The Bonanza G36 against the Cessna 206 Stationair, a choice between refined cross-country speed and outright payload with big-door access.
The Bonanza is the better answer when the load is people and normal baggage moving between paved airports: it turns fuel into cruise speed and gives the pilot a more refined travelling aeroplane. The 206 wins when the object being carried is the mission. Its fixed gear, large doors and cabin shape accept awkward cargo and frequent loading in a way the Bonanza cannot imitate with an extra seat on the specification sheet. Do not choose by the six-seat label. Write down the heaviest real trip and the largest item that must pass through the door, then see which aircraft still works.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Beechcraft Bonanza G36View aircraft profile | Cessna 206H StationairView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2023 | 2008 |
| Estimated purchase | €1.09m | €523k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €55k | €53k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €1.36m | €787k |
| Cruise speed | 176 kt | 142 kt |
| Advertised range | 930 nm | 730 nm |
| Seats | 6 | 6 |
| Realistic payload | 356 kg | 457 kg |
| Runway need | 583 m | 570 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Complex airplane endorsement | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Fast, refined and highly respected, but six seats are mainly a cabin-size claim once fuel and baggage are considered. | Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 206H Stationair is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Beechcraft Bonanza G36 | Cessna 206H Stationair | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $1.42m (€1.31m) | $801k (€742k) | $615k (€569k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 100 h / year | $1.5m (€1.39m) | $874k (€810k) | $629k (€583k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 200 h / year | $1.65m (€1.53m) | $996k (€922k) | $653k (€605k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 623 nm from the Beechcraft Bonanza G36 against 489 nm from the Cessna 206H Stationair. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Beechcraft Bonanza G36 has enough runway at 25,146 of them and the Cessna 206H Stationair at 25,402, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,913 ft and 1,870 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
The Beechcraft Bonanza G36 requires a complex airplane endorsement that the Cessna 206H Stationair does not. That is training time and instructor cost before the first trip, and insurers normally attach minimum-hours conditions to the same requirement, which is where it shows up again in the running cost. US requirements under 14 CFR 61.31, stated for orientation rather than as advice.
Six-seat high-performance personal transport. Its central ownership trade-off is: Fast, refined and highly respected, but six seats are mainly a cabin-size claim once fuel and baggage are considered.
Planning snapshot: $1.18m (€1.09m) indicative price and $59k (€55k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileSix-seat fixed-gear utility and touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics.
Planning snapshot: $565k (€523k) indicative price and $57k (€53k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile