Mooney M20F narrow across the shoulders

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Mark,

I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it seemed
tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used to the
sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My wife is
5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you measured the
width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4 seaters).

I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on 10
GPH sure is nice!! :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Mark Hansen wrote:

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,

On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:

Mark,

I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it seemed
tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used to the
sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My wife is
5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you measured the
width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4 seaters).

Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)


I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on 10
GPH sure is nice!! :-)

That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
mention the purchase price ;-) )

It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
period of time.

Thanks Jon.


Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Mark Hansen wrote:

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Mark,

The longest I have flow our "J" is 2.5 hours. By then I was ready to
come down anyway.

Albert Mooney of the Mooney fame was 6'3 or 6'4 and he designed the
plane for the tall person to be comfortable. I have a friend that is
about 280# adn thought he might not fit... Are you verifying that? :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
443H @ TYQ

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:

Mark,

I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it
seemed tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used
to the sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My
wife is 5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you
measured the width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4
seaters).


Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)


I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on
10 GPH sure is nice!! :-)


That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
mention the purchase price ;-) )

It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
period of time.

Thanks Jon.


Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Mark Hansen wrote:

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,

On 9/6/2005 3:58 PM, Jon Kraus wrote:

Mark,

The longest I have flow our "J" is 2.5 hours. By then I was ready to
come down anyway.

Albert Mooney of the Mooney fame was 6'3 or 6'4 and he designed the
plane for the tall person to be comfortable. I have a friend that is
about 280# adn thought he might not fit... Are you verifying that? :-)

Well, don't put me on the stand... ;-)

Actually, before I drop the whole idea, I wanted to go sit in the
plane again. Adjust the seat and just go through the motions. I'll
let you know how that comes out.

My wife says I'm very broad across the shoulders - worse now that I've
gained weight. I do know the rudder pedals seemed pretty far away ;-)


Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
443H @ TYQ

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:

Mark,

I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it
seemed tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used
to the sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My
wife is 5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you
measured the width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4
seaters).


Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)


I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on
10 GPH sure is nice!! :-)


That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
mention the purchase price ;-) )

It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
period of time.

Thanks Jon.


Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Mark Hansen wrote:

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,







--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
(I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
bigger). In the Mooney world, the cabin doesn't get any bigger until
you jump into the M models (Bravo, Ovation, Eagle). The F, J, K all
have the same cabins. An M can cost you 1/4 million though.
I used to fly a Bonanza. If you compare year to year a Bonanza to a
Mooney the Mooney will run slightly faster but the Bonanza will burn
about 20% more fuel doing it. (Don't be tricked by B drivers who try to
compare a 1960 C Mooney with a 2005 F33 Bonanza ). As you said, you
have to pay for the extra room in terms of fuel.

The only real gottcha with the Mooney is that you have to be tall. My
partner is 5'10" and I would consider that minimum height for a Mooney.
He has to move the seat all the way to the front and can just reach the
rudders. In the Bonanza B33 I used to have my knees would rub against
the panel (I'm 6'4"). I do miss the "screw" throttle in the B though.

-Robert, M20F

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
(I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
bigger). In the Mooney world, the cabin doesn't get any bigger until
you jump into the M models (Bravo, Ovation, Eagle). The F, J, K all
have the same cabins. An M can cost you 1/4 million though.
I used to fly a Bonanza. If you compare year to year a Bonanza to a
Mooney the Mooney will run slightly faster but the Bonanza will burn
about 20% more fuel doing it. (Don't be tricked by B drivers who try to
compare a 1960 C Mooney with a 2005 F33 Bonanza ). As you said, you
have to pay for the extra room in terms of fuel.

A friend just sold their M20C, I think it was an early 60's. I'm 6'2",
185. Way too tight for me. Much smaller cabin length than the 64 S35 I
just bought. As for speed, no comparison. The Mooney in really good
shape might get 150 kts, my friends flight planned 140 on about 10 gph.
My Bo gets 175 kts if you want to run 15 gph thru it. The main thing
about the Mooney is you really have to keep it on pavement. My Bo has
the same prop clearance as my recently departed 182 and the gear is
legendary for how strong it is. After some flight testing I can land
the Bo and get it stopped in 550 feet at 2400 pounds, that's 900 under
gross. Takeoff is about the same. I could have bought the Mooney for
half what I paid for my Bo but not being able to land off road was a
real deal killer.


I do miss the "screw" throttle in the B though.

I'm not sold on that yet but I may be warming up to it.

A friend just sold their M20C, I think it was an early 60's. I'm 6'2",
185. Way too tight for me. Much smaller cabin length than the 64 S35 I
just bought. As for speed, no comparison. The Mooney in really good
shape might get 150 kts, my friends flight planned 140 on about 10 gph.

10 gph seems extreamly high for the 180hp C model Mooney. I have a
student with a C model and he usually sees about 8.5 on the fuel flow
JPI. My 200hp Mooney will run about 9.5 at altitude. I'm not any faster
than the C model but I've got a longer cabin for the kids in back.

My Bo gets 175 kts if you want to run 15 gph thru it. The main thing
about the Mooney is you really have to keep it on pavement.

Personally, I like to land mine on the beach. I've gone into
Alphonsinas, Mexico many times (hard pack beach sand). I've got
pictures of a couple Mooney fly-ins at Mulege's dirt strip too if
you're not convinced.
The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

.. I've got
pictures of a couple Mooney fly-ins at Mulege's dirt strip too if
you're not convinced.

Really? That's where these friends of mine have their winter house and
sailboat. They used to fly down in the Mooney. Now they have sold the
Mooney and the Cub and bought a Maule so they can play on the beach down
there.


The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".

It ain't 18", it's less than 12". The other factor is gear doors
hanging low.

In article ,
Newps wrote:



The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".

It ain't 18", it's less than 12". The other factor is gear doors
hanging low.


But the truth is, pavement or dirt or packed sand, if it is very flat
and well groomed, ANYTHING can land there....

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD