KLRDMD

I prefer the Hot/Crazy matrix:

100% true !!!

More and more you're looking at "all Garmin" or "no Garmin" since they don't play nice with other manufacturers. Personally, I'm in the no Garmin camp.

Jimmy has three nice C models and a nice E model available: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/list/?pcid=17527&dlr=1

I never claimed that. There was an issue with the earliest airplanes, from the 1947 through mid 50s more or less. That was fixed 25 years ago. Even with an issue, if you flew those airplanes within the design parameters the chances were excellent that nothing bad would ever happen. How many 1947-mid 50s Mooney airplanes are we talking about in comparison? Oh, none? How about the early Mooneys? How did that early tail work out? The bottom line is, for the last 25 years there hasn't been an issue with these Bonanza yet people love to bring up ancient history. All airplane manufacturers have had problems. They get fixed. I see no need to continue this as it is not of any further benefit to anyone.

So it is the Bonanza's fault but not the Cirrus' fault ??? Interesting perspective.

Nothing is 100%. "Virtually all" is as close as can be said. What if it was 99%?

https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tail-tale-what-was-wrong-with-v-tail-bonanza-pilots "When the Bonanza came out in 1947, it was unlike anything else. It was aerodynamically clean and the very first ones would cruise 175 mph with a 165-horsepower engine. Bonanza pilots were either veterans or made up of a population much like today’s Cirrus pilots. The ex-military pilots were almost all bomber or transport pilots. I guess most fighter pilots wanted to just put the risks of flying behind them. That means that most Bonanza pilots were not used to such a clean airplane that was not stable in roll. Unlike the Cirrus, not much early Bonanza flying was IFR. It could be done but the system was pretty crude in the years after the war and there was little capacity. Not many of the ex-military pilots had instrument ratings as they were issued only to a limited number based on military experience. Even fewer civilian pilots had instrument ratings. So in the beginning, most Bonanza operations were VFR." This tells me the Bonanza pilot was a different person with a different background than many other GA airplanes of the time. Same as Cirrus today in many regards.

https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tail-tale-what-was-wrong-with-v-tail-bonanza-pilots "In virtually all the structure-related accidents the airplane was flown outside the envelope. Often as not this was the result of the pilot losing control." "There was a self-serving faction in general aviation, though, that went on a crusade to demonize the V-tail because of the in-flight structural failures." "It was determined from wreckage that when the airplane was operated in excess of the never exceed speed, the unsecured leading edge of the stabilizer would fail first, in an up or down direction."
 https://www.bonanza.org/community/member-forum/general-discussion/posts/feb-2010/v-tail-safety "V-tail structural safety is now pretty much a non-issue. Airworthiness Directives in 1994"
 "A fact no one ever talks about, is that other airplanes had a similar or worse record, such as the Piper Commanche. It had a worse break-up history during the 10-year period between '89 and '98 (Aviation Consumer, 6-02)."

Fly any airplane that's airworthy today inside the design parameters and you'll be fine. Not a big deal at all. All of this talk about wings coming off Bonanzas and tails coming off are simply scare tactics and not relevant today.

I like Mooneys. I really do. I flew the 231 2.5 hours today giving refresher instruction to the owner. This was my airplane previously and would still be if it had 200 lb more useful load. When I was looking to upgrade Jimmy had an Encore I looked at. But it had about 1,000 lb useful load which just doesn't meet my current needs. There are some Mooneys with 1,100+ lb useful load but they are two to three times the expense of a slightly less efficient, slightly slower on slightly more fuel Bonanza. My compromise (we all compromise) was an S35 Bonanza.

I don't recall ever needing 270 lb in the baggage area but if you're comparing it to a Mooney that's an impossible comparison as it is 150 lb more than the Mooney can accept. But just for fun I plugged in some numbers. With me (185 lb) and a 225 lb passenger in the right front seat, full fuel (74 gallons) and 270 lb in the baggage area I'm below gross weight and within CG in all flight regimens.

Not saying you're a liar. Saying something not right.

I have crawled into the baggage area to put my new registration in the holder on the very back of the baggage area and that didn't happen. And that is with the 42 lb air conditioning unit there. The arm of the baggage area is much further aft than the second row of seats. Sorry but something's fishy with that story.

I used to say the same thing about handling. I justified the handling on my Seneca the same way. It is on autopilot 90% of the time so what does it matter. But once you regularly fly an airplane with controls as perfectly harmonized as the Bonanza is, maybe you would see things differently. The baggage area is one major difference between Bonanzas and Mooneys. All Mooneys have the same dimension door, and the lift up and over requirement and I believe all have the same maximum weight (120 lb?). I have the large baggage door in my Bonanza which is much lower than a Mooney and the volume is about three times that of the Mooney. The maximum weight of 270lb is a bit higher than the Mooney too.