Beechcraft Bonanza G36 or Mooney Ovation 2GX ??


#1

Hi i planning to buy a new aircraft …
Beechcraft Bonanza G36 or Mooney Ovation 2GX any Comments and suggestions ??
What about Cirrus SR22 ??
I prefered Safety and Quality over speed…
Other Suggestions ???
Thanks ! :smiley:


#2

They are different planes. The Mooney aircraft are plane :laughing: speed, range and economy. The beech are more comfortable, better built and more luxurious. The Mooney will be cheaper to own.

I pick the Beech however because of its financial future. I wouldn’t feel safe owning a Mooney.

You can also look at a Cirrus or Columbia which are a great balance of speed, range, comfort, and cost. Especially look at the new G3’s which are stone throws away from the G2’s in terms of fit and finish.


#3

I find there’s quite a difference in your choices… What do you plan to do with your new plane?

Have you looked at Columbia’s (now Cessna’s) 350 and 400 models ?

Give us some more info :smiley: !


#4

I like the FIKI on the Mooney, but I don’t think they’re as flexible in missions as the Bo. However, if you need the speed or the known ice, then definitely go Mooney.

Mike


#5

I don’t like cessnas… there are really ugly and the quality is bad…
The columbia aircraft. and the cirrus are small.
I’m a private pilot and i need my plane just as a hobby…
:wink:


#6

Actually the cirrus is much worse finished than the cessna columbia. Also you have more space in the cirrus, it’s not the smallest.

I found the headroom in the Bonanza small, the Mooney fits the bill if you wan’t a serious IFR tourer, the Mooney has connecting rods and the bonanza cables, i love the rods, the feeling never changes. Not many planes will beat the Mooney fuel economy especially not the Bonanza. If you need to carry 4 people alot you must go for the Bo, i find the Mooney safer than the Bonanza due to the continuess wing spar and the roll cage. True about Mooney’s financial situation buy one that’s on the tarmac if you’re scared for that. They will stop production of the 2GX soon. I don’t know were you live but in my region FIKI is a must.


#7

Well here is my take on it. Aircraft ownership is very personal. If youre lucky enough to own any bird and pilot it your self, its an emotion you can only share with some one that has. We love to fly! No matter your age you never stop looking up when you hear engine noise overhead.

Credentials, Im a retired commuter pilot dog typed in Saab 340. Commercial since 1989. Before that, over 2000 hrs of instruction given. Now. its just about fun flying on sunny days. In 03 I purchased a new Cirrus SR22, its a good plane. I was thrilled with Avidyne system. It gave more information than most regional turbo props. It had good payload and 180kts at 8000 ft on about 18gph best power… I paid around 380 delivered. Loaded to the gills. Every option Except… No air-condition… I wont do that again in Florida . I guess they are around 550 now. It suffered some minor damage in one of the Florida Hurricanes. Had it fixed and now wanted air-condition and more speed.
Being used to faster airplanes I got caught up in the Idea of the New Mooney Acclaim so I traded the cirrus in. Got the Mooney (with Air A/C No TKS) and Wow what a speedster and really fun to fly. Its stable and the speed brakes are great for coming out of high altitude. The fit and finish was very good. I took delivery at the factory and got to see and meet some of the craftsmen. The plane is solid.
Now here is the bummer. My full fuel (102gal) payload was 265lbs. I weigh 195lb. my daughter is 11 she weighs 100. Can we say reduced fuel! Load. 3 good size adults and about 40 gal of fuel and a bag or two. Keeps you in the legitimate w/b numbers. the plane burns around 21gph at best power. You can lean to do a little better fuel burn but you loose the warp speed that you buy the plane for. Which is around 220 in the mid to teens. Faster higher!.. The landing Wt is 200lbs lighter than the T/O Wt. So if you reduce the fuel to a minimum Say 35 gal to carry some heavy people at Max gross T/O wt. You need to fly for an hour and land on fumes to be within the lower Approved landing Wt. Bottom line it is not a family airplane. Its an awesome shrunken P-51 thats great for business or 2 adults. So I already sold it.
The Mooney is Fun to fly on the G1000 with an incredible GFC700 autopilot.
Now I have owned both Avidyne and Garmin. And in My Own opinion… I would never go back to the Avidyne.(thats another editorial altogether) In fact I wont look at the Piper matrix because they went with the Avidyne. So last week I test flew a New Bonanza G36. It is beautiful lots of room great payload, good speed around 170kts at 6000ft. And if you put the Tornado Alley Turbo and Oxy system in it (around 59K) you can cruz around 188-190kts at 12500 on 17.5gph AND you get a 350lb MGTO increase from 3650 to 4000lb… Now your carrying people. 5 full adults in comfort
So it looks like I will pursue the G36
But like is said its all trade off and personal. If you have a clear mission for your aircraft the decision is easy. If you mission is leisure and fly as you please then it becomes cloudy because its up to you, what you want to do with the airplane and what you can afford. With the Mooney, to take you and 3 other adults on a trip (say 195lb 190lb 140lb 130lb no bags) with any kind of range is difficult at best aprox around 37gal of fuel. You do the math
Best of luck & fly the Numbers
Eagleav8r


#8

A retired commuter pilot who can afford a Mooney or a Bonanza?!? Dude, did you do lots of “commuting” at night to Columbia?


