Myth. Look at a new Bonanza vs a new 206H (I did a few years ago).
I think this was a market perception for Beech owners to claim why they picked a Beech when Beech sold fewer planes. It was the underdog argument. With so many more planes built, Cessna was bound to have more planes in the shop.

However, I find this whole thread kinda funny and pointless.

Unless you are buying a new plane; the quality of the plane when it was built a few decades ago is almost meaningless.

What matters is how the plane was cared for, and how much differed maintenance and upgrades you will need to accomplish.

Tim

Why is it that human beings are so incredibly insecure? It seems that in every phase of their life, they seek affirmation not information. This debate reminds me of junior high and high school, everybody had to be a "Ford man" or a "Chevy man" or a "Dodge man". We even had one "Studebaker man" and yea, he was WEIRD.

I've owned something over 30 different airplanes, I've had 6 Beechcraft. All good airplanes, but each had its Achilles heal. I had to install fire extinguishers in the cowlings of the Queen Air because there was an issue of engine fires. With all the chest beating over the weakness of Cessnas and the strengths of Beech seem to leave out some details. Yea, the Cessna has seat rail issues, but then seat rails are simple issue to maintain. Cessnas are tin cans?, but so many of them reach 15,000 plus hours so somebody must have some damn good duct tape. The same people seem to forget that Barons have SPAR ISSUES. You know that "thingy" that keeps the wings on? Oh, and magnesium control surfaces, what Beech genius thought that was a good idea?

The Skylane has a history of a high maintenance nose gear. The whole damn tail of Bonanzas fell off for years while the Beech factory denied the weakness and geared up their legal departments instead of their engineering department to address the issue.

Tell me I have to fly through a thunderstorm and give me a choice of a Mooney or a Bonanza? Easy EASY choice.

My tricycle is bigger than yours. My daddy can beat up your daddy. What else is new?

All that being said, childish post like this actually bring some knowledge out of the shadows, like Brannigan's pic of the 310 exhaust. Now, we need some pictures of corroded magnesium and cracked spars.

The truth is, most of the posts here are either ill informed or just plain childish.

Much like high school.

John Grady

I had a 67 and currently have a 58 182 along with my S35. The 182 is nowhere near the Bo in these two categories, especially with the early 182's, they are very load limited. The 182 will land about 50-100 feet shorter if both planes have the same load. If both planes weigh the same the difference in distance will be nonexistent.

Beech Bonanzas are superior to all other single engine land aircraft that are piston powered. Built better, stronger gear, faster than most & more comfortable & easier to work on, to say nothing of efficiency or how easy they are to fly.

This board is living proof that I AM correct.

You're welcome; and don't argue with me JGG.....

I love the Cessna 182, literally my favorite piston single. However, to compare it to a Bonanza isn’t fair! The BO wins hands down.

Go to a Navion fly-in and make this claim. You'll be in for a spirited discussion. I believe the only term you'll find in agreement is that the Bonanza is faster.
The gear was built to military spec with a simple hydraulic/bungee-spring actuation system. Lose hydraulic pressure and the gear will fall into down and locked position using the emergency release. The airframe is built like a tank and I was sold on the comfort after my first flight in turbulence. I found it so easy to fly that I bought one as my first airplane with just over 100hrs. CG is rarely if ever an issue. The floor is metal not wood, in fact the pilot and co-pilot sit on top of a continuously joined wing. Controls are simple, their isn't a complicated pantograph linkage behind the panel. It is one of the simplest aircraft to work on. But to each his own.

So why were Navions such poor sellers, just their good looks?

I own a legacy 182, and have always felt Beechcraft builds a better airplane as for quality, but the Cessna restarts may give Beech a run for it's money.

IMO it's because the usual accolade that "it's built like a bridge" turns out to not be a great design philosophy for something that has to fly

I like my Deb. I have lots of 182 time (Q) and a smattering of 185 time.

I know my Deb a lot more intimately than either Cessna, so I can't really comment on a "build quality" comparison. I've always thought of airplanes as being engineered as light as possible where appropriate with the rest being educated guesses to the fourth decimal place.

I do think it's amazing what sort of abuse a 150, 152, and 172 can take in the training environment, though.

No idea, that was before my time. Could be better marketing and price point. North American Aviation built this plane as a "keep busy" project in their Inglewood factory while waiting for government contracts for jet powered aircraft. I'm told they took a loss on every airplane, as production costs well exceeded the selling price. The type design was sold to Ryan Aeronautical after two years and Ryan made a go of it for several more years. But its anybody's guess why they didn't sell well.

Beechcraft and Cessna both built airplanes that have obviously withstood the test of time. However, there’s no denying the quality differences in the piston powered airplanes. Things like paint, upholstery, sidewalls, headliners, carpet, seats, seat rails, seat belts, corrosion protection, rivet quality, landing gear, fuel caps, fuel selector valves, door handles, switches, control yokes, instrument panel construction, internally lit instruments, engine cowl hinges (or lack thereof), etc. are clearly of higher quality with Beechcraft. They didn’t aim to build the cheapest, just the best.

However, I notice a much higher quality level in the Citation line compared to the Cessna piston line. It’s almost like it’s a different manufacturer. There really aren’t any common links between them. Different animals by nature.

I recently bought an old Cessna L19 Birddog. I'm really impressed with the build quality. I'm even more impressed with the handling qualities but that's not the topic here. I've only owned six airplanes so not an expert nor am I a mechanic but I have to say that the old Birddog is a stout airframe. You'd think, or at least I thought, that planes destined for combat would be certified to some crazy high G ratings. It's only certified in the utility category yet it's a very tough bird. Here's a photo of one that survived 37MM cannon fire.