BKlott Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Another sobering comment from the report was that 71 of the 1,500 original, straight 35 model Bonanzas built, suffered a fatal inflight airframe failure. That represents 4.8% (nearly 5%) of that models entire production! Now you know why they are so inexpensive to purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, cliffy said: 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 I figured early on that with a C model Mooney I would give up .3 hr per flight (18 mins) on 50 flights per year (@ 100 hrs/yr) by going against an E model Bo (E225 engine). 18 mins per average trip of 2 hrs didn't seem like such a compromise given the other factors of safety and cost. That "saved" 18 mins was rather expensive in my book. Now, no comparison made to the big bore Mooneys against the later O-470 or bigger Bos. The cost of entry in the 200 mph club was more than I wanted to spend at the time or even now. JMO. 15 NMPG is great at @ 140 kts TAS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) There is a similar picture of Luscombe way before the Mooney picture :-) I count 28 up there and 30 on the Mooney Edited September 2, 2019 by cliffy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 52 minutes ago, cliffy said: There is a similar picture of Luscombe way before the Mooney picture :-) I count 28 up there and 30 on the Mooney Are those vortex generators? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 54 minutes ago, cliffy said: There is a similar picture of Luscombe way before the Mooney picture :-) I count 28 up there and 30 on the Mooney And the Luscombe has fairly petite women on it- the Mooney has a good number of large sized men and women both. Very impressive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 28 minutes ago, Andy95W said: And the Luscombe has fairly petite women on it- the Mooney has a good number of large sized men and women both. Very impressive. I wouldn't want to fly either plane after that stunt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueOne Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 2 hours ago, cliffy said: 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). Mooney for the win. Checkmate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 I like Mooneys. I really do. I flew the 231 2.5 hours today giving refresher instruction to the owner. This was my airplane previously and would still be if it had 200 lb more useful load. When I was looking to upgrade Jimmy had an Encore I looked at. But it had about 1,000 lb useful load which just doesn't meet my current needs. There are some Mooneys with 1,100+ lb useful load but they are two to three times the expense of a slightly less efficient, slightly slower on slightly more fuel Bonanza. My compromise (we all compromise) was an S35 Bonanza. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 36 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: I like Mooneys. I really do. I flew the 231 2.5 hours today giving refresher instruction to the owner. This was my airplane previously and would still be if it had 200 lb more useful load. When I was looking to upgrade Jimmy had an Encore I looked at. But it had about 1,000 lb useful load which just doesn't meet my current needs. There are some Mooneys with 1,100+ lb useful load but they are two to three times the expense of a slightly less efficient, slightly slower on slightly more fuel Bonanza. My compromise (we all compromise) was an S35 Bonanza. Not saying its a bad choice at all Good looking, good flying but as Dirty Harry said- "A man's got to know his limitations"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) Just now, cliffy said: Not saying its a bad choice at all Good looking, good flying but as Dirty Harry said- "A man's got to know his limitations"! Fly any airplane that's airworthy today inside the design parameters and you'll be fine. Not a big deal at all. All of this talk about wings coming off Bonanzas and tails coming off are simply scare tactics and not relevant today. Edited September 2, 2019 by KLRDMD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: Fly any airplane that's airworthy today inside the design parameters and you'll be fine. Not a big deal at all. All of this talk about wings coming off Bonanzas and tails coming off are simply scare tactics and not relevant today. You are right. It is not relevant today. But there was an era where many Bonanzas crashed because they fell apart and it was not at all clear that they were all flown outside of parameters. This was not an issue that can be simply blamed on the - many - pilots. No body is making a tactic - this is not a scare tactic. It is a discussion. I do believe the Bonanza issue was handled by a fleet wide AD for structural changes to existing airplanes, many years ago but I cannot remember when or what was the detail of that improvement. As far as I know it entirely cured the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tail-tale-what-was-wrong-with-v-tail-bonanza-pilots "In virtually all the structure-related accidents the airplane was flown outside the envelope. Often as not this was the result of the pilot losing control." "There was a self-serving faction in general aviation, though, that went on a crusade to demonize the V-tail because of the in-flight structural failures." "It was determined from wreckage that when the airplane was operated in excess of the never exceed speed, the unsecured leading edge of the stabilizer would fail first, in an up or down direction." https://www.bonanza.org/community/member-forum/general-discussion/posts/feb-2010/v-tail-safety "V-tail structural safety is now pretty much a non-issue. Airworthiness Directives in 1994" "A fact no one ever talks about, is that other airplanes had a similar or worse record, such as the Piper Commanche. It had a worse break-up history during the 10-year period between '89 and '98 (Aviation Consumer, 6-02)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Not meant as any scare tactic at all Just a discussion of events of history' Granted many came apart due to exceeding their limitations (pilot error as I mentioned in my first posting on the subject). Yes Comanches came apart, even some 182s and others but here's an interesting question- If we place the blame in many instances on the pilot then one would "assume" that the "Pilot" would be statistically similar across the GA spectrum and not delineated by aircraft type- so then How many Mooneys have come apart in flight by pilot error? Do they have a similar ratio to the other airplanes on ham fisted pilots? I only know of one (its a maybe) Several have had bent wings from what I remember. I could be wrong if someone has hard statistics. I'm all ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: In virtually all the structure-related accidents the airplane was flown outside the envelope. .... Thank you for making my point. 208 inflight break ups and all they can say is that most were the pilots fault. There is not this kind of poor record in any of the other airplane lines. Come now - is most were the pilots fault really a good enough answer? None of the other airplane lines have such a poor record and certainly mooney is not making excuses that virtually all of the inflight break ups were the pilots fault. First of all, I would rather it be ALL of the inflight failure were...would be a better excuse...but better would be no need for an excuse. There was a severe problem. This is well documented. And the problem was addresses - thank you for finding the date - 1994 AD. But "virtually all" of 208 inflight breakups were the pilots fault is a very very poor excuse. Edited September 2, 2019 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tail-tale-what-was-wrong-with-v-tail-bonanza-pilots "When the Bonanza came out in 1947, it was unlike anything else. It was aerodynamically clean and the very first ones would cruise 175 mph with a 165-horsepower engine. Bonanza pilots were either veterans or made up of a population much like today’s Cirrus pilots. The ex-military pilots were almost all bomber or transport pilots. I guess most fighter pilots wanted to just put the risks of flying behind them. That means that most Bonanza pilots were not used to such a clean airplane that was not stable in roll. Unlike the Cirrus, not much early Bonanza flying was IFR. It could be done but the system was pretty crude in the years after the war and there was little capacity. Not many of the ex-military pilots had instrument ratings as they were issued only to a limited number based on military experience. Even fewer civilian pilots had instrument ratings. So in the beginning, most Bonanza operations were VFR." This tells me the Bonanza pilot was a different person with a different background than many other GA airplanes of the time. Same as Cirrus today in many regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, cliffy said: How many Mooneys have come apart in flight by pilot error? Do they have a similar ratio to the other airplanes on ham fisted pilots? Yes, there have in fact been a few - a very very few. Edited September 2, 2019 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Nothing is 100%. "Virtually all" is as close as can be said. What if it was 99%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: This tells me the Bonanza pilot was a different person with a different background than many other GA airplanes of the time. Same as Cirrus today in many regards. There is some truth in that - it used to be called "the doctor killer" more so referring to a certain behavior of the pilot owners, and the cirrus has now gained that reputation which is not the airframe's fault. What made the Mooney different in terms of who it attracted. All this aside, there was a major structural design flaw in the fleet present on many flying bonanza's until that 1994 AD caught probably all of the existing models. I would not hesitate to buy, own and fly a Bonanza for this reason. I would