Skyhawk vs. Mooney

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

On May 19, 9:19 pm, Ken Reed wrote:
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.

Agreed. Most of the misinformation I had received first hand came
from people that had zero real experience with Mooneys. My father is
a pilot. My uncle is also a pilot. Both got their licenses flying
pteranodons back in the day. My uncle has owned a N/A arrow, a
turbo arrow, and a really, really nice bo. My father is mostly a
cessna guy but used to love flying v-tails when I was a kid. When I
mentioned I was starting to shop for a plane, both pointed me toward
an arrow. Needless to say, I actually started casually looking at
arrows. After my Mooney re-education, I mentioned I was considering a
Mooney. Both parroted the same set of Mooney old wive's tales. I
asked how many Mooney hours they each had. Both answered zero.

Needless to say, my father and I now have a running high wing verses
low wing rivalry. I imagine it will get worse once I buy my Mooney
and he gets his 182RG.


Greg

Ken,

All things considered, the Mooney is the most comfortable of all the
airplanes I have owned or flown.


Good for you. I've flown Mooneys, Bo's and Cirrii (and the Tobago). For
me, it's different. The Mooney is by far the most cramped of those -
for me. Arrows are cramped, too, I agree.

As for the windows, you chose the planes comparing the windows of a
Mooney to carefully. I don't think there can be any debate that the
Mooney is lousy to look outside compared to many GA airplanes (see
above for a list).

What I meant to say with my last statement (which I am sure you
understood perfectly well, but this being Usenet, I'll spell it out) is
that the Mooney used to be THE efficient airplane, period. Not any
more. There are many other new design which are at least as efficient
as a Mooney.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On May 20, 2:34 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Ken,

All things considered, the Mooney is the most comfortable of all the
airplanes I have owned or flown.

Good for you. I've flown Mooneys, Bo's and Cirrii (and the Tobago). For
me, it's different. The Mooney is by far the most cramped of those -
for me. Arrows are cramped, too, I agree.


So how come everytime someone mentions an arrow, everyone is spitting
out how cramped and tight arrows are?

As for the windows, you chose the planes comparing the windows of a
Mooney to carefully. I don't think there can be any debate that the
Mooney is lousy to look outside compared to many GA airplanes (see
above for a list).

Hmm. Once again, I'm completely clueless how one can come to that
conclussion. I would argue visibility is actually better than most
low wing planes on the ground; at least compared to DA20, Warrior, or
Arrow. Even if one argues that visibility is not better than the
three I listed, why dont people snarl as such everytime a DA20 or a
Piper is mentioned? Perhaps it is because it's a problem that doesn't
exist. Or perhaps envy of effeciency drives people to imagine such
things? Perhaps if you're less than 5'10" (as I originally stated),
the windows become problematic. I'm really not sure...I'm not that
short. A Mooney is made for tall people. Period. Perhaps short
people have a legitimate complaint here but for tall pilots,
complaints of visibility in a Mooney is nothing but nonsense.

I'll be the first to agree that a Mooney, any model, isn't for
everyone. Then again, that's true for every plane. But let's stop
with these imaginary tales.


Greg

Greg,

Who is snarling?

But let's stop
with these imaginary tales.

Actually, come to think about it, I have to reverse your statement
about Newps: Your the only person I have ever met denying these
properties of the basic Mooney airframe so vehementely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On May 20, 2:04 pm, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Greg,

Who is snarling?

But let's stop
with these imaginary tales.

Actually, come to think about it, I have to reverse your statement
about Newps: Your the only person I have ever met denying these
properties of the basic Mooney airframe so vehementely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Actually, I'm not denying the "these properties". I'm denying a
specific set of properties to which only you two seem to have
observed. Heck, the window and associated visibility complaint is so
common no other Mooney owner I've spoken too has ever even heard of it
before; yet they know the other old wife's tales. It usually gets a
laugh or a roll of the eyes when I ask about it. Yet it's so
obviously well known, only you two know about it. Heck, you might
want to try it at your next hangar mixer. You'll find it gets a good
laugh and livens things up.

In stead of providing any type of fact to prove me wrong, the sights
are now turned on me. You then seem to imply something by using the
word "vehementely". You do know what media this is right? Of
course you do. The direction a rat fart blows is vehemenently debated
here. Why would serious errors and opinions presented as fact be any
different? That's a rhetorical question.

At this point, I think we've beaten the horse. You wanna deliver the
death blow?

Cheers,

Greg