What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

gsengle said:
Ok more nonsense. Tall people like Mooneys, Al Mooney was 6'5". And a M20 is wider than the bo by an inch and a half. But it's lower slung for sure which makes it compact...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
thank you for your expert opinion....Mooneys Rule dude.o_O
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
thank you for your expert opinion....Mooneys Rule dude.o_O
Click to expand...

Yep, when someone calls you out as wrong, even when stating facts, documented, easily googleable facts, and when that someone has flown all three types in question, and even owned one of them, all ya got is to try to ridicule em lol. Nice try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrjones30 said:
I just had a 25,000 annual including a parachute repack. The most I ever spent in an annual flying airplanes. Something with an io 550 or similar performance.
Click to expand...
I gotta ask, what in the world would cost $25K during an annual for a newer plane?
You mentioned the parachute repack. But for the life of me, I can't even begin to imagine a $25K annual for a single-engine, fixed gear aircaft.
 
mrjones30 said:
I just had a 25,000 annual including a parachute repack. The most I ever spent in an annual flying airplanes. Something with an io 550 or similar performance.
Click to expand...

This matches what I've heard anecdotally and from a friend on the Cirrus ownership experience. High maintenance and insurance costs.

If you want an io550 non turbo airplane, on the Mooney side you're looking at Ovations (M20R). My opinion would be to buy an early one from the 1990s (it's not like the airframe has changed) and then look at upgrading the panel after all the upcoming Garmin/dynon panel/autopilot breakthroughs settle out. They are well priced at the moment.

They are usually pushing 200k but this one appears to be a steal :-o

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/20419389/1998-mooney-m20r-ovation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
what's an io500? kinda stupid question....I know. ;)
gsengle said:
This matches what I've heard anecdotally and from a friend on the Cirrus ownership experience. High maintenance and insurance costs.

If you want an io500 non turbo airplane, on the Mooney side you're looking at Ovations (M20R). My opinion would be to buy an early one from the 1990s (it's not like the airframe has changed) and then look at upgrading the panel after all the upcoming Garmin/dynon panel/autopilot breakthroughs settle out. They are well priced at the moment.

They are usually pushing 200k but this one appears to be a steal :-o

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/20419389/1998-mooney-m20r-ovation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
mrjones30 said:
I just had a 25,000 annual including a parachute repack. The most I ever spent in an annual flying airplanes. Something with an io 550 or similar performance.
Click to expand...

So you had an $10,000 annual with a $15,000 scheduled maintenance event.
 
weilke said:
So you had an $10,000 annual with a $15,000 scheduled maintenance event.
Click to expand...

10,000 is a high annual on a new-ish single engine piston fixed gear airplane and the 15,000 although known is a non trivial cost of owning a Cirrus. Only you can decide if it's worth it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pilotmichael said:
Curious why on you want to do this? As far as I'm aware the Cirrus ticks boxes one and three of your list at least there. Retractable and reliability really don't go that well together as far as I'm aware. Comfort and Mooney don't really either (AFAIK). What's wrong with the Cirrus?
Click to expand...

Retractable and reliability don't go together? I've never seen a fixed gear airliner.... Now if you had said cheap reliability, I'd agree
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Retractable and reliability don't go together? I've never seen a fixed gear airliner.... Now if you had said cheap reliability, I'd agree
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't get these folks that think the gear is a big deal. I've seen shops where the fixed price annual rate is higher on a Cirrus than on a modern Mooney. Yeah some Cessnas in particular have problematic gear designs. Avoid types like that and retract is no big deal - except in fuel savings...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RudyP said:
Not sure what your methodology is but I'd be surprised if the Cirrus Cd was that high. The reason for that is that I think it has a much bigger cross section (front plate area) than either the Bo or Mooney airframes. Given rather similar speed / power output, that would suggest a lower Cd* when multiplied by a bigger front plate area. But I don't have facts, purely conjecture here.

The other argument is that while fixed gear will obviously increase Cd, the rest of the Cirrus airframe is pretty clean compared to the other two (no exposed rivets, smoother skin, more blended airframe, designed in the late 90s vs. 50s, etc..) so I think some of that would offset the draggier gear.

* I mean lower than 0.024, not lower than the Bo and Mooney figures you quote above.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clean, the 172 is 0.036.
Remember, drag goes up exponentially, so speed increases required substantially cleaner airframes, more horsepower, or higher altitude. So the fact that Mooney 201 is 15 knots faster than the Cirrus with the same horsepower is saying something.
 
Sit in both of them, all the seats. Mooneys sit close to the floor. Bo's sit upright. The six banger will cost more to run and rebuild. Bo's do better on grass strips. Some of the Bo's have perplexing fuel systems.
 
gsengle said:
Yeah I don't get these folks that think the gear is a big deal. I've seen shops where the fixed price annual rate is higher on a Cirrus than on a modern Mooney. Yeah some Cessnas in particular have problematic gear designs. Avoid types like that and retract is no big deal - except in fuel savings...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yup....just buy a Mooney and be done with it. ;)
 
As infall things, depends on the mission. Sounds like the OP wants to travel high and fast, so either airframe works fine. Some have mentioned that Mooneys aren't at their best on turf, if the OP likes landing on less improved surfaces this may factor in. When thinking about a high performance aircraft fuel isn't always the most expensive item, so the economy of the Mooney doesn't play in as well as it might.

I actually agree with some other posters who have said to sit in &/or fly both, see what works best. I bought a vintage Mooney because it really as the best bang to the buck in aviation dollars in my price range. There is nothing that does what it does for the price. And I love my Johnson bar.
 
If you like the wide roomy cabin and two doors of the Cirrus plus want to haul anything you can fit but want a retract, I would seriously consider a 210.

The guy next to me in the T hangers just got a prime example and man it's a fine airplane.
 
Last edited:
gsengle said:
10,000 is a high annual on a new-ish single engine piston fixed gear airplane and the 15,000 although known is a non trivial cost of owning a Cirrus. Only you can decide if it's worth it...
Click to expand...

Operating a G36/SR22/M20R for 10 years costs somewhere aroud 200-400k. Whether 12-15k is 'a lot of money' or 'little money' within that total bill depends on whether you like Cirrus or not.
 
weilke said:
Operating a G36/SR22/M20R for 10 years costs somewhere aroud 200-400k. Whether 12-15k is 'a lot of money' or 'little money' within that total bill depends on whether you like Cirrus or not.
Click to expand...

Let's see. My annuals have averaged under $3000 over a ten year period, that's $30,000. I've had roughly $5k in unexpected maintenance, spark plugs, alternator, etc. and then say I've flown 1000 hours over that time, it's maybe $20k to the engine reserve, for a grand total of $55k. Add $36k for hangar for ten years and $20k worth of insurance, and we are up to $111,000 over ten years. Let's talk fuel, say 13gph for 1000 hours is $13,000, or say $65,000. That brings us to $176,000 all in, not including acquisition or upgrades. Value has held flat. I'd say that's well under the midpoint of your range. Not chump change, but not 400k either.... any Cirrus or Bo owners have numbers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Let's see. My annuals have averaged under $3000 over a ten year period, that's $30,000. I've had roughly $5k in unexpected maintenance, spark plugs, alternator, etc. and then say I've flown 1000 hours over that time, it's maybe $20k to the engine reserve, for a grand total of $55k. Add $36k for hangar for ten years and $20k worth of insurance, and we are up to $111,000 over ten years. Let's talk fuel, say 13gph for 1000 hours is $13,000, or say $65,000. That brings us to $176,000 all in, not including acquisition or upgrades. Value has held flat. I'd say that's well under the midpoint of your range. Not chump change, but not 400k either.... any Cirrus or Bo owners have numbers?
Click to expand...

That is the math I would use if I wanted to sell my wife on the affordability of a plane.
 
weilke said:
That is the math I would use if I wanted to sell my wife on the affordability of a plane.
Click to expand...

I've owned the airplane 9 years, this is an honest accounting, not hopeful extrapolation. And I'm not sure even 175k over ten years is low enough to convince most spouses!

The good thing about the later Mooney's in my experience is they use mostly common components, the io550 is very common, and they worked out all the airframe issues over the course of many years. I don't believe I have *any* recurring ADs.

