What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

[gsengle]

More effective rudder, because of the backwards tail?

Yeah why do you think it is that way? Look at the trailing edge of a P51 tail. Or most aerobatic airplanes. You WANT the rudder to become more not less perpendicular to the vector of flight at higher angle of attack. A Mooney tail is more effective. A swept Cessna tail was all marketing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Watson]

I don't know what it would do to cost or useful load, but I'd love to see the speeds of a retrac cirrus. I know the landing gear is cleaner, but at 170+ knots, I'm sure the drag has to have a decent effect.

Think about the landing gear disappearing aerodynamically with altitude as you climb.

RV "I know the landing gear is cleaner,but..." 10



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Speed- Mooney
Fuel Economy - Equal, may have an edge to Mooney

Uh... Mooney.

[/quote]Cabin Space - Bonanza
Cabin Comfort - Bonanza[/quote]

Disagree. As stated before, I'm much more comfortable in the Mooney than the Bo. And the Mooney is slightly wider.

Landing gear toughness - Bonanza

Toughness to the Bo? They're equal, if anything. Mooney is one tough bird, landing gear included.

Landing Gear Servicing - Bonanza

No way. There's almost nothing TO service on the Mooney gear. It's dirt simple.

Parts Cost - Bonanza

I've never heard of any other manufacturer with the rep for expensive parts that Beech has, though Cessna is trying hard to catch up with their $20,000 gear pivots and $1900 manifold pressure gauges.

Of course, you could be right. I've never had to buy a single Mooney part. Ever.

Parts Availability - Equal, may have an edge to Bonanza

Or, may not.

Parts Cost - Bonanza

Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true.

Range - I believe the Bonanza takes the lead here if equipped with tip tanks.

If there is an advantage there, it's insignificant as they'll both bust your bladder.

Currently, Beech quotes 920nm for the G36 Bonanza, with 74 gallons usable fuel. It's not quite clear how they arrive at that number. They quote max speed as 176 KTAS, which would take 5.2 hours to get to 920nm, and would use all the fuel at 14 gph to get there.

For me, with the 89 gallons usable, my range is 1,040 nm with a full hour reserve at normal cruise speed and fuel burn accounting for taxi, takeoff, and climb. Newer Ovations can get 100 gallons usable, and they claim 1,450 nm range at 170 knots and 8,000 feet with a 45-minute reserve.

How many gallons do the tip tanks add?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But yes, at this point we're splitting hairs. They're both fine aircraft, as evidenced by them both being produced new for well over 50 (er, 60!) years now! You don't get that kind of success with a bad design.

Choose which one fits your mission and your body better, and buy it. I'm sure you'll be happy either way.

 

[zaitcev]

But there's a recent ad on controller.com that I just can't make sense of:
Here's a guy listing an M20J that only gets 137kts on 10.9gph.

Sounds about right for cruising down low, maybe just a bit slow because he has a J and I can meet his numbers in E. Anyway, if he did go low, he had to pull that throttle way back to get it burn 11 gph.

The sweet spot is somewhere between 6k and 8k feet up, where you go full throttle yet get the MP you want for 75% power. It's right about 10 gph when ROP.

The maximum speed in these airplanes is hugging the ground and 2700 rpm. I don't remember what the burn is though

 

[weilke]

Disagree. As stated before, I'm much more comfortable in the Mooney than the Bo. And the Mooney is slightly wider.

I guess thats a personal thing. I am skinnier than you and find the Mooney, even the new ones, uncomfortable and cramped.

If there is an advantage there, it's insignificant as they'll both bust your bladder.

Currently, Beech quotes 920nm for the G36 Bonanza, with 74 gallons usable fuel. It's not quite clear how they arrive at that number. They quote max speed as 176 KTAS, which would take 5.2 hours to get to 920nm, and would use all the fuel at 14 gph to get there.

For me, with the 89 gallons usable, my range is 1,040 nm with a full hour reserve at normal cruise speed and fuel burn accounting for taxi, takeoff, and climb. Newer Ovations can get 100 gallons usable, and they claim 1,450 nm range at 170 knots and 8,000 feet with a 45-minute reserve.

How many gallons do the tip tanks add?

40 gallons. And they come with a useful load increase to boot.

A NA V-tail can cruise for 8hrs with a 45min reserve. In his younger days, a colleague of mine would do northern Minnesota to Jacksonville on a regular basis. Lots of gatorade bottles.

 

[zaitcev]

Cabin Space - Bonanza
Cabin Comfort - Bonanza

I would like to point out something for the benefit of bottom-feeders (although not Mr.Jones, who already has a Cirrus): Bonanzas differ dramatically in cabin space and comfort. I tried to get into one of the older ones with E-225, attracted by the low purchase price, but it was simply impossible.

In the very old classic ones from the 1940s, I cannot even drive my bottom into position, there's just no space period. It's about as cramped as Ercoupe of similar vintage.

Bo's from 1950s are a little better: at least I can sit in the seat with all cushions removed -- as long as the radio stack is not on the left. For some reason, very many Bonanzas from that era come with radios right where my left knee needs to be. But even with the center radios, my right knee presses hard against the mixture control.

Some time around 1963 they started making Bonanzas with split seats, which are passable for a trip around a pattern. I could buy one of those, provided that a previous owner added what's known as "Baron Seat STC".

Finally, in the 1970s Beech started making Bo's that are suitable for me. I flew a 1976 plane once and it was perfectly comfortable. But unfortunately, the prices climb steady as airplanes get newer. The one I flew would easily pull $130k.

Meanwhile, a Mooney M20 of just about any vintage is suitable to pilots who are not stunted, even a very early one. So, if you only have $35k or $55k, and you are taller than 6 ft, Bonanza is probably not for you.

 

[GRG55]

Yeah why do you think it is that way? Look at the trailing edge of a P51 tail. Or most aerobatic airplanes. You WANT the rudder to become more not less perpendicular to the vector of flight at higher angle of attack. A Mooney tail is more effective. A swept Cessna tail was all marketing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the backwards tail on a Mooney is not marketing? LOL.
Who told you this nonsense, a Mooney salesman?

Give it a moment of thought and you'll see the fallacy of this old wives tale...

 

[brian]]

I would like to point out something for the benefit of bottom-feeders (although not Mr.Jones, who already has a Cirrus): Bonanzas differ dramatically in cabin space and comfort. I tried to get into one of the older ones with E-225, attracted by the low purchase price, but it was simply impossible.

In the very old classic ones from the 1940s, I cannot even drive my bottom into position, there's just no space period. It's about as cramped as Ercoupe of similar vintage.

Bo's from 1950s are a little better: at least I can sit in the seat with all cushions removed -- as long as the radio stack is not on the left. For some reason, very many Bonanzas from that era come with radios right where my left knee needs to be. But even with the center radios, my right knee presses hard against the mixture control.

Some time around 1963 they started making Bonanzas with split seats, which are passable for a trip around a pattern. I could buy one of those, provided that a previous owner added what's known as "Baron Seat STC".

Finally, in the 1970s Beech started making Bo's that are suitable for me. I flew a 1976 plane once and it was perfectly comfortable. But unfortunately, the prices climb steady as airplanes get newer. The one I flew would easily pull $130k.

Meanwhile, a Mooney M20 of just about any vintage is suitable to pilots who are not stunted, even a very early one. So, if you only have $35k or $55k, and you are taller than 6 ft, Bonanza is probably not for you.

I have an A35 with the later model split seat and headliner. You would hate it. Most of the early models have been modified. The -35 I had did have a bench seat, but it wasn't the original seat. It was very comfortable. I find the spit seats nice, but a little restrictive.

Like I noted before - put your back side in one (Mooney or Bo). If you find one that fits, buy it ...


(Side note on early Bo performance: regular "block" performance in the -35 wast 135KTS - and I usually beat it. I didn't take time to do the 4 direction average speed test thing. Gas use was consistently just shy of 10 GPH - unless I was just flying around looking down. Mostly MOGAS. But I don't recommend the early bonanzas to just anyone. I only have 12 hours in the A35, but it looks like it will be pretty much the same as the -35.)

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Meanwhile, a Mooney M20 of just about any vintage is suitable to pilots who are not stunted, even a very early one. So, if you only have $35k or $55k, and you are taller than 6 ft, Bonanza is probably not for you.

Meh.....it depends. You gave up way too easy. Some have different seats....and it really depends on where your height is. Long torso and yup the Bo might not work....on the other hand....long leg'd folk might do just fine.

 

[steingar]

I did that yesterday in a rental Cirrus SR20 for fuel flow (RPM was higher). Now, not old skyhawk money. But other planes can do it.
I am willing to bet a Super Viking can also, and many RVs, and a Lancair 320, or a Columbia 350 or a Velocity.....

Tim

Super Viking won't do it, not for that fuel flow. Another two cylinders to keep happy. And better hope nothing happens to that airframe, I doubt here are that many people left who can do that kind of carpentry. But they are very reasonably priced, probably because i'm not the only one worried about that airframe. That, and they really belong in a hangar, which not every one has.

You won't get a Columbia, Corvalis, or Lancair, Velocity, or even an RV for the price of a short bodied Mooney. And find me the Cirrus anything that will cost Skyhawk money. Good luck with that. Mooneys are the biggest bang for the buck you can get outside the experimental world. And there's very few experimentals that can do what the Mooney can do and take Mrs. Steingar's luggage on a trip. And those don't cost Skyhawk money either.

 

[tspear]

Super Viking won't do it, not for that fuel flow. Another two cylinders to keep happy. And better hope nothing happens to that airframe, I doubt here are that many people left who can do that kind of carpentry. But they are very reasonably priced, probably because i'm not the only one worried about that airframe. That, and they really belong in a hangar, which not every one has.

You won't get a Columbia, Corvalis, or Lancair, Velocity, or even an RV for the price of a short bodied Mooney. And find me the Cirrus anything that will cost Skyhawk money. Good luck with that. Mooneys are the biggest bang for the buck you can get outside the experimental world. And there's very few experimentals that can do what the Mooney can do and take Mrs. Steingar's luggage on a trip. And those don't cost Skyhawk money either.

The old Skyhawk money is the real limiting factor. Mooney, old Velocity, some V-Tail Bonanza's, maybe a very nice Cozy Mark IV. The others that I can think of in that price range just do not have the speed or four seats.

Tim

 

[MBDiagMan]

Obviously the conditions matter: temp, humidity, weight
From the POHs, which are standardized...
Mooney is way faster...on 0.1 gph less fuel flow:

Many don't like the seating position, or the lack of a chute, and clearly the modern car like interior has appeal over the Mooney.
There is lots like about the Cirrus, but stop trying to convince people that is fast and efficient, especially compared to a Mooney.

I have flown a friends Cirrus and loved it! I would probably have one if I had enough money. My C is a premium example and I paid a premium price, but it still required a massively lower pile of cash for initial purchase than would a Cirrus. Insurance costs and other ongoing costs are considerably lower for a Mooney also.

The world is full of compromises.

BTW, retractible gear is not a trivial thing.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Just about any taildragger... oops, thought you said what plane is overall better than Bo's or Mooners


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Better in which categories?

I have both a Mooney AND a taildragger. They both have their positives and negatives. If my taildragger did everything my Mooney can do, I would have no need or desire for two aircraft.

 

[MBDiagMan]

The fixed gear is a minimal penalty. If it was such a big penalty, then both Bonanza and Mooney would have been selling like hot cakes against the inefficient Cirrus/TTx(Corvalis, Columbia or whatever it is called now).
I run close to WOT, pull back the mixture to 9.5 GPH and I have pretty consistently been getting 145 KTAS between 8-10K.

Tim

You are making an apple to orange comparison. Until you can test a retractible Cirrus or a fixed gear BO/Mooney, you wont have data necessary for an accurate comparison.

With a little research, you could see the effect of retract vs. Fixed by looking at the numbers for a Mooney M20C vs. M20D, which was a fixed gear version of the same aircraft.

 

[weilke]

Better in which categories?

I have both a Mooney AND a taildragger. They both have their positives and negatives. If my taildragger did everything my Mooney can do, I would have no need or desire for two aircraft.

Well, then you need a retractable taildragger. P51, swift, Be18.

 

[tspear]

You are making an apple to orange comparison. Until you can test a retractible Cirrus or a fixed gear BO/Mooney, you wont have data necessary for an accurate comparison.

With a little research, you could see the effect of retract vs. Fixed by looking at the numbers for a Mooney M20C vs. M20D, which was a fixed gear version of the same aircraft.

Look at Van's Aircraft as another comparison point. Removing the front wheel you gain 2 MPH across the full spectrum of the planes. That is not a lot of drag, even if you assume worst case of multiple by three, that is less then 5 knots. Not nearly the implied penalty by others in this thread.

