Greg Copeland wrote:
On May 18, 7:55 pm, Newps wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:

That's an old wife's tale.
No, it's not.
But it is true. It is an old wife's tale. According to the old wives
tale I would be miserable in that plane. In fact, if it's to be
believe, I should barely be able to sit in it. It was actually very
pleasant.

Mooneys are actually pretty roomy so long

as we're talking about the front seats; otherwise, it depends.
The back seats are worse.


Again, it depends on the model, as I said. I can sit in the back of
a J with a 6' pilot in front and have plenty of leg room between my
knee and the back of the seat. Back seats are exactly as I said. You
seem to not understand that there are THREE different size Mooney's.
You seem to solely focus on the short body.

When I flew the J, there were three of us. The guy in the back seat
looked like someone relaxing on a sofa. He had tons of room and was
very comfortable.

If you

think a Mooney is tiny, then a 182 or Bo of the same year is also tiny
as the Mooney is wider (or same size of bo...I forget).
There's no comaprison.

There is no comparison unless you want to use math. If you decide
to do the math, you'll find there is a good comparison and the Mooney
is wider than a 182 and on par with a Bo. I guess this is why the
Mooney guys say stating this fact drives the Bo guys crazy. Now
that's a myth that can now seemingly be confirmed.

A friend has a Mooney, a 63 I think. My Bo is a
64 and the 182 I used to have was a 67. Both are much more roomy than a
Mooney. That may be enhanced by the fact that with a Mooney you are
sitting on the floor with your legs straight out and the the others it's
like sitting on your kitchen chair.


You're suffering from the typical illusions that lead many people to
that false impression. Factually speaking, it is not smaller width
wise. The year you are talking about, as I originally said, is tiny
in the backseat. That year Mooney is a short body. That year would
have to be one of the short body Mooneys which is why I referred to it
as a 2+2 seater. In all the Mooneys, you sit closer to the panel
which gives the impression there is less room. You sit closer because
your legs are in a sporty seating position rather than a typical
upright chair position.

You'll find that people that like sport cars like Mooneys. People
that like town cars hate Mooneys. The second group seem to describe
getting into a Mooney as "putting on a glove". Why? My guess is
because the seating layout seems to follow. It's largely personal
preference. Having said that, please stop with the old wife's tales.
Clearly, your impression is that it's tiny. Factually, in the front,
it is not.

If anything,

there is a very clear preferece for tall pilots. If you are under
5'10", a Mooney may not be for you. In fact, the A owner that I
previously mentioned in another power is 6'5" (best guess 260lbs).
I'm 6'3" and 225lbs at the time of flight). The owner is broader in
the shoulders than I am.
I'm 6'2" and the Mooney was like putting on a glove. Once your legs are
in the wells they ain't going anywhere. On both the 182 and Bo you can
move your legs around. I often on long trips wil take my right leg and
put it diagonally across to the passenger side just to move around a
little. No way no how you do that in a Mooney, you can't even bend your
knees. Of course that's how they went so fast on 200 HP, there's no
there there.

I was comparing well established physical dimensions. You're
comparing your personal observations. I'd rather deal with math. If
you bother to check for your self, you'll soon find your self
reconsidering. I do agree about the low seating position, which is
exactly why it has the room it has, given the shorter cabin. The
shorter cabin also tends to give the false impression that the width
is smaller. Having said that, not being able to put your feet on the
ceiling does not translate into tiny cockpit. With my long legs, I
had plenty of room to move my legs around (in both the A [short body]
and J [medium body] models) and could easily change their position to
keep them from cramping...or whatever. It sounds like your sole
Mooney experience is with the short body Mooneys and expectations, for
whatever reason, which were not met. There is not doubt they are
different.

Cabin width is only one part of the story. People need to check them
out as you say. Having flown a 182 for 400+ hours and an Arrow for 60+,
there is no comparison in comfort. The 182 wins hands down even though
the difference in cabin width is small. The 182 is wider where it
counts (shoulders for me), the seat is higher off the floor so I don't
feel like I'm sitting in a go-cart, and the foor well is much roomier.
Also, there is room between the seats as the space is filled with a flap
handle and gear mechanism.

I've never sat in a Mooney so I can't speak to them, but I looked in one
just yesterday that is in for a fuel tank leak repair and it looked
really tight inside, especially and and above shoulder height.


Matt