Among various aircraft models, some are the equivalent of basic condominiums. Nothing fancy, reasonably common, and generally straightforward to own and live in with few headaches or surprises. A Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee would fall into this category nicely, serving as fantastic first airplanes that are easy to own, fly, and maintain.

But many people eventually outgrow their starter homes and want more out of house ownership. A garden, perhaps, or possibly a pool. Maybe some more square footage and garage space. A home that demands more attention and upkeep but one that also provides a richer, more in-depth ownership experience.

Similar opportunities abound to take airplane ownership to the next level, and the two types featured here do so in their own unique ways. The Navion, with its 1940s-era lineage and systems that bear more similarity to a T-6 Texan than a 172, demands more knowledge and attention than the simplest types, but its unique military background and extensive community of friendly, dedicated owners make it a type with which few will ever become bored.

Similarly, the rarity of the Meyers 200 demands that each owner becomes something of an aeronautical curator. With around 125 examples built and only 78 remaining on the FAA registry, an owner must sharpen their sleuthing skills and network to source certain parts and experienced maintenance. The flying techniques, mechanical nuances, and subtle design features are not an instant Google search away. But support among Meyers owners is passionate and generous, and newcomers are enthusiastically welcomed into the tightly knit fold.

Here, we explore each type and compare what it offers owners beyond the basic performance specs.

Design and Evolution

From the outside and from a distance, the Meyers and Navion appear somewhat similar. Both are low-wing, retractable-gear singles. Both emit the growl of 6-cylinder engines, primarily 200 to 285 hp Continentals. And both provide their occupants with panoramic visibility out of an array of windows. But approach them for an up-close look, and significant differences become apparent.

On the ramp, the Navion stands taller than any single-engine, low-wing piston this side of a Mooney Mustang. More than a foot taller than the Meyers and more than 3 feet longer in both length and span, the Navion is a massive, truck-like machine with a cabin volume that follows suit. For pilots who appreciate roominess in a cabin or simply enjoy the feel of flying a large, substantial aircraft, few single-engine piston options top the Navion.

The Meyers is a compact, svelte machine by comparison. But a glance at the specs reveals some hidden surprises. Despite the smaller size, its empty weight is nearly identical to the larger Navion, but with 22.5 fewer square feet of wing area, the numbers hint at the higher-speed capability of the Meyers. Per each company’s data, the smaller Meyers has an inch more cabin width than the Navion—another indication that one of these types abandoned ease of production in favor of meticulous engineering.

The Meyers 200 was certified in 1958 and saw small, methodical improvements through the course of its production run, which came to an end in 1967. The first production model was the 200—only two examples were built, and they were both equipped with the 240 hp Continental O-470M engine. The 200A replaced the 200, and the change upgraded the engine to the 260 hp IO-470D.

In 1961 came the introduction of the Meyers 200B, which had an improved panel layout as well as a higher structural cruising speed and redline. This was replaced by the 200C, which incorporated a taller passenger cabin and larger windshield. The 200D was the final model with a 285 hp IO-520 and a flush-riveted wing. Together, these enhancements produced a notable improvement in speed to the tune of 210 mph at 7,500 feet and 75 percent power.

Partway through the production run of the 200D, Aero Commander purchased the type certificate and tooling and continued building the airplane as an Aero Commander 200D in its plant in Albany, Georgia. Later, the Interceptor Corp. purchased the type and marketed the airplane under that name but never sold any examples. Because both Meyers and Aero Commander produced the 200, however, it’s important to search for classified listings under both manufacturers so no options stay hidden and unnoticed.

Similarly, between 1946 and 1962 the Navion was manufactured by a number of different OEMs, all of which should be searched for when shopping for one of your own. Initially built by North American Aviation in the 1940s, the Navion was later constructed and sold by the Ryan Aeronautical Co., and finally, the Navion Aircraft Co. and Navion Aircraft Corp.

By the time production ended, more than 2,600 examples of the aircraft had been produced. Toward the end of the run, the Navion Rangemaster appeared with tip tanks and a traditional roof incorporating one left-side door.

The Navion was not built specifically for the military, and while all military L-17s are Navions, not all Navions are L-17s. Nevertheless, the overall design incorporated a number of systems and features the military found appealing. The hydraulic system which powers the gear and flaps, for example, was easily understood and maintained by service members. Additionally, the robust airframe and landing gear designs were well suited to the unimproved landing areas that military Navions would visit in their liaison role.

Conversely, while various design aspects of the Meyers also emphasized durability and robustness, the airplane was more comparable to a coachbuilt luxury car than a Jeep. Although it incorporated features such as a chrome-moly steel cage wrapped around the passenger cabin, the overall design is more complex and would prove decidedly more time-consuming to manufacture than the utilitarian Navion.

Market Snapshot

Other than price, useful load can be the most notable difference between the two. Given the relative rarity of each type, it’s perhaps not surprising the sample size of the examples available on the open market follows suit. In our survey, we were only able to find two Meyers and seven Navions listed for sale. Like other types, the value of each has climbed significantly in the past few years, and the difference in value between the two types corresponds with the consensus among owners that the Meyers tends to be the pricier of the two.

An analysis of the FAA registry reveals that while the number of actively registered examples has naturally and predictably decreased among both types, a higher percentage of Meyers aircraft remain. Of the 125 examples built, 78 (62 percent) are still active on the registry. In comparison, only 33 percent (858) of the 2,634 Navions built remain in the database. The reasoning behind this is unclear, but it’s possible the rarity of the Meyers motivates owners to repair badly damaged 200s and return them to service rather than part them out.

Whether shopping for a Meyers or Navion, a prospective buyer would be wise to engage with the owners’ group to inquire about unlisted examples and possibly connect with current owners beginning to entertain the idea of selling. In addition to benefiting from sneaking into line ahead of other buyers, an airplane owned by an active member of that type’s owners’ group will likely have been better cared for than one possessed by an inactive, uninvolved owner or estate.

Flight Characteristics

One of the most significant differences between the Navion and Meyers becomes apparent during the boarding process. With the exception of the later Navion Rangemasters that incorporated a traditional roof and left-side cabin door, all standard Navions have a large canopy that slides back on rails to provide access to the entire cabin. Not unlike a Grumman AA-5, you step from the wing into the cabin and lower yourself directly down into the seat.

The Navion’s canopy exhibits pros and cons. On the one hand, the ability to completely open it makes it very easy to access the front or rear seats and similarly smooth to load oversized baggage. Opening the canopy on a hot day during taxi provides a refreshing blast of air through the entire cabin—and it can even be opened in flight.

A downside to the canopy is the challenge it presents concerning the installation of shoulder harnesses. With no fixed overhead anchor points to attach them, most owners fly their Navions with only lap belts. Some install lap belts with integrated airbags for an additional layer of safety, and a few have installed custom-built frames behind each front seat that provide a place to mount shoulder harness anchors. But while there are solutions, it’s a concern with which the Meyers and Rangemasters, with their traditional doors and roof, need not contend.

Settling into the Navion, it’s easy to appreciate the vast amount of space in general and shoulder/headroom in particular afforded by the larger airframe. While various sources list actual cabin widths to be roughly within one inch of each other, the Navion feels notably more roomy at and above shoulder height, particularly compared to pre-D-model Meyers 200s. Navion owners report this space is greatly appreciated by their passengers, who are able to freely move between the front and back seats on longer flights.

In flight, the Navion is far slower than the Meyers in cruise, but its large flaps provide a 12 knot lower stall speed and fantastic low-speed handling qualities that make it comfortable to negotiate on short strips. Using the IO-520 as a baseline, the Meyers will cruise at roughly 180 knots compared to 145 to 150 knots in the Navion. As both will burn the same 13.5 gallons per hour in cruise, the Meyers becomes noticeably more economical to fly as the planned distances increase.

Both types exhibit fantastic handling characteristics, with the Meyers having a slight edge by virtue of torque tubes and pushrods in lieu of control cables. Both provide excellent, stable instrument platforms, and both have successfully welcomed new low-time private pilots to the ranks without issue. One owner who earned their private pilot certificate in a 172 and bought a Navion with 90 hours of total time reported feeling comfortable in it after around 10 hours of dual.

