![]() |
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |