I have 191 cm, works well
I think the Comanche 260C is a good one to compare directly with a Bonanza. They only made them for three years. Lots of room, good looks with cleaned up cowling, quality construction, huge payload.
I’m not as tall as 1.9 meters but I have long torso and arms. Ergonomics in earlier Bonanzas are not ideal for me, reminding me a bit of a Cessna 195 (which is BTW very comfortable for those in back, and remarkably poor for the pilot). I think what the two have in common is a very early design that works for some people, often those who are compact, and not for some others.
Al Mooney’s designs all seem to have that inclined firewall that positions legs stretched out in front. Even a Culver Cadet has that feature. I’m not uncomfortable in Mooneys but the limited visibility from the cabin isn’t ideal. The Mooney was (to me) a design focused on getting the most traveling utility from a four cylinder Lycoming. Not a bad goal, and a great result, but a different thing to me. More focused, more the product of individual ideas and goals.
A Bellanca Viking reminds me that its creator was Italian, it fits me well despite being absolutely a prewar cockpit design. That makes me smile – it’s like time travel and reflects a design done by one of the early pioneers. Much of the rest of the design is impractical and artisanal (likewise typically Italian)
All of the above is just my observation. I think it’s interesting how different things fit individuals in different ways.
Silvaire. Good summary :-). Still looking secretly at a 252 I think it’s the most efficient aircraft ever made, albeit a two seater for serious work..FL200 190 kts +
Vref wrote:
Still looking secretly at a 252 I think it’s the most efficient aircraft ever madeI would argue it’s the J, unless mountains are in the picture.
A good j (not a clapped out motor) will get you to FL160 no problem, if I am looking at a combination of weather or route that requires FL200 or above then I will go commercial -
Silvaire wrote:
I think the Comanche 260C is a good one to compare directly with a Bonanza. They only made them for three years. Lots of room, good looks with cleaned up cowling, quality construction, huge payload.
And probably about the same speed too. I typically cruise around 168 -169 TAS at FL100 doing 48l’s (12.7 gallons?) in mine.
a_kraut wrote:
How does an older Mooney compares to the Bonanzas? Required Runway length? How long can they fly at 75% with 2 POB 200kg and 40kg luggage? Are there any MOGAS STC?
You can get some information on the Vintage Mooneys here
It depends very much on the model. C, D, E Models have 52 USG tanks normally (even though they can get upgraded to 88 USG). The F Model has 64 USG as has the J which can be upgraded to 100 USG with Monroy tanks. Compared to stock Bonanzas of the same vintage which often have very small tanks (44 USG usable) they in an unmodified condition have considerably less range. However, not many Bonanzas are without the tip or aux tanks, many have a huge range with up to 8-9 hours endurance, which again is similar to a Mooney with Monroy tanks.
a_kraut wrote:
Can you compare legroom, headroom and performance to an older Mooney?
Front seat legroom is about the best I’ve ever seen. I am 1.88 tall but with rather long legs. My C model (Short body) takes care of this easily, also headroom. 1.94 should also be ok. In the back, the short bodies are tight and best for children only. From the F onwards, the back seats are comparable to most others, as I’ve never sat in the back of either a Mooney nor a Bonnie I can’t make the comparison. You’re welcome to try it in mine if you ever come to ZRH. I’d say the headroom in a Bonanza is better though. Cabin width, they are identical or at most 1-2 inches apart. For me, the ergonomics in the Mooneys are better than in the early Bonanzas, I’ve never tried a newer Bonnie. Both have rather weird panels in their old incarnations. Many have been modified.
As for systems, I’d say the Mooneys are easier. Tank switching in some Bonnies can be a challenge, whereas Mooneys (with or without LR tanks) simply know L and R. LR tanks automatically empty into the normal tanks.I understand the landing gear is very nice in the Bonanza, a lot more comfortable than the rubber bisquit Mooney ones, but also more complex. I heard of many Bonanzas which were bellied because people did not manage to do the alternate gear extension to the end, Mooneys have had gear ups because the manual gear was not locked in place properly but hardly ever because of the manual extension in either variant.
Performance wise the Mooneys are as follows: C model 145 – 150 kts, E Model 155 kts, F Model 145 kts, J 160 kts, all at around 8-9 GPH @ 75% power, K 180 kts @ 12 GPH approximately.. Short field, I can only speak for the C Model, which in my view is quite good. Ground run at MTOW is about 400 m with around 600 m to 15 ft, which means that technically you can do an unbalanced take off at MTOW and 21°C from a 500 m runway… we regularly train at Wangen Lachen with lighter loads and never had problems at all. Landing distances are also managable IF speed control is exercised vigorously. Wangen Lachen has a few Mooneys based there including a rare pressurized M22. Under normal conditions, they operate from there just fine. Grass is also ok, at least for the C there is no problem if the grass is halfways decent.
The C model has a range of around 650 NM with 52 USG usable and mine has a total payload of 408 kgs with 266 kgs remaining at full tanks. With Monroy tanks, a C model will have a range of about 1200 NM but will be weight restricted to about 180 kg payload with full tanks.
A J I have on file has a total payload of almost identical 408 kgs but due to the larger tanks (64 USG) has only 230 kgs remaining at full fuel. However, this translates to closer to 900 NM range in combination with the higher speed. With LR tanks, a J model can do 1400 NM but it will also be short on payload with around 170 kg with full tanks.
Reading through my notes, I have figures for a vintage C45 Bonanza which say 145 kts @ 11.2 GPH @ 75% and 44 USG usable, which gives a range of around 400 NM. It would run 140kts @ 10 GPH @ 65% and 130 kt @ 8.4 GPH @ 55% which then would up the range to somewhere closer to 500 NM. I recall that the Bonanzas have quite a bit of unusable fuel in each tank. The one in my file has total payload of 365 kgs with 228 kgs with full tanks. What kind of payloads are available with tip tanks I don’t know by heart, but I recall that installing some aux tanks cause a MTOW increase. Realistically, this is pretty much on par with the M20C even though the Mooney has a better range and slightly higher speed at significantly less fuel flow.
So the requirement of 2 adults @ 75 kgs average plus 40 kgs baggage will work even in a Monroy Mooney just about. I don’t have figures for the Bonnies but I suppose it should be possible in most of them including those which have tips and aux tanks.
As for efficiency, the C and J are pretty much the same MPG, but the J will do it at 160 kts whereas the C at 145. Both will reach 17000 ft even in summer quite easily. That is why the C is the most produced Mooney (added up with the D which almost all have been converted to C’s) followed very closely by the J.
As for the older Bonnies, check out Jan Brill’s Article on his. It is quite informative. I must say it intrigued me a lot about the older Bonnies seeing what a capable airplane his pre-1960 model really is.
I’d think that over all the Mooneys and Bonanzas are both fantastic travellers, each with their strenght and weaknesses. I’d compare the Mooney with a sports car with all the pros and cons that has, whereas the Bonnies are more of a sporty family sedan.
Vref wrote:
Yes in Bonanza you have a close relationship with the control wheel. Headroom don’t think it’s an issue if your smaller the 1m90..
FWiW today I had the chance to experiment with seating in a 1967-built Debonair… A friend bought one a year or so for $35K and has been upgrading it. He’s up to $80K total now but has a new IO-520 engine and a whole lot of other work done. Most importantly for me he just finished putting a new interior in it and wanted me to try it out. Sure, I said, thinking of this thread and my comments above, based on prior experience. 
The conclusion for me, a tall person with long torso was as follows… He has the rudder pedals adjusted full forward, this works a lot better for me than how many are set up. The seats recline and this also helps a lot. However, there still wasn’t enough head room and I would have to reduce he thickness of the seat base foam to make it work well. This is similar to what I’ve done on both my planes with satisfactory results so if I ever decide I want an old Bonanza, it can be made comfortable for me.
BTW, my friends 285 HP Debonair has done 175 kts TAS on flights he’s made in it so far, at around 10,000 feet
My initial assessment of the Bonanza as passenger may come across a bit snobbish (“worn out 60s Cadillac”) in hindsight. I was re-exposed to the same plane today (late V35B).
So, this is really a sturdy roomy fast and comfortable plane and there is even a huge baggage compartment. Due to the ergonomics and plush upholstery, you can’t really enjoy the space.
If I were to own such a plane, first I would put the front seats 20cm further back and the backseats 35cm more backwards for 15 cm more legroom. To do it properly, you have to make a new support for the seat rails going diagonally to the seat post. Second, I would incline the backrest in both rows (if they aren’t already adjustable).
Third I would remove foam from the plushy-undefined seats. Last, I have to calculate W&B with new moments for the crew.
Let’s assume, you find “somebody” with mechanical knowledge to do the changes properly. What is the next step to make this bureaucracy-safe?
In an experimental, that’s easy: you put a new page in your POH and forget to inform the CAA, or you inform the authorities and an amendment for the POH will be included, everything is fine. What is the process in a certified plane like a Bonanza?
I own and operate a 1961 Bonanza N35. It has the Continental IO-470N, generating 260HP @2625. I fitted a three blade Hartzell, upgraded my interior, and have a useful load of 1240lbs. I have the larger tanks giving 66 IMP. No tips.
In June 17 I flew Glasgow to Perranporth Cornwall a distance of 385 miles, direct @ 8000, and the flight, chock to chock was logged at 2 hours 20 minutes. This was flown at 65% 2300/2100. I averaged 167 MPH/146 KTS. My fuel burn was 11.2 US. I use a cruise of 155 kts for planning purposes on longer trips which is what this aeroplane was designed to do. Go places, far, fast and in comfort.
The largest guy I have had in the front seats was 6’4, 26 stone. He said it was very comfortable.
Theoretical numbers are precisely that. The POH is the manufacturers demonstrated ability, but nothing compares to actually flying these machines over a period of time and then knowing and understanding what your craft can do. I kind of kept out of this debate because I am quite biased to the Bonanza, but I have to say it is one of the most effective machines I have ever owned and flown. By effective I mean bang for buck…
