Mooney info

markjen wrote:
Before you get very far with this, see if you can find a model in your price
range for a test flight, or at least a ride.

Good suggestion.


Mooneys are great planes on paper, but they have a lot of compromises to
achieve their speed and efficiency: a relatively cramped cabin with very
low seat height, poor outward visibility with an obtrusive center strut in
the panel (particularly on the early models), stiff controls, and skitterish
ground manners on their biscuit gear. To a lot of pilots, these things are
part of the Mooney "sports car" experience and no big deal - for me, they
make Mooney's unacceptably uncomfortable and unsatisfying to fly. A lot has
to do with your size/stature. Big guys tend to like Bonanzas and little
guys like Mooneys.

I agree about the ground handling. I disagree about the comfort and visibility.

My back never hurts after a long flight in the Mooney the way it did in the
Piper. The seating position is low to the floor, like a sports car, with your
legs stretched out in front of you. I like it, but it's probably a good idea to
give it a try to see how you like it, as markjen suggested. It's not like
sitting upright on your living room couch with bad padding, like a Cessna.

I don't find the visibility limited at all. I think this myth arises from the
relatively short viertical dimension of the windscreen, which gives it a
'tank-slit' appearance from the outside. Once you're inside, the seating
position is quite close to the windscreen, so you have quite a wide angle of
view. Sitting so close to the windscreen adds to the feeling that the cabin is
cramped, for some people. Best idea is to give it a try and see how you like it.

I will add on the minus side that cabin ingress and egress can be a challenge if
you have passengers with compromised flexibility or strength. Because of the low
seating position, it's a long way up going through the door to a standing
position on the wing.

I agree the Mooney is different. You gain some advantages (economy, speed) but
you lose out a little too. It's a good compromise for the way I like to use an
airplane. Every airplane is a compromise. The speed is addictive. You'll never
want to go back to PA28/C172 speeds.


A 2nd thing to check into early-on is whether you have a good Mooney shop in
your area. To a shop which knows Mooneys, their maintenance/repair is no
big deal and you can get great service - these are well-built airplanes.
But shops that don't regularly work on Mooneys tend to hate working on them
because things are hard to get to.

If you pass these two tests, then go for one. I'm guessing that you're
perhaps looking into a $100K airplane, so I'd be looking at one of the early
201s which were good airplanes and well worth the premium over the earlier
Rangers and other 180-hp models. I really like the Ovations, but I'm
guessing they're in the $150K+ range.

- Mark

I know exactly what you mean. I feel cramped in a 182. I find that I
started squirming to get comfortable, though I did find plenty of room to
squirm.

Guess I will stick with low wings

PS, as someone who has driven a tank, I would have to say the Mooney is much
roomier and has less sharp things to bang yourself on. Also, the Mooney has
better visibility than either the M60 or the M1, except to the rear.


"markjen" wrote in message
news:Byb4c.11371$zS4.72266@attbi_s51...
Its the high windscreen and window arrangement that gives the Bo driver
an
impresssion of more size.

Impression or not, I feel terribly cramped in a Mooney and feel like I can
relax and move around in a Bonanza. Peering over the glareshield in a
Mooney makes me feel like I'm in a tank. But you're absolutely right - it
is subjective.

- Mark

I am 6' 4" and weigh 250. The only way I am cramped is with the shoulder
room and I have linebacker shoulders. This is the only plane where I have
to scoot the seat up in order to reach the pedals. My kids love the leg
room in the back. The stiffer controls are a plus in my book. I will
always prefer the control tubes versus cables. I came from a PA28-181.
This is much nicer than the Archers. The only time I fly an Archer when I
can't get the Mooney.


"markjen" wrote in message
news:Co74c.11521$mM.85328@attbi_s02...
Before you get very far with this, see if you can find a model in your
price
range for a test flight, or at least a ride.

Mooneys are great planes on paper, but they have a lot of compromises to
achieve their speed and efficiency: a relatively cramped cabin with very
low seat height, poor outward visibility with an obtrusive center strut in
the panel (particularly on the early models), stiff controls, and
skitterish
ground manners on their biscuit gear. To a lot of pilots, these things
are
part of the Mooney "sports car" experience and no big deal - for me, they
make Mooney's unacceptably uncomfortable and unsatisfying to fly. A lot
has
to do with your size/stature. Big guys tend to like Bonanzas and little
guys like Mooneys.

A 2nd thing to check into early-on is whether you have a good Mooney shop
in
your area. To a shop which knows Mooneys, their maintenance/repair is no
big deal and you can get great service - these are well-built airplanes.
But shops that don't regularly work on Mooneys tend to hate working on
them
because things are hard to get to.

If you pass these two tests, then go for one. I'm guessing that you're
perhaps looking into a $100K airplane, so I'd be looking at one of the
early
201s which were good airplanes and well worth the premium over the earlier
Rangers and other 180-hp models. I really like the Ovations, but I'm
guessing they're in the $150K+ range.

- Mark

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:18:46 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

PS, as someone who has driven a tank, I would have to say the Mooney is much
roomier and has less sharp things to bang yourself on. Also, the Mooney has
better visibility than either the M60 or the M1, except to the rear.

And, in general, there are fewer people shooting at you :-)


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)