![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. ![]() 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. I would strongly recommend anyone considering a Mooney, completely ignore the people parroting old wives tales and go check one out for your self. You may find you agree. Or, like me, you might find that your a convert and no longer buy into parroting the old wive's tale. Before you look, figure out if you're a town car person or a sports car person. I bet you'll know your answer once you figure out what type of car person you are. Greg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A4-B Skyhawk | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | March 2nd 07 01:04 AM |
Photos of 1:48 TA-4K Skyhawk | [email protected] | General Aviation | 12 | February 17th 05 03:39 PM |
Photos of 1:48 TA-4K Skyhawk | [email protected] | Restoration | 12 | February 17th 05 03:39 PM |
A-4 Skyhawk is 50 today | José Herculano | Naval Aviation | 7 | June 27th 04 04:28 AM |
Skyhawk A4-K Weapons fit? | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | February 18th 04 02:44 AM |