231 versus S35

[kmyfm20s]

16 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I used to say the same thing about handling. I justified the handling on my Seneca the same way. It is on autopilot 90% of the time so what does it matter. But once you regularly fly an airplane with controls as perfectly harmonized as the Bonanza is, maybe you would see things differently.

The baggage area is one major difference between Bonanzas and Mooneys. All Mooneys have the same dimension door, and the lift up and over requirement and I believe all have the same maximum weight (120 lb?). I have the large baggage door in my Bonanza which is much lower than a Mooney and the volume is about three times that of the Mooney. The maximum weight of 270lb is a bit higher than the Mooney too.

My autopilot comment wasn’t to justify the Mooney’s controls. I’m telling you for long distance and IMC hand flying I prefer the Mooney. I also enjoy the balanced controls of the Bonanza. I don’t consider the tail wag of the V tail to be perfectly harmonized. I will be flying my Kitfox for local flights and pattern work which will be more fun on the controls than both planes.

Bonanza’s do have a better baggage door and baggage volume for sure, I’m not denying that.  But you have to admit that there are sensitive CG considerations when loading your plane closer to gross. Your plane might have a great CG but generally it is a big conversation with other Bonanza owners. When you put all 270lbs in the back what can you put up front?

Bonanza’s and Mooney’s have many amazing attributes. I like both planes and the Mooney currently fits my mission profile. As of now I like the load and go of the Mooney. I just wish I didn’t have to maneuver and manipulate large items into the baggage area.

[donkaye]

8 minutes ago, kmyfm20s said:

My autopilot comment wasn’t to justify the Mooney’s controls. I’m telling you for long distance and IMC hand flying I prefer the Mooney. I also enjoy the balanced controls of the Bonanza. I don’t consider the tail wag of the V tail to be perfectly harmonized. I will be flying my Kitfox for local flights and pattern work which will be more fun on the controls than both planes.

Bonanza’s do have a better baggage door and baggage volume for sure, I’m not denying that.  But you have to admit that there are sensitive CG considerations when loading your plane closer to gross. Your plane might have a great CG but generally it is a big conversation with other Bonanza owners. When you put all 270lbs in the back what can you put up front?

Bonanza’s and Mooney’s have many amazing attributes. I like both planes and the Mooney currently fits my mission profile. As of now I like the load and go of the Mooney. I just wish I didn’t have to maneuver and manipulate large items into the baggage area.

27 years of Mooney ownership as of a couple of days ago.  I never have given a second thought about limitations of the baggage area, especially with the rear seats removed, but I have never wanted to put a motorcycle back there either. 

[KLRDMD]

13 minutes ago, kmyfm20s said:

Bonanza’s do have a better baggage door and baggage volume for sure, I’m not denying that.  But you have to admit that there are sensitive CG considerations when loading your plane closer to gross. Your plane might have a great CG but generally it is a big conversation with other Bonanza owners. When you put all 270lbs in the back what can you put up front?

I don't recall ever needing 270 lb in the baggage area but if you're comparing it to a Mooney that's an impossible comparison as it is 150 lb more than the Mooney can accept.

But just for fun I plugged in some numbers. With me (185 lb) and a 225 lb passenger in the right front seat, full fuel (74 gallons) and 270 lb in the baggage area I'm below gross weight and within CG in all flight regimens.

Edited September 1, 2019 by KLRDMD

[kmyfm20s]

1 minute ago, donkaye said:

27 years of Mooney ownership as of a couple of days ago.  I never have given a second thought about limitations of the baggage area, especially with the rear seats removed, but I have never wanted to put a motorcycle back there either. 

Saddles, coolers, mountain bikes, big game antlers. They all fit in but it would be nice to be able to just through it in and go. I’m not going to change planes over it. I routinely leave my 4th seat out since I rarely fly more than 3 people. Hunting and mountain biking trips both back seats out. 

[kmyfm20s]

3 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I don't recall ever needing 270 lb in the baggage area but if you're comparing it to a Mooney that's an impossible comparison as it is 150 lb more than the Mooney can accept.

But just for fun I plugged in some numbers. With me (185 lb) and a 225 lb passenger in the right front seat, full fuel (74 gallons) and 270 lb in the baggage area I'm below gross weight and within CG in all flight regimens.