#9

That was funny… but i didnt mention the planes were part of another corp that I fly for hence Not retired from work just the commuters. And your right about No pay at the regionals!,…We need to do somthing about that.

So the bank used to own the airplanes… it was fun… then the stock market dumped. Mortgage mess and the rest…No Cash and by by airplanes…

so Im getting a hang glider. Not much pay load but great on fuel… @ 100+ per barrel the price of avgas will soon be scary

but if I could afford it I would go for the Bonanza for all around mission

Ciao


#10

Can’t offer an opinion on either as I have never been in either of them. Don’t let my avatar fool you…the only plane I’ve even had the controls of is the Pilatus PC12.


#11

A lot depends on what you want. All are excellent aircraft. I briefly looked at the Mooney but my wife killed that idea. She hates planes with only one door and found the seating cramped. She hated ingress and egress on the Mooney. I found Mooney fit and finish very good and we have numerous friends who lover their Mooneys. The Bonanza will win on room and passenger comfort. I do find that club seating tends to separate the pilot form the passengers i.e. the pilot is more like the hired help. I suspect you will love Bonanza fit and finish. For me, price ruled out a Bonanza. Columbia is a great plane. The new seats are very comfortable. The G1000 cockpiut has to be the best looking one in all of GA. I have two friends who found that the interior had issues i.e. switches falling out etc. although others have had very positive experiences. I think that in a year Cessna will have these issues under control and my concern over the company is gone now that Cessna owns the line. What I wound up with is a 2006 Cirrus. My wife loves the comfort and the parachute. Ingress and egress are the best of the planes mentioned. Fit and finish have improved each year and the G3 now competes with the others in the fit and finish issue. The G2 that I own is a big improvement over the original but not as good as the G3. I like having fixed gear, the owner’s group (COPA) is excellent, and visibility is the best of the planes mentioned (Columbia second). I cruise about 180 on 18.5 GPH at 8K ROP and 174 on 14.8GPH at 8K LOP. Full burn drops to about 11 GPH up high (15K) with spped in the high 160 range. Available load with full tanks, full TKS, and full O2 (have 77cf tank) is a little over 500lbs. On the 2002 I used to fly through Airshares it was over 600 lbs but the plane lacked built in O2, TKS, XM, airbags, PFD and wasn’t a G2 airframe.

Are you locked into buying new? A 2004 SR22 can be had at an excellent price (<$280K) and there is a heck of a buy on controller with a 2006 SR22 listed at $344K (<300 hours).

I agree with what the others have posted. I do think that you buy new only if money doesn’t matter that much. There is a lot of deprecistion in the first couple of years. Again, all are excellent planes so personal mission and emotion have a lot to do with it.

Paul


#12

full TKS,

Nice message peppy, but we all know that the TKS on the cirrus is a joke. Your feet will be picking up ice like hell…you know when icing happens you get into a stall/spin because the cirrus wing design and you know what you need to get out of a spin in a cirrus… unlucky you the parachute doesn’t work anymore with ice on it (see NTSB)…

For the rest i agree with your comments, just needed to straight out the TKS Cirrus thing…


#13

I think everyone knows that the TKS on the Cirrus is strictly a “get my ass out now” system. I’ve had my Cirrus in ice, and the TKS buys you that extra 5-10 minutes to make the right choice. After that, you’re no better.

Having the gear hanging down and picking up ice has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of the plane; it only adds weight near the middle of the C/G. Anyone who flies a single engine airplane around in the ice, whether FIKI certified or not, is living on borrowed time. You may be legal, but you better have short term options.


#14

The full TKS comment referred to weight & ballance taking TKS fluid weight into account. As Cirrus has added features to the plane it has gotten heavier. Useful load has suffered. As for the wing, it doesn’t like ice and the plane is not certified for known ice. However, the spin issue isn’t one. That’s a long topic that would need to cover everything from the European spin testing for certification all the way to data on how many times spin recovery at high altitude is an issue. Spin recovery in the pattern is a non-issue since it can’t be done by most pilots no matter what the aircraft. The SR22 is VERY spin resistant. As a point of interest note that airliners aren’t spin tested. Much like a second engine, there are pros and cons (wieght and cost) to CAPS. I consider it a nice safety feature like many others and neither a negative nor the be all and end all of aviation safety.

