Mooney M20F narrow across the shoulders

[Mark Hansen]

I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.

Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.

Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?

I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)

Thanks,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Jon Kraus]

Mark,

I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it seemed
tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used to the
sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My wife is
5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you measured the
width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4 seaters).

I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on 10
GPH sure is nice!! :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Mark Hansen wrote:

> I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
> to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
> seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
> was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.
>
> Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
> a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.
>
> Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
> across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?
>
> I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
> and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)
>
> Thanks,
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it seemed
> tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used to the
> sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My wife is
> 5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you measured the
> width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4 seaters).

Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)

>
> I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on 10
> GPH sure is nice!! :-)

That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
mention the purchase price ;-) )

It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
period of time.

Thanks Jon.

>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ TYQ
>
>
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>> I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
>> to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
>> seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
>> was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
>> a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.
>>
>> Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
>> across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?
>>
>> I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
>> and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
(I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
bigger). In the Mooney world, the cabin doesn't get any bigger until
you jump into the M models (Bravo, Ovation, Eagle). The F, J, K all
have the same cabins. An M can cost you 1/4 million though.
I used to fly a Bonanza. If you compare year to year a Bonanza to a
Mooney the Mooney will run slightly faster but the Bonanza will burn
about 20% more fuel doing it. (Don't be tricked by B drivers who try to
compare a 1960 C Mooney with a 2005 F33 Bonanza :) ). As you said, you
have to pay for the extra room in terms of fuel.

The only real gottcha with the Mooney is that you have to be tall. My
partner is 5'10" and I would consider that minimum height for a Mooney.
He has to move the seat all the way to the front and can just reach the
rudders. In the Bonanza B33 I used to have my knees would rub against
the panel (I'm 6'4"). I do miss the "screw" throttle in the B though.

-Robert, M20F

[Jon Kraus]

Mark,

The longest I have flow our "J" is 2.5 hours. By then I was ready to
come down anyway.

Albert Mooney of the Mooney fame was 6'3 or 6'4 and he designed the
plane for the tall person to be comfortable. I have a friend that is
about 280# adn thought he might not fit... Are you verifying that? :-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
443H @ TYQ

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it
>> seemed tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used
>> to the sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My
>> wife is 5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you
>> measured the width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4
>> seaters).
>
>
> Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)
>
>>
>> I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on
>> 10 GPH sure is nice!! :-)
>
>
> That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
> mention the purchase price ;-) )
>
> It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
> was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
> sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
> period of time.
>
> Thanks Jon.
>
>>
>> Jon Kraus
>> '79 Mooney 201
>> 4443H @ TYQ
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
>>> to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
>>> seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
>>> was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
>>> a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.
>>>
>>> Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
>>> across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?
>>>
>>> I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
>>> and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jon Kraus]

I can verify that the Commander is a wider aircraft. I have a friend
that is 6'3 and probably 280# and drives a Commander 114. He is getting
about the same speeds as my Mooney but using 100 more horses to get him
there. Nice airplane though!!

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
443H @ TYQ

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> Mark Hansen > wrote:
> : I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
> : to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
> : seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
> : was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.
>
> : Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
> : a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.
>
> : Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
> : across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?
>
> Commander 112/114/115 is about the widest 4-place. Cherokee 6/Saratoga/
> Seneca/Lance are a lot wider than the 4-place aircraft. Most of these will
> be more $$$ than an F-model Mooney, though.
>
> The guy I bought my Cherokee 180 from upgraded to a Commander 114. He's
> 6'+ and 250lbs+.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
> don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
> (I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
> bigger). In the Mooney world, the cabin doesn't get any bigger until
> you jump into the M models (Bravo, Ovation, Eagle). The F, J, K all
> have the same cabins. An M can cost you 1/4 million though.
> I used to fly a Bonanza. If you compare year to year a Bonanza to a
> Mooney the Mooney will run slightly faster but the Bonanza will burn
> about 20% more fuel doing it. (Don't be tricked by B drivers who try to
> compare a 1960 C Mooney with a 2005 F33 Bonanza :) ). As you said, you
> have to pay for the extra room in terms of fuel.

