I learned to fly in a Cherokee and then moved up to a Comanche 250, I then bought into a Bonanza, and have since then owned two Mooneys. I currently fly a Mooney M20K. The Mooney just lets me fly more and go further on less $$. For long trips, the Mooney is fastest for me as I can skip the fuel stop all the other planes are making. For short trips, the Mooney hauls as much load as any of the others as it doesn't need full tanks to go the same distance. I've found the Mooneys to be less expensive on maintenance than either the Comanche or the Bo I had before.The Skylane RG's are everywhere, I've never owned one, but have several friends who do. We say they are better than the Mooney in every way, until you leave the ground. On short trips I can carry the same weight as the Skylane because I'll need less gas. On long trips, if I plan the same fuel stops as the Skylane, I'm still able to carry the same weight. Or lighten the load, fill the tanks and get there in a lot less time without the fuel stop. I personally like the sports car seating position but enjoy the added width of the cabin. I'm a bit oversized myself and the Mooney cabin fits better than the Bo. If I couldn't own a Mooney I'd have a Comanche but I'd have to adjust the budget to be able to fly as much as I fly the Mooney. BTW that 201 in your video has flown Denver to Newark non-stop. Range gives options, safety, and peace of mind on cross country flights.
I went from a Cherokee 235 to a Mooney M20F. ... and Paul's "K" is significantly faster than the V35B... just saying... If you are almost always flying 2 up or solo, get the Mooney, it will be the one you will keep.
@@toddbaker9493 Easily in the front seats. For back seat sizing, you'll want either a mid-body Mooney or long-body Mooney. I know pilots who are 6'7" who fly Mooneys because they fit better in them than any other small single engine airplane.
@@toddbaker9493 Yeah, think corvette (up front); seating angle is different but tons of leg room. Mid body means you want an "F", "J" "K" etc..not a "C/D/E"
I have been a pilot and A&P/IA mechanic for 40+ years. I have flown and worked on all 4 of the planes you are comparing, but out of all of the 4, I have only owned a Comanche 250, and would never own any of the others. The Comanche BY FAR is my top choice. I couldn't run away fast enough, even if you wanted to GIVE me a Mooney. They are maintenance nightmares, cramped inside, and uncomfortable to fly. If you ever belly one in, the landing gear system is forever tweaked because all the control rods are in the belly. The landing gear is a bitch to rig. The V-35 Bonanza needs a yaw damper!! It constantly "wags" in flight, and gets annoying after about 20 minutes. The Cessna R-182 is a great short field plane due to its giant "barn door" flaps, but the plane basically flies like a truck. Very heavy on the controls, just like the fixed gear 182s. I've seen more than a few R-182s with cracked main landing gear attach castings. The castings are on the inboard ends of the tubular main gear and are secured to the fuselage below the floor underneath the rear seat. They tend to crack at the pivot points, and since brake fluid passes inside the castings, the first sign of a crack is brake fluid dripping from the belly of the plane. There is also a funky brake line fitting on the casting that allows the brake line to pivot as the gear retracts and extends, and this fitting is prone to leaking and is very difficult to change, and especially to safety wire. The brake lines go through the inside of the tubular steel gear legs, and if they don't make exactly the right bend as they exit the landing gear tubes on their way to the brake calipers, they will rub on the brake disc and rapidly end up with a hole and leak. The landing gear safety switch is on the nose gear, and I've seen this cause some problems with premature gear retraction and the plane settling down on its nose, but this is more prevalent in the R-172 Cutlass. All in all, it's a no brainer. The Comanche is, and will always be, my first choice. If I ever get another plane, it will likely be a Twin Comanche.
Appreciate what you wrote about the R-182. I like also your word "funky" for the pivoting brake lines Brake lines that could rub on the discs? That is way funky. Walking out to go fly your bird, who wants to see a puddle of brake fluid under their expensive airplane?
I feel the same way about Mooney and Bonanza v tail fork tailed doctor killer. I love Comanches and Cessna's. By far, I've flown both regularly, and the other two occasionally didn't like ground handling or flight characteristics with Mooney (cramped) Bonanza wing problems, tail problems, and others just not worth it.
In my pursuit of finding a plane to own in the future, I’ve considered owning a Comanche for a few reasons. As stated in the video, they’re fast, they’re super good looking airplanes, and from what I heard not too hard on maintenance. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that. The flying club that I currently work for, I’m a mechanic apprentice and am looking to get my A&P in early to mid September of this year, the club owns a Cessna 182RG. A few years before I started working there, the aircraft had an issue with the left main gear swivel point. And my boss told me that he searched and searched and searched all across the country for a used part. He called Textron to see how much it would cost to get a new swivel, and they wanted $17,000 dollars for that swivel. Finally he found a used one in Canada, but they still wanted $9,000 for that part. He begrudgingly paid that price for the part, and the aircraft has flown like a champ since then. But that’s left me to conclude that I probably will never own a C182RG since parts for the landing gear cost that much, and are that hard to find. I’m currently leading toward a Luscombe 8A or an Aeronca Chief being my first airplane, a fixed gear C182 for my second, and eventually for a fast airplane, I may consider a Comanche 250.
I have owned my Comanche 260b for 45 years, because I can’t find anything to beat it. Best engine Lycoming IO540. Best range. Best c of g range. Best economy of maintenance. Great parts support from Webco. Over 6,000 produced so well proven.
While I don't know much about planes, I am fascinated by their technology. I have heard of a Piper PA-31 Navajo, which was built in the late 20th century (1970s-80s) and has a pressurized cabin. So you won't have to wear an O2 mask at 14,000 ft. If you want to go fancy with the onboard computers (Garmin Avionics), getting a Diamond DA42 VI would work well, but no cabin pressure, and you'll get cold quite easily at a 4 km altitude. Finally, if you want a classic all-rounder, a Cessna 152 would suffice, but you'll struggle to go faster than 125 mph (110 knots). Edit: How many hours did you fly on your Comanche (or engine hours)?
I’m wanting to buy a Comanche 260B/C. It’ll be years before I can afford one or find one but I’d rather start ownership with the plane I want. Until then I’ll have to keep renting those archers.
Good job on the video. I am a Mooney owner and am partial to that bird. I have flown the other 3 you tested and I am sure you will be happy with any of them. My experience with the Mooney is that it is very reliable and needs little ongoing maintenance. The speed/vs fuel burn is very favorable and pilots position is quite comfortable. If most of your trips are solo or 1 PAX, the Mooney is very appropriate. Useful load has not been a problem for me, but if you fly more people, it becomes an issue. Appropriately loaded, the mountains west of Denver have not been a problem. I have owned the Mooney for close to 20 years.
I’ve co-owned a Comanche 250 for the last 4.5 years…first plane from an ownership standpoint for both myself and partner. I’m happy to report its been a great experience! All the performance mentions in your video are spot on. We have a three blade prop and see climb rates of 1500-1800pfm in cooler months to 1000-1200 in warmer months even with fuel tanks (90-gal) and two adults. Absolutely no concerns with take-off performance by the book. The Comanche is rock solid when turbulence is encountered. I used to fly a 172 and seem to remember how uncomfortable it was with the bumps…not so with the Comanche. A noticeable difference whether because we're sitting on top of the wing, its design or both. A nervous passenger will enjoy the ride much better! Handling is awesome and I often refer to it as the Corvette of the sky! Roomy in terms of shoulder width is really nice but for me being 6’ or 6’ 1” on a good day I could use a little more head room but nothing to complain about or that an adjustable seat cant fix. Once the plane is trimmed out she just flys with very little input..no AP onboard our bird yet. You may hear comments about the landing reputation the Comanche has…I had people say prior to purchasing the plane “that’s a lot of plane for a low time pilot” “when the wing stops flying IT STOPS FLYING” First thing we did was find an instructor who knew the Comanche (40-years of experience). We flew 15-20 hours with the instructor only then to go away for a weekend to attend a Comanche Pilot Proficiency Program where we flew another 10-hours each and practiced emergency procedures, maneuvers etc. Even got to get our BFR signed off at no additional cost! Awesome transition experience and huge confidence with respect builder. Afterwards we had no issues with landing her safely and smoothly..but yes there has been a few times where we got to slow at 12” - 18” above runway and it drops like a rock right after the yoke starts to shake but the shake is seconds, maybe 5, before that wing just cant fly anymore and down we go like landing on an aircraft carrier. After 200+ hours in the Comanche I cant imagine flying anything else. The Comanche Group on Facebook and network in general is incredible…just a bunch guys and girls who love the Comanche and will do most anything to help a fellow Comanche pilot! Btw, when I started looking into planes to buy like you I stumbled on this video, th-cam.com/video/ykxeVxa8qJo/w-d-xo.html, and it was all I needed to see/hear. Matter-of-fact I sent the same link to my plane partner who at the time I only knew for a few weeks. We were both looking at the same plane club to join when one day I asked him if he knew what the Comache was all about. I sent him the same link...he called me the next day and said “Im IN!” Don’t hesitate…find a good one and jump in!
I would pick the commanche because it has a wide comfortable cabin, same wing as the money, sturdy like the bonanza, more useful load than the 182. The commanche is all of the other 3 airplanes in one.
I went from the 182RG to the G36 Bonanza and now back to the 182RG because it’s the same useful load a few knots slower, but 10% of the insurance cost, and half the fuel burn.
Russ I did this a year ago. I bought a M20J. Strong. Great fuel burn. Good on limited AD’s. Fast. Lycomings do not like Lean of Peak. How do I know? I talked to the Lycoming Engineers at the EAA this year. NO WORRIES. Even rich of peak I burn 8.5gph and cruise at 145kts. Yes I can go faster but so far all my missions have not required it. She does best between 7500 - 9500ft. Full fuel. 4 people and weekend luggage. Remember that you’ll fly 85 to 90% solo no matter what you think might happen. I have logged 145 hours this year and 100 of those have been me and my thoughts. Which ever plane you buy… get a pre buy inspection from a different A&P than has done the last few annuals. You will want fresh eyes. If they balk about that then walk away. You will be happy you did. Don’t let them talk you into doing their annual as a pre buy either…unless you work out that they fix 100% of anything above the cost of the inspection. Go and do your research. You’ll be glad you did. Good luck.
I have owned a , 1961Piper 250 Comanche. It was a truck that would carry everything. 1955 F35 Bonanza, a 1957 H35 bonanza were picky about weight and balance. 1967 Mooney M20E and a 1975 Mooney M20E. They cary less than the others, but have been operating out of a 1800' grass strip for 25+ years. It will carry 2 full sized adults and fly from St. Louis to Norfolk Va. in about 5 hours and burn about 35 gallons. That is hard to beat.
I owned a Comanche 250 from 1975 to 1986. It was based on a 2500' grass strip at 3600' elevation, never had any performance issues with it plus it handled the rough field well. It was a stable platform, easy to fly. I spent quite a bit of time in IMC and it handled ice very well. The worst icing was about 3/4" at 16,000', it still handled well and even carbureted and no turbo, it maintained altitude and very likely would have climbed. I also flew a Bonanza for a guy I knew who didn't have an instrument rating. Lots of IMC. Another easy to handle plane and it'd make you look good even if you weren't but if you had more than a trace of ice, it'd fly like a brick. This one had a turbo 285 Continental up front. Less HP and no turbo, any ice would have been a disaster.......lol. One serious disadvantage to the Bonanza is the alternator was bolted onto the front side of the engine and had a nasty tendency to burn up after a hot-start. The Comanche was more of a workhorse, it'd get you there no matter what. The Bonanza was more of a luxury machine but it certainly had its quirks.
Let me start by saying that we LOVE our 182. I've flown it from California to the Caribbean multiple times, crossed the lower 48 multiple times, taken it up into the mountains, down to mexico, up to canada etc.. i have about 900 hours in a 182. We still have our 182 to this day with no intentions of selling it. We bought a Baron back in February 2021. Having had little to no time in a Beechcraft previously, in my opinion, Beechcraft is a stronger better made airplane. The Skylane is great but it sounds like the Bonanza would better suit your mission, it's stable, it's faster, it's easy to fly and a great IFR platform. It's a little more on the pricier side but the upgrades for the V35 are endless should you want to go faster in the future, the upgrades for the Skylane are next to nothing. The egress of the Beechcraft is a pain for sure but you get used to it. The Cessna wins for lower operating costs, better views while flying, and it's STOL ability. Good luck finding your next bird!
I’ve owned a 1963 Comanche 250 for over thirty years. Great machine that my wife and I have had all over the USA and the Bahamas. A great cross country airplane and hamburger hopping airplane. I’ve never experienced any problems getting parts. Cheaper than a Bo.
I own a Comanche 250 and would never question it. its a GREAT plane out of the four the performance of the Comanche rules i also own a Cherokee6 ( the truck) of all pipers the bottom line for me is the Comanche endurance speed and confort is why i love my Comanche
Cherokee 6? Hey, if you wanna haul a ton, you can't beat it! I watched a guy put TWO snowmobiles in one, another person stuffed an upright piano in one. I flew in a friend's 260 and we had 4 people, a dentist chair, x-ray machine and all of our stuff. It took off like nothing bothered it a bit! Try that in anything else and stay under gross AND CG limits! The right tool for the job. Oh, nothing wrong with Piper spars either. All,,,, senior aircraft will eventually have issues. I almost bought an Arrow with,,, ready? 32,000 hours! It was beautiful too. Been flying a 12,000 hr. 172. Inspect and maintain.. like we're supposed to do. Ok, my 5 cents worth (inflation you know! ).
I have been checked out on all 4 planes. I used all 4 for business trips. I rented all 4 at Addison Airport in Texas. Of the 4 I would strongly suggest the Comanche 260C. I loved the handling and roomy cockpit. I also like the strength. I had a deer run out in front of me and I hit it with the right main gear. The plane took the punishment and all I lost was a gear door. I hit it at 60 mph and remained in the air. Fantastic plane.