Paul


#15

Last weekend i get my first fly exp. in cirrus (sr22)

I just check this airplane for test…

I just get this:

" When I began researching the SR22, I was extremely surprised that in the short lifespan of the Cirrus planes, they have already been involved in 26 fatal accidents (with 52 deaths). That number still runs chills through my body. To put things in perspective, there are only about 3,400 Cirrus planes ever made. With 26 fatal accidents, that means 1 in approximately every 130 Cirrus planes have crashed killing at least 1 person on board. Thats a sobering statistic. 1 in 130. "

The crash rates in this planes is scary… and the CAPS …
Just check :

sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/ge … rrus-sr22/

:confused:

CIRRUS = IS A CHEAP AIRPLANE… EVEN WITH THE “PARACHUTE”

IN SECURITY AND QUALITY … MY FIST OPTION NOW IS
NEW BEECHCRAFT G36


#16

In terms of interior fit and finish I would expect you to find the G36 superior although the SR22 G3 is close. Older Cirrus aircraft, particularly the original G1 have a more plastic feel.

There has never been an airframe failure on a Cirrus. The airframe is exceptionally strong. The Columbia is even stronger and probably the strongest airframe out there of the planes we have been talking about.

The article you quoted from is a good one but you need to read the entire article including where the author, looking deeper into the data, finds that Cirrus aircraft aren’t any more dangerous than others. The Cirrus is a high performance aircraft. The numbers will not look as good as a 172 but will compare well to Bonanza class aircraft. In the past 12 months the NTSB database you listed show 6 A36/G36 fatals and 5 SR22 fatals. That includes the Cirrus fatal where the plane was fueled with Jet-A. This count leaves out the SR20 and planes like the F35. If you look at Flightaware to see all planes flying in the system at a given time it is enlightening. While it doesn’t show VFR flights it is a good indication of planes being flown on more challenging trips. Faster, more capable planes tend to be flown in worse weather and over greater distances. It is still early in the day so wait till mid-day and check. Currently there are 2 SR22 and 1 BE36 aircraft shown. My point is that aircraft sold is not reliable when looking at statistics for accidents. What matters is hours flown. New aircraft are flown more. If you check FLightaware or just listen when you fly you will find a lot of SR22s being flown.

BTW, it you read the book “The Killing Zone” you will see that time in type is a big factor. A myth regarding Cirrus aircraft is that the accidents involve low time pilots. This has not, in general, been true. However, the accidents have involved low time in type pilots. That was true when the Bonanza came out and has been true of other aircraft as well. Interestingly, accident rates are much higher for aircraft that have been purchased new from the manufacturer in the last few years.
The G36 is an excellent aircraft and it sounds like that is what you should go for. I dont think you will be disappointed. However, as a Cirrus pilot I am frustrated at the inaccurate data being pushed regarding Cirrus aircraft. I guess I know how some of the Bonanza people have felt.

Paul


#17

In terms of interior fit and finish I would expect you to find the G36 superior although the SR22 G3 is close. Older Cirrus aircraft, particularly the original G1 have a more plastic feel.

There has never been an airframe failure on a Cirrus. The airframe is exceptionally strong. The Columbia is even stronger and probably the strongest airframe out there of the planes we have been talking about.

You must be joking right ? The Cirrus plane is togheter with the Diamond the worst build planes on the market. Comparing that to the high quality build of a Beechcraft is a laugh.

Airframe failure on a Cirrus ? They lost their chief-test pilot and he was killed during test flight of a Cirrus that came apart.


#18

As for fit and finish, I suggest that people look at the planes and make up their own minds. The new G3 is vastly improved just like the G2 is better than the G1. Still, as I have stated before, I give the Bonanza the edge in fit and finish.

I stand by my statement on the airframe. The accident you mentioned was a binding of a control surface. That is different from an airframe failure and led to a design change which is why there are test flights.

Paul


#19

Paul, i suggest the next you go to your cirrus you take a close look on how the connection is made with your flaps and compare that to a mooney or beechcraft… you will understand more what the problem with cirrus is…


#20

In terms of flap attachment design I happen to like the Columbia hardware the best. However, the only accident on a production plane related to the flaps was a non-fatal due to improper attachment after maintenance work. So, while I have a preference based on elegance of design, there is no data supporting your contention that there is a problem.

[edit] Actually, the above was an issue on the ailerons. Flap issues have generally been with the flap relays and that seems to have died down from several years ago.

Paul