CMartin

Costs comparison on aircrafts

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hank said:

We ALWAYS worry about each other, and especially about new owners. Please be careful and do your stall practice 3 mistakes high!

Well, that is appreciated...  Just trust me when i tell you I take aviation safety very seriously.  I have been in an accident, it was no fun at all and I fly professionally for a living so being safe is my job.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

I have had 2 Beechcraft and one Mooney.  The Mooney was way cheaper to buy but it isn’t any cheaper for parts.  I also think when looking at Beechcraft they are more likely to have lived a pampered life than the Mooney.  You park your Cadillac in the garage and you Chevy on the street.  For the money you can buy a newer airframe with a Mooney.  Both airframes have brand specific things to look out for.  Insurance is a function of the aircraft value.  Don’t forget to look at the Beechcraft Debonair series too.  Lots of value in them.  The 225hp debs are good for 150kts and many have had larger engines installed.  They are both great planes beech/Mooney so roll the dice and take your chances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

I think a typical V35 cruising at about 70% power will give you about 170 KTAS.  That's 15 knots faster than my J, but fuel burn will be about 12.5 gph instead of 9 gph.  So to match my 985 UL, you'd need a V35 with a UL of about 1040.  Even worse on the 800 NM trip.  Many, but not all, V35's have an aft CG problem. 

Your numbers are mostly correct. I get 168-172 KTAS on 12.5 GPH depending on density altitude, but that's at 60-65% power. The average V35 actually has 1200-1400 lb useful load so effectively much more than any J model Mooney even accounting for a bit of extra fuel. When looking at a V-Tail Bonanza, one of the most important things is empty CG. My empty CG allows me to use all of my useful load as many do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally never liked comparing bonanzas to M20J's.  You're comparing a plane that has 285 to 300hp to one that has 200hp. A much more solid comparison is a Missile, Ovation, or Eagle to the S35 and newer aircraft's. Nearly all the time the beech is gonna have a better useful load. I've seen 35 series with under 1100lbs of useful load. I've even seen a couple with under a 1000, but the range of useful load on the V35's seem to vary between 1050lbs and 1350 most being around 1250. The range on the Eagles and Ovations seems to be in between 935lbs and 1175lbs. In all cases a fast Ovation is going to be faster than a fast S35. however, where the S35 excels is in rougher fields. It's also more fun to fly. where the M20R is heavy on the Roll and Pitch, I think its quite light on the rudder. the case is the opposite in the 35. I thought it was very nice on the Roll and pitch, but quite heavy on the rudder. In turbulence, the Mooney is way nicer in my opinion, since its tail doesn't wag that much. yaw damper solves this problem. Panel space is Very nice on the 35 for upgrades in the future. there is not a lot of room for avionics on the M20R. Climb rate is better in the Mooney, but the 35 catches up with the IO550 upgrade. I like both air frames very much. each has their advantages, and each has its disadvantages. but you also need to compare apples to apples. An M20J is not comparable to a 35. The 35 will win practically every aspect except for fuel flow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old girl (65 C model) caries a family of four, 75# bags and full fuel 440 miles nonstop at 140 TAS and look good doing it! I’m constantly impressed by the design. Don’t let her eloquent lines fool you, there is a real workhorse underneath!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to give some love to the Sierra's as everyone is beating up on them.  My dad owned one when I was growing up and we loved it.  In terms of comfort they are hard to beat.  Tons of room, 2 entry doors and a baggage door that is nearly as big as the cabin doors.  Useful load is respectable, most are 900-1000 and carry 60gals (52 usable) of fuel. They are not hard to land, like the Mooney, the landing gear is a trailing link with rubber donuts. It's stiff and they have had their share of PIO accidents that gave them that reputation. They are slow, very slow.  The A24R and B24R will cruise 125kts and the C24R will bump it up just over 130.  125kts combined with 52 gal usable gives it pretty short legs compared to any Mooney.  But if someones mission is only 200-300 miles and they want to be comfortable and have room for everyone to stretch out, they are a good option. 

That said, I'm on my second Mooney.  I had a M20C and now have a K.  I love the versatility the Mooney affords.  I can carry 50 gal, load the whole family on board, and cover 600nm.  Or I can top if off, and the wife and I can go over 1,000nm.  

I'm a big fan of the 520 powered Bo's too.  S35 and newer.  My only complaint with the them is the seating position is much less comfortable for me than a Mooney.  I'm tall with most in the leg so the bo is tight.

Cheers,

Dan

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 9:18 PM, carusoam said:

I looked at C172s and Piper Cherokee 140s

I  chose Mooney for the following...

Speed...

Efficiency...

Safety...

Four seats and more hp, at nearly the same price as the other planes...the big brand name seemed important to me... I thought I may have to sell if GA didn’t work out for me...

