Mooney M20J VS Bonanza V tail or F33

[flight2000]

6 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I find that most of my flying is either solo or with one other person, either a pilot buddy or my wife. For that, the F33A didn't make sense for me. I also couldn't afford it solo. The Mooney I fly now, a 252, I can easily afford without any pesky partners. And it's plenty for two people.

You mention that 150K is out of the budget right now. I'm sure as an airplane owner now, you realize that the capitol expense is only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't want to own an airplane that I could afford to hang an engine on at any time.

Paul, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this.  The TC engine on your 252 is about $15-20K more to overhaul than the engine on a NA F33A.  Was it the acquisition cost of a late year F33A (mid to late 80/early 90's) that was the biggest factor?  If it is, I'd agree with that since F33A owners seem to think their aircraft are made of gold or something.....purchase price on the 252 is certainly a lot lower than a same year F33A for the most part.  I've found maintenance between the Mooney and Bonanza (like years anyway) to be a wash with the overhaul cost being the exception to that.

Just curious, that's all.

Cheers,

Brian

[Urs_Wildermuth]

10 hours ago, DavidJ18 said:

I though i should hold on to my Arrow and in a year or so go for A36. 

What Arrow do you have? Friend of mine has the Arrow III and is quite happy with it, range, payload and all.

Question in my mind is, with an Arrow, do you NEED to upgrade at all? From an original 180hp yes, Arrow II as well for the range, Arrow III and IV not so sure. They are 145 kt airplanes if I remember right and their cabins are not bad either. Some of them also will carry 4 over a good distance.

Clearly, if you want to carry 4 full adults and full fuel, we are talking a C210 or A36 if you want to stay single engined. BUT, have a look at some Senca II or III's out of the box. They will carry 4 in some comfort and have a good range too (123 USG) and depending on the prop will run at 160 kts. Yes, they are bigger, but looking at the prices some of those achieve, you may end up buying one for half your budget and use the rest to upgrade and fly it. Same goes possibly for a Cessna 310. Piston twins are extremely good value these days.

[jetdriven]

Idk if I e ever seen a145kt, 200hp Arrow.  Same with a Cardinal RG. 137ktas, 139 if flogging it. 

[Bob_Belville]

And Mike (201er) is in the air this morning doing 142 ktas on 7.8 gph LOP in his super long range J. (That's the performance I see with my M20E.)    

[rpcc]

Read John Eckalbar’s. Book on bonanzas -  just a great read for anyone.  Is there a similar book  for Mooney’s?  If the ovation doesn’t work out for me it will be an s35.   It’s kind of a tossup right now but a big factor for me is a newer airframe bs the bo.  From what I’ve seen and that’s not much btw - the  maintenance cocst on these  complex planes are not really much different over a number of years as a percentage of towtal ownership costs.  My choice is to buy what I like most and try to reduce my cost risks 

[chrisk]

2 hours ago, flight2000 said:

Paul, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this.  The TC engine on your 252 is about $15-20K more to overhaul than the engine on a NA F33A.  Was it the acquisition cost of a late year F33A (mid to late 80/early 90's) that was the biggest factor?  If it is, I'd agree with that since F33A owners seem to think their aircraft are made of gold or something.....purchase price on the 252 is certainly a lot lower than a same year F33A for the most part.  I've found maintenance between the Mooney and Bonanza (like years anyway) to be a wash with the overhaul cost being the exception to that.

Just curious, that's all.

Cheers,

Brian

I'm sure Paul will chime in with his reasons.   That said, I'd expect Paul see 170kts+ on 12 gph.  And if he is flying west, going over the mountains where minimum altitudes are in 16, 000+ MSL range, there is no issue going up to 25,000 feet if there is weather.   --Turbos are really nice!  I'd expect 3 to 4 gph more on a Bonanza and a bit slower.  The cost of fuel adds up reasonably quickly.   

I fly a 231.  It's a little slower than what Paul has, but acquisition cost is considerably less.  I often use it for long trips, often 800+ miles non stop with head winds and reserve.  I love it.    Having that sort of range also lets you make non-stop trips that save considerable time, or if the fuel is abusively priced at your destination, stop elsewhere.  Operating costs have been quite low.  