My only not so favorite thing is the landing gear. Boy I would love some Beech trailing link gear...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
My only not so favorite thing is the landing gear. Boy I would love some Beech trailing link gear...
Click to expand...

First time you buy a couple of $1500 bits and a box of bushings because they have worn outside of tolerances, your love for the Beech gear may sour. But that's just a function of cycles, once your mooney hits 6 or 7000hrs you are going to start replacing stuff as well.

Not sure whcih beech uses a trailing link, the Bo sure doesn't. They are just easier to land than a Mooney.
 
Bill Jennings said:
if you're going to fly off grass often, the Bo has a huge advantage, it rides like a dream on grass strips compared to the Mooney. Also on the Mooney a rough field combined with the rubber biscuits will accelerate wet wing leaks if the seal job is old. I've only taken the Mooney to Gastons, which is fairly smooth.
Click to expand...
I cringed when the Mooney's were taxiing to parking at OSH
 
ktup-flyer said:
I cringed when the Mooney's were taxiing to parking at OSH
Click to expand...

Well, you do save on the lawn-mowing budget if you have a grass strip with lots of mooneys. The grass in the center gets mowed by the prop, the grass on the sides is kept down by fuel-blight :confused:
 
weilke said:
First time you buy a couple of $1500 bits and a box of bushings because they have worn outside of tolerances, your love for the Beech gear may sour. But that's just a function of cycles, once your mooney hits 6 or 7000hrs you are going to start replacing stuff as well.

Not sure whcih beech uses a trailing link, the Bo sure doesn't. They are just easier to land than a Mooney.
Click to expand...

I've been flying a Beech duchess lately and it's so smooth to land. Trailing link.

Yes I'm sure I'll hit some bigger expenses as the airframe gets older, but most ovations are under 2000-3000 hours. Mine is just over 2000....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jkaduk said:
169K in a 201? I want to see proof of that. Further how about a seat miles per gallon comparison.
Click to expand...

How about my first response post with flightaware data. I usually flight plan 175 on 13gph. Similar airframe, bigger engine. Sure there was a 5-10kt average tailwind ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Yup....just buy a Mooney and be done with it. ;)
Click to expand...
I like your other posts, but your axe grinding on this guy is getting old.

I've got a mooney and think it's a good choice, rag on me for awhile just for the change.
 
Salty said:
I like your other posts, but your axe grinding on this guy is getting old.

I s got a mooney and think it's a good choice, rag on me for awhile just for the change.
Click to expand...
you're a small guy....right? :D
 
The real answer is of course they are both fine aircraft and can both serve a similar mission. No right answer. Your choice will come down to priorities, how well you fit, and well, just taste. As much as I love my Mooney, if I didn't have one I'd have a Bo. A bonanza is really pretty imho. A Mooney is a little more subtle, but also pretty from the right angles. And it is basically the same planform as a P51 ;)

a4537e666478458b0cd8ab0c962c8985.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
How about my first response post with flightaware data. I usually flight plan 175 on 13gph. Similar airframe, bigger engine. Sure there was a 5-10kt average tailwind ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
that's all....for all that big talk I'd a thought you'd at least be seeing 190 kts?....even with a tail wind. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
that's all....for all that big talk I'd a thought you'd at least be seeing at least 190 kts?....even with a tail wind. :D
Click to expand...

I prefer efficiency over burning a lot of fuel. And I had to get back all the way from Savannah with 4 on board. That said I did hit like 213 kts groundspeed at one point. I was burning just under 12gph most of the way. I didn't splurge for a Turbo Mooney, although there are some excellent values in M20M Bravos these days...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I prefer efficiency over burning a lot of fuel. And I had to get back all the way from Savannah with 4 on board. That said I did hit like 213 kts groundspeed at one point. I was burning just under 12gph most of the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
was that a load of kids? :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
was that a load of kids? :D
Click to expand...

Two kids two adults and luggage for 5 days... got home on 55gallons. Useful load is almost 1000lbs when TKS tank empty. 89gal usable but if you pump past filler necks they are 100gal tanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top