Costs comparison on aircrafts

[acehole]

Will it haul 700lbs. for 700nm @70% power(with ifr reserves)?
Careful comparing Mooney's & Bo's...

[Niko182]

2 minutes ago, acehole said:

Will it haul 700lbs. for 700nm @70% power(with ifr reserves)?
Careful comparing Mooney's & Bo's...

Some Mooney will do that. Some bonanzas will too. 

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Some Mooney will do that. Some bonanzas will too. 

And the Mooney won't have CG problems as the fuel burns off . . . .

Even my little C will fly 5 hours at 145-148 KTAS, ~70% of 180 hp, with 970lb Useful Load, and have an hour's fuel left. When I flew hurricane relief, arriving at RDU after 2.4 en route plus another 25 minutes diversion for spacing to land, I was the only single engine plane I saw on the list with over 400 lb load available. Several Bos were there.

[Danb]

Most of our six cylinders will crush the Bo’s

Acclaim..220 knots

Bravo’s...200 knots

Ovations.185+ knots

 

 

[Niko182]

15 minutes ago, Danb said:

Most of our six cylinders will crush the Bo’s

Acclaim..220 knots

Bravo’s...200 knots

Ovations.185+ knots

 

 

The acclaim will Crush a TN Bo speed wise. An Ovation will beat a NA Bo. However the Bravo and TN550 A36 are pretty similar with the TN F33A and TN V35 walking away from the bravo. The only reason why is because the TN Bo's can create more power on a lower fuel flow since it takes advantage of the higher compression cylinders, and only flying LOP. The TN550s usually fly at 80-87 percent power LOP WOT 2300 to 2500RPM and 16 - 17.5GPH and tend to make it to TBO. It's really an unfair fight because you're comparing a modern TN system that has been updated up until the point, and is still being modernized to a turbo charging system that was last thought about in the late 1980s. I'm not trying to destroy the bravo. It is a fantastic aircraft. With the bravo however, you're getting a newer aircraft for less money. I'm just speaking facts. I love Mooneys, but I also love Bonanzas. I like most airplanes and understand that they each have their advantages and disadvantages.
 

 

[Davidv]

1 minute ago, Niko182 said:

The acclaim will Crush a TN Bo speed wise. An Ovation will beat a NA Bo. However the Bravo and TN550 A36 are pretty similar with the TN F33A and TN V35 walking away from the bravo. The only reason why is because the TN Bo's can create more power on a lower fuel flow since it takes advantage of the higher compression cylinders, and only flying LOP. The TN550s usually fly at 80-87 percent power LOP WOT 2300 to 2500RPM and 16 - 17.5GPH and tend to make it to TBO. It's really an unfair fight because you're comparing a modern TN system that has been updated up until the point, and is still being modernized to a turbo charging system that was last thought about in the late 1980s. I'm not trying to destroy the bravo. It is a fantastic aircraft. With the bravo however, you're getting a newer aircraft for less money. I'm just speaking facts. I love Mooneys, but I also love Bonanzas. I like most airplanes and understand that they each have their advantages and disadvantages.
 

 

Absolutely agree, the TN A36 (tornado alley) can outrun a bravo in the teens and carry more, but it’s newer technology and about a 300-350k entrance point...for a plane built in late 70s or early 80s in most cases.

[Niko182]

2 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Absolutely agree, the TN A36 (tornado alley) can outrun a bravo in the teens and carry more, but it’s newer technology and about a 300-350k entrance point...for a plane built in late 70s or early 80s in most cases.

I think its more like 190 to 250 for the late 70s early 80s TN model. 300 to 350 is for the 90s to 00s TN market. I've been looking at thay market recently a lot for general curiousity.

[Davidv]

9 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

I think its more like 190 to 250 for the late 70s early 80s TN model. 300 to 350 is for the 90s to 00s TN market. I've been looking at thay market recently a lot for general curiousity.

The 300-350 I’m referring to is pretty much any model year that’s been retrofitted with the newer tornado alley equipment.  Although I could be wrong since I’m not actively looking.  

[smccray]

27 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Absolutely agree, the TN A36 (tornado alley) can outrun a bravo in the teens and carry more, but it’s newer technology and about a 300-350k entrance point...for a plane built in late 70s or early 80s in most cases.

Most speed comparisons I've seen lead me to believe the Bravo is 5-10 knots faster at similar altitudes.  In the real world, that's close enough to the same block times that the difference doesn't matter much except for bragging rights on the ground (which let's face it- it matters ).  Even if I'm wrong and the Bo is faster than the Bravo, it's not enough faster to matter.

My bird does 195 ktas in the mid teens when light (full fuel, minimal bags).  12K ft I see ~180 ktas.  I assume if I climb up to class A airspace she's even faster, but 17.5 has been adequate, and I'm sensitive to altitude.  I prefer to stay out of class A airspace.

44 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

I love Mooneys, but I also love Bonanzas. I like most airplanes and understand that they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Agree.  I'm a fan of anything with wings.  

[Davidv]

9 minutes ago, smccray said:

Most speed comparisons I've seen lead me to believe the Bravo is 5-10 knots faster at similar altitudes.  In the real world, that's close enough to the same block times that the difference doesn't matter much except for bragging rights on the ground (which let's face it- it matters ).  Even if I'm wrong and the Bo is faster than the Bravo, it's not enough faster to matter.

My bird does 195 ktas in the mid teens when light (full fuel, minimal bags).  12K ft I see ~180 ktas.  I assume if I climb up to class A airspace she's even faster, but 17.5 has been adequate, and I'm sensitive to altitude.  I prefer to stay out of class A airspace.

Agree.  I'm a fan of anything with wings.  

My friend who has one (‘76 A36 with a newly overhauled 550 and tornado alley) does over 200-205 at 15k, I’m only in the low 190s at that altitude.  Granted, I’m usually flying with about 650 lbs of fuel plus me when I’m at that altitude. 

[Niko182]

14 minutes ago, smccray said:

Most speed comparisons I've seen lead me to believe the Bravo is 5-10 knots faster at similar altitudes.  In the real world, that's close enough to the same block times that the difference doesn't matter much except for bragging rights on the ground (which let's face it- it matters ).  Even if I'm wrong and the Bo is faster than the Bravo, it's not enough faster to matter.

My bird does 195 ktas in the mid teens when light (full fuel, minimal bags).  12K ft I see ~180 ktas.  I assume if I climb up to class A airspace she's even faster, but 17.5 has been adequate, and I'm sensitive to altitude.  I prefer to stay out of class A airspace.

Agree.  I'm a fan of anything with wings.  

I forgot to add the difference between weights makes a bigger difference due to much larger weight. Late 60s early 70 models straight TN 36's can have empty weight in the low 2100s and gross weights at 4023 lbs. That weight difference effects performamce quite a lot.