A friend just sold their M20C, I think it was an early 60's. I'm 6'2",
185. Way too tight for me. Much smaller cabin length than the 64 S35 I
just bought. As for speed, no comparison. The Mooney in really good
shape might get 150 kts, my friends flight planned 140 on about 10 gph.
My Bo gets 175 kts if you want to run 15 gph thru it. The main thing
about the Mooney is you really have to keep it on pavement. My Bo has
the same prop clearance as my recently departed 182 and the gear is
legendary for how strong it is. After some flight testing I can land
the Bo and get it stopped in 550 feet at 2400 pounds, that's 900 under
gross. Takeoff is about the same. I could have bought the Mooney for
half what I paid for my Bo but not being able to land off road was a
real deal killer.


I do miss the "screw" throttle in the B though.

I'm not sold on that yet but I may be warming up to it.

[Robert M. Gary]

> A friend just sold their M20C, I think it was an early 60's. I'm 6'2",
> 185. Way too tight for me. Much smaller cabin length than the 64 S35 I
> just bought. As for speed, no comparison. The Mooney in really good
> shape might get 150 kts, my friends flight planned 140 on about 10 gph.

10 gph seems extreamly high for the 180hp C model Mooney. I have a
student with a C model and he usually sees about 8.5 on the fuel flow
JPI. My 200hp Mooney will run about 9.5 at altitude. I'm not any faster
than the C model but I've got a longer cabin for the kids in back.

> My Bo gets 175 kts if you want to run 15 gph thru it. The main thing
> about the Mooney is you really have to keep it on pavement.

Personally, I like to land mine on the beach. I've gone into
Alphonsinas, Mexico many times (hard pack beach sand). I've got
pictures of a couple Mooney fly-ins at Mulege's dirt strip too if
you're not convinced. :)
The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".

-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

.. I've got
> pictures of a couple Mooney fly-ins at Mulege's dirt strip too if
> you're not convinced. :)

Really? That's where these friends of mine have their winter house and
sailboat. They used to fly down in the Mooney. Now they have sold the
Mooney and the Cub and bought a Maule so they can play on the beach down
there.


> The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
> actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".

It ain't 18", it's less than 12". The other factor is gear doors
hanging low.

[revdmv]

For older used aircraft the Socatta line are also wide. For newer the
Cirrus and Columbia are nice, but based on your looking at the Mooney
they are probably out of budget range.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
> don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
> (I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
> bigger).

I have flown a few hours in various Mooneys and hundreds in my Arrow IV
(including all seats). Measurements are objective, and a single
measurement can be deceiving. Comfort is subjective. By comparison to
a Mooney, to me the Arrow is like riding in a limousine. My primatry
discomfort in the Mooney is legroom -- not length but width and height.
Pilot and copilot legs have very little wiggle room up and down, side
to side. This becomes VERY noticable on a long flight.

-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm 6'4" but 220lb. I usually fly my F model with my wife so I guess I
> don't notice it as much. I do know that its the same size as an Arrow
> (I measured them side by side after many rumors that the Arrow was
> bigger).

I have flown a few hours in various Mooneys and hundreds in my Arrow IV
(including all seats). Measurements are objective, and a single
measurement can be deceiving. Comfort is subjective. By comparison to
a Mooney, to me the Arrow is like riding in a limousine. My primatry
discomfort in the Mooney is legroom -- not length but width and height.
Pilot and copilot legs have very little wiggle room up and down, side
to side. This becomes VERY noticable on a long flight.

-Elliott Drucker

[Newps]

wrote:

>
>
> I have flown a few hours in various Mooneys and hundreds in my Arrow IV
> (including all seats). Measurements are objective, and a single
> measurement can be deceiving. Comfort is subjective. By comparison to
> a Mooney, to me the Arrow is like riding in a limousine. My primatry
> discomfort in the Mooney is legroom -- not length but width and height.
> Pilot and copilot legs have very little wiggle room up and down, side
> to side. This becomes VERY noticable on a long flight.

Plus the fact that your legs stick straight out like you are sitting on
the floor.

[Montblack]

wrote)
[snip]
> My primary discomfort in the Mooney is legroom -- not length but width and
> height.
> Pilot and copilot legs have very little wiggle room up and down, side to
> side. This becomes VERY noticable on a long flight.


We passed on the 2000 Toyota Camry for that very reason - it was like
inserting yourself into the mouth of the cannon for 'The Human Cannonball'
act - no wiggle room, too narrow.

