Nice video... This was a decision I actually made 2 years ago. I wanted a reasonably fast aircraft, seating for 4 (3+ bags) on an iconic frame (since I couldn't afford new @ $1M). This left me with a Mooney or Bonanza. After riding in both - the Bonanza won me over with comfort, build quality, and handling. It hand flies effortlessly and the landing gear provides very forgiving touchdowns. The biggest factor for me was comfort. I found the seating position in the Mooney very uncomfortable on my ankles and prefer a more upright seating position. 80 gallons / 74 usable was standard for a V35B and a common option on the V35A model as well. I ended up with a 68 V35A. It boasts some features that I wasn't specifically looking for but were lucky to find including tip tanks, TKS, and an upgraded IO550 motor. No regrets....
Fantastic Eric, it sounds like you found a great bird. Although I do love my Mooney, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on a Bonanza either! Fly safe!!!
So, I went through this same comparison two years ago when shopping for my second airplane. I was eyeballing a turbo Mooney 231. Great airplane, fast, and efficient. I then sought out a bonanza to compare it to as I’d never say or flown in a bonanza. My local mechanic told me about one that was under repossession by the bank about 40 minutes away from where I live. I went to look at it, and saw that it was in decent shape with a brand new hydraulic prop and a newly rebuilt e225-8. The comparison is summed up the best by saying the Bonanza is like sitting in a truck. Mooney like a corvette. I ended up going with the D35 bonanza because of the lower acquisition cost, and being able to spend some money on making the plane “mine”. Helps that the bonanza also has every speed mod offered by D’Shannon. Cruises at 155kts on about 12GPH.
I've owned 3 Bonanzas since 1970 and flown in a number of Mooneys. My '70 V35B which I've owned since March 2004 has Osborne tip tanks which add 40 more gallons (114 useable) with a 200# gross weight increase to 3600#. IFR WAAS CNX80 GPS and MX20 mated to the Aspen 1000 and Century 2000 autopilot make it a solid IFR machine. The 285HP IO-520 BA with the GAMI injections and EDM 700 allow me to run LP at 12 to 13 gph at 165 kts cruise typically. When talking about aircraft manufacturers I usually compare Piper and Cessna with Ford and Chevy and Mooney with Buick, but the Bonanza and Barons with Mercedes. No comparison between the models in my opionion. As a retired airline captain (B-777), I fly my V35B for pleasure, both locally and cross country about 100 hours per year. It is comfortable, fuel efficient and fast. I'm 6'3" and need a shoe horn to get in and out of a Mooney. I winter in California and summer in NW Wisconsin. Two 4.5 hour legs and I'm in CA from WI, return flight is less with better winds. My longest flight was 7.3 hours IFR, 5 hours in the soup without the autopilot (in the shop for upgrade) from FLL to near IAH via the land route. I still had 2.5 hours of fuel left. The autopilot is a pleasure on long cross country flights. The Bonanza is a hands down winner in the high performance singles arena and the best tool in the A to B destination category (IMHO).
Thank you for the detailed thoughts Marty! It sounds like your current bird is an absolute dream! One of these days I'll get my butt in a Bonanza. I couldn't agree more that a shoe horn is necessary to get myself in the Mooney sometimes!
Could not agree more. I have owned bonanzas, but I worked at a Mooney specific shop. They are slick airplanes, and as such, cramped compared to a Bo. If you have to work on them, it is clear to see the difference in quality of build. Oleo struts, vs rubber pucks. For a Mooney the entire belly panel comes off and the whole cowling has to come off, hundreds of sheet metal screws... Bonanza is much easier to work on in my opinion.
I owned an M20C for 10 years, and have an M20K now for about 5 years, and 500+ hours on it. I've flown Bonanzas, Barrons and a King Air, so I also have a high regard for Beech planes (they are tough, truck-like, and also fun to fly). I continue to prefer the M20 airframes for their efficiency and range, and my flying mission is often traveling to see family in the SE US (Mississippi, Florida), so greater than 800nm. I've flown my M20K 231(262 Trophy) from St. Augustine FL to Colorado Springs CO in a day, westbound.. At 65% power, I'm getting 150kts true at 8,000 MSL, and 180kts true at FL200, on 10.5 gph (LOP). My useful load is 877 lbs, so with 75gal of fuel (topped off), my range is 6 hours (10 gal reserve). That translates into 900-1080 nm per leg. That trip westbound today, cruising at 12,500, would require one stop, take 8:44, burning 95 gal. I'm not sure the Bo could do it in 1 stop, and I'm betting the fuel burn would be 50% greater (~150 gal). When talking about speed, you must take into consideration fuel stops if your mission is X-country. I've flown a lot of planes, and the seating position in the Mooney is quite comfortable, although more Porsche-like than the very upright position of a Bo (similar to a 182) or King Air. Flying qualities, the Mooney is fantastic, stable, efficient. Yes, it requires some getting used to when trying to land on short fields - approach speed discipline is important, and you can't force it - so learn to go around (you control the plane, not the other way around). I think Mooney is less expensive to maintain, parts and mechanics are pretty available for both Beech (exceept ruddervators) and Mooney airframes. Finally, walking up to your plane, you need to like (or love) how it looks and makes you feel. Aesthetics are subjective, but important. Statistics less so.
Thank you for sharing the details of your experience, they will be very valuable to aviators considering an airplane purchase. I appreciate you taking the time to write this all down!
The V35B fuel capacity is 74 gallons standard not 44 gallons. You can get tip tanks for the Bonanza adding 40 more gallons. These tanks have a gross weight increase to compensate for the added fuel. The issue with the V tail is replacement ruddervators. Beech is not making any skins. Also if you fly a Bonanza you are ruined for anything else, they handle very well and are very easy to fly. They are also good on grass fields where the Mooney has issues with grass. There is more room in the Bonanza and you sit more upright then in the Mooney. I think both are great planes but for just fun of flying the Bonanza has the Mooney beat. I have owned an older Bonanza since 1993 and still love flying it. 175 mph on 12 gph, near Mooney numbers. Very easy to fly, no problem going into a major field or a 1600 ft grass strip.
Very good synopsis John, I appreciate how you approached the comparison. Certainly no airplane is perfect, and you spelled that out nicely! Keep the greasy side down in that Bo!
Nice thing about the Bonanza is it's easy to take the back seats out for more cargo versatility. Plus STCs are available for tip tanks and turbo normalizers. I think the gear on a Bo is a little tougher too.
I just sold my 1990 M20M Bravo. I lost my medical and doubt I'll get it back. I logged close to 1000 hours in the Bravo. It is a pilot's aircraft. Handling is good and I found the pilot's seat comfortable for long-distance trips. I was able to fly from Cheyenne (KCYS) to Tucson (KTUS) nonstop with legal IFR reserves. I generally planned for 17000 feet, about 190 KTAS and saw about 18-19 gal/h. The airframe is solid. There are very few reports of in-flight breakups. The plane was reliable and a real joy to fly. I'd buy a Mooney again if I got the medical back. It's a great IFR platform.
I have owned several airplanes and have been flying for 30 + years - all general aviation. My V35B - with 74 gal + 15 gal tip tanks holds 104 gal T 178 kts with our NA IO550 Contential engine burning 14.5 GPH that comes to ~ 1,000 NM non stop with an hour fuel left. I think the Mooney is a very capable airplane, nothing but good things to say, but for me and the 1105 useful load in the V35B, the range, speed, and looks - I am happy with my VTail, just sharing a perspective.
Good comparison, but what sold me on the Bonanza are two things never mentioned. One, Bonanzas can use gravel and grass strips due to length and strength of gears, which we routinely do now. Opens up all sorts of new places and missions. And two, in terms of comfort, when my wife and I got into a Mooney, she turned to me and said… “Cant do this, I feel like we are sardines and I need my space”. FYI, mine has the IO-550 conversion and at LOP, we burn 11-12. Lastly, my range, with 74 usable, is way past my families and mine bladder time, so I personally never see a range of 5 plus hours being very useful.
I grew up with both aircraft. Growing up I lived next door to Alex Rich a Beachcraft parts dealer and one of the early members of the Bonanza Society. Alex kept a Barron in his Hangar in Oxnard until the day he past away. A close friend owned a Mooney 201 as I grew up calling it. He went on to buy the Porsche Powered version of the Airplane back in the late 80's. I thought that was so cool. Ended up taking my lessons in a Piper Cherokee that our Mooney family friend owned. I could look at the M20L for hours, always thought that was a beautiful aircraft. Yes I also love Porsche. Interesting to note that the Mooney M20L owner never drove a Porsche but Alex Rich, the owner of the Barron and former Bonanza Owner, also owned several Porsche cars. My choice will always be Mooney.
This is a really hard one for me. I love both of these airplanes deeply. But I think I'm leaning towards Bonanza, because a lot of what I like about Mooneys is their minimalism, and a turbo-6 starts to fall away from that a bit. When did V-tails get so expensive?! I remember looking at some well under 100k not so long ago.
Got rid of the Grand Commander during fuel shortages back in the day. Got the Bonanza V35B. Sure it got it down the length of Baja without tip tanks. Less fuel costs. Stripped off all antennas & steps for a cleaner profile. Some place in the corner of Kansas did a speed kit. Saved money but hated the plane as a co-pilot. Hard to load supplies , not great visual forward from back seats and very worse was had to wear a brimmed hat due to burning sun thru windows. Missed moving around in the Commander & easy to load supplies. Plus the Commander was a beauty. Step right in. No step up on wing without the removed step!!!!
I was in the same boat as the gent below....I really wanted a Mooney 201 based on the numbers...but the things have no room in them at all. And, your legs are actually under the engine. So if you hit a hangar, you just broke your legs. The Bonanza has a lot more room, although it burns more fuel. I wound up getting a Bonanza.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I hope your BO is treating you well! It's all about tradeoffs, and it sounds like you found the right set of tradeoffs for your situation!
I’ve owned both before (at different times). For perhaps the first time in my life I can’t really definitively say which one I liked better - I loved them both. But the more spacious interior of the Bonanza was nice. (But it took me many hours to get use to the V-tail “wiggle” in turbulence. I had no foreknowledge of this Bonanza “wiggle” when I bought it and thought something was “wrong” for more hours than I care to admit to!! But bottom line I loved BOTH of these planes!!
If I had money to burn I think I would do the v tail, tip tanks can be added and come with a gross weight increase plus I actually think the v tail skin replacement issue might actually get a solution because of money being put up by the community. The mooney is awesome and I would love one too but having textron still in business sure make me feel more comfortable about such a large purchase. If mooney gets up and going I think that would change my mind.
At 12:25 For me, judging on looks, hands down its the Mooney. Just looks sleeker than the Bonanza. Looks like its going fast even with the tie downs on hehe. Cheers Dion
You may want to update the list comparison. The Bonanza has 74gal of usable fuel. Lean of peak operations at 8000ft and fuel burn of 12.5gph in the cruise, I can comfortably travel 750nm without refueling. 5hr15m with an hour of reserve fuel left. Either of the two tip tank options, BDS or Osborne add 40gal and 200lbs UL in the STC.
From my reading I found that the larger tanks only became standard after 1980. Perhaps I didn’t dig deep enough in this specific airplane, but as it wasn’t listed I chose what I understood to be the standard option.
Since the V35B which dates from 1970, there probably not three Bonanzas with 44gal fuel mfged. Nothing flies like a Bonanza except maybe a P-51 and/or a T-28 and I've flown them both. I own my second V35B, never should have sold the '79. My current Bo is a '75 and yes I have also done 5.25 hours at about 13 gal.hr at 165-170 kts. I fly now at 10,5 or 11.5, 2,400 rpm full throttle (about 55% on my JPI) indicating 143-145 kts on as you say 12.5/gal/hr. I have Gamis but still run rich of peak with cylinders 350 or less. I looked at Ovations and Bravos, but went with the best choice for me. Bos can do 200 kts at 15,000-16,000 feet, just call the Gami boys and get it turbo-normalized
I have owned 3 Bonanzas and a Baron since 1983 with more than 4000 hours in them and an active CFI-I. I am quite familiar with Moonys having visited both factories as well. Mooney is out of business! You missed the fuel capacity on the V35 big time. Standard capacity was always 80 gallons, 74 useable. Have you ever shoehorned into a Mooney? How about the comfort of the 4 seats and shoulder room? Not even close. If you ever saw a Mooney being built, you would have thought you were in a T-hangar building a kit plane. The fit, finish, materials are not comparable to any Beech product. Landing a Mooney is like being on a roller skate. So, why are they not in business anymore being CHEAPER? Easy answer. Your comparison is very flawed but entertaining.
I appreciate the commentary…I think. I have been in a Mooney a time or two, but definitely need to get in a Bo! I apologize for referencing the information from the American Bonanza Society, I will certainly ask them to update their information!
Also, there's the matter of avoiding a prop strike in a Mooney. That nose gear is something one doesn't want have a hard landing on. As I've heard other Mooney flyers say, the third bounce is a prop and engine overhaul! 😉
@@StefBelgium several, 201, 231 Ovation. Main reason for comment is I took a factory tour before it closed the last time and the construction and assembly looked like a garage home built. Been to the Beechcraft factory and simply, no comparison having flown in many Bonanza models and owned 3, for more than 4000 hours. Simple enough for me.
@@n9086s have you been in Buggati factory? It has nothing to do with the complex line production of Audi or Mercedes to name a few. It looks like it s the good old manual production line. But quality is there. Don t judge a book by its cover. Mooney are really great and latest ones like the Acclaim are awesome quality wise. They fly fast, far and are fuel efficient. There are many factors to take into account. Ease of access to the equipment, avionics. The wing is a solid one piece. Belly landing a money will probably cost you less to repair than a Bo. The push rod flight commands are reliable. If you lose one aileron, you can still fly the plane. Cables in bo, not the same results, if you lose one aileron, you re in trouble. Avionics bay in front of the cockpit is easily accessible for whatever maintenant you need and the lycoming engine is probably more reliable than the continental too. Without offense, your 4,000 hrs flying BOs probably biaise your judgment. Space wise, the small door I give you that is not easy to get in, but once in, there a lot of space for pilots and passenger, maybe a cabin width even bigger than the V35. Mooneys are also less sensitive to CG change upon loading unlike Bo. I like both but I have a preference for Mooney especially the most recent versions.
Bonanza was roomier and more expensive per hour. Mooney normal cruise was 180 burning 8g/hr. I felt like I was wearing the Mooney..great feeling. Whenever I has the choice it was the Mooney.
Mooney Lycoming engine will have a much better chance to reach TBO than the Continental even with the turbo. If you are planning to fly trips 500 miles or more regularly, the Moony is certainly the answer. I would buy the Mooney.
The Mooney Lycoming 540 in this video is beyond TBO. Although it’s hours are below 2000 total time the fact is it’s an original motor from 1991 making it 31 years old placing it beyond TBO. From my experience I’d Prefer a Lycoming 6 over a TCM. Keep up the videos.
Disclaimer: I own an old per Bo so take it with a grain of salt….. as for fuel capacity, you found a needle in a hay stack. That V-tail is a cross country flying machine…except the fuel capacity. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one that had not received aux tanks at some point in its 50 year old life. Most are the quilt with 74-85 gallons. I can carry 88 gallons (1960). What interesting is that by filling my tips, it INCREASES useful load that pretty much voids out the weight of additional fuel. Second: Talk to a mechanic on which one they prefer. I’ve never met one that said “Man, I love working on those Mooney’s.” Last: The Bonanza just feels different. You often hear Mooney pilots defending the comfort of their bird. You’re not going to hear that from a Bonanza owner. Both are great birds and would love to see either on the ramp when I taxi in!
Thanks so much for the great details! I have to say, the Bo in the video could have more fuel capacity now, but it didn’t specifically mention the capacity…so I listed the stock capacity. I’ll dig a bit more and make the update if I can get a solid answer! I appreciate you being here!
@@MyTimeToFly the stock capacity you listed was for the early models that had 20 gallon main tanks. 34 gallons usable. Many had auxilary tanks installed at the factory or later. Mine has two 10 gallon auxilary tanks in the wings so I have 54 usable gallons. It is has @ 5 hours endurance.
Great evaluation. Very frustrating on these comparisons that a later model of the Bellanca super Viking isn’t included. The last few years were made utilizing the continental IO550 from the factory. Although just a handful of these were made, the 550 can be retro fitted to any super Viking going back to at least 1973. It is a game changer. The post 1979 SVs which represent most of the aerodynamic clean ups from that point on can be purchased typically sub 100k. The retrofitted ones are around 120K. Plenty of owner support groups and with the factory recently being purchased and moved to Oklahoma, there is renewed support on factory parts. In addition, the turbo charged Lycoming IO540 was a factory option from about 1969 through about 1977 or so. Not sure on exact years. The first ones were manually adjusted Twin rajay units with the latter being turbo normalized. Anyhow, you gave a great review of two great pieces of machinery but considering a third would have been good to see.
The Super Viking is fast, but the fabric and wood can be very expensive, especially if there is any soft spots found in the wood. That’s a Pandora’s box I don’t think I want to open.
When shopping I thought I wanted a Mooney due to speed and efficiency. I found an N35 Bonanza instead. I easily true out at 150kts at altitude and feel I have more room, better handling characteristics and with 74 gallons way more distance than my bladder can handle, all on 12 gal per hour. I am a Bonanza devotee thru & thru.
If the goal is to go fast and far, the Mooney is the obvious choice. It also wins for useful load if you don't have to fill the tanks. The Bonanza's fifth seat is less than useless; it only makes the plane more expensive to insure and easier to load past the aft CG limit. Still, the Bo may be the better plane for some, for reasons not stated in this comparison.
Two of my favorite GA aircraft. Another drawback to the V35 is the magnesium tail. We have one at my school and the tail is Swiss cheese because you can’t get the sheet metal
@@MyTimeToFly no, there is a collective of over a million dollars for someone that comes up with a certified fix for the issue. I wonder if carbon fiber or other composites could maybe be the solution?
I didn't dig into the comments deeply, but I would bet that someone else also caught a seeming error in the Bonanza stats - fuel capacity. Nearly all Bonanzas with unmodified fuel tanks have a total, useable, fuel capacity of 74 gallons, not 44. Double check - I'm pretty sure that I'm right about this. Otherwise, nice video on a choice I may have to make soon. I have about 400 hours total in the M20-J and M20 - K. Both are great, pilot's airplanes with great handling, speed and loading characteristics. But I find myself wanting a little bit roomier cabin these days and the V-tail has always been on my bucket list. The decider will likely be a specific airplane that I especially like, regardless of it's badge.
"Nearly all Bonanzas with unmodified fuel tanks have a total, useable, fuel capacity of 74 gallons" False. This was only true of the 1961 N35 and later models with "extended range capacity" 40-gallon tanks in place of the standard 25-gallon tanks. This is why the landing light was moved from the wing leading edge to the nose.
I owned a new Mooney MSE. I Traded it in for a new 2000 Mooney Bravo. That was a great plane. It had certified know ice TKS. Fit and finish were fantastic. Performance was great. Flying in the flight levels often got you out of the weather. Unfortunately, Mooney went through three owners and bankruptcy while I owned the plane. I took a beating on the resale price because of this. It was often hard to obtain parts. I’ve demoed a new at the time 2007 Beechcraft A36. That was a beautiful plane too. The Mooney had much better performance as a one or two person airplane. I’ve flown into Aspen and other high altitude airports our west. The Beechcraft was a better family plane with a better useful load. A turbo has a lot of performance advantages that the Beechcraft didn’t have. Lack of know ice certification is a real drawback for northeast pilots. All this being said, if I were going to purchase another plane today, I purchase the Beechcraft. You is too unstable of a company to rely on today.
This are very nice General Aviation Aircraft that I’ve flown in and the inflation is on the rise and the Aircraft market on both of them have been way above retail price and I’m not a big fan of the Mooney but overall it’s fast enough to get me above the weather conditions and it’s worth getting a few avionics upgraded to make this a great IFR Aircraft so I’m in on the Mooney my choice of aircraft
Without putting a pencil on it, I suspect even with its higher fuel burn per hour, because of its faster cruise and longer range, the M20 probably matches or surpasses fuel economy with a higher MPG vs GPH.