Although neither type possesses any unique pitfalls or traps into which unsuspecting newcomers might fall during initial training, it is advisable to locate an instructor intimately familiar with the type for transition training. Instructors can be found in each respective type group. Several have been formed, such as the American Navion Society (ANS, navionsociety.org) and the Meyers Aircraft Owners Association (MAOA, meyersaircraft.org). The cost of airfare and lodging to bring a qualified instructor to your location is regarded as money well invested.

• READ MORE: Air Compare: Grumman AA-5 vs. Mooney M20 Series

Ownership

Both the Navion and Meyers are unique enough to warrant a special effort for a high-quality, thorough prepurchase inspection. When arranging one, it is desirable to proactively join the type group for the object of your interest— MAOA or ANS. For a nominal membership fee, one can engage with the group and become connected with qualified mechanics who are intimately familiar with the intricacies of each respective type.

In the world of Navion, owners commonly mention two specific pieces of advice. They point out that because of the wide range of subtypes and selection of supplemental type certificates available for the airframe, no two Navions are alike. Additionally, they caution against purchasing certain engine/propeller combinations.

With regard to the less-desirable engines and propellers, the concern is less with the components themselves but rather the availability of parts and service. The geared Lycomings, such as the GO-435 and GO-480, for example, are not well supported by the manufacturer, and the number of engine shops that will even consider performing overhauls on them is dwindling. Similarly, replacing the rare, splined Hartzell propeller fitted to certain engines can be cost prohibitive. Owners advise spending more upfront to acquire a Navion with a more easily serviceable engine and prop rather than deal with such headaches down the road.

While Navion owners report no onerous or burdensome recurring airworthiness directives (ADs) with which to contend, the Meyers boasts an airframe with zero airworthiness directives since introduction—a claim not commonly seen among comparable types. When shopping for a Meyers, the limited production numbers do not allow a prospective owner to become choosy, but fortunately, there are no subtypes or modifications regarded as ones to avoid. If one has the luxury of multiple examples from which to choose, three primary factors come into play—general condition, engine horsepower, and the taller passenger cabin of the 200D.

Corrosion is far less of a problem for the two types than others of the era. In the case of the Meyers and earlier Navions, each manufacturer enthusiastically slathered the airframes in alodyne and zinc chromate to protect the metal. Later Navion manufacturers were less generous with the protectants, but nevertheless, corrosion issues typically don’t haunt either airframe.

With both types, it’s critical to buy from an owner who has willingly spent money on preventative maintenance rather than deferring it. Just as ignoring a few missing shingles on a house’s roof can result in structural rot and expensive repairs, deferring repairs on a Meyers or Navion can easily lead to costly, substantial work in the future. An owner with a spotless, meticulously organized hangar and detailed expense records will likely have been a good caretaker of the airplane they’re selling.

Insurance cost is a concern with both types. While owners with substantial time in the models report figures as low as $2,500 at typical hull values, new pilots with little time in type can see quotes as high as $7,000 to $10,000 per year. Some only carry liability insurance, keeping their premiums to $1,000 a year or less. It would be wise to shop around and learn how many hours in type various insurance providers would require to lower their premiums before committing to either type.

Our Take

Like many aircraft comparisons, evaluating the Navion and Meyers head-to-head becomes less a matter of crowning a winner and more about matching the strengths of each to one’s particular preferences.

The Navion is a larger airplane that was optimized for mass production and incorporated robust engineering and systems that were well suited for military use. The owner community is extensive and vibrant, with regular events and fantastic support. The Navion’s military lineage remains strong, with owners conducting regular formation flying clinics and group fly-ins. In today’s market, most Navions can be had for tens of thousands of dollars less than an otherwise comparable Meyers.

The Meyers was designed with the singular goal of achieving fantastic speed and performance with little to no consideration given to simplicity or ease of production. Owners appreciate the steel cage that surrounds the passenger cabin as well as the blistering cruise speed and cross-country capability that make the Meyers the single-engine piston equivalent of a private jet. Although the Meyers community is far smaller than that of the Navion, owners are supportive and happily make resources available to one another, up to and including the original jigs and tooling, in the event an unavailable major airframe part is required.

Beyond the technical strengths and specifications, the less-tangible aspects of the ownership experience differ significantly as well. For an owner interested in the military ancestry of the Navion, that type will provide an entire layer of ownership experience that many other types lack. From the robust metal switchgear to the potential service history of an authentic L-17, these elements are entirely legitimate despite not being quantifiable on a spec sheet.

Similarly, the Meyers offers an ownership experience that might appeal to a sentimental type. An amateur curator of aviation history would relish the opportunity to become a historical caretaker of a rare aircraft type. Similarly, someone with a deep appreciation for careful, methodical engineering would enjoy the intricacies that lie beneath the skin of the Meyers.

Regardless, both options are well loved in their respective circles. For a pilot looking to move up from a more basic, entry-level aircraft into something that presents a greater depth of rewards and challenges, both the Navion and Meyers are likely to provide one’s heart with a long-term home.

Handwrought and Homespun as Quilting…

When FLYING associate editor James Gilbert flew the Meyers 200 for a pilot report in March 1965, he recognized straightaway its purpose: “Know how some airplanes give their game away at a glance? The Meyers 200 is one of these, with its intention written all over it: to go like a bomb.” Yet Gilbert also gave a nod to the handbuilt heritage of the Meyers OTW biplane from which it was born [as well as the Meyers 145 shown below]. Still, it made for “a dastardly attack on the villain drag.”

Conversely, the Navion came to be admired by our editors for its “likable, lumbering ” style, as reported in the May 1973 issue of FLYING. Peter Garrison wrote, “It may have lost out to the [Beech] Bonanza’s speed, but today, a Navion is sought after by people who value good flying manners above sheer velocity.”

This feature first appeared in the October 2023/Issue 942 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Air Compare: Meyers 200 vs. Navion appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Among the best at turning out new aircraft quickly and on a budget was Piper, which evolved its 1960 PA-28-140 into a range of models from basic trainers to high-performance and complex machines. In 1965 the company stretched the four-place PA-28 into the six-seat PA-32 initially known as the Cherokee Six, designed to be a sort of fixed-gear flying station wagon for growing families with lots of baggage.

Using the same fuselage and wing, Piper next developed the twin-engine PA-34 Seneca. The use of recycled materials clearly was helping the company in its mission to respond to pilots’ varied needs.

Developing a Six-Seater

By the mid-’70s, Piper wanted an airplane to compete with more-capable six-seaters like the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza and Cessna 210 Centurion. The company turned to the PA-32 design. All it really needed to do was modify the airframe for retractable gear. The resulting PA-32R Lance went on sale for the 1976 model year.

• READ MORE: Beechcraft A36 Bonanza vs. Bonanza V-tails

Over the next 30-plus years, the Lance continued to develop, sprouting a T-tail to become the Lance II and offering turbocharging as the Turbo Lance II. In 1980 the conventional tail returned, but the aircraft’s signature constant-chord “Hershey bar” wing had a new shape, with an attractive outboard taper. Its marketing name also changed to Saratoga, which the company produced, on and off, through 2008.

The PA-32 remains a popular model on the used market for the same reasons that made it a hit decades ago. For many people, it strikes the right balance of load-carrying utility, comfort, and speed. It is also stable and easy to fly. Pilots who trained in smaller Pipers will find the larger Lance and Saratoga familiar and comforting, but the design also has features that may convince high-wing pilots to give low-wing flying a try.

A Varied Market

Perhaps the most attractive thing about the PA-32 today is the number of versions available and the wide range of prices. Early “straight-tail” Lances generally come in under $200,000, and Lance IIs can also be bargains, in part because their T-tail design received poor reviews for pitch response—and many pilots simply dislike their looks.

The T-tail turbos also gained a reputation for running hot and other problems, but those tend to have been worked out on the aircraft that are still flying today.

While many pilots avoid the early turbo models, the Lances also have a following. They can be a good option for pilots seeking increased speed over long distances at higher altitudes. As usual, the mission influences our choice of aircraft, and some missions can be very specific.