Not impossible, you said your UL was 1114 lbs and you just gave an example 1110.68 lbs with gas at 5.82 lbs/gal. A tad below gross and not using your back seats so cabin volume is irrelevant. My fuel reduction to accomplish your same flight profile would make it a wash for UL and I would get there faster. It is apparent we love our respective planes:)

[Danb]

This is two of my deliveries in North Carolina hurricane relief, like Hank stated most of the singles took less weight. With the seats out I requested 600 lbs, With the seats out I couldn’t fit that much area. The Bo doesn’t provide a fair comparison a small block to a big block.

My Bravo has UL of 1040, I’m 145 lbs, with 130 gallon tanks at 200 knots the lowly Bravo can cover 1200 nm in six hours in comfort. 

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Grated there is more leg room in the long axis in a Mooney but this is the first I've ever heard of a lack of legroom in a Bonanza.

It's not just a comfort thing.  If you have very long legs then that v-control thing that couples the two yokes ends up right where my knees want to be. And then I found that to make a cross control cross wind landing I would need to squish my knees to the side by torquing my back a bit and that made it hard to simultaneously keep my left foot properly pushing on the pedals for rudder control.  No joke it was awkward so hard to at the same time keep nimble and light on controls. - it alone was a deal breaker.

Edited September 1, 2019 by aviatoreb

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, donkaye said:

27 years of Mooney ownership as of a couple of days ago.  I never have given a second thought about limitations of the baggage area, especially with the rear seats removed, but I have never wanted to put a motorcycle back there either. 

I have put a pair of bicycles in the back many times. 

But never a motorcycle.

[Seth]

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Leave it to the professional dog fighter to use the correct phrasing regarding aeronautical stability terms.

Earlier you said that it was rods that creates a slower feel on the controls for mooney.  I always assumed there is a cam somewhere in there in the mechanisms, which is essentially like a gearing, that slows down how much push creates how much flight control deflection. If Al had wanted a lighter feel he could have simply chosen a smaller cam but he designed for a more "steady" feel as per his tastes.  Esp in roll.

Separate, for those with big engines on the nose - talking to you Job - these Mooney's are a bit heavy in pitch compared to the smaller Mooneys since they have relatively forward CG, but I found for mine when I took 35lb off the nose, it became much lighter in pitch and the balance feels much more harmonized in pitch.

I remember my old DA40 was MUCH quicker on the controls but I have always felt the Mooney's stead control feel is a lot like an autobahn read road car like a BMW.  I like it.  It is a design choice.  My Da40 was VERY hard to hand fly through instrument maneuvers - I know because I did my IFR ticket in it - and it had no autopilot.  Which is what started me down the road of selling it.  Bonanza was my head-head finalist vs Mooney but something you (KLRDMD) didn't mention - there's isn't much leg room for tall pilots in the front of a Bonanza.  Great planes though....if you don't mind slow planes.  Hahha....  seriously though you did say, but still it seems as much a comparison between a TSIO360 vs a IO520 when discussing speed and climb rate.  As Job said, think also missile if you want a normally aspirated big bore and climb at 1500fpm, cruise at 190, and carry the same useful load (rough from my head - I don't own a missile but I have been with Seth in his..).  Still great review.  I have been with Alan in his Bonanza and I was very impressed....despite the leg room.

My Missile is more a 175-185 machine depending on power settings.  Max speed I’ve ever hit is 192 and I don’t want to burn up the engine and have that fuel flow on a regular basis.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Seth said:

My Missile is more a 175-185 machine depending on power settings.  Max speed I’ve ever hit is 192 and I don’t want to burn up the engine and have that fuel flow on a regular basis.

...right but when you are bragging....you can truthfully say 190, since it is capable to do it - and even without absurd settings - just more power than conservative.

[bonal]

Wellll.   Sheeeeit.  Love the one your with.

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, Seth said:

My Missile is more a 175-185 machine depending on power settings.  Max speed I’ve ever hit is 192 and I don’t want to burn up the engine and have that fuel flow on a regular basis.

FF is one thing, but running it at 75% or even 85% power doesn’t shorten life as long as it’s rich enough to run cool.  

[Yooper Rocketman]

10 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Not saying you're a liar. Saying something not right. 