Cool. I got to about 7:35 and Mooney won hands down. Without mention of, almost zero maintenance gear, indestructible wing spar, genius+unique rudder trim, Focus or Porsche ish pushrod responsiveness. And the aerodynamically more sensible vert stabilizer that says to the world, smart is beautiful. And after all of that (faster on less gas) => (+2)² ...but, I am 5'5" 145-150 lbs, value agility strongly, and best bang to buck ratio.
I have flown all of the high-performance piston singles and have owned several. By far, the best flying with the biggest CG envelope is the Bellanca Super Viking. The flight and handling characteristics are far superior to any other HPS aircraft.
@@MyTimeToFly Only to the people that don't do their own due diligence. The steel fuselage frame is so much stronger than an aluminum monocoque design. I do consider a hanger to be a requirement to owning a Viking, but the plane is awesome. I hope you have the opportunity to fly one. The wing is a work of art that offers the lightest roll response. It is magical to fly. It is a little heavy in pitch which makes it a very stable instrument platform.
I’ll avoid the bonanza due to the tail issue. That said, and with $200K, I’d likely get a diamond, or buy something much cheaper and put the money on upgrades!
The prices are real, I saw a 75 going for close to 300K for a 50 year old airplane, how much wear and tear on critical parts in 50 years. Look at sales sight and there was an 81 Beech with a 200hp engine for 75K, the 300K plane gets 50 more HP and 40mph more speed and you can probably drop the $75K price in half if you are willing to go 30mph slower.
The only tail issue's bonanza's have had is the pilot over speeding the aircraft. The same problems happen with bonanzas when the airspeed is over exceeded that happens with other GA airplanes. In Minnesota just this past summer a pilot folded his wings straight up on a Mooney, those wings didn't fold up because Mooney builds bad wings they folded up because the Pilot over sped the airplane in A descent and panicked which overstressed the airframe and folded the wings.
There is no doh t pilot error causes many more issues than structural design alone. If you made a bulletproof airplane, it would probably be to heavy to get off the ground anyway!
Not really a fair comparison by comparing a turbo mooney to a normally aspirated Binanza. A better comparion would be the Mooney Ovation and the Bonanza that way you are comparing 2 normally aspirated aircraft. Or, compare the Bravo to a Turbo normalized Bonanza. In any event, the Bonanza will be more comfortable with a higher useful load while the Mooney will be faster and more economical. Either are excellent choices. I've owned two Mooneys and now own an F33A Bonanza and I love them both.
I do agree it’s a bit unfair, but the least expensive turbo BO was $375k. I used price as the leveling metric here. I appreciate you sharing your experiences with both platforms.
The video didn’t mention what type of Bonanza. Find a corporate hanger with a beautiful white floor. Along side the Mooney get An A-36TC double doors, fold out tables, room for a couple bicycles. Tip tanks. I’d rather explore the South Pacific with my snorkeling gear in a Bonanza. Plenty of fuel to hop over to New Zealand then the Australian outback. This is if your a outdoors explorer type of guy. The Bonanza hands down.
I fly my Bonanza regularly at 10.5 gph and have a 104 gallon fuel capacity. I can fly for a very long time before having to refuel. Also, the Bonanza is much more comfortable and roomy than a Mooney, regardless of what the specs for the cabin dimensions on the Mooney show. Mooney’s are incredible planes though. If I were a tall skinny guy, I’d have one.
Bonanza are cool, but Long Body mooneys are far superior. There have been hundreds of bonanza airframe failures, very few on the Mooney. Maybe 175 knot cruise on Vtail. 225 knots all day long at FL250 on the Mooney.
Always remember every mooney after the J was a product of every manufactures engineers going to mooney. The guy that desigbed the bonanza designed the metal wing for the mooney. Starting with the B model.
@@MyTimeToFly when you really sit down and look at it. As a design the Mooney is what was learned by the mistakes of others. The A model bonanzas had wings popping off. Said engineer wanted to build different wing. Got told no. Cruised on down to Texas and built the industries strongest wing and nobody can argue that. Things like that made Mooney better. I hate working Bonanzas. Easier to work on a Mooney. But hey after 18 years of wrenching on them and flying them since 2017 and having flown bonanzas also I'll take my J or fly my friends G all over the country
A couple years ago, when I first started my channel I asked for photos in many Facebook groups including a bonanza group, I have to imagine it came from there.
I dont get why so many people smooth-brain their way through stats instead if comparing apples to apples... adjust the Moone's cruse to match that if the Bonanza and fuel burn will be practically identical, if not better (turbo pistons are mor efficient) and dont max out your fuel on the Mooney and you can exceed that of the Bonanza...
I'm not quite sure what "smooth-brain" means, but I like your approach of equalizing the speed and comparing fuel burns. That is of course if fuel burn is your most important metric.
You are completely worng on added fuel to Bonanza - with the D'Shannon tip tanks, you add 30 Gal. My K model has 63 usable in the mains and aux tanks, yielding 93 usable gal. But more important: The STC for the tips adds that much weight to the gross carrying capacity! So about 300 lbs total (have to look it up). so you don't lose useful load, and if you do not use the tip tanks, you get an increase! And one more thing - comparing a turbo vs non-turbo is sort of meaningless. Of course the turbo can go higher, and consequently faster TAS.
If you're going to post specs get them right, the bonanza has 74 gallons usable not 44. If you compare at 10K ft you're more like 185K vs 170K. Get a turbo normalizer for the bonanza and do a comparison you'll find 215K vs 217K. Also if you do run either in the flight levels at anywhere near max cruise expect 1000 TBO or less.
I searched for a turbo bonanza in the same price range, it just doesn’t exist right now. At the end of the day, I wanted the comparison to be between two airplanes priced the same, not two airplanes with the closest capability.
Plane to plane for the money. Mooney beats. I have had a Beech for many years. The Mooneys 360 motor is cheaper to maintain. Fuel is huge and isn't going away. 200hP versions can be had for much less and are nearly as fast as the 470 motor. The Beech isn't that much wider. Today speed and economy is king. I love Bonanza. King of the ramp. I want to fly not worry about $8 fuel and 12 gph. The 360 is 9. Huge.
I really don't understand comparing paint/interior and avionics at all......you can get either plane and update either to what you want and it makes no difference on the performance of either plane......just fast forward to 7:40 and pause the video, that's pretty much all you need to make your decision. although you really couldn't go wrong with either one. both pretty badass in their own way. either choice would be awesome, as long as you chose the mooney :)
Hahaha, nice on the Mooney comment. I put paint /avionics in the comparison simply because they can be very expensive upgrades, and seems to be very important to many pilots.
The magnesium V tail Bonanza is know to corrode, and they no longer make these tail skins. I would require to open up these in a pre purchase inspection. I doubt many sellers would allow this since if they are “toast” the airplane is useless. This should have been talked about in this video, Beechcraft does NOT make this parts. I believe that would be the biggest game changer in anyone’s opinion. And if you only fill the Mooney tanks to the Bonanza’s capacity you WILL have a much larger useful load (comparing apples to apples). By all means, buy the Mooney.
Thanks for the details on the tail skin. I sure hope somebody finds a solution for this problem, there are too many v-tails out there to let this issue ground them all eventually.
Nice comparison of two popular light planes. I've flown both and like them. It's a matter of personal preference and practicality. I prefer the Bonanza, V tail or straight, because it offers more room in the cabin. I find the performance more than adequate of the Bonanzas and they handle well in the air. For Mooney flyers, you can't beat the speed. 🙂
I would need to go with the Bonanza on this one. It's an all around nicer aircraft!! The one major downfall for the Bonanza is it's lack of fuel capacity and cross country distance.
I'll wager that not a single V35B left the factory with 50 gal tanks. All of them got the 80 gal tanks, with 74 gal useable. For a range of 1100 miles and a useful load of 1,248 lbs.
I would not buy a V-tail ever, so not even, a comparison between a Mooney and a V well it is not one at all. Now the T-tail would be a hard comparison.
I believe both are great platforms, the bonanza has a bad rap based on the dr killer however, that is based on data which shows people who flew and had an accident did not have training
I own a 94" Bravo, a truely wonderful airplane. As the author stated the reason for the mismatch Turbo vs NA was to keep price involved. I've owned mine for 5 yrs, before that another turbo Mooney, prior to that a NA Mooney. Basically, if you fly high, or long distance, buy a turbo, if not stick to a normally aspirated. The maintenance on a turbo is appreciably higher. I like to fly FAST.
good work...however there is much more to this compare and plus various models of each. comparing turbo and non-turbo is not a fair comparison. also maintenance and cost A&P/IA is Major if not the top consideration. which you don't have with experimental. for example Vans RV10....which is in same class of planes. i would have compared the turbo normalized A36 beech..which does go to 2000TBO or more because of the design. typical of turbo it will not make it to TBO unless you put intercooler. but you will most likely be replacing a cylinder or 2 before 2000 anyway. which is danger in itself. there is much, much, much more you missed in this video. for example a a turbo arrow with 20hp upgrade and intercooler will fly higher and faster without the rebuild cost of IO540 engine which is 60-80k.etc. etc etc... Anyway this video is a good start. science of engines, weight, altitude, etc.... are complex topics.
No V35B never left the factory with 50 gal of fuel.They all had 80 gal in the wings.I have owned Mooneys and Bonanzas.The Bonanza is much easier to work on and doesn't have fuel leaks like the wet wing Mooney does.You are not comparing apples to apples.You went with price instead of model year.The Bonanza F-33A or A-36 are better in every way that really matters.The reason most people buy the Mooney is because its less expensive then the Bonanza
Hardly a fair comparison. The Mooney is over two decades newer! You should reconsider your benchmark for choosing planes to compare. These two planes are generations apart.
@@MyTimeToFly The issue here is you tried to compare planes that are a generation apart. It’s like comparing a 2024 Tesla to a 2004 Ford Escape. The comparison has little value if you’re not comparing similar products.
That’s why I’m asking what criteria you would use, I understand your point. Would you only compare airplanes from the same model year? It’s not like the tech in airplanes has changed as fast as tech in cars.