That said, if your mission requires 4 people, you really should to be looking at 6 person planes:  Lance/Saratoga, C210, or A36.    You could go with a twin, as some have suggested.  But, you'll have higher operating costs, insurance, annuals, and parts are more too. --Its why twins are such a value now.

[Alan Fox]

14 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Wow, that’s way less expensive than Mooney bladders, I wonder why?

Bladders on the Beech are factory , Mooneys are wet wing ... I don't believe the combination of wet wing and the puck style gear were a good design for the Mooney , It seems that wet wings , with Oleo or springy gear , last forever as evidenced in the later Cessnas , and the Beech 19/23/24 series....

[gsxrpilot]

3 hours ago, flight2000 said:

Paul, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this.  The TC engine on your 252 is about $15-20K more to overhaul than the engine on a NA F33A.  Was it the acquisition cost of a late year F33A (mid to late 80/early 90's) that was the biggest factor?  If it is, I'd agree with that since F33A owners seem to think their aircraft are made of gold or something.....purchase price on the 252 is certainly a lot lower than a same year F33A for the most part.  I've found maintenance between the Mooney and Bonanza (like years anyway) to be a wash with the overhaul cost being the exception to that.

 

56 minutes ago, chrisk said:

I'm sure Paul will chime in with his reasons.   That said, I'd expect Paul see 170kts+ on 12 gph.  And if he is flying west, going over the mountains where minimum altitudes are in 16, 000+ MSL range, there is no issue going up to 25,000 feet if there is weather.   --Turbos are really nice!  I'd expect 3 to 4 gph more on a Bonanza and a bit slower.  The cost of fuel adds up reasonably quickly.  

It was a early 90's model F33A with the IO550B. I know this isn't a good apples to apples comparison to my 252, but it was my first foray in to ownership. There were several partners that made it seem affordable. After an expensive annual that included a couple of cylinders, I decided my partners were evidently in a different tax bracket than I. They were also wanting to add tip-tanks, and glass to the panel. All that and the cost of fuel to feed the beast meant it was just too rich for me. 

I went from that to the M20C without any partners. Now I feel like I've settled in the middle with my 252. 

[flight2000]

41 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

It was a early 90's model F33A with the IO550B. I know this isn't a good apples to apples comparison to my 252, but it was my first foray in to ownership. There were several partners that made it seem affordable. After an expensive annual that included a couple of cylinders, I decided my partners were evidently in a different tax bracket than I. They were also wanting to add tip-tanks, and glass to the panel. All that and the cost of fuel to feed the beast meant it was just too rich for me. 

I went from that to the M20C without any partners. Now I feel like I've settled in the middle with my 252. 

Totally understand where you're coming from now.  Thanks!

I don't want to pony up for a new glass panel or tip tanks either at this point. 

Cheers,

Brian

[flight2000]

1 hour ago, chrisk said:

I'm sure Paul will chime in with his reasons.   That said, I'd expect Paul see 170kts+ on 12 gph.  And if he is flying west, going over the mountains where minimum altitudes are in 16, 000+ MSL range, there is no issue going up to 25,000 feet if there is weather.   --Turbos are really nice!  I'd expect 3 to 4 gph more on a Bonanza and a bit slower.  The cost of fuel adds up reasonably quickly.   

I fly a 231.  It's a little slower than what Paul has, but acquisition cost is considerably less.  I often use it for long trips, often 800+ miles non stop with head winds and reserve.  I love it.    Having that sort of range also lets you make non-stop trips that save considerable time, or if the fuel is abusively priced at your destination, stop elsewhere.  Operating costs have been quite low.

I've had the NA Bonanza (IO520BA) up to 17,000 before out west, but that is the max I'd try to go with it.  Was trying to get around some weather going from Reno to Portland.  On the east coast, I've got no need for the TC engine and can just go the long way around or wait out a moving line of wx.  Never in a rush...  

