A Mooney M20 pilot collided mid-air on the 45 downwind pattern to Palomar Airport (CRQ) with my CFI, Andreas Pelzer and his Commercial student in a Beechcraft Dutchess in late 2002. I regretfully ceased my Private Pilot training after delivering eulogies at 2 funerals. For the first time since, I recently went up in a beautiful Tiger, overcame my fear and am finishing out my ticket soon. I still miss Andreas terribly, but know he’s smiling down on me again and I’m so grateful to him for imparting his love of flying to me!
Great idea for a video! Another factor that's worth considering is the useful load. A plane might be inexpensive, quick, and economical, but if it can't carry what you need to carry, it just doesn't matter. That's one thing that's great about the 182 -- it's such a hauler.
I used to own a '76 Cessna Hawk XP II. Basically, a 172 with a six cylinder engine and 210hp. It's not a racecar because you're still dragging a Cessna airframe around, but I bought it because of its very predictable characteristics, good climb performance, and great visibility. I was doing T&Gs one day, and the tower controller asked me to identify my aircraft type. Apparently, 172s aren't supposed to be able to climb like that. (I won't tell if you don't.) I've been heavily involved in SAR, where low wing aircraft just aren't the best option. The extra horsepower and polite low speed characteristics were well suited to the work. I miss my XP.
I couldn't Get a C-182 a few times, and used the C-172XP as a close Replacement! Agree- it's a Great Performer as Cessna's Go, less fuel burn than the Continental O-470, and nice Injected Engine, too! Good Prep for the C-182RG!
Wouldn’t be hard to do as popular choices are limited. Here is a stab off the top of my head. roomiest: PA46, PA32 fastest: PA46, A36/210 cheapest: PA32 260 Range: PA46, 210/A36 most rugged: 206 most payload: PA32 Best handling: A36 Lots of variants here (retracts, turbos, pressurized). PA46 is a newer design and typically much more expensive.
Very interesting list. New comers to aviation need videos like that. I would not include but definitively talk about the world of home built aircraft to them. Thank you M. White
When I took my flying lessons, in the late 70's to early 80's, I was traveling for a living, hence longer lesson times and dates. I only flew, Piper aircraft. Cherokee 140, 150, 180 plus the Dakota II. I miss those days.
I think you missed the boat excluding the Socata TB 20. I own a 1989 with IO 540, cruises at 151kt and over 700NM range. Great useful load not to mention trailing link landing gear makes for extremely smooth landings! The TB20 Trinidad sips fuel and is unbelievably comfortable. Great value from purchase and operating cost perspective. Love to take you for a ride in this unbelievably under rated plane.
Totally agree with this assessment, especially #1 and #2, the Viking and Mooney. (Having flown all of these planes and owned a Mooney, 182, Vans RV-9A and currently a Super Viking). Super Viking is a special machine; i am in love.
1964 M20C $39,500 43.5" cabin width 145 KTAS @ 10k' MSL 65% cruise - 8-9 GPH 900 mile range at that cruise setting 950 lb useful load (630 lbs with full fuel and oil) hilariously economical for a type-certificated airplane. I love mine.
One would think that the flight characteristics would be something you'd care about when rating aircraft. There's a reason, for example, that so many choose 172s for flight training. They're really well mannered.
New video idea: same thing but experimental planes. Then do a top 10 on the same categories for certified and experimental. Might put a "certified" factor in your score when comparing.
Tomias Thexder, people always say that, but most buyers private buyers vastly over estimate their needs on payload. Those extra seats just rarely get used at all. Most planes have pristine rear seats. Buyers also fall for the full fuel payload trick which is just laughable unless it’s a rental. Putting smaller tanks on planes and acting like it’s a feature had to be one of the best con jobs in marketing history.
@@nunyabidness3075 Oh so true and accurate on multiple fronts for a wide variety of reasons. [Please also see my Cost of Ownership comments to You elsewhere in this piece.]
I learned to fly in cessnas and I got a chance to fly a mooney . The cockpit seemed so tight almost like a 152. After that it was a dream plane. I'm surprised it's #1 but glad it's a very cool plane.
Spot on list. I'm on my 2nd Mooney, an M20k 231 with the 252 engine conversion; wouldn't own anything else in this category. At 67% power, TAS is 168 kts, burning 11 gph, and with 4 modestly sized grown ups, 3 hours range is no problem (we pack light). With 2 on board, 1,000 nm range. Great list though - love the Cheetah, Cardinal, Comanche, and Debonair for the money too (they just can't match the Mooney's efficiency and durability). Someone will buy Mooney and keep making the parts - there are too many out there for that not to happen.
Informative and pretty well researched. The T182RG I think should make the list before the 177. I agree on the Mooneys. Probably is the best bang for t he buck, but the old Piper Comanche C models. For the difference in price one could fly a lot of hours.
I used technology to unveil the hidden image section of this video and found nothing really interesting whatsoever. It was just a misplaced clip the dude here had mistakenly inserted showing some grey aliens sitting in a room with bigfoot, and the loch ness. Each were just chilling watching their own videos. The grey's were laughing at archived footage of the military standing in the middle of nowhere roswell nm scratching their heads, loch ness was watching shark week on discovery, and bigfoot was watching swedish screaming goat porn imported from an antarctic substation fetish company that specializes in fainting goat comedies. Like I said nothing really intriguing to get worked up about.
My pick would be a '50s Bonanza. They're fairly cheap and seem to offer a lot for the price. Of course, not as fast or decked out as a newer model, but the ramp appeal is unbeatable.