Apples to Peaches comparison. If you’re going to compare airplanes you don’t compare normally aspirated with turbocharged because the operating parameters are totally different. You had to choose a turbocharged Mooney to make the HP comparison as the NA version has 85 HP less than the Bonanza. The turbo has virtually no value below 6000 feet and except for takeoff/climb limited improvement in speed until above 12000. For a trip length under about 300 miles the turbo offers no advantage and it adds complexity and expense to the maintenance and operation of the airplane. As others have noted there are for all intents and purposes no Bonanzas later than 1960 with less than 74 gallons of usable fuel so your comparison of range and useful load are wrong. Compare a turbonormalized Bonanza to your Mooney and you’ll find all the advantages of the Bo, better interior room, more useful load, better short/soft field capability still exist and the difference in speed is insignificant. My 1965 V35 with a NA IO520BB has 74 gallons usable, 1400 lbs useful and will go cross country at 170k on about 14 gph, or less. Now run the numbers on a NA Mooney of similar condition and equipment. The Bo still comes out on top and as you pointed out, although expensive, parts are still available NEW for the Bo and there were thousands more Bonanzas built so it stands to reason many more used parts, not to mention all the STC’s mods available for a Bo. By the by some were leaning toward the Mooney because it was “newer”. Doesn’t it say something about the two airplanes when the Mooney, over 20 years “newer”, is priced similarly to the Bo? And 4000 hours isn’t a high time airframe for either of them.
I appreciate your comments, as you can tell I was simply trying to compare airplanes of similar value. I apologize for the fuel details that were incorrect, I should have dug deeper.
HAHAHA ... looks like you rattled the cage of serious Bo fanboys. For $200K - HANDS DOWN, the Mooney wins this comparison without a doubt. Maybe the fanboys can find some equally equipped Bo's they would like you to compare against the decently equipped, turbo Mooney. I guess they are comfortable spending an additional $150K to get the same performance of the Mooney.
By the way - keep the videos coming, even though you never claimed to be an expert, you have solid reasoning for YOUR comparisons and, well it IS your channel and YOUR opinion I come here for.
Thanks again Russel. I’ll say I was shocked by the response from a few folks…nothing I can’t put up with though. I do appreciate peoples passion, whether or not they take their disagreement out on me. I’m on a little work / business trip for a couple of days, then I’ll be back at the videos!
Mooney guys will tell you they would buy the Mooney, Bonanza guys will tell you they would buy the Bonanza....I could have told you that without making a video. I have four Mooney owners in my neighborhood and me with a J35 Bo....I'm outnumbered hands down. I'm not in the 200,000.00 toy category so I compared aircraft in the sub 100K bracket. I tried to sit in a Mooney (at 6'1" 200lbs) when I was shopping and I was done....my head and shoulders were pressed against the roof and the window, my wife didn't even try to get in, she's 5'7". It could have gone 300 kts for 10 hours and that wouldn't have made any difference. I was uncomfortable before the engine even started. My 58 Bonanza gives me room to stretch, does 175 kts at 10.5 gph and is downright sexy.... I paid 55K for it. It's the smaller sportscar model of the V-tails, It climbs like a bat out of hell. I'm at cruise altitude before any of my friend's Mooneys are half way through the climb, and when I need it to come down and slow down all I do is ask it to....no speed brakes needed, drop the gear at almost any speed and with the bungee linked flight controls it is so easy to fly its almost a crime....As far as cost of ownership, I have a Ducati motorcycle that's more expensive to maintain. Like I said Bonanza guys love their airplanes!
@Galileo7of9 Well the short answer is 25 years of flying both the V35B and the J35. The specs show what I"m talking about as well. My J35 has less wingspan and length, weighs 500lbs less!, cruises faster (than normally aspirated V35), climbs 1000 fpm faster, flies 3400 feet higher, takes off 75 feet sooner, lands 50 feet quicker, and will let you whip it around a whole lot more than the bigger models. Not to mention it's very forgiving about it when you do. Of course you may have a different opinion.
My Time, make mine a Bonanza. I've flown in Mooneys, Bonanzas, Cessnas, Pipers...the comfort and solid feel of a Beech is surpassed only by its performance. Even a 1968 V35A, IO-520, cruises at 177 kts indicated at 10,500 (10-12°C) while slowly draining 13.5 gals/hr. LOP for the 520 isn't an issue, it actually extends the life of the engine. A TSIO-520 equipped V35B would've been an appropriate comparison. I understand your constraints: on the market. However, you're making the decision for us with your comparison. The market supports a price on a "lesser" aircraft compared to a "better equipped 'cause we couldn't find a cheaper priced Bo' "? Yes. That translates to, "For the same $200k, the market supports the sale of non-turbo'd Bonanzas over turbo'd Mooneys." People have already voted with their wallets and thus you have this price point. You're asking, but the market has already determined the answer. In order for the cramped (questionable manufacturing future, maintenance detracted, 4 seater) Mooney to demand an equivalent price...it has to be turbocharged and 20 years newer.🫤 Thanks for the comparison. I'm not hung-up on some of the details, as you've already identified the erroneous info on the ABS site. I couldn't replace my Beech for 220k right now! That's the other edge of the "value" sword. If I had it to do all over again: Yes, make mine a Beech Bonanza.
Nice video... This was a decision I actually made 2 years ago. I wanted a reasonably fast aircraft, seating for 4 (3+ bags) on an iconic frame (since I couldn't afford new @ $1M). This left me with a Mooney or Bonanza. After riding in both - the Bonanza won me over with comfort, build quality, and handling. It hand flies effortlessly and the landing gear provides very forgiving touchdowns. The biggest factor for me was comfort. I found the seating position in the Mooney very uncomfortable on my ankles and prefer a more upright seating position. 80 gallons / 74 usable was standard for a V35B and a common option on the V35A model as well. I ended up with a 68 V35A. It boasts some features that I wasn't specifically looking for but were lucky to find including tip tanks, TKS, and an upgraded IO550 motor. No regrets....
Fantastic Eric, it sounds like you found a great bird. Although I do love my Mooney, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on a Bonanza either! Fly safe!!!
I’m curious what did you pay for it?
I own a bonanza, and I love it! If I had to fly any other single it would be a Mooney. Both incredible airplanes.
I agree they are both fantastic, and have a lot of passionate owners!
So, I went through this same comparison two years ago when shopping for my second airplane. I was eyeballing a turbo Mooney 231. Great airplane, fast, and efficient. I then sought out a bonanza to compare it to as I’d never say or flown in a bonanza. My local mechanic told me about one that was under repossession by the bank about 40 minutes away from where I live. I went to look at it, and saw that it was in decent shape with a brand new hydraulic prop and a newly rebuilt e225-8. The comparison is summed up the best by saying the Bonanza is like sitting in a truck. Mooney like a corvette. I ended up going with the D35 bonanza because of the lower acquisition cost, and being able to spend some money on making the plane “mine”. Helps that the bonanza also has every speed mod offered by D’Shannon. Cruises at 155kts on about 12GPH.
Sound like you found a great option! Congrats on finding that needle in the haystack!
good choice and fast for a D model
I've owned 3 Bonanzas since 1970 and flown in a number of Mooneys. My '70 V35B which I've owned since March 2004 has Osborne tip tanks which add 40 more gallons (114 useable) with a 200# gross weight increase to 3600#. IFR WAAS CNX80 GPS and MX20 mated to the Aspen 1000 and Century 2000 autopilot make it a solid IFR machine. The 285HP IO-520 BA with the GAMI injections and EDM 700 allow me to run LP at 12 to 13 gph at 165 kts cruise typically. When talking about aircraft manufacturers I usually compare Piper and Cessna with Ford and Chevy and Mooney with Buick, but the Bonanza and Barons with Mercedes. No comparison between the models in my opionion. As a retired airline captain (B-777), I fly my V35B for pleasure, both locally and cross country about 100 hours per year. It is comfortable, fuel efficient and fast. I'm 6'3" and need a shoe horn to get in and out of a Mooney. I winter in California and summer in NW Wisconsin. Two 4.5 hour legs and I'm in CA from WI, return flight is less with better winds. My longest flight was 7.3 hours IFR, 5 hours in the soup without the autopilot (in the shop for upgrade) from FLL to near IAH via the land route. I still had 2.5 hours of fuel left. The autopilot is a pleasure on long cross country flights. The Bonanza is a hands down winner in the high performance singles arena and the best tool in the A to B destination category (IMHO).
Thank you for the detailed thoughts Marty! It sounds like your current bird is an absolute dream! One of these days I'll get my butt in a Bonanza. I couldn't agree more that a shoe horn is necessary to get myself in the Mooney sometimes!
Could not agree more. I have owned bonanzas, but I worked at a Mooney specific shop. They are slick airplanes, and as such, cramped compared to a Bo. If you have to work on them, it is clear to see the difference in quality of build. Oleo struts, vs rubber pucks. For a Mooney the entire belly panel comes off and the whole cowling has to come off, hundreds of sheet metal screws... Bonanza is much easier to work on in my opinion.
I owned an M20C for 10 years, and have an M20K now for about 5 years, and 500+ hours on it. I've flown Bonanzas, Barrons and a King Air, so I also have a high regard for Beech planes (they are tough, truck-like, and also fun to fly). I continue to prefer the M20 airframes for their efficiency and range, and my flying mission is often traveling to see family in the SE US (Mississippi, Florida), so greater than 800nm. I've flown my M20K 231(262 Trophy) from St. Augustine FL to Colorado Springs CO in a day, westbound.. At 65% power, I'm getting 150kts true at 8,000 MSL, and 180kts true at FL200, on 10.5 gph (LOP). My useful load is 877 lbs, so with 75gal of fuel (topped off), my range is 6 hours (10 gal reserve). That translates into 900-1080 nm per leg. That trip westbound today, cruising at 12,500, would require one stop, take 8:44, burning 95 gal. I'm not sure the Bo could do it in 1 stop, and I'm betting the fuel burn would be 50% greater (~150 gal). When talking about speed, you must take into consideration fuel stops if your mission is X-country. I've flown a lot of planes, and the seating position in the Mooney is quite comfortable, although more Porsche-like than the very upright position of a Bo (similar to a 182) or King Air. Flying qualities, the Mooney is fantastic, stable, efficient. Yes, it requires some getting used to when trying to land on short fields - approach speed discipline is important, and you can't force it - so learn to go around (you control the plane, not the other way around). I think Mooney is less expensive to maintain, parts and mechanics are pretty available for both Beech (exceept ruddervators) and Mooney airframes. Finally, walking up to your plane, you need to like (or love) how it looks and makes you feel. Aesthetics are subjective, but important. Statistics less so.