Honda Accord has much more wiggle room for legs and feet ...except the darn
steering wheel position is right on top of those legs, in your lap. Oh well.
Can't win 'em all.

Very, very happy with the Honda 60K miles later.

Back to planes - I thought the Navion had much room in it. 6-2 300#
.....(apple)

<http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Ron&MargyNatalie/Margy&Navion2.jpg>
Navions are very cool ...and huge :-)


Montblack

[Margy]

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
> [snip]
>
>> My primary discomfort in the Mooney is legroom -- not length but width
>> and height.
>> Pilot and copilot legs have very little wiggle room up and down, side
>> to side. This becomes VERY noticable on a long flight.
>
>
>
> We passed on the 2000 Toyota Camry for that very reason - it was like
> inserting yourself into the mouth of the cannon for 'The Human
> Cannonball' act - no wiggle room, too narrow.
>
> Honda Accord has much more wiggle room for legs and feet ...except the
> darn steering wheel position is right on top of those legs, in your lap.
> Oh well. Can't win 'em all.
>
> Very, very happy with the Honda 60K miles later.
>
> Back to planes - I thought the Navion had much room in it. 6-2 300#
> ....(apple)
>
> <http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Ron&MargyNatalie/Margy&Navion2.jpg>
>
> Navions are very cool ...and huge :-)
>
>
> Montblack
AND ... The Navion is one of the very few aircraft that can accommodate
both a 6'1" pilot and a 5'2" pilot with comfort. Now that we have new
seat cushions I don't even have to use my booster seat!!

Margy

[Mark Hansen]

On 9/6/2005 3:58 PM, Jon Kraus wrote:

> Mark,
>
> The longest I have flow our "J" is 2.5 hours. By then I was ready to
> come down anyway.
>
> Albert Mooney of the Mooney fame was 6'3 or 6'4 and he designed the
> plane for the tall person to be comfortable. I have a friend that is
> about 280# adn thought he might not fit... Are you verifying that? :-)

Well, don't put me on the stand... ;-)

Actually, before I drop the whole idea, I wanted to go sit in the
plane again. Adjust the seat and just go through the motions. I'll
let you know how that comes out.

My wife says I'm very broad across the shoulders - worse now that I've
gained weight. I do know the rudder pedals seemed pretty far away ;-)

>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 443H @ TYQ
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2005 14:39, Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I thought when I first sat in our Mooney ('79 "J" model) that it
>>> seemed tight also (compared to a 172 anyway). I have since grown used
>>> to the sports-car like feel of it. I am 5'10 190# and I fit fine. My
>>> wife is 5'11 145# and she fits fine too. I believe that if you
>>> measured the width it would be about the same as comparable planes (4
>>> seaters).
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm 5' 9" and 280lb, so I'm a little wider ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> I agree though, that you seem to wear the Mooney. But the 155 kts on
>>> 10 GPH sure is nice!! :-)
>>
>>
>> That's really what would hurt when moving to a larger plane (not to
>> mention the purchase price ;-) )
>>
>> It was hard to get in and out of, but I could get used to that. It
>> was the having to lean to one side that really bothered me. I'm not
>> sure that would be all that comfortable for more than just a short
>> period of time.
>>
>> Thanks Jon.
>>
>>>
>>> Jon Kraus
>>> '79 Mooney 201
>>> 4443H @ TYQ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I looked at a 1969 Mooney M20F over the weekend, and was surprised
>>>> to see how narrow it is in the cockpit. While sitting in the pilot's
>>>> seat, I was pushed to the right by the left side of the cabin, and
>>>> was not able to sit directly behind the control yoke.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm just too big for this airplane? I thought the C172 was
>>>> a little cramped, but whew, this was really tight.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a make/model airplane that provides a little more room
>>>> across the cockpit area that might be more comfortable for me?
>>>>
>>>> I guess that having more space in the cockpit will mean more weight
>>>> and slower airspeeds given the same HP engine (generally, anyway...)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:


>
> > The prop clearance looks to be about 2" from a distance. However, an
> > actual measurement shows it to be something like 18".
>
> It ain't 18", it's less than 12". The other factor is gear doors
> hanging low.


But the truth is, pavement or dirt or packed sand, if it is very flat
and well groomed, ANYTHING can land there....

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD