The roomy Bonanza G36 against the tight but remarkably efficient Mooney M20J 201, a classic cabin-against-economy debate.
The M20J wins the acquisition and fuel-efficiency argument, but an older Mooney does not automatically win the annual. Tanks, gear, avionics, logs and deferred maintenance belong to the specific airframe, so its low entry price needs a serious reserve. The Bonanza costs more to buy yet offers a cabin and passenger experience the Mooney cannot stretch into, while local Beechcraft support can make its ownership more predictable. For two people who prize speed per litre and fit the cockpit, the M20J is difficult to beat. For frequent passengers or long days aboard, the G36 justifies itself before another knot does.
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 | Mooney M20J 201View aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2023 | 1985 |
| Estimated purchase | €1.09m | €113k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €55k | €65k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €1.36m | €438k |
| Cruise speed | 176 kt | 155 kt |
| Advertised range | 930 nm | 1000 nm |
| Seats | 6 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 356 kg | 338 kg |
| Runway need | 583 m | 500 m |
| Landing gear | Retractable tricycle | Retractable tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | Complex airplane endorsement | Complex airplane endorsement |
| 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. | Outstanding efficiency and speed, but cabin access, useful load and ageing gear or fuel-tank issues need attention. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Mooney M20J 201 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 | Mooney M20J 201 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $1.42m (€1.31m) | $438k (€406k) | $978k (€906k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
| 100 h / year | $1.5m (€1.39m) | $490k (€454k) | $1.01m (€939k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
| 200 h / year | $1.65m (€1.53m) | $576k (€534k) | $1.07m (€994k) to Mooney M20J 201 |
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 670 nm from the Mooney M20J 201. 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 Mooney M20J 201 at 26,739, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,913 ft and 1,640 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.
Nothing separates them here. Both require a complex airplane endorsement, so a pilot qualified for one is qualified for the other.
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 profileFour-seat efficient retractable-gear tourer. Its central ownership trade-off is: Outstanding efficiency and speed, but cabin access, useful load and ageing gear or fuel-tank issues need attention.
Planning snapshot: $122k (€113k) indicative price and $70k (€65k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile