Skyhawk vs. Mooney

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.

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

Greg Copeland wrote:


I was comparing well established physical dimensions. You're
comparing your personal observations. I'd rather deal with math.



Of course you would. I've ridden in all three and there's no
comparison. It's like headsets. Buy what fits you best. I like sports
cars but a Mooney would never make the short list of planes to buy, for
many reasons. The inside is a deal breaker, way to small. Windows too
small, may as well buy a high wing if I wanted to look out of pillbox
slits. Sits too close to the ground, horrible backcountry plane. It's
a ground lover. A fast plane on only 200 HP means you give up something
and that's takeoff performance.

On May 18, 10:36 pm, Newps wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:

I was comparing well established physical dimensions. You're
comparing your personal observations. I'd rather deal with math.

Of course you would. I've ridden in all three and there's no
comparison. It's like headsets. Buy what fits you best. I like sports
cars but a Mooney would never make the short list of planes to buy, for
many reasons. The inside is a deal breaker, way to small. Windows too
small, may as well buy a high wing if I wanted to look out of pillbox
slits. Sits too close to the ground, horrible backcountry plane. It's
a ground lover. A fast plane on only 200 HP means you give up something
and that's takeoff performance.

I agree that it's a horrible back country plane. But come
one...define your mission. If you want back country, get a Husky.
Complaining that a 200HP plane only has 200HP seems like circular
logic to me. If you require more then 200HP, then it's doubtful 200HP
will satisfy you regardless of the airframe.

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:
On May 18, 10:36 pm, Newps wrote:

Greg Copeland wrote:


I was comparing well established physical dimensions. You're
comparing your personal observations. I'd rather deal with math.

Of course you would. I've ridden in all three and there's no
comparison. It's like headsets. Buy what fits you best. I like sports
cars but a Mooney would never make the short list of planes to buy, for
many reasons. The inside is a deal breaker, way to small. Windows too
small, may as well buy a high wing if I wanted to look out of pillbox
slits. Sits too close to the ground, horrible backcountry plane. It's
a ground lover. A fast plane on only 200 HP means you give up something
and that's takeoff performance.


I agree that it's a horrible back country plane. But come
one...define your mission.


I did and I want it all. The plane must be able to land off road. The
Bo gear of the year I have is hell for stout. I have more ground and
prop clearance than the 182 I used to have. There is much more interior
room and about 250 pounds more useful. The visibility outside is so
good I was forced to order up some of that cling on window tinting. You
can roast in the sun but it feels like you're sitting outside compared
to the 182. What I gave up is the Bo takes 100 more feet to get
airborne with the same standard load I use for these type comparisons,
me and 40 gallons, 550 feet versus 450. The landing speed is about 10
mph faster so I need a little more manuvering room thah the 182 but I
can still land it like the 182, set a good slow speed and fly it into
the ground. The flaps only go to 30 degrees so are not as effective as
the 182. The mains are basically the same size but the nose tire is a
5.00x5 so I have to be a little more careful. Once in the air the Bo
just kills the 182 performance wise. It far outclimbs it, probably 50%
better, and I am now 45 knots faster. I get about 172-174 kts true.





If you want back country, get a Husky.
Complaining that a 200HP plane only has 200HP seems like circular
logic to me. If you require more then 200HP, then it's doubtful 200HP
will satisfy you regardless of the airframe.


Maybe you missed my point. The Mooney is very efficient and needs less
horsepower to go a given speed. But it needs a lot of runway just to
get going, there's a lot of planes like that. It's a design choice.

On May 18, 10:36 pm, Newps wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:

I was comparing well established physical dimensions. You're
comparing your personal observations. I'd rather deal with math.

Of course you would. I've ridden in all three and there's no
comparison. It's like headsets. Buy what fits you best. I like sports
cars but a Mooney would never make the short list of planes to buy, for
many reasons. The inside is a deal breaker, way to small. Windows too
small, may as well buy a high wing if I wanted to look out of pillbox
slits. Sits too close to the ground, horrible backcountry plane. It's
a ground lover. A fast plane on only 200 HP means you give up something
and that's takeoff performance.

