I’m thinking about buying a Beech A36 or G36. I’m also considering a Cessna 206. I’ve got a family of 5 and a dog to travel with. Kids are 12, 15, and 17 and all under 150lbs. Trips won’t be further than about 500-600 miles. What should I know before I buy and what other recommendations does everyone have? Yes, I know, get a pre-buy inspection. And yes, I have a hangar.
5 Likes
The Bonanza is a good choice. The 206 is nice with the doors. The A36 useful load is a little less than the Cessna 210 (which was the determining factor in my decision to get the 210-- I need the extra 100-200 pounds). THere’s more Bonanza’s out there and have a huge and active community for support.
1 Like
I agree with TakingOffDan, including the recommendation of the 210. I have a wife, three daughters and a dog, and we can still fly with luggage and at least an hour’s reserve. Better than that, the Centurion is a stable instrument platform and can carry a ton of ice if you accidentally run into trouble (ask me how I know). There is no such thing as a 210 owner who doesn’t love the airplane.
FWIW, I wouldn’t buy either plane without an instrument rating and a plan for recurrent training.
3 Likes
Hi Hoover,
Good conversation starter even if you are not looking for an aeroplane.
But if you really are:
We started out and built a ICP Savannah, actually building it from the kit was surprisingly satisfying. Had that for about 10 years. Fantastic observation platform, if you can stand 75 kts in a straight line.
Then traded up to a 1967 model C-182 just a great all around aeroplane but still a little slow.
A couple of years back traded up to a 1977 model A-36 (Went halves with another ex airline mate), just a lovely aeroplane and goes at a speed you are not trying to wish it would go faster all the time.
Flew a C-206 in PNG for a year or so, it’s a great bush aeroplane and quite a load carrier, pretty much a big C-182.
Probably telling you something you already know but the C-206 is built for a slightly different mission than the Bonanza, as one post here has noted the C-210 is the closer comparison aeroplane.
Good things I’ve found about the Bonanza in addition to its speed:
There is a very strong American Beechcraft Society, which has very strong safety and training departments which might interest you. I’m in Australia but am very glad to be a member of the American society just for the on line training it offers. I’m not sure that Cessna has such a passionate group of owners ?.
Our A-36 came with STC tip tanks which increases the MTOW by about 80kg (175 lbs ish) with some minor manoeuvre speed limits when not empty. The increase is still valid when the tip tanks ARE empty so that is very useful at times.
The only disadvantage I have come across with the A-36 compared to our C182 is I chose not to land it on our farm strip (personal limit) the A-36 could do it, but you pay for the extra maintenance to have the retractable gear checked every year so it seems a shame to knock it around on a gravel strip and the insurance company probably wouldn’t like the 7% slope should something go amiss. We jut chose for someone to pick us up a the the local airport 25 minutes drive away. The C182/206 you can self insure for the occasional farm strip landing with confidence.
I think your choice depends on your ‘refined’ mission statement.
Cheers
1 Like
I’m a Cessna 210 owner and I agree Cessna doesn’t currently have the hardcore community that Bonanza has.
Hoover you have probably flown mostly low wing aeroplanes ?? The perspective from a high wing aeroplane is obviously slightly different. So that’s something to consider.
I was pleasantly surprised by the all around visibility from the front seats of the A-36.
After having done a lot of flying in high wing aeroplanes I thought maybe the downward visibility from the A-36 might be a negative. However as the A36 is a stretch of the earlier Bonanza’s its front two seats are slightly forward of the wing leading edge and downward visibility is surprisingly good.
One positive of a high wing is in the desert (Australian outback) in the stinking hot sun your passengers can’t stand under the wing in the shade while you do a walk around and load the bags etc. They can’t really do that in a Bonanza.
This aligns with C-206 “good bush aeroplane”, Bonanza “lovely point to point aeroplane from well maintained strips with at the very least a little shed you can call a terminal.”
Ya, I need to find someone that has an A36 that I can go fly with them and see how I like it.
I’ve never heard of a pilot who dislikes how an A36 flies or performs. Great all-around airplane. The only real downside is acquisition cost and maintenance cost are relatively high (though maintaining a C210 can also be eye-watering). As long as you’re willing spend what it takes to keep your aircraft in top shape, and respect its limitations, you won’t go wrong.
Hey Hoover,
If you come to Melbourne 
you can come for a fly in ours.
Cheers Steve.
Regards
Stephen McConville
Oh hello Dan! Fancy seeing you here. I watch your channel regularly, you do a really good job.
Sorry, this is a bit out of place I know. Feel free to delete it if it’s too out of place. 
2 Likes
Are you looking for a new plane Hoover? I know what I’d buy if I had decided to become a pilot. I’d get a Cirrus (sp) with a canopy. I remember Captain Joe was previewing one. It even had a button to press for “wings level” and a sort of tunnel to fly through on a screen when coming in to land. Being able to recover from a tumbling graveyard spiral in IMC by pressing “wings level” sounds awesome. I don’t know if any Cirrus has a pressurised cabin, but this would also be great to include.
I’m not sure if a twin engined plane is too big for a canopy landing, it most likely is, but 2 engines give you confidence if one flames out. My ideal plane would need icing capabilities too, as this would be an issue both where I live and where I’d want to go to visit relatives, ie Shetland which spans 60 - 61 degrees north
1 Like
The 210 and A36 are good 6 seat airplanes. If I was looking i would also consider the Piper Lance/Saratoga SP, though a little bit slower than the others they are more than adequate for 500-600 mile trips and have more useful load and CG range. I recommend avoiding anything with a turbocharger.
LMK when you’re in the NY area - I have access to A36s.
IMO the 206 and the A36 really suit different missions, though there is quite a bit of overlap. It’s really about speed/range. Since your missions are 500-600NM the Bonanza will save you maybe 45 min. It’s a good 30-40 KTAS difference on average (depends on the specific airplanes, engine options, etc). That may or may not matter to you, but with kids on board any time savings may be useful. But so will the useful load of a 206 which is 200-250# greater. So it’s a trade-off just like everything else in aviation. Similar TO/LDG performance.
There’s a reason that the 206 is so popular in Alaska and similar areas. It hauls a ton, is very utility focused, and is a more forgiving flyer than the Bo, though pilots do rave about the Bo’s handling. It’s a bit like driving GMC SUV vs a BMW SUV.
Plus low wing vs high wing preference. Doesn’t the F-15 have a high wing Viewing, climbing up on the wing to get in and out, etc.
One more thing to consider with the Bo is that its CG can be tricky.
I know less about the 206 other than its reputation as a work horse…and they’re still being manufactured. Beech discontinued 36s/58s a year or so ago. But they made something like 18,000 35s/36s over 80 years so there is no immediate need to fret about parts availability.
Both types often have the rear barn doors which are super nice for loading, and the seats come out pretty easily too if you want to switch to more of a cargo config.
Both came with different engine options over the years, and STCs, but in the case of Cessna they went back and forth between Continental and Lycoming. The last 25 years or so have been Lycoming. IDK if that matters to you, but when picking the specific plane you buy the engine installed will of course be a consideration.
Both manufacturers have wide spread support networks for those types. I know the Beech type club is robust. I imagine the same is true for the Cessna, though I don’t know for sure. Beech’s type club also has mature safety and proficiency programs through the American Bonanza Society and their Beech Pilot Proficiency Program.
In either case unless you drop the $ on a newer example you’ll be looking at an avionics upgrade or getting one with the avionics already upgraded by an owner who designed the panel to his/her taste…not necessarily yours. And those panel upgrades often will have some persistent squawks associated with them. And AC is a big big plus, especially with your family onboard.
Others have mentioned the 210, which I understand is also a great plane. I know that they had gear issues in early on but those are well understood and sorted now. I know a guy who had a gear-up landing in his 210 years ago.
Lastly, with any of these older types, ensuring highly experienced maintenance is available NEAR YOU is really really important. There are folks out there who have been working on these for decades and have seen it all. Having easy access to those folks is really important.
