Mooney vs Bonanza and confused

[GeorgePerry]

Dear George,

   I am a Former Marine Naval Aviator and current 737 pilot.  I have never flown a piston aircraft in my life but, would like to possibly own a nice fun family plane one day soon.  I am 5'9 220 ( built like a running back..broad shoulders and large thighs).  My wife is small 4'11 and we have two small children 4 and one on the way.  I am seeking your advice because based on your posts you appear to be a logical man.
    Mooney; fast, economical, tight, possibly outgrow room requirements as family grows.  Bonanza: great ruputation simular to T-34 and King Air flying characteristics (I've flown both).  I've been told annuals for both are about the same as well as insurance costs.  I was told Beech parts cost more but they do not break as often so its a wash.
    I live 6 miles from Air Mods in NJ.  I visited them last week and they were great.  Obviously they were Pro-Mooney.  I have several pilots at work who have flown, instructed, and sell both airplanes and hands down they ALL recommend the Bonanza.  I was told it was better to aquire a P,S 35 Bo (resale value) over a F,J M20.  The analogy I was given was it's like buying a 600cc motorcycle.  It's very fast and responsive for about six months but then you kick youself for not buying the 900cc to begin with because you quickly outgrow the 600cc bike.  I was told the Mooney is an awesome bird by the Pro-BO guys but turbulance with such a stiff wing can be a harsh ride compared to the BO during turbulance.  The Bo is a softer ride...so I've been told.  Both airplanes are strong and safe in their repective rights.  M20-rollcage and wing/BO carrier landing gear designed for Naval Flight students.
    My original budget was 60-80k and I really want to be closer to the 60k range unless something REALLY nice comes along when I'm ready.  Is the BO really that much nicer or is it all hype.  I did feel a little tight when I sat in a M20k last week with Dave sitting right next to me.(shoulder room)  Obviously my wife is not a man but like I said before, I am a running back imitating as a pilot.  I really was hyped up for the Mooney J but after sitting in a BO, is the extra 10-15 really worth it LONG TERM. Our mission would be maybe 500 miles max for the normal weekend trip.  In your most un-biased opinion what should I do??

Thanks,

J

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

J,

You ask some very good questions...and I'll do my best to answer or at least try to put some perspective on things in a helpful way.  First, the Bonanza Family and the Mooney line are both fantastic airplanes.  I've flown them and really like each for different reasons.  The M20 and Bonanza family of airplanes have areas of debatable strengths and weaknesses.  But as to your questions, If I understand you correctly, when you boil it right down, your looking for some perspective on three main categories: Utility, Costs and Speed to help you decide which plane fits your needs/mission the best.

But before I jump into that I want to address your motorcycle analogy right up front.  The 600cc v/s 900cc comparison might seem logical but I don't think it really applies...and here's why.  In an ideal world, you'd like to get the most possible speed & useful load from the smallest possible motor & fuel burn.  What I'm saying is efficiency (with as few tradeoffs as possible) is what makes an airplane great.  Also, drawing direct comparisons between an IO-520 or 550 equipped Bonanza and an IO-360 equipped M20J or F is hard to do.  I'll be the first to admit the "V8" like grumble the bigger 500 series engines make is intoxicating and feels great to fly.  However the novelty of the "big" engine wears off pretty fast when you have to pay some steep fuel bills at your destination. 

Mooney's have always been the 4 place efficiency leader.  Unless you look at some experimentals, you just can't beat the Mooney's ability to fly fast on low fuel burn rates.  That's not to say the Bonanza is terrible, it's design philosophy is just different.  Rather than efficiency being the guiding design principle, the bonanza was built primarily to carry A-LOT of weight at respectable speeds.   50-60 years ago when the Beech designers were drawing up specs for the bonanza, fuel burn wasn’t as much of a concern then as it is today.  So in the speed and useful load categories, the Bonanza is great.  No other airplane can carry over 1200 lbs at speeds near 160 knots, albeit the engine is burning 14-16 Gallons per hour (ROP) to do it.  So the big "take away" here is both the Mooney and Bonanza are true 160 knot airplanes.  The difference is the Bonanza has higher useful load and higher fuel burn rates. 

It's also important to consider the types of costs associated with airplane ownership.  The three main types are fixed, sunk and variable costs.  Fixed costs include items that are basically the same regardless of platform.  Hanger, Agreed value hull insurance, and other items such as, charts, headsets, etc.  Sunk costs are those costs that you have to pay just to have a plane "ready" to fly.  These costs include planned and unplanned maintenance.  This is where you can differentiate somewhat between the Mooney and Bonanza.  In general both airplanes are good on maintenance as long as they've been maintained.  However when you talk about 30-40 year old aircraft one has to be very modest with their ability to predict cost, because each Model and each aircraft within that model may differ significantly.  What that caveat, I can tell you that "in general" Mooney's are cheaper to maintain.  As I see it the biggest drawback with Beech products are high entry and maintenance costs.  $150K will get you a good A36 and for that kind of cash you can find some long body Mooneys. As for parts support, Beech still produces parts for the Bonanza/Baron lines but they are REALLY proud of them and their parts are expensive.  My best advice is do some research.  Try to find a shop that's performed annuals on both the M20 and Bonanza and ask them to show you the last dozen or so.  I'll bet you a mortgage payment that the average cost for a reputable shop or service center Mooney annual is between $3000-$5000 and the Bonanza will fall between $4000-$7000.  Of course a local A&P working out of the back of a truck will probably be cheaper...But, again these are "VERY GENERAL" numbers and a black swan event will completely negate their comparison value.  Now that you've got an idea of the fixed and sunk costs, all that leaves are the variable costs; or put simply fuel oil and other consumables like tires and brakes.  If you use a Mooney M20J and a V35 with an IO-520, 160 knots and ROP operations as the baseline for comparison you'll find the Mooney typically achieves the same cruise speeds on about 4-5 GPH less than the bonanza.  Another way to say it is if you fly 100 hours per year you'll spend about $2000 more on fuel in the bonanza.

Up to this point I think we've covered both the costs and speed issues pretty well.  That only leaves utility.  Here's where you have to ask some tough questions and make some compromises.  First what's your realistic mission profile.  If it's to carry 4 big dudes all the time, then stop reading and go buy a bonanza.  If it's something less than that then the deciding factor might be comfort.  You mentioned cabin width as a possible issue for you in the Mooney.  You might not know this but the Mooney M20 has a wider cabin than the Bonanza or a Cessna 182, although it's not as tall.  So if your concern is shoulder room and not a height restriction then you won't do better than a Mooney unless you want to consider a Cirrus. 

Cabin Width
Mooney 201- 43.5"
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza - 42.0"
 

The other issue you mentioned was turbulence.  I’d have to give the advantage to the Bonanza.  The wing design between the M20 and the Bonanza is quite different and as such they handle the bumps differently.  Without getting to deep in an aerodynamic discussion it’s well known that the Mooney has a laminar flow wing design.  Which really means the thickest part of the wing occurs further aft along the cord when compared to more traditional wings on Cessna’s and Beech products.  Laminar flow is good because it attempts to keep the boundary layer air energized or flowing smoothly across the wing reducing drag.  Other wing designs accept a turbulent boundary layer and a higher Cd for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.  The one drawback of the laminar flow wing is a “slightly” rougher ride in clear air bumps.  I say clear air because when it rains the Mooney’s wing looses most of its laminar flow properties and feels about the same as any other traditional wing design.

For your mission requirements I think you'll get the most bang for the buck in a Mooney.  If you needed 6 seats then a A36 would be the way to go...but if all you need is 4 and 1000 lb useful load will haul all your stuff then go with a Mooney M20J. 

One last thing.  You might want to reconsider your budget.  IMHO it seems alittle on the low side especially if you want to get a well maintained, squawk free example ready to fly.  Take a look at controller and trade a plane to get a feel for the market.  I think you'll find to get a good example of each your closer to $80-90K starting point.  If $60K is your budget then a well maintained M20F might just be the ticket.  You should be able to  find a really good F between $65-75K, but you'll give up some top end cruise speed (F = 145 - 150 knots ROP)

Last but not least…if you forget everything else I’ve said this is the one piece of advice just about everyone should agree on. Buy the newest, nicest, best maintained and documented plane you can afford. An additional $5-20K spent during the purchase, if done wisely, will be pennies on the dollar compared to getting a “basket case” for what seems like a sweet deal.
 
S/F
George Perry

 

[richardheitzman]

I second everything George just wrote. I always say it is about your mission. 500 miles, small family, mid to low budget you are looking at a really nice M20F or a entry level M20J. I like Bonanza aircraft as well, and if your mission was 4 adults + bags every week 500 miles then that would be the way to go, but you sound just like the rest of the Mooney ownership group, you want to go a specific distance, with family and bags, for a reasonable price. For that you cannot beat a Mooney, Period.

Find some local owners and go fly with them a couple times and you will start to notice once the "oh my God I am flying is a small airplane" feeling wears off. You are used to a 737 cockpit, not a GA cockpit.

When you get ready to search and purchase, get a prebuy done at a reputable facility that has MUCHO Mooney experience. Try to stear away from a prebuy/annual. ( I see a large number of these go "wrong"). DON"T FALL IN LOVE WITH A AIRPLANE BECAUSE OF THE PRICE! Write that on your hand and look at it every time you look at a airplane. Low price does not always equal a bargain. There are a lot of unscupulous people out there that are DESPERATE to sell aircraft. Buyer Beware (insert latin quote).

Good luck!

Richard

[Tom]

With all due respect to the very informed responses above, I have a different assessment altogether.

For the above cited mission I personally could not justify spending tens of thousands more in procurement costs and thousands more in annual fixed costs for the benefit of saving ~50 minutes each direction of the routine trip.  For a related analysis, read:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/modifications/the-need-for-speed.html?tmpl=component&print=1

It seems to me the the prospective buyer's mission needs a lot less aircraft than he is being advised to purchase.  In my view, the most important variables in his analysis is simply that his family will be flying all the time.  This said, I would more focus on quality avionics, training for the wife, quality autopilot, aircraft better able to handle engine-outs etc.

If I were in his shoes, I'd look for a 182.

[scottfromiowa]

George is "dead on".  Good stuff.  You can find a bunch of Bonanza's for $80k, but you will be dumping a ton of $AMU's to get it "up to speed".  You are going to do the same in a 201 for your price point.  I am/was 232lbs 6'.0 and with a petite wife (as you described) and young kids an F model will serve your mission wonderfully...and faster than a 182 IMO.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Tom

If I were in his shoes, I'd look for a 182.

[carusoam]

J,

Comparing a big bore Bonanza to an IO-360 M20J is quite an honor for the Mooney.  The M20J certainly does more with less.  It does fast and efficient on less HP and Fuel burn.

I am with Scott...Big bore airframes are hard to find given a budget of less than $100k.  When you do find them, they probably don't fit George's important aspect of: buy the newest, nicest, best maintained.

It's been more than a year since I made similar comparisons.  The B is nice, but it seems to be one economic realm above where I am currently.  I  dropped the Bs and the Cirrus on core financial reasons.  I already had 10 years of M20C ownership experience to remove most of the mystery out of Mooney ownership finances.  My focus of comparison became M20F,J or R.  (east coast flying/no personal desire for turbo).

Either way, you are about to spend a ton of AMU.  What is it you want to tell your flying friends anyway:

[1] I am a Naval Aviator.

[2] I fly comercial Jets.