Piper Comanche 250/260 Post '61. Owned a 250 for 5 yrs. Great aircraft Lycoming 540 is a great engine, 90 gals would be best as that buys time in more then air time it also keeps you off the ground waiting for a fuel truck.... if your bladder is up to it. Climb performance is great ....that laminar flow wing loves to climb... CG is generous mine trued 150Kt at 65% power on 11.5 gph leaned best econ. Obviously AD compliance is important on all planes. The Comanche has it's share but most are terminatable (except gear) I just love how the Comanche pulls in Climb especially on a cool day..... lets them "thrifty " M20's shrink as you pull away :) Good luck
I owned a 182 RG for over 10 years and it is a great airplane. Solid, reliable, quick and comfortable. The landing gear gets a bad rap, but if it is properly maintained it should not be a problem. On a trip it used the same amount of fuel as my 172, but the speed made the trip much faster. Useful load was 800 pounds with full tanks (72 gallons). Great IFR platform and really good short field (but not rough field) performance. If I was buying another plane, I'd be torn between the 182RG and the Comanche.
Dave, I agree with many of the other posters on the Comanche. I have owned two and the last one for 15 years just selling it two years ago. The International Comanche Society (ICS) and Shearer Aviation Services at 9D4 were key ingredients to my enjoyment of that model. The ICS provides a wealth of advice and training opportunities as well as camaraderie. The owner at Shearer had maintained Comanches for over 30 years and really knew the breed. I never had a problem getting parts or keeping it airworthy. The Comanche took me all up and down the east coast as well as far west as Texas and Kansas. No problems landing as long as you observe proper speed control. I agree with the other advice about finding a good instructor who knows Comanches. I wish you the best in your search!
@@GonzoT38 You are quite correct. As in those financial disclosure statements "past performance is not an indicator of future returns." I still fly that Comanche as I sold it to a friend and was up in it last month. It was 43 years old when I bought it and 55 years old when I sold it. My point was that to maintain an older model like the Comanche, it was my experience that having a good type club and a shop that knew the model made it happen for me.
If you were to include or substitute the 182RG for the fixed landing gear version, I'd say get that one. All the benefits that you named earlier, without the retractable gear headaches.
I’m a pretty new pilot, licensed early this year. I had a chance to get a Comanche 250 owned by a family member for 45+ years. This plane is a dream to fly and for someone with not a lot of landing experience, I can say I’ve gotten pretty good at it. Always room for improvement but I’m getting it down pretty well the more I fly. In the air, my plane is a dream. I have the tip tanks so I can go a very long way, though my bladder usually won’t make it so if I didn’t t have the tip tanks, I’m not sure I’d add them. I trained in a Cherokee so this was a great step above that plane. I got my complex and high-performance certification in a Bonanza (which I really didn’t care for due to the smaller cabin size). I’m a pretty big guy so the extra room in the Comanche matters. I love the Comanche because it’s just so smooth and easy to fly and I get where I want to go in a hurry.
I work at a flight school that has 2 R182s and is great for fuel efficiency and speed, but the gear system is a bear, like you said. The problem is that if the gear castings for the mains crack, which many of them probably have if you look closely, they will set you back around $50,000 a pair. If I had a choice, personally I would choose a low wing plane with retractable or a high wing with fixed.
Own a Mooney M20J for a few years now and like yourself it was an upgrade from my reliable warrior. I also live here in the north east (NJ) and find this plane a quick commuter to all the local haunts in under an hour with fuel burns of about 11 gal an hour at 65% power. Dare county NC in about 2 hrs. Have partners on this plane and we all absolutely love it. A very capable, safe well equipped aircraft that is economically to own and fly. Only criticism is the plane is unforgiving on landings and prop to ground clearance is very close. But once you get the landings down you’ll love this plane.
182 RG by far best and most practical, speed is decent, if you can fit it inside you can carry it. You can easily go in on most non paved runway. As I said ... very practical can be used for anything
I have ~120 hours in an M20J. It’s an unbeatable airplane. Handling, flying characteristics, IFR stability… a fantastic combination. Also, the wing spar is tip to tip. There has never been an inflight breakup. The tubular cabin structure and single piece spar make it a very safe plane in an accident.
I almost purchased a Bonanza V tail. Love the style and the large windows. However I cancelled the buy after I spoke with Bonanza mechanic on the difficulty of replacement parts for the v-tail magnesium ruddervators as Bonanza no longer manufactures them. So I opted for a Mooney 1978 M20j. If I run it lean I actually burn about 8 GPH at 150 knots indicated. Also relatively few AD's and none that I am aware of on such critical things as spars.
I agree with Mike B. Funnily enough, I too was looking at the V-tail Bonanza and got EXACTLY the same advice from an owner who has his plane parked at my airport. I too bought a 1978 Mooney M20J, but my numbers are slightly different. My cruise is ROP (that will change when I get a decent engine monitoring system installed later this year), and I see 152 KTAS @ 8-10k feet, burning 38 Litres per hour ( 10 GPH). It has long legs, and I did the west-east run across the Australian continent with two refueling stops. M20J does have a rather small door, which is my only gripe. But as far as efficiency is concerned, my view is that it beats the others hands down. Having said that, all these choices are nice aeroplanes. Let us know which one you pick. Cheers.
Hey Mike I have the same but when I spoke with the Lycoming guys at EAA this year they warned me unless you have... oh those funky Injectors... gimme or Jimmynor what ever they are DO NOT RUN LEAN OF PEAK. The IO360 does not do that well. I run rich of peak and I still get 8-8.5gph. If you aren't sure call the boys at Lycoming yourself. You'll be glad you did.
As an up and coming private pilot, I appreciate this honest post and all of the comments. I have a friend who went from a Mooney to a V tail, and I was able to fly the V tail for a few minutes from Pullman, WA to Orofino, ID. I’m so new that I couldn’t tell the difference because I haven’t had the opportunity. Thank you for all the comments and a great video.
The Comanche airframe is zinc chromated. Comanches that are stripped & painted usually damage some of the zinc chromate. One area to look for on the prebuy inspection is minor cracks on the top wing skins about half way down where a rib & stringer intersect. Usually they are stop drilled & alot of times hidden under body filler which eventually comes loose when the cracks flex. Only way to fix the cracks is to add another inspection panel under the cracked area & rivet a double under the cracks.
I have owned a Piper Arrow, V35, Piper Cherokee, Cessna 182 and now I have recently gotten into a V35 turbo. I have enjoyed each plane for different reasons. The Bonanza is an incredibly comfortable plane and has great speed. You can't go wrong with a V35! Ive been all through the east coast, to Oshkosh, to the Bahamas and I'm planning a trip to Arizona. If I'm taking a trip the Bonanza is the way to go!
I almost bought a P model Bonanza before the ruddervators stopped being made. Today's market may be different, but they used to carry quite a price premium over other brands, and the often have CG problems. I've flown Mooneys and I enjoy them. If you mostly fly alone I think a J model really is a great option for you. It does get tight in the cabin though, and four people with full fuel and/or bags is not very realistic in my opinion. The 182RG is tempting, but a friend of mine swears he will never own one again due to the landing gear. They are a maintenance nightmare, and he was constantly chasing hydraulic leaks from a hundred different connections. A turbo 182 fixed gear would be preferable, but burn more fuel if you tend to fly in the single digit altitudes. The plane I ended up buying to replace my PA28 was a Comanche 250. I had a deal I couldn't pass up fall into my lap, but if I didn't, I'd have sought to purchase a 260 model. I bought the bogart bungee tool, and I can change them alone in 45 minutes if the plane is already on jacks for annual (bungees are $20 a piece, and the tool is $200). It is a 4 person airplane, and flying with someone next to you is very comfortable with the wide cabin. I've flown out of many high DA airports without issue including Big Bear and Telluride, flown 1150 miles non-stop, and been coast to coast. The Comanche is great, but I'm sure you'll be happy with any of the aircraft you're looking at.
Comanche 250 driver here, the Mooney is a great plane but you will get real good at weight and balance calcs if your loading it with much weight. The bungee cords are no big deal. Installed the Australian tail horn and the other AD is gone. My only bitch is the under sized entry door. All good choices
My experience is in Piper 236, Saratoga, 182RG and C210, with some time in a old Mooney...In my experience Mooney utility is on the low side, good two passenger plane and fast...While I prefer low wing planes most of my time in Cessna which as a taller pilot, 6-6, I found the 182RG and C210 the most comfortable for myself and passengers with great utility. I test flew a V35 for purchase but my wife found that she did not like the tail sliding back and forth (rear passenger). While I am still a Piper fan the C210 was the best utility aircraft I have ever flown, four adults and bags with no problem. The 182 is pretty much the same just a little slower.
From an A&P mechanics point of view for me I choose the Piper Comanche hands down and they are also my favorite ones to fly. I am especially partial to the Comanche 260B.
I have flown all the airplanes you cite. With the possible exception of the the 201, you could load any of them with four fat people and fly to Utah. I really like the IO-540 engine in the Comanches as well as the stable ride,…in turbulence the Piper just mows over it like a Boeing, whereas the Bonanza yaws like crazy (a good pilot can minimize it somewhat). It’s been a while since I’ve flown one, but I think your numbers are slightly optimistic on speed-Comanches are probably 150-155 on 14-16gph. Not sure what percentage of Lycomings are set up to run Lean Of Peak, with Gami injectors, engine monitors and the like and only the 260hp versions apply. Mooneys are well-constructed and compact little airplanes. Although fitted with four-cylinder engines some say they’re harder to work on because they’re so compact. It’s efficient but the cabin is short and, as a practical matter, really a 2-3 passenger airplane. I’ve little experience with the 182RG, but again I think the speed and fuel flow numbers you mention are optimistic. It will haul a pretty good load, though. It’s easy to get in and out of, but harder to fuel than the low wing machines. I own a 1968 V-35A and while it aint cheap to maintain (any one of these airplanes can have some eye-watering repair bills-they’re all OLD, apart from maybe a newer Cessna) the Bonanza is fast, efficient, comfortable and carry a load and fly far-almost all post-1964 V-tails have 74gals useable. My airplane will lift 800lbs of people, nearly five hours at 163KTAS. I have taken off from Princeton N.J. at 9am and landed at 1;30pm the next day in the SF Bay area, over 2200nm away. If you choose the Bonanza you should educate yourself about the different varients,…they were produced from 1947 to 1982, over 10,000 V-tails alone, more if you include the straight tails and six seaters. The good news is the American Bonanza Society is a great resource. I strongly suggest you fly them all, talk to some fanatical owners and look in to owner organizations. Comanches are my favorite single-engine Pipers, particularly the later, fuel injected models. The early ones often have frankenstein instrument panels and Johnson-bar brakes. Any S-35 or later Bonanza is the class of the field. Just take a look at how the Beechcraft cowling opens up for preflight compared to the others or feel those silky ailerons inflight and you’ll see what I mean. Good luck!
This is a great video for us older beginner pilots. I need a beginner style plane for me to learn on, and for affordability. But something with a little more space and speed than the standard training plans provide, so the family can be comfortable for travel. Thanks!
I agree. Go straight to the plane that best fits your mission. The upfront cost might be higher with insurance and an instructor for complex but then it's blue skies.
CP... I'm a M20J owner...what I'd tell you is look long and hard at the Comanche... they are comfortable fast great load capacity and they can have their maintenance done almost anywhere. My girl.. well yes 43.5 is bigger than the ''Bo'' but the seating style...at 61 I think it will catch up to me. Shes very low. Good luck. See you up there...
I have your mission - flying around the Northeast with occasional 600nm trips elsewhere. I've had Cessnas in the past (185, 206) and currently own a V35B which I love. The Bonanza is a solid, fun, fast, capable airplane. Scrambling onto the wing may not be ideal, but fueling is much easier than with high wings. Visibility is fantastic (big windows) - the cabin just * feels * large in spite of what the dimensions might indicate. Mooney's are fast and efficient but many have tight interiors. No experience with Comanches but they look cool.
I went back and forth between all these airplanes in the past few months. I finally decided on a 182. My best advice is go sit in each one. I was dead set on a Mooney 20J or K when I started my search. I found someone on a forum who allowed me to sit in his with my girlfriend. The second we sat down, we knew it wasn’t for us. It’s a beautiful airplane that’s fast and efficient but it’s a pain for a middle aged adult to get in the backseat. The front seats are pretty cramped as well. The 182 is a little slower but sooo easy to get in and out of. I’d compare the 182 to riding in my SUV vs riding in my kids mustang (Mooney). I decided comfort trumps speed at my age (50).
@@Planeviz I’m gonna have to get back to you on that one. I’m actually closing on the airplane today. I’m flying up to Minneapolis to pick it up tomorrow or Friday. I’ve only got about 10 hours in a 182 right now. It’s a long flight back to Houston so I’ll have some time to play with power settings. I found a free PDF book online called “The Skylane Pilots Companion” by Richard Coffey. I plan on reading that on my airline flight up there. Also, I ended up going with a fixed gear 182 so my speed will be lower than an RG. My mission is shorter personal trips with the family and weekend $100 hamburgers so speed wasn’t high up on my list of important factors.
@@robhaynes6173 Congrats Rob and keep us posted. Between you and me I’m starting to think a fixed gear 182 is also worth a look. It’s about 15 knots slower but for one or two 600 mile cross countries a year-and lower insurance-it might make sense. Enjoy the flight home!
As a new pilot with little knowledge on different planes and have only flown a Cessna 177 cardinal that we trained in, a Cessna 150 that all I can say good about it was that it flew, and our first plane being a m20c ranger. I can’t say all the good things about the other 3. Buy what I can say is our m20c has been amazing, we have flown it about 300 hours since we purchased it a year ago last Christmas it’s been a very affordable get there fast plane that has been awesome. It’s in for its first annual and is really looking promising to not be costly so that’s great We are flying at an average 9 gal per hour fuel burn at 145 kts. After purchase price, fuel, oil, engine reserve, annual, hangar and random maintenance we are flying at a legitimate $85.00 per hour, $40 an hr less than the cardinal we trained in and 25 kts faster and a few more lbs useful load Long story short I’m sold on the Mooney:)
I like the Bonanza be35. Have over 3000 hours in one, 63P model. It has 73 gallons useable and flies great. If you are flying by yourself most of the time, it is a toss up. Mooney is great to. Although I do like the 182 also, without the turbo, I like the other two. Never flown the comanche but have ridden in one. Not enough time to make a decision. Good luck, because what ever one you choose you won't be sorry!
I'll take the Skylane any day. Never flown one with retractable gear, but the welded gear model is my favorite of all the Cessnas and Pipers I have flown.
I’ve sat in a Moony I was going to fly and couldn’t see the top row of the instrument panel. At 6’2” and 215 lbs it’s too cramped for me to safely fly. Love the Bonanza but at 72 climbing over wings is bad but climbing over seats is worse. Never flown the Comanche but loved the Lance/Saratoga except for the climbing issue. The Skylane is perfect for me. Solid instrument platform with enough power to climb when needed and no climbing issues. I figure a selfie stick and my phone will let me check the top of the wings so I’m going to suggest that as the perfect fit if I ever get my medical back.
I'm 6'2" and 205 and have never felt like fitting in my Mooney was a problem. It is definitely a different feel than many other planes though. You are closer to the panel and your legs are nearly straight and mostly under the panel. Once initially seated you have to move the seat way forward to get into the correct position.
I've owned a 201 and currently a PA30 Twin Comanche. I never, ever thought I'd like any airplane more than the 201. The PA30 changed all of that. It's faster and more comfortable inside. Maintenance has not been an issue., but then...it wasn't an issue for the 201 either. The 201 was 155 kts on 10.5 gph. The PA30 is 172 kts on 17.5 gph. I love the PA30. You really don't have a runt in the bunch. There is another AD on the Comanche's that you did not mention. See AD77-13-21. There is an A, B and C part to it. The "A" is a 1000 hour and it requires the disassembly and measuring of everything in the gear. It can be expensive.
Good video! Personally, I'ld go with a fixed gear C-182. The trade off of a couple of knots airspeed for the lower maintainence of the fixed gear is an over-all plus. Side-note: the C-182 RG is a design of the original C-210, just a bit smaller.
I have flown all four (a lot) and will take the Cessna anytime! Flying the V-tail Bonanza is a more satisfying experience. It is like driving a Cadilac, but I like flying in the shade with 360 degrees of visibility for all occupants on long trips. If you have kids at the back, you can keep them busy with "I spy with my eye" and map reading. Otherwise, it will be "are we there yet?" all the way. Mooney should come equipped with a shoehorn for getting in and out through the one small door.
The only plane I have not flown is the Comanche. The plane you pick all depends on your priorities. The Mooney with the pushrod connectors flies like (but fits like) a Corvette … it such a thrill to fly!! The Bonanza is quick and a bit easier to access back seat, but still responsive. The 182 is a minivan with tons of space and easy access. You also sit up more like a truck seat. Very comfy on long flights.
While I don't have a 201, I do have an M20E which I love dearly. For about the same price as your Warrior my wife and I ended up in a plane that we regularly see 140-145 Knots true at 10 GPH. A Mooney is also the strongest airplane of the bunch with the steel tube frame. I would opt for a J or a K if you can get one in your budget.
A wealth of info in these comments if you are considering one of these airplanes. Thank you to everyone who has shared their flying and/or ownership experience.
All four of these aircraft will fit your mission profile, save the Mooney if you need to transport 4 people. The reasons I bought the V35B were robust construction, and a well done training and recurrency program run by the Bonanza Society. Like you, I learned on warriors and arrows, and owned a share in a 182. We were looking for more speed and comfort to visit our out of town sons. We originally were looking for an arrow, but found the prices about the same as the Bonanza. At that point, it was a decision whether or not to take on the Bonanza systems and complexity. We’re very happy with our decision. It’s fast, comfortable, and manageable with the proper training.
i have flown all of these air craft. The beach V 35 is no doubt the best . The main issue with the Beach is dorseling an issue easily controlled with a gentle hand.
Great video and comparison! I will subscribe to your channel. I purchased a 1979 M20J less than a year ago after owning a 172 for 3 years. I’m in love with it. Of the four, it offers the best performance and safety (in fact, the fuselage is protected by a metal cage and it has a one-wing design). Look for the video of pilot Dan Bass on TH-cam…he suffered CO2 poisoning at cruise and the plane eventually crashed and he survived! The Mooney’s overall design was ahead of its time thanks to the improvements made by Roy Lopresti back in the 70’s, and, among all models, I think the J is the sweet spot in terms of performance. I usually burn 10.5-11 GPH on 75% power at nearly 160 TAS at 8-10K feet- or make a sightseeing trip along Miami’s shoreline at 115 knots burning 5.9 GPH. The only downside is getting in, would love to have two doors. Inside it’s comfortable and spacious (more than the Bonanza as noted in the video), contrary to popular believe. The cabin is indeed lower, but shouldn’t be a problem unless you’re 6’4.” Thanks.
I faced the same questions 6 years ago. I landed on an s-model vtail. Basically for speed and comfort. If needed, 175 to 180 kts speeds are available, if your willing to burn 15-16 gallons an hour. This gives the ability to overcome some headwinds. Nothing worse than seeing 90kts ground with 150kts true. Which seems to happen a lot....head wind both directions, right? You have a difficult decision. All 4 planes have wonderful abilities. I do not believe there is a bad plane in the four you are looking at. keep the blue side up!
I recently bought a Bonanza S35, the model that immediately proceeded the V35. I too was concerned about the ruddervator corrosion that is often mentioned. But, I got a thorough pre-buy done by a Bonanza shop, and plan to keep the plane in a hanger. Who knows what will happen in the future?! Did you know the V-Tail prototypes had ruddervators covered by fabric? Also, check out the July 2021 issue of American Bonanza Society's magazine. It had a story about treating ruddervator corrosion, which is doable by competent shop given that it has not progressed too far. If you are interested in the history of Bonanza model evolution, I'd highly recommend Larry Ball's "Those Incomparable Bonanzas."
I'd also suggest looking at the N and P model Bonanza. The N & P have the two main tank arrangement, which is what the V35's have. The IO470 engine is a solid power plant.
Cabin width numbers can be deceiving. You will see what the widest point the in cabin is however you must also consider how much of the cabin is actually that wide. Does the cabin get narrower towards the rear? An airplane like a Mooney is very round at the top of the cabin and you lose some room there. Something like a Comanche is very square and having that width be the same from the floor to the ceiling makes a huge difference. Think of a square and a circle of the same width, which has a great area? I have done maintenance on all of these airplanes and the Comanche is by far the easiest and most enjoyable to work on. The Lycoming I/O-540 is a bulletproof engine. The ADs are all pretty straightforward. There is no doubt mooneys are efficient airplanes however what you wont hear from most mooney enthusiasts is how tight and difficult they are to work on. Wet wings are problematic. The Mooney nose gear pivots on a single bolt for steering and does not use a bushing of any kind, this means that when the nose gear truss wears and becomes sloppy it must be replaced entirely $$. Many of the parts are difficult to access in the airplane. Many mechanics do not like working on mooneys and what you don’t pay for in fuel you will pay for in maintenance. Cessna 182rg is a good airplane but the gear is complex and expensive to maintain. Internal airframe corrosion is also a concern as with most Cessnas. The bonanzas are well built and easy enough to work on, however the lower cowling is part of the engine mount and is not removable, making engine access a little difficult. The big continentals will also usually need a top overhaul about halfway through their TBO.
I used to own a 1958 PA-24 250 that was fitted with 260hp Lycoming engine for over 10 years (see cover photo of the May 1992 Comanche Flyer). It was the best airplane I ever owned. Every landing was a piece of cake, day or night. Just keep the speed right. No worries about weight either. Sadly she is no more. A subsequent owner flew her against a rock in the sky in bad weather.
What a great no BS comparison. I will take all three of these A/C. Hopefully someone finds suitable material to replace the magnesium on the mighty Vee tails.
Hi Dave. I own a R182, 1979 with wet wings. The only correction to your video would be the engine for it. All of them use the O-540 or TO-540, except if modified with and STC for a bigger engine. My plane flies 151 with the 3 blade prop. Why is that an important detail? Because 3 blade will get you up faster and look better BUT it will fly a few knots slower than the 2 blade. Without a doubt my plane is one of the lowest time in the market (1800hrs total time with a 190 SREM engine and new prop). I am a corporate pilot and an A&P/IA so I can give you a few insights on maintenance on all of these planes as I work on them and own one. Bonanzas can speak for themselves being a plane still produced today, but they can get a bit pricey on parts and labor. Comanches have great performance and you can find a nice airframe at a good price to do whatever you want with it (p&I, avionics, mods). Mooney were design for speed. Cabin wider than a Bonanza yet they feel more cramped and of course, you are adding an important element to the comparison of all four and that is 2 more seats. If you're going to carry most of the time 4 pax then... As for the RG, the gear is not a bad mechanism, just like the hoax of gear doors on 210. BUT the maintenance is key. For most owners and mechanics it's enough to grease the pivot points, service hydraulic and if all good, that's it. But the key to it is to prevent the fault, meaning taking an extra hour to actually test the system, not only retract and extend and looks for leaks. A simple pressure gauge will give you a good idea on pump's health, pressure settings and leaks before any of them give you an issue. My trips are 70% 700nm trips. Flying any Beechcraft (except very small ones) makes you feel the airplane. The cabin with those seats, the little heavy but well balanced controls and engine controls feel very different from all of the other options, but not the same mission. RG is slower, but comfortable, gets ANY job done as you can x-country full of everything and it will go, very solid to fly, excellent IFR planes even on busy airspace, and if it fits, it ships. Sorry if this is too long, but feel free to reach out email or phone if I can be of any help.
@@Planeviz the nose gear rigging has to be checked and rigged properly, otherwise you'll notice a few RG with prop strike while taxing or run-up because the down lock failed. I have yet to see one that actually failed mechanically (like broken or worn out). Also the mains have a 'saddle' and most come with a pad that wears out. That changes the gap for the main down locks, thus while you do get a green light because the microswitch can still be actuated, you can be out of tolerance and it's very minimal. Poor lubrication will give you issues with sector gears on the mains. By poor I mean the grease points are easy, BUT make sure you grease it up well. I release the pressure in my plane and let the gear swing free. That way I pump grease and swing it a few times to make sure. Unlike propellers, you can't hurt the system by 'over greasing it' (my two cents). Feel free to contact me for more at carlosoquet@gmail.com. I have a huge upcoming project on a Mooney and can give you my thoughts and a few ideas depending on your mission and budget, plus my plane and the Bonanza
Started working on my Private Pilot earlier this year and have been looking at planes (daydreaming) for the last two years. The prices just keep going up. I was hoping you would be able to give that critical difference to narrow down the choices. The Comanche 260 has the '2' extra seats that would enable carrying a couple more grandkids on trips but you have to be realistic that is about all they are good for other than baggage space. The Cessna 182RG is a sweet plane but no six seat option. So...if mission is only 4 I would go with the 182RG. Just subscribed, looking forward to more reviews.
Such a hard choice here, love the look of the detail, but I'm 53 years old and climbing up onto a wing is too difficult now. The Comanche 250, 260a I love these things, but the 182 or 206 I think it's a way to go, if you get an older one you can put the Continental IO 550 motor, 300 horsepower, take the heads off Port polish three angle grinds, 335 horsepower, put some STOL equipment in, some of the big tires, you can land anywhere, and top speed will be pretty good too
I have over 50 hours in a 206 and really loved the airplane. It's not the fastest, but it's a TRUCK! You can haul about anything in a 206. The shop I wrenched at had one that they cut a slot in the rear baggage door. They could haul a 3 bladed prop in it by sticking the one blade out the slot. I know 182's are the rage....but I'd take a 206 over it. You can always install a "Relief Tube" for the bladder thing :)
Ive owned an early model Comanche 250 and a Bonanza S-35. The comanche was great, but overall I like the Bonanza much better. Comanche positives: Very sporty handling, great climb rate, high useful load and nearly impossible to load out of balance. Comanche drawbacks: Bad ride in turbulence, difficult to land smoothly, low reliability (at least in mine), higher fuel consumption with carburetor. Bonanza positives: Big comfy cabin, quieter in flight, good ventilation, easy to land, great fuel economy, very reliable. Bonanza drawbacks: Lower useful load and easy to load out of balance, sluggish but stable handling, expensive parts.
I've had my Skylane for a year and a half. 1962 E model, Fixed Gear. O-470-R I've been able to work with my mixture and do cross countries using 9.97 GPH. But the average is more like 12 GPH. Made a few trips in it like from Dallas to Colorado and Dallas to Kansas City. I stopped mid way to top off for safety sake, but the fuel would have lasted all the way on either flight. I stepped up from a 172 to a 182 as a natural and easy move. Having lot's of time in the 172, landing the 182 was very easy.
I think within the last 2 weeks I saw an AOPA episode that said something about manufacturer's of some parts on the tail section of bonanzas will no longer produce the parts. Did anyone else see that piece?
I have flown Comanche 260B and C for years, I don't think you can go past them. The C is the nicer looking and has a better cockpit. In my opinion there is no excuse for getting one without the auxiliary and tip tanks, to give a 120 gallon fuel capacity, you don't need to fill them all the time, but if you need to go a long way, your bladder will give up before the airplane does. 1000 miles is perfectly doable. They are comfortable for four passengers and acceptable for six and they are easy to fly with virtually no vices. They have reasonable short field performance and make a good IFR platform. Some of the others might do one thing better than the Comanche, but none of then deliver the whole package like a Comanche does
I flew my 1959 V 35 for about 300 hours. Based in Cincinnati, short trips to Chicaago and Detroit and longer trips to Ft. Lauderdale were very comfortable. The airplane is very stable and a great instrument platform when one would want that. I got my Instrument and Commercial in the Bonanza which I feel attests to how easy the plane is to fly. Something I liked about the aircraft also is the very rugged landing gear. I never worried about sod fields or old fields. It was very happy on short fields too. After about three or four years my partners wanted to sell the plane and I couldn't afford it alone so we sold it. We sold it for more than we paid. I got talked into a Cessna 310 ( with one partner) which was a nice airplane but twice as expensive to fly and not twice as nice nor twice as fast. I owned the 310 perhaps less than a year. I never missed it. But I still follow my Bonanza and the kind owner posts pictures of it periodically. Just buy one. You won't regret it.
I’ve flown the 182RG and older Mooney.. but nothing is as comfortable and smooth flying as my Bonanza. First time the RG owner flown in my bonanza, he was shocked at how quiet and smooth she flies. Mooney has great handling but feels extremely cramped inside, not something nice for long cross country. Never flown in a Comanche but once I parked my bonanza beside one and the BO wins hands down in the ‘ramp appeal’ department with its high stance and noise up attitude. Additional advantages of a Bo is the ease of landing and robust landing gear! Take care of the ruddervators and you have a great flying bonanza for many years to come!
I recently purchased a skylane fixed gear and I am very satisfied with the ease of handling. useful load and speed and btw the landings with the heavy nose is not a big deal with alittle practice
Another Comanche owner here. I did get the 180 version, so my cruise speed is 140ish instead of the 150-160 of the 6cylinders. But cabin feel? There is no comparison. The Comanche is comfortable, and flies like a dream. To be fair, I have 0 Mooney or Bonanza time other than sitting in them. I had originally looked for 182's also, but they were price prohibitive for me. I like so many others learned in a Cherokee and 172, but my school had a Comanche also. I bought mine having never flown a Comanche but hearing raving reviews from everyone at the school. The biggest selling points being the wide cabin width, and about 20-30% less than even a fixed gear 182 of the same condition. Be aware though, there is a 1000 hour landing gear AD also on the Comanche that requires about 20 hours of teardown and inspection. I had mine rebuilt at that time, all new everything. Now it's rock solid. I've flown this plane on a nearly 7 hour trip, with one fuel stop. we averaged about 10gph. I don't have the aux tanks like the 250/260s have so only have 60 gallons on board so about a 5 hour range. Even with worn out seats in the middle of winter, the 3.5 hour legs weren't bad at all. And as an added bonus, (I may be biased) the Comanche is the best looking of the bunch ;) I have 0 regrets.
Thanks for sharing your 180 ownership experience. With those long distance trips seems like some IFR would be involved; any panel upgrades under your watch?
@@Planeviz only the one long distance trip so far and was all VFR, she is painfully original. I can track a VOR and thats the extent of navigational aids. In the midst of getting a new Garmin GNX375, Gi275 panel now, just waiting on backordered stuffs to show up. The only thing being reused is the cabin thermometer, only because i thought i needed to leave at least 1 thing factory. AP next year hopefully. New Hartzell Scimitar prop ordered today too. They say don't buy cheap planes because everything will need replaced which will make it more expensive...which is 100% true. But in the end, I'll have it exactly as I want it to be.
Granted, I'm biased, and indeed I'm a CFI who used to sell for Cutter Beechcraft. When demoing a Bonanza, I'd park it next any brand X aircraft and then walk my customer around both, just to show the very considerable differences in construction methods and quality. The Beech has a keel, to which everything else is attached, and it's enormously strong. If you consider only the numbers, you might go for the M201, but I always found the 201's cabin to be small, and I didn't like the feeling of sitting under the instrument panel. The V-35 feels considerably more spacious because of its greater head and leg room. The Beech handily outperforms the others mentioned. It has a marvelous control harmony and feel to it that any pilot can appreciate, as well as a very high maneuver speed. From cruise you'd generally have to speed up to get to Va. All control actuators have rods and bearings, not cables. You'll never lose rig due to cable stretch. Personally, I slightly prefer the F-33 or A-36 to the V-35.
If you haven't yet explored it, be sure to do homework on the V-tail ruddervator (magnesium) corrosion /cracks issue. If you move forward on one, be sure you have a Beech specialist inspect the surfaces. There is a thin margin between repair and replace. Where it may be passible to one IA it may be grounding to another. Unlike the straight tails which can be upgraded to aluminum, the ruddervators cannot. Replacement parts or skins are rare and expensive.
I've flown a Mooney M20E, owned Arrow 200 and now I own a Comanche 250 for the past 2 years. M20E was just too small for family flying. Arrow 200 flew us for almost 4 years but in the end it's speed was pegged to 133-135 true knots at best and somewhat limited in range with it's 50 gal tanks. Comanche 250 does 153-154kts true at 12gph which gives me almost 10 hours of range with tip tanks (120gal total). There is no plane in the market which can offer a combination of 150-160kts speed, 1200lbs useful, huge cabin space and 10 hours of range while looking absolutely stunning.
These were very good choices, best of the best. I flew a Comanche 250 for 3 years and now own and fly a P35 Bonanza for past 14 years. Both are great choices. The Comanche was more comfortable with good handling. Excellent rate of climb. The Bonanza is still comfortable with good visibility. Handling on Bonanza is fantastic! It is a pilots airplane. Both have good support but the Bonanza has way more mods availability than the Comanche. Bonanza has much better parts availability too. Both are excellent choices though for cross country and IFR flights.
We’ve owned a 1979 TR182 for over 10 years. The airplane does cost more to maintain than its fixed gear counterpart. The turbo has a ceiling of 20,000 feet and will give you sea level power to that point. The climb rate is 500 to 1000 rpm. The Truck moniker can be removed by installing vortex generators. This makes the aircraft handle very well and reduces the stall speed. The TAS is 160 kits at 75% power. I generally fly at 23” MAP and 2200 rpm. This is 65% power and 150 TAS. This burns 12.5 gal/ hr. At 1145 lbs useful load and long range tanks (92 gal) it is hard to beat.
I owned a Comanche 250 ('61) for a few years and loved it. I've flown the V35B. Now I own another candidate for your list: '75 Bellanca Super Viking. I believe a BSV would fit your needs well and would come in a bit less than the four you've listed here. Be careful when purchasing though, have it checked out by a well-qualified expert in wood/fabric aircraft. These are time tested materials but require special attention. If maintained properly will outlive their metal counterparts. The handling will simply blow you away. Landings are a joy, and with 300hp, these things get up and move.
@@Planeviz It will greatly depend on how good of shape it's in when you purchase it. Mine needed some long term maintenance, and I moved it from a wet climate (FL) to a very dry climate (AZ), so things need to be tightened up as it dries out. Speed is about the same. Comanche will carry more. BSV is just more fun to fly. It's like a sports car compared to a family sedan. Cost of entry is cheaper, so use what you save to bring it up to snuff, mx wise, and you'll love it. Also, check out vikingpilots.com for a wealth of knowledge on anything/everything BSV!
You picked 4 awesome airplanes, all are dream airplanes for most pilots. As an early model Bonanza owner and A&P, I am partial to the Bo. I have owned a Piper Cherokee and there just is no comparison in craftsmanship between Beech and a Piper and especially the Bonanza. The Beechcraft is built like an old battleship, lots of one piece machined structure vs. stamped multi piece fastened structure, literally made to last the 70+ years that they have been flying. Piper, Cessna, and Mooney not so much. The Bonanza is just made better, over engineered and over built, the quality is there just look around both and it is apparent. The Bo is faster, and can be had cheaper in most cases. It flys and lands like a dream. And the V-tail, well it is just sexy.
I'm apt to agree on your opinions of build qualities, but the Comanche isn't in the same ball park as the other Pipers. The Comanche's were Piper's first all metal entries and they put everything they had into them. All other Pipers are not built like Comanches were.
I am biased, but have owned my P35 Bonanza (earlier version of V35) for 20 years. Prior to that, I owned a PA28-140 Cherokee. Aside from the obvious difference in power and speed, I can say that the quality of the Bonanza is far, far, FAR superior to that of the Piper I owned. Everything felt plastic in the Cherokee, but definitely not in the Bonanza. I love my airplane and cannot imagine ever owning anything other than a Beechcraft. I cruise at 155kts at economy settings, but can travel 165kts at higher power settings. My Bonanza has the 260hp IO-470. V35A & B models have the 285hp IO-520 or the 300hp IO-550. These airplanes get 3 - 5 kts more speed than mine, but use more fuel as well. Recently added tip tanks, and have a range of almost 1500 miles on one fill. Really an exceptional airplane.
I love all of these planes and currently own a Comanche 250. I wouldn’t pass up a good example of any aircraft on this list. I will say though, having two doors would be awesome. Getting four people in/out of a single, climbing on wings and contorting into the seats is not always easy. Egress in an emergency is certainly part of your pretaxi checklist. The 182RG (especially the turbo) sounds pretty nice, and the most expensive.
I looked into all these planes and a few more, then decided on a Navion, which has the most comfortable cabin of any 4-seater, flies a lot like a C182, and costs about half as much.
I stepped up from an M20E (with a 201 windshield) to a M20K this year. Both are great planes and are frankly the same speed up to 8500 ft. The Continental gives you two advantages: it’s quieter/smoother and the turbo is helpful out West at high altitudes. The M20E with a three blade prop might as well be a STOL. It came off in
If money is no issue, I will go for the Cessna 182 or Cessna 210. You can never beat the comfort of two doors and as we get older kneeling down on a low wing for inspection and fuel sump is get old. Hi wing give you sun and rain protection also. go for high wing.
My first commercial flying job was for a small company using a Mooney. Admittedly it was in a somewhat different class with turbocharging and a highly capable (for the time) glass cockpit, de-icing, etc., but one of the reasons the company chose it is because the accountants noticed that they rarely needed all 4 seats on a trip, so that meant that most of the time, there was a lot of range available at the lowest total cost per mile with those capabilities. It also has a reputation for the integrity of its frame which, as AvWeb puts it in a review, means that a pilot has already smashed his eyeballs flat as manhole covers before he ever breaks the airplane. Unless I expected 4 seats full regularly, the J would be my choice in this group just for the sake of the pocketbook relative to performance.
Depends on your mission and pocketbook. At my age I’m not climbing a ladder to fuel my plane . My archer has flown me all over the US. Ain’t fast but I fly for fun so it isn’t as much of an issue
Years ago - 1968 - I flew home to DC in a Mooney 20A from Santiago, Chile; including a stop at PBI to see my folks and extensive flights in Mexico, that was about a 7,800 mile trip. I had purchased the Mooney in Chile and had flown it extensively before starting this trip-of-a-lifetime. The only glitch on the trip was I violated the "stay-on-the ground-after-noon-in-the-tropics maxim which after lightning took out the RDF station to which I was flying and hail began drumming my plane, I dropped gear, flashed my lights, and aided by a truck responding to my "message" by turning perpendicular to traffic, landed on the Pan American Highway at Jipihoppa, Ecuador. But the Mooney does not read "tight" inside, is fast and gave me great legs on 52 gallons of fuel. And flying it was akin to my Carrerra 911... sweet and sure...I miss it big time.
I LOVE Beechcraft's... especially when someone else is paying for maintenance and fuel. (First airplane my Dad and I owned... a 56TC Baron. Incredible performance, just don't watch the fuel flows! If it had been a B-Baron or Travelaire, I might still own it). The 182 is about four-inches short of bulletproof. Only Comanche's I've flown are twin Comanche's, so I'll reserve comment on something I've not flown. Of the four, I would opt for the Mooney. I've got about 800 hours in them. Outstanding instrument platform, but a low gear speed. A Mooney requires planning like a 310/320... You've got to stay way ahead of it. I tell people a Mooney is like a 356 or early 911 Porsche... you love them or hate them - no middle ground. (I've also owned seven Porsche's over the decades, so maybe that's why I like Mooney's?!). Good luck with your choice............
I own a PA24-260 Comanche. This model is 4 window with fuel injection. It is nestled between the 250s and the 260b. For reference, I cruise at 167 knots at 7k-9k feet using about 12.7 gph. She has 90 gallons (86 usable) with no tip tanks. I can cruise at 55% at higher altitudes getting great speeds and only burning ~10 gallons per hour. The range from the POH is about 1000nm on a full set of tanks. My plane has a useful load of 1200 lbs. I can easily fit 4 adults and leave the aux tanks dry which gives me 4-6 hours with 840 lbs of passengers. By myself she climbs at 2200fpm. Landing is no big deal. And she flies like she is on rails. Ask any questions you might have. I’ve owned her for 2 years after getting my PPL.
![Beechcraft Bonanza [what's with the V Tail? Is it Safe, is it really a Doctor Killer?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/H-9hI2aDCkk/mqdefault.jpg)
So...
Comanche: The comfortable sedan cruiser.
Mooney: The small sports car.
Bonanza: The muscle car.
Cessna: The pickup truck.
Well described. Rear seat in Mooney, too tight even for myself.
@@AClark-gs5gl J model is much roomier.
The 182.
Great way of putting it in short.👍🏼
Comanche 400 would turn that comanche into the Muscle Car
I learned to fly in a Cherokee and then moved up to a Comanche 250, I then bought into a Bonanza, and have since then owned two Mooneys. I currently fly a Mooney M20K. The Mooney just lets me fly more and go further on less $$. For long trips, the Mooney is fastest for me as I can skip the fuel stop all the other planes are making. For short trips, the Mooney hauls as much load as any of the others as it doesn't need full tanks to go the same distance. I've found the Mooneys to be less expensive on maintenance than either the Comanche or the Bo I had before.The Skylane RG's are everywhere, I've never owned one, but have several friends who do. We say they are better than the Mooney in every way, until you leave the ground. On short trips I can carry the same weight as the Skylane because I'll need less gas. On long trips, if I plan the same fuel stops as the Skylane, I'm still able to carry the same weight. Or lighten the load, fill the tanks and get there in a lot less time without the fuel stop. I personally like the sports car seating position but enjoy the added width of the cabin. I'm a bit oversized myself and the Mooney cabin fits better than the Bo. If I couldn't own a Mooney I'd have a Comanche but I'd have to adjust the budget to be able to fly as much as I fly the Mooney. BTW that 201 in your video has flown Denver to Newark non-stop. Range gives options, safety, and peace of mind on cross country flights.
I went from a Cherokee 235 to a Mooney M20F. ... and Paul's "K" is significantly faster than the V35B... just saying... If you are almost always flying 2 up or solo, get the Mooney, it will be the one you will keep.
My oldest is 6'2" and my youngest is 5'10" and still growing. Would they even fit in a Mooney?
@@toddbaker9493 Easily in the front seats. For back seat sizing, you'll want either a mid-body Mooney or long-body Mooney. I know pilots who are 6'7" who fly Mooneys because they fit better in them than any other small single engine airplane.
@@psteen67 Thank you, Paul!
