Costs comparison on aircrafts

[flight2000]

Also keep in mind that the max weight you can put into any Mooney baggage area is 120 pounds.  It's 270 pounds for the 33/35 Bo's (not sure what it is in the A36's) and the later models have much bigger doors for easier loading.  My kids were bigger when I went from the M20E to the E33A, so removing the bench seat or using the rear seats for baggage in the Mooney was a non-starter for me (would make perfect sense if it was just my wife flying with me).  No issues with my CG in the former Bo (or Mooney for that matter) as my family is on the, ummm, feather side of the weight spectrum. 

These debates really do come down to your mission and how many butts are going to be in the seats regularly.  Now, I remove one back seat from the Travel Air to get more space if needed since I'm down to only 3 people with my son departing the house for his own adventures.  You can do the same with any Mooney that has the split back seats.  Think those are found on the 1981 and later models.

1968 E33A

UL = 1190

Full Fuel UL = 746

Range = 992 NM's, but that was to zero fuel and 6 hours.  Most of my missions were in the 3-4 hour range (550 NM)

[jetdriven]

32 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

These debates really do come down to your mission and how many butts are going to be in the seats regularly. 

1968 E33A

UL = 1190

Full Fuel UL = 746

Range = 992 NM's, but that was to zero fuel and 6 hours.  Most of my missions were in the 3-4 hour range (550 NM)

Ours is more like 977lb of UL.  That’s full fuel, 54 gal. 800nm. 150kt. 
665lb in the cabin. 800nm. Basically all the fuel.   Remarkably similar. But it’s a 47 gallon burn off. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by jetdriven

[Austintatious]

42 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

1968 E33A

UL = 1190

Full Fuel UL = 746

Range = 992 NM's, but that was to zero fuel and 6 hours.  Most of my missions were in the 3-4 hour range (550 NM)

Ohh, The 800NM rang I posted was with reserves.. to 0 fuel would probably be 950 miles + glide (lol)

.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Austintatious

[RogueOne]

43 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

Also keep in mind that the max weight you can put into any Mooney baggage area is 120 pounds.  It's 270 pounds for the 33/35 Bo's (not sure what it is in the A36's) and the later models have much bigger doors for easier loading.  My kids were bigger when I went from the M20E to the E33A, so removing the bench seat or using the rear seats for baggage in the Mooney was a non-starter for me (would make perfect sense if it was just my wife flying with me).  No issues with my CG in the former Bo (or Mooney for that matter) as my family is on the, ummm, feather side of the weight spectrum. 

These debates really do come down to your mission and how many butts are going to be in the seats regularly.  Now, I remove one back seat from the Travel Air to get more space if needed since I'm down to only 3 people with my son departing the house for his own adventures.  You can do the same with any Mooney that has the split back seats.  Think those are found on the 1981 and later models.

1968 E33A

UL = 1190

Full Fuel UL = 746

Range = 992 NM's, but that was to zero fuel and 6 hours.  Most of my missions were in the 3-4 hour range (550 NM)

Must be ‘82 because our ‘81 has fixed rear seat back.

[KLRDMD]

10 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Would you mind giving specifics?  I looked at BO's as well as Moonies and the difference didnt seem so great. What is your UL? Fuel capacity? FF UL ? Full fuel range ?

I'll provide specifics on my exact two airplane and the way I flew and fly them. Others may use different parameters. 

Mooney 231 - useful load 892 lb, useable fuel 75 gallons, 155 KTAS on 9.0 GPH

S35 Bonanza - useful load 1,114 lb, useable fuel 74 gallons, 170 KTAS on 12.5 GPH

That extra 220+ lb of useful load is important to me. That's an extra person even accounting for greater fuel burn. I was also able to put air conditioning in the Bonanza which would not be realistic in the Mooney. My empty CG in my Bonanza is 77.8 which means ALL of my useful load is usable. Don't let people scare you off about a high useful load not being usable. You simply don't buy those airplanes. Also, the V35 had an extra 100 lb useful load over the S35 and tip tanks give you another 100-200 lb useful load if you choose to add them, upping the fuel capacity to as much was 114 gallons and 1400 lb useful load on some.

