Thinking of straying from the fold

[salty]

9 minutes ago, Alan Fox said:

Couple of things to consider , The Bonanza is probably the ultimate machine as far as cost verses mission , There are almost NO in flight breakups in the last 30 years as long as the cuffs are installed , In the Pilots seat , there is no conceivable difference as far as space is concerned between short, medium, and long Mooneys ,   I would discount the Commanche series , They are extremely old , and their systems are archaic at best ,    As far as a 182 being nose heavy in the flare , it is no heavier in the flare than a Mooney , Compare it to a 172 , and I agree ...    The Bellanca is a plywood aircraft , with archaic systems , that NEEDS to be kept in a Hangar , It also REQUIRES a mechanic that is well versed in these aircraft , its systems and construction are unique to itself....   When you pick an aircraft , consider mission FIRST  ,   The Cessnas  (182) are the most mission capable aircraft bar none ,  I can get 135 knots INDICATED at 12 GPH and land in the 40s if I have to ...   when somebody touts mission , ask yourself if you have ever seen a Mooney working in Africa , or Alaska.....     The Cardinal is a roomy aircraft , but it is underpowered ,   The Cessna is probably a good fit for you , So is the Bonanza...

Are you selling?

[glafaille]

8 hours ago, BKlott said:

The article stated that there were 208 known in flight airframe failures of the model 35 as of 1978. The earliest model 35, referred to as the "straight 35" or pre-A35 Bonanzas most often failed at Wing Station 66, not the center section which is the subject of ADs. Beechcraft did not have any spar web in the original model beyond that point (Wing Station 66). The later models with beefed up Wings most often tend to fail in the tails. The later approved tail cuff is only part of the solution. The ruddervators are prone to flutter with very little margin for safety. Proper balancing is critical. The ruddervator and trim cables need to have proper tension and must be carefully inspected (and replaced when worn). There is a lot more to it than adding the tail cuff, which, by the way, had to be removed from the earliest models.

They background information of the design, flight characteristics, the breakdown of failures by specific model, comments by engineers and investigators involved in studying the problem, comparisons with the straight tail Bonanzas and other airplanes makes for fascinating reading. 

Comparatively, when you look at the Mooney from a structural integrity perspective, you can appreciate it for the good airplane that it is.

Bklott:

Very good information concerning the Bonanza V tail line.  I found the same info and more which just made the airplane a "Bridge too far" for me.  Another problem you may have overlooked that is common through most of the Bonanza and Baron line, is the spar carry through cracks.  There is a 500 hour inspection of the structure in the fuselage that carries the loads from the wings.  Cracks have developed in this structure in many airplanes and correction requires a very complex and expensive repair.  Any airplane with known cracks suffers a significant reduction in value.

All that said, the straight tail Bonanza is free from the V tail problems and is a terrific aircraft.  The Debonair is the least expensive of the straight tails and similar to vintage Mooneys in acquisition costs.  I believe they are still subject to the spar carry through i spection though.  Parts are reported to be very expensive for all Beech products.

[salty]

I'm getting 140 knots indicated at 8.8 GPH. That's not easy to walk away from.  

[salty]

Here's the problem I think that mid/long body might help with...

For the evacuation, I put my wife in the back with the dogs to keep them comfortable and calm. We took only necessities for a weekend away. I put some stuff in front seat (didn't remove seat that might help too) and front floor, as I mentioned we were pretty close to aft CG limit. With this configuration, I had the front passenger seat pushed all the way back, not giving much room for her. 

It's technically illegal to remove the passenger seat, isn't it?

[steingar]

Get a Skylane for crying out loud.  Two doors, so the Mrs. shouldn't have any trouble getting in.  You can fly at Mooney speeds, though you'll use up lots more gas to do it.  Fill it with anything at all, it really doesn't matter, it'll still fly.  Fly into tiny little turf strips with confidence.  Don't know another airplane that'll do all those things.

One of my pals used to fill the seats and the tanks in his and fly to Florida for the weekend.