I agree with this list. I don't agree with much either. I own Mooney M20a, Bellanca 260b, Bonanza and wish I had a Comanche 250. Excellent comparison process here.
Also check out the Bellanca Cruisair Senior... under 30k complex, and if you have the larger engine (185 hp Lycoming like the older Bonanzas o435c), TAS is 165 mph (143kts) and it takes off in under 600’. I have a 1947 14-13-2. Great bird!! I just bought a second one to restore with the Franklin engine.
Great video! I am looking to buy my own plane now. Just got my complex endorsement in a Mooney M20C and I loved that plane, it is definitely the sports car of the skies:)
Interesting, but I did my Private, and a good bit of flying after, in a Grumman Tiger. I would plan on 132 knots cruise speed and typically beat that. With the Sensenich prop STC the cruise speed is up around 140 knots.
I really enjoyed the review but want to add my 2 cents. I have a Grumman Tiger, AA5B, All Grumman’s are 1969 and newer. The two seat trainer has a range of about 350 miles but my Tiger has a range of 550 miles. I cruise at 120kts but can go 135kts-140kts. Tigers have a useful load of about 900#. They are very simple, very nimble, and cheap to own.
I thought this comment would be higher up. The numbers put forward in this video for the Grumman don't make any sense at all. It's like they took Yankee numbers AA1 and mixed them up with AA5 numbers. I would think it would hold the #2 spot. I agree that the Mooney should be #1.
Bobby: 1) no Musketeers (Sundowners, Sierras, Supers) ?? 2) $80k-$85 is good for one plane, yet deficient for another ? 3) retracts intermingled with fixed gear planes ?? (Please see #4) 4) Insurance these days is a deal killer [Please watch recent Aviation Consumer Magazine YT channel episode on Insurance]
Fun video. FYI, the Grumman Tiger can't be had in "flyable condition" for $40K... that's not going to happen these days. More like $80k+. Maybe a Traveller at that price?
Those stats weren’t for a Tiger. I am half owner of a 1978 Grumman AA-5 Tiger and she is a total sweetheart to own and operate. 135 knots any day of the week. Total refurb two years ago with strip to bare metal and repaint, new plexiglass and a new interior. PowerFlo exhaust, new radios, ADS-b, GPS, electric aileron trim, LED lights, you name it. She looks like a new airplane.
Makes me wonder why there are millions of Bonanzas/Debonairs at many FBOs, but only a few Comanches, Super Vikings, Cardinals, etc on the same ramp. Four adults and each with a weekend backpack? Comfortable for 4+ hour legs? Able to load two full-sized bicycles in the front door? Grass runway? 160 TAS? Seems like only the Bonanza is a real contender. A Cessna 210 might be close but apparently that airframe was not considered.
I agree, the M 20 Mooney is the clear winner in my mind as well. However, the 2nd Pl., Ballanca it’s not really in the same league in my mind. You did point out that it did have substantial wood construction but you didn’t say anything about It’s mostly a fabric covered airplane not metal! Well today’s fabrics are better than the old cotton days that was used when I was a kid, it’s still not metal.
Agreed.. I own a 77 AA-5B Tiger... max range is 714 nm at 10 GPH with 51 gallons usable cruising at 140 KTAS at 8,500 MSL, 574 nm with a one hour reserve. I can lean her out to cruise burning 8.5 GPH if I have to. Average annual runs me $1,200.. insurance $850 a year. Very affordable, relatively speaking. Payload is 950 lbs.
Fun video but I would be remiss to not correct you on your Grumman Tiger stats. Purchase cost is at least 20K too low, as far as age, they produced them as late as late as 2006. Cruise speed is 135 kts, range is 550 miles with 45 reserve. If you're ever in SoCal, I'm happy to take you up in mine :)
I've never heard a single Cardinal RG pilot, except the one you interviewed, state a cruise speed under 140-145kts. At 130kts his almost had to be giving him fuel back, cant imagine the burn was over 7gph.
Was looking to buy a Mooney. After a lot of research I noticed that EVERY Mooney I looked at had a prop strike at some point in its history (sometimes listed as "sudden engine stoppage") requiring an engine teardown and inspection.
I think it has to do with how unforgiving mooneys are with flare speeds, just land 2 knots faster and you can really mess up. so maybe they had a bouncy landing (because of improper flaring) and strikes on the propeller. Not saying its 100% true but a possibility.
A Mooney is great if you don't have any friends and family to take with you. If you like bringing people along I would highly recommend the Bonanza and Comanche 250.
Years ago I was in a flying club that had Grumman Tigers and Cherokee 180's. I flight plan the Tiger at 130kt and the Cherokee at 110kt - a substantial difference in speed. To say they are the same speed is wrong.
For my tastes, the Cardinal is the perfect single engine piston plane. Most of that appeal (to me) comes from the comfort of the cabin and sleek looks.
I found a 1978 Cessna 152 for sale with flight worthiness certificate for £18.000. It still had the original, outdated, clockwork guages and radio, but it flew. It only lasted a few days on the market. I missed a good chance.
@@nunyabidness3075 Insurance and Annuals are many times higher on retracts...speaking from experience. Don't take my word for it; call Avemco (largest insurer still?) and compare same year planes with similar TTAE (for example, Mooney 180 with Cherokee 180) then contact a Mooney specialist A & P and a Piper specialist A & P, seeking an Estimate from each. Mooney earns points for Speed and Range. Now...how about that Mooney Cost of Ownership (including initial Purchase Price) versus (either 60's, Hershey Almond Bar wing) Cherokee or an Archer [floats when landed "hot" like a Mooney without the crow-hopping or porpoise-ing like a Mooney]. Then...get back to us, please. Best compromise may be a Beech Musketeer series. I learned in 60's Cherokee 180's in the (very) late 70's [Miami University's Flying Club owned three of them !]. Very forgiving and no, repeat, No, bad habits either in stalls or during landings (on tarmac or grass). Now, if only Mooneys had oleo struts/shocks instead of those rubber donuts.........................no, I still would not purchase an Acclaim Ultra for 800k.
QuidEst Nunc, This is very old. what you are saying is a bit exaggerated and don’t use Avemco. At any rate, I cannot remember if the cost in the video is ignoring cost of ownership. If so, you have a point.
I really appreciate these videos and the way you put them together. I’m hoping to purchase my first airplane within the next year and your videos have really helped me narrow down my search. With that said, would you feature a 1970’s Rockwell Commander 112 or 114? Along with the Mooney, the commander is high on my list with a bit more comfort. Thanks!
You're off on a few of your speeds, I owned Cardinal RG, it would cruise at 140 all day long, most Mooney M20 owners I talk to said their Cruise speed was 155. My friend owns a Grumman tiger and cruises at 135, most older 172 cruise at 115 knots. I own a 182rg that cruise is at 150 knots with 700 mile range with 4 adults
I am starting the process of getting my gen aviation. Hopefully someday I’ll be able to afford my own plane instead of using the flight school’s. The Super Viking would be my top choice right now!
You have to love these people who tell you about the "best" airplanes, yet can't be bothered to actually get the airplanes correctly named or worse, quote the wrong data. A good example, the Grumman Tiger. He talks about a Traveler with a 160 HP engine. The Tiger is a 180 HP and can easily fly at 135+ knots. The Tiger is simple and easy to fly. But you need to get past the fact that a Tiger does not have to be landed fast. The fact is most Grumman accidents are had by low time pilots who fly too fast on final and run off the end of the runway. And as for comfort, They are as comfortable as any other small AC. The visibility is excellent and when flying you feel you're flying a fighter, not a Cessna. They are very responsive to control input and as most Grumman pilots will tell you, it's like flying a sports car. I've had my 79 Tiger for more than 25 years. The cost of ownership is very low. My annuals are less than $700. Why,? Almost no ADs! Look at the ADs on a Cessna 172 or 182. Okay, you do get a better useful load, with a 172 or182, but at what cost? If you're looking to carry lots of weight, fine. As for me, I want good speed and reasonable cost plus the reliability of a Lycoming O-360. This is the fastest, lowest cost, non retractable commercial AC out there.
A few nits to pick. V-tails are for wealthy gamblers that can afford big surprises. No budget buyers please. Never buy a retract Cessna. Bellanca Viking is only for folks with a local support network. If your mechanic is not familiar, stay away. If he is, it’s a deal. Tigers have wing lamination issues and many were reportedly repaired with unapproved methods. You want super clean logs. Mooneys are awesome if you can do basic math. If not, buy a Beech or Cessna. Simply filling the tanks after each flight is not a Mooney thing. You do a few minutes of math, fuel the correct amount, and with fewer stops save even more time and fuel than you would have over the other planes.
Cool video. You have all of the factors evenly weighted it appears. I might weight the factors just a bit to my own preference. But thanks for so much needed information in a short video!! I rate this video a 10 vs the hundreds of others I have seen. I would also like to see a similar video that would concentrate on more modern single engine craft like cirrus, etc. Avionics would be a factor I would think.
Those prices on Cessnas are very optimistic. Sure, if you get one with an engine 5 seconds from an overhaul and glued on pictures of avionics.. but you’re not going to find a functional C182 under $100k. And C172’s are pushing $70-80k.
Is operating cost just gas burn in cruise? Complex aircraft have considerably higher maintenance costs. If you about doubled the price of every aircraft here, you'd be getting some examples with lower engine and airframe times that might well save you money in the long run. As has been wisely said, airframes are cheap, engines and avionics are expensive.
It's sad that flying has such a high cost associated with it. If they had a fleet of FAA approved planes for $35k with current avionics, the industry wouldn't struggle as much.
Useful load was one of my biggest reasons for buying a Comanche 250. If I'm correct, I believe it's higher than any of the other 9 aircraft in the comparison. It's a true 4 seater plus luggage.
Bobby, your range figure for the V-Tail Bonanza doesn’t reflect the typical Bonanza. The vast majority of mid-60’s and newer models have 74 gallons of useable main fuel, with a range of over 900 nm at 165 knots cruise. Quite a few will also have auxiliary tip tanks, which raises useable fuel to 104 gallons and the range to over 1300 nm. Your figure may be based on the “standard” main fuel tanks, which are very rare.
My Long EZ beats all of these in every category except for cabin width and some in speed. 6gph, $40/hr operational cost, 140kt cruise with the little 100hp, 1200 mile range, 52 gallon capacity.. $30k purchase price. The Longs with the 290 or 320 are more expensive, but go much faster.
I don't think there are any Experimental/homebuilt craft in this review -- just certificated commercially built models. I'm sure if you include Experimental class aircraft you would find some high bang-for-buck options like your Long EZ.
Very good list. The only ones I don't lime are the Grumman and the termite trap 😂. I agree with your #1 pick and think the Cherokee 180 would be a little higher up that list. The often forgotten Commanche 250 is a really good plane for the $$ and the speed you get.
