Socata TB20/21 vs. Mooney 201J/252 vs. Beechcraft Bonanza V35

[skynewbie]

I am looking to buy a high performance used aircraft after completing my private pilot license and complex/high performance ratings to use for instrument and commercial training. The three models are in consideration:

Beechcraft Bonanza V35 (V-tail)
Socata TB20/21
Mooney 201J/252

Which is the best overall plane which has the highest fun factor and lowest cost for maintenance and insurance as well as best reliability. Mission profile is 2-3 passengers including me and the ability to fly high, fast and far on fuel economy.

[Tinstaafl]

You really need to better define what you need to be able to do ie max pax + bags that must be able to be carried and over what distance and into what type of airfield, and then what you would like as icing on the cake.

Then do a spreadsheet of pros & cons for all 5 types you mention. TB20 & 21 are different w.r.t. engine turbocharing & cruise speed, Mooney 201 & 252 are similarly different.

Have you also considered some of Cessna's & Piper's single engine retractables too eg C210, C182RG, PA32R (Lance & Saratoga) and, considering that you have included a V-tail Bo, a Piper PA24 Comanche?

It may well be that a 6 seater like a C210 will better manage the range you need for the pax load, compared to a 4 seater. Having said that, a C182 has a pretty good payload/range combination.

[172driver]

The OP says 'for training', so I assume (always a dangerous thing, I know), that this a/c will then be sold on or leased to an FTO. If this is correct, then I'd say 'none of the above', as none of them are commonly used for training. I'd go with a C182RG or even a C172RG which is frequently used for commercial/instrument training. If there is an element of private flying, then again the 182RG or, of course, the 210, both of which are great a/c for personal transportation. Another option could be a Piper Lance.

[Tinstaafl]

Not just for training. He also wants the ability to take 2-3 pax & fly high, far & fast with good fuel economy.

[172driver]

Point taken (note to self - need to read whole posts before replying), but I'll stick by my Cessna guns regardless, as they tick all the boxes.

[skynewbie]

I agree for a transition and first plane, I can get checked out over a weekend in a Cessna 172RG and the following week in a Cessna 182RG. Then do instrument and commercial in one or move up to a Bonanza or Socata. Mooney look nice and are fast but I like more than one door and it is very small.

[Tinstaafl]

Something that just occured to me: The OP used the terms 'complex' & 'high performance' so I presume the OP is US based (?) & after FAA licences & ratings so whatever aircraft is chosen, it will have to satisfy those requirements. A C172RG doesn't have the HP to meet the High Performance requirement.

[172driver]

No, but for the training bit the 172RG fulfills the 'complex' requirements. Doesn't need to be HP.

[Silvaire1]

I think a (four cylinder) Mooney 201 would overall be the most economical and practical of the three mentioned , but make sure the small cabin suits your two - three occupants. I'm not sure any of the three really check the 'fun factor' box, they are machines made for personal transportation, versus fun... and that is what they do well. Instrument training is a way to get the most out of that capability.

A friend of mine has a wonderful Comanche 180, and loves it. His is more of a beautiful time warp aircraft than a modern instrument trainer, but its carried him far and wide.

I'd get a Bellanca Viking - cheap, fast, super cool and totally impractical for the uncommitted. That's why they're cheap :)

[peterh337]

There is a detailed TB20 writeup here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/), under Misc Articles.

[maxred]

This,

Beech Bums (http://www.beechbums.net/)

will give you all you need to know reference the Bonanza.

[skynewbie]

Appreciate the advice.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best first airplane for a new pilot IMO is the fixed gear Cessna 182. Fast enough to be useful for cross countries, carries a big load, passengers like the roomy cabin and it is the best IFR trainer ever made. They are also easy to maintain and you won't have any trouble getting insurance.

Get a few hundred hours under you belt and you will know what you really want. At that point it will be easy to sell the C 182 as they are always in demand.

Before buying anything I would first talk to an insurance broker. I think you will find insurance on a high performance retractable for a brand new non instrumented rated private pilot expensive and with lots of conditions.

[maxred]

Before buying anything I would first talk to an insurance broker. I think you will find insurance on a high performance retractable for a brand new non instrumented rated private pilot expensive and with lots of conditions.