@@toddbaker9493 Yeah, think corvette (up front); seating angle is different but tons of leg room. Mid body means you want an "F", "J" "K" etc..not a "C/D/E"
I have been a pilot and A&P/IA mechanic for 40+ years. I have flown and worked on all 4 of the planes you are comparing, but out of all of the 4, I have only owned a Comanche 250, and would never own any of the others. The Comanche BY FAR is my top choice. I couldn't run away fast enough, even if you wanted to GIVE me a Mooney. They are maintenance nightmares, cramped inside, and uncomfortable to fly. If you ever belly one in, the landing gear system is forever tweaked because all the control rods are in the belly. The landing gear is a bitch to rig. The V-35 Bonanza needs a yaw damper!! It constantly "wags" in flight, and gets annoying after about 20 minutes. The Cessna R-182 is a great short field plane due to its giant "barn door" flaps, but the plane basically flies like a truck. Very heavy on the controls, just like the fixed gear 182s. I've seen more than a few R-182s with cracked main landing gear attach castings. The castings are on the inboard ends of the tubular main gear and are secured to the fuselage below the floor underneath the rear seat. They tend to crack at the pivot points, and since brake fluid passes inside the castings, the first sign of a crack is brake fluid dripping from the belly of the plane. There is also a funky brake line fitting on the casting that allows the brake line to pivot as the gear retracts and extends, and this fitting is prone to leaking and is very difficult to change, and especially to safety wire. The brake lines go through the inside of the tubular steel gear legs, and if they don't make exactly the right bend as they exit the landing gear tubes on their way to the brake calipers, they will rub on the brake disc and rapidly end up with a hole and leak. The landing gear safety switch is on the nose gear, and I've seen this cause some problems with premature gear retraction and the plane settling down on its nose, but this is more prevalent in the R-172 Cutlass. All in all, it's a no brainer. The Comanche is, and will always be, my first choice. If I ever get another plane, it will likely be a Twin Comanche.
Any advice on the Piper Arrow?
Appreciate what you wrote about the R-182. I like also your word "funky" for the pivoting brake lines Brake lines that could rub on the discs? That is way funky. Walking out to go fly your bird, who wants to see a puddle of brake fluid under their expensive airplane?
I feel the same way about Mooney and Bonanza v tail fork tailed doctor killer. I love Comanches and Cessna's. By far, I've flown both regularly, and the other two occasionally didn't like ground handling or flight characteristics with Mooney (cramped) Bonanza wing problems, tail problems, and others just not worth it.
In my pursuit of finding a plane to own in the future, I’ve considered owning a Comanche for a few reasons. As stated in the video, they’re fast, they’re super good looking airplanes, and from what I heard not too hard on maintenance. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that.
The flying club that I currently work for, I’m a mechanic apprentice and am looking to get my A&P in early to mid September of this year, the club owns a Cessna 182RG. A few years before I started working there, the aircraft had an issue with the left main gear swivel point. And my boss told me that he searched and searched and searched all across the country for a used part. He called Textron to see how much it would cost to get a new swivel, and they wanted $17,000 dollars for that swivel. Finally he found a used one in Canada, but they still wanted $9,000 for that part. He begrudgingly paid that price for the part, and the aircraft has flown like a champ since then. But that’s left me to conclude that I probably will never own a C182RG since parts for the landing gear cost that much, and are that hard to find.
I’m currently leading toward a Luscombe 8A or an Aeronca Chief being my first airplane, a fixed gear C182 for my second, and eventually for a fast airplane, I may consider a Comanche 250.
@@larryblanks6765 "Bonanza wing problems,"
Specify.
Excellent video, I like you mentioning the ADs, nobody else does that.
I have owned my Comanche 260b for 45 years, because I can’t find anything to beat it. Best engine Lycoming IO540. Best range. Best c of g range. Best economy of maintenance. Great parts support from Webco. Over 6,000 produced so well proven.
While I don't know much about planes, I am fascinated by their technology. I have heard of a Piper PA-31 Navajo, which was built in the late 20th century (1970s-80s) and has a pressurized cabin. So you won't have to wear an O2 mask at 14,000 ft. If you want to go fancy with the onboard computers (Garmin Avionics), getting a Diamond DA42 VI would work well, but no cabin pressure, and you'll get cold quite easily at a 4 km altitude. Finally, if you want a classic all-rounder, a Cessna 152 would suffice, but you'll struggle to go faster than 125 mph (110 knots).
Edit: How many hours did you fly on your Comanche (or engine hours)?
@@thatguyalex2835 Piper PA31’s are not pressurised Alex.
@@singlecom Oops, I meant the PA-31P. As you can see, I am not good with airplane models... Lol. :)
I’m wanting to buy a Comanche 260B/C. It’ll be years before I can afford one or find one but I’d rather start ownership with the plane I want. Until then I’ll have to keep renting those archers.
@singlecom wanna sell it? I'm keen on a 260B 👍🏻
Nothing beats the M20J for performance, reliability and efficiency!
Good job on the video. I am a Mooney owner and am partial to that bird. I have flown the other 3 you tested and I am sure you will be happy with any of them. My experience with the Mooney is that it is very reliable and needs little ongoing maintenance. The speed/vs fuel burn is very favorable and pilots position is quite comfortable. If most of your trips are solo or 1 PAX, the Mooney is very appropriate. Useful load has not been a problem for me, but if you fly more people, it becomes an issue. Appropriately loaded, the mountains west of Denver have not been a problem. I have owned the Mooney for close to 20 years.
I’ve co-owned a Comanche 250 for the last 4.5 years…first plane from an ownership standpoint for both myself and partner. I’m happy to report its been a great experience! All the performance mentions in your video are spot on. We have a three blade prop and see climb rates of 1500-1800pfm in cooler months to 1000-1200 in warmer months even with fuel tanks (90-gal) and two adults. Absolutely no concerns with take-off performance by the book. The Comanche is rock solid when turbulence is encountered. I used to fly a 172 and seem to remember how uncomfortable it was with the bumps…not so with the Comanche. A noticeable difference whether because we're sitting on top of the wing, its design or both. A nervous passenger will enjoy the ride much better! Handling is awesome and I often refer to it as the Corvette of the sky! Roomy in terms of shoulder width is really nice but for me being 6’ or 6’ 1” on a good day I could use a little more head room but nothing to complain about or that an adjustable seat cant fix. Once the plane is trimmed out she just flys with very little input..no AP onboard our bird yet. You may hear comments about the landing reputation the Comanche has…I had people say prior to purchasing the plane “that’s a lot of plane for a low time pilot” “when the wing stops flying IT STOPS FLYING” First thing we did was find an instructor who knew the Comanche (40-years of experience). We flew 15-20 hours with the instructor only then to go away for a weekend to attend a Comanche Pilot Proficiency Program where we flew another 10-hours each and practiced emergency procedures, maneuvers etc. Even got to get our BFR signed off at no additional cost! Awesome transition experience and huge confidence with respect builder. Afterwards we had no issues with landing her safely and smoothly..but yes there has been a few times where we got to slow at 12” - 18” above runway and it drops like a rock right after the yoke starts to shake but the shake is seconds, maybe 5, before that wing just cant fly anymore and down we go like landing on an aircraft carrier. After 200+ hours in the Comanche I cant imagine flying anything else. The Comanche Group on Facebook and network in general is incredible…just a bunch guys and girls who love the Comanche and will do most anything to help a fellow Comanche pilot! Btw, when I started looking into planes to buy like you I stumbled on this video, th-cam.com/video/ykxeVxa8qJo/w-d-xo.html, and it was all I needed to see/hear. Matter-of-fact I sent the same link to my plane partner who at the time I only knew for a few weeks. We were both looking at the same plane club to join when one day I asked him if he knew what the Comache was all about. I sent him the same link...he called me the next day and said “Im IN!” Don’t hesitate…find a good one and jump in!
Great review. Thanks for sharing your experience!
I would pick the commanche because it has a wide comfortable cabin, same wing as the money, sturdy like the bonanza, more useful load than the 182. The commanche is all of the other 3 airplanes in one.
if money is no factor, yeah. But it is such a thirsty bird.
I went from the 182RG to the G36 Bonanza and now back to the 182RG because it’s the same useful load a few knots slower, but 10% of the insurance cost, and half the fuel burn.
I would go with the 182. I just love this plane!❤🇧🇷🙏✈️
I’m one of the lucky owners of a 1980 Cessna 182 RG. With a Lycoming O-540. It is a really an amazing plane! Thumbs up for the 182 RG. 💪😎
Whats your cruise speed at 75% and 65% and whats your gallons per hour. Any complaints you dont like about it?
I had a 250 Comanche for a number of years. Once flew non stop from Atlanta to Boston with VFR reserves. Very comfortable plane.
Dave, this is the perfect video for someone like me who is in the very beginning stages of getting a bird! Thank you!
Russ I did this a year ago. I bought a M20J. Strong. Great fuel burn. Good on limited AD’s. Fast. Lycomings do not like Lean of Peak. How do I know? I talked to the Lycoming Engineers at the EAA this year. NO WORRIES. Even rich of peak I burn 8.5gph and cruise at 145kts. Yes I can go faster but so far all my missions have not required it. She does best between 7500 - 9500ft. Full fuel. 4 people and weekend luggage. Remember that you’ll fly 85 to 90% solo no matter what you think might happen. I have logged 145 hours this year and 100 of those have been me and my thoughts. Which ever plane you buy… get a pre buy inspection from a different A&P than has done the last few annuals. You will want fresh eyes. If they balk about that then walk away. You will be happy you did. Don’t let them talk you into doing their annual as a pre buy either…unless you work out that they fix 100% of anything above the cost of the inspection. Go and do your research. You’ll be glad you did. Good luck.
I have owned a ,
1961Piper 250 Comanche. It was a truck that would carry everything.
1955 F35 Bonanza, a 1957 H35 bonanza were picky about weight and balance.
1967 Mooney M20E and a 1975 Mooney M20E. They cary less than the others, but have been operating out of a 1800' grass strip for 25+ years. It will carry 2 full sized adults and fly from St. Louis to Norfolk Va. in about 5 hours and burn about 35 gallons. That is hard to beat.
I owned a Comanche 250 from 1975 to 1986. It was based on a 2500' grass strip at 3600' elevation, never had any performance issues with it plus it handled the rough field well.
It was a stable platform, easy to fly. I spent quite a bit of time in IMC and it handled ice very well. The worst icing was about 3/4" at 16,000', it still handled well and even carbureted and no turbo, it maintained altitude and very likely would have climbed.
I also flew a Bonanza for a guy I knew who didn't have an instrument rating. Lots of IMC. Another easy to handle plane and it'd make you look good even if you weren't but if you had more than a trace of ice, it'd fly like a brick. This one had a turbo 285 Continental up front. Less HP and no turbo, any ice would have been a disaster.......lol.
One serious disadvantage to the Bonanza is the alternator was bolted onto the front side of the engine and had a nasty tendency to burn up after a hot-start.
The Comanche was more of a workhorse, it'd get you there no matter what. The Bonanza was more of a luxury machine but it certainly had its quirks.
Let me start by saying that we LOVE our 182. I've flown it from California to the Caribbean multiple times, crossed the lower 48 multiple times, taken it up into the mountains, down to mexico, up to canada etc.. i have about 900 hours in a 182. We still have our 182 to this day with no intentions of selling it. We bought a Baron back in February 2021. Having had little to no time in a Beechcraft previously, in my opinion, Beechcraft is a stronger better made airplane. The Skylane is great but it sounds like the Bonanza would better suit your mission, it's stable, it's faster, it's easy to fly and a great IFR platform. It's a little more on the pricier side but the upgrades for the V35 are endless should you want to go faster in the future, the upgrades for the Skylane are next to nothing. The egress of the Beechcraft is a pain for sure but you get used to it. The Cessna wins for lower operating costs, better views while flying, and it's STOL ability. Good luck finding your next bird!
Yes.
I’ve owned a 1963 Comanche 250 for over thirty years. Great machine that my wife and I have had all over the USA and the Bahamas. A great cross country airplane and hamburger hopping airplane. I’ve never experienced any problems getting parts. Cheaper than a Bo.
I own a Comanche 250 and would never question it. its a GREAT plane out of the four the performance of the Comanche rules i also own a Cherokee6 ( the truck) of all pipers the bottom line for me is the Comanche endurance speed and confort is why i love my Comanche
But more gas to go slower than the Mooney.
Comanche is better looking than the others by a long shot if that means anything.
@@a.n.7863 like a dump truck is cooler than a sports car kind of way.
@@robertgary3561 eye of the beholder and all that but at least the tail isn’t on backwards.
Cherokee 6? Hey, if you wanna haul a ton, you can't beat it! I watched a guy put TWO snowmobiles in one, another person stuffed an upright piano in one. I flew in a friend's 260 and we had 4 people, a dentist chair, x-ray machine and all of our stuff. It took off like nothing bothered it a bit! Try that in anything else and stay under gross AND CG limits! The right tool for the job. Oh, nothing wrong with Piper spars either. All,,,, senior aircraft will eventually have issues. I almost bought an Arrow with,,, ready? 32,000 hours! It was beautiful too. Been flying a 12,000 hr. 172. Inspect and maintain.. like we're supposed to do. Ok, my 5 cents worth (inflation you know! ).
I have been checked out on all 4 planes. I used all 4 for business trips. I rented all 4 at Addison Airport in Texas. Of the 4 I would strongly suggest the Comanche 260C. I loved the handling and roomy cockpit. I also like the strength. I had a deer run out in front of me and I hit it with the right main gear. The plane took the punishment and all I lost was a gear door. I hit it at 60 mph and remained in the air. Fantastic plane.
Piper Comanche 250/260 Post '61. Owned a 250 for 5 yrs. Great aircraft Lycoming 540 is a great engine, 90 gals would be best as that buys time in more then air time it also keeps you off the ground waiting for a fuel truck.... if your bladder is up to it. Climb performance is great ....that laminar flow wing loves to climb... CG is generous mine trued 150Kt at 65% power on 11.5 gph leaned best econ. Obviously AD compliance is important on all planes. The Comanche has it's share but most are terminatable (except gear) I just love how the Comanche pulls in Climb especially on a cool day..... lets them "thrifty " M20's shrink as you pull away :) Good luck
Mooney Missile. 98 Gallons with Monroy tank conversion. IO550 (300HP). 1100 Useful load and 170knots burning 12-13GPH. (Converted M20J by Rocket Engineering)
I owned a 182 RG for over 10 years and it is a great airplane. Solid, reliable, quick and comfortable. The landing gear gets a bad rap, but if it is properly maintained it should not be a problem. On a trip it used the same amount of fuel as my 172, but the speed made the trip much faster. Useful load was 800 pounds with full tanks (72 gallons). Great IFR platform and really good short field (but not rough field) performance. If I was buying another plane, I'd be torn between the 182RG and the Comanche.
Dave, I agree with many of the other posters on the Comanche. I have owned two and the last one for 15 years just selling it two years ago. The International Comanche Society (ICS) and Shearer Aviation Services at 9D4 were key ingredients to my enjoyment of that model. The ICS provides a wealth of advice and training opportunities as well as camaraderie. The owner at Shearer had maintained Comanches for over 30 years and really knew the breed. I never had a problem getting parts or keeping it airworthy.
The Comanche took me all up and down the east coast as well as far west as Texas and Kansas. No problems landing as long as you observe proper speed control. I agree with the other advice about finding a good instructor who knows Comanches.
I wish you the best in your search!
Just because something was maintainable in 2005 doesn't mean it will be in 2025.
@@GonzoT38 You are quite correct. As in those financial disclosure statements "past performance is not an indicator of future returns." I still fly that Comanche as I sold it to a friend and was up in it last month. It was 43 years old when I bought it and 55 years old when I sold it. My point was that to maintain an older model like the Comanche, it was my experience that having a good type club and a shop that knew the model made it happen for me.
If you were to include or substitute the 182RG for the fixed landing gear version, I'd say get that one. All the benefits that you named earlier, without the retractable gear headaches.
Too slow.
I’m a pretty new pilot, licensed early this year. I had a chance to get a Comanche 250 owned by a family member for 45+ years. This plane is a dream to fly and for someone with not a lot of landing experience, I can say I’ve gotten pretty good at it. Always room for improvement but I’m getting it down pretty well the more I fly. In the air, my plane is a dream. I have the tip tanks so I can go a very long way, though my bladder usually won’t make it so if I didn’t t have the tip tanks, I’m not sure I’d add them. I trained in a Cherokee so this was a great step above that plane. I got my complex and high-performance certification in a Bonanza (which I really didn’t care for due to the smaller cabin size). I’m a pretty big guy so the extra room in the Comanche matters. I love the Comanche because it’s just so smooth and easy to fly and I get where I want to go in a hurry.
As I recall, adding tip tanks on a Comanche adds another 100+# useful load.
I work at a flight school that has 2 R182s and is great for fuel efficiency and speed, but the gear system is a bear, like you said. The problem is that if the gear castings for the mains crack, which many of them probably have if you look closely, they will set you back around $50,000 a pair. If I had a choice, personally I would choose a low wing plane with retractable or a high wing with fixed.
Own a Mooney M20J for a few years now and like yourself it was an upgrade from my reliable warrior. I also live here in the north east (NJ) and find this plane a quick commuter to all the local haunts in under an hour with fuel burns of about 11 gal an hour at 65% power. Dare county NC in about 2 hrs. Have partners on this plane and we all absolutely love it. A very capable, safe well equipped aircraft that is economically to own and fly. Only criticism is the plane is unforgiving on landings and prop to ground clearance is very close. But once you get the landings down you’ll love this plane.
Comanche is a fabulous alternative. High useful load, a great instrument platform and a high ceiling that gets you above weather.
182 RG by far best and most practical, speed is decent, if you can fit it inside you can carry it. You can easily go in on most non paved runway. As I said ... very practical can be used for anything
Excellent analysis with well defined requirements- short & sweet!
I have ~120 hours in an M20J. It’s an unbeatable airplane. Handling, flying characteristics, IFR stability… a fantastic combination.
Also, the wing spar is tip to tip. There has never been an inflight breakup. The tubular cabin structure and single piece spar make it a very safe plane in an accident.
I have owned and flown vtails in Alaska for almost 40 yrs, cant beat the load,speed,rough runway ops.
They are by far the biggest bang for the buck
I almost purchased a Bonanza V tail. Love the style and the large windows. However I cancelled the buy after I spoke with Bonanza mechanic on the difficulty of replacement parts for the v-tail magnesium ruddervators as Bonanza no longer manufactures them. So I opted for a Mooney 1978 M20j. If I run it lean I actually burn about 8 GPH at 150 knots indicated. Also relatively few AD's and none that I am aware of on such critical things as spars.
I agree with Mike B. Funnily enough, I too was looking at the V-tail Bonanza and got EXACTLY the same advice from an owner who has his plane parked at my airport. I too bought a 1978 Mooney M20J, but my numbers are slightly different. My cruise is ROP (that will change when I get a decent engine monitoring system installed later this year), and I see 152 KTAS @ 8-10k feet, burning 38 Litres per hour ( 10 GPH). It has long legs, and I did the west-east run across the Australian continent with two refueling stops. M20J does have a rather small door, which is my only gripe. But as far as efficiency is concerned, my view is that it beats the others hands down. Having said that, all these choices are nice aeroplanes. Let us know which one you pick. Cheers.
Hey Mike I have the same but when I spoke with the Lycoming guys at EAA this year they warned me unless you have... oh those funky Injectors... gimme or Jimmynor what ever they are DO NOT RUN LEAN OF PEAK. The IO360 does not do that well. I run rich of peak and I still get 8-8.5gph. If you aren't sure call the boys at Lycoming yourself. You'll be glad you did.
@@dforr2981 Hi. I did speak with Lycoming and stay with rich of peak as per Lycoming recommendation.
@@achillesmjb I change alot of cylinders with burnt exhaust valves running LOP, even with the gami injectors.
@@Nord3202 Thanks for info. I run rich of peak as per Mooney POH.
I love the long low wing view out the window. If I every purchase a GA aircraft, I’d have to go with a low wing.
I’m intrigued by the Comanche and Mooney. I co-own a 182T turbo and like it a lot. Thanks for this comparison. Helped me answer some questions.
As an up and coming private pilot, I appreciate this honest post and all of the comments. I have a friend who went from a Mooney to a V tail, and I was able to fly the V tail for a few minutes from Pullman, WA to Orofino, ID. I’m so new that I couldn’t tell the difference because I haven’t had the opportunity. Thank you for all the comments and a great video.
The Comanche airframe is zinc chromated. Comanches that are stripped & painted usually damage some of the zinc chromate. One area to look for on the prebuy inspection is minor cracks on the top wing skins about half way down where a rib & stringer intersect. Usually they are stop drilled & alot of times hidden under body filler which eventually comes loose when the cracks flex. Only way to fix the cracks is to add another inspection panel under the cracked area & rivet a double under the cracks.
Thanks for that info, great tip.
I have owned a Piper Arrow, V35, Piper Cherokee, Cessna 182 and now I have recently gotten into a V35 turbo. I have enjoyed each plane for different reasons. The Bonanza is an incredibly comfortable plane and has great speed. You can't go wrong with a V35! Ive been all through the east coast, to Oshkosh, to the Bahamas and I'm planning a trip to Arizona. If I'm taking a trip the Bonanza is the way to go!
I almost bought a P model Bonanza before the ruddervators stopped being made. Today's market may be different, but they used to carry quite a price premium over other brands, and the often have CG problems. I've flown Mooneys and I enjoy them. If you mostly fly alone I think a J model really is a great option for you. It does get tight in the cabin though, and four people with full fuel and/or bags is not very realistic in my opinion. The 182RG is tempting, but a friend of mine swears he will never own one again due to the landing gear. They are a maintenance nightmare, and he was constantly chasing hydraulic leaks from a hundred different connections. A turbo 182 fixed gear would be preferable, but burn more fuel if you tend to fly in the single digit altitudes.
The plane I ended up buying to replace my PA28 was a Comanche 250. I had a deal I couldn't pass up fall into my lap, but if I didn't, I'd have sought to purchase a 260 model. I bought the bogart bungee tool, and I can change them alone in 45 minutes if the plane is already on jacks for annual (bungees are $20 a piece, and the tool is $200). It is a 4 person airplane, and flying with someone next to you is very comfortable with the wide cabin. I've flown out of many high DA airports without issue including Big Bear and Telluride, flown 1150 miles non-stop, and been coast to coast.
The Comanche is great, but I'm sure you'll be happy with any of the aircraft you're looking at.
I read all the comments, what a wealth on information people shared. I learned a lot. Thanks for the video
Comanche 250 driver here, the Mooney is a great plane but you will get real good at weight and balance calcs if your loading it with much weight. The bungee cords are no big deal. Installed the Australian tail horn and the other AD is gone. My only bitch is the under sized entry door. All good choices
My experience is in Piper 236, Saratoga, 182RG and C210, with some time in a old Mooney...In my experience Mooney utility is on the low side, good two passenger plane and fast...While I prefer low wing planes most of my time in Cessna which as a taller pilot, 6-6, I found the 182RG and C210 the most comfortable for myself and passengers with great utility. I test flew a V35 for purchase but my wife found that she did not like the tail sliding back and forth (rear passenger). While I am still a Piper fan the C210 was the best utility aircraft I have ever flown, four adults and bags with no problem. The 182 is pretty much the same just a little slower.
The wag is real to be sure....especially on bumpy days, but that’s what the yaw damper is for!
Good summary of the main points for each airplane..
From an A&P mechanics point of view for me I choose the Piper Comanche hands down and they are also my favorite ones to fly. I am especially partial to the Comanche 260B.
I have flown all the airplanes you cite. With the possible exception of the the 201, you could load any of them with four fat people and fly to Utah. I really like the IO-540 engine in the Comanches as well as the stable ride,…in turbulence the Piper just mows over it like a Boeing, whereas the Bonanza yaws like crazy (a good pilot can minimize it somewhat). It’s been a while since I’ve flown one, but I think your numbers are slightly optimistic on speed-Comanches are probably 150-155 on 14-16gph. Not sure what percentage of Lycomings are set up to run Lean Of Peak, with Gami injectors, engine monitors and the like and only the 260hp versions apply. Mooneys are well-constructed and compact little airplanes. Although fitted with four-cylinder engines some say they’re harder to work on because they’re so compact. It’s efficient but the cabin is short and, as a practical matter, really a 2-3 passenger airplane. I’ve little experience with the 182RG, but again I think the speed and fuel flow numbers you mention are optimistic. It will haul a pretty good load, though. It’s easy to get in and out of, but harder to fuel than the low wing machines. I own a 1968 V-35A and while it aint cheap to maintain (any one of these airplanes can have some eye-watering repair bills-they’re all OLD, apart from maybe a newer Cessna) the Bonanza is fast, efficient, comfortable and carry a load and fly far-almost all post-1964 V-tails have 74gals useable. My airplane will lift 800lbs of people, nearly five hours at 163KTAS. I have taken off from Princeton N.J. at 9am and landed at 1;30pm the next day in the SF Bay area, over 2200nm away. If you choose the Bonanza you should educate yourself about the different varients,…they were produced from 1947 to 1982, over 10,000 V-tails alone, more if you include the straight tails and six seaters. The good news is the American Bonanza Society is a great resource. I strongly suggest you fly them all, talk to some fanatical owners and look in to owner organizations. Comanches are my favorite single-engine Pipers, particularly the later, fuel injected models. The early ones often have frankenstein instrument panels and Johnson-bar brakes. Any S-35 or later Bonanza is the class of the field. Just take a look at how the Beechcraft cowling opens up for preflight compared to the others or feel those silky ailerons inflight and you’ll see what I mean. Good luck!
This is a great video for us older beginner pilots. I need a beginner style plane for me to learn on, and for affordability. But something with a little more space and speed than the standard training plans provide, so the family can be comfortable for travel. Thanks!
I agree. Go straight to the plane that best fits your mission. The upfront cost might be higher with insurance and an instructor for complex but then it's blue skies.
CP... I'm a M20J owner...what I'd tell you is look long and hard at the Comanche... they are comfortable fast great load capacity and they can have their maintenance done almost anywhere. My girl.. well yes 43.5 is bigger than the ''Bo'' but the seating style...at 61 I think it will catch up to me. Shes very low. Good luck. See you up there...
I have your mission - flying around the Northeast with occasional 600nm trips elsewhere. I've had Cessnas in the past (185, 206) and currently own a V35B which I love. The Bonanza is a solid, fun, fast, capable airplane. Scrambling onto the wing may not be ideal, but fueling is much easier than with high wings. Visibility is fantastic (big windows) - the cabin just * feels * large in spite of what the dimensions might indicate.
Mooney's are fast and efficient but many have tight interiors. No experience with Comanches but they look cool.
I went back and forth between all these airplanes in the past few months. I finally decided on a 182. My best advice is go sit in each one. I was dead set on a Mooney 20J or K when I started my search. I found someone on a forum who allowed me to sit in his with my girlfriend. The second we sat down, we knew it wasn’t for us. It’s a beautiful airplane that’s fast and efficient but it’s a pain for a middle aged adult to get in the backseat. The front seats are pretty cramped as well. The 182 is a little slower but sooo easy to get in and out of. I’d compare the 182 to riding in my SUV vs riding in my kids mustang (Mooney). I decided comfort trumps speed at my age (50).
At a notch over 60 myself that's exactly why a 182 is in the mix. What's your typical power setting, TAS and cruise alt?
@@Planeviz I’m gonna have to get back to you on that one. I’m actually closing on the airplane today. I’m flying up to Minneapolis to pick it up tomorrow or Friday. I’ve only got about 10 hours in a 182 right now. It’s a long flight back to Houston so I’ll have some time to play with power settings. I found a free PDF book online called “The Skylane Pilots Companion” by Richard Coffey. I plan on reading that on my airline flight up there.
Also, I ended up going with a fixed gear 182 so my speed will be lower than an RG. My mission is shorter personal trips with the family and weekend $100 hamburgers so speed wasn’t high up on my list of important factors.
@@robhaynes6173 Congrats Rob and keep us posted. Between you and me I’m starting to think a fixed gear 182 is also worth a look. It’s about 15 knots slower but for one or two 600 mile cross countries a year-and lower insurance-it might make sense. Enjoy the flight home!