You didn't narrow it down much with the M20 Mooney. That could be anything from a mid 60's M20C you could buy for $35k all the way up to a 2019 M20V that goes for a cool $800k. Judging from your numbers it looks like you rated a nice M20E, but I think the M20F is the best value. They go for around $60k, fly a bit slower at 155 kts, but they have the highest useful load, extra leg room, and more fuel giving a range of over 1,000 NM! Of course it all depends on how you value speed, comfort, age, etc. Many pilots prefer the older manual gear/flap Mooney's over the newer electric due to lower maintenance cost
frederic Burns Totally agree! Considering the price range, I’ve also placed my eyes on the new pipistrel models with the 4 piston rotax motor! Brand new aircraft with the latest in avionics, and all that under $80k I believe...
If looks counted I would give the Beechcraft, Mooney, and Bellanca top honors. Mixing fixed gear with retractable gear planes confuses a lot of important topics such as operating costs.
Pleased to see a Mooney show up on your site, but I am surprised because I have noticed that you do not have an interview or video on the Mooney. If you are going to be in the Seattle area sometime, I may be able to help you with that. Would love to see you fly a Mooney on this channel! Thank you for sharing your experiences!!
Those are some great picks for a top 10, but was disappointed that my beloved Arrow didn’t make the list with a cruise speed of 132 knots at 8.7 GPH...
Good assessment. I would say the numbers on the Grumman’s range are low IMO. I had one and flew 450nm in my Tiger many many times. If you are considering the entire Grumman single engine fleet I agree with the numbers but the AA1, AA5A and AA5B are three very different airplanes I had a AA5B
The plane in the video is a Traveler. See "Just Plane Silly" youtube channel. That is Bryan's plane that was reviewed. Also, I use to have an AA5B and you could flight plan 4 hours at 135 knots all day long and have at least an hour reserve (50 gal tanks). That's 540 nm.
I'll have my Vashon Ranger in DFW area Feb 2023 if you want a review on that just let me know. Dual glass dynon all metal construction 2023 model. 140k purchase
While you're in Dallas, wouldn't it be great to be able to review one of the regularly flown Beechcraft Starships (yes, plural) at AQRD in Addison? THAT would be a great review for you to do!
I flew a Cherokee a couple of weeks ago and really couldn't get along with it. The cabin width was probably the main issue but 172s are the same size on paper and not as bad for me, I guess it's the way the controls are laid out in relation to the cabin wall. Something weird about the sensitivity and response of the controls really caught me out as well. To be fair it was a pretty rough example and I could probably get used to it with time but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
A Mooney M20 pilot collided mid-air on the 45 downwind pattern to Palomar Airport (CRQ) with my CFI, Andreas Pelzer and his Commercial student in a Beechcraft Dutchess in late 2002. I regretfully ceased my Private Pilot training after delivering eulogies at 2 funerals. For the first time since, I recently went up in a beautiful Tiger, overcame my fear and am finishing out my ticket soon. I still miss Andreas terribly, but know he’s smiling down on me again and I’m so grateful to him for imparting his love of flying to me!
wow CRQ is my home airport very sad
Is the Mooney safe then?
@@siliconiusantogramaphantis2122 When it comes to midair collisions I don't think it matters what civilian plane you're in.
a midair collision spoils the day is th quote on the all in my airforce flight briefing room
How does this even happen. Buy a lotto ticket
Great idea for a video! Another factor that's worth considering is the useful load. A plane might be inexpensive, quick, and economical, but if it can't carry what you need to carry, it just doesn't matter. That's one thing that's great about the 182 -- it's such a hauler.
Bobby, you may want to check this video out at the 4:30 minute mark. I suspect something went wrong.
Love it! Mooney Ovation owner here, love love love those planes!
Useful load would be nice to include on your evals.
True
Agreed. I loved my Hawk XP, but the useful load was the one thing that was disappointing.
I used to own a '76 Cessna Hawk XP II. Basically, a 172 with a six cylinder engine and 210hp. It's not a racecar because you're still dragging a Cessna airframe around, but I bought it because of its very predictable characteristics, good climb performance, and great visibility. I was doing T&Gs one day, and the tower controller asked me to identify my aircraft type. Apparently, 172s aren't supposed to be able to climb like that. (I won't tell if you don't.) I've been heavily involved in SAR, where low wing aircraft just aren't the best option. The extra horsepower and polite low speed characteristics were well suited to the work. I miss my XP.
I couldn't Get a C-182 a few times, and used the C-172XP as a close Replacement! Agree- it's a Great Performer as Cessna's Go, less fuel burn than the Continental O-470, and nice Injected Engine, too! Good Prep for the C-182RG!
@@robertweekley5926 Yep. It was also lighter and felt more nimble than the Skylane. I miss my Hawk.
Would be interested to see this list for single engine 6 seaters
Wouldn’t be hard to do as popular choices are limited.
Here is a stab off the top of my head.
roomiest: PA46, PA32
fastest: PA46, A36/210
cheapest: PA32 260
Range: PA46, 210/A36
most rugged: 206
most payload: PA32
Best handling: A36
Lots of variants here (retracts, turbos, pressurized). PA46 is a newer design and typically much more expensive.
Very interesting list. New comers to aviation need videos like that. I would not include but definitively talk about the world of home built aircraft to them. Thank you M. White
When I took my flying lessons, in the late 70's to early 80's, I was traveling for a living, hence longer lesson times and dates. I only flew, Piper aircraft. Cherokee 140, 150, 180 plus the Dakota II. I miss those days.
I think you missed the boat excluding the Socata TB 20. I own a 1989 with IO 540, cruises at 151kt and over 700NM range. Great useful load not to mention trailing link landing gear makes for extremely smooth landings!