[smccray]

My old 205 had 640 lbs gross weight with full fuel. I had the old king equipment, so a new panel would probably add to that.  That’s 2900 gross weight. It doesn’t get much better than that in a J model. 

The A36 has a couple different baggage weights.  All the way aft (behind the seats) it’s only 70 lbs.  The rear most seats are easily removed and the floor holds 450 lbs.  There’s an additional baggage space right behind the pilot/copilot seats in front of the club seating that I believe is rated for an additional 200 lbs.  My ‘85 A36 has 1350 lbs of useful load and a max fuel load of 104 gallons (74 in the main tanks).

9 hours ago, Austintatious said:

If the practical useful load is 11-1200 lbs, with 80 gallons onboard,  that means a FF UL of  620-720 lbs

I think it is pretty fair to say that any Mooney is going to go faster than any BO on equal fuel burns.  The difference is of course varied depending on what exactly you are comparing.

But With this cursory look, it appears the BO is pretty much right in line with the Mooney when It comes to how much you can put in it and go X miles.  I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases the Mooney would win out, being able to carry more weight for the distance to be traveled, either in extra fuel or butts and bags.

I agree- there are places where the Mooney will be more efficient than the Beech.  The mid body Mooneys compare well in useful load, but for the average plane, the Beech will be a little faster, burn more fuel, and carry more useful load.  Compared to long bodies, the Beech will be a little slower (or a lot slower depending on distance), burn a little more fuel, and carry more useful load.

As I said when I bought my A36 and sold my J- I’ll always be a Mooniac.  It doesn’t get any better in the efficiency department in certified aircraft.  Al Mooney designed a hell of an airplane with a crazy good legacy- but it’s not perfect.  Every plane has its faults- either useful load, or speed (aka fuel burn).  I’d go with a Tarbes Built Mooney, but that has a different fault...$

PS- @Jan Maxwell made a really good suggestion to me.  She said if you need more seats/useful load, buy a second Mooney and have your wife get her ticket.  I haven’t been brave enough to seriously suggest that.

 

[KSMooniac]

Must be ‘82 because our ‘81 has fixed rear seat back.

They started very late in the '81's...my salvage is 24-1221 and had them. I think I've seen 1217 or close to that for sale years ago, and it has a bench. I'm not sure where the change cut over.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

My 78 has a fold down rear bench seat.


Tom

[Niko182]

12 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Would you mind giving specifics?  I looked at BO's as well as Moonies and the difference didnt seem so great.

I'll give mine too.

What is your UL? 1139lbs

Fuel capacity? a tad bit over 100 gallons

FF UL ? 539Lbs

Full fuel range?
depends on speed
182-185 KTAS at 9.5k on 15.5GPH = 1195 NM
179 KTAS at 9.5K on 12.9GPH = 1390NM
172 KTAS at 9.5K on 12.0GPH = 1435NM

I'm not willing to sit in the plane for 8 hours very often however.
with 60 gallons, I can usually put around 775lbs and fly a decent distance.
in 4 months then entire panel is being replaced and I'm hoping I'll have a useful
load around 1170 to 1180lbs.

[flight2000]

10 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

They started very late in the '81's...my salvage is 24-1221 and had them. I think I've seen 1217 or close to that for sale years ago, and it has a bench. I'm not sure where the change cut over.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

Now that you mention it, I saw this 1981 on Controller.  Serial 24-1219 and it has the split seats.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33395537/1981-mooney-m20j

@RogueOne, what serial number is your Missile? 

Cheers,

Brian

[RogueOne]

1 minute ago, flight2000 said:

Now that you mention it, I saw this 1981 on Controller.  Serial 24-1219 and it has the split seats.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33395537/1981-mooney-m20j

@RogueOne, what serial number is your Missile? 

Cheers,

Brian

24-1054 Brian

[flight2000]

Just now, RogueOne said:

24-1054 Brian

Wow, lot's of space between those aircraft.  Hmmm, the mystery deepens as to when Mooney went to the split removable seats. 

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

I'll give mine too.

What is your UL? 1139lbs

Fuel capacity? a tad bit over 100 gallons

FF UL ? 539Lbs

Full fuel range?
depends on speed
182-185 KTAS at 9.5k on 15.5GPH = 1195 NM
179 KTAS at 9.5K on 12.9GPH = 1390NM
172 KTAS at 9.5K on 12.0GPH = 1435NM

I'm not willing to sit in the plane for 8 hours very often however.
with 60 gallons, I can usually put around 775lbs and fly a decent distance.
in 4 months then entire panel is being replaced and I'm hoping I'll have a useful
load around 1170 to 1180lbs.

Wow, that is in your Mooney!  Yea, I cant imagine wanting to be in one for 8 hours!

[moodychief]

With the top loading baggage compartment, I can only fit this small amount of stuff in my baggage compartment and back seat of my C model for 10-days at Oshkosh with my wife!  Of course I only have the smaller 48 gallon fuel tanks.

[acehole]

I owned a'65 C model for 7yrs in the 80's(978#Useful load)- fast(148kias),efficient,cramped(esp.lumbar area after 2hr),ok for hauling small kids in the rear,but really only for 2adults.Impressive handling in a level 3 TSRA.Mission changed after kids grew.

I owned a Cessna twin for the next 6yr, then owned an A36 Bonanza for 15 yr (ULwas ~1330#;106gal). Beech parts costs are much higher, tho things like bladder replacement require much less labor than redoing a wet wing.Cross country travel at 165ktas & 800nm for up to four adults in the Beech was sheer luxury.CG not a problem if common sense is used.

Considering all factors(hanger,insurance,annual/unexpected maint.,panel upgrades,STC's,fuel/oil) yearly expenses for each plane (including the twin) averaged about 3-4 times the hourly fuel costs(excluding engine overhaul).This was for flying ~100 hr/year. Never budget one of these babies on a monthly basis, and keep a big cash reserve ready for surprise AD's, engine, panel & fuselage "glitches".

MY ADVICE TO ANY PROSPECTIVE OWNER: CAREFULLY REVIEW ENGINE,PROP,AND AIRFRAME LOGS FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS(get work orders if poss.),and estimate the hourly costs& parts prices involved.(A mechanic can help you do this to help separate fact from fantasy).Most owners never do this simple but valuable prepurchase move.

 

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard Spazz.

Great costing input.

I started the same way as you, only 20 years later... then moved up to the M20R.... 

If you will be staying on MS, Add some detail to your avatar area....

Believe it or not... we have a Spaz already!  @spaz

Best regards,

-a-

[urbanti]

FWIW, I have recently owned both a M20E Mooney and a F33A Bonanza (straight tail).

My Bonanza insurance rate was between $1,000 & $2,000 /year, the Mooney a little under, but the F33A had a much, much higher hull value. 

I skimmed the thread and didn’t see a discussion of the size/weight of your family, but if you’re looking to fill the seats that could be a determinant...

If you fly in both I am sure that one will obviously stand out as the right choice for you!

Good luck!

Tim

 

[Herlihy Brother]

On 8/23/2019 at 6:23 AM, moodychief said:

With the top loading baggage compartment, I can only fit this small amount of stuff in my baggage compartment and back seat of my C model for 10-days at Oshkosh with my wife!  Of course I only have the smaller 48 gallon fuel tanks.

Kip white told me of the e in 1998, if it will fit, it will fly.   So true.