Thank you for sharing the details of your experience, they will be very valuable to aviators considering an airplane purchase. I appreciate you taking the time to write this all down!
My first plane was a Beechcraft which I loved. Now I own a Mooney M20C and absolutely love it.
Awesome man, what beech did you have? Musketeer?
Yes A23A. IO 346. Just a great roomy plane with as much useful load as a 182, just slower.
Very cool, I’m sure it did better on fuel than the 182. It just forces you to practice some patience.
The V35B fuel capacity is 74 gallons standard not 44 gallons. You can get tip tanks for the Bonanza adding 40 more gallons. These tanks have a gross weight increase to compensate for the added fuel. The issue with the V tail is replacement ruddervators. Beech is not making any skins. Also if you fly a Bonanza you are ruined for anything else, they handle very well and are very easy to fly. They are also good on grass fields where the Mooney has issues with grass. There is more room in the Bonanza and you sit more upright then in the Mooney. I think both are great planes but for just fun of flying the Bonanza has the Mooney beat. I have owned an older Bonanza since 1993 and still love flying it. 175 mph on 12 gph, near Mooney numbers. Very easy to fly, no problem going into a major field or a 1600 ft grass strip.
Very good synopsis John, I appreciate how you approached the comparison. Certainly no airplane is perfect, and you spelled that out nicely! Keep the greasy side down in that Bo!
You can order ruddervators and ruddervator skins from Textron, they are expensive though over 20k for A ruddervator and the skin is 8k.
Crazy money!
@@kvnkaveman they just started making the skins again. They are as you said $8000 for the skin. It is robbery.
I’m in the wrong business
Nice thing about the Bonanza is it's easy to take the back seats out for more cargo versatility. Plus STCs are available for tip tanks and turbo normalizers. I think the gear on a Bo is a little tougher too.
It seems everything you’ve said is correct. The ground clearance in the BO is a big advantage too if grass / gravel strips are common in your mission.
Well said Much better airplane & I dont even like the bonanza. Better story that has been told many times is bonanza verses 210. Now thats a cat fight
I just sold my 1990 M20M Bravo. I lost my medical and doubt I'll get it back. I logged close to 1000 hours in the Bravo. It is a pilot's aircraft. Handling is good and I found the pilot's seat comfortable for long-distance trips. I was able to fly from Cheyenne (KCYS) to Tucson (KTUS) nonstop with legal IFR reserves. I generally planned for 17000 feet, about 190 KTAS and saw about 18-19 gal/h. The airframe is solid. There are very few reports of in-flight breakups. The plane was reliable and a real joy to fly. I'd buy a Mooney again if I got the medical back. It's a great IFR platform.
I'm sorry to hear about the medical, but I'm glad to hear you had such a great experience! Thanks for sharing.
I have owned several airplanes and have been flying for 30 + years - all general aviation. My V35B - with 74 gal + 15 gal tip tanks holds 104 gal T 178 kts with our NA IO550 Contential engine burning 14.5 GPH that comes to ~ 1,000 NM non stop with an hour fuel left. I think the Mooney is a very capable airplane, nothing but good things to say, but for me and the 1105 useful load in the V35B, the range, speed, and looks - I am happy with my VTail, just sharing a perspective.
I love your perspective, thanks for sharing. Sounds like you have one heck of a capable bird!
The v-35b has two 40 gallon tanks, 74 usable. I enjoy your channel, keep the videos coming!
Much appreciated!!! I love your channel name!
Good comparison, but what sold me on the Bonanza are two things never mentioned. One, Bonanzas can use gravel and grass strips due to length and strength of gears, which we routinely do now. Opens up all sorts of new places and missions. And two, in terms of comfort, when my wife and I got into a Mooney, she turned to me and said… “Cant do this, I feel like we are sardines and I need my space”. FYI, mine has the IO-550 conversion and at LOP, we burn 11-12. Lastly, my range, with 74 usable, is way past my families and mine bladder time, so I personally never see a range of 5 plus hours being very useful.
I appreciate your perspective, sounds like a great bird in your hangar!
I have to go with the Bonanza, however, I think the A36 is the best!
Hard to argue with that A36!
I think the bonanza has a 40+gallon tank in each wing. It seems like There is 74g usable total on the plane.
You’re right, unfortunately I cited an incorrect reference here. Thanks for catching the issue too!
I'd love to see you do a review/comparison with some 6 seater airplanes. Piper Saratoga or Lance versus ???
Keep the videos coming!
Thank you kindly Brad. I’ve already started writing one up…I’ll make sure to get it finished!
I grew up with both aircraft. Growing up I lived next door to Alex Rich a Beachcraft parts dealer and one of the early members of the Bonanza Society. Alex kept a Barron in his Hangar in Oxnard until the day he past away. A close friend owned a Mooney 201 as I grew up calling it. He went on to buy the Porsche Powered version of the Airplane back in the late 80's. I thought that was so cool. Ended up taking my lessons in a Piper Cherokee that our Mooney family friend owned. I could look at the M20L for hours, always thought that was a beautiful aircraft. Yes I also love Porsche. Interesting to note that the Mooney M20L owner never drove a Porsche but Alex Rich, the owner of the Barron and former Bonanza Owner, also owned several Porsche cars. My choice will always be Mooney.
Thanks for the great story, and the vote! I appreciate you watching.
I’ve never flown either aircraft, but I am looking to purchase one someday and your work on this comparison is helpful, thanks.
Glad I could help, I appreciate you being here.
This is a really hard one for me. I love both of these airplanes deeply. But I think I'm leaning towards Bonanza, because a lot of what I like about Mooneys is their minimalism, and a turbo-6 starts to fall away from that a bit.
When did V-tails get so expensive?! I remember looking at some well under 100k not so long ago.
It seems everything is getting crazy expensive. I do agree that keeping it as simple as possible is a fantastic mentality to have!
Got rid of the Grand Commander during fuel shortages back in the day. Got the Bonanza V35B. Sure it got it down the length of Baja without tip tanks. Less fuel costs. Stripped off all antennas & steps for a cleaner profile. Some place in the corner of Kansas did a speed kit. Saved money but hated the plane as a co-pilot. Hard to load supplies , not great visual forward from back seats and very worse was had to wear a brimmed hat due to burning sun thru windows. Missed moving around in the Commander & easy to load supplies. Plus the Commander was a beauty. Step right in. No step up on wing without the removed step!!!!
The commander is such an awesome airplane! But I’m sure the maintenance and fuel costs are hard to swallow!
I was in the same boat as the gent below....I really wanted a Mooney 201 based on the numbers...but the things have no room in them at all. And, your legs are actually under the engine. So if you hit a hangar, you just broke your legs. The Bonanza has a lot more room, although it burns more fuel. I wound up getting a Bonanza.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I hope your BO is treating you well! It's all about tradeoffs, and it sounds like you found the right set of tradeoffs for your situation!
I’ve owned both before (at different times). For perhaps the first time in my life I can’t really definitively say which one I liked better - I loved them both. But the more spacious interior of the Bonanza was nice. (But it took me many hours to get use to the V-tail “wiggle” in turbulence. I had no foreknowledge of this Bonanza “wiggle” when I bought it and thought something was “wrong” for more hours than I care to admit to!! But bottom line I loved BOTH of these planes!!
Thank you so much for sharing your experience, I have no doubt they are both awesome for their own reasons.
If I had money to burn I think I would do the v tail, tip tanks can be added and come with a gross weight increase plus I actually think the v tail skin replacement issue might actually get a solution because of money being put up by the community. The mooney is awesome and I would love one too but having textron still in business sure make me feel more comfortable about such a large purchase. If mooney gets up and going I think that would change my mind.
You certainly have a valid concern regarding the factory. It adds a little risk without a doubt.
At 12:25 For me, judging on looks, hands down its the Mooney. Just looks sleeker than the Bonanza. Looks like its going fast even with the tie downs on hehe. Cheers Dion
Thanks Dion. I do agree, it’s one speedy looking machine.
True, but the Bonanza is more voluptuous. It has the curves in the right spots. 😉👍
Bonanza: the muscle car
Moony:the small sports car
About sums it up!
Mooney just as wide, not as tall. Mine has speedbrakes and TKS for flight into known icing. Autopilot and all glass. Mooney Ovation.
You may want to update the list comparison. The Bonanza has 74gal of usable fuel. Lean of peak operations at 8000ft and fuel burn of 12.5gph in the cruise, I can comfortably travel 750nm without refueling. 5hr15m with an hour of reserve fuel left. Either of the two tip tank options, BDS or Osborne add 40gal and 200lbs UL in the STC.
From my reading I found that the larger tanks only became standard after 1980. Perhaps I didn’t dig deep enough in this specific airplane, but as it wasn’t listed I chose what I understood to be the standard option.
You won’t find many v35s with standard capacity tanks…..the long range 74gal usable were a very popular option for obvious reasons.
Thanks Erich! I agree, it makes much more sense to have the extra fuel!
Since the V35B which dates from 1970, there probably not three Bonanzas with 44gal fuel mfged. Nothing flies like a Bonanza except maybe a P-51 and/or a T-28 and I've flown them both. I own my second V35B, never should have sold the '79. My current Bo is a '75 and yes I have also done 5.25 hours at about 13 gal.hr at 165-170 kts. I fly now at 10,5 or 11.5, 2,400 rpm full throttle (about 55% on my JPI) indicating 143-145 kts on as you say 12.5/gal/hr. I have Gamis but still run rich of peak with cylinders 350 or less.
I looked at Ovations and Bravos, but went with the best choice for me. Bos can do 200 kts at 15,000-16,000 feet, just call the Gami boys and get it turbo-normalized
I have owned 3 Bonanzas and a Baron since 1983 with more than 4000 hours in them and an active CFI-I. I am quite familiar with Moonys having visited both factories as well. Mooney is out of business! You missed the fuel capacity on the V35 big time. Standard capacity was always 80 gallons, 74 useable. Have you ever shoehorned into a Mooney? How about the comfort of the 4 seats and shoulder room? Not even close. If you ever saw a Mooney being built, you would have thought you were in a T-hangar building a kit plane. The fit, finish, materials are not comparable to any Beech product. Landing a Mooney is like being on a roller skate. So, why are they not in business anymore being CHEAPER? Easy answer. Your comparison is very flawed but entertaining.