The TB20 Trinidad sips fuel and is unbelievably comfortable. Great value from purchase and operating cost perspective.
Love to take you for a ride in this unbelievably under rated plane.
Totally agree with this assessment, especially #1 and #2, the Viking and Mooney. (Having flown all of these planes and owned a Mooney, 182, Vans RV-9A and currently a Super Viking). Super Viking is a special machine; i am in love.
1964 M20C
$39,500
43.5" cabin width
145 KTAS @ 10k' MSL 65% cruise - 8-9 GPH
900 mile range at that cruise setting
950 lb useful load (630 lbs with full fuel and oil)
hilariously economical for a type-certificated airplane. I love mine.
One would think that the flight characteristics would be something you'd care about when rating aircraft. There's a reason, for example, that so many choose 172s for flight training. They're really well mannered.
Thanks for recognizing Mooney as #1. I’ve enjoyed mine for 16 years.
Yes, I flightplan my Tiger for 130 kts. With 51 gallons usable @ 10 gl/hour, have decent range. And it flies like a little fighter.
New video idea: same thing but experimental planes. Then do a top 10 on the same categories for certified and experimental. Might put a "certified" factor in your score when comparing.
See my comment about my Long EZ. Beats most of these in nose of the categories. After owning an experimental, I'll never go back to certified.
No payload consideration....one of the most important considerations. No point going anywhere if you can't carry anything
Tomias Thexder, people always say that, but most buyers private buyers vastly over estimate their needs on payload. Those extra seats just rarely get used at all. Most planes have pristine rear seats.
Buyers also fall for the full fuel payload trick which is just laughable unless it’s a rental. Putting smaller tanks on planes and acting like it’s a feature had to be one of the best con jobs in marketing history.
@@nunyabidness3075 Oh so true and accurate on multiple fronts for a wide variety of reasons.
[Please also see my Cost of Ownership comments to You elsewhere in this piece.]
Doug scores of aviation. Awesome!
Except he’s not a douche like Doug
I learned to fly in cessnas and I got a chance to fly a mooney . The cockpit seemed so tight almost like a 152. After that it was a dream plane.
I'm surprised it's #1 but glad it's a very cool plane.
Spot on list. I'm on my 2nd Mooney, an M20k 231 with the 252 engine conversion; wouldn't own anything else in this category. At 67% power, TAS is 168 kts, burning 11 gph, and with 4 modestly sized grown ups, 3 hours range is no problem (we pack light). With 2 on board, 1,000 nm range. Great list though - love the Cheetah, Cardinal, Comanche, and Debonair for the money too (they just can't match the Mooney's efficiency and durability). Someone will buy Mooney and keep making the parts - there are too many out there for that not to happen.
I’m not sure I want “bang” when buying an aircraft 😬
How about best splat for your buck?
Informative and pretty well researched. The T182RG I think should make the list before the 177. I agree on the Mooneys. Probably is the best bang for t he buck, but the old Piper Comanche C models. For the difference in price one could fly a lot of hours.
Why is the bellanca section blurred?
Porn from Japan
overflying Area 51
I used technology to unveil the hidden image section of this video and found nothing really interesting whatsoever. It was just a misplaced clip the dude here had mistakenly inserted showing some grey aliens sitting in a room with bigfoot, and the loch ness. Each were just chilling watching their own videos. The grey's were laughing at archived footage of the military standing in the middle of nowhere roswell nm scratching their heads, loch ness was watching shark week on discovery, and bigfoot was watching swedish screaming goat porn imported from an antarctic substation fetish company that specializes in fainting goat comedies.
Like I said nothing really intriguing to get worked up about.
Copywrite footage
Didn't watch the final video before posting
Glad to know the mighty Mooney is number #1!
My pick would be a '50s Bonanza. They're fairly cheap and seem to offer a lot for the price. Of course, not as fast or decked out as a newer model, but the ramp appeal is unbeatable.
I agree with this list. I don't agree with much either. I own Mooney M20a, Bellanca 260b, Bonanza and wish I had a Comanche 250. Excellent comparison process here.
Also check out the Bellanca Cruisair Senior... under 30k complex, and if you have the larger engine (185 hp Lycoming like the older Bonanzas o435c), TAS is 165 mph (143kts) and it takes off in under 600’. I have a 1947 14-13-2. Great bird!! I just bought a second one to restore with the Franklin engine.
Great video! I am looking to buy my own plane now. Just got my complex endorsement in a Mooney M20C and I loved that plane, it is definitely the sports car of the skies:)
Interesting, but I did my Private, and a good bit of flying after, in a Grumman Tiger. I would plan on 132 knots cruise speed and typically beat that. With the Sensenich prop STC the cruise speed is up around 140 knots.
10. Cherokee 180 0:25
9.Cessna 172 0:56
8.Beechcraft bonanza 1:27
I really enjoyed the review but want to add my 2 cents.
I have a Grumman Tiger, AA5B, All Grumman’s are 1969 and newer. The two seat trainer has a range of about 350 miles but my Tiger has a range of 550 miles. I cruise at 120kts but can go 135kts-140kts. Tigers have a useful load of about 900#. They are very simple, very nimble, and cheap to own.
I thought this comment would be higher up. The numbers put forward in this video for the Grumman don't make any sense at all. It's like they took Yankee numbers AA1 and mixed them up with AA5 numbers. I would think it would hold the #2 spot. I agree that the Mooney should be #1.
Very interesting, thanks, looking fwd to the coming aircraft you get to fly in, have a great year
Bobby:
1) no Musketeers (Sundowners, Sierras, Supers) ??