[Bob - S50]

Salty,

What's your budget?  Seems to me, your primary concern is your wife's comfort.  Happy wife, happy life.

Any low wing plane is going to require effort to get up on the wing to board or a step stool or ladder.  From that point of view, a Cessna might work better for her.  Only way to tell is to have her try them on for size.

Partners provide more budget and a wider range of options along with lower fixed costs.

When we were looking for a plane, I considered the 182RG.  About the same speed as the M20J, about the same cost, but higher fuel burn and a carburetor.  Current prices seem to be about $100k - $120k.

Or, given enough money, a 210L or M.  Those seem to be going for about $125k to $150k.

Good hunting.

Bob

[1964-M20E]

This will not help with being close to the panel but you can  remove the back seats and gain a tremendous amount of room for the dogs and other stuff and make it a 2 seat aircraft.  I've always said the B, C and E models are the best 2 place 4 seat aircraft you can find.

Also when in cruise slide the seat back and it will give you more room.  I'll slide mine all the way back during cruise.  At least you will have some room in cruise phase of the flight.

 

 

 

 

[salty]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

Salty,

What's your budget?  Seems to me, your primary concern is your wife's comfort.  Happy wife, happy life.

Any low wing plane is going to require effort to get up on the wing to board or a step stool or ladder.  From that point of view, a Cessna might work better for her.  Only way to tell is to have her try them on for size.

Partners provide more budget and a wider range of options along with lower fixed costs.

When we were looking for a plane, I considered the 182RG.  About the same speed as the M20J, about the same cost, but higher fuel burn and a carburetor.  Current prices seem to be about $100k - $120k.

Or, given enough money, a 210L or M.  Those seem to be going for about $125k to $150k.

Good hunting.

Bob

Budget: It depends partially on what I can get for my plane. Minimum 40k, probably not more than 60k if I don't finance, though I might be tempted to take a loan and go higher for the right plane. 

Wife: She doesn't complain, although I think she'd be more eager to go if it were more comfortable. Getting on the wing isn't the big problem, it's the low seating that's more of the issue. With a bad back, sitting with your legs in your armpits, or even straight out in front of you doesn't work well. She keeps telling me she doesn't want a high wing, but I need to get her in a 182.

I will have a hard time living with a partner (and they with me), I own a home on an airport with an attached hangar, I'm going to naturally be pretty possessive about the plane inside, but I'm open to the right situation.

Edited September 14, 2017 by salty

[salty]

1 hour ago, 1964-M20E said:

This will not help with being close to the panel but you can  remove the back seats and gain a tremendous amount of room for the dogs and other stuff and make it a 2 seat aircraft.  I've always said the B, C and E models are the best 2 place 4 seat aircraft you can find.

Also when in cruise slide the seat back and it will give you more room.  I'll slide mine all the way back during cruise.  At least you will have some room in cruise phase of the flight.

 

 

 

 

Another interesting option. I don't think this is trivial though is it? Also, not technically legal, right?

Edited September 14, 2017 by salty

[N6758N]

1 minute ago, salty said:

Another interesting option. I don't think this is trivial though is it? Also, not technically legal, right?

Nothing illegal about taking your seats out, just make sure you make a note on the weight and balance if you really want to be specific with it. 

[salty]

6 minutes ago, N6758N said:

Nothing illegal about taking your seats out, just make sure you make a note on the weight and balance if you really want to be specific with it. 

I thought I'd read something about it being considered a major alteration (337)

[jetdriven]

15 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

RV-10.  Get out of the certified world.

4 seats 155 knots 160-200K.  That money will buy a really nice Mooney and all the money to maintain it for a long time. Also look at the RV10 pictures of crashed ones.  The cabin folds up. In this comparison I'll take certified any day. 

[jetdriven]

38 minutes ago, salty said:

I thought I'd read something about it being considered a major alteration (337)

Read the definition of a major alteration and ask yourself. 

[salty]

6 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Read the definition of a major alteration and ask yourself. 

