Anyone Switch from Bonanza to Mooney? Reasons? Thoughts?

[Mooney13]

Just wondering if anyone has switched over from a Bonanza to a Mooney ....why? and thoughts after? (performance, comfort, etc.)

FYI- I searched for this in threads and likely missed them...

Thanks for any opinions!

[Bennett]

Here at San Carlos a gentleman who previously owned a Beech Bonanza bought a beautiful MSE. We spoke a few times about why, and he cited the very high costs of parts. Specifically he mentioned that he had to replace a bezel for the tail strobe light, and it was over $1,900. He also said that just about every Beech specific part was unreasonably expense. I don't think money was the problem, as after a couple of years he sold the Mooney and bought a Piper turbine Meridian.

I like the way Bonanza's fly, and especially how well their landing gear works on rough runways.

[PMcClure]

I went from a Mooney (69F) to a Bonanza (98BTC) then back to a Mooney (2002 M20R). I switched to the Bonanza for the additional seats and more modern avionics. I switched back to the Mooney because of the following reasons:

1. Cost of ownership. Maintenance was very very high. The turbo charger was part of the reason but in general, everything cost more on the Bonanza. Fuel burn was also very high for about the same speed. 36 gallons per hour on take off!! Insurance was more than double. 

2. Useful load - The Bonanza had to carry more fuel to get where I was going. Effectively took away the extra seats I wanted

3. Cost of acquisition -  I looked at moving to a non-turbo A36 but found they were 30% more purchase for the same year and capability of a Mooney. Same issues in maintenance, useful load (considering use of 6 seats). And my mission was more typically 1-2 people instead of 4 -5. 6 was never really an option in the Bo anyway. 

The Bo's are more comfortable, perhaps as roomy, and perhaps a little more stable and easier to land than the Mooney. And the rear cargo door is very very nice on the Bo. But my Mooney gets me there faster, cheaper and costs less to own and is still a very stable platform and can easily fly and land both. If I really needed 5 seats, or even 4 seats full the Bo still didn't cut it on trips over 2 hours. That is why I decided to switch. Funny thing is, the guy I bought my M20R from, bought a Bo for the extra seats. 

[rbridges]

I've heard that Beech had a reputation for high dollar parts, but I figured that was an old wives tale.  Can anyone say for sure that they are generally more expensive than any other airplane manufacturer's parts?

[gsxrpilot]

I used to belong to an equity club with a couple of Bonanza F33A's. Great planes to fly and thoroughly enjoyed them. But when it came time to own, I could just do so much more with less money if I went Mooney.

In addition to the cost savings all around, including fuel, insurance, parts, maintenance, acquisition, etc... I like the simple W&B of the Mooney. In the Bo, I always had to be careful of starting at gross weight and landing out of CG if too much fuel was burned. With the Mooney, just load it, fuel it and go. At the end of the day, I actually go further, carry more, and get there sooner, on less money.

What's not to like.

[carusoam]

I briefly looked at a V tail for sale once.

Stayed with speed, efficiency and safety.  Over the slower, fuel drinking, large cabin, expensive parts alternative...

it is bad form to not look at other machines when considering a new one.  Don't be surprised when you pick a newer faster bigger version of what you have already...

Or trim back to the retirement M20E of the future....

Best regards,

-a-

 

[MB65E]

Or just buy the M20E and get over it.

says the 65E owner...

But I love the flight controls on the early V-tails! (Flying, not rigging)

-Matt

[jetdriven]

With the greatly increased cost of parts from Mooney, and the lesser availability of used parts compared to Beechcraft, IDK if thats really a deciding factor. The Bonanza is a little bigger, its a little faster, and more useful load. Like a slower Ovation with more room and more utiity. The A36 more room yet.
Compare the S35 my friend used to own compared to my J model. 173 KTAS, 16 GPH, 1150 Useful load. more interior room as a pilot or a second row passenger. Baggage door you load from floor level, not like an ice chest. Pull it back its still not quite as efficient, its around 12 GPH for the 155 knots I am used to. But still, a little more capable airplane for more gas. Some versions, like another friend of mine, have tip tanks via STC which hold around 100 gallons. Thats 1600 mile range easy.
Now the Mooney has the indestructible airframe and is cheap on gas, but that's its strong suit. Efficiency. The Beech is much more luxurious, faster, without a doubt flies better, and frankly, breaks less often.
Anyways, the Beechtalk dudes got it right, many Mooney guys go to Beech, but very few go the other way. Of course, pilots always continuously upgrade themselves into an airplane they cannot afford.

Im not bashing on Mooney's, I could have bought a Beech 5 years ago and I could buy one right now, and I havent. Its just a little more airplane that I can use or need right now. Peerhaps someday, but if so, its likely to be turbocharged.

Edited June 30, 2016 by jetdriven

[Guest]

After 2 Mooneys, I bought a Piper Comanche.  Cheaper than a Bonanza, fuel bladders and a Lycoming engine, good payload, roomier than both.

Clarence

[prflyer]

Clarence,

Are the Comanches cheaper to maintain compared to Mooneys or Bonanzas?  I would love your thoughts about that. Thanks.

Fernando

 

[Hank]

Nothing is cheap about Clarence's Comanche 400!!

[Browncbr1]

One thing to consider is comparing V(a) speeds.  Sometimes in the summer, when the air is rough, a higher V(a) is to be desired in my F.   I was looking at Cherokee 6's, which has quite a bit higher V(a) before I bought my F.   Just trade offs.   But, it is something I hadn't thought of really until after my purchase.  It wouldn't have changed my decision though because I couldn't get more performance return on my dollar any other way.  

[N601RX]

The older Mooney air frames are very cheap to maintain for a retractable gear plane.  Once the engine/accessories and avionics repair cost is separated out there is very little cost of maintaining the airframe.  The normal wear items are mostly bolts, rod ends and bushings which are available from sources other than Mooney.  The welded parts are usually repairable by Lasar or easily found on the salvage market.  I've had to replace one bushing, a few bolts and some brake components over the last six years.  The only big item is the fuel tanks.

There is also very few recurrent AD's that don't have a terminating action.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I currently fly a Tornado Alley turbo normalized A-36 about the same amount of hours I fly my Rocket (the A-36 is owned by Northwoods Airlifeline).  I like the 6 seats, and have flown with 5 many times without issue (could do 6 if the last one was a child).  The speeds are just under my Rocket up to 12K, but the fuel burn is much better (will run LOP, while the Rocket will not).  What I don't like about the Bo is the seat comfort.  I fatigue a lot faster in the BO than my Mooney.  The seats have little forward/aft adjustment and you sit UP more, with legs bent like in a chair.  In the Mooney, you are lower with your legs out in front of you.  I like to slide the seat back against the back seat when in cruise and have no back seat passengers (most of the time).  You can bend your knees and pull your feet up to the seat (like seated in the BO), or stretch out to the pedals.  When alone I have even put my legs over in the passenger well for a change in leg position to stop any leg cramps.  In the Bo, you only get the one option for leg comfort.

[gsengle]

I don't think the newer ones are expensive to maintain either and may be cheaper with better access etc. of course the six cyl engines aren't cheap though...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PMcClure]

18 minutes ago, gsengle said:

I don't think the newer ones are expensive to maintain either and may be cheaper with better access etc. of course the six cyl engines aren't cheap though...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100%. The F and the R model are both ridiculously inexpensive to maintain, except... and its a big exception... the cost of avionics and the 2 extra cylinders on the 550. Most of my expense on the Bo was for cylinders, turbo's and engine issues and avionics. I don't think they really had a good set-up with that engine installation. To be fair, I didn't have many problems with the airframe on the Bo. Multiple cylinders, A/P issues, avionics, and turbo issues were a killer though. Looking at the maintenance issue, it wasn't jut me either. Similar issues over the life of the plane, including a new cylinder at 9 hours and a replacement A/P in year 1. And it was professional flown for a time as well with the same problems. Once I decided to leave that plane, the real difference in cost was acquisition. Do a comparison on what your budget can buy and you end up getting a much newer and better equipped Mooney. And fly faster!

[gsengle]

And I'd ad that outside of avionics this was pretty much a squawk free M20R year... Nothing seems to ever break on the airframe/interior. My IO-550 is going strong at 1900 with good compressions and low oil usage. It runs cool in cruise lop. Only needed one cyl in those 1900 hours. The R is just awesomely straightforward with an excellent engine installation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

My A&P/IA works on quite a few Bs and Mooneys. He says he prefers working on Mooneys. (He had to replace 2 cylinders on a Bonanza over the week end and was pointing out to me how much more work it was getting the cylinders off vs a Mooney.)