2) $80k-$85 is good for one plane, yet deficient for another ?
3) retracts intermingled with fixed gear planes ?? (Please see #4)
4) Insurance these days is a deal killer [Please watch recent Aviation Consumer Magazine YT channel episode on Insurance]
Fun video.
FYI, the Grumman Tiger can't be had in "flyable condition" for $40K... that's not going to happen these days. More like $80k+. Maybe a Traveller at that price?
The plane in the video is a Traveller not a Tiger. Also, a Tiger's cruse speed is closer to 135 knots. I use to own one.
@@gorgly123 Exactly!
That's my traveler
@@JustPlaneSilly Maybe you should throw a Tiger sticker on the vertical stab, that will give you 30HP and 20 knots right out of the gate! :-)
Cherokee, 172, and Bonanza in the bottom three spots? I better grab some popcorn for the comments section; ought to be a doozy. 😎🍿
Agreed.
Those stats weren’t for a Tiger. I am half owner of a 1978 Grumman AA-5 Tiger and she is a total sweetheart to own and operate. 135 knots any day of the week. Total refurb two years ago with strip to bare metal and repaint, new plexiglass and a new interior. PowerFlo exhaust, new radios, ADS-b, GPS, electric aileron trim, LED lights, you name it. She looks like a new airplane.
Where do you live? I want to meet your sweetheart!
Makes me wonder why there are millions of Bonanzas/Debonairs at many FBOs, but only a few Comanches, Super Vikings, Cardinals, etc on the same ramp. Four adults and each with a weekend backpack? Comfortable for 4+ hour legs? Able to load two full-sized bicycles in the front door? Grass runway? 160 TAS? Seems like only the Bonanza is a real contender. A Cessna 210 might be close but apparently that airframe was not considered.
I agree, the M 20 Mooney is the clear winner in my mind as well. However, the 2nd Pl., Ballanca it’s not really in the same league in my mind. You did point out that it did have substantial wood construction but you didn’t say anything about It’s mostly a fabric covered airplane not metal! Well today’s fabrics are better than the old cotton days that was used when I was a kid, it’s still not metal.
Need to change the title on the Grumman to Grumman Traveler. The Tiger has better range and is faster than the Traveler.
Yep
The Cheetah will also outrun the Traveler!
my tiger was solid at 140 knots, and 600 mile range.....
Agreed.. I own a 77 AA-5B Tiger... max range is 714 nm at 10 GPH with 51 gallons usable cruising at 140 KTAS at 8,500 MSL, 574 nm with a one hour reserve. I can lean her out to cruise burning 8.5 GPH if I have to. Average annual runs me $1,200.. insurance $850 a year. Very affordable, relatively speaking. Payload is 950 lbs.
@@gordonfeliciano4315 i had a Tiger with exactly the same numbers , mine was a 1976 last 3 on the tail "356" - loved that bird.
Fun video but I would be remiss to not correct you on your Grumman Tiger stats. Purchase cost is at least 20K too low, as far as age, they produced them as late as late as 2006. Cruise speed is 135 kts, range is 550 miles with 45 reserve. If you're ever in SoCal, I'm happy to take you up in mine :)
Shhhhh he called my traveler a tiger. I'm going with it.
I drive past the Mooney plant every day. Sad seeing the doors closed. Every once in a while a door will be open, but can't see much going on.
They're back opened
@@rebelyell22 I think they shut down again January 7th
@@Buck305 yea, I just read the thread on Beechtalk. Damn.
They unfortunately didn't manage to bring the production costs down. I wonder why they didn't relaunch the M20C as a budget version.
I've never heard a single Cardinal RG pilot, except the one you interviewed, state a cruise speed under 140-145kts. At 130kts his almost had to be giving him fuel back, cant imagine the burn was over 7gph.
I would love to see a Tail Dragger Top 10!
Was looking to buy a Mooney. After a lot of research I noticed that EVERY Mooney I looked at had a prop strike at some point in its history (sometimes listed as "sudden engine stoppage") requiring an engine teardown and inspection.
Most Mooney's I have seen around the airports near me have had a prop strike too.
@@wburtney5154 Negates the on paper operating advantages.
I think it has to do with how unforgiving mooneys are with flare speeds, just land 2 knots faster and you can really mess up. so maybe they had a bouncy landing (because of improper flaring) and strikes on the propeller. Not saying its 100% true but a possibility.
A Mooney is great if you don't have any friends and family to take with you. If you like bringing people along I would highly recommend the Bonanza and Comanche 250.
Greg also a Comanche 260!
@@skyforce2132 I have no doubts, I just haven't been in one yet. If one becomes available to rent, I will definitely fly it
Excellent! Top Ten Bang-for-Buck twins next please!
Years ago I was in a flying club that had Grumman Tigers and Cherokee 180's. I flight plan the Tiger at 130kt and the Cherokee at 110kt - a substantial difference in speed. To say they are the same speed is wrong.
For my tastes, the Cardinal is the perfect single engine piston plane. Most of that appeal (to me) comes from the comfort of the cabin and sleek looks.
I might agree with you ... also useful payload. Not often you would need all those seats but full fuel for 3-4 butts is nice.
I would have like to have seen the average insurance cost included.....other than that, very nice summary
N72Pilot way too dependent on pilot experience for this to be helpful imo
Love my MooneyM20C. Great planes all the way around!! Thanks for sharing!
Just realized he's the Doug Demuro of aircraft. Its pretty great.
Comanche 250 seems to be the only one still "affordable" in 2022
The Van’s RV-8...182 mph cruise @ 7.2 gph. 22,000 ft service ceiling. 275 ft takeoff ground roll.