Excellent point. Nobody can get near my Bonanza, without 250 hours minimum, complex type.

Not that I let anyone else fly it:{

[Tinstaafl]

The aerobatic version of the 33 model Bonanza ticks the box for fun, too. Four seat tourer or kick the rear row out for yippee flights.

[skynewbie]

Is the F33 Bonanza the aerobatic one you're talking about?
No rush to buy as I need to finish my PPL first then get complex/high performance endorsements this summer.

I like the Beechcraft Debonair and Socata TB 20/21 planes.

[Tinstaafl]

The F33C, I think it was. Flew one a couple of times but don't remember all its details.

[dirkdj]

E33C or F33C it would be, very rare and probably not in the OP price range.
Don't rule out an early 70ies A36, lots of room, more practical CG range and big rear doors, much more payload than recent models.

[skynewbie]

Well folks,

Since I need to finish my PPL checkride and more training I am not in a rush. I really like the sleek design of the Socata TB20/21. Mooney and Beechcraft are cool but Mooney very small.

[Tinstaafl]

Not been in a TB20/21 but I have ~500 hours too many in a TB10. Didn't like that aeroplane at all for handling, performance & comfort.

[maehhh]

Not been in a TB20/21 but I have ~500 hours too many in a TB10. Didn't like that aeroplane at all for handling, performance & comfort.

Why is that?

I flew most of my hours in a TB200 and a TB20... while the TB200 is probably a little underpowered the TB20 is one amazing aircraft!

[peterh337]

A TB20 comprehensively outclasses a TB10 in performance, range, and consequent mission capability.

The practical range, taking into account realistic reserves etc, is about double, for example.

The only thing they have in common is the airframe and the general layout, which is very nice. It's a great "passenger friendly" plane, matched only by the SR22 or the DA42, among the mainstream types.

I bought a brand new TB20GT (one of the last ones made) in 2002 and it was a great decision. It's great for decent long trips like this (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/).

[Tinstaafl]

What I didn't like for the TB10. Same fuselage as the TB20 so those items are common. Wrt performance there's no substitute for HP but if the basic airframe is HP hungry then you're still stuck with less performance for what is installed compared to some other airframes.

* Inside door handle positioned in exactly the right place to annoy my knee.

* Seat couldn't go back far enough (I'm 6')

* Poor ventilation. One(!) eyeball vent per person. In summer. In Oz. Can taxi with the door unlatched but awkward & heavy to hold onto.

* Lots of glass - including a fairly heavily raked windscreen - makes the a/c a greenhouse.

* Unpleasant control harmony. Heavy in roll, rather light in yaw. The control column is highly geared because full throw needs to be limited to give room for your knees/thighs.

* Awful vis. over the nose for a flapless landing.

* Glides nearly as well as a brick.

* Uncomfortable seat.

* Lacks headroom. I had to slump a bit. I believe there's a mod. or option for a lower seat. Must do wonders for vis. over the nose...

* Slow for the HP. A bit over 120kts at 75% power on book figures. For a 180 HP engine. A C172RG does more than that on ~65%.

* Not exactly a short field a/c.

* Instrument panel sectioning uses up valuable panel space unnecessarily compared to a large flat expanse. A problem if you want to add more avionics although modern Garmin 430/530 reduce this problem by combining more functions into one unit..

* Trim wheel design is unpleasant after prolonged use.

* We were always having problems with the fuel & RPM gauges, and I seem to recall some issues with the switch breakers too. This was across a brand new fleet of 24.

Can't remember my other gripes with the type. It was over 15 years ago since I last flew one.

[peterh337]

I would not agree with most of the above, and e.g. a C172RG can't be compared with a TB10. Features such as "Lots of glass" makes is a super plane to fly compared to normal "spamcans". Re the seats, I've sat in them for 7hrs a number of times, no issues, but could not spend 7hrs in any chair or any car seat. Short field? TB20 gets off in 350m or so.

[maxred]

Well what Tinstaafl really required, and desired was a Beech Bonanza:cool:

All of those gripes would have been wiped out, and replaced with a very large smile.

Seriously though, that list was like the comparison of the Rockwell Commander 112, and the 114. Different aeroplanes, but with a lot of common features.