not hesitate to borrow and fly a bonanza as they are beautiful machines. But I would not buy one for my own since it is too small for me for my personal comfort. Edited September 2, 2019 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Just now, aviatoreb said: There is some truth in that - it used to be called "the doctor killer" more so referring to a certain behavior of the pilot owners, and the cirrus has now gained that reputation which is not the airframe's fault. So it is the Bonanza's fault but not the Cirrus' fault ??? Interesting perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: Nothing is 100%. "Virtually all" is as close as can be said. What if it was 99%? So your claim - there was never anything wrong with Bonanza and it was and is today a perfect machine. And the 208 breakups were a statistical anomaly and the fact that it was massively larger than any other airplane line is either just that, an extreme statistical anomaly or the pilots fault since up until 1994 the Bonanza pilots were crap pilots but then after the AD was issued only good pilots flew Bonanza's after that. Edited September 2, 2019 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Just now, KLRDMD said: So it is the Bonanza's fault but not the Cirrus' fault ??? Interesting perspective. Cirrus' are not systematically breaking up. Stick with the topic. But excellent attempt at diversion. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted September 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Just now, aviatoreb said: So your claim - there was never anything wrong with Bonanza and it was and is today a perfect machine. I never claimed that. There was an issue with the earliest airplanes, from the 1947 through mid 50s more or less. That was fixed 25 years ago. Even with an issue, if you flew those airplanes within the design parameters the chances were excellent that nothing bad would ever happen. How many 1947-mid 50s Mooney airplanes are we talking about in comparison? Oh, none? How about the early Mooneys? How did that early tail work out? The bottom line is, for the last 25 years there hasn't been an issue with these Bonanza yet people love to bring up ancient history. All airplane manufacturers have had problems. They get fixed. I see no need to continue this as it is not of any further benefit to anyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: I never claimed that. There was an issue with the earliest airplanes, from the 1947 through mid 50s more or less. That was fixed 25 years ago. Even with an issue, if you flew those airplanes within the design parameters the chances were excellent that nothing bad would ever happen. How many 1947-mid 50s Mooney airplanes are we talking about in comparison? Oh, none? How about the early Mooneys? How did that early tail work out? The bottom line is, for the last 25 years there hasn't been an issue with these Bonanza yet people love to bring up ancient history. All airplane manufacturers have had problems. They get fixed. I see no need to continue this as it is not of any further benefit to anyone. We disagree. Those 1947 through 1950's airplanes stopped breaking up 25 years ago following the 1994 AD. So yes it may well have been "virtually" usually the pilots fault, but those poorly designed airplanes of that era were so poorly designed that they caused immediate death to those poor pilots who were unwise enough to buy and fly a Bonanza built from 1947-the 1950s. However, poor pilots who bought other brands and makes of airplanes nonetheless enjoyed longer lives because their properly designed airplanes were sufficiently stout to make up for their poor pilotage. However, suddenly in 1994 poor pilots stopped flying 1947-1950s era Bonanzas which was lucky since there after the airplanes stopped breaking up. Being a modest pilot, I would rather choose something that is over built. I intent to fly well, to fly within spec, to fly within margins, but when I shop, I will shop for something that will potentially make up for my imperfections. Bonanzas had a severe and major flaw. Yes it has since been addressed. I will repeat I would not have hesitated buying a bonanza today if I were happy with how I sit in it with my long legs. You seem to be on a defensive quest of superiority that we all on Mooney space will agree that your airplane is better than ours. All takers agreeing that you have a very nice plane is not enough. Discussion of good and bad not enough. Ok, you win. Your airplane is better than mine. I should have gotten a bonanza. We all should have gotten a bonanza. Edited September 2, 2019 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted September 2, 2019 Report Share Posted September 2, 2019 Oh Erik Erik Erik, I’m in the minorityI guess, knowing this is a Mooney site regardless you’ll not find me purchasing a Bo, Cirrus or Cessna , I still have to look at those slow albeit uncomfortable airplanes to me. Remember the name of the site.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.