 

[StevenL757]

11 hours ago, jetdriven said:

The Bonanza is a little bigger, its a little faster, and more useful load. Like a slower Ovation with more room and more utiity. The A36 more room yet.
Compare the S35 my friend used to own compared to my J model. 173 KTAS, 16 GPH, 1150 Useful load. more interior room as a pilot or a second row passenger. Baggage door you load from floor level, not like an ice chest. Pull it back its still not quite as efficient, its around 12 GPH for the 155 knots I am used to. But still, a little more capable airplane for more gas. Some versions, like another friend of mine, have tip tanks via STC which hold around 100 gallons. Thats 1600 mile range easy.
Now the Mooney has the indestructible airframe and is cheap on gas, but that's its strong suit. Efficiency. The Beech is much more luxurious, faster, without a doubt flies better, and frankly, breaks less often.
 

I'll agree with the size and useful load comment, but disagree on the speed.  I have 2 Bonanzas close to my base (an A36, the other a B36TC), both of whom have "compared" speeds with me, and both have lost - each coming within about 3 knots of my 188+KTAS (normally-aspirated) with the 310HP engine.

My 1001-pound useful load is inferior, granted, but with only my wife at 110# (we have no kids) and bags, that's plenty for us.  My 102USG standard fuel gets us comfortably from Long Island to Destin, FL with 2+ hours' reserve.  Honestly, unless you're carrying in excess of 120USG in the BO with favorable winds and LOP ops, that 1600NM range with legal reserves seems unrealistic.  As far as flying better - disagree.  I've a little over 100 hours in Bonanzas, and prefer the much more stable handling of my Ovation, not to mention the lower maintenance costs.

BOs are really considered an SUV when you look at it.  The Ovation?  More like a BMW coupe.  :-)  Personal preference and mission, I'm sure...

[Mooney13]

Thanks All !

I really appreciate the great feedback...Bonanzas are beautiful planes for sure.

I was curious because as one person mentioned, I hear of Mooney guys going to Bonanza, but never have heard of a Bonanza owner going to a Mooney..

I am likely to go back to Mooney because of my comfort level and great experience with my previous my J

I really had no complaints about it when I sold it a few years ago (I was gone a lot so didn't like it sitting around)

fly safe!

 

[Bryan1016]

I've had a V-tail and an A36. I loved my C Mooney, just got a 262. Jury still out.

I went back to Mooney because they are stronger, glide A LOT farther, more comfortable once seated, more stable, lower maint cost and better on fuel. My wife and I together are 280 lbs soaking wet. I don't need big useful load.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bravoman]

I still maintain that even my long body is a comfortable two place plane. Too tight for 3 or certainly 4 to go anywhere in comfort. Throw in bags and forget about it. Need to be a gymnast to get into rear seats. That being said I love the heck out of it. Way more fun to fly than our Piper, which is like a flying Suburban.

[gsengle]

I disagree, the backseat on a long body is pretty comfortable, that is once you get in there. I agree it's not easy to get into. Maybe it'll be better in the new ultra's.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PMcClure]

Regarding Useful load and range. For a typical 4 hour flight with one hour reserve:

My F had about 1050 lbs payload and needed less than 40 gallons of fuel to fly 4 hours = 540 miles and +700 lbs useful payload with reserves. 

The B36 had about 1100 lbs payload and needed 100 gallons to fly 4 hours = 700 miles + 500lb useful with reserves

The 20R has 900 lbs payload and needs 85 gallons to fly 4 hours  = 740 miles + 400lbs with reserves 

So basically, you can load 1/2 more person in the Bo and spend 15 gallons more to get them there. Or you could cut your fuel and stop more often. 5 people at 170lbs only left  enough fuel for 1 hour plus 1 hour reserve. Some of the older Bo's had more load. But comparing the older F, the Mooney still wins. And I can stretch my R out even further and get 350lbs of payload almost 1000 miles running LOP and max fuel on board

Edited June 30, 2016 by PMcClure
correction

[Guest]

14 hours ago, prflyer said:

Clarence,

Are the Comanches cheaper to maintain compared to Mooneys or Bonanzas?  I would love your thoughts about that. Thanks.

Fernando

 

Fernando,

Much of the maintenance cost depends on the starting point, they all can be costly in their owns ways.  As others have pointed out everything is a trade off.  Generally Comanche airframes don't have the corrosion issues of similar vintage Mooneys, they all came with fuel bladders, they all have Lycoming engines which are cheap and reliable, my 400 engine is reliable but somewhat costly.  They don't have slipping starter adapters which Continental engines do.  

Clarence