Viking can also, and many RVs, and a Lancair 320, or a Columbia 350 or a Velocity.....


Tim
Click to expand...
We talked about the Cirrus earlier in the thread, at the same speed the fuel flow is about 3 gph more, the fixed gear costs you in efficiency, physics gets in the way, no way around it.
Ignoring 2 seaters, yes
Super Viking is close (6knots slower), any modern aircraft should be able to match or better it, we're talking about a plane designed in 1960s, if you can't do better decades later you suck at aircraft
design.
 
teejayevans said:
We talked about the Cirrus earlier in the thread, at the same speed the fuel flow is about 3 gph more, the fixed gear costs you in efficiency, physics gets in the way, no way around it.
Ignoring 2 seaters, yes
Super Viking is close (6knots slower), any modern aircraft should be able to match or better it, we're talking about a plane designed in 1960s, if you can't do better decades later you suck at aircraft
design.
Click to expand...

The fixed gear is a minimal penalty. If it was such a big penalty, then both Bonanza and Mooney would have been selling like hot cakes against the inefficient Cirrus/TTx(Corvalis, Columbia or whatever it is called now).
I run close to WOT, pull back the mixture to 9.5 GPH and I have pretty consistently been getting 145 KTAS between 8-10K.

Tim
 
Jeff Cutler said:
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... ;)
Click to expand...

It really comes down to mission which the OP wasn't really clear. What is the Airplane going to be used for?

kayoh190 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

IMO I think it's the other way around. Mooneys are better looking airplanes. Take for example the Bonanza A36 you can remove all the seats in the back with just a few tabs you can also change out the seating arrangement from club seating to forward facing also the Bonanza can have baggage of up to 400 lbs. Not many airplanes in it's class has the flexibility of an A36.

teejayevans said:
We talked about the Cirrus earlier in the thread, at the same speed the fuel flow is about 3 gph more, the fixed gear costs you in efficiency, physics gets in the way, no way around it.
Ignoring 2 seaters, yes
Super Viking is close (6knots slower), any modern aircraft should be able to match or better it, we're talking about a plane designed in 1960s, if you can't do better decades later you suck at aircraft
design.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the Cirrus would've been faster if it were a retract?
 
tspear said:
The fixed gear is a minimal penalty. If it was such a big penalty, then both Bonanza and Mooney would have been selling like hot cakes against the inefficient Cirrus/TTx(Corvalis, Columbia or whatever it is called now).
I run close to WOT, pull back the mixture to 9.5 GPH and I have pretty consistently been getting 145 KTAS between 8-10K.

Tim
Click to expand...

Obviously the conditions matter: temp, humidity, weight
From the POHs, which are standardized...
Mooney is way faster...on 0.1 gph less fuel flow:

e77a9917155a6592c48c49a9f7655288.jpg
a645c3559255b68da87c5eec719f9728.jpg


Many don't like the seating position, or the lack of a chute, and clearly the modern car like interior has appeal over the Mooney.
There is lots like about the Cirrus, but stop trying to convince people that is fast and efficient, especially compared to a Mooney.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a Cirrus would be faster without the fixed gear. Would it be faster than a Mooney I can't say, but it would be close.
 
Oh my. Six pages of opinions and we'll likely have another six shortly. I'll answer this way.

Speed- Mooney
Fuel Economy - Equal, may have an edge to Mooney
Cabin Space - Bonanza
Cabin Comfort - Bonanza
Service ease - Bonanza
Landing gear toughness - Bonanza
Landing Gear Servicing - Bonanza
Parts Cost - Bonanza
Landing in cross winds - Bonanza
Safety Cage - Mooney
Payload - Depends on models of each
Parts Availability - Equal, may have an edge to Bonanza
Parts Cost - Bonanza
Range - I believe the Bonanza takes the lead here if equipped with tip tanks.

We can likely come up with a couple other categories to compare.

Back to regular programming...
 
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 . . . ).

And I've never had a problem with crosswinds, including variable from right quartering headwind to right quartering tailwind, gusting into the 20s.
 
In my case, it wasn't an opinion, I backed it up.
Crosswinds go to Mooney, lower profile, more effective rudder, hence the reason for the backwards tail.
Landing gear toughness, service no... but they are easier to land.
Bonanza parts are inexpensive? Not what I have been told.
 
teejayevans said:
In my case, it wasn't an opinion, I backed it up.
Crosswinds go to Mooney, lower profile, more effective rudder, hence the reason for the backwards tail.
Landing gear toughness, service no... but they are easier to land.
Bonanza parts are inexpensive? Not what I have been told.
Click to expand...

More effective rudder, because of the backwards tail?
:rofl:
 
I don't know what it would do to cost or useful load, but I'd love to see the speeds of a retrac cirrus. I know the landing gear is cleaner, but at 170+ knots, I'm sure the drag has to have a decent effect.
 
Just about any taildragger... oops, thought you said what plane is overall better than Bo's or Mooners


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top