Skyhawk vs. Mooney

Grant wrote:
I was simply wondering if someone could break down the cost difference
of a 172 and M20. Obviously maintenance on a mooney is going to be a
little more and the fuel burn is a gallon or so more, so just some
thoughts.


Fuel burn is actually less for the total trip since it flys a lot faster
than a 172.

Ok, ok, all sounds good, now I'm wondering how a Cardinal sizes up to
all of this. I kinda like what they have to offer. But maybe I'm
naive, good chance.

On May 9, 9:27 am, Grant wrote:
Ok, ok, all sounds good, now I'm wondering how a Cardinal sizes up to
all of this. I kinda like what they have to offer. But maybe I'm
naive, good chance.

If you are looking at Cards make sure you get the O-360 180hp model.
The first year they made a 150hp model that isn't able to get out of
its own way.

-Robert

Grant wrote:

Ok, ok, all sounds good, now I'm wondering how a Cardinal sizes up to
all of this. I kinda like what they have to offer. But maybe I'm
naive, good chance.

Roomier than either of your previous inquiries (need to watchout that you
don't overload it). Fuel burns about the same, but is faster than the 172
(has all metal fuel tanks as well). Its nice to not have the wing struts
but the Cardinal sits lower to the ground than the 172 so you'll typically
end up creasing your nose on the flaps or wing backside. It gets along on
the standard 150/160hp but its a much better bird with 180hp or the 200hp
of the retract version...

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
. 18...
Grant wrote:

Ok, ok, all sounds good, now I'm wondering how a Cardinal sizes up to
all of this. I kinda like what they have to offer. But maybe I'm
naive, good chance.

Roomier than either of your previous inquiries (need to watchout that you
don't overload it). Fuel burns about the same, but is faster than the 172
(has all metal fuel tanks as well). Its nice to not have the wing struts
but the Cardinal sits lower to the ground than the 172 so you'll typically
end up creasing your nose on the flaps or wing backside. It gets along on
the standard 150/160hp but its a much better bird with 180hp or the 200hp
of the retract version...

Also easier to load(Huge doors), the view below is better(no struts or
wings), you can see if the gear is down, and in a rainshower, no one hides
under a Mooney. It is heavier than the 172, so use caution around the 150
horse version. The 200 RG is much better.

Al G

On May 9, 12:27 pm, Grant wrote:
Ok, ok, all sounds good, now I'm wondering how a Cardinal sizes up to
all of this. I kinda like what they have to offer. But maybe I'm
naive, good chance.

Grant,
We own a Cardinal FG 180hp and get about 7.5 to 8 gph cruising at
120kts. A well-rigged FG can get up to 130kts and RG version with
200hp can get up to 145kts. AOPA chose a Cardinal FG for their
sweepstake this year.

http://www.aopa.org/sweeps/

We love our Cardinal for its strutless wings (great for aerial
photography), roominess and big cargo area. We did several camping
trip last year with the backseat removed to carry our two bikes,
folding chairs, tenting equipment and our 50lbs mutt.

For more information about Cardinals, you can check this website
http://www.cardinalflyers.com/

There is a nice Cardinal article written by the webmaster Keith
Peterson. If you are interested in purchasing a Cardinal, I highly
recommend joining Cardinal Flyers Organization. The technical section
has a wealth of information, and the virtual digest where CFO members
share information is a fantastic resource for Cardinal owners.

Hai Longworth

I was simply wondering if someone could break down the cost difference
of a 172 and M20. Obviously maintenance on a mooney is going to be a
little more.....

I would suggest that if you think it will be only a "little" more, you
may be in for a rude shock.

I don't own a Mooney but I know friends who do, and they are quite a
bit more expensive over the long haul.

And unless you are the "typical" FAA human bean, at 170 pounds, you may
find it a bit of a squeeze in ways other than financial.

vince norris

On May 12, 9:15 pm, vincent norris wrote:
I was simply wondering if someone could break down the cost difference
of a 172 and M20. Obviously maintenance on a mooney is going to be a
little more.....

I would suggest that if you think it will be only a "little" more, you
may be in for a rude shock.

I don't own a Mooney but I know friends who do, and they are quite a
bit more expensive over the long haul.

And unless you are the "typical" FAA human bean, at 170 pounds, you may
find it a bit of a squeeze in ways other than financial.

vince norris

That's an old wife's tale. Mooneys are actually pretty roomy so long
as we're talking about the front seats; otherwise, it depends. 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). 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. My shoulders fit my largish frame. We were
shoulder to shoulder in the plane but not uncomfortably so. I did
slide my seat back so he had easy access to his manual gear and flaps
without rubbing shoulders or catching my seatbelt latch. You take
someone my size in one seat and your typical passenger in the other
and there is lots of room between. Even someone my size, must
constantly move the seat forward to reach the pedals. You can
understand why pedal extensions are not terribly uncommon for shorter
pilots.

If you want a 2+2 seater (2-adults plus 2-children under the age of
6), then a Mooney M20 - M20E is what you want. If you want a 4 seater
plane, then you need to look at a F model or newer. The F model has
200HP. The G model has 180HP. Both the F and G qualify as a medium
body and have the same dimensions as the beloved J; which is obviously
more roomy than the older M20-M20E models. Both the F and G are
slower than a J but they are priced accordingly.

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:


That's an old wife's tale.

No, it's not.



Mooneys are actually pretty roomy so long
as we're talking about the front seats; otherwise, it depends.



The back seats are worse.



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. 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.



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.

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