Lots of praise below but I’d like to see the table / spreadsheet. It was hard to follow. I love the tiger
I enjoyed this video and concept. This would be fun to breakdown different boat categories on your sailing channel. Thank you for sharing!
I found a 1978 Cessna 152 for sale with flight worthiness certificate for £18.000. It still had the original, outdated, clockwork guages and radio, but it flew. It only lasted a few days on the market. I missed a good chance.
Fixed gear vs retracts? Ya gotta compare apples to apples.
Why? He considered cost and speed. It’s no different a trade off than engine size.
@@nunyabidness3075 Insurance and Annuals are many times higher on retracts...speaking from experience. Don't take my word for it; call Avemco (largest insurer still?) and compare same year planes with similar TTAE (for example, Mooney 180 with Cherokee 180) then contact a Mooney specialist A & P and a Piper specialist A & P, seeking an Estimate from each. Mooney earns points for Speed and Range. Now...how about that Mooney Cost of Ownership (including initial Purchase Price) versus (either 60's, Hershey Almond Bar wing) Cherokee or an Archer [floats when landed "hot" like a Mooney without the crow-hopping or porpoise-ing like a Mooney]. Then...get back to us, please. Best compromise may be a Beech Musketeer series.
I learned in 60's Cherokee 180's in the (very) late 70's [Miami University's Flying Club owned three of them !]. Very forgiving and no, repeat, No, bad habits either in stalls or during landings (on tarmac or grass). Now, if only Mooneys had oleo struts/shocks instead of those rubber donuts.........................no, I still would not purchase an Acclaim Ultra for 800k.
QuidEst Nunc, This is very old. what you are saying is a bit exaggerated and don’t use Avemco. At any rate, I cannot remember if the cost in the video is ignoring cost of ownership. If so, you have a point.
You seem to have forgotten things like cost and availability of parts in your evaluation.
I really appreciate these videos and the way you put them together. I’m hoping to purchase my first airplane within the next year and your videos have really helped me narrow down my search. With that said, would you feature a 1970’s Rockwell Commander 112 or 114? Along with the Mooney, the commander is high on my list with a bit more comfort. Thanks!
You're off on a few of your speeds, I owned Cardinal RG, it would cruise at 140 all day long, most Mooney M20 owners I talk to said their Cruise speed was 155. My friend owns a Grumman tiger and cruises at 135, most older 172 cruise at 115 knots. I own a 182rg that cruise is at 150 knots with 700 mile range with 4 adults
I am starting the process of getting my gen aviation. Hopefully someday I’ll be able to afford my own plane instead of using the flight school’s. The Super Viking would be my top choice right now!
You have to love these people who tell you about the "best" airplanes, yet can't be bothered to actually get the airplanes correctly named or worse, quote the wrong data. A good example, the Grumman Tiger. He talks about a Traveler with a 160 HP engine. The Tiger is a 180 HP and can easily fly at 135+ knots. The Tiger is simple and easy to fly. But you need to get past the fact that a Tiger does not have to be landed fast. The fact is most Grumman accidents are had by low time pilots who fly too fast on final and run off the end of the runway.
And as for comfort, They are as comfortable as any other small AC. The visibility is excellent and when flying you feel you're flying a fighter, not a Cessna. They are very responsive to control input and as most Grumman pilots will tell you, it's like flying a sports car. I've had my 79 Tiger for more than 25 years. The cost of ownership is very low. My annuals are less than $700. Why,? Almost no ADs! Look at the ADs on a Cessna 172 or 182. Okay, you do get a better useful load, with a 172 or182, but at what cost? If you're looking to carry lots of weight, fine. As for me, I want good speed and reasonable cost plus the reliability of a Lycoming O-360. This is the fastest, lowest cost, non retractable commercial AC out there.
Come to the Atlanta area, would love to take you up in my 182!
My favourite thing about Mooneys is deciding whether or not your choice of headset will bring it up to their max useful load
I would also include Useful load in the Top Single engine for the money.
A few nits to pick. V-tails are for wealthy gamblers that can afford big surprises. No budget buyers please. Never buy a retract Cessna. Bellanca Viking is only for folks with a local support network. If your mechanic is not familiar, stay away. If he is, it’s a deal. Tigers have wing lamination issues and many were reportedly repaired with unapproved methods. You want super clean logs.
Mooneys are awesome if you can do basic math. If not, buy a Beech or Cessna. Simply filling the tanks after each flight is not a Mooney thing. You do a few minutes of math, fuel the correct amount, and with fewer stops save even more time and fuel than you would have over the other planes.
Nice video! But would have been also nice to see Useful Load ranked.
Cool video. You have all of the factors evenly weighted it appears. I might weight the factors just a bit to my own preference. But thanks for so much needed information in a short video!! I rate this video a 10 vs the hundreds of others I have seen. I would also like to see a similar video that would concentrate on more modern single engine craft like cirrus, etc. Avionics would be a factor I would think.
Those prices on Cessnas are very optimistic. Sure, if you get one with an engine 5 seconds from an overhaul and glued on pictures of avionics.. but you’re not going to find a functional C182 under $100k. And C172’s are pushing $70-80k.
Is operating cost just gas burn in cruise? Complex aircraft have considerably higher maintenance costs. If you about doubled the price of every aircraft here, you'd be getting some examples with lower engine and airframe times that might well save you money in the long run. As has been wisely said, airframes are cheap, engines and avionics are expensive.
It's sad that flying has such a high cost associated with it. If they had a fleet of FAA approved planes for $35k with current avionics, the industry wouldn't struggle as much.