I normally cruise in the 7-10K range and get 168 ktas - WOT/2400 RPM/13.4 gph running LOP.  Down in goof off land riding the airway to nowhere, I'll just run 21"/2300 for 142 ktas at 10.6 gph - also LOP.  Only time I've run ROP was while breaking in an overhauled cylinder after the last annual.

I almost pulled the trigger on a nice 231 from AA in Aug 2016, but was just not happy with the useful load being at the same place my M20E was.

At some point, maybe I can afford an Acclaim...lol! 

Cheers,

Brian

[carusoam]

1) Select the altitude you want to fly. 

• O₂ Nose hose OK?
• NA, TC, or TN discussion comes in here....

2) Select the engine that fits your mission/budget best.

3) Select the wing next.   Laminar or that less efficient variety.

4) Select the volume that fits your back seaters and your stuff.

5) Four full grown adults flying around the East Coast. An Ovation makes a lot of sense...Speed and efficiency are key... (for me)

Prices seem to be sliding upwards this spring.  Lots of people looking to buy.

 

 

PP ideas only, not a plane sales guy, yet....

Best regards,

-a-

[flight2000]

11 minutes ago, carusoam said:

@flight2000 Brian, in your research for your Engine Out book,  did you ever collect data that would show ranking of engines for their reliability in any way?

or what parts have caused engine stoppage?  (Things that drain oil in flight, mags that decide on a different ETA than the plane, other?)

PP ideas only, not a plane sales guy, yet....

Best regards,

-a-

Ah ha...okay, so now I know what you were driving at that had me wondering if you were hitting some secret sauce before posting... . 

You got me confused with Nate Jaros, author of the engine out book: https://www.amazon.com/Engine-Out-Survival-Tactics-Emergencies-ebook/dp/B01HTWFPQU

At least I think that is who you may be referring too?  He used to own a V35B, but sold it when he took an overseas job (sweet ride too).  His plane is on the cover.

I'm a commercial pilot on the side, but not for the Army (my real day job). 

Cheers,

Brian

Edited March 31, 2018 by flight2000

[carusoam]

Sorry to both Nate (Buster) and Brian... 

Almost have gotten to Know you both for so many years.

I must have temporarily slid your memories together under the good guys that have gone Brand B file...

Brian, Thanks for helping me get this sorted... 

Best regards,

-a-

[JohnB]

One of the most helpful sites I found when I was deciding about getting a Bonanza or a Mooney or another plane (I had been flying Arrows and Archers and wanted to step up) was aircraftcompare 

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/compare-airplanes/Airplanes/1

Compared apples to apples to all sorts of airplanes you can do head to head comparisons. I personally chose a Mooney after looking at these comparisons from this site.

[201er]

1 hour ago, JohnB said:

One of the most helpful sites I found when I was deciding about getting a Bonanza or a Mooney or another plane (I had been flying Arrows and Archers and wanted to step up) was aircraftcompare 

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/compare-airplanes/Airplanes/1

Compared apples to apples to all sorts of airplanes you can do head to head comparisons. I personally chose a Mooney after looking at these comparisons from this site.

I did the compare site between a Mooney Acclaim and a Boeing 787 and have to say I’m a bit disappointed and realized I bought the wrong brand. Now when it comes to real airplanes on the market that you can actually buy (pre-1990), they don’t have any of them.

[DavidJ18]

@201er that was funny! 

[JohnB]

42 minutes ago, 201er said:

I did the compare site between a Mooney Acclaim and a Boeing 787 and have to say I’m a bit disappointed and realized I bought the wrong brand. Now when it comes to real airplanes on the market that you can actually buy (pre-1990), they don’t have any of them.

Ha ha 201!! Although the acclaim is slower, did you check out the fuel economy on those two planes? Mooney wins there!

Mooney Acclaim                             B 787 Dreamliner

Cruise Speed

279 MPH                                           587 MPH

 

Fuel Economy

14.47 miles per gallon                    0.24 miles per gallon

[201er]

1 hour ago, JohnB said:

Ha ha 201!! Although the acclaim is slower, did you check out the fuel economy on those two planes? Mooney wins there!

