Mooney versus Socata versus Beechcraft versus Cirrus

[benpilot]

 

How did you choose a Mooney over the competition? And why? I am looking at the following planes:

 

Mooney 252/Bravo

Beechcraft B36TC

Socata TB21 GT

Cirrus SR22 GTS

[gjkirsch]

Skynewbie

 

It would help if you define your mission and budget.  How far do you plan to fly and with how many people?  What are the sizes of the pilot and passengers?  Is known icing protection important?  How high are you willing to fly?  The planes you list, depending on age and condition go from $125K to well over $500K and carry realistically 2 to 5 people (I know they have more seats).  The Bravo is the fastest, then the 252, then probably the 36TC the Socata and Cirrus are probably about the same. 

 

Gordon

[N33GG]

I didn't fit in the Socata (long back... not enough head room for my build). Love the BE36TC, but used to own a BE58TC for many years and did not like the maintenance costs associated with Beechcraft products. Just not a Cirrus fan. I prefer a more conventional aircraft.

If I had a LOT more money that I didn't mind spending, I would probably be flying one of the Bonanzas.

[ScubaMan]

I had a TB20 for about 6 years and really liked how comfortable it was. The 2 doors made it much easier to get into then my Ovation 3 but it was not nearly as fast and efficient. I will tell you that trying to find a qualified mechanic will be nearly impossible. I found myself flying down to AVEX in southern California for the annuals. Happy to discuss over the phone if you like.....

 

Thanks

Mike Johnson

Mooney Ovation 3 N871TX

[bumper]

Before I bought by '87 Mooney 201, I took a test ride in the Socata. First thing I noticed was I could see the ground through a crack at the bottom of the pilot side door. Salesman said, "Oh, we'll fix that!". Had a nicecar like interior, but was not put together very well. Fit and finish, sub-optimal . . . sort of like a French car at the time. This was in the early '90s.

 

The BO is well made, no question, but it's draggy enough that it'll never touch the Mooney for effeciency. When you look at that bulbous nose cowl, the handles and dohickies that stick out here and there . . . LoPresti could'a had a field day cleaning up that design. It goes fast, but uses far more fuel than my 201 doing it.

 

Cirrus, maybe. Shame they had to cuff half the wing and didn't make it a retractable. Not as pretty, IMO, as a Mooney either.

 

The Mooney is doubtless one of the most solid, effecient, and reliable aircraft avialable.

 

bumper

[jackn]

All turbos, I assume the Cirrus is turbo as well. I chose the 252/Encore because I fly out of a high altitude airport(kase). Would have loved the B36TC, but purchase price, maint, and fuel was too much. Same goes for the Cirrus turbo, lot of $$$, Id buy an Acclaim long before a Cirrus. For a well built plane, good speed and relatively ease of use, you can't beat the 252 series.

[stevesm20b]

I picked the Mooney because it was the fastest plane for the money.

[201er]

I picked the Mooney because it was the fastest plane for the money.

Like your way of thinking. But then again there are planes faster and cheaper than a Mooney that I wouldn't set foot in,

[PTK]

I considered speed, efficiency, cost of ownership and of course ramp appeal. I bought a Mooney.

[skeptic]

Unless you need a large cabin, just go out and buy the nicest 252 you can find.  In the current market, an very nice 252 can be purchased for somewhere in the $150K to $170K range.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

When I watch the wife pack for a trip I wish I owned a Bo. When I'm fueling I wish I owned a C-152. All other times I consider myself fortunate to own a 231. Unless you need a TKS system or something else specific to one model over the other don't discount the 231 if you go with a turbo Mooney. Why? because if money matters to you, you can find a great example of a 231 for about 50 percent of what a comparable 252/Bravo would have cost. When I looked at the price difference between the 231 and the superior 252 the 231 won hands down for me based on difference in purchase price.

[Awful_Charlie]

I ran a brand P for 10 years+ which was economical and fitted all my needs (well, more speed would have been nice for sure) with the exception of FIKI - where I moved to I now need 3000' to get out any distance VFR, or 8000' to get out IFR, and I was losing any sort of 'assured despatch' for 4 or 5 months of the year.

 

At the time, the SEP choice for FIKI was Bo or Mooney, and the number of times I carry more than 2 people is small enough that I chose speed over payload.  I asked around before choosing, and the general consensus was that a turbo would offer more utility than FIKI, but having both would of course be best.

 

The Bravo is nowhere near as good on soft surfaces as the brand P, and I've actually got stuck in the mud a couple of times, necessitating a tow out, and blocking the runway for a few hours - mainly caused by the very large amount of weight on the nosewheel.  However, it has enabled me to do many of the flights that I wouldn't have done before.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Unless you need a large cabin, just go out and buy the nicest 252 you can find.  In the current market, an very nice 252 can be purchased for somewhere in the $150K to $170K range.