I couldn't resist the first part of your message. I thought I could,
but I can't. I can honestly say you are the only person that seems to
have those odd observations about Mooneys. In fact, no Mooney guys
I've spoken with have heard your complaints (which are long since
archived - at least I think it was your comments - same comments). I
think it's safe to say Mooneys are not for you but for whatever reason
you seem to be very biased. You make it sound like tank slit windows
which I find to be beyond odd. Frankly, visibility is great. Window
sizes are wonderful. These complaints seem to be unique to you.

If you're in love with your Bo, that's excellent, but please step
spreading this misinformation. Or at least make it clear your stating
your opinion and not fact.

When I first started looking for planes, one of the first things I did
was to start looking at the archives. Time and time again, Mooneys
kept coming up as the plane for my mission profile. In the archives,
it's clear you (at least I think I recall it was you - it's the exact
same comments) hate these planes. I took yours and others at face
value and didn't look back at Mooneys. Yet Mooneys kept coming up
time and time again as the plane for my mission, so I contacted the
Mooney mailing list so I could get some facts on the ground. They
were kind enough to arrange flights for me in short order at a local
airport. Frankly, just about everything you depicted about Mooneys
appear to be 180-degrees from my own experience. Frankly, the
physical constraints are 180-degrees from your comments. Long story
short, IMO, you should try harder to make it clear you are expressing
opinion and that both facts and many, many pilots completely disagree
with your observations.

Long story short, I respect that you hate Mooneys but I'd hope you
make it easier for future readers to realize you are providing opinion
(your opinion) and not solid facts.

I hope we can agree to disagree at this point.

Regards,
Greg

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)

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

Greg,

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.


Hmm. Have you flown a Socata Tobago/Trinidad, a Cirrus or a DA-40? THAT
are windows. The Mooneys have slits. And out front, all you see is panel
- it's WAY higher than in comparable planes. It's an aircraft with
not-at-all-great visibility outside. Even a magazine like AvCon confirms
that - and they own and love one.

But it is (or rather, used to be) fast for the power installed...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Socata Tobago/Trinidad

PRETTY airplane!

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.

Hmm. Have you flown a Socata Tobago/Trinidad, a Cirrus or a DA-40? THAT
are windows. The Mooneys have slits. And out front, all you see is panel
- it's WAY higher than in comparable planes. It's an aircraft with
not-at-all-great visibility outside. Even a magazine like AvCon confirms
that - and they own and love one.

But it is (or rather, used to be) fast for the power installed...

As one that has actually owned, not just looked inside, not just sat in,
but actually owned and flown regularly two different model Mooneys (C &
M) and a Cirrus SR-22 - with significant flying time in a Piper Arrow
and have owned and flown a Cherokee 140 . . .

All things considered, the Mooney is the most comfortable of all the
airplanes I have owned or flown. Yes, the SR-22 has a wider cabin. But
the seats and the seating position was very uncomfortable. I couldn't
comfortably fly multi-hour legs in my Cirrus - I can in my Mooney.

Cabin width is the same in a Mooney of any vintage as a Cherokee, Arrow,
Bonanza or Baron. I felt most cramped in the Arrow, personally. Today I
flew from KAVQ - KSDL and back. My right seat passenger and I were each
over 200 lb. We were quite comfortable - and my right seat passenger
typically flies a Seneca III. The Mooney cabin didn't bother him at all.

You say the panel is high ? Not in my airplane. The Mooney windows are
plenty large too, more so than any single engine Cessna, more than any
Cherokee or Arrow. Take a look at my airplane:
http://www.dentalzzz.com/N9124XExterior.jpg

There are a lot of old wives tales about Mooneys and unfortunately
people that have very little or no experience in them are the ones that
continue to propagate this nonsense. It really needs to stop.

I didn't realize that my Mooney "used to be" fast . . .it regularly does
over 200 KTAS.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X