Hey Bobby, you got it right. I love my Mooney!
Useful load was one of my biggest reasons for buying a Comanche 250. If I'm correct, I believe it's higher than any of the other 9 aircraft in the comparison. It's a true 4 seater plus luggage.
Can't wait to see the next topic which shows these exact same planes in another order for like the millionth time.
Hey Bobby, you may want to check this video out at the 4:37 to 4:55 minute range. I suspect something went wrong, there is not clear video.
It looks like it was blurred on purpose. Probably couldn't get permission for the clip.
Bobby, your range figure for the V-Tail Bonanza doesn’t reflect the typical Bonanza. The vast majority of mid-60’s and newer models have 74 gallons of useable main fuel, with a range of over 900 nm at 165 knots cruise. Quite a few will also have auxiliary tip tanks, which raises useable fuel to 104 gallons and the range to over 1300 nm. Your figure may be based on the “standard” main fuel tanks, which are very rare.
I’m a fan from Brazil! Really enjoy your videos, looking forward for a baron or duke video. Maybe even a Royal duke...
My Long EZ beats all of these in every category except for cabin width and some in speed. 6gph, $40/hr operational cost, 140kt cruise with the little 100hp, 1200 mile range, 52 gallon capacity.. $30k purchase price. The Longs with the 290 or 320 are more expensive, but go much faster.
I don't think there are any Experimental/homebuilt craft in this review -- just certificated commercially built models. I'm sure if you include Experimental class aircraft you would find some high bang-for-buck options like your Long EZ.
Well done. Quick and to the point. Good choices.
Was an interesting video thanks, enjoyed it but also really surprised the piper arrow didn’t even make the cut in this group of contestants..
Twins next?
Very good list. The only ones I don't lime are the Grumman and the termite trap 😂. I agree with your #1 pick and think the Cherokee 180 would be a little higher up that list. The often forgotten Commanche 250 is a really good plane for the $$ and the speed you get.
You didn't narrow it down much with the M20 Mooney. That could be anything from a mid 60's M20C you could buy for $35k all the way up to a 2019 M20V that goes for a cool $800k.
Judging from your numbers it looks like you rated a nice M20E, but I think the M20F is the best value. They go for around $60k, fly a bit slower at 155 kts, but they have the highest useful load, extra leg room, and more fuel giving a range of over 1,000 NM!
Of course it all depends on how you value speed, comfort, age, etc. Many pilots prefer the older manual gear/flap Mooney's over the newer electric due to lower maintenance cost
A Cherokee 140 should be up there for bang for the buck !!
frederic Burns You’re right on the money pal!! I was thinking the same thing
@@vladimator1842 A much better bang for your buck than a 172 !!!
frederic Burns Totally agree! Considering the price range, I’ve also placed my eyes on the new pipistrel models with the 4 piston rotax motor! Brand new aircraft with the latest in avionics, and all that under $80k I believe...
@@markturboi ..as long as you are cool with 2 seats and not as fast
@@mattf49006 You are thinking of the early 140's with only 140hp. I've had 4 in a later model several times, no problem.
If looks counted I would give the Beechcraft, Mooney, and Bellanca top honors. Mixing fixed gear with retractable gear planes confuses a lot of important topics such as operating costs.
Yep - 2 extra points for the Mooney tail !
The Cherokee you showed was a 235, not a 180.
I may have included the commander as an honorable mentioned.
Have you ever tested a Rockwell Commander 114?
Pleased to see a Mooney show up on your site, but I am surprised because I have noticed that you do not have an interview or video on the Mooney. If you are going to be in the Seattle area sometime, I may be able to help you with that. Would love to see you fly a Mooney on this channel! Thank you for sharing your experiences!!
Those are some great picks for a top 10, but was disappointed that my beloved Arrow didn’t make the list with a cruise speed of 132 knots at 8.7 GPH...
Good assessment. I would say the numbers on the Grumman’s range are low IMO. I had one and flew 450nm in my Tiger many many times. If you are considering the entire Grumman single engine fleet I agree with the numbers but the AA1, AA5A and AA5B are three very different airplanes I had a AA5B
The plane in the video is a Traveler. See "Just Plane Silly" youtube channel. That is Bryan's plane that was reviewed. Also, I use to have an AA5B and you could flight plan 4 hours at 135 knots all day long and have at least an hour reserve (50 gal tanks). That's 540 nm.
Jon Funanich 100% 500NM New York City to Myrtle Beach even with bad winds was doable
I love a Rockwell.
True on the Mooney but I think the 177 should have come in higher. They’re pretty wonderful
To bring this video up to date, add anywhere from $50-$80K to the prices given depending on the model. Unreal.
No more $100 burger eh? Is like $200 now
I'll have my Vashon Ranger in DFW area Feb 2023 if you want a review on that just let me know. Dual glass dynon all metal construction 2023 model. 140k purchase
While you're in Dallas, wouldn't it be great to be able to review one of the regularly flown Beechcraft Starships (yes, plural) at AQRD in Addison? THAT would be a great review for you to do!
I flew a Cherokee a couple of weeks ago and really couldn't get along with it. The cabin width was probably the main issue but 172s are the same size on paper and not as bad for me, I guess it's the way the controls are laid out in relation to the cabin wall. Something weird about the sensitivity and response of the controls really caught me out as well. To be fair it was a pretty rough example and I could probably get used to it with time but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Am i stupid or is every plane on this list now (at least) twice as expensive as listed in this video?
I own a 172.... I think this list is pretty accurate.