![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote: Socata Tobago/Trinidad PRETTY airplane! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
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 |