@@Planeviz it’s a Jack of all trades and yes, the insurance and annuals will be cheaper too with the fixed gear and ease of finding parts.
As a new pilot with little knowledge on different planes and have only flown a Cessna 177 cardinal that we trained in, a Cessna 150 that all I can say good about it was that it flew, and our first plane being a m20c ranger. I can’t say all the good things about the other 3. Buy what I can say is our m20c has been amazing, we have flown it about 300 hours since we purchased it a year ago last Christmas it’s been a very affordable get there fast plane that has been awesome.
It’s in for its first annual and is really looking promising to not be costly so that’s great
We are flying at an average 9 gal per hour fuel burn at 145 kts.
After purchase price, fuel, oil, engine reserve, annual, hangar and random maintenance we are flying at a legitimate $85.00 per hour, $40 an hr less than the cardinal we trained in and 25 kts faster and a few more lbs useful load
Long story short I’m sold on the Mooney:)
I like the Bonanza be35. Have over 3000 hours in one, 63P model. It has 73 gallons useable and flies great. If you are flying by yourself most of the time, it is a toss up. Mooney is great to. Although I do like the 182 also, without the turbo, I like the other two. Never flown the comanche but have ridden in one. Not enough time to make a decision. Good luck,
because what ever one you choose you won't be sorry!
I'll take the Skylane any day. Never flown one with retractable gear, but the welded gear model is my favorite of all the Cessnas and Pipers I have flown.
Just off your parameters, Commander 114, that's my pick!
I’ve sat in a Moony I was going to fly and couldn’t see the top row of the instrument panel. At 6’2” and 215 lbs it’s too cramped for me to safely fly. Love the Bonanza but at 72 climbing over wings is bad but climbing over seats is worse. Never flown the Comanche but loved the Lance/Saratoga except for the climbing issue. The Skylane is perfect for me. Solid instrument platform with enough power to climb when needed and no climbing issues. I figure a selfie stick and my phone will let me check the top of the wings so I’m going to suggest that as the perfect fit if I ever get my medical back.
I'm 6'2" and 205 and have never felt like fitting in my Mooney was a problem. It is definitely a different feel than many other planes though. You are closer to the panel and your legs are nearly straight and mostly under the panel. Once initially seated you have to move the seat way forward to get into the correct position.
@@utah20gflyer76 glad it works for you. I always liked the Moony and was disappointed that I didn’t feel comfortable with my ability to fly it.
I've owned a 201 and currently a PA30 Twin Comanche. I never, ever thought I'd like any airplane more than the 201. The PA30 changed all of that. It's faster and more comfortable inside. Maintenance has not been an issue., but then...it wasn't an issue for the 201 either. The 201 was 155 kts on 10.5 gph. The PA30 is 172 kts on 17.5 gph. I love the PA30. You really don't have a runt in the bunch. There is another AD on the Comanche's that you did not mention. See AD77-13-21. There is an A, B and C part to it. The "A" is a 1000 hour and it requires the disassembly and measuring of everything in the gear. It can be expensive.
Good video! Personally, I'ld go with a fixed gear C-182. The trade off of a couple of knots airspeed for the lower maintainence of the fixed gear is an over-all plus. Side-note: the C-182 RG is a design of the original C-210, just a bit smaller.
I have flown all four (a lot) and will take the Cessna anytime! Flying the V-tail Bonanza is a more satisfying experience. It is like driving a Cadilac, but I like flying in the shade with 360 degrees of visibility for all occupants on long trips. If you have kids at the back, you can keep them busy with "I spy with my eye" and map reading. Otherwise, it will be "are we there yet?" all the way. Mooney should come equipped with a shoehorn for getting in and out through the one small door.
The only plane I have not flown is the Comanche. The plane you pick all depends on your priorities. The Mooney with the pushrod connectors flies like (but fits like) a Corvette … it such a thrill to fly!! The Bonanza is quick and a bit easier to access back seat, but still responsive. The 182 is a minivan with tons of space and easy access. You also sit up more like a truck seat. Very comfy on long flights.
While I don't have a 201, I do have an M20E which I love dearly. For about the same price as your Warrior my wife and I ended up in a plane that we regularly see 140-145 Knots true at 10 GPH. A Mooney is also the strongest airplane of the bunch with the steel tube frame. I would opt for a J or a K if you can get one in your budget.
A wealth of info in these comments if you are considering one of these airplanes. Thank you to everyone who has shared their flying and/or ownership experience.
I do like the Comanche
It is nice Aircraft. Thank you the video.
All four of these aircraft will fit your mission profile, save the Mooney if you need to transport 4 people. The reasons I bought the V35B were robust construction, and a well done training and recurrency program run by the Bonanza Society. Like you, I learned on warriors and arrows, and owned a share in a 182. We were looking for more speed and comfort to visit our out of town sons. We originally were looking for an arrow, but found the prices about the same as the Bonanza. At that point, it was a decision whether or not to take on the Bonanza systems and complexity. We’re very happy with our decision. It’s fast, comfortable, and manageable with the proper training.
i have flown all of these air craft. The beach V 35 is no doubt the best . The main issue with the Beach is dorseling an issue easily controlled with a gentle hand.
Great video and comparison! I will subscribe to your channel.
I purchased a 1979 M20J less than a year ago after owning a 172 for 3 years. I’m in love with it. Of the four, it offers the best performance and safety (in fact, the fuselage is protected by a metal cage and it has a one-wing design). Look for the video of pilot Dan Bass on TH-cam…he suffered CO2 poisoning at cruise and the plane eventually crashed and he survived!
The Mooney’s overall design was ahead of its time thanks to the improvements made by Roy Lopresti back in the 70’s, and, among all models, I think the J is the sweet spot in terms of performance. I usually burn 10.5-11 GPH on 75% power at nearly 160 TAS at 8-10K feet- or make a sightseeing trip along Miami’s shoreline at 115 knots burning 5.9 GPH.
The only downside is getting in, would love to have two doors. Inside it’s comfortable and spacious (more than the Bonanza as noted in the video), contrary to popular believe. The cabin is indeed lower, but shouldn’t be a problem unless you’re 6’4.”
Thanks.
I faced the same questions 6 years ago. I landed on an s-model vtail. Basically for speed and comfort. If needed, 175 to 180 kts speeds are available, if your willing to burn 15-16 gallons an hour. This gives the ability to overcome some headwinds. Nothing worse than seeing 90kts ground with 150kts true. Which seems to happen a lot....head wind both directions, right? You have a difficult decision. All 4 planes have wonderful abilities. I do not believe there is a bad plane in the four you are looking at. keep the blue side up!
I recently bought a Bonanza S35, the model that immediately proceeded the V35. I too was concerned about the ruddervator corrosion that is often mentioned. But, I got a thorough pre-buy done by a Bonanza shop, and plan to keep the plane in a hanger. Who knows what will happen in the future?! Did you know the V-Tail prototypes had ruddervators covered by fabric? Also, check out the July 2021 issue of American Bonanza Society's magazine. It had a story about treating ruddervator corrosion, which is doable by competent shop given that it has not progressed too far. If you are interested in the history of Bonanza model evolution, I'd highly recommend Larry Ball's "Those Incomparable Bonanzas."
Thanks for sharing your experience and resources Eric. Interesting about the early ruddervator, don’t know that.
Line boy at the FBO backing an airplane behind your ruddervators: "Hold my beer".
I'd also suggest looking at the N and P model Bonanza. The N & P have the two main tank arrangement, which is what the V35's have. The IO470 engine is a solid power plant.
Cabin width numbers can be deceiving. You will see what the widest point the in cabin is however you must also consider how much of the cabin is actually that wide. Does the cabin get narrower towards the rear? An airplane like a Mooney is very round at the top of the cabin and you lose some room there. Something like a Comanche is very square and having that width be the same from the floor to the ceiling makes a huge difference. Think of a square and a circle of the same width, which has a great area? I have done maintenance on all of these airplanes and the Comanche is by far the easiest and most enjoyable to work on. The Lycoming I/O-540 is a bulletproof engine. The ADs are all pretty straightforward. There is no doubt mooneys are efficient airplanes however what you wont hear from most mooney enthusiasts is how tight and difficult they are to work on. Wet wings are problematic. The Mooney nose gear pivots on a single bolt for steering and does not use a bushing of any kind, this means that when the nose gear truss wears and becomes sloppy it must be replaced entirely $$. Many of the parts are difficult to access in the airplane. Many mechanics do not like working on mooneys and what you don’t pay for in fuel you will pay for in maintenance. Cessna 182rg is a good airplane but the gear is complex and expensive to maintain. Internal airframe corrosion is also a concern as with most Cessnas. The bonanzas are well built and easy enough to work on, however the lower cowling is part of the engine mount and is not removable, making engine access a little difficult. The big continentals will also usually need a top overhaul about halfway through their TBO.
I used to own a 1958 PA-24 250 that was fitted with 260hp Lycoming engine for over 10 years (see cover photo of the May 1992 Comanche Flyer). It was the best airplane I ever owned. Every landing was a piece of cake, day or night. Just keep the speed right. No worries about weight either. Sadly she is no more. A subsequent owner flew her against a rock in the sky in bad weather.
Cumulus-Granite. The worst kind of cloud!
What a great no BS comparison. I will take all three of these A/C. Hopefully someone finds suitable material to replace the magnesium on the mighty Vee tails.
Hi Dave. I own a R182, 1979 with wet wings. The only correction to your video would be the engine for it. All of them use the O-540 or TO-540, except if modified with and STC for a bigger engine. My plane flies 151 with the 3 blade prop. Why is that an important detail? Because 3 blade will get you up faster and look better BUT it will fly a few knots slower than the 2 blade. Without a doubt my plane is one of the lowest time in the market (1800hrs total time with a 190 SREM engine and new prop). I am a corporate pilot and an A&P/IA so I can give you a few insights on maintenance on all of these planes as I work on them and own one. Bonanzas can speak for themselves being a plane still produced today, but they can get a bit pricey on parts and labor. Comanches have great performance and you can find a nice airframe at a good price to do whatever you want with it (p&I, avionics, mods). Mooney were design for speed. Cabin wider than a Bonanza yet they feel more cramped and of course, you are adding an important element to the comparison of all four and that is 2 more seats. If you're going to carry most of the time 4 pax then...
As for the RG, the gear is not a bad mechanism, just like the hoax of gear doors on 210. BUT the maintenance is key. For most owners and mechanics it's enough to grease the pivot points, service hydraulic and if all good, that's it. But the key to it is to prevent the fault, meaning taking an extra hour to actually test the system, not only retract and extend and looks for leaks. A simple pressure gauge will give you a good idea on pump's health, pressure settings and leaks before any of them give you an issue. My trips are 70% 700nm trips.
Flying any Beechcraft (except very small ones) makes you feel the airplane. The cabin with those seats, the little heavy but well balanced controls and engine controls feel very different from all of the other options, but not the same mission.
RG is slower, but comfortable, gets ANY job done as you can x-country full of everything and it will go, very solid to fly, excellent IFR planes even on busy airspace, and if it fits, it ships.
Sorry if this is too long, but feel free to reach out email or phone if I can be of any help.
Thanks for your comment Carlos. What typically goes wrong with the gear if it's not carefully inspected?
@@Planeviz the nose gear rigging has to be checked and rigged properly, otherwise you'll notice a few RG with prop strike while taxing or run-up because the down lock failed. I have yet to see one that actually failed mechanically (like broken or worn out). Also the mains have a 'saddle' and most come with a pad that wears out. That changes the gap for the main down locks, thus while you do get a green light because the microswitch can still be actuated, you can be out of tolerance and it's very minimal. Poor lubrication will give you issues with sector gears on the mains. By poor I mean the grease points are easy, BUT make sure you grease it up well. I release the pressure in my plane and let the gear swing free. That way I pump grease and swing it a few times to make sure. Unlike propellers, you can't hurt the system by 'over greasing it' (my two cents). Feel free to contact me for more at carlosoquet@gmail.com. I have a huge upcoming project on a Mooney and can give you my thoughts and a few ideas depending on your mission and budget, plus my plane and the Bonanza
Owned Comanche 250. Flies amazing. Lots of maintenance issues. Will be spending many (mostly happy) hours with her both flying and maintaining.
Started working on my Private Pilot earlier this year and have been looking at planes (daydreaming) for the last two years. The prices just keep going up.
I was hoping you would be able to give that critical difference to narrow down the choices. The Comanche 260 has the '2' extra seats that would enable carrying a couple more grandkids on trips but you have to be realistic that is about all they are good for other than baggage space. The Cessna 182RG is a sweet plane but no six seat option.
So...if mission is only 4 I would go with the 182RG.
Just subscribed, looking forward to more reviews.
Such a hard choice here, love the look of the detail, but I'm 53 years old and climbing up onto a wing is too difficult now. The Comanche 250, 260a I love these things, but the 182 or 206 I think it's a way to go, if you get an older one you can put the Continental IO 550 motor, 300 horsepower, take the heads off Port polish three angle grinds, 335 horsepower, put some STOL equipment in, some of the big tires, you can land anywhere, and top speed will be pretty good too
I have over 50 hours in a 206 and really loved the airplane. It's not the fastest, but it's a TRUCK! You can haul about anything in a 206. The shop I wrenched at had one that they cut a slot in the rear baggage door. They could haul a 3 bladed prop in it by sticking the one blade out the slot. I know 182's are the rage....but I'd take a 206 over it. You can always install a "Relief Tube" for the bladder thing :)
Ive owned an early model Comanche 250 and a Bonanza S-35. The comanche was great, but overall I like the Bonanza much better. Comanche positives: Very sporty handling, great climb rate, high useful load and nearly impossible to load out of balance. Comanche drawbacks: Bad ride in turbulence, difficult to land smoothly, low reliability (at least in mine), higher fuel consumption with carburetor. Bonanza positives: Big comfy cabin, quieter in flight, good ventilation, easy to land, great fuel economy, very reliable. Bonanza drawbacks: Lower useful load and easy to load out of balance, sluggish but stable handling, expensive parts.
I've had my Skylane for a year and a half. 1962 E model, Fixed Gear. O-470-R I've been able to work with my mixture and do cross countries using 9.97 GPH. But the average is more like 12 GPH. Made a few trips in it like from Dallas to Colorado and Dallas to Kansas City. I stopped mid way to top off for safety sake, but the fuel would have lasted all the way on either flight. I stepped up from a 172 to a 182 as a natural and easy move. Having lot's of time in the 172, landing the 182 was very easy.
I think within the last 2 weeks I saw an AOPA episode that said something about manufacturer's of some parts on the tail section of bonanzas will no longer produce the parts. Did anyone else see that piece?
I have flown Comanche 260B and C for years, I don't think you can go past them. The C is the nicer looking and has a better cockpit. In my opinion there is no excuse for getting one without the auxiliary and tip tanks, to give a 120 gallon fuel capacity, you don't need to fill them all the time, but if you need to go a long way, your bladder will give up before the airplane does. 1000 miles is perfectly doable. They are comfortable for four passengers and acceptable for six and they are easy to fly with virtually no vices. They have reasonable short field performance and make a good IFR platform. Some of the others might do one thing better than the Comanche, but none of then deliver the whole package like a Comanche does
I flew my 1959 V 35 for about 300 hours. Based in Cincinnati, short trips to Chicaago and Detroit and longer trips to Ft. Lauderdale were very comfortable. The airplane is very stable and a great instrument platform when one would want that. I got my Instrument and Commercial in the Bonanza which I feel attests to how easy the plane is to fly. Something I liked about the aircraft also is the very rugged landing gear. I never worried about sod fields or old fields. It was very happy on short fields too. After about three or four years my partners wanted to sell the plane and I couldn't afford it alone so we sold it. We sold it for more than we paid. I got talked into a Cessna 310 ( with one partner) which was a nice airplane but twice as expensive to fly and not twice as nice nor twice as fast. I owned the 310 perhaps less than a year. I never missed it. But I still follow my Bonanza and the kind owner posts pictures of it periodically. Just buy one. You won't regret it.
I’ve flown the 182RG and older Mooney.. but nothing is as comfortable and smooth flying as my Bonanza. First time the RG owner flown in my bonanza, he was shocked at how quiet and smooth she flies. Mooney has great handling but feels extremely cramped inside, not something nice for long cross country. Never flown in a Comanche but once I parked my bonanza beside one and the BO wins hands down in the ‘ramp appeal’ department with its high stance and noise up attitude. Additional advantages of a Bo is the ease of landing and robust landing gear! Take care of the ruddervators and you have a great flying bonanza for many years to come!
I recently purchased a skylane fixed gear and I am very satisfied with the ease of handling. useful load and speed and btw the landings with the heavy nose is not a big deal with alittle practice
Another Comanche owner here. I did get the 180 version, so my cruise speed is 140ish instead of the 150-160 of the 6cylinders. But cabin feel? There is no comparison. The Comanche is comfortable, and flies like a dream. To be fair, I have 0 Mooney or Bonanza time other than sitting in them. I had originally looked for 182's also, but they were price prohibitive for me. I like so many others learned in a Cherokee and 172, but my school had a Comanche also. I bought mine having never flown a Comanche but hearing raving reviews from everyone at the school. The biggest selling points being the wide cabin width, and about 20-30% less than even a fixed gear 182 of the same condition. Be aware though, there is a 1000 hour landing gear AD also on the Comanche that requires about 20 hours of teardown and inspection. I had mine rebuilt at that time, all new everything. Now it's rock solid. I've flown this plane on a nearly 7 hour trip, with one fuel stop. we averaged about 10gph. I don't have the aux tanks like the 250/260s have so only have 60 gallons on board so about a 5 hour range. Even with worn out seats in the middle of winter, the 3.5 hour legs weren't bad at all. And as an added bonus, (I may be biased) the Comanche is the best looking of the bunch ;) I have 0 regrets.
Thanks for sharing your 180 ownership experience. With those long distance trips seems like some IFR would be involved; any panel upgrades under your watch?
@@Planeviz only the one long distance trip so far and was all VFR, she is painfully original. I can track a VOR and thats the extent of navigational aids. In the midst of getting a new Garmin GNX375, Gi275 panel now, just waiting on backordered stuffs to show up. The only thing being reused is the cabin thermometer, only because i thought i needed to leave at least 1 thing factory. AP next year hopefully. New Hartzell Scimitar prop ordered today too. They say don't buy cheap planes because everything will need replaced which will make it more expensive...which is 100% true. But in the end, I'll have it exactly as I want it to be.
Granted, I'm biased, and indeed I'm a CFI who used to sell for Cutter Beechcraft. When demoing a Bonanza, I'd park it next any brand X aircraft and then walk my customer around both, just to show the very considerable differences in construction methods and quality. The Beech has a keel, to which everything else is attached, and it's enormously strong. If you consider only the numbers, you might go for the M201, but I always found the 201's cabin to be small, and I didn't like the feeling of sitting under the instrument panel. The V-35 feels considerably more spacious because of its greater head and leg room. The Beech handily outperforms the others mentioned. It has a marvelous control harmony and feel to it that any pilot can appreciate, as well as a very high maneuver speed. From cruise you'd generally have to speed up to get to Va. All control actuators have rods and bearings, not cables. You'll never lose rig due to cable stretch. Personally, I slightly prefer the F-33 or A-36 to the V-35.
If you haven't yet explored it, be sure to do homework on the V-tail ruddervator (magnesium) corrosion /cracks issue. If you move forward on one, be sure you have a Beech specialist inspect the surfaces. There is a thin margin between repair and replace. Where it may be passible to one IA it may be grounding to another. Unlike the straight tails which can be upgraded to aluminum, the ruddervators cannot. Replacement parts or skins are rare and expensive.
That's interesting. I read about the magnesium issues and thought the v tail could be reskinned with aluminum. Thanks for that information.
I've flown a Mooney M20E, owned Arrow 200 and now I own a Comanche 250 for the past 2 years. M20E was just too small for family flying. Arrow 200 flew us for almost 4 years but in the end it's speed was pegged to 133-135 true knots at best and somewhat limited in range with it's 50 gal tanks. Comanche 250 does 153-154kts true at 12gph which gives me almost 10 hours of range with tip tanks (120gal total). There is no plane in the market which can offer a combination of 150-160kts speed, 1200lbs useful, huge cabin space and 10 hours of range while looking absolutely stunning.
These were very good choices, best of the best. I flew a Comanche 250 for 3 years and now own and fly a P35 Bonanza for past 14 years. Both are great choices. The Comanche was more comfortable with good handling. Excellent rate of climb. The Bonanza is still comfortable with good visibility. Handling on Bonanza is fantastic! It is a pilots airplane. Both have good support but the Bonanza has way more mods availability than the Comanche. Bonanza has much better parts availability too. Both are excellent choices though for cross country and IFR flights.
We’ve owned a 1979 TR182 for over 10 years. The airplane does cost more to maintain than its fixed gear counterpart. The turbo has a ceiling of 20,000 feet and will give you sea level power to that point. The climb rate is 500 to 1000 rpm. The Truck moniker can be removed by installing vortex generators. This makes the aircraft handle very well and reduces the stall speed. The TAS is 160 kits at 75% power. I generally fly at 23” MAP and 2200 rpm. This is 65% power and 150 TAS. This burns 12.5 gal/ hr. At 1145 lbs useful load and long range tanks (92 gal) it is hard to beat.
I owned a Comanche 250 ('61) for a few years and loved it. I've flown the V35B. Now I own another candidate for your list: '75 Bellanca Super Viking. I believe a BSV would fit your needs well and would come in a bit less than the four you've listed here. Be careful when purchasing though, have it checked out by a well-qualified expert in wood/fabric aircraft. These are time tested materials but require special attention. If maintained properly will outlive their metal counterparts. The handling will simply blow you away. Landings are a joy, and with 300hp, these things get up and move.
Worth a look now that I have a hangar. Is it as fast as a Comanche and how is the maintenance burden compared with your Comanche experience?
@@Planeviz It will greatly depend on how good of shape it's in when you purchase it. Mine needed some long term maintenance, and I moved it from a wet climate (FL) to a very dry climate (AZ), so things need to be tightened up as it dries out. Speed is about the same. Comanche will carry more. BSV is just more fun to fly. It's like a sports car compared to a family sedan. Cost of entry is cheaper, so use what you save to bring it up to snuff, mx wise, and you'll love it. Also, check out vikingpilots.com for a wealth of knowledge on anything/everything BSV!
wood wings. nuff said
You picked 4 awesome airplanes, all are dream airplanes for most pilots. As an early model Bonanza owner and A&P, I am partial to the Bo. I have owned a Piper Cherokee and there just is no comparison in craftsmanship between Beech and a Piper and especially the Bonanza. The Beechcraft is built like an old battleship, lots of one piece machined structure vs. stamped multi piece fastened structure, literally made to last the 70+ years that they have been flying. Piper, Cessna, and Mooney not so much. The Bonanza is just made better, over engineered and over built, the quality is there just look around both and it is apparent. The Bo is faster, and can be had cheaper in most cases. It flys and lands like a dream. And the V-tail, well it is just sexy.
I'm apt to agree on your opinions of build qualities, but the Comanche isn't in the same ball park as the other Pipers. The Comanche's were Piper's first all metal entries and they put everything they had into them. All other Pipers are not built like Comanches were.
I am biased, but have owned my P35 Bonanza (earlier version of V35) for 20 years. Prior to that, I owned a PA28-140 Cherokee. Aside from the obvious difference in power and speed, I can say that the quality of the Bonanza is far, far, FAR superior to that of the Piper I owned. Everything felt plastic in the Cherokee, but definitely not in the Bonanza. I love my airplane and cannot imagine ever owning anything other than a Beechcraft. I cruise at 155kts at economy settings, but can travel 165kts at higher power settings. My Bonanza has the 260hp IO-470. V35A & B models have the 285hp IO-520 or the 300hp IO-550. These airplanes get 3 - 5 kts more speed than mine, but use more fuel as well. Recently added tip tanks, and have a range of almost 1500 miles on one fill. Really an exceptional airplane.
I love all of these planes and currently own a Comanche 250. I wouldn’t pass up a good example of any aircraft on this list. I will say though, having two doors would be awesome. Getting four people in/out of a single, climbing on wings and contorting into the seats is not always easy. Egress in an emergency is certainly part of your pretaxi checklist. The 182RG (especially the turbo) sounds pretty nice, and the most expensive.
The Skylane RG has a carburator, so an O-540 Engine. Loved the video.
I looked into all these planes and a few more, then decided on a Navion, which has the most comfortable cabin of any 4-seater, flies a lot like a C182, and costs about half as much.
Have lots of time in the c182r, none in the others talked about. Loved the 82r but I bought a c77rg. Not as fast but so, so easy to get in and out.
I stepped up from an M20E (with a 201 windshield) to a M20K this year. Both are great planes and are frankly the same speed up to 8500 ft. The Continental gives you two advantages: it’s quieter/smoother and the turbo is helpful out West at high altitudes. The M20E with a three blade prop might as well be a STOL. It came off in
If money is no issue, I will go for the Cessna 182 or Cessna 210. You can never beat the comfort of two doors and as we get older kneeling down on a low wing for inspection and fuel sump is get old. Hi wing give you sun and rain protection also. go for high wing.
My first commercial flying job was for a small company using a Mooney. Admittedly it was in a somewhat different class with turbocharging and a highly capable (for the time) glass cockpit, de-icing, etc., but one of the reasons the company chose it is because the accountants noticed that they rarely needed all 4 seats on a trip, so that meant that most of the time, there was a lot of range available at the lowest total cost per mile with those capabilities. It also has a reputation for the integrity of its frame which, as AvWeb puts it in a review, means that a pilot has already smashed his eyeballs flat as manhole covers before he ever breaks the airplane. Unless I expected 4 seats full regularly, the J would be my choice in this group just for the sake of the pocketbook relative to performance.
Depends on your mission and pocketbook. At my age I’m not climbing a ladder to fuel my plane . My archer has flown me all over the US. Ain’t fast but I fly for fun so it isn’t as much of an issue
Years ago - 1968 - I flew home to DC in a Mooney 20A from Santiago, Chile; including a stop at PBI to see my folks and extensive flights in Mexico, that was about a 7,800 mile trip. I had purchased the Mooney in Chile and had flown it extensively before starting this trip-of-a-lifetime. The only glitch on the trip was I violated the "stay-on-the ground-after-noon-in-the-tropics maxim which after lightning took out the RDF station to which I was flying and hail began drumming my plane, I dropped gear, flashed my lights, and aided by a truck responding to my "message" by turning perpendicular to traffic, landed on the Pan American Highway at Jipihoppa, Ecuador. But the Mooney does not read "tight" inside, is fast and gave me great legs on 52 gallons of fuel. And flying it was akin to my Carrerra 911... sweet and sure...I miss it big time.
Now that's an adventure!
I LOVE Beechcraft's... especially when someone else is paying for maintenance and fuel. (First airplane my Dad and I owned... a 56TC Baron. Incredible performance, just don't watch the fuel flows! If it had been a B-Baron or Travelaire, I might still own it). The 182 is about four-inches short of bulletproof. Only Comanche's I've flown are twin Comanche's, so I'll reserve comment on something I've not flown. Of the four, I would opt for the Mooney. I've got about 800 hours in them. Outstanding instrument platform, but a low gear speed. A Mooney requires planning like a 310/320... You've got to stay way ahead of it.
I tell people a Mooney is like a 356 or early 911 Porsche... you love them or hate them - no middle ground. (I've also owned seven Porsche's over the decades, so maybe that's why I like Mooney's?!). Good luck with your choice............
I own a PA24-260 Comanche. This model is 4 window with fuel injection. It is nestled between the 250s and the 260b. For reference, I cruise at 167 knots at 7k-9k feet using about 12.7 gph. She has 90 gallons (86 usable) with no tip tanks. I can cruise at 55% at higher altitudes getting great speeds and only burning ~10 gallons per hour. The range from the POH is about 1000nm on a full set of tanks. My plane has a useful load of 1200 lbs. I can easily fit 4 adults and leave the aux tanks dry which gives me 4-6 hours with 840 lbs of passengers. By myself she climbs at 2200fpm. Landing is no big deal. And she flies like she is on rails. Ask any questions you might have. I’ve owned her for 2 years after getting my PPL.