Jim Barrett, a photographer who regularly shoots gorgeous air-to-air images of aircraft for FLYING, said he seriously considered buying a T-tail Lance several years ago, mainly because the horizontal stabilizer would cause less visual interference when shooting pictures with the airplane’s side doors removed. To Barrett, the tail on traditional aircraft is always in the way. Working around it is a perennial problem for aerial photographers.

Saratoga Moves Upmarket

Most potential PA-32 buyers prefer the standard tail and are therefore happy that Piper returned to that design when it rolled out the Saratoga SP in 1980. The new longer, tapered wing improved the aircraft’s appearance and performance by most accounts while a range of upgrades, including cabin appointments and cockpit equipment, meant buyers viewed the Saratoga as a cut above the Lance.

Saratogas are all over the map pricewise, but the nice ones are expensive, and the newest models from the 2000s typically land in the $300,000-to-$500,000range. The surge in used-aircraft pricing over the last few years seems to have affected Saratogas more than some other types, with even earlier models commanding surprisingly high prices. This could reflect the fact that many people regard them as aviation’s version of the large SUV, with three rows of seats and a wide cabin that families love.

Most PA-32s have club seating that makes it easier for passengers to converse, or for nonflying parents or older siblings to keep small children entertained. The aircraft has front and rear baggage compartments, which significantly ease loading for proper weight and balance. For passengers, the extra space means you can bring more stuff. Another feature that passengers appreciate is the left-side, double-door entry into the cabin. The opening is huge and appears to have been designed as a passenger door, not a cargo hatch that people can crawl through.

“It’s a great airplane for carrying passengers, which is how I fly much of the time,” said Michael Teiger, a retired physician with 3,200 flight hours who keeps his Saratoga at Brainard Airport (KHFD) in Hartford, Connecticut. His is a classic case of the machine matching the mission. He flies regularly between Hartford and Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts (KMVY), and said his 1986 Saratoga, a fixed-gear version, has been a steady, reliable transport and a good instrument platform.

Bill Gennaro, a friend based at my home airport in Sussex, New Jersey (KFWN), owned a Saratoga for many years while his sons were growing up and recalled how it brought a degree of ease to long family trips.

“It was a Chevy Suburban with wings,” Gennaro said. He also described its handling as somewhat truck-like, not “harmonious” or “fluid” or other adjectives people often use when talking about their favorite high-performance aircraft. However, when it came to traveling with a family and lots of gear, the Saratoga was a winner.

“I wasn’t looking to bore holes in the sky,” Gennaro said. “It was just a great traveling airplane. You could basically set the autopilot, put your feet up and know you would get there soon.”

Which One Is for You?

While many shoppers will be able to find Lances with affordable purchase prices, they will need to look deeper into the ownership equation to determine which aircraft best suits their budget and mission. Saratogas cost more but might offer features that make them a better buy for certain pilots based on how they plan to use the aircraft. Because year-to-year model changes were few, most variations among different vintages of PA-32 are slight. Powered from the beginning by a 300 hp Lycoming IO-540, the PA-32 did not vary much in performance during its decades on the market.

Most owners say their aircraft cruises at a true 150 to155 knots. Piper continued to make fixed-gear Saratogas as well, which cruise about 10 knots slower. Newer models reportedly consume less fuel but do not fly any faster. Turbos can cruise in the 170s but are still considered slow for the category. Pilots generally do not buy PA-32s for speed.

Short-field operations in most cases are not part of their repertoire, either. Indeed—my instructor, Rich Bartlett, who flew a late-model Saratoga for several years, said the only downside of the design is that it “uses a lot of runway.” I recall a particular summer departure from Sussex with five on board.

I watched the takeoff run from the ramp, about halfway down the runway. All seemed well, and the airplane certainly looked like it had reached rotation speed as it lifted off and floated briefly in ground effect before settling back onto the pavement. For a moment, the airport’s 3,500-foot runway appeared that it might not be sufficient, but after another 100 feet or so they were off and climbing normally.

Focusing On Useful Load

Other than price, useful load can be the most notable difference between early Lances and later Saratogas. A Lance could carry more than 1,600 pounds, and overtime that figure generally decreased to just more than 1,100 for the last years of the Saratoga. Owners often talk about this downward trend in lifting capacity as a factor that influenced their buying decision.

“I think the Saratogas lost some of their useful load over time as Piper added more luxury features and equipment,” said Craig Barnett, owner of Scheme Designers, a Cresskill, New Jersey, company that designs paint schemes for aircraft and other vehicles.

Barnett moved from a Cessna 177RG Cardinal to a 1978 straight-tail Lance in the late 1990s, mainly because he wanted a bigger cabin and a boost in useful load to accommodate his growing family more comfortably on long trips. He also used the airplane to travel to trade shows and wanted more space to carry his displays. About the only complaint he had with the Lance was that it seemed like it should be faster given its 300 hp.

“When you are taking off, you feel the power. You know it’s there,” he said. However, the resulting acceleration and speed are always slightly disappointing. “You can tell the airplane is trying to get out of its own way, but it can’t quite do it.”

There was one other minor squawk with the Lance: its appearance. Barnett has spent his career obsessing over aesthetics and crisp, beautiful designs—areas in which the Lance comes up short, especially with its wide body and older-style Hershey-bar wing. “It was the chunkiest airplane I had ever gotten my hands on at the time. Not pretty, but it had what I needed,” he said.

Today, Barnett flies a Cirrus SR22 which, he said, has an embarrassingly low useful load compared with his old Lance. But the Cirrus is beautiful, he said, and his mission has changed. That said, few come on the market—even though Piper built 1,940 Lances and 1,621 Saratogas. Aircraft For Sale listed two Saratogas at the time of this writing—one 1994 Saratoga PA-32-301 with1,085 total airframe hours listed for $289,000, and one 1994 Saratoga SP with 1,952 hours total time was on the market for $319,500. For our sample table, we surveyed a total of 24 Saratogas and 13 Lances on the market at press time, with a fluctuating number for sale. So keep a careful watch if either mount suits your mission.

A Considerable Portion of the Business…

“What are you gonna to do with an outfit that has the audacity to compare its six-place, single-engine, 300-horsepower, high performance retractable with a couple of classics like the Centurion and the A36 Bonanza, when the airplane in question cruises at least 10 to 15 knots more slowly?” asked FLYING editor Robert B. Parke in his feature on the Piper Lance II in the June 1978 issue. “Well, for one thing, if you’re Cessna or Beech, you’d better keep your eye on this upstart; for in spite of its lower speed, the new Piper Lance II is walking away with a comfortable chunk of the six-place business.”

“Whatever you may think about the Lance II’s lack of svelteness, you must raise a few huzzahs for the gallant efforts made to give the airplane a look of distinction. The paint schemes are pleasing, and the new T-tail suggests a revolutionary change in the basic design.”

This article first appeared in the August 2023/Issue 940 print edition of FLYING.

The post Air Compare: Piper Lance vs. Saratoga appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The early Bonanza 35s started off as four-seat single-engine piston designs with reasonable cargo carrying space—but always more attuned to the business trip or family cruise as opposed to hauling a lot of stuff. That would come later, as Beechcraft built on the model’s popularity. The V-tail versions spoke to greater aerodynamic efficiency—and attracted the pilot looking for a distinctive ride. Yet the company went back to the conventional tail with the 36 model series that would take its place starting in 1968—as well as that of the 33 models. Why that happened is just one element of determining which Bonanza would be right for you. With more than 17,000 Bonanzas of all flavors built—and a high percentage still flying—there’s quite a selection to choose from, and they retain great value on the market to this day, more than 75 years later.

Design and Evolution

The first Bonanza, the Model 35, came with a 165 hp engine that was quickly upgraded to 185 hp for a minute on takeoff. At an original max gross weight of 2,550 pounds, it weighed at least 1,000 pounds less than its Model 36 brethren that followed. With a stall speed of less than 50 knots, the early 35s could get in and out of short runways, and still cruise along at 140 to 150 knots. With the C35 model in 1951, the tail was improved, with an increased chord and adjusted angle of incidence, and a bump in horsepower to 185 max continuous and 205 hp for takeoff.

