RJBrown Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 You wish LOL Face it in a straight comparison of speed Bonanza is slower. If you factor in fuel consumtion it is even slower. 300 HP in both airframes really shows the difference. Similar useful means the Bonanza has 2 extra useless seats and goes 20+ knots slower. If you do real comparisons Fuel /distance/ time/payload the Mooney will always come out on top. Shall I repeat the story about the time I walked the Baron? The increased drag of the Beech products leaves them behind. 200 hp Mooney is slower than a 300hp Bonanza by brute force. But a 270 HP Mooney is faster than that same 300 hp Bonanza. The 225 hp Beech and the 180 hp mooney are similar speeds but not fuel consumption. The only advantage for 6 standard passengers is if your trip is under 100 miles. Fueled for the same distance any useful advantage by the Bonanza is gone. Flown with 1 or 2 as 90% of flights are similarly powered Mooneys will always arrive first and use less fuel. If you want to brag about how it makes you feel to drive a Bonanza be my guest but dont brag about raw speed cause it ain't there. No sir "YOU WISH" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Face it in a straight comparison of speed Bonanza is slower. If you factor in fuel consumtion it is even slower. 300 HP in both airframes really shows the difference. Similar useful means the Bonanza has 2 extra useless seats and goes 20+ knots slower. If you do real comparisons Fuel /distance/ time/payload the Mooney will always come out on top. Shall I repeat the story about the time I walked the Baron? The increased drag of the Beech products leaves them behind. 200 hp Mooney is slower than a 300hp Bonanza by brute force. But a 270 HP Mooney is faster than that same 300 hp Bonanza. The 225 hp Beech and the 180 hp mooney are similar speeds but not fuel consumption. The only advantage for 6 standard passengers is if your trip is under 100 miles. Fueled for the same distance any useful advantage by the Bonanza is gone. Flown with 1 or 2 as 90% of flights are similarly powered Mooneys will always arrive first and use less fuel. If you want to brag about how it makes you feel to drive a Bonanza be my guest but dont brag about raw speed cause it ain't there. No sir "YOU WISH" Excuse me sir , my Bonanza is 285 HP , and has a payload almost 1400 lbs.... Oh yea , I paid 45k for it...... Yes the mooney is quicker , burns less , smaller cabin , less payload , ... Different machines for different missions.... yes it only goes 175 kts on 15 GPH, If I want to save gas , I take my mooney....I dont believe you outran a Baron... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 A Rocket doing 200 KTAS will cetainly whip all the Baron's except the 56TC and the 58P. The 56TC burns 50 GPH to do it, the 58P can only run over 200 KTAS above 15K and is an expensive airplane to own. The windshield is 28K, and the hot plate is another 20k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 11500 over Colorado springs in my Rocket, normal cruise. Heading down to Santa Fe for lunch. I was on flight following and the Baron was on an IFR at 11000 going to the same place. Center kept calling out traffic 500 below and 12 O clock. Kept getting closer and closer till I passed him. I saw him land as we were leaving in a car for town. When we got back to the airport after lunch my wife and girls headed to the restroom and I went out to the plane to get it ready. He was parked right next to me. He recognized my plane and ask about it. He could not believe that little Mooney had passed him. He admitted to speeding up to no avail. His was not a turbo. It was his first flight away from the local area in his brawny new 600 HP twin. He was a bit disappointed that we had "walked on by" I was at normal cruise 200 knots that low. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 11500 over Colorado springs in my Rocket, normal cruise. Heading down to Santa Fe for lunch. I was on flight following and the Baron was on an IFR at 11000 going to the same place. Center kept calling out traffic 500 below and 12 O clock. Kept getting closer and closer till I passed him. I saw him land as we were leaving in a car for town. When we got back to the airport after lunch my wife and girls headed to the restroom and I went out to the plane to get it ready. He was parked right next to me. He recognized my plane and ask about it. He could not believe that little Mooney had passed him. He admitted to speeding up to no avail. His was not a turbo. It was his first flight away from the local area in his brawny new 600 HP twin. He was a bit disappointed that we had "walked on by" I was at normal cruise 200 knots that low. Isnt your rocket a turbo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 All of them are. And a Rocket with a determined pilot can whip any Baron but the 56TC and a 58P above 15K. Also on the kill list, Cessna 414 and 421, TAT turbo V35B and A36, Piper Comanche 400, and all variants of the Clorox bottle with wings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 All of them are. And a Rocket with a determined pilot can whip any Baron but the 56TC and a 58P above 15K. Also on the kill list, Cessna 414 and 421, TAT turbo V35B and A36, Piper Comanche 400, and all variants of the Clorox bottle with wings. So the Rocket turbo beats a non turbo .......LMFAO!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 A Rocket is a turbo. The engine is a TSIO 520 NB. Engine and prop combination straight out of a Cessna 340. At 24000 normal cruise is 230TAS. Anything over 12 tops 200 . With a good tailwind I have seen over 300 many times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 So the Rocket turbo beats a non turbo .......LMFAO!!!!! So a 300 HP plane whips a 600 HP airplane, on less fuel flow. LMAO!! Seriously, a C55 Baron is a 190 knot machine with a similar sized cabin, and two fans out there making time at 35$ an hour and 600 HP, and a Rocket is faster. At. any. altitude. Beech guys always poke at me that their airplane is faster. It is. But when I mention that Mooney makes 285 HP airplanes, the conversation goes cold. I just flew a Bellanca Super Viking today. Nice plane, and fast. We were eating up 15 GPH. Then we went for a ride in the 201. I ran it LOP at 10 GPH and came close to his 175 MPH IAS. Then I pulled the FF back to 9 GPH and I think I heard "G--damn" 3 or 4 times. He just couldnt get over that. Until I pulled it back to 3.9 GPH. Then he couldnt stop looking at the FF meter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lood Posted December 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hi N74795, you mentioned that you have a 1400 lbs payload. I just want to confirm: Is that payload or useful load? If it is indeed payload, that's really awesome - what Bonnie are you flying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 No that is not full fuel fuel payload , thats 3300 minus 2900 empty weight.... But it is truly awesome.... I think my Mooney is in the nines.... S35 Bonanza 1964...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 No that is not full fuel fuel payload , thats 3300 minus 2900 empty weight.... But it is truly awesome.... I think my Mooney is in the nines.... S35 Bonanza 1964...... Yes, but the difference between the Mooney's 900 payload and the Bonanza's 1400 payload is that you could actually put 1400lb in the mooney and not have CG issues but putting even 900lb in the Bonanza will cause you to be out of CG the moment 40 gallons burn off. I've done the math on a lot of the high useful load V vtails and their gross weight is theoretical in the sense they always seem to be out of rear CG. You can't physically load a long body mooney out of CG just using humans. It will have to be gold, concrete or magic Columbian powder ;-) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 The Columbian powder takes up too much space to go rear cg...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Try a short body. "Gross" is only reached if you buy a bookstore, or carry bricks to a construction site. My wife & I always cube out well below gross weight, but I use Takeoff Flaps then anyway, just because. A lifetime moving, courtesy of a career Marine father, taught me to pack [suitcases] lightly, and to load [vehicles] tightly, which comes in handy. It's amazing how much gear I can cram into my C, but gross weight? Ain't happening, except once carrying four adult males and 34 gallons [almost 4 hours' worth]. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 So a 300 HP plane whips a 600 HP airplane, on less fuel flow. LMAO!! Seriously, a C55 Baron is a 190 knot machine with a similar sized cabin, and two fans out there making time at 35$ an hour and 600 HP, and a Rocket is faster. At. any. altitude. Beech guys always poke at me that their airplane is faster. It is. But when I mention that Mooney makes 285 HP airplanes, the conversation goes cold. I just flew a Bellanca Super Viking today. Nice plane, and fast. We were eating up 15 GPH. Then we went for a ride in the 201. I ran it LOP at 10 GPH and came close to his 175 MPH IAS. Then I pulled the FF back to 9 GPH and I think I heard "G--damn" 3 or 4 times. He just couldnt get over that. Until I pulled it back to 3.9 GPH. Then he couldnt stop looking at the FF meter. How was that Super Viking flight? Isn't it an amazing airplane or what? As much as love my Mooney, control harmony leaves a lot of be desired. I flew a viking a couple of times and just can't get over the fact that it flies like an Extra 300. Ruder, aileron and elevator all take exactly the same amount of pressure (very little). Don't tell anybody, but it's one of the finest airplanes out there to loop and roll. And yes, I suspect an Extra 300 might fall apart from G force before a Viking does. Those termites holding hands together are mighty strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 It flies wonderfully. The controls are light, balanced, and that wood wing is as strong as a bridge. It flies a lot like an early Bonanza. Just fantastic. And fast. Visibility is a lot better out of it than a Mooney as well. Compared to our 201, Jim (the owner of the Bellanca) remarked it is like a dump truck vs a 911. I agree. I found it difficult to land, it takes a foot of aft yoke movement to flare properly and that noswheel is squirrely. He is looking for a 1/2 partner on it, he is 72 and doesnt fly much, if anyone is interested in Houston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Very nice. Was anyone else at Oshkosh in either 1983 or 1984 when Gene Soucy and Charlie Hillard performed a similar low level aerobatics routine with a new 231 and 201? I remember that they were white with red and black trim and had their interiors removed, presumably to lighten the load. Most impressive as well. Jim Jim, I was 4, living half way across the world, so no ;-) Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTex Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Jim, I was there but sadly don't remember the show. And yes, I'm old as dirt. 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.