Skyhawk vs. Mooney

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

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 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 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

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)