Ask a few aerodynamic engineers, and you will likely find that at the speeds under discussion, the drag penalty for gear hanging out can be significantly minimized compared to old designs; where the only solution was to retract it.

Tim

 

[rbridges]

With a little research, you could see the effect of retract vs. Fixed by looking at the numbers for a Mooney M20C vs. M20D, which was a fixed gear version of the same aircraft.

The mooney landing gear is extremely stout, but it has to be one of the most unaerodynamic gear ever made. I think they knew it was going on a retrac, so it wasn't streamlined at all. With my gear down, I see huge drops in cruise speed, like 10-20 knots. maybe comparing a 180hp arrow vs cherokee would be more fair. What did the glasair I RG do vs the fixed version?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

the Bo gear down is draggy too.....It's a great safety feature. When in doubt, lower the gear.

 

[weilke]

Look at Van's Aircraft as another comparison point. Removing the front wheel you gain 2 MPH across the full spectrum of the planes. That is not a lot of drag, even if you assume worst case of multiple by three, that is less then 5 knots. Not nearly the implied penalty by others in this thread.

Ask a few aerodynamic engineers, and you will likely find that at the speeds under discussion, the drag penalty for gear hanging out can be significantly minimized compared to old designs; where the only solution was to retract it.

Tim

I believe a Cirrus would be 15 kts faster, lose 250lb useful and some of its legroom. But then it would be a plastic Mooney and somewhat pointless.

 

[Bill Watson]

You are making an apple to orange comparison. Until you can test a retractible Cirrus or a fixed gear BO/Mooney, you wont have data necessary for an accurate comparison.

With a little research, you could see the effect of retract vs. Fixed by looking at the numbers for a Mooney M20C vs. M20D, which was a fixed gear version of the same aircraft.

Given the poor looking design of the gear on the -D, that's not really a useful comparison. (No wheel nacelles and a big pant leg to perhaps hide the donutsI)

An eye opener many RV-10 builders experience is the performance difference between pants off and pants on. It's between 16 and 18 knots! Well designed pants and nacelles (aka good aerodynamic design) has changed the light SEL landscape just as improvements on the old Mooney cowl and windshield helped those older ships reach their full potential.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MBDiagMan]

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane359.shtml

This link will show you the performance difference between the M20 D fixed gear version and the M20C, the retractible version of the same aircraft. Most D models have been converted to retractible gear. Once you examine the performance differences, it will be obvious why folks do so.

Now, does retractible gear appear to be a worthwhile feature? Just imagine what a retractible Cirrus could do.

 

[Bill Watson]

The fixed gear is a minimal penalty. If it was such a big penalty, then both Bonanza and Mooney would have been selling like hot cakes against the inefficient Cirrus/TTx(Corvalis, Columbia or whatever it is called now).
I run close to WOT, pull back the mixture to 9.5 GPH and I have pretty consistently been getting 145 KTAS between 8-10K.

Tim

...and I run my RV10 WOT at 10K and get 152-155 (weight dependent) at 9.8 GPH. I can run 9.5 but that's a bit leaner than optimal and the TAS drops to 145. Wheels out!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bill]

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane359.shtml

This link will show you the performance difference between the M20 D fixed gear version and the M20C, the retractible version of the same aircraft. Most D models have been converted to retractible gear. Once you examine the performance differences, it will be obvious why folks do so.

Now, does retractible gear appear to be a worthwhile feature? Just imagine what a retractible Cirrus could do.

Those D numbers make sense, I had to ferry our 201 once over a decent distance with the gear down, and it's a 115-118kt airplane with the gear hanging out.

 

[Pilawt]

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane359.shtml

This link will show you the performance difference between the M20 D fixed gear version and the M20C, the retractible version of the same aircraft. Most D models have been converted to retractible gear.

You could also compare a '67 Cherokee 180C with a Cherokee Arrow 180 (published 16 KTAS difference in cruise speed at 75% power), or a 180 hp 172Q with a 172RG (claimed 19 KTAS delta, but less than that in my experience). And if the old Cherokee C had the bigger, knuckle-busting wheel fairings of the '78 Archer II, the difference would be less.

Mooney claimed a 23 KTAS delta between the '65 M20D and M20C.

