Skyhawk vs. Mooney

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.