[3] I fly a Cessna, I fly a Bonanza, or I fly a Mooney?

On another subject that Tom brought in....

Tom,  "Better handle engine-outs"  Could you expand on this thought a bit?  Is this in regards to Cessna having a slower stall / landing speed?  Or Cirrus style pull the chute and everything will be OK?

George,  Great analytical discussion with hard facts and details.

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

Quote: Tom

 aircraft better able to handle engine-outs etc.

If I were in his shoes, I'd look for a 182.

[tony]

the bonanza (V tail)  also has a dutch roll that the rear passageers wont appreciate

[Jeff_S]

Quote: GeorgePerry

  I have never flown a piston aircraft in my life but, would like to possibly own a nice fun family plane one day soon.  

 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Jeff_S

So, just what do beginning naval aviators fly when they are just starting out? Are you saying that even as a one-hour pilot they're flying some type of turbine engine?

[PTK]

Read this article:

http://www.mooneyland.com/Why%20I%20Own%20a%20Mooney.htm

[Immelman]

As much as I am pro-Mooney, this statement jumped out at me right away:

"My wife is small 4'11 and we have two small children 4 and one on the way"

I think unless some of the family is left behind from time to time, his mission calls for a 6-place airplane, at least looking a few years down the road.

[jetmech1972]

Here is a link to a comparison and cost breakdown you are looking for http://www.n252q.com/2008/01/mooneyis-it-really-best.html who I believe is also a member of this sight.

[carusoam]

"My wife is small 4'11 and we have two small children 4 and one on the way"

Jesse,

I believe our OP has an interesting way to account for his unborn....

two children, one is four and the other is still a few negative months in the making.....

M20F,J or R until the college fund is in tact.....

-a-

[Immelman]

Quote: carusoam

"My wife is small 4'11 and we have two small children 4 and one on the way"

Jesse,

I believe our OP has an interesting way to account for his unborn....

two children, one is four and the other is still a few negative months in the making.....

M20F,J or R until the college fund is in tact.....

-a-

[Kwixdraw]

Given the concern for outgrowing the aircraft I might also suggest you look for a Piper PA-32.  Six seats and very flexible CG and max gross limits. Maybe it isn't the ego bump that the M-20 or Beech is but they can be very useful aircraft.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: Kwixdraw

Given the concern for outgrowing the aircraft I might also suggest you look for a Piper PA-32.  Six seats and very flexible CG and max gross limits. Maybe it isn't the ego bump that the M-20 or Beech is but they can be very useful aircraft.

[Mcstealth]

Let's have a motorcycle perspective. Say we are racing at Road Atlanta or Road America. Which bike ya want? R1 or R6?Now change the track to The Streets of Willow or Telladega GP. Which bike ya want? GSX-R 1000 or GSX-R 600? On those big tracks, please give me the big bore. The comparison here being if I was always flying four people, always going long distances, always packing more than needed etc, etc, go with the six cylinder. Now how about the small bore? Guess what? I would race the small bore at any of the above mentioned tracks and be completely happy. The comparison here being the small bore can do it all and do it all very well. Not always will you be flying with full tanks and full butts. Bigger isn't always better in the aviation world.

[Kwixdraw]

I figured the wallet would decide it it was going to be a 32 or 32R.

[eaglebkh]

Quote: Tom

If I were in his shoes, I'd look for a 182.

[eaglebkh]

Although the Bo may have a higher payload capability when you consider Useful - Full Fuel = Paylod, one thing worth pointing out is that the Mooney has more flexibility through efficient flying, requiring less fuel and allowing extra payload.  The same mission wont require as much fuel, and if speed can be sacrificed, will afford much more payload.

I don't think the relative gain in range is as high in the Bo when you want to give up a few knots and just use "economy" cruise.  Doing this in the Mooney will require less fuel and allow more payload, more than if you tried the same technique in a Bo.

[thinwing]

yes,but prob. the most practical advice for 60k investment