Mooney Acclaim                             B 787 Dreamliner

Cruise Speed

279 MPH                                           587 MPH

 

Fuel Economy

14.47 miles per gallon                    0.24 miles per gallon

Wow, See what that comes out to per capita.

PS in the 201 I typically see 15-18nmpg. 19 today with a slight tailwind.

[Jerry Pressley]

Did anyone ever consider the wing on the mooney is tank strong and the Bonanza rides around with all the weight depending on one nuts threads.  shear that nut and it is all over.

[flight2000]

2 hours ago, acpartswhse said:

Did anyone ever consider the wing on the mooney is tank strong and the Bonanza rides around with all the weight depending on one nuts threads.  shear that nut and it is all over.

Let me correct this bit of misinformation.  There are eight bolts (4 per wing - 2 on the top, 2 on the bottom) and they are inspected at every annual for corrosion (I could check them before every flight if I wanted to - simple panel cover to remove).  There has never been a documented case of a single bolt, let alone 2 or more, sheering off on any BE33/35/36 Bonanza.  We also have a set of spars that run through the fuselage into the wings.

Non issue from my perspective.

Cheers,

Brian

[Alan Fox]

3 hours ago, acpartswhse said:

Did anyone ever consider the wing on the mooney is tank strong and the Bonanza rides around with all the weight depending on one nuts threads.  shear that nut and it is all over.

Did anyone ever consider the fact that Mooney has never produced a single production aerobatic aircraft ever , And Beech has produced thousands ????   Wing bolts and all ????

[Andy95W]

Sorry, Alan.  Mooney did make at least one aerobatic airplane:

(But you're right, it wasn't a production model, and I get your point.  I personally trust the Bonanza wing and attachment bolts.)

The M20T Predator, a canopy-equipped version of the basic M20 design powered by a Lycoming AEIO-540 engine, was Mooney's entrant in the USAF Enhanced Flight Screener competition. The prototype, built in 1991, displayed in a tiger-stripe paint scheme. The sole prototype, registered N20XT, was flown in the Experimental – Market Survey category and was still owned by Mooney Aircraft in 2013, although its registration had expired November 30, 2013.^[36][37][38] The competition for the Enhanced Flight Screener program was finally held in 1992, and the Slingsby T67 Firefly was chosen instead of the Mooney EFS.

[Jerry Pressley]

33 and 36 you are possibly correct but the V tail is a different animal. As you know I have been into parts for most of my life and the 35 Bonanza has had more in flight breakups than anything else out there. Cherokee 6 is next in line if i remember correctly.   I have picked up a large number of V tails where the ruddervator leading edge folds under and comes off then the tail passes the fuselage and wings shed.  I said it all rides on one nut which is the lower front one.  the other three are not too important without that last one.  

Beech come up with a solution to the ruddervator leading edge folding under by putting a dinky little cuff attached to the tailcone around the leading edge. (check ir out next time you see a v tail sitting) Didn't work as they are still coming apart.  I know, I know....mine wont.  I had a friend who had a straight 35 who would come over my field at full speed and jerk the yoke back just to prove it.  His didnt.    

Sorry to cause unneeded hate and discontent but this IS a forum for this kind of discussion i believe.

[jetdriven]

Actually Mike Smith invented the tail cuff mod back in the 1980s.  When the Beech AD came out, they mostly copied his lead. Since the AD forced the entire fleet with this tail cuff, either ZERO or almost ZERO V-tails have broken up in flight due to the tail. Now, take a TN A36 and penetrate a thunderstorm and lose control and reach 300 KIAS in a vertical dive, yes it will come apart. But at any semblance of staying near the flight envelope, you are safe.

Edited April 2, 2018 by jetdriven

[Jerry Pressley]

The record--a synopsis Using the limited categorization of causes (from NTSB findings) the following general results appear: In 1962-2007: • there were 148 reports of in-flight structural failure in Beech models 33, 35 and 36 airplanes.