Our mercy flight organization has had two A-36 Bo's.  Both were/are prone to dropping on their tails if you're not careful loading.  We had our bi-monthly meeting on Thursday and two experienced guys did the same thing AGAIN.  Unfortunately, every time they do that you end up with structural damage in the back.  One of our members, a long time Bo owner, acknowledged this HAS BEEN a problem on Bo's.  I won't load heavier passengers without holding the vertical stab.  I've even jumped on the wing to load myself from the front side sometimes.

I agree with Erik on the seating too.  There's no way I could sit for 4 hours in our Bonanza.  I'm only 5'9", but my legs cramp because of the high seats, limited rail adjustments, and no room to stretch out.  I have probably 300 hours of Bo time.

I DO LIKE the plane.  My hangar buddy and I were given the go ahead many years ago to find a second plane for our organization, after the purchase of a Seneca and us being the longest active pilots still stuck flying our own planes from lack of a twin rating.  I took twin training, 6 hours to be exact, but thought this was crazy.  The single engine plane I was building was almost twice as fast on about the same fuel burn and I'd never stay current enough to be safe in it.  So...... convinced we would be buying an all weather well equipped Mooney, we ended up picking the Bo.  More seats, pretty good speed and efficiency, rear door access for marginally mobile patients.  It's been a great plane for the mission, faster and lower fuel burn than the twin, and better payload.  It was 10 knots slower (the second one, turbonormalized)  than my Rocket in the breathable altitudes on 3.5 gallons an hour less.  I always wondered how that thing could fly that fast with those fat wings.

Tom

[cliffy]

One thing to keep in mind about the dichotomy between the two airplanes is the wing strength.

How many Mooneys have pulled their wings off?

How many Bos have done that also? 

The Bos history on wing spar mods in long and detailed. Go read about the guy who designed both of them. Same guy, different company CEOs. He said to Al Mooney that he would only do it if he had free reign on design because he didn't want another wing coming off "his" airplane.

Seems ol' man Beech wanted the lightest wind structure possible to make requirements so as to keep weight down. It then went through numerous design changes to make it stronger over the decades. Not counting the tail problems and fixes there. 

Nothing like that has ever happened to a Mooney. 

Unfortunately I lost a very dear friend to pulling the wings off a Bo in an IFR upset. Maybe not exactly the planes fault but still?

I have always thought of changing to a Bo but the tailwag bothers me enough to drop the idea every time. 

In addition, when I look at speeds and compare to the E powered Bos, (somewhat apples to apples) I'm only about 10 to at best 15 kts different (low) so the cost delta to arrival time (total flight time yearly) I'm way ahead (the few minutes I would save every year are costly). It goes from parts cost to TBO times. TBO is lower and parts cost more in the Bo. 

If you own a Bo you need to take it to one of the club maintenance seminars and have it looked at by the experts. There is a great utube on the Bonanza maintenance course inspection that will really open your eyes on how to take care of one and what to look for in a good annual inspection Its really that good. 

Can't say that Bos don't look good on the ramp though. Called great ramp presence! Kinda like parking your Gulfstream next to a Citation :-)

[Guest]

I’d say what airframe and engine brand I prefer, but it would “un Mooney like “ to say it here.

Clarence

[Hank]

19 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I’d say what airframe and engine brand I prefer, but it would “un Mooney like “ to say it here.

Clarence

We understand, Clarence. There just aren't many 8-cylinder airplanes . . .

[aviatoreb]

11 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

I agree with Erik on the seating too.  There's no way I could sit for 4 hours in our Bonanza.  I'm only 5'9", but my legs cramp because of the high seats, limited rail adjustments, and no room to stretch out.  I have probably 300 hours of Bo time.

Right - at 6'4'' as I said this is beyond comfort but an issue that it is physically difficult to get my knees out of the way to perform proper control surface inputs as the yoke thing is jammed against my knees. Beyond that, yes it is quite uncomfortable for me even.

Now it is one thing to enjoy a plane for a short flight when it is someone elses plane and I enjoy a ride in a Bonanza as it is a sweet plane, and I will say the same about many planes.  But I would never buy for my own a plane that has a major comfort issue - yes because I am 2 sigma tall outside of standard deviation of the population - but yes that's me.  Any more than yes I would ride your bike if I were visiting, to ride to the store and back to get something, but I would never buy a bike for my own that was too small.

