What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

Salty said:
It is, and I love it. But.....

While I love the Johnson bar gear, and the incredible efficiency, they both contribute to a rather cramped space for a cross country. There's nowhere to put stuff within reach. Charts, clipboards, a bottle of water... they have to go in the back seat. There's not really room for an iPad or even phone mount for a short person. I'm right up against the panel.

I haven't ridden in the bo yet, it it certainly looks roomier from the left front seat PoV
Click to expand...

First, I've been flying with an iPad with Foreflight, so gone are the days of my carrying charts. Phe! If the iPad breaks I can use my phone, or the panel mount GPS or even the old handheld GPS in the back. Its mounted on the yoke to stay out of my way. I have a kneeboard with a clipboard attached, anything else I need is right there. My Mooney even has a cupholder, though I don't drink water ever (fish do unmentionable things in it) and don't drink anything more opaque than that in the aircraft. and I LOVE the fact that I practically wear it, that's one of the things I really wanted in my airplane. The thing I like best about my Mooney though is it is the only aircraft in which I can see over the nose.
 
edslau33 said:
I don't know if this has been said but if you are much over six feet a moony is out.
Click to expand...

My god, will this myth ever die, or this thread.
And its M o o n e y, not money, moony, mony mony (but a great song). Since you can't spell it it's safe to assume you don't know what you're talking about.
 
I don't know I am 6 4 and when I was a much younger guy I got tapped to ferry one and it was a tight fit. I am also a little wide in the shoulders so that caused some complaints also from my partner. I think it depends on how you are built.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
steingar said:
First, I've been flying with an iPad with Foreflight, so gone are the days of my carrying charts. Phe! If the iPad breaks I can use my phone, or the panel mount GPS or even the old handheld GPS in the back. Its mounted on the yoke to stay out of my way. I have a kneeboard with a clipboard attached, anything else I need is right there. My Mooney even has a cupholder, though I don't drink water ever (fish do unmentionable things in it) and don't drink anything more opaque than that in the aircraft. and I LOVE the fact that I practically wear it, that's one of the things I really wanted in my airplane. The thing I like best about my Mooney though is it is the only aircraft in which I can see over the nose.
Click to expand...
I don't have room to mount an iPad or hold it on my lap comfortably in my mooney
 
teejayevans said:
My god, will this myth ever die, or this thread.
And its M o o n e y, not money, moony, mony mony (but a great song). Since you can't spell it it's safe to assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

No, it is money, money, Moneeyyyy.... When the AnP see's you pulling in! ;)
 
edslau33 said:
I don't know I am 6 4 and when I was a much younger guy I got tapped to ferry one and it was a tight fit. I am also a little wide in the shoulders so that caused some complaints also from my partner. I think it depends on how you are built.


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

If both front passengers have wide shoulders, the trick is to stagger the seat positions. And yes, they can be difficult to get in,out because of the low seating position. Al Mooney was 6'5", there is a guy on Mooneyspace that is 6'9". once you are in, and if you don't mind the sports car position, there is plenty of room.
 
Salty said:
I don't have room to mount an iPad or hold it on my lap comfortably in my mooney
Click to expand...
If yours is an M20c like mine you can mount an iPad mini on the yoke. That's where mine is. I agree, there isn't a lot of room for a full sized iPad. When Apple stops making the mini I'll probably switch platforms, unless the phone is the size of an iPad mini, which it might be by then.
 
teejayevans said:
If both front passengers have wide shoulders, the trick is to stagger the seat positions. And yes, they can be difficult to get in,out because of the low seating position. Al Mooney was 6'5", there is a guy on Mooneyspace that is 6'9". once you are in, and if you don't mind the sports car position, there is plenty of room.
Click to expand...