The J35 gained fuel injection, and another increase in horsepower up to 250—with a resulting nearly 170-knot cruise speed. In 1982, the P35 model saw an update in the instrument panel to accommodate the (improving) avionics of the day, with the analog gauges in a standard six-pack configuration as opposed to being all over the place. A third cabin window had shown up in the N35, and the Continental IO-520 was introduced with the S35—at 285 horsepower and a zoom almost to180 knots in cruise.

In the 1980s, the 35s underwent extensive wind-tunnel testing after a handful of inflight breakups. The FAA determined the design didn’t meet current airworthiness standards, so an AD was issued to strengthen the tail. The 35’s relatively small CG range also garnered attention.

For the A36 series, the fuselage remained similar but was stretched to accommodate a third pair of seats. This was not accomplished with a “plug” but in a legitimate extension of 10 inches and more forward placement on the wings. Both elements helped to increase the CG range from that of the 35s, though it still warrants close attention, as it can be loaded forward enough to be difficult to land well—as well as too far aft with even more dire consequences.

The 36 returned to a standard empennage configuration, with a conventional vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Later versions include club seating and a cargo door that can be removed to leave the gap open in flight—making it a great platform for aerial photography.

Up front, the original model transitioned first to the Continental IO-520-B 285 hp engine, and then as the A36 with Continental’s IO-550-BB at 300 hp and the higher takeoff weight that it afforded. Aftermarket up-grades continue to be a popular way to breathe new life into a well-loved Bonanza of either model series.

Market Snapshot

As of early May 2023, there were a lot of Bonanzas of all flavors on the market. Taking a look at Aircraft For Sale’s piston single section, two of the V-tails ranged from $49,000 to $169,000—14 years apart and several upgrades making up the price differential. Those represent other market outlets well, where there were a total of 54 V35s available, with a range of $45,000 for a run-out model to $280,000 for one newly equipped with a Garmin flight deck. Average asking price was $141,960. The total time ran from roughly 1,590 hours to 7,150 hours, with an average of 4,934 hours.

On the A36 side, prices climb to reflect the six-seat configuration and newer model series, with 23 on the market, ranging from $209,000 to $565,000 on the top end for a turbo-normalized model. The average asking price came in just over $300,000. Total time was a bit lower as well—though some folks have obviously flown the heck out of their A36s.

FLYING’s travel editor Jonathan Welsh took a close look at the Bonanza models when searching for his latest airplane. “Concerning Bonanzas, my shopping revealed a wide range of prices and equipment. In general, though, Bos seem to always cost a bit more than you think they should.”

Welsh found that “the A36 is easily the most sought-after model, mostly because it has six seats, and prices have jumped in the past few years. My wife and I found a 1977 model about four years ago, with less than1,000 hours on the engine, dated avionics, and it listed for $175,000. Today I see similar planes priced around$250,000—sometimes with run-out engines.

“I think you can argue that the V-tails are the best prospects, if you like the styling. They seem to be priced lower overall,” perhaps because lots of potential buyers remain spooked by the unusual design, and what Welsh points out as “the largely false notion that the tail surfaces could break away at any moment.”

It comes down to mission—and aesthetics. “For some pilots the V-tails are absolute classics and represent something special in the evolution of aircraft design,” says Welsh in conclusion.

“[They represent a] nice combination of performance and retro-cool emotion. And they do look great on the ramp.”

Flight Characteristics

Some airplane designs are optimized for maneuvering—like a Pitts or an Extra—and others for cross-country cruising. Though they have common heritage with the T-34 Mentor, the Bonanzas fall solidly in the second camp, with stately handling characteristics that make for a reliable IFR platform. Like many piston singles from the era meant to be flown by civilian pilots of varying backgrounds, the control responsiveness follows a standard progression, with rudder actuation taking reasonable pressure, pitch control feeling relatively heavy with a tendency towards straight and level, and aileron response more sprightly, yet in no way twitchy.

Differences between the V-tail 35 and A36, however, exist and are significant to show up on a comparative level. First, actuation of the V-tail’s ruddervator configuration feels traditional, though the airplane was designed to be easy to maneuver. “It’s a sportier feel,” than theA 36 models, says Ben Younger, who owns a 1972 V35B. “It’s a more fun airplane to fly from that perspective.”

Another difference in flight characteristics between the models is the implementation of an approach flaps setting on the A36. As compared to the 35s, this makes slowing down while going down a bit easier—and they can be deployed at roughly the same point as the landing gear from a speed standpoint (about 150 knots, depending on the model), balancing the pitch-up and pitch-down forces.

Early models of both lines feature a non-standard gear retraction piano-key-style switch that can be difficult to distinguish from the flap switch right next to it. You can tell a pilot of these models by the phrase they utter before bringing up the flaps after landing—“these are the flaps”—to ensure that the gear switch isn’t brought up by accident.

Ownership

“The gotchas always have to be how the airplane was maintained, not necessarily the difference between the models,” says Younger of the pre-buy process for approaching any Bonanzas in either model run.

One key item to check into during the pre-buy inspection—the swage buckles. They’re found underneath the floorboards and provide structure for the aileron cable runs. On certain V models, condensation can collect and drip onto them, corroding them severely to the point of breakage. Sometimes you will find these with just safety wire holding them together, according to one owner who is familiar with another pilot who suffered a failure of one in flight, leading to a dramatic left-aileron-only situation. The good news is that this is now an airworthiness directive, and thus required to be regularly checked.

Other updates include the windshields on older model 35s that aren’t sloped, and that most owners have wanted to replace over time. The electrical system may also need attention—there was a change from a 14V to a 28V system at V35B serial numbers D-10097and D-10120 and after, in 1978. Updated avionics—and a better engine start—may demand a move to the higher-load system. Under the cowl, there’s the ability to move into the IO-550 from a previous powerplant for 35s and older 36 models under STC.

Once upgrades and any outstanding ADs have been addressed, annual inspections run in the moderate range. “My annuals will be as little as $4,000 now,” says Younger, but that’s after significant investment he’s made in upgrading not only what’s in the instrument panel, but also windows, wiring, and other parts behind the scenes.

The American Bonanza Society (bonanza.org) forms an important hub for owners to tap into, both during the research process and acquisition, through pilot proficiency and maintaining the airplane. With nearly 10,000 members, the organization offers de-tailed backgrounds on all models, as well as meetings, training programs, and an active forum. Its Bonanza Pilot Proficiency Program (known affectionately as the “B-Triple-P”) is justifiably famous in the general aviation community for its depth of training for both new and veteran Bonanza pilots.

The ABS is leading one critical charge for potential Bonanza 35-series pilots: the Maciel Ruddervator Prizeto help source an alternative solution to the magnesium-alloy ruddervator skins used on the 35’s empennage. Textron Aviation no longer produces the skins, and appears unwilling to invest in an alternate solution, though it may have released information to potential candidate companies to produce a supplemental type certificate (STC) for a replacement, according to the ABS.

Insuring a pilot in a Bonanza typically follows a straightforward path—for the non-instrument-rated pilot, premiums can rise steeply. But the airplane has enjoyed a relatively low overall accident rate com-pared to others in the class—with the danger lying in pilots who take it into poor weather on cross-country flights. Still, with an IFR ticket, most pilots can expect between $2,000 and $4,000 per year on a mid-range hull value on the 35s, with slightly more on the 36s, reflecting the higher hull value.

Our Take

The specter of losing the leaded avgas required to run the engines found in most of the Bonanza fleet hangs closely depending on where you live—but it will come to roost for all in the U.S. by 2030. Unleaded fuel testing is taking place under the auspices of several associations, including tests in a Beechcraft Baron with similar high-compression Continental IO-550 engines as are found in much of the late-model Bonanza A36 fleet.

Aside from this concern, the Bonanza model line forms an excellent choice of cross-country cruiser—and depending on your mission and your pocketbook, it makes for a solid choice. If you only need up to four seats, and you’re comfortable with the prospect of an STC looming in the event you need to reskin the ruddervators, the 35 line offers great value. But if you need up to six seats—and you want less concern regarding parts down the road—the A36 is still well supported by the manufacturer and will likely retain its value for years to come. It comes at a premium price, but the A36 remains at the top of many a pilots’ wish list.