 

Then I stayed with Mooney...

Lowest cost annuals are the ones you do with your mechanic...

The Mooney is faster, and more efficient than the others...

The level of safety is top notch, but still requires the PIC to do the PIC job.

 

Then I changed Mooneys...

For a bigger cabin and faster plane....

Go O!

 

Then I upgraded the plane’s engine for a shorter T/O distance...

Go 310hp / TopProp wearing O!   :)

 

19 years later, i’m Still pretty happy about my early decision...

Best regards,

-a-

Great response with good information!! Thanks for sharing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 9:40 PM, gsxrpilot said:

@CMartin where are you located? I'll bet you we can get you a ride in a Mooney, and maybe a Bo as well. You won't go wrong with either.

I don't have nearly the experience of @KLRDMD. He's owned more airplanes than I'll likely ever even sit in. But I have owned an F33A and a couple of Mooneys. 

To me the Bonanza feels like an American muscle car and the Mooney feels like a German sports car. Think Charger Hellcat or 911 GT3. Both will quicken the pulse and put a smile on your face. But since it's your money, which would you prefer?

 

Good comparison! Thanks

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 10:45 PM, bonal said:

No offense meant, OK so just two for most flights and plenty to spend but don't want to spend  money unnecessarily then based on that I'd pick a top of the market M20E.  Short body's are really fun to fly. 

Non taken, just a serious buyer here trying to find some honest information you cant find anywhere else. You guys are all so helpful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 8:24 AM, Bob_Belville said:

No argument here...

20181217_115305-1.jpg

Beautiful!  It just looks like it cuts though the air like a knife!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 10:30 AM, Bob - S50 said:

For your mission I'd go with the Mooney M20J.

It sounds like you have the money to buy any of the planes you mentioned, you just want to spend your money wisely.  I'm wondering why you are worried about useful load if it's just you and your wife, but here is my reasoning:

M20J.  Summary: Relatively inexpensive to buy.  $4000 - $5000/year fixed costs not counting hangar.  Plenty of payload for 3 typical people or 4 FAA sized people.  Most efficient 4 seat production airplane ever built.  Pretty nice cruise speed.  Cruise at 155 KTAS at 9000' +/-.  That means your 450 NM trip is 3 hours and will burn about 30 gallons.  You will find J models with a useful load of just under 900 to just over 1000.  Ours is currently 985 but after we swap out the KFC200 for a GFC500 and remove the vacuum pump I expect us to end up around 1000 lbs.  30 gallons plus 10 gallon reserve is 240 pounds of fuel at engine start.  That leaves me with over 700 lbs of butts and bags.  800 NM non-stop (if your butt and bladder last that long) would be about 5+20 and a burn of 51 gallons.  With 10 gallon reserve that still leaves me with over 600 lbs of payload.

Bonanza.  Summary:  Feels bigger than the Mooney.  Better for grass/dirt runways. More payload.  Faster than the Mooney.  Fixed costs probably about the same as the Mooney.  However... Aft CG MAY limit your ability to use all that useful load.  Fuel burn will be about 40% higher to get an extra 10 - 15 knots.  Six cylinders are smoother than four but cost more.  I've never flown one, but from what I gather on forums, I think a typical V35 cruising at about 70% power will give you about 170 KTAS.  That's 15 knots faster than my J, but fuel burn will be about 12.5 gph instead of 9 gph.  The V35 should get you to your 450 NM destination about 15 minutes quicker but cost you about 6 gallons more fuel.  And instead of landing with 10 gallons you'll want to land with 13 gallons.  That means you'll have to carry an extra 9 gallons in the V35.  That's 54 lbs out of your payload.  So to match my 985 UL, you'd need a V35 with a UL of about 1040.  Even worse on the 800 NM trip.  Many, but not all, V35's have an aft CG problem.  Some put 25 lbs of ballast in the nose to solve the CG issue.  That 25 lbs comes out of your useful load.  I almost bought into one until I worked a sample loading and found I could not put 4 normal sized people into the plane without exceeding the aft CG limit.  When it's time to overhaul the engine, it will cost about 50% more.  And most 6 cylinder Continentals are more likely to need a top overhaul between engine overhauls than your typical Lycoming IO360.  That's money.

Beech Sierra.  Summary:  From what I've read, the only redeeming factor for the Sierra is cabin size.  Slow.  Weird landing gear.  Costs are, once again, probably similar to the Mooney and Bonanza.  Same engine as the M20J but about 25 knots slower.  That 450 NM trip will take about 30 minutes longer and burn an extra 4.5 gallons of fuel.  That's 27 lbs of payload that's gone.  And don't forget, that's 30 more minutes of run time on the engine which gets it closer to overhaul quicker.  While it is in good company (Spitfire), watching the mains retract outboard just looks wrong.  And a nose gear that has to rotate 90 degrees as it retracts and extends?  I honestly can't think of a good reason for a Sierra.  I'd much rather look at a C177RG with all it's gear and CG issues or a 250 Comanche.  Might even consider a Piper Arrow over the Sierra, and that's saying something.