By the the proportions he built into the plane, Al Mooney was 5'6" and 120lb.
 
steingar said:
If yours is an M20c like mine you can mount an iPad mini on the yoke. That's where mine is. I agree, there isn't a lot of room for a full sized iPad. When Apple stops making the mini I'll probably switch platforms, unless the phone is the size of an iPad mini, which it might be by then.
Click to expand...
I had my phone on the yoke, and with my short legs, it was just annoying there. There isn't room between me and the yoke to attach stuff to it.
 
weilke said:
By the the proportions he built into the plane, Al Mooney was 5'6" and 120lb.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. Almost everyone I fly with is over 6 feet, some much taller, and none of them have issues. In fact, I have more issues because of how close I have to be to the panel.
 
weilke said:
By the the proportions he built into the plane, Al Mooney was 5'6" and 120lb.
Click to expand...

I just did an IPC this weekend in my short body Mooney:
  • me, left seat, middle notch. 5'11", 200 +
  • CFII, right seat, rear notch, 6'+, 220
  • half tanks (27 gals, capacity is 52 gal), 'cause that's what was in the plane
  • Filled up afterwards then flew home (no fuel at my base)
Everything went well. He was impressed with the space, climb rate and handling. We were 800+ fpm while still over the 5000' runway, with OAT pushing 90°. Yes, thank you, we are glad for the cooler temps! He wanted to log it as high performance afterwards, and was shocked when I told him it's 180 hp.

People who say things like small, cramped and only good for short people have obviously never sat in a Mooney, much less flown one!
 
Salty said:
I had my phone on the yoke, and with my short legs, it was just annoying there. There isn't room between me and the yoke to attach stuff to it.
Click to expand...

You can buy rudder pedal extensions, in either 3" or 6" length. That helps short-legged people be more comfortable. Remember, Al Mooney was 6'5", and he built himself a plane. It's up to us to make ourselves comfortable in it. I slide the seat forward one notch and sit on a 2" cushion; my 5'3" wife sits on 3 cushions . . . or she can't see over the nose.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Bo on grass is like riding on a cloud. Mooney on grass is like riding a washboard.
Click to expand...

I bought my Mooney for how well it flies every time, not how well it taxies on grass a couple of times a year. But honestly, it's not bad on grass, depending of course on the condition of the field.
 
Hank S said:
People who say things like small, cramped and only good for short people have obviously never sat in a Mooney, much less flown one!
Click to expand...

6'3", 205lb and yes I have flown one. Its cramped.
 
tspear said:
So if I say, Cirrus sells better than either the Bonanza or the Mooney, therefore it is better.

Tim
Click to expand...

Mc Donalds sells the most Hamburgers....do you consider it the best Burger you've ever tasted?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Mc Donalds sells the most Hamburgers....do you consider it the best Burger you've ever tasted?
Click to expand...
Wait, are you disrespecting the quality of my timex and casio collection?
 
and here it is...the 500th post in this thread.

After reading this entire thread I do have one question:

What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys?
 
edslau33 said:
I don't know if this has been said but if you are much over six feet a moony is out.
Click to expand...

I am SO sick of hearing this from people who have never been in a Mooney (or are under 6'). It is flat-out wrong.

Al Mooney was 6'5", and he built an airplane that fit him. The Mooney is a GREAT tall-person airplane! I'm 6'4" and I love the way it fits me.

AdamZ said:
By the way one other reason a Bo is better than a larger Mooney; We now know that a Bo can get out of 6Y9er with room to spare ;) LOL. Good seeing you Kelsey and the baby!
Click to expand...

You too!

The Mooney can theoretically get in and out of there, if I brush the trees with the landing gear on the way in. ;) Landing distance on grass is a bit over 3000 feet over a 50-foot obstacle and 1700 foot ground roll at ISA, 2000 feet, no wind, and max landing weight. Since the runway is 2600 I should have a couple hundred extra feet to the obstacles, right? :eek: Takeoff under the same conditions (except MGTOW) is 1300 foot ground roll and 2600 feet over a 50-foot obstacle.

But... Not comfortable doing that with the whole family on board plus gear, when I've not even done it solo yet.

tspear said:
Considering recent prices, what about the old venerable Twin Comanche or Seneca?
Click to expand...

Twin Comanche is slightly slower than a Bo but burns a little more fuel. (160-170 KTAS depending on rigging and speed mods, 15-16 gph total).