I appreciate the commentary…I think. I have been in a Mooney a time or two, but definitely need to get in a Bo! I apologize for referencing the information from the American Bonanza Society, I will certainly ask them to update their information!
Also, there's the matter of avoiding a prop strike in a Mooney. That nose gear is something one doesn't want have a hard landing on. As I've heard other Mooney flyers say, the third bounce is a prop and engine overhaul! 😉
What kind of Money have you been in to say that the build quality is no way close to what beech offers? Just curious to hear
@@StefBelgium several, 201, 231 Ovation. Main reason for comment is I took a factory tour before it closed the last time and the construction and assembly looked like a garage home built. Been to the Beechcraft factory and simply, no comparison having flown in many Bonanza models and owned 3, for more than 4000 hours. Simple enough for me.
@@n9086s have you been in Buggati factory? It has nothing to do with the complex line production of Audi or Mercedes to name a few. It looks like it s the good old manual production line. But quality is there. Don t judge a book by its cover. Mooney are really great and latest ones like the Acclaim are awesome quality wise. They fly fast, far and are fuel efficient. There are many factors to take into account. Ease of access to the equipment, avionics. The wing is a solid one piece. Belly landing a money will probably cost you less to repair than a Bo. The push rod flight commands are reliable. If you lose one aileron, you can still fly the plane. Cables in bo, not the same results, if you lose one aileron, you re in trouble. Avionics bay in front of the cockpit is easily accessible for whatever maintenant you need and the lycoming engine is probably more reliable than the continental too. Without offense, your 4,000 hrs flying BOs probably biaise your judgment. Space wise, the small door I give you that is not easy to get in, but once in, there a lot of space for pilots and passenger, maybe a cabin width even bigger than the V35. Mooneys are also less sensitive to CG change upon loading unlike Bo. I like both but I have a preference for Mooney especially the most recent versions.
Bonanza was roomier and more expensive per hour. Mooney normal cruise was 180 burning 8g/hr. I felt like I was wearing the Mooney..great feeling. Whenever I has the choice it was the Mooney.
Roger that! Thanks for watching.
Mooney Lycoming engine will have a much better chance to reach TBO than the Continental even with the turbo. If you are planning to fly trips 500 miles or more regularly, the Moony is certainly the answer. I would buy the Mooney.
Thanks for the vote John.
I agree...Mooney
Right on
The Mooney Lycoming 540 in this video is beyond TBO. Although it’s hours are below 2000 total time the fact is it’s an original motor from 1991 making it 31 years old placing it beyond TBO. From my experience I’d Prefer a Lycoming 6 over a TCM. Keep up the videos.
Mike Bush might disagree with this comment. He runs his continentals well past TBO.
Disclaimer: I own an old per Bo so take it with a grain of salt….. as for fuel capacity, you found a needle in a hay stack. That V-tail is a cross country flying machine…except the fuel capacity. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one that had not received aux tanks at some point in its 50 year old life. Most are the quilt with 74-85 gallons. I can carry 88 gallons (1960). What interesting is that by filling my tips, it INCREASES useful load that pretty much voids out the weight of additional fuel.
Second: Talk to a mechanic on which one they prefer. I’ve never met one that said “Man, I love working on those Mooney’s.”
Last: The Bonanza just feels different. You often hear Mooney pilots defending the comfort of their bird. You’re not going to hear that from a Bonanza owner.
Both are great birds and would love to see either on the ramp when I taxi in!
Thanks so much for the great details! I have to say, the Bo in the video could have more fuel capacity now, but it didn’t specifically mention the capacity…so I listed the stock capacity. I’ll dig a bit more and make the update if I can get a solid answer!
I appreciate you being here!
@@MyTimeToFly the stock capacity you listed was for the early models that had 20 gallon main tanks. 34 gallons usable. Many had auxilary tanks installed at the factory or later. Mine has two 10 gallon auxilary tanks in the wings so I have 54 usable gallons. It is has @ 5 hours endurance.
Great evaluation. Very frustrating on these comparisons that a later model of the Bellanca super Viking isn’t included. The last few years were made utilizing the continental IO550 from the factory. Although just a handful of these were made, the 550 can be retro fitted to any super Viking going back to at least 1973. It is a game changer. The post 1979 SVs which represent most of the aerodynamic clean ups from that point on can be purchased typically sub 100k. The retrofitted ones are around 120K. Plenty of owner support groups and with the factory recently being purchased and moved to Oklahoma, there is renewed support on factory parts. In addition, the turbo charged Lycoming IO540 was a factory option from about 1969 through about 1977 or so. Not sure on exact years. The first ones were manually adjusted Twin rajay units with the latter being turbo normalized. Anyhow, you gave a great review of two great pieces of machinery but considering a third would have been good to see.
I hear you Robert! I’ll make sure the Bellanca finds its way onto the screen real soon!
The Super Viking is fast, but the fabric and wood can be very expensive, especially if there is any soft spots found in the wood. That’s a Pandora’s box I don’t think I want to open.
But not a unique “Pandora’s box”. The GA fleet is full of wood and fabric.
When shopping I thought I wanted a Mooney due to speed and efficiency. I found an N35 Bonanza instead. I easily true out at 150kts at altitude and feel I have more room, better handling characteristics and with 74 gallons way more distance than my bladder can handle, all on 12 gal per hour. I am a Bonanza devotee thru & thru.
That's awesome man! Had I bought a Bo I'd probably lean that way too. If you're ever in Michigan hit me up. I'd love to see how great they are!
If the goal is to go fast and far, the Mooney is the obvious choice. It also wins for useful load if you don't have to fill the tanks. The Bonanza's fifth seat is less than useless; it only makes the plane more expensive to insure and easier to load past the aft CG limit. Still, the Bo may be the better plane for some, for reasons not stated in this comparison.
Thanks Brian, I appreciate your thoughts. To be fair, I’m being told most of these Bonanzas do hold 80 gallons, this one is likely in that same camp.
Two of my favorite GA aircraft. Another drawback to the V35 is the magnesium tail. We have one at my school and the tail is Swiss cheese because you can’t get the sheet metal
Oh wow, you can even get the raw material to fix it? I do agree, they are two sweet machines.
@@MyTimeToFly no, there is a collective of over a million dollars for someone that comes up with a certified fix for the issue. I wonder if carbon fiber or other composites could maybe be the solution?
Seems like a good option, with my limited knowledge. Maybe the @darkaero boys could come up with something awesome!
Textron is making the magnesium skins again. It is a maintenance issue to make sure you don’t need to buy them, they are expensive.
I didn't dig into the comments deeply, but I would bet that someone else also caught a seeming error in the Bonanza stats - fuel capacity. Nearly all Bonanzas with unmodified fuel tanks have a total, useable, fuel capacity of 74 gallons, not 44. Double check - I'm pretty sure that I'm right about this. Otherwise, nice video on a choice I may have to make soon. I have about 400 hours total in the M20-J and M20 - K. Both are great, pilot's airplanes with great handling, speed and loading characteristics. But I find myself wanting a little bit roomier cabin these days and the V-tail has always been on my bucket list. The decider will likely be a specific airplane that I especially like, regardless of it's badge.
"Nearly all Bonanzas with unmodified fuel tanks have a total, useable, fuel capacity of 74 gallons"
False.
This was only true of the 1961 N35 and later models with "extended range capacity" 40-gallon tanks in place of the standard 25-gallon tanks.
This is why the landing light was moved from the wing leading edge to the nose.
I appreciate your comment, did you end up buying?
I owned a new Mooney MSE. I Traded it in for a new 2000 Mooney Bravo. That was a great plane. It had certified know ice TKS. Fit and finish were fantastic. Performance was great. Flying in the flight levels often got you out of the weather. Unfortunately, Mooney went through three owners and bankruptcy while I owned the plane. I took a beating on the resale price because of this. It was often hard to obtain parts.
I’ve demoed a new at the time 2007 Beechcraft A36. That was a beautiful plane too. The Mooney had much better performance as a one or two person airplane. I’ve flown into Aspen and other high altitude airports our west. The Beechcraft was a better family plane with a better useful load. A turbo has a lot of performance advantages that the Beechcraft didn’t have. Lack of know ice certification is a real drawback for northeast pilots.
All this being said, if I were going to purchase another plane today, I purchase the Beechcraft. You is too unstable of a company to rely on today.
Pretty awesome summary here! Can you imagine what Mooney might be these days if they had managed some stability!
This are very nice General Aviation Aircraft that I’ve flown in and the inflation is on the rise and the Aircraft market on both of them have been way above retail price and I’m not a big fan of the Mooney but overall it’s fast enough to get me above the weather conditions and it’s worth getting a few avionics upgraded to make this a great IFR Aircraft so I’m in on the Mooney my choice of aircraft
Thanks Bernard! You’re spot on, prices are crazy high!
Without putting a pencil on it, I suspect even with its higher fuel burn per hour, because of its faster cruise and longer range, the M20 probably matches or surpasses fuel economy with a higher MPG vs GPH.
Very likely!
Cool. I got to about 7:35 and Mooney won hands down. Without mention of, almost zero maintenance gear, indestructible wing spar, genius+unique rudder trim, Focus or Porsche ish pushrod responsiveness. And the aerodynamically more sensible vert stabilizer that says to the world, smart is beautiful.
And after all of that
(faster on less gas) => (+2)²
...but, I am 5'5" 145-150 lbs, value agility strongly, and best bang to buck ratio.
Roger that, seems like you know what you like!
You did not include your option,
but in my country bonanzas rule the skies .( after the cessnas ...)
Roger that. I wasn't trying to have an opinion...but I'm a Mooney guy!
Don’t know of many v35bs with the 50gal fuel. Most come with two 40 gal mains….74 gal usable.
Seems like a very common upgreade. I just listed the info published on the Bonanza Society website.
I have flown all of the high-performance piston singles and have owned several. By far, the best flying with the biggest CG envelope is the Bellanca Super Viking. The flight and handling characteristics are far superior to any other HPS aircraft.
Do you think the fabric on the Bellanca scares people away?
@@MyTimeToFly Only to the people that don't do their own due diligence. The steel fuselage frame is so much stronger than an aluminum monocoque design. I do consider a hanger to be a requirement to owning a Viking, but the plane is awesome. I hope you have the opportunity to fly one. The wing is a work of art that offers the lightest roll response. It is magical to fly. It is a little heavy in pitch which makes it a very stable instrument platform.
Very cool stuff, thank you for sharing the details. Hopefully someday I get the chance!
I’ll avoid the bonanza due to the tail issue. That said, and with $200K, I’d likely get a diamond, or buy something much cheaper and put the money on upgrades!
Hard to argue with spending less and making it your own!
The prices are real, I saw a 75 going for close to 300K for a 50 year old airplane, how much wear and tear on critical parts in 50 years. Look at sales sight and there was an 81 Beech with a 200hp engine for 75K, the 300K plane gets 50 more HP and 40mph more speed and you can probably drop the $75K price in half if you are willing to go 30mph slower.
It’s a crazy world! I do agree, if you’re willing to give up a little you can get better value for money.
The only tail issue's bonanza's have had is the pilot over speeding the aircraft. The same problems happen with bonanzas when the airspeed is over exceeded that happens with other GA airplanes. In Minnesota just this past summer a pilot folded his wings straight up on a Mooney, those wings didn't fold up because Mooney builds bad wings they folded up because the Pilot over sped the airplane in A descent and panicked which overstressed the airframe and folded the wings.
There is no doh t pilot error causes many more issues than structural design alone. If you made a bulletproof airplane, it would probably be to heavy to get off the ground anyway!
Not really a fair comparison by comparing a turbo mooney to a normally aspirated Binanza. A better comparion would be the Mooney Ovation and the Bonanza that way you are comparing 2 normally aspirated aircraft. Or, compare the Bravo to a Turbo normalized Bonanza.
In any event, the Bonanza will be more comfortable with a higher useful load while the Mooney will be faster and more economical.
Either are excellent choices. I've owned two Mooneys and now own an F33A Bonanza and I love them both.
I do agree it’s a bit unfair, but the least expensive turbo BO was $375k. I used price as the leveling metric here.
I appreciate you sharing your experiences with both platforms.
The video didn’t mention what type of Bonanza.
Find a corporate hanger with a beautiful white floor.
Along side the Mooney get
An A-36TC double doors, fold out tables, room for a couple bicycles. Tip tanks.
I’d rather explore the South Pacific with my snorkeling gear in a Bonanza. Plenty of fuel to hop over to New Zealand then the Australian outback. This is if your a outdoors explorer type of guy. The Bonanza hands down.
The title says V35B. The A36 is awesome, but certainly more $$$.
I fly my Bonanza regularly at 10.5 gph and have a 104 gallon fuel capacity. I can fly for a very long time before having to refuel. Also, the Bonanza is much more comfortable and roomy than a Mooney, regardless of what the specs for the cabin dimensions on the Mooney show. Mooney’s are incredible planes though. If I were a tall skinny guy, I’d have one.
Thanks for the great thoughts and real world report, I appreciate you.
I’ll like to see the comparison with the F33A vs. the V35B.
What’s the big improvement in the F33A? I’m just not that familiar.
@@MyTimeToFly Straight tail vs. V tail. Fuel at 74 gals 285 hp. Seems more of a straightforward comparison…
Roger that
Bonanza are cool, but Long Body mooneys are far superior. There have been hundreds of bonanza airframe failures, very few on the Mooney. Maybe 175 knot cruise on Vtail. 225 knots all day long at FL250 on the Mooney.
Solid perspective!
You didn't seem to cover "overall interior size". The Mooney I believe is narrow compared to the bonanza?
The numbers say the Mooney is as wide as the BO, but that is at the shoulders. The Mooney gets narrower at eye level.
Would go with comfort/space. The Bonanza has more room for cross county trips, and more baggage space.
Fair enough!
Always remember every mooney after the J was a product of every manufactures engineers going to mooney. The guy that desigbed the bonanza designed the metal wing for the mooney. Starting with the B model.
Are you saying that's a good thing, or a bad thing?
@@MyTimeToFly when you really sit down and look at it. As a design the Mooney is what was learned by the mistakes of others. The A model bonanzas had wings popping off. Said engineer wanted to build different wing. Got told no. Cruised on down to Texas and built the industries strongest wing and nobody can argue that. Things like that made Mooney better. I hate working Bonanzas. Easier to work on a Mooney. But hey after 18 years of wrenching on them and flying them since 2017 and having flown bonanzas also I'll take my J or fly my friends G all over the country
Roger that, I appreciate the added context! You’ll never convince a BO owner that the Mooney is worth anything, and probably the other way around too!
@@MyTimeToFly really biggest sotuation in buying either is budget and mission to do
Funny how you got a picture of my 1955 F35 in your pictures, most have sniped it off of facebook.
A couple years ago, when I first started my channel I asked for photos in many Facebook groups including a bonanza group, I have to imagine it came from there.
@@MyTimeToFly I am sure that is where it came from.
not sure where the 44gals come from... but IIRC it's 74 gals on the Beech of that year
It came from the Bonanza Society website, but it seems 44 gallons was phased out before the paperwork was updated. Learn something new everyday!
I dont get why so many people smooth-brain their way through stats instead if comparing apples to apples... adjust the Moone's cruse to match that if the Bonanza and fuel burn will be practically identical, if not better (turbo pistons are mor efficient) and dont max out your fuel on the Mooney and you can exceed that of the Bonanza...
I'm not quite sure what "smooth-brain" means, but I like your approach of equalizing the speed and comparing fuel burns. That is of course if fuel burn is your most important metric.
Which is the best two seater, with yoke control, and economical airplane for a student pilot?
It's hard to argue against the Cessna 150, as long as you're on the lighter side.
You are completely worng on added fuel to Bonanza - with the D'Shannon tip tanks, you add 30 Gal. My K model has 63 usable in the mains and aux tanks, yielding 93 usable gal. But more important:
The STC for the tips adds that much weight to the gross carrying capacity! So about 300 lbs total (have to look it up). so you don't lose useful load, and if you do not use the tip tanks, you get an increase!
And one more thing - comparing a turbo vs non-turbo is sort of meaningless. Of course the turbo can go higher, and consequently faster TAS.
Appreciate you man.
Well depending on the version you might get a little more performance from the Mooney. In every other regard that Bo is just in a class of her own.
Roger that. I need to get my butt in a BO to see how great they are.
@@MyTimeToFly we just got back from KOSH, we averaged a ground speed of 210 knots at 11500. In a stock S35. They really are special.
Very cool, glad you had a good trip.
I keep reading that the parts for the Bonanza's are a lot more expensive than Mooney parts. Can anyone confirm this?
I hope you get an answer from somebody with more experience buying parts than me...sorry I can't help better.
We bought an S35, go Beechcraft!
Very cool, I'm sure it's treating you well!
If you're going to post specs get them right, the bonanza has 74 gallons usable not 44. If you compare at 10K ft you're more like 185K vs 170K. Get a turbo normalizer for the bonanza and do a comparison you'll find 215K vs 217K. Also if you do run either in the flight levels at anywhere near max cruise expect 1000 TBO or less.
I appreciate your thoughts, I thought I grabbed data from a reputable source...but got it a bit wrong.
why not compare a turbo Bonanza to the bravo? isn't that a better comparison? I love the bonanza but i also like the Mooney two. This is a hard one.
I searched for a turbo bonanza in the same price range, it just doesn’t exist right now. At the end of the day, I wanted the comparison to be between two airplanes priced the same, not two airplanes with the closest capability.
I would compare this Bonanza to the Mooney 201 (M20J) and still pick the Mooney.
Mooney its a no brainer! A&P
Right on!
Usually the V35 has 74 gallon fuel tanks?
Long range fuel tanks became standard in 1980, they were an option before that.
Plane to plane for the money. Mooney beats. I have had a Beech for many years. The Mooneys 360 motor is cheaper to maintain. Fuel is huge and isn't going away. 200hP versions can be had for much less and are nearly as fast as the 470 motor. The Beech isn't that much wider. Today speed and economy is king. I love Bonanza. King of the ramp. I want to fly not worry about $8 fuel and 12 gph. The 360 is 9. Huge.
Thanks for the thoughts Terry, this specific Mooney does have a 540 inch engine, but I agree...the 360 is a great platform.
How about DA-40 180 vs Bonanza A36 or F33?
I'll consider it!
Just get one of each!
Seems like the best option!
I personally will like the Mooney with Normal aspirated engine, no turbo
Keep it simple?
I really don't understand comparing paint/interior and avionics at all......you can get either plane and update either to what you want and it makes no difference on the performance of either plane......just fast forward to 7:40 and pause the video, that's pretty much all you need to make your decision. although you really couldn't go wrong with either one. both pretty badass in their own way. either choice would be awesome, as long as you chose the mooney :)
Hahaha, nice on the Mooney comment. I put paint /avionics in the comparison simply because they can be very expensive upgrades, and seems to be very important to many pilots.
The magnesium V tail Bonanza is know to corrode, and they no longer make these tail skins. I would require to open up these in a pre purchase inspection. I doubt many sellers would allow this since if they are “toast” the airplane is useless. This should have been talked about in this video, Beechcraft does NOT make this parts. I believe that would be the biggest game changer in anyone’s opinion. And if you only fill the Mooney tanks to the Bonanza’s capacity you WILL have a much larger useful load (comparing apples to apples). By all means, buy the Mooney.
Thanks for the details on the tail skin. I sure hope somebody finds a solution for this problem, there are too many v-tails out there to let this issue ground them all eventually.
1970 vs 1990 for the same money. There’s your answer right there!
That does make some sense.
V-Tail is the one to pick
Roger that!
Mooney all day for me!!
Amen to that
I pick the M20M Mooney
I own a Mooney, but not this model. I have not had the chance to get in a BO just yet.
Nice comparison of two popular light planes. I've flown both and like them. It's a matter of personal preference and practicality. I prefer the Bonanza, V tail or straight, because it offers more room in the cabin. I find the performance more than adequate of the Bonanzas and they handle well in the air. For Mooney flyers, you can't beat the speed. 🙂
Very well said!
I would need to go with the Bonanza on this one. It's an all around nicer aircraft!! The one major downfall for the Bonanza is it's lack of fuel capacity and cross country distance.
Agreed regarding the fuel capacity. I’m not sure what it takes to increase the capacity, but I’d definitely make that happen.
I'll wager that not a single V35B left the factory with 50 gal tanks. All of them got the 80 gal tanks, with 74 gal useable. For a range of 1100 miles and a useful load of 1,248 lbs.
I did hear that, but my reading on the Bonanza Society website pointed me in a different direction. My bad.
I recuse myself!!! I own a M20K 252 lol
I don't blame you, thanks for identifying the conflict of interest!
BOTH 😉
Hard to argue with that!
I would not buy a V-tail ever, so not even, a comparison between a Mooney and a V well it is not one at all. Now the T-tail would be a hard comparison.
Roger that. I would just be scared of the inability to replace the V-tail skins.
Mooney. No question.
Nice!
Bonanza!
Thanks for your vote!
I believe both are great platforms, the bonanza has a bad rap based on the dr killer however, that is based on data which shows people who flew and had an accident did not have training
Agreed, you can’t take the name “dr. Killer” at face value. Mooney has a bad rap for small cabins, which is also quite untrue IMO.
I own a 94" Bravo, a truely wonderful airplane. As the author stated the reason for the mismatch Turbo vs NA was to keep price involved. I've owned mine for 5 yrs, before that another turbo Mooney, prior to that a NA Mooney. Basically, if you fly high, or long distance, buy a turbo, if not stick to a normally aspirated. The maintenance on a turbo is appreciably higher. I like to fly FAST.
Roger that, thanks for sharing your real world experience. Keep the speed up!
Soft short field go with the bonanza
Agreed! Off field too!
good work...however there is much more to this compare and plus various models of each. comparing turbo and non-turbo is not a fair comparison. also maintenance and cost A&P/IA is Major if not the top consideration. which you don't have with experimental. for example Vans RV10....which is in same class of planes. i would have compared the turbo normalized A36 beech..which does go to 2000TBO or more because of the design. typical of turbo it will not make it to TBO unless you put intercooler. but you will most likely be replacing a cylinder or 2 before 2000 anyway. which is danger in itself. there is much, much, much more you missed in this video. for example a a turbo arrow with 20hp upgrade and intercooler will fly higher and faster without the rebuild cost of IO540 engine which is 60-80k.etc. etc etc... Anyway this video is a good start. science of engines, weight, altitude, etc.... are complex topics.
Is there any fair comparison, really? I compared mostly based on price, perhaps a different approach was warranted!
I bought the Mooney.
Right on, you'll be hooked now!
I still think the Mooney is a better plane in every way.
Roger that
Mooney all the way!
Amen
v-35. no doubts.
Right on, I appreciate your vote!
Bonanza has 74 gallons in this model.
Will somebody please tell the Bonanza Society to update their information?
No V35B never left the factory with 50 gal of fuel.They all had 80 gal in the wings.I have owned Mooneys and Bonanzas.The Bonanza is much easier to work on and doesn't have fuel leaks like the wet wing Mooney does.You are not comparing apples to apples.You went with price instead of model year.The Bonanza F-33A or A-36 are better in every way that really matters.The reason most people buy the Mooney is because its less expensive then the Bonanza
I appreciate that feedback Bob!
Hardly a fair comparison. The Mooney is over two decades newer! You should reconsider your benchmark for choosing planes to compare. These two planes are generations apart.
Perhaps in the future I won't use cost as a benchmark. What do you recommend?
@@MyTimeToFly The issue here is you tried to compare planes that are a generation apart. It’s like comparing a 2024 Tesla to a 2004 Ford Escape. The comparison has little value if you’re not comparing similar products.
@@MyTimeToFly Maybe compare a new Mooney to new Bonanza. Let price be one of the variables in the comparison.
That’s why I’m asking what criteria you would use, I understand your point.
Would you only compare airplanes from the same model year?
It’s not like the tech in airplanes has changed as fast as tech in cars.
But who can afford new airplanes? My point was to compare airplanes that might actually be purchasable by a “normal” person.
Apples to Peaches comparison. If you’re going to compare airplanes you don’t compare normally aspirated with turbocharged because the operating parameters are totally different. You had to choose a turbocharged Mooney to make the HP comparison as the NA version has 85 HP less than the Bonanza. The turbo has virtually no value below 6000 feet and except for takeoff/climb limited improvement in speed until above 12000. For a trip length under about 300 miles the turbo offers no advantage and it adds complexity and expense to the maintenance and operation of the airplane. As others have noted there are for all intents and purposes no Bonanzas later than 1960 with less than 74 gallons of usable fuel so your comparison of range and useful load are wrong. Compare a turbonormalized Bonanza to your Mooney and you’ll find all the advantages of the Bo, better interior room, more useful load, better short/soft field capability still exist and the difference in speed is insignificant. My 1965 V35 with a NA IO520BB has 74 gallons usable, 1400 lbs useful and will go cross country at 170k on about 14 gph, or less. Now run the numbers on a NA Mooney of similar condition and equipment. The Bo still comes out on top and as you pointed out, although expensive, parts are still available NEW for the Bo and there were thousands more Bonanzas built so it stands to reason many more used parts, not to mention all the STC’s mods available for a Bo. By the by some were leaning toward the Mooney because it was “newer”. Doesn’t it say something about the two airplanes when the Mooney, over 20 years “newer”, is priced similarly to the Bo? And 4000 hours isn’t a high time airframe for either of them.
I appreciate your comments, as you can tell I was simply trying to compare airplanes of similar value. I apologize for the fuel details that were incorrect, I should have dug deeper.
I am a Mooniac till death... 😁
I appreciate that. Although I love my Mooney, I do stay open to other options!
@@MyTimeToFly Agreed!
HAHAHA ... looks like you rattled the cage of serious Bo fanboys. For $200K - HANDS DOWN, the Mooney wins this comparison without a doubt. Maybe the fanboys can find some equally equipped Bo's they would like you to compare against the decently equipped, turbo Mooney. I guess they are comfortable spending an additional $150K to get the same performance of the Mooney.
By the way - keep the videos coming, even though you never claimed to be an expert, you have solid reasoning for YOUR comparisons and, well it IS your channel and YOUR opinion I come here for.
Thanks again Russel. I’ll say I was shocked by the response from a few folks…nothing I can’t put up with though. I do appreciate peoples passion, whether or not they take their disagreement out on me. I’m on a little work / business trip for a couple of days, then I’ll be back at the videos!
Mooney rules... 4ever
One phrase: fuel price. Sell ya Nanza and buyvyerself a Mooney ... efficiency age guys.
Nice! Hard to argue!
@@MyTimeToFly Thanks, man!
Sorry. No valid comparison between the venerable Bonanza and a cheap old Mooney
Your opinion is certainly shared among many.
Mooney guys will tell you they would buy the Mooney, Bonanza guys will tell you they would buy the Bonanza....I could have told you that without making a video. I have four Mooney owners in my neighborhood and me with a J35 Bo....I'm outnumbered hands down. I'm not in the 200,000.00 toy category so I compared aircraft in the sub 100K bracket. I tried to sit in a Mooney (at 6'1" 200lbs) when I was shopping and I was done....my head and shoulders were pressed against the roof and the window, my wife didn't even try to get in, she's 5'7". It could have gone 300 kts for 10 hours and that wouldn't have made any difference. I was uncomfortable before the engine even started. My 58 Bonanza gives me room to stretch, does 175 kts at 10.5 gph and is downright sexy.... I paid 55K for it. It's the smaller sportscar model of the V-tails, It climbs like a bat out of hell. I'm at cruise altitude before any of my friend's Mooneys are half way through the climb, and when I need it to come down and slow down all I do is ask it to....no speed brakes needed, drop the gear at almost any speed and with the bungee linked flight controls it is so easy to fly its almost a crime....As far as cost of ownership, I have a Ducati motorcycle that's more expensive to maintain. Like I said Bonanza guys love their airplanes!
I’ve come to learn that and appreciate it. I hope to find myself in a Bo someday to see how I like it.
Come and take turn at the controls on mine any time!....we can do a joint TH-cam video....hahaha
Sounds like a bunch of fun!
@Galileo7of9 Well the short answer is 25 years of flying both the V35B and the J35. The specs show what I"m talking about as well. My J35 has less wingspan and length, weighs 500lbs less!, cruises faster (than normally aspirated V35), climbs 1000 fpm faster, flies 3400 feet higher, takes off 75 feet sooner, lands 50 feet quicker, and will let you whip it around a whole lot more than the bigger models. Not to mention it's very forgiving about it when you do. Of course you may have a different opinion.
My Time, make mine a Bonanza. I've flown in Mooneys, Bonanzas, Cessnas, Pipers...the comfort and solid feel of a Beech is surpassed only by its performance. Even a 1968 V35A, IO-520, cruises at 177 kts indicated at 10,500 (10-12°C) while slowly draining 13.5 gals/hr. LOP for the 520 isn't an issue, it actually extends the life of the engine. A TSIO-520 equipped V35B would've been an appropriate comparison. I understand your constraints: on the market. However, you're making the decision for us with your comparison. The market supports a price on a "lesser" aircraft compared to a "better equipped 'cause we couldn't find a cheaper priced Bo' "? Yes. That translates to, "For the same $200k, the market supports the sale of non-turbo'd Bonanzas over turbo'd Mooneys." People have already voted with their wallets and thus you have this price point. You're asking, but the market has already determined the answer. In order for the cramped (questionable manufacturing future, maintenance detracted, 4 seater) Mooney to demand an equivalent price...it has to be turbocharged and 20 years newer.🫤
Thanks for the comparison. I'm not hung-up on some of the details, as you've already identified the erroneous info on the ABS site. I couldn't replace my Beech for 220k right now! That's the other edge of the "value" sword.
If I had it to do all over again:
Yes, make mine a Beech Bonanza.
Thank you for the great thoughts Carlos! I agree, the Bonanza wins out here. I NEED to get by my butt in one someday soon!
Numbers are way off, most are 40 gallons a side,
So I'm told. However that wasn't the published info on Bonanza Society!
BONANZA
Right on Don