 

This was pretty much my reasoning.  I wanted to be able to fly between Texas and Florida quickly and also afford it.  A Beech A36 would be nice, but it's not as fast and that trip would be expensive when it comes to fuel.

[stevesm20b]

Like your way of thinking. But then again there are planes faster and cheaper than a Mooney that I wouldn't set foot in,

What planes are faster and cheaper?

[PTK]

del

[PTK]

del

[PMcClure]

I checked into the Pilatus and TBM850. Both are incredible A/C with the Pilatus certainly being a more capable and much more expensive plane. When I really analyzed the cost of ownership, the TBM would run about $750 an hour, which is not bad for 330-350kts. Where turbine ownership started breaking down was the complexity of owner flying. For the TBM, I needed a year and 250 hours with a mentor pilot to even consider being insured. Then regular recurrent training, etc... Just didn't sound like what I wanted. So I settled with the Mooney. 90% of my missions are 1-2 people and less than 1000 miles. So the Mooney is great. For longer or more seats, I take commercial and am also working on some charter options. For the few times I need 5 seats and 1000 miles, I can find better options than buying my own $2-4 million A/C. 

 

Still, I keep feeling if I had a 5th/6th seat, I would use it more. I am toying with the idea of finding a nice 36 in area and trading some time in the Mooney. 

 

Good luck!!

[Parker_Woodruff]

For the TBM, I needed a year and 250 hours with a mentor pilot to even consider being insured. Then regular recurrent training, etc...

 

These days you likely won't need nearly that much time with a mentor pilot.  The insurance markets are very competitive.

[PMcClure]

Noticed the 1st PP was deleted from my post. I had a nice B36TC before the decision to by my current Mooney Ovation 2. The cost of ownership was higher on the B26TC but it was more comfortable and more substantial feeling. Also, it had a rear passenger door and 6 seats. But even my lightweight family of 5 would push the limit on the B36TC. As my family was growing, we were outgrowing the plane. Moving up got complicated (See comments about Pilatus and TBM), so I decided on the Mooney.  $250-$300k buys a really nice, late model Mooney compared to an older B36TC. In either one, I can't really take my family together, so faster and cheaper (Mooney) wins. 

 

I find the operating costs of the Mooney slightly less than hte B36. I save about 10% on fuel at 5% more speed,  but maintenance seems like it is going to be less on the Mooney too. The difference is not enough to matter, though. If the B36 could carry what and go where I want, I would probably move back. 

 

I have searched around and insurance on turbines or twins is very high for me. I follow the rule that insurance underwriters are smarter than me and if a policy is prohibitively expensive, I am at risk. 

[ChristianGodin]

You can get a 1997 Encore FIKI. To get an SR22T FIKI, you will have to go year 2007 and up. Much more expensive to buy, use and maintain. Depreciation is faster on the Cirrus. Chocolat/vanilla principle; I prefer Mooney...

[231LV]

well with fuel $6plus/gal these days, my 231 feels awfully affordable! cruise at 17.5kft on about 10/gph running LOP showing 175KTAS....252 is a sweet airplane and worth the extra $$ but it also burns a bit more fuel....the others mentioned burn A LOT more gas

[skeptic]

well with fuel $6plus/gal these days, my 231 feels awfully affordable! cruise at 17.5kft on about 10/gph running LOP showing 175KTAS....252 is a sweet airplane and worth the extra $$ but it also burns a bit more fuel....the others mentioned burn A LOT more gas

 

Impressive numbers......I did not realize that a 231 would cruise that fast LOP.  Do you have an intercooler?  GAMI's?

[jlunseth]

Yes, the 231 has disadvantages such as the alternator design, no backup vacuum and can't do FIKI (at least not my SN), but it certainly does do economy and range. 

[aviatoreb]

Yes, the 231 has disadvantages such as the alternator design, no backup vacuum and can't do FIKI (at least not my SN), but it certainly does do economy and range. 

 

Is it more efficient than a 252 which is running at the same speed, so a lower power setting?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Is it more efficient than a 252 which is running at the same speed, so a lower power setting?

 

The 231 and 252 are both 210 horsepower airplanes flying different variants of the TSIO-360.  The 252 is a bit faster as the airframe is cleaner (inboard gear doors, etc.).  The fuel burns are similar.  Both are really nice planes for cruising at any altitude.  But the speed and efficiency gains by flying higher are incredible.  Also, engine management is easier on the 252.