Love my Mooney, but...

[Lood]

Be sure to check out the aft CG on that Bonanza.  Useful load doesn't do much good if it all has to be in the front two rows.

 

Bob

 

Hi Bob, although I'm not aware of CG issues on the 36 Bonanza, my idea is to remove seats 5 & 6 in anyway, and use it as a proper 4 seat airplane with the ability to load just about anything in the back.

A friend of mine flies a C210T and they did the same. Probably bit of a waste, but the rearmost two seats in a C210 is just an afterthought in anyway. Regardless, the airplane is now a really comfy 4 seater, with more space and weight carrying ability than one would ever need - almost.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Dave,

 

I have flown the AN2 in Bulgaria, actually I am checked out as PIC on them (they are multi crew planes and in BG are flown with a crew of two).

 

I love to fly it. If I had the possibility, I would love to buy one of the ones of the former BG Aeroclub, but their fuel flow is simply too much in Europe (they will use up to 60 GPH), let alone the 30 USG oil tank.

 

We did crop dusting and para dropping with them, had a ball flying at 15 ft over the fields (or our training ground, the rowing channel at Plovdiv) and landing on the small agricultural aerodromes or occasionally

 

I do not find the controls heavier than comparable other airplanes. It is fairly easy to fly per se, if you know how to fly taildraggers. Rolling on the ground is a different story. The brake system is pneumatic and quite interesting to master. The control lever resembles a bicycle brake and depending on the position of the rudder pedal it will control one or both brakes. Taxiing is rather more taxing than actually flying it. 

 

Engine control is basically done by the person in the right hand seat and he has his hands full. There are separate cowl flaps for the actual engine and the oil cooler. Both temperatures need to be observed, CHT and Oil Temps and controled using the separate cowl flaps. The mixture is regulated with an Auto Mixture setting during short trips, for long haul it can be regulated manually. The engine is the main reason that two people are a very good idea when you go flying. Only the AN2 M is actually single pilot approved but in order to get that authorisation, you need a few hundred hours as PIC on the 2 crew version. The guy in the RH seat can be either a copilot or a flight engineer, in which case his function is purely to cater to the engine.

 

We had aggro versions with chemical tanks in the cabin, we had several so called desant versions (para drop) and we had one beautifully kept pax version complete with 17 passenger seats and hatracks. Interestingly, the seats did not have seatbelts. I wonder what happened to that plane, I never saw it again.

 

At the time, there were some 300 AN2 I know of active in Bulgaria (1995). Today, it is less than a dozen, thanks to EU air regulations invading this country. Not only the AN2s are mostly grounded or gone, also most of the AN12 freighters and IL18 passenger planes are today flying under a different flag.

 

I hope to getting to fly it again some time.

 

One of the survivors 2011 in Primorsko

My C Model at Primorsko Airfield together with the AN2 owned by an outfit in Stara Zagora which does Paradrop flights there during summer.

 

The panel of one of the ex Aeroclub airplanes. That is pretty much how I remember the AN2 cockpit as we had it.

[jetdriven]

I addition to the very standard suggestions to solve the growing family problem of Bonanza, Saratoga, 210 and various twins, I'd like to add the RV-10. This gets you out from under the government squeeze and allows you to have the very latest avionics, do whatever mods you see fit, work on it yourself and save a load of money. If I ever leave the Mooney fold, it will be for an experimental.

155 knots, 12 gph, and 125K.  Sounds like a M20J but requires 2000 hours to build. Buying a completed one you cant get the repairman's certificate for it. Still gotta pay to repair. 

 

Also since its an IO-540 the overhaul costs more than an IO-360, its experimental so perhaps the same but not less.

 

I guess i fail to see the value in the RV-10.  The other ones are fantastic.

[AndyFromCB]

155 knots, 12 gph, and 125K.  Sounds like a M20J but requires 2000 hours to build. Buying a completed one you cant get the repairman's certificate for it. Still gotta pay to repair. 

 

Also since its an IO-540 the overhaul costs more than an IO-360, its experimental so perhaps the same but not less.

 

I guess i fail to see the value in the RV-10.  The other ones are fantastic.

 

You can still work on it yourself, just cannot perform the inspection but you can perform all the fixes, modifications.

 

Parallel valve IO540 can be overhauled for about the same price as angle valve IO360.

 

Value is in avionics, you can have an amazing glass panel for $30K with one amazing autopilot. You'd have to spend about $80K to replicate that panel in a M20J.

[DaV8or]

155 knots, 12 gph, and 125K.  Sounds like a M20J but requires 2000 hours to build. Buying a completed one you cant get the repairman's certificate for it. Still gotta pay to repair. 

 

Also since its an IO-540 the overhaul costs more than an IO-360, its experimental so perhaps the same but not less.

 

I guess i fail to see the value in the RV-10.  The other ones are fantastic.

 

You can work on it yourself, you just can't sign off on the annual. It's advantage is a much roomier cabin front and back and it has a greater payload. As suggested above, you can also upgrade it at a fraction the cost and with far more options.

 

I personally don't want one. They have no appeal to me except for the experimental part. If I ever switch planes, it will be an experimental. This certified stuff is getting nauseating.

 

I found out today that a replacement landing gear switch, the one in the panel for my plane and I bet yours too, is $300!! FOR A SIMPLE DOUBLE POLE SWITCH! I guess I won't be replacing mine after all. I figured OK, it's a specialized switch, so real world it should cost maybe $40. So I figured the certified airplane tax would make it like $120-150. NO! Three hundred dollars!!! ... ...

 

Forget it. I'll take my chances with my 50 year old switch.

[Lood]

RV10 surely is a fantastic and very capable airplane, but they're simply too expensive. You can buy a very good A36 or C210 for less than half the price of the RV, which leaves you with quite a bit of spare cash to spend on maintenance.

[Marauder]

You can work on it yourself, you just can't sign off on the annual. It's advantage is a much roomier cabin front and back and it has a greater payload. As suggested above, you can also upgrade it at a fraction the cost and with far more options.

I personally don't want one. They have no appeal to me except for the experimental part. If I ever switch planes, it will be an experimental. This certified stuff is getting nauseating.

I found out today that a replacement landing gear switch, the one in the panel for my plane and I bet yours too, is $300!! FOR A SIMPLE DOUBLE POLE SWITCH! I guess I won't be replacing mine after all. I figured OK, it's a specialized switch, so real world it should cost maybe $40. So I figured the certified airplane tax would make it like $120-150. NO! Three hundred dollars!!! ... ...

Forget it. I'll take my chances with my 50 year old switch.

Thanks for the info on the situation. I replaced my original switch back in the 90s in the process of troubleshooting a gear breaker popping issue. Kept the switch. Now I need to find it and put it in the vault with the other valuables.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alan Fox]

The Bonanzas are 4 seat aircraft (in reality) , the CG issues are from the V tail models , not the Straight tails....  I think the sweet spot for the A-36 would be the early to late 70s models...... The best part of owning a Bonanza is the fact that there are a million mods and stc's  for these aircraft , also there is continuity of parts from the 60s on up..... If you need a part , it is available second hand and everybody has one , driving the cost down....They have barn doors for passengers , and emergency exit windows , which can be opened up on the ground.....(you wont bake waiting for a clearance in the summer)....  They can be stretched out to 4000 lbs gross...(although you would need LOTS of runway to get off in heat) ... As far as ownership , you cant beat em....Also very nimble on the controls and can be flown very aggressively and very forgiving , (Ask Marauder about my approach when I dropped him off last year)  , If your only mission is speed , Than the Mooney is a great aircraft , if not , the Beech is probably the best piston Single out there.......  Or maybe the Cirrus ,

[AndyFromCB]

The Bonanzas are 4 seat aircraft (in reality) , the CG issues are from the V tail models , not the Straight tails....  I think the sweet spot for the A-36 would be the early to late 70s models...... The best part of owning a Bonanza is the fact that there are a million mods and stc's  for these aircraft , also there is continuity of parts from the 60s on up..... If you need a part , it is available second hand and everybody has one , driving the cost down....They have barn doors for passengers , and emergency exit windows , which can be opened up on the ground.....(you wont bake waiting for a clearance in the summer)....  They can be stretched out to 4000 lbs gross...(although you would need LOTS of runway to get off in heat) ... As far as ownership , you cant beat em....Also very nimble on the controls and can be flown very aggressively and very forgiving , (Ask Marauder about my approach when I dropped him off last year)  , If your only mission is speed , Than the Mooney is a great aircraft , if not , the Beech is probably the best piston Single out there.......  Or maybe the Cirrus ,

 

And a real cowl with easy access to engine compartment for pre flight…A TNed, TKSed A36 is the best GA aircraft ever created, bar none. And a real landing gear. You can take lightly loaded A36 into a lot of grass strips with 50ft tall trees and not break a sweat and do a carrier style landing. Don't try that in a Mooney. Too bad I'm not in the mood to blow $500K on a piston...