Those comparisons are slightly apples-and-oranges though, since the fixed-gear Cherokee and 172 had fixed-pitch props, and the retractables had constant speed. Likewise, the M20D Master was sold with fixed-pitch prop standard, and constant-speed optional.

As mentioned above, the M20D was different from the other 180 hp fixed-gear singles of the day, because it was not designed as a fixed-gear airplane. It was merely a stop-gap attempt by Mooney to get into the trainer/entry-level market. The "convert-to-retractable" gimmick apparently worked, because of the 161 M20Ds built, only about three still have fixed gear, if that many. The fixed-gear installation was not very clean, and wheel fairings were not available (unworkable with trailing-link gear anyway).

 

[MBDiagMan]

I am quite curious about folks in denial regarding the performance advantages of a retractible gear aircraft. Even if the difference were half as much as the examples that have been shown, they are still significant.

My personal belief is that regardless of the gear hanging in the airstream, aerodynamic or not, it induces significant drag. Even the most aerodynamic gear induces significant drag. The denial of the advantages of retractible gear is quite surprising to me.

My Cessna 140 is a restomod. It has many Cessna 150 components to included very sleek wheel pants. I have flown the aircraft with and without the wheel pants and can't tell one iota of difference in airspeed or any other performance criteria. If there is gear hanging down there, the drag is significant.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Those D numbers make sense, I had to ferry our 201 once over a decent distance with the gear down, and it's a 115-118kt airplane with the gear hanging out.

Some months ago I took off for a short flight and was having trouble with the manual gear retraction and started to fly the trip with gear down. About two minutes of that and I decided to slow down to gear retration speed and try again. I wrestled slightly and got the gear to retract. That thing was a slug with the gear hanging in the slipstream. I am quite sure that even if it had been the sleekest fixed gear ever attached to an aircraft, it would not have been much better.

 

[tspear]

I am quite curious about folks in denial regarding the performance advantages of a retractible gear aircraft. Even if the difference were half as much as the examples that have been shown, they are still significant.

My personal belief is that regardless of the gear hanging in the airstream, aerodynamic or not, it induces significant drag. Even the most aerodynamic gear induces significant drag. The denial of the advantages of retractible gear is quite surprising to me.

My Cessna 140 is a restomod. It has many Cessna 150 components to included very sleek wheel pants. I have flown the aircraft with and without the wheel pants and can't tell one iota of difference in airspeed or any other performance criteria. If there is gear hanging down there, the drag is significant.

Not sure about others, but I get the retract gets you faster speed. But with good aerodynamics and design, and the general under 200MPH speed most piston planes fly, there comes a point of diminishing returns and higher complexity.
The certified market has largely spoken I believe, well designed fixed gear has a small enough drag penalty that the complexity, weight and costs associated with retracts are not worth it.
I think the statement also applies to most of the E-AB market as well, but I have less confidence in stating so.

Tim

 

[MBDiagMan]

Complexity???? My Mooney gear is the simplest, most bullet proof mechanism I ever saw, as are the hydraulic, pump up flaps. The KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle is at work with the Mooney manual gear and flaps. One of the reasons I have one.

I remain surprised at the denial of the obvious advantages of retractible gear. As far as whether or not the trade off is worth it, that can be debatable, but as to whether or not they have a speed advantage is no argument. The numbers speak for themselves.

I don't consider even twelve or fifteen knots added TAS, as well as the accompanying fuel efficiency improvement to be trivial.

Additionally I find it odd to see a fixed vs. retractible topic to be inserted into a thread about Bo's and Mooney's, both retractible gear aircraft. Maybe it would better help the OP if that argument were moved into its own thread. Just sayin'.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Not sure about others, but I get the retract gets you faster speed. But with good aerodynamics and design, and the general under 200MPH speed most piston planes fly, there comes a point of diminishing returns and higher complexity.
The certified market has largely spoken I believe, well designed fixed gear has a small enough drag penalty that the complexity, weight and costs associated with retracts are not worth it.
I think the statement also applies to most of the E-AB market as well, but I have less confidence in stating so.

Tim

Just curious, what aircraft do you have?

 

[gsengle]

Not sure about others, but I get the retract gets you faster speed. But with good aerodynamics and design, and the general under 200MPH speed most piston planes fly, there comes a point of diminishing returns and higher complexity.
The certified market has largely spoken I believe, well designed fixed gear has a small enough drag penalty that the complexity, weight and costs associated with retracts are not worth it.
I think the statement also applies to most of the E-AB market as well, but I have less confidence in stating so.