Great comparison!!!! YOu are so right on Sierra, the gear swing just looks all wrong!!! Really good response thanks for sharing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 10:57 AM, Austintatious said:

I cannot speak with a great deal of Mooney experience.  I just purchased a Rocket and have put about 10 hours in it so far.  What I can offer you is a Mooney Noobs initial impressions.

-The aircraft handles like a much larger airplane.  It does not have a light sporty feel.  This is something I actually really like about it and makes it a great IFR aircraft, though I do not intend to fly in LIFR since it is SE.

-I have not done stalls so far in the aircraft,  however from what experience I do have you would have to really not be paying attention to get it into a stall.  It takes effort to get her slowed down as the air frame is pretty clean even with gear and flaps out, I find myself using speed brakes even when fully dirty.  This combined with a pretty low stall speed to begin with mean that you really would have to have your head up your butt to inadvertently get into a stall.  Again, I cannot comment on stall characteristics as I have not done any yet ( I know, shame on me)...  The flying has mostly been for acceptance and relocation.  It is in paint now and when I fly it next I will be doing stalls so i can report back.

-You absolutely cannot be fast on landing.  You WILL float and float and float

-You ABSOLUTELY cannot shove the nose forward to stop said float.  You have to hold the nose up on landing and if you are worried about landing long you had better go around.

-The Rear seats are surprisingly roomy.  I am 6'1" 240 lbs and Dare I say that the rear seats are more comfortable than the front.

-If you are Older/ out of shape or otherwise creaky, getting in and out might be a bit of a challenge... you climb up the wing and then down into the aircraft.

-these planes are fast (especially the rocket) It baffles me that mooney has everything but the experimental glass ships beat  when it comes to speed/ efficiency.  The more I look at other air-frames the more respect I have for what Mooney is.  I believe a great deal of their performance is due to the tail design.

-useful load is obviously different for each aircraft... However as another poster stated, there is usually fuel that can be left behind.  Be certain you are comparing apples to apples when you look at useful loads.  Don't look at a 900 lb useful load aircraft and automatically assume it has a lower FF UL than an aircraft with a 1000 lb UL.  It may hold less fuel/need less fuel to go the same distance.   I looked at BO's when I was deciding what to buy and do not think the Bonanzas are in all cases better than the mooney when you really look at the numbers.

 Final thought... I bought an aircraft to travel.  I wanted to be able to go 190+ knots and do it efficiently... Mooney has the only Piston Singles that can do this unless you look at experimental.

 

Thanks for the detailed response!! I'm 45 and and like to think I'm pretty fit so getting in wouldn't be a problem. Im also 6' 2" and around 220. I have flown Bo's but have never been in a Mooney so wonder how it feels with the lower seats? Guess I just need to get in one. THanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have have been great and I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions! There is nothing better than getting information from the horses mouth instead of trying to read into articles on the internet. This is truly a priceless forum with a great group of people sharing their experiences!

From everything I have read, BO's and Mooneys cant really be compared. But even so, the 200 hp vs the 285+, they run a close race. I do like the fact that the Mooney is so economical and fuel can be dropped to increase the useful load and still get great range. It's just me and my wife so the useful load isn't a must anyway. 

And just like any make and model there will be transition training to meet the needs of that specific aircraft. I am referring to one post that talks about coming in too fast and floating and floating....

I have been in the Bonanza's so know what the cabin is like but have never sat in a Mooney. Looks like I need to get in one and see how it feels.

Thanks again for everyones help, I really appreciate it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just flew the family to Smith Mountain Lake W91 for wife’s family reunion.  I have a 1004 lb useful load early J.  Started with 54 gal and 2500lb gross.   I actually did a w&b today because I was going to have to do more rigorous performance calculations than the usual boilerplate. Anyway burned 8.4 GPH at 6k 148 Ktas. Total burn was about 15 gal for my 200 Nm trip.  90 lbs lighter on the way out and a DA of 4000. I was pleasantly surprised by just how well the thing performs when you ask it to.  Book value or better for climb performance on the way out.  Way home was 8k 8.2 gph and 150/151 ktas. So I got both performance and efficiency.  I have seldom been weight limited (usually it’s a volume limitation), and its very difficult to approach aft CG limit.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add more “data” to this qualitative analysis thread:

 

Any C model Mooney is way cheaper to operate than any King Air.  

I did a lot of my instrument training in a Beech Sierra.  It was not supersonic but has lots more room in the cabin than a MiG 21.

