Skyhawk vs. Mooney

On May 8, 12:51 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
[snip]
1) Fuel leaks. Mooneys have no fuel tanks, just sealant on the skin to
hold fuel in. Every so many years an owner is well advised to go into
the tanks and freshen up the sealent. If you are very rich you may pay
someone to totally replace the sealant but that is rarely required.

Hmmm. I'm not sure where you got that but many planes go decades
without any additional care on their tanks. Only planes that have
started weeping, seeping, and leaking require additional work at such
intervals and only because it wasn't fixed right the first time.
Having said that, fixing it right the first time is a costly caveat.
Plan on 5-6AMUs to have it fixed with the potential of some paint
needed to clean up what was damaged. Or, if you can spare the useful
load, you can now get 64-gallon bladders.

Greg
"Wannabe M20F Owner"

On May 8, 2:05 pm, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Al G wrote:

The M20C also has a wooden wing doesn't it?

Nope. The M20Cs are all metal. I think the last wood-winged version was
the M20A in 1960.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

That's correct. I've flown in both an A and a J. The A owner
absoluetely loves his A. There is nothing wrong with an A, in of it
self, but you need to keep it hangared.

Greg

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

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.

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

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 couldn't resist the first part of your message. I thought I could,
but I can't. I can honestly say you are the only person that seems to
have those odd observations about Mooneys. In fact, no Mooney guys
I've spoken with have heard your complaints (which are long since
archived - at least I think it was your comments - same comments). I
think it's safe to say Mooneys are not for you but for whatever reason
you seem to be very biased. You make it sound like tank slit windows
which I find to be beyond odd. Frankly, visibility is great. Window
sizes are wonderful. These complaints seem to be unique to you.

If you're in love with your Bo, that's excellent, but please step
spreading this misinformation. Or at least make it clear your stating
your opinion and not fact.

When I first started looking for planes, one of the first things I did
was to start looking at the archives. Time and time again, Mooneys
kept coming up as the plane for my mission profile. In the archives,
it's clear you (at least I think I recall it was you - it's the exact
same comments) hate these planes. I took yours and others at face
value and didn't look back at Mooneys. Yet Mooneys kept coming up
time and time again as the plane for my mission, so I contacted the
Mooney mailing list so I could get some facts on the ground. They
were kind enough to arrange flights for me in short order at a local
airport. Frankly, just about everything you depicted about Mooneys
appear to be 180-degrees from my own experience. Frankly, the
physical constraints are 180-degrees from your comments. Long story
short, IMO, you should try harder to make it clear you are expressing
opinion and that both facts and many, many pilots completely disagree
with your observations.

Long story short, I respect that you hate Mooneys but I'd hope you
make it easier for future readers to realize you are providing opinion
(your opinion) and not solid facts.

I hope we can agree to disagree at this point.

Regards,
Greg

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)

Greg Copeland wrote:
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.

Cabin width is only one part of the story. People need to check them
out as you say. Having flown a 182 for 400+ hours and an Arrow for 60+,
there is no comparison in comfort. The 182 wins hands down even though
the difference in cabin width is small. The 182 is wider where it
counts (shoulders for me), the seat is higher off the floor so I don't
feel like I'm sitting in a go-cart, and the foor well is much roomier.
Also, there is room between the seats as the space is filled with a flap
handle and gear mechanism.

I've never sat in a Mooney so I can't speak to them, but I looked in one
just yesterday that is in for a fuel tank leak repair and it looked
really tight inside, especially and and above shoulder height.


Matt