Aren't the seats part of the type certificate and removing equipment itemized there is a major alteration? That was my understanding. Similar issue removing the wing leveler, right? Am I off track somewhere?

Edited September 14, 2017 by salty

[N6758N]

1 minute ago, salty said:

Aren't the seats part of the type certificate and removing equipment itemized there is a major alteration? That was my understanding. Similar issue removing the wing leveler, right? Am I off track somewhere?

No and No. Go read the type certificate. Its 2A3 I believe. I am an IA and I would fly without seats in my plane all day long (other than the one I sit in!) There aren't any avionics on the type certificates unless you're talking about a G1000 type of plane, there are avionics that are required equipment, but that is different than being on the type cert. 

[jetdriven]

35 minutes ago, salty said:

Aren't the seats part of the type certificate and removing equipment itemized there is a major alteration? That was my understanding. Similar issue removing the wing leveler, right? Am I off track somewhere?

I don't see them on the 2A3 type certificate, do you ?

[salty]

Doesn't it say 4 seater?

[N6758N]

2 minutes ago, salty said:

Doesn't it say 4 seater?

No. of seats applies more to how many people it can carry, in other words, you can't carry 5 people in an M20. 

[salty]

Gotcha. 

[Bob - S50]

2 hours ago, salty said:

Budget: It depends partially on what I can get for my plane. Minimum 40k, probably not more than 60k if I don't finance, though I might be tempted to take a loan and go higher for the right plane. 

Wife: She doesn't complain, although I think she'd be more eager to go if it were more comfortable. Getting on the wing isn't the big problem, it's the low seating that's more of the issue. With a bad back, sitting with your legs in your armpits, or even straight out in front of you doesn't work well. She keeps telling me she doesn't want a high wing, but I need to get her in a 182.

I will have a hard time living with a partner (and they with me), I own a home on an airport with an attached hangar, I'm going to naturally be pretty possessive about the plane inside, but I'm open to the right situation.

If your total budget even after selling your plane is $60k or less, you are not going to have many options.  Whatever you get for that money will certainly be slower than your C.  Speed may or may not matter to you.

Although I don't know a lot about them, how about a Grumman Traveler or Tiger?

As for a partner, you are correct in that you have to make sure it is a good fit.  However, for me personally, if one of my partners lived on an airport and had an attached hangar, I would be willing to give them a financial credit for that.

[salty]

I need to look at my budget reality closer. I honestly had planned on keeping this one for a long time, and was trying to avoid financing, but maybe that's not reasonable. When I bought this plane I paid cash. I figured on an overhaul the second year, and other upgrades as time went on, but the plan was to avoid debt.

Edited September 14, 2017 by salty

[carusoam]

Go 310hp Long Body with a TopProp...

It's forward balance enjoys some back seat loading.

Get really familiar with a WnB app.  Work out the numbers of your various missions with various loadings. I had two or three standards that always worked...  After a month, the WnB app was for reference only...

The nice thing about loading your passenger in the back... you can stay behind while helping them get situated.  Then get in yourself.

Some passengers find it easier to get on the wing from the leading edge side, and scooting around... depends on the individual's challenges.

A two seat LB? I would toss that other seat so fast you wouldn't know it was ever there...  more UL, less obstacles...

How do those PP ideas sound?

Best regards,

-a-

[salty]

2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The nice thing about loading your passenger in the back... you can stay behind while helping them get situated.  Then get in yourself.

That was the other reason for putting her in the back with the dogs, I could bring the dogs in and help her get situated.

[salty]

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

How do those PP ideas sound?

 

PP?

[Candy man]

5 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

Couple of things to consider , The Bonanza is probably the ultimate machine as far as cost verses mission , There are almost NO in flight breakups in the last 30 years as long as the cuffs are installed , In the Pilots seat , there is no conceivable difference as far as space is concerned between short, medium, and long Mooneys ,   I would discount the Commanche series , They are extremely old , and their systems are archaic at best ...

Aren't many of  the money's the same age as the commanche series? Why aren't they considered old?