 

However, I disagree with you on part pricing. Beech part prices would make you cry. That $300 Mooney gear switch people are complaining in other threads is probably $5000 from Beech. As far as GA is concerned, Mooney aftermarket pricing is actually fairly reasonable if you can get the part.

[mike_elliott]

The Bonanzas are 4 seat aircraft (in reality) , the CG issues are from the V tail models , not the Straight tails....  I think the sweet spot for the A-36 would be the early to late 70s models...... The best part of owning a Bonanza is the fact that there are a million mods and stc's  for these aircraft , also there is continuity of parts from the 60s on up..... If you need a part , it is available second hand and everybody has one , driving the cost down....They have barn doors for passengers , and emergency exit windows , which can be opened up on the ground.....(you wont bake waiting for a clearance in the summer)....  They can be stretched out to 4000 lbs gross...(although you would need LOTS of runway to get off in heat) ... As far as ownership , you cant beat em....Also very nimble on the controls and can be flown very aggressively and very forgiving , (Ask Marauder about my approach when I dropped him off last year)  , If your only mission is speed , Than the Mooney is a great aircraft , if not , the Beech is probably the best piston Single out there.......  Or maybe the Cirrus ,

Blasphemy! Stone him!

[Andy95W]

The Bonanzas are 4 seat aircraft (in reality) , the CG issues are from the V tail models , not the Straight tails.... I think the sweet spot for the A-36 would be the early to late 70s models...... The best part of owning a Bonanza is the fact that there are a million mods and stc's for these aircraft , also there is continuity of parts from the 60s on up..... If you need a part , it is available second hand and everybody has one , driving the cost down....They have barn doors for passengers , and emergency exit windows , which can be opened up on the ground.....(you wont bake waiting for a clearance in the summer).... They can be stretched out to 4000 lbs gross...(although you would need LOTS of runway to get off in heat) ... As far as ownership , you cant beat em....Also very nimble on the controls and can be flown very aggressively and very forgiving , (Ask Marauder about my approach when I dropped him off last year) , If your only mission is speed , Than the Mooney is a great aircraft , if not , the Beech is probably the best piston Single out there....... Or maybe the Cirrus ,

With the exception of parts prices, I was almost on board with your point about Beechcraft.

Until you mentioned the Cirrus. If you own a Cirrus, you have to put up with Cirrus pilots, and nothing's worth that.

[Jsavage3]

My sons, 7 yrs/60# and 9 yrs/75#, are growing fast. My wife & I have discussed the idea of getting "something more comfortable." Having a nice J in the hangar that's paid for is hard to give up, especially when the new ride will gain nothing over my J except more payload...maybe. At nearly 1000# payload capable, the J is magic. It's exactly what my bride & I will want when we're empty-nesters. So, rather than find a temp fix band-aid along the lines of buying someone else's problems, we've decided to stay with what we know and love. We find the J very comfortable, capable and efficient...the true sweet spot of GA. It goes without saying that staying fit & trim (healthy), mods to increase payload, reduced fuel and fewer bags will be our reality for the next few years, but the boys will be grown and gone before we know it. There are alot of hidden costs associated with giving up one airplane for another and every airplane is a series of compromises. There is no one airplane that will fully meet any pilot's needs for his/hers lifetime. One fix is to buy a different airplane every few years (very costly IMHO) and I think many folks follow this path. Another possible plan is to buy an airplane that covers the bases best for you and your given mission...then stick with it and avoid the temptation to eyeball that "greener grass" across the fence. This is the plan we've chosen and we feel the J is the bird for us, although, in our case, an F or a J would work nicely for us.

[AndyFromCB]

 There is no one airplane that will fully meet any pilot's needs for his/hers lifetime. 

 

Sure there is. It's called a PC12 ;-) 

[Marauder]

Also very nimble on the controls and can be flown very aggressively and very forgiving , (Ask Marauder about my approach when I dropped him off last year)

I'm still washing the skid marks out of my underwear from that approach!