In comparison, the Seneca is kind of a pig - Tending toward the lower end of that speed range, but burning 22-24 gph. But, they all have six seats and that nice big back door.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I am SO sick of hearing this from people who have never been in a Mooney (or are under 6'). It is flat-out wrong.

Al Mooney was 6'5", and he built an airplane that fit him. The Mooney is a GREAT tall-person airplane! I'm 6'4" and I love the way it fits me..
Click to expand...
But....Didn't Al have a short torso? :eek:
 
Skyrys62 said:
and here it is...the 500th post in this thread.

After reading this entire thread I do have one question:

What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys?
Click to expand...

Are you working on 1,000 posts?

Two different airplanes that satisfy two different missions!

(IMO) Mooney airplanes are better looking which is subjective!
 
Guys, guys... this whole thread was totally unnecessary. Next time, just get my attention and -ask-.

Mooney.

Mistake Not... proud custodian of an '81 M20J.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Guys, guys... this whole thread was totally unnecessary. Next time, just get my attention and -ask-.

Mooney.

Mistake Not... proud custodian of an '81 M20J.
Click to expand...


Are Mooney's like cats? They own you?
 
Dunno about the general case, but writing the checks makes me feel like its *****, so...

(There was a thread recently about how we're just the current owners, and it's our job to pass them on in good condition, being antiques and all.)
 
Tall folks fit in Mooney aircraft just fine. The ones who really don't are, um, er, ...trying to find a way to say this diplomatically.....horizontally challenged? As in they're in shape, since round is a shape? Hopefully my drift is gotten without honking anyone off.

Mooney's were purpose built to go far and fast. They aren't the best at landing short fields, it isn't what they were built for, though they can do it. They really aren't all that good on grass, too short. I agree with the fellow who said he didn't get his aircraft of the twice yearly turf landings. I get that.

Really, asking which is better than the other is sort of dumb. Airplanes do different things. A Skylane goes about as fast, but burns lot more gas doing it. Bigger back seats, and they can power their way out of just about anything. Bo's are roomier in some dimensions, and they're Bo's, they have that mystique. Airplanes aren't necessarily "better", some just serve some better than others. I like my Mooney because it was very inexpensive for what I got, and has really simple bulletproof systems. That's whats important to me. I was just talking to a Twin Comanche owner who cited the cavernous interior of that aircraft. I couldn't argue, and if that's what's important, fine.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The Mooney . . .Landing distance on grass is a bit over 3000 feet over a 50-foot obstacle and 1700 foot ground roll at ISA, 2000 feet, no wind, and max landing weight. Since the runway is 2600 I should have a couple hundred extra feet to the obstacles, right? :eek: Takeoff under the same conditions (except MGTOW) is 1300 foot ground roll and 2600 feet over a 50-foot obstacle.
Click to expand...

Dude, what Mooney are you flying???

At sea level and gross, my C model lands over a 50' obstacle in 955' in the air and 595' on the ground, or 1550'; it takes off in 815' with another 580' to clear the same obstacle, or 1395' total. OK, at 2500 msl they total 1620' to land and 1760' to takeoff.

I used to visit a 2000' grass strip, 2 people and half tanks max, and never had a problem even whe landing over the cement factory's gracel pile at the north end (I41 on the bank of the Ohio River in WV). Now I go to the beach and land easily on 3550' feet of sometimes-mowed grass, with wife and gear for a week and never have a problem; I may have gone over 2000' landing over the pine trees at night, though, they're pretty close.

My experience is that rollout on turf is shorter than pavement, and the takeoff roll is slightly longer. But not 1000' longer to land! Are you flying 1.3 Vso and not adding 5 knots for the wife, 5 knots for the kids and 5 knots for good luck?
 
I've never been afraid of the length of grass strips, I've landed fairly diminutive asphalt ones without incident (well, there was one...). What worries me far more is the condition of turf strips. The Mooney's prop is but inches off the ground. One gopher hole, mole hill, or Odin knows what and its a prop strike for me. That is, what I feel, the Mooney's chief weakness. A good stick can get it into a short space, really not that much more than any other aircraft that isn't specifically built for that purpose. But heaven help you if something sticks to far into or out of the ground. Heck, I was on pins and needles taxiing in the grass at Oshkosh!
 
FloridaPilot said:
No,

My point was high sales and quality can be totally two different things.
Click to expand...

What is quality? Quality really when you think about it is consistently meeting expectations; normally with a positive result or perception of value.
McDeath does that in spades. But, no, it is not a "good" hamburger :D

Tim
 
I'm flying an M20R Ovation. It weighs 800 pounds more than your C model, but has the same wing. Thus, it needs to fly faster to be able to lift itself. And the numbers I gave are straight out of the book. I don't do the extra-knots-for-the-wife thing, the Mooney is stable and very easy to not stall on final but is not particularly forgiving of extra speed on landing.

I have landed at a now-closed strip in the Bahamas that was listed at 2,600 feet, but is actually only 2,200. Between the wrong length, heat, and the sand-covered (slippery) surface, well, it turned into my scariest landing ever. Luckily, between some good habits in surveying the area thanks to the mountain flying course I took and the road at the end of the runway I was able to turn onto, I didn't put the plane in the drink... But it certainly gave me more of an appreciation for the necessity of doing better planning when landing at sub-3000 foot runways in the Ovation.

Hank S said:
Dude, what Mooney are you flying???

At sea level and gross, my C model lands over a 50' obstacle in 955' in the air and 595' on the ground, or 1550'; it takes off in 815' with another 580' to clear the same obstacle, or 1395' total. OK, at 2500 msl they total 1620' to land and 1760' to takeoff.

I used to visit a 2000' grass strip, 2 people and half tanks max, and never had a problem even whe landing over the cement factory's gracel pile at the north end (I41 on the bank of the Ohio River in WV). Now I go to the beach and land easily on 3550' feet of sometimes-mowed grass, with wife and gear for a week and never have a problem; I may have gone over 2000' landing over the pine trees at night, though, they're pretty close.

My experience is that rollout on turf is shorter than pavement, and the takeoff roll is slightly longer. But not 1000' longer to land! Are you flying 1.3 Vso and not adding 5 knots for the wife, 5 knots for the kids and 5 knots for good luck?
Click to expand...
 
edslau33 said:
I don't know if this has been said but if you are much over six feet a moony is out.


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

Huh? Have you ever sat in a Mooney? Wait. I know the answer to that.

I am 6'1" and can get either front seat back so far that the rudder pedals are probably at least six inches from the farthest reach of my feet. Now... you want to talk about limited width? You can make an argument about that, but fore/aft room for pilot/copilot, no sweat.
 
Someone asked what Aircraft I learned to fly in. They asked this because I said that I thought that the cockpit of a 172 seems weird. So I learned to fly in an Aeronca Champ. From there to a 150. Have spent most of my hours in a Mooney and a Cessna 140.

BTW, I hope no one took offense. I just think it is an odd arrangement with the walls between the doors and the panel. I am sure that it is nothing more than just what one gets used to.
 
Last edited:
I agree, It really is a dumb question. To begin with, the bonanza is a Buick sedan, the Mooney is similar to a 911 Porsche. I've driven a Buick, I've owned a 911 and a Cayman. I'm six feet even and weigh 185 lbs. no problem at all with the Mooney concerning room. Plenty of room. It's what appeals to you which is why a person looking for a roomy Buick sedan would not buy a 911. I've flown both a bonanza ( probably 100 hours total in a 36 and about 400 hours in both a super 21 and later in a 201. ) all three are great aircraft for their specific missions and I agree 100 percent with those describing landing on grass in a Mooney. You must be very careful about the condition of the field and one must hold the yolk aaaallll the way back while taxiing. Easy to hit the prop. Slow and easy. Bonanza much better at this. 2000 feet of asphalt is good for either one depending on passenger load and gas. With just pilot either is fine with decent approach and half tanks on hot day. Years ago I went from 200 hours in an 85 champ to a super 21 and after a two hour checkout with a real Mooney pro I was turned loose and did well. All about speed on final, paying attention. ( the super 21 was based at the same 2000 ft. Asphalt strip. No problem.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top