Tim

I disagree. New sales don't tell the whole picture, look at the retracts that are out there in the many tens of thousands. Those of us who prefer retracts simply have many used options. High perf fixed gear is a relatively new thing, and really only one model has done well in the market. And one could argue there were other factors for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MBDiagMan]

When I think of high performance fixed gear, I think of a Cherokee Six. To me it seems very odd to have a six place, 260 horse aircraft with fixed gear. Whatever floats ones boat is cool with me, but it just seems odd.

I realize which fixed gear you are talkng about, but it is small enough that it doesn't seem so odd. Given the very high prices for new HA aircraft, I suppose they are trying to save production costs where they can. A good retrat gear mechanism would be a wonderful addition IMHO.

 

[tspear]

Just curious, what aircraft do you have?

Now I rent. I previously owned a Cirrus SR20, 602P Aerostar converted to a 700. I flown dozens of planes searching for my next one, half the fun when looking to upgrade from the Cirrus was test flying everything from the Bonanza to a Meridian or the Barons, Aerostars, to the Tecnam P2006. I was all over the map.
Now, I am quasi looking for my next plane, and I am planning to go up in a friends Mooney again since it has been a couple of years (among the few certified planes I am considering).

Tim

 

[gsengle]

When I think of high performance fixed gear, I think of a Cherokee Six. To me it seems very odd to have a six place, 260 horse aircraft with fixed gear. Whatever floats ones boat is cool with me, but it just seems odd.

I realize which fixed gear you are talkng about, but it is small enough that it doesn't seem so odd. Given the very high prices for new HA aircraft, I suppose they are trying to save production costs where they can. A good retrat gear mechanism would be a wonderful addition IMHO.

A Cherokee six does however come in a retract variant. When I think HP, I'm thinking Cirrus, Mooney, TTx, airplanes built for speed more than for load hauling. Just like I wouldn't put a TBM and a Caravan in the same category...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MBDiagMan]

Learn something new everyday around here. I didn't know that there was a retract version of the Cherokee Six. That would be a drastic I prove,eat IMHO. BTW, I wonder what the performance difference is with those two planes?

 

[Bill]

Lance/Saratoga are the retract versions of the Six, although there are also later model fixed gear Saratogas. Confused yet?

 

[steingar]

The old Skyhawk money is the real limiting factor. Mooney, old Velocity, some V-Tail Bonanza's, maybe a very nice Cozy Mark IV. The others that I can think of in that price range just do not have the speed or four seats.

I've never seen a Velocity for old Skyhawk money. I've seen the occasion Vari-eze, but good luck getting your spouse and all her **** in one of those. You might find a Cozy, and yes those are nice aircraft though they have their quirks. Best to invest in lead shot if you get one. The most likely culprit is a 40's or 50's vintage Bonanza. Similar money, good speed, and yes they're gorgeous. That said, I worry a lot about a very old and hugely complex airframe that hasn't been worth much for a long time. Unless you really know what you're doing you could get badly burned. At least with the Mooney you have simple systems like Johnson-bar gear and hydraulic flaps that don't break easily and are easily repaired. Put it another way, no one ever suggested to me that I buy a book when I started looking at Mooneys.

 

[gsengle]

Lance/Saratoga are the retract versions of the Six, although there are also later model fixed gear Saratogas. Confused yet?

They're all PA-32s. Cherokee six, Lance and Saratoga are all the same PA32 airframe. They come with two wings just like Cherokees, Hershey bar and tapered, depending on the year. Fixed or retract, turbo or non, and t tailed or conventional. And just for fun standard seating and club. Mix and match.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Learn something new everyday around here. I didn't know that there was a retract version of the Cherokee Six. That would be a drastic I prove,eat IMHO. BTW, I wonder what the performance difference is with those two planes?

bout....wait....wait for it.....12-15kts difference.

 

[weilke]

When I think of high performance fixed gear, I think of a Cherokee Six. To me it seems very odd to have a six place, 260 horse aircraft with fixed gear. Whatever floats ones boat is cool with me, but it just seems odd.
.

Lance and 300hp six and FG Toga vs retract are one of the few apples to apples comparisons for the fixed vs. retract question. And the answer is 15kts.