On a serious note (and man is it hard to be serious when you are talking with a Bonanza owner), it was an impressive approach to landing. Done in a Mooney, we would still be floating somewhere over the Chesapeake.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

My sons, 7 yrs/60# and 9 yrs/75#, are growing fast. My wife & I have discussed the idea of getting "something more comfortable." Having a nice J in the hangar that's paid for is hard to give up, especially when the new ride will gain nothing over my J except more payload...maybe. At nearly 1000# payload capable, the J is magic. It's exactly what my bride & I will want when we're empty-nesters. So, rather than find a temp fix band-aid along the lines of buying someone else's problems, we've decided to stay with what we know and love. We find the J very comfortable, capable and efficient...the true sweet spot of GA. It goes without saying that staying fit & trim (healthy), mods to increase payload, reduced fuel and fewer bags will be our reality for the next few years, but the boys will be grown and gone before we know it. There are alot of hidden costs associated with giving up one airplane for another and every airplane is a series of compromises. There is no one airplane that will fully meet any pilot's needs for his/hers lifetime. One fix is to buy a different airplane every few years (very costly IMHO) and I think many folks follow this path. Another possible plan is to buy an airplane that covers the bases best for you and your given mission...then stick with it and avoid the temptation to eyeball that "greener grass" across the fence. This is the plan we've chosen and we feel the J is the bird for us, although, in our case, an F or a J would work nicely for us.

That's exactly what we did. There were a few years where the extra payload was needed and I rented a C182 or borrowed a friend's Piper Saratoga on those occasions. Now the son is about to go to college and we will soon be empty nesters.

One of the things you will find out is that the kids want to fly less when they start hitting teenage years. At least mine did.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DrBill]

yea, girls do funny things to teenage boys...

[Marauder]

yea, girls do funny things to teenage boys...

BTW Bill, getting lots of usage out of the "DrBill Fuel Tank Gizmo"! My back thanks you!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alan Fox]

Guys , the parts I was referring to were used parts....as far as maintenance is concerned the Bo's are not parts whores....The only part that I had to buy from beech in 4 years was an uplock cable for the gear , and it was 150.00 ..  Any other parts I needed were generic ... Perhaps I have been lucky....

[cujet]

Sure there is. It's called a PC12 ;-) 

 

 

I would have to agree. We operate one and it's incredible. It's even capable of intercontinental travel. We recently flew ours from South Florida to Bremen, Germany. 2 stops. West Palm Beach, FL to Goose Bay, Labrador to Reykjavik, Iceland to Bremen, Germany. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Best part is they will not stall, no matter what you do. They just slowly mush into the ground, forward speed of about 35knots and descent rate not much higher than Cirrus under a parachute...

...the recent AOPA pilot report on the Antonov claimed stall/mush was not at 40 KNOTS, it was at 40 KILOMETERS indicated...

[Jerry 5TJ]

Sure there is. It's called a PC12 ;-) 

I only have about a dozen hours in PC12 but in those I found there's not enough room in the front for me.  The "C" model is more comfortable for tall guys, IMO.  The seats in back in the PC12 are indeed fine, though.

[AndyFromCB]

I only have about a dozen hours in PC12 but in those I found there's not enough room in the front for me.  The "C" model is more comfortable for tall guys, IMO.  The seats in back in the PC12 are indeed fine, though.

 

You must be talking about Meridian ;-) I am 6 feet tall and there is a good foot over my head in a PC12...In my tall panel Bravo, I have my seat up considerably in order to be able to see over it and bump my headset on the ceiling all the time when leaning forward...

[Shadrach]

Guys , the parts I was referring to were used parts....as far as maintenance is concerned the Bo's are not parts whores....The only part that I had to buy from beech in 4 years was an uplock cable for the gear , and it was 150.00 ..  Any other parts I needed were generic ... Perhaps I have been lucky....

You have...   ;-)

[Jerry 5TJ]

You must be talking about Meridian ;-) I am 6 feet tall and there is a good foot over my head in a PC12...In my tall panel Bravo, I have my seat up considerably in order to be able to see over it and bump my headset on the ceiling all the time when leaning forward...

No I was not; I own a P46T and it is too tight in the front seats for my 6'2" frame. I expected the much larger PC12 to be more comfortable in pilots' seats but it is not. Great in back seats, though.

[M20F]

With the exception of parts prices, I was almost on board with your point about Beechcraft.

Until you mentioned the Cirrus. If you own a Cirrus, you have to put up with Cirrus pilots, and nothing's worth that.

Cirrus's are great planes if you like automation, hand flying them is terrible. I find the seats and shoulder harness in the SR-22 to be highly uncomfortable as well. Overall not a real fan of them personally, would be the last plane I would ever choose to own.