View Single Post
  #41  
Old May 19th 07, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Greg Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Skyhawk vs. Mooney

On May 19, 3:06 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Greg,

I can honestly say you are the only person that seems to
have those odd observations about Mooneys.


Actually, I fully agree with him on all points. And I've read comments
agreeing with him since I've read about Mooneys. Here, in magazines,
everywhere. Size, inside, window height, low seating, low hanging gear
doors - those are all pretty much standard comments for Mooney, just as
the comment that they go fast.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)



Interesting. I've read many articles about Mooneys since my interest
peaked in them and never read anything as such. The only place I've
heard the complaints I was taking issue with is here...by him. To be
clear, no one is debating "low seating or low hanging gear doors."
That too is a fact of Mooney design. I'm talking about this
description of tiny windows and "low window height", which seem odd to
me. Nothing could be father from the truth. I'm ignoring some of his
other comments because factually he is incorrect as the numbers speak
for themselves; yet the old wive's tales live on.

I do completely agree that the fit of a Mooney is subjective because
of the seating (both lower and closer to the panel), but I never said
anything otherwise. I did offer that it's not for everyone. I find
that many people are uncomfortable sitting in my sport car because
it's not what they are used to. Yet that doesn't make it small...it
just makes it different. In fact, when I sit in trucks, I often have
the same disdain that truck people ave sitting in my car. Yet I don't
go around trying to create old wife's tales about tiny truck cabins.
It's just different use of space with a different seating position.

I can honestly say I went looking at Mooneys expecting to come away
saying, "BS" while rolling my eyes, while smirking at these weird
Mooney guys. But then again, I'm a sports car guy. I'm not real fat
(just a little extra in the belly) and I have LOTS of room to move my
legs around. I can move my legs both side to side and back toward me
providing lots of knee relief. This provides ample room to prevent
discomfort on a long trip. I guess if one has elephant sized legs,
the seating position may not be attractive because of the limited
mobility imposed on the constraints of overly large limbs.

You specifically complain about shoulder space yet that's exactly why
the seating is lowered in the Mooney. The reasoning is simple. If
you lower your body, your shoulders will now be at the widest part of
the cabin. For my frame, I found ample shoulder space. Hmm. Perhaps
you have your seat positioned such that your shoulders were forced
higher than intended? The shorter cabin will certainly give the
impression that everything is smaller.

Maybe it's because I'm used to flying in 172s, Warriors, and Arrows
and find the Mooney to be a significant step up in space. I dunno.
Worse case, the math still agrees with me.

Cheers,

Greg