A few hours dual in a Pitts S2C convinced me it will roll somewhat faster than an Ovation. 

A short body vintage Mooney is quite a different airplane than the later long fuselage planes.  

Flying is a very good thing.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bradp said:

I just flew the family to Smith Mountain Lake W91 for wife’s family reunion.  I have a 1004 lb useful load early J.  Started with 54 gal and 2500lb gross.   I actually did a w&b today because I was going to have to do more rigorous performance calculations than the usual boilerplate. Anyway burned 8.4 GPH at 6k 148 Ktas. Total burn was about 15 gal for my 200 Nm trip.  90 lbs lighter on the way out and a DA of 4000. I was pleasantly surprised by just how well the thing performs when you ask it to.  Book value or better for climb performance on the way out.  Way home was 8k 8.2 gph and 150/151 ktas. So I got both performance and efficiency.  I have seldom been weight limited (usually it’s a volume limitation), and its very difficult to approach aft CG limit.  

 

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

To add more “data” to this qualitative analysis thread:

 

Any C model Mooney is way cheaper to operate than any King Air.  

I did a lot of my instrument training in a Beech Sierra.  It was not supersonic but has lots more room in the cabin than a MiG 21.

A few hours dual in a Pitts S2C convinced me it will roll somewhat faster than an Ovation. 

A short body vintage Mooney is quite a different airplane than the later long fuselage planes.  

Flying is a very good thing.  

That's awesome!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 2:05 PM, 67 m20F chump said:

I have had 2 Beechcraft and one Mooney.  The Mooney was way cheaper to buy but it isn’t any cheaper for parts.  I also think when looking at Beechcraft they are more likely to have lived a pampered life than the Mooney.  You park your Cadillac in the garage and you Chevy on the street.  For the money you can buy a newer airframe with a Mooney.  Both airframes have brand specific things to look out for.  Insurance is a function of the aircraft value.  Don’t forget to look at the Beechcraft Debonair series too.  Lots of value in them.  The 225hp debs are good for 150kts and many have had larger engines installed.  They are both great planes beech/Mooney so roll the dice and take your chances.

Which Beechcraft did you own? If I go with a Bonanza it will be the straight tail, I've read there are soon to be issues with reskins of the v-tail? So the biggest difference between the Mooney and the Beech in your opinion is up front cost? I figured the annuals would be a big difference too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 60’ Debonair and a 77’ B55.  They are both great aircraft.  The tail issue could be a problem but if you look at that on pre purchase you should be ok.  The American Bonanza Society is working on a solution for the tail too.  

In my opinion you can pick up a Mooney for about 20k less for similar equipment maybe more.  I will probably get flamed for saying it but the Beechcraft is less expensive than the Mooney to work on.  It’s easier to find used parts for them too.  The Mooney 4 cylinder is cheaper to overhaul than the 6 cylinder Beechcraft and continental cylinders are going to be looked at between overhaul.  The Beechcraft gear is way better and cheaper to service too.   Either brand can give an expensive bill if neglected.  

They are both great aircraft mooney/Beechcraft and I am happy to have had them both.  

 

One more thing.  The 225 hp deb can burn Mogas  if you can find it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a huge thread on BeechTalk about the magnesium ruddervator skins and the ABS is not working on it, and Beech is not working on it. Basically there is no solution at this point nor is one for the forseeable future. If you have good skins,  great.. if you don’t I don’t know what to say

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

There’s a huge thread on BeechTalk about the magnesium ruddervator skins and the ABS is not working on it, and Beech is not working on it. Basically there is no solution at this point nor is one for the forseeable future. If you have good skins,  great.. if you don’t I don’t know what to say

V Tail issue only.  Aluminum replacements are an option for the BE33 and BE36.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CMartin said:

So the biggest difference between the Mooney and the Beech in your opinion is up front cost? I figured the annuals would be a big difference too? 

I wouldn't expect much of a difference in the annual cost- call a couple shops and check on the fixed cost of the annual.  It'll be pretty close.  Make sure scope of work is the same- I've seen some shops charge extra for the oil change whereas some include it in the fixed price.   

The Mooney is a slightly more efficient airframe.  Fuel cost per mile is going to be a little less in the Mooney compared to the Beech but it's a rounding error.  If you compare a 285HP+ Beech with a 200HP Mooney, the Mooney will look even better, but the a significant portion of that benefit comparison comes from flying a little slower (more efficiently).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, smccray said:

V Tail issue only.

And if you buy a V-Tail with good ruddervators and keep it hangared, it will probably never be an issue in your lifetime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, but it bear repeating.  The short body Mooneys are the biggest bang for your buck in all of GA.  Even the experimental have trouble beating them for the cost. Nothing goes as fast or hauls as much on that kind of money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.