The issue with comparison discussions such as these, is that for each person, and their mission profiles, each airframe type, will throw in areas of personal taste and performance measures.Whilst I love my aeroplane, obviously there are other types on the market, that would perform better in certain areas. It is the trade off between all of the factors, useful load, performance, field specific performance, cost, maintenance factors, cost included etc, etc.

Also the look of the thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, allegedly.

[Silvaire1]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, allegedly.There's an ass for every seat ;)

I think the world would be an awfully boring place if everybody wanted to spend their hard earned cash on the same things - I prefer the luxury of enjoying other people's choices without having to make them my own! And I hope likewise that they could enjoy what I like to spend my money on.

The problem with Bonanzas for me, in my brief experience, is the ergonomics. A bolt upright bus driver's seat and neck bent over 15 degrees to clear the roof. They're solid otherwise, but kind of dull. Mooneys are just plain small, but the engineer in me likes them the best - their design says 'speed's what matters, its an aircraft not a Rolls Royce'.

The Rockwells and Socatas are a bit too decadent for me, seemingly shaped to fit over-sized occupants, not shaped by the air, but that's just me.

I like the perverse one that's an antique aircraft disguised to appear modern, built by a few guys in Minnesota, having interior fabric selections so 70s they hurt, but still with the undeniable sense of design by a (long since dead) Italian who made really cool things decades before the others came along... You can sense that just sitting in the 'driver's seat'. I want one someday :)

http://www.craiggifford.com/images/cody.JPG

[maxred]

Silvaire1, that just looks like a modified Bonanza..

[wsmempson]

Bellanca Viking?

[skynewbie]

For me is to finish my PPL then get checked out in all three planes to make an educated decision. I also like the Beechcraft Debonair and V-tail Bonanzas.

[Silvaire1]

That just looks like a modified Bonanza... Its quite an elaborate deception, eh?... :) Especially so given the Viking's tube and rag fuselage and wooden wing. All the disadvantages of a modern aircraft and an antique rolled into one :) That said, Giuseppe and pals had the basic design in production ten years and one world war before the Bonanza showed up. They're just cool...

http://www.antiqueairfield.com/attachment/showu/29409aea-fe6c-11e0-aa44-60fb42fffef0?width=600

How about a Cardinal RG for the OP? Its got a practical four cylinder O-360 like the Mooney, but lots of room. Sexier than a fixed gear mid-70s 182, which would be the most rational choice as BPF says.

[AdamFrisch]

Vikings are fast - and cheap. Looks like good value.

[sccutler]

BSV (as Bellancaphiles call them) is tight quartered, but such a sweet plane to fly once in. It goes where you think it, not where you aim it.

[maxred]

I am liking that Cardinal. That looks terrific:cool:

[skynewbie]

I also like the 177RG for the performance and room and relatively low cost compared to other models like Beechcraft and Mooney. One can be had for under 100k in great condition and cruise all day at 140kts which is decent for the space and load. So for a first plane to build up few hundred hours to get lowered insurance rates before moving up, its a decent first plane. I can get checked out for my complex/high performance endorsements this summer after passing the PPL checkride too :)

[Ellemeet]

Mooney will be cheapest on fuel and are fast but cramped.

Beech is an entirely different machine. Sturdy platform.

TB20 is an interesting airplane.

c182 I personally do not like .. Flown it a few times. It is big but not wide enough for me and landing it is entirely different than landing a c172. and it is slower than all above.

You should look at the SR22 as well. A lot of plane and fast!

I looked at all of them and found I could only fit in the SR22 and the Commander114. I went for the last because it had better reviews than the SR22 .. especially when flying slow. I got it the day after I got my PPL. I had to fly 25 hrs under supervision for the insurance and used that to master hp and complex and the fact that everything simply happens a lot faster. I then went on for IR and now CPL.

Commander 114 is a fantastic plane, very comfortable , very stable platform and reasonably fast. 150ish kts.

[skynewbie]

I don't even think they make Commander aircraft anymore or how to get parts or mechanic to work on one.

[Ellemeet]

true .. but parts are no problem.

fact is that it is the widest cabin and it is an incredible stable if platform.

[Silvaire1]

Whether an aircraft is in current production (or supported by any current company) is not a huge factor for privately owned aircraft on N-register... Aircraft last a very long time, usually outliving their manufacturer. Engines, brakes etc are common to many types and used parts are almost always available. The trickiest parts issue for long out of production types typically seems to be landing gear components, but they don't wear too much.

I've never owned anything that's had parts support within the previous 4 decades.

[skynewbie]

Well the problem is that I'd need to fly a Commander first before deciding on buying one or not. Few are available for rent here in northern California.

[oparguten]

I own a Beech twin and have some knowledge about the Bonanza. It's an amazing airplane but can be a little demanding at first, and not very forgiving.

It picks up speed very fast if you point the nose just a little down and if you bank (lets say in IMC) it just continuous to do so and maybe add a little bank by itself.

Having said that, I have several friends that got their IR and CPL in a Bo.

Personally, I would go with the 201. It's a lot of airplane for the money and no one comes close to the speed on the same amount of fuel. If you have the coin, go with the Bo. Just be sure you get one that have been maintained properly. If not you'll be in for some serious spending and down time. The best source for info on the Bo is beechtalk.com.

[Ellemeet]

Go to

Welcome to the Commander Owners Group (http://Www.commander.org)

Post that you are interested in taking a close look
They will sort you out.

[Jabawocky]

Easy choice.

Like the Johnie Walker ads years ago....the plane you would rather fly or the plane you would rather buy.

Which leads me to one of the best bits of advice I have heard. Buy your last plane first!

Therefore the answer is a V35. The V35B is the pick of them. Now onto all the variations, the IO520 is nice, and IO550 is better. A TAT TN IO550 is the ultimate, and add tip tanks for range payload etc, and what a machine :ok:

The F33A is simply a Vtail with an extra feather ;)

If you want more economy, and les speed and payload, the Mooney is hard to beat.

All depends on what you find that fits your mission now and in the future. No matter which you buy, it will cost you way more than whatever you think it is going to!

Enjoy.

[Saratogapp]

Yep- don't discount the Mooney because you think it may be cramped. It's only slightly squeezier inside, but the speed and the fuel burn easily make up for it. They do like a bit of runway though, particularly at altitude during our very hot summers here in Australia.

[skynewbie]

Lot of short runways here in California and the west mountain strips. I need something than can land in short airfields like KPAO. Looking at Beechcraft V35B-TC for plane at this point.

[Sillert,V.I.]

I need something than can land in short airfields like KPAO.

I'm somewhat bemused that 745m of asphalt is considered a short airfield for an SEP. I learned to fly off less than that & regularly saw BE90's operating from 735m.

[dirkdj]

I would start with a normally aspirated F33A, V35B, or A36. As you gain more experience you can add TurboNormalizer to make it really sing. The TN installation is more performance and less maintenance than the factory TC.

There is quite a difference in W&B range between the short and long-fuselage Bonanzas. I still fly the A36, A36TN, and have flown the V35B. You get very good information on Beechtalk as you have noticed.

[AN2 Driver]

Lot of short runways here in California and the west mountain strips. I need something than can land in short airfields like KPAO. Looking at Beechcraft V35B-TC for plane at this point.

If you consider 745 m hard cover runway "short" then something is seriously wrong with your training!!

I operate a Mooney M20C out of 500m grass without any problem whatsoever, actually it was based there for 30 years. We have many strips nearby which are around 500m both grass and asphalt and most normal Singles are perfectly ok on those.

Plus, you seem to think that a huge engine with turbocharger is the answer to short strips... well, it may be if you are talking high density altitudes, but I'd be much more concerned with landing distance than take off. Looking at the tanke off distance tables, I consult them if a TODA is less than 500m because at high temps it may approach 400 m... LDA is another story. I personally am much more concerned about stopping on short fields than getting airborne in a Mooney.

Equally, I operated out of Samedan which is a 5600 ft elevation airport with the said airplane, normally aspirated and 180 hp... no problem whatsoever even in high summer with density altitudes of 8000 ft +. Again, as long as you know what you are doing.

And mine is the 180hp version, so a 201 or let alone 231 is a lot more performing.

Before you shell out a lot of money both in terms of maintenance and fuel for a B35TC by all means try a Mooney. It is very hard to beat in terms of economy and performance, also up high.

Check the Mooneyspace forum for information or the Mooney Ambassadors, which are actually based at Oceano airport in California. They may well be able to help.