[BKlott]

11 hours ago, cliffy said:

One thing to keep in mind about the dichotomy between the two airplanes is the wing strength.

How many Mooneys have pulled their wings off?

How many Bos have done that also? 

The Bos history on wing spar mods in long and detailed. Go read about the guy who designed both of them. Same guy, different company CEOs. He said to Al Mooney that he would only do it if he had free reign on design because he didn't want another wing coming off "his" airplane.

Seems ol' man Beech wanted the lightest wind structure possible to make requirements so as to keep weight down. It then went through numerous design changes to make it stronger over the decades. Not counting the tail problems and fixes there. 

Nothing like that has ever happened to a Mooney. 

Unfortunately I lost a very dear friend to pulling the wings off a Bo in an IFR upset. Maybe not exactly the planes fault but still?

I have always thought of changing to a Bo but the tailwag bothers me enough to drop the idea every time. 

An Aviation Consumer report entitled “V-tail Breaking of a legend” stated that from 1946 thru 1978 there were 208 instances of a fatal inflight airframe failure in a model 35 Bonanza.

The article was dated February 1, 1980. There have been others since then.

Edited September 2, 2019 by BKlott

[cliffy]

The above averages about one every 2 months!

[BKlott]

It is interesting to note that while the OP has made very favorable comments about the handling characteristics of his S35, many sources report that the earlier model 35 Bonanzas were much nicer handling airplanes. My Dad flew them from the first straight 35 up to and including the J35 model, back when they were all new airplanes. He said the same thing. Kind of makes you want to fly an earlier model just for comparison.

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, cliffy said:

The above averages about one every 2 months!

WOW - that's nutz.

Anyway it is my understanding that this terrible problem was resolved quite some time ago and they are no longer breaking up.

[cliffy]

The very early ones had a "window" in the center section spar that proved to be problematic for strength and the included angle of the V tail was changed later to improve yaw stability. 

Many upgrades to the spar were made in production through the years and we all know about the tail problems that required the "cuffs" to be added to the V tails or the speeds were severely limited by AD. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by cliffy

[BKlott]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

WOW - that's nutz.

Anyway it is my understanding that this terrible problem was resolved quite some time ago and they are no longer breaking up.

Copied from the report:

 

Where Does It Fail?
Perhaps the most significant of the Beech studies of the problem of in­ flight structural failures was written in December, 1958. This restricted docu­ ment, Beech Service Engineering Re­ search Study No. 103, summarized the locations of failure for each of the Bonanza models then built.
What was found was that the origi­ nal 35 tended to fail in the wings, and the later models tended to fail more frequently in the tail. The original model 35 failed most frequently at Wing Station 66, the weak point that
had been pointed out by the CAB a decade earlier.
Beech Study 103 also compared the structural failure rate of the Bonanza against that of other four- or five-place aircraft. For every year from 1948 to 1957 (1947 was not listed) the Bonanza rate was higher than that of the com­ parison group. Over the 10-year
period, the Beech data showed the Bonanza’s failure rate was 50 percent higher than the comparison group’s. However, this comparison group itself contained the Bonanza. When the Bonanza is removed from the compari­ son group (Beech did not do this), its in-flight failure rate is actually 133 per­ cent higher than that of other four- or five-place aircraft.
It appears fairly clear to us that both Beech and the CAA should have known there was a serious problem of in-flight failures early in the history of the Bonanza. Indeed, we were told by an ex-Beech engineer who asked to remain anonymous: “Yes, we realized there was a problem within the first three or four years.”

My Comments: The mention of Wing Station 66 being the weak point in the early models was due to there being no spar web in the wing beyond that point. This was addressed in later model 35 Bonanzas.

Edited September 2, 2019 by BKlott

[jetdriven]

In fact the very first Bonanza prototype  suffered tail failure, w  resultant pitchover, then  it shed both wings. The guy in the right seat got out, the pilot did not

Edited September 2, 2019 by jetdriven

[cliffy]

I'm listening for any similar reports on Mooneys but all I hear is crickets  :-) :-)

This is actually the major reason I went Mooney over Bo 20+ years ago (in addition to the economy vs speed).

Edited September 2, 2019 by cliffy