“Impeccable Flying Qualities…A Star in the Market”

When the Bonanza Model 35 came out, its modern lines were unmistakable. FLYING’s then editor-in- chief Richard L. Collins drew it plainly, in a review in the August 2007 issue: “I have flown every model of the Bonanzas and some stand out as milestone V-tails. The first is the straight Model 35. There is no question that the airplane had some problems with wing skins and center sections, but there is also no question that the Bonanza 35 is the most revolutionary piston airplane ever built. Everything since has been evolutionary. Nobody came close to the Bonanza at the time, and it compares favorably with the best that are being built 60 years later.”

Of the Model 36 that followed, Collins had more glowing praise in a June 2000 report. “The Bonanza 36 is one of the more coveted airplanes in the general aviation fleet.” He went on to confirm its steadfast design. “For a long time, traditionalists scoffed at the 36, feeling that the V-tail was the only true Bonanza. That has changed now, and the 36 is the Bonanza that is out there every day, doing the work, upholding the Bonanza tradition.”

This feature first appeared in the June 2023/Issue 938 print edition of FLYING.

The post Air Compare: Beechcraft A36 Bonanza vs. Bonanza V-tails appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Customers in every segment were welcomed with an array of options. A shopper interested in a two-seat trainer would have a variety of choices ranging from fabric taildraggers to brand-spanking-new concepts like the Piper Tomahawk and Beechcraft Skipper. Similarly, a shopper looking for four seats and good cross-country capability had a fascinating variety of models from which to choose.

This four-place cross-country category was particularly competitive. With offerings from Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, Ryan, Aero Commander, Bellanca, Mooney, Grumman, and others, manufacturers found novel ways to provide solutions to a common mission—moving four seats from point A to point B as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

While many utilized similar designs from similar playbooks, a few took their own paths. Among the more interesting alternatives were Mooney with their M20 series, and Grumman with their AA-5 models. These two families of aircraft utilized completely different airframe construction techniques, vastly different cabin designs, and even differed with regard to fixed vs. retractable landing gear. Yet their missions were essentially the same. Here we explore why one might choose a Grumman AA-5 over a Mooney M20 and vice versa. 

Design and Evolution

Looking at the Grumman AA-5 and the four-cylinder Mooney M20 models, one might infer that the chief designers from each company agreed on very little.The low-slung M20 is equipped with retractable gear, while all AA-5 models utilize fixed gear. The Mooney sported the characteristic forward-swept tail that pivots in its entirety to provide pitch trim. Conversely, Grumman’s tail is traditional in both function and appearance. Even access to the cabins is vastly different, with Mooney utilizing a single right-side door while Grumman opted for a large canopy that slides back on rails to provide access from both sides.

Despite the differences, there are some fundamental similarities. The low-wing configuration, for example, four seats, and four-cylinder engines that produce from 150 to 220 horsepower.

To dig down into specifics and conduct a true apples-to-apples comparison with the AA-5, the wide array of Mooney M20 models offered over the years must be narrowed down. Produced from 1955 into the 2000s, more than 11,000 examples have been delivered, and the wide range of subtypes can be divided into groups based on cabin length.

The M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, and M20E are the “short-body” Mooneys. The M20F, M20G, M20J, and M20K had an additional foot of fuselage length added ahead of the back seats and are thus known as the “medium-body” Mooneys. “Long-body” Mooney production began in 1988. As the long bodies utilize larger, six-cylinder engines, they are less comparable to the Grumman AA-5 series, and we’ll exclude them from this review.

Short- and medium-body Mooney production took place from 1955 through 1998. With a handful of exceptions, the vast majority utilized the Lycoming O-360 and IO-360 engines, ranging from 180 to 200 horsepower. The M20K was the only turbocharged variant among the short and medium bodies and offered 210 to 220 horsepower.

The relative consistency among short- and medium-body Mooneys makes the shopping process fairly straightforward. Many shoppers exclude the M20and M20A from contention, as these early subtypes incorporated wood construction in the wing and tail. The criteria among the remaining models mostly come down to engines, which typically becomes a choice between 180 and 200 horsepower. Besides cabin length and the presence of an additional cabin window in the medium-body airplanes, other differences include manual vs. powered flaps and landing gear, and throttle quadrants vs. push/pull knobs.

One notable development was the M20D Master, which came from the factory with fixed, non-retractable landing gear. It was marketed as “convertible” and one could upgrade it to retractable gear. Virtually all have been converted, and only a few remain in their original fixed-gear configuration. While the fixed gear reportedly reduces cruise speed by approximately 25 knots, it would also presumably reduce insurance premiums appreciably.

The Grumman AA-5 Traveler has had a considerably less complex array of subtypes, but was produced under a variety of manufacturer names as ownership of the company changed over the years. Production began in 1971 with the 150 hp AA-5 Traveler. This initial type was produced by American Aviation and later, by Grumman Aviation.

The AA-5A Cheetah was introduced as a 1976 model. Produced by Grumman American and then Gulfstream American, it had the same horsepower but was faster, thanks to drag reduction modifications. Along with all subsequent AA-5 subtypes, it incorporated a larger horizontal stabilizer that expanded the CG range, and fuel capacity increased from 37 to 52 gallons.

For the 1975 model year, the 180 hp Grumman American/Gulfstream American AA-5B Tiger was introduced. In addition to the greater speed and power provided by the more powerful engine, it also introduced a slightly thicker wing spar and a 200-pound gross-weight increase.

Production of all AA-5 subtypes ended in 1979, but between 1990 and 1993, a newly-formed company, American General Aviation Corporation, resumed production of the Tiger as the AG-5B. AGAC modified it with various minor aerodynamic and systems improvements, and built a total of 181. The Tiger was resurrected yet again when Tiger Aircraft produced an additional 51 AG-5Bs between 2001 and 2006.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of M20 and AA-5 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides a breakdown of the median asking prices.

One of the most notable takeaways is the consistency in asking prices of the two types. For all of their differences, they still utilize nearly-identical engines to move four seats a similar distance at a similar economy. The market appears to place similar values on this level of functionality.

Predictably, newer models command higher prices and vice-versa. And not surprisingly, the older airplanes generally have a higher number of airframe hours than the newer ones. One anomaly is apparent in the median price of the newer Tigers, although the limited sample size likely plays a role. Also apparent is the massive increase in asking prices post-pandemic. While we did not conduct a comprehensive pricing survey of the M20 family prior to or in the early days of the pandemic, a FLYING evaluation of the AA-5 in mid-2020 revealed a median asking price of $48,500 across all subtypes. Today, that figure has increased to $122,500—a 153 percent increase.

The number of active listings for each type reflects production numbers and fleet sizes. With such a lengthy production run, just over 9,000 short- and medium-body M20s have been produced to date. In contrast, only 3,282 AA-5s have been produced in total.

Today, 5,231 short- and medium-body M20s remain active on the FAA registry, compared to 1,839 Grumman AA-5s. This reflects 58 and 56 percent of the original fleet sizes, respectively. This illustrates the greater selection that prospective Mooney owners have compared with those shopping for a Grumman.

Flight Characteristics

The different design philosophies between the Grumman and the Mooney become evident the moment one steps onto the wing to board. Like many low-wing aircraft, admittance to the Mooney is provided via a single door on the right side of the fuselage. Comparatively, the Grumman incorporates a canopy that slides back on rails, allowing occupants to board from either side. When it comes to ease of access, Grumman has the advantage here. If there’s a downside, it’s that opening the canopy in the rain will expose far more of the cabin to the elements.

Once settled inside, the expansive windows that make up the Grumman’s canopy and low sill height provide a spacious feel with a panoramic view. But while the Grumman has an inch and a half more headroom than the Mooney, the Mooney is approximately 1 to 3 inches wider, depending on the specific model and which interior door and wall panels are installed.

The Mooney’s slight lack of headroom can create a marginally more restrictive feeling. Similarly, the Mooney’s panel and window sills are higher than the Grumman’s, adding to the closed-in effect. Talk to Mooney owners, though, and even those on the taller side report having sufficient space to stretch their legs and get comfortable.

The back seats differ more than the front. Grummans provide backseat occupants with a more roomy environment, and Grumman owners love how easy it is to fold the back seats forward to create a spacious cargo area. With the removal of their front wheels, two full-sized adult bicycles can easily be carried in the back.

The rear seating area in short-body Mooneys is notoriously cramped. Anyone planning to invite an adult to ride there with any regularity would be well-advised to opt for a medium-body Mooney, as the additional foot of fuselage length is placed between the front and rear seats. Mooney owners report no perceptible difference in front-seat comfort between short- and medium-body models.

Another difference arises while taxiing. While the Mooney’s rudder pedals are linked directly to nosewheel steering in the traditional manner, the Grumman utilizes a free-castering nosewheel and, thus, requires differential braking to steer and maintain directional control. Critics of this design are quick to mention the increased brake wear that comes from frequent steering inputs and brake applications, but fans counter by touting the ability to deftly pivot into and out of tight parking spaces with little effort.

Takeoff, climb, and cruise performance vary substantially based on specific subtypes. Grumman owners report that the 180-hp Tiger, despite having only 30 more horsepower than the Traveler and Cheetah, exhibits vastly better takeoff and climb performance than the lower-powered versions. Similarly, the performance difference between a 180 hp Mooney with no aerodynamic mods and a 200-plus horsepower Mooney with those mods is substantial.

A Lot of Speed in an Economical Package

FLYING has flown the Mooney M20s and Grumman AA-5s since each model was born. And since that time, we’ve remarked on how they deliver honest cross- country speed at a price that was relatively easy to accept.

In a March 1997 used airplane report on the M20 series, Richard L. Collins wrote, “In 1963, Mooney tweaked the M20C Mark 21 and added the M20D to the line. Dubbed the Master, it is a fixed-gear airplane with the option to convert it to a retractable. The Master’s standard price new was $13,995, and when you got tired of cruising at 140 mph, Mooney would convert the airplane to a retractable for $1,600. Most have been converted…Mooney was selling a lot of airplanes in those days simply because they delivered a lot of speed in an economical package.”

The same words echoed in FLYING’s report on the new Tiger in February 1975. Collins wrote, “If the next era is to be one of efficient simplicity, Grumman American is right on target. The four GA lightplanes…are as basic as they come…[and the Tiger’s] 139-knot cruising speed, healthy rate of climb, and good useful load make it a contender in the marketplace…”

We can, however, make a direct comparison by reviewing the published performance data of a 180 hp Tiger and a 180 hp M20C. At maximum takeoff weight and similar environmental conditions, some differences become apparent. The Mooney, for example, provides better takeoff performance, with a ground roll of 815 feet, and 1,395 feet required to clear a 50-foot obstacle. This compares to 909 feet and 1,628 feet for the Grumman, respectively.

Once in the air, the two airplanes return nearly identical rates of climb at sea level—800 fpm for the Mooney and 808 fpm for the Grumman. In cruise, the Mooney’s retractable gear provides an advantage in cruise speed, but not as large as one might expect. At 7,000 to 7,500 feet, 32 to 34 degrees Fahrenheit, and 2,700 rpm, the Mooney will reach 146 knots—only slightly faster than the 139-knot Grumman.

In real-world conditions with decades-old airplanes, M20C owners report 140- to 145-knot cruise speeds, and Tiger owners report a range of 125 to 135 knots. Cheetahs are typically about 10 knots slower. On the other end of the spectrum, one M20E owner reports his 200-hp machine with extensive speed mods reaches 155 to 160 knots while burning 10 gallons per hour.

In terms of knots per gallon, both airplanes perform admirably, especially compared to competing types. At the commonly-reported figures of roughly 135 knots and 9 gallons per hour, the Grumman Tiger boasts 15 knots per gallon of fuel burn. At an additional 10 knots with the same fuel burn, many M20C owners see that figure rise to 16.

While a new owner of either airplane would be wise to obtain flight instruction from an instructor intimately familiar with the type, Mooney owners are quicker to warn newcomers to the peculiarities of the M20, emphasizing precise airspeed control on final.The airplane is particularly unforgiving of being forced onto the runway before the wing is finished flying. In an attempt to avoid pilot-induced oscillations, one Mooney training curriculum strongly warns against attempting to salvage a bounced landing, and recommends initiating a go-around on the first bounce.

The Mooney requires more runway distance for landing than the Grumman, with a 595-foot ground roll and a 1,550-foot distance over a 50-foot obstacle listed in the book. This compares with 415 feet and 1,135 feet for the Grumman. This may be partially because of the Mooney’s 69-knot approach speed, which is 6 knots faster than the Grumman.

Valuable as raw numbers may be, Grumman fans tout some of the less-quantifiable characteristics and features of their beloved airplanes. All AA-5s, for example, can be flown with the canopy slightly open. On the ground, it may be opened up completely for a refreshing blast of cool air on hot summer days.

Grumman owners also rave about their airplane’s handling characteristics. Control forces are notably light, requiring only slight fingertip pressures to maneuver as desired. The M20 series provides accurate, predictable handling as well but is noticeably heavier on the controls. This may appeal to instrument pilots with a preference for hand flying. Both airplanes utilize torque tubes and push/pull rods, providing a more precise connection to the ailerons than traditional cables.

According to the books, the M20C has a useful load of 1,050 pounds, slightly more than the Tiger’s.

Ownership

A thorough pre-purchase inspection by an experienced A&P is critical for both the AA-5 and M20 series. In addition to the usual threat of corrosion in aging aircraft, attention is prudent in areas unique to these types.

Although the Mooney is traditional in many respects, there are a few concerns. Mooney service bulletin M20-208B, for example, recommends a thorough annual inspection of the steel frame surrounding the cabin to determine whether any corrosion is present. As this check is not mandated, some owners might not perform it annually as recommended.

The nose gear is another critical check for the Mooney. The structure has strict tow limits, and if an unaware line worker attempts to turn the nose gear too sharply in either direction while towing, structural damage can occur that requires a rebuild to the tune of several thousand dollars. A careful visual inspection determines whether this damage is present.

Mooney fuel tanks are known to develop leaks. While they can be resealed, fuel bladders are a popular modification providing a more permanent solution. And although the Mooney’s landing gear lacks more complex air shocks or oil damping, the manufacturer does recommend replacement of the rubber shock absorber pucks every 8 to 10 years at a current cost of approximately $2,000 for the pucks themselves, before labor.

The Grumman has its unique pre-purchase and ongoing maintenance considerations. Early AA-5s developed problems with airframe bonding failing and resulting in delamination. Fortunately, most that have experienced the problem are thought to have been identified and permanently fixed. It remains important to have this confirmed by an A&P familiar with the issue.

Simple as the Grumman’s landing gear is, particularly compared to a retract, it has unique maintenance needs. The nose gear utilizes a design that should be thoroughly inspected prior to purchase and then at every annual. Grumman maintainers report that this item may be skipped or completed in an insufficient manner, resulting in pricey repairs down the road.

AA-5 wing spars are life-limited to 12,000 to 12,500 hours. Few AA-5s are approaching this amount of use, and the median airframe hours among the examples listed for sale at the time of this writing were less than 3,000. Anyone considering a particularly high-time AA-5 would be wise to take it into consideration.

The Grumman is otherwise a straight forward airframe design. Unlike most comparable aircraft, there are no moving parts inside an AA-5’s wing—all flap and aileron actuation is achieved via easily accessible torque tubes, upon which each control surface pivots. One maintainer points out there are fewer moving parts in an AA-5 than in a Cessna 150, and another enjoys how all flight control cables are neatly located in the center of the aircraft and are rather short.

Otherwise, no airworthiness directives (ADs) make ownership burdensome for either airplane. All tend to be one-time or recurring ADs that are straightforward to address. The Mooney owners we surveyed report uneventful annuals at $2,500 to $3,000. Grumman owners report a range of $1,500 to $2,500.

Insurance cost is one element of ownership in which the two types differ substantially. To compare the two types, we asked an insurance broker to create quotes for a 40-year-old private pilot with no instrument rating, 250 hours total time, and 5 hours in type. For a 1977 Grumman Tiger valued at $110,000 and liability limits of $1,000,000/$100,000, this theoretical pilot could expect to pay roughly $1,900 per year. For a 1969 Mooney M20C with the same hull value and liability limits, they could expect to pay roughly $6,000 per year.

If this pilot obtained an instrument rating and 1,500 hours total time with 25 hours in type, they could expect to pay roughly $1,500 per year for the Grumman and $4,000 per year for the Mooney. That makes the Mooney nearly three times as expensive to insure—an added $208 to $341 per month over a year in this case. Both models are well supported by active and bustling owners’ groups. The Grumman Owners and Pilots Association is the original type club for the Grumman. It holds regular events including an annual convention, and offers a pilot familiarization program for new Grumman pilots.

The Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association, or MAPA, is a valuable resource for Mooney ownership information. Additionally, Mooneyspace.com is an active forum, and Mooneysafety.com offers training resources and proficiency programs.

Our Take

In aviation, speed costs money, and diminishing returns approach quickly. When operating with a modest budget, the M20 and AA-5 series provide what might be the greatest-knot-per-dollar among four-place certified aircraft. Other types might offer more speed, but at the cost of six-cylinder fuel burn. Others might be less expensive to purchase and operate but will likely fall short in cross-country traveling ability.

Both the Mooney and Grumman seem to provide a nice balance of speed, operating economy, and ease of ownership. Without any overly difficult-to-source airframe parts, massive ADs, or orphaned engines in the equation, both types offer a compelling solution for longer-distance travel without an overly-burdensome ownership experience. 

Perhaps best of all, both types are enthusiastically supported by vibrant owners’ groups. For a nominal annual fee, a new owner can unlock a level of support, expertise, and camaraderie that owners of less-common types can only dream of. Whether a buyer opts for the M20 or the AA-5, it’s a safe bet they’ll enjoy their purchase for many years.

This article was originally published in the April 2023, Issue 936 of  FLYING.

The post Air Compare: Grumman AA-5 vs. Mooney M20 Series appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After Cessna discontinued production of the big radial-powered 190 and 195 taildraggers in 1954, the company was left with the 180 and 185 to fill that category and saw there would be a market for large, capable piston singles with tricycle gear. Their solution? The retractable-gear 210, introduced in 1960, and the fixed-gear 206, introduced as the 205 in 1962, and in earnest as the 206 in 1964.

Over the course of their production runs, both the 206 and the 210 went through several evolutions. The 206 primarily saw minor changes, whereas the 210 saw significant revamps during its run. Production of both types was suspended in 1986, and only the 206 would be resurrected in more recent years. Today, the pre-1986 family of 206 and 210 series of aircraft provides a compelling blend of capability, comfort, and familiar, predictable flight characteristics.

As with any types of the vintage, each comes with a smattering of pitfalls and ownership challenges. As Cessna added features like turbocharging and pressurization, the airplanes became more challenging to own and maintain. Here, we explore the legacy 206 and the 210 and evaluate the capability of each while considering their respective pros and cons.

Design and Evolution

The earliest models of the 206 and 210 had significant overlap, visually and in terms of their capabilities. The two types diverged over time, but they share several fundamental similarities. Both used Cessna’s familiar high-wing, all-metal airframe design from the beginning. Both also offered similar dimensions and load-carrying capabilities, and both utilized six-cylinder Continental engines, with a “T” prefix indicating the presence of a turbocharger on models like the T206 and T210. The two types differed primarily in their landing gear, wings, and doors.

The 210 was introduced first as a 1960 model. The 1960 and 1961 models had four seats and were essentially 182s with retractable gear and 30 additional horsepower. 1962 brought rear windows and a 4 inches wider cabin. The 1962 to 1966 210s are essentially retractable-gear 206s with less available space in the back because of the main gear wells in the aft cabin. 

In 1964, a third row of seats became available as an option. These initial seats were diminutive affairs with backrests that unfolded out of the raised baggage area floor. Most owners consider these to be most suitable for small adults and children. Performance-wise, Cessna upgraded the engine from the 260 hp IO-470 to the 285 hp IO-520, and the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span by 8 inches, improving pitch authority when landing with a forward CG.

The 210 lost its wing struts in 1967 when the strutless cantilever wing made its first appearance. Three years later, a switch to more compact tubular steel landing gear provided more space in the aft cabin, enabling full-sized seats to be used in the third row.

The most significant change during the cantilever-wing era was the addition of the P210, with “P” denoting cabin pressurization. Easily the most complex version of the 210, the pressurization provided comfort and capability during longer trips. With a relatively low 3.35 psi differential, however, the cabin altitude can easily exceed 10,000 feet, so many owners still utilize oxygen. Nevertheless, the pressurization provides a notably quieter, more comfortable cabin.

The Cessna 205, produced during the 1963 and 1964 model years, is essentially a fixed-gear 210. Because there was no need for bays to house the retracted main gear, the aft floor was flat and sported full-sized seats in the third row. The bulge in the cowl remains, however, making the 205 difficult to distinguish from a 210 visually.

With fixed landing gear, the 206 is simpler to operate, insure, and maintain than the 210. It was introduced in 1964 and took over the fixed-gear duties from the 205. As it was optimized for transporting people and cargo, cruise speed took a backseat to basic economy and reliability. Floats, skis, and belly pods for additional cargo capacity were available options. Legacy 206s are available in two versions: passenger, indicated by a “P” prefix, and utility, indicated by a “U” prefix.

The passenger-biased P206 models provide three separate entry points to the cabin. Each front seat has its own door, and a third smaller door provides access to the left-side back seat. Opinions vary based on spryness and flexibility, but one P206 owner with whom we spoke describes this rear door as somewhat more difficult to utilize than that of a Cessna 150. The door lacks a footrest to assist ingress and egress, and the door opening is relatively small. For many, it’s a feature best utilized for children and baggage. 

For owners interested in hauling larger cargo or simply desiring easier access to the aft half of the cabin, the U206 provides large double “clamshell” doors on the right side of the fuselage. So massive are these doors that passengers can easily board both the second and third row of seats.

The ease of entry and egress of the U206’s double doors strongly appeals to owners who regularly transport elderly or disabled passengers, and thanks to the low sill height, outsized cargo is easily loaded and unloaded. A supplemental type certificate (STC)available from Wipaire allows for the installation of a right-side front door.

Compared to the 210, the 206 line saw far fewer changes during its production, the design remaining relatively consistent from year to year. One notable change came in 1968 when the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span for additional pitch authority at forward CGs. The P206 was discontinued in 1971,leaving the U206 as the sole version in production.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of 206 and 210 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides some interesting takeaways.

Most notable is the scarcity of 205s and 206s on the market. This supports the chatter among owners that charter operators—particularly those in Alaska—snatch up many examples for their fleets. With only 14 listed for sale at the time of this writing, the fixed-gear variants appear to be in far higher demand than the 210s.

Additionally, the median number of airframe hours among the 206s represented is notably higher than the 210s, further bolstering the claims that the type sees heavy use in commercial operations. While regular use can be a good thing for the health of an airplane and especially an engine, owners advise using caution when considering a 206 that has been used commercially. The life of a cargo airplane can be harsh. Many have led hard lives and have been kept outdoors for decades, whereas their privately-owned counterparts are more likely to have been babied by doting owners and kept in climate-controlled hangars.

The higher median price of the 206 also suggests an overall preference in the market for fixed landing gear. The cost to maintain the retractable gear of the 210 family is not inconsequential. Neither is the amount of time and effort required to develop a thorough understanding of the components involved and closely monitor the entire system’s health. Add increased insurance premiums to the list of retractable gear concerns, and for most, it would take a significant pay-off to absorb the costs involved.

Fortunately, there are indeed some payoffs at play.From the very beginning, cruise speed has been one of them. At the same power setting, an earlier 210 with wing struts cruises approximately 25 mph faster than an equivalent fixed-gear 206. Alternatively, one can select a lower power setting and enjoy lower fuel burn due to decreased drag.

However, reduced drag isn’t enough to make up for the aforementioned higher cost of ownership, and this is evident in pricing. With asking prices of normally-aspirated 210s hovering at less than half the price of comparable 206s, buyers in the current market seem to place higher value on the simplicity, reliability, and lower operational cost of the 206 versus the speed and performance of the 210. For potential buyers regularly hauling people and cargo, the improved cabin access likely plays a part, as well.

With fewer than 600 examples built, Cessna 205s are relatively scarce and can go unnoticed. Like the Cessna 175, fewer people know what they are, so fewer people think to search for them on classified sites. For this reason, it’s not uncommon to find a 205 lurking deep in the listings that others have yet to discover. Presently, only 172 examples remain active on the FAA registry, and only two were listed among the major aircraft classified sites surveyed at the time of this writing.

Flight Characteristics

Speak with 206 and 210 owners, and their most noteworthy takeaway is just how unnoteworthy they found their transitions into the types. With relatively consistent operation and handling qualities across the Cessna model line, owners reported virtually no red flags or concerns involved in the transition.

One owner progressed from a 172 to a 182 modified with a 285 horsepower upgrade, and finally into his turbo 206. He felt that the transition from the 172 to the 182 was far more demanding than the transition from the 182 to the 206. Other owners echo this sentiment, describing the 206 as nothing more than a slightly larger 182.

Both the 206 and 210 provide excellent IFR platforms. The overall stability requires little effort on the part of the pilot to maintain headings and altitudes, and eases approaches as well. Handling and stability remain relatively consistent, whether light or heavy. A light, unloaded example can be something of a hot rod when it comes to acceleration and climb performance. But even loaded to maximum takeoff weight, the books indicate a 210B requires only 1,210 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle on takeoff, and a P206E requires only 1,800 feet.

In cruise, 206 owners report cruise speeds of around140 to 150 mph while burning around 13 to 14 gallons per hour. The 210s vary based on the wing and presence of main landing gear doors, which can be removed to simplify maintenance, but a strutted 210 will cruise in the neighborhood of 180 mph, with turbocharged versions capable of more. 

When it comes to approaches and landings, a 206 or 210 owner will again invariably describe their airplane as “a big 182.’’ Those we surveyed reported final approach speeds of 85 to 90 mph and honestlanding characteristics, with only one caveat—elevator authority at light weights. With only one or two individuals on board, especially with full flaps, it can be difficult to flare. Using trim can alleviate the need for back pressure on the yoke, but one must be prepared to retrim quickly in the event of a go-around.

While this is generally just a nuisance for most 206s and 210s, it’s a more serious concern with models that came from the factory with smaller horizontal stabilizers—pre-1964 for the 210, and pre-1968 for the 206. Owners of these models will commonly keep weight in the aft baggage area to alleviate the issue and prevent running out of elevator authority in the flare.

Overall, owners cherish the predictable, familiar flight characteristics of both models. They enjoy the rock-solid stability in cruise, particularly for instrument work. With the exception of the forward CG when light, they report no red flags or items of concern,describing the airplanes as honest and straightforward.

“When the Super Skywagon Debuted…

In the December 1964 issue of FLYING, we compared the new Cessna Super Skywagon 206 to the then- current Cessna Centurion 210B, noting what the company had leveraged to make the new sibling a real change from its older sister.

“This new Super Skywagon shares its wing with the Model 210D Centurion, but is approved for an allowable gross weight of 3,300 pounds, fully 200 pounds more than its faster sister, and as a floatplane it goes to a whopping 3,500-pound gross. It is a new wing, more gull-shaped in its planform. The flaps extend a full 18.9 feet, and are electrically operated Fowler type and contribute to a marked increase to lift when extended. Shortening the ailerons was made necessary by the broad span of the flaps, but this has been offset by increasing their chord. They are Frise type with hinges at one -third chord position for reduced control forces. The wings are manufactured to accept Cessna Nav-O-Matic autopilots.

“The tail group, similar to that used on the 210D, is of adequate size to control the forces created by the oversized flaps. At no time during our flight was a lack of elevator control evidenced…”

Ownership

As the legacy 206 and 210 fleet consists of aircraft now at least 37 and up to 63 years old, the primary concern of ownership is the age of the airframe and its components. Corrosion is a concern with most aircraft of this age, and it pays to do some digging to determine where it has spent its life. An airplane that has spent decades on the coast will likely present more airframe issues than one that has lived in the Arizona desert.

Beyond airframe corrosion, much of the discussion around owning and maintaining a 206 or a 210 will revolve around the retractable landing gear of the 210. While it isn’t something to be scared of, and while there are many very happy 210 owners, the system and its components demand respect. To ensure the gear will operate reliably, an owner must become something of a landing gear enthusiast, eagerly learning the intricacies and only permitting mechanics who are intimately familiar with 210 gear to work on it.

In general, the newer the 210, the more reliable the landing gear and easier to maintain. The first examples in 1960 and 1961 incorporated a complex hydraulic system with components that, should they fail, maybe impossible to source for significant lengths of time.Additionally, these early models are subject to an airworthiness directive (AD) that can require an owner to seek out equally scarce replacement parts. 

Subsequent generations of the 210 incorporated better landing gear designs, such as the simplified 1970 model year and the 1972 model year that tran-sitioned to a far superior electro-hydraulic system. Best of all is the 1979 and newer gear design, which has proven remarkably reliable and trouble-free.

More than one owner has cautioned that the turbo engines have a habit of heating the engine compartment enough to significantly reduce the lifespan of cylinders and engine accessories, even when carefully monitoring the engine and using recommended power settings. While they appreciate the capability of the turbo, they question whether it’s worth the headache.

Some of the most significant concerns of the 210 are wing spar ADs that affect cantilever-winged (i.e.strutless) wings. These are one-time ADs that require an inspection of the spars and carry-through assembly. Should these components require replacement, the cost is steep at $20,000 or more for the necessary parts, excluding labor. But whether the components pass inspection or are ultimately replaced, you can forget these ADs once completed and documented.

Except for the spar ADs, both the 206 and 210 are generally unburdened with recurring ADs that plague other types, and maintenance comes down to routine annuals and the replacement of parts that wearout. The 206 owners with whom we spoke plan for a baseline figure of $2,000 to $3,000 for a typical, uneventful annual inspection with no surprises. Predictably, 210 owners report a higher baseline of around $3,000 to $5,000 for a similar annual. 

The Cessna Pilot ’s Association is the go-to owner’s group for the 206 and 210, offering systems and procedures courses both online and in-person to educate owners. Those who have taken these courses rave about them, particularly one taught by Paul New at Tennessee Aircraft Services in Jackson, Tennessee, a de facto 210 expert. For around $1,000, owners are brought up to speed on the most recent issues encountered by others around the country.

Insurance expense can be a significant concern for the owner of any six-place airplane. For a few points of reference, a P206 owner with 146 hours total time and a hull value of $150,000 reported annual premiums of $3,800. On the other end of the spectrum, a P210 owner with thousands of hours of tactical fighter experience and a hull value of $327,000 reported an annual premium of $4,600 per year. Some owners have found a creative way to reduce their premiums. By removing the aft two seats, they can insure their airplanes asfour-place aircraft. By doing so, some saw reductions in insurance premiums as high as 30 to 40 percent.

Our Take

When it comes to six-place piston singles without a new-aircraft price tag, there are only a handful of alternatives to the 206 and 210. The most direct competitors, both in terms of cost and capability, would be Piper Cherokee Six, Saratoga, and Lance. The Beechcraft Bonanza A36 is a well-loved option that comes with a premium price. And if useful load is less of a concern, certain Beechcraft Musketeers and Sierras are equipped with a third row of small seats primarily suitable for children.

Overall, the 206 and 210 offer a balanced set of strengths, including payload, speed, and range. Less quantifiable but perhaps equally important are the familiar handling and ease when transitioning from 172s and 182s. One of the more interesting aspects of the two types is the flexibility to shift the expense from acquisition to operation or vice-versa. The 206 commands a higher purchase price but costs less to maintain, while 210s can be had at a relative bargain provided the maintenance budget is increased. 

Whichever model is selected, a buyer will undoubtedly appreciate the strengths of the type, and will enjoy a level of real-world capability matched by few other aircraft on the market.

This article was originally published in the February 2023 Issue 934 of FLYING.

The post <i>FLYING’s</i> Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.