[spaz]

On 8/25/2019 at 8:20 PM, carusoam said:

Welcome aboard Spazz.

Great costing input.

I started the same way as you, only 20 years later... then moved up to the M20R.... 

If you will be staying on MS, Add some detail to your avatar area....

Believe it or not... we have a Spaz already!  @spaz

Best regards,

-a-

Believe it or not my old Navy squadron ended up a 2 Spaz squadron. This what a second previously ordained Spaz arrived for a second tour.  We all live in harmony, until the wrong Spaz gets called to carpet, and boy am I glad I was innocent!

Spaz

[M20F-1968]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:00 PM, KLRDMD said:

I'll provide specifics on my exact two airplane and the way I flew and fly them. Others may use different parameters. 

Mooney 231 - useful load 892 lb, useable fuel 75 gallons, 155 KTAS on 9.0 GPH

S35 Bonanza - useful load 1,114 lb, useable fuel 74 gallons, 170 KTAS on 12.5 GPH

 

Let me add some numbers that are in between these 2 models.  

My highly modified F (now a turbonormalized F) bridges this gap.  

200 hp, altitude to 18,000 ft easily (critical altitude about 20,000 ft I am told, have not been there).

Useful load 985 lbs, 90 gallons of fuel. 

10,000 ft, 75% power, 100 ROP  160 kts on 10.5 ghp = perhaps just under 7 hrs flying with reserves. 

full throttle 168 kts

17,000 ft, 75% POWER, 100 ROP, 175-180 Kts

40 LOP, 8.5 gph and about 5 knots less =  about 8.5 hrs flying with 1 hour left in each tank.

I like the manual gear and flaps of the F.  No extra weight for motors, no electrical stuff o fail, no issue with parts availability and lower maintenance.  What you feel in your

hand is what you have.

Fuel management in the Mooney is much easier than the Bonanza. 

With modern avionics, I think I have found a very capable retirement airplane that is efficient, safe, stable and provides for precise instrument flying.

What I am saying is that one can look at all the generalities made as to Mooney v. Bonanza in this thread.  In the end, you have to look at the specific airplane that is available to you at a given price and condition, and decide if it is what you want, or decide if it be made into what you want.  

The F can be landed on grass, but I do not take it there.  The Bonanza will do a better job of that.  

The big generalities are:   Mooney = speed and efficiency     Bonanza = a little more speed and greater useful load.

John Breda

[larrynimmo]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 8:54 PM, KSMooniac said:

They started very late in the '81's...my salvage is 24-1221 and had them. I think I've seen 1217 or close to that for sale years ago, and it has a bench. I'm not sure where the change cut over.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

my 24-1189 did not have them...

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, M20F-1968 said:

Fuel management in the Mooney is much easier than the Bonanza. 

Please explain. I have a left tank and right tank, 74 gallons useable. The vast majority of Bonanzas do too. How is fuel management in the Mooney much easier?

[Andy95W]

Is he maybe referring to CG management, where the CG shifts rearward (sometimes critically so) as fuel is burned?

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Is he maybe referring to CG management, where the CG shifts rearward (sometimes critically so) as fuel is burned?

In  the Bo, not in our Mooneys.

[urbanti]

Rereading this thread, its amazing how much good info and experience can be found at MS.

From an initial cost/cruise speed/fuel burn/engine overhaul standpoint, I would compare 4-cylinder Mooneys that cruise 140-160 KTAS with Beech Sierras, Piper Arrows and Cessna Cardinal RGs. IMO a nice four cylinder Lycoming powered Mooney absolutely crushes all competition at this price point.

I would compare 6-cylinder high performance Mooneys with Beech Bonanzas, Piper Comanche singles, Rockwell singles, Cirri and that group of aircraft that are going to cruise  @ 160-170 KTAS and in some cases carry more load, and have fuel burn 13-15 gph, and engine overhaul costs closer to $50k.

Best

Tim