And don’t forget the two best days of aircraft ownership: the day you get it and the day you sell it 
2 Likes
Thanks for all the inputs. I’ve read somewhere that the A36 baggage area is limited to 70 pounds and anything else would have to go in one of the seats or you’d have to remove a row of seats, effectively making the aircraft a 4-seater. Do you know if that’s true?
Yeah, as I mentioned above it (CG) can be “tricky” which was my euphemism for it’s W is better than its B. In fact there are mods to add ballast to the engine compartment for this reason (CG). IDK enough to say that I’d call it effectively a 4-seater or not, but if you want to go with 5 souls onboard your luggage allowance aft will be limited. CAVEAT: IDK what the mods allow you to do in terms of CG so it’s worth researching, perhaps through the American Bonanza Society.
I still like my idea of a Cirrus. Scot Manley has a Cirrus that apparently can take over the flying completely and self land at any nearby runway! It sounds unbelievable. With the press of a switch, this plane doesn’t even need the person in the cockpit to be a pilot. What with its airframe parachute and complete auto land, this is the plane for me! Why would anyone not want to buy it?
I haven’t seen this video but there appears to be quite a bit of hyperbole. As background I both own a Cirrus SR22 and instruct in Cirrus SRs (as well as other types).
First, it does not completely fly itself. Nowhere close to that. There is no “auto takeoff” or equivalent. The plane still requires the pilot to enter navigation, control power, command AFCS, etc. Much of the hand flying element is automated for climb, departure, cruise, arrival, descent, and approach, but it’s just following the procedure that the pilot selects. Takeoff and landing are certainly not automated. Second, none of these systems are foolproof. Not only do they fail but they only do as commanded by the pilot, only. Then there is all of the flight planning, preflight, ATC, etc.
BTW in terms of systems automation in GA none of this is new, either. All modern flight decks in GA are like this. I have a friend with a 56 year old V35B which he has completely upgraded and minus emergency features it’s equally capable. On the subject of emergency features…
Third, the Safe Return auto-land system in the SR is for emergencies only. It’s not something that is used regularly in flight, any more than CAPS is. In fact the G7+ doesn’t even have real auto-throttles - it just has servos to facilitate the emergency landing power settings and brakes. It also requires a runway with length of at least 4,500’ (very long by SR standards) and 75’ wide and an RNAV GPS APV approach. No step downs.
They are wildly expensive for what they are. I think a brand new G7+ T runs about $1.3mm USD? They’re THE dominant piston-single XC IFR game in town, by sales, and they price accordingly. They also don’t have great load. It’s like getting a BMW sports sedan for regular Home Depot runs. To illustrate, a G7 full fuel payload is about 650-700#. That’s two adults plus luggage and a small child. Or 3 adults with minimum luggage. It also doesn’t have great cargo access, unlike the barn doors on an A36 or something like that.
The SR line are FANTASTIC aircraft. Again, I own one and I instruct in them regularly. They are great for not nearly all but a decent range of missions. However they are no way good for a family of 5 plus luggage.
2 Likes
The new Cirrus model does have outstanding safety features, but with a price tag and waiting list to match. You can get a very capable aircraft that’s more appropriate for the mission for 25% or less of the purchase price of a new Cirrus and you don’t have to wait a year and a half for delivery. The million dollars (!!!) you save can buy a lot of safety upgrades if that’s your focus, or even another aircraft or two that fit your needs better for other situations.
1 Like
I suppose a Piper M700 is off the table? 
Whoa! I didn’t expect that price! Scott Manley must have more money than I thought. Of course I realise the auto land feature is just for emergencies and I never implied auto takeoff was included. I’ve seen (Captain Joe) fly one and I can say definitely there is a “wings level” button there, which if you’re in accidental IMC has to be useful. My biggest nightmare would be a pilot getting into a graveyard spiral (with me as a passenger).
@BlueDude I know you from the Discord server Obviously I’m not being serious about buying a new Cirrus plane - or any plane, as I’m not a pilot and even if I was, I don’t have $millions to spare. It was more my dream plane, in a different universe.
Interesting to hear you instruct in a Cirrus @RufusXS. If I was learning to fly in the US and I was rich, then it’s the plane I would be looking to buy based on what I know now. You have to admit, it’s nice. Do they make multi engine aircraft?