Skyhawk vs. Mooney

[Grant[_2_]]

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 8, 10:03 am, 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.

Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does 150 knots vs. the 172's 100ish knots on
that fuel. The M20C also sells for about the same price as the 172.
However, a M20C is more maintenance than a 172 and requires an A&P
that has more specialized knowledge (all A&Ps know how to work on
172s). Also, insurance could be a big difference. The retractable gear
will cost you somewhere between $500 to $2000 per year additional
depending on the amount of retract time you have.
A couple things to check for in a Mooney...
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.
2) Gear actuator. If the Mooney you are looking at has electric gear
make sure the AD has been complied with the check the actuator gear.
Technically this is a recurrent AD but if the gears aren't chewed up
the first time you look, chances are you didn't get the bad lot and
will be good forever.
3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
hours. There is really no way to do this without totally taking the
plane apart (figure 10 hours of your time to remove all the panels
unless you have a one-piece belly). By the time you pull all the
panels off to lube you've basically set up for an annual anyway. Some
A&Ps consider this unnecessary and will sign off the 100hr ADs for 3
hours of labor, but there is no way they are actually meeting the
strict requirements of the AD in that time. However, know that there
are many Mooney owners out there that haven't properly lubed their
plane in 10 years and are flying all the time so you aren't going to
fall from the sky.

-Robert, CFII (and Mooney instructor)

[Al G[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 8, 10:03 am, 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.
>
> Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
> Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does 150 knots vs. the 172's 100ish knots on
> that fuel. The M20C also sells for about the same price as the 172.
> However, a M20C is more maintenance than a 172 and requires an A&P
> that has more specialized knowledge (all A&Ps know how to work on
> 172s). Also, insurance could be a big difference. The retractable gear
> will cost you somewhere between $500 to $2000 per year additional
> depending on the amount of retract time you have.
> A couple things to check for in a Mooney...
> 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.
> 2) Gear actuator. If the Mooney you are looking at has electric gear
> make sure the AD has been complied with the check the actuator gear.
> Technically this is a recurrent AD but if the gears aren't chewed up
> the first time you look, chances are you didn't get the bad lot and
> will be good forever.
> 3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
> to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
> flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
> hours. There is really no way to do this without totally taking the
> plane apart (figure 10 hours of your time to remove all the panels
> unless you have a one-piece belly). By the time you pull all the
> panels off to lube you've basically set up for an annual anyway. Some
> A&Ps consider this unnecessary and will sign off the 100hr ADs for 3
> hours of labor, but there is no way they are actually meeting the
> strict requirements of the AD in that time. However, know that there
> are many Mooney owners out there that haven't properly lubed their
> plane in 10 years and are flying all the time so you aren't going to
> fall from the sky.
>
> -Robert, CFII (and Mooney instructor)
>
The M20C also has a wooden wing doesn't it?

Al G, Mooney record holder

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> 3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
> to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
> flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
> hours.

What AD is that? I'm not aware of that. Is it model-specific?

The only ones on my list are:
inspection of fuel injector fuel lines required by AD 2002-26-01
inspection of Bendix magneto ignition switch required by AD 76-07-12
inspection of Bendix magneto impulse coupling required by AD 96-12-07

Dave

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

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.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Tri-Pacer]

"> Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
> Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does

How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.

I'd like to know your secrets.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A.

[Ken Reed]

>> The M20C has about the same full burn as the Skyhawk (8 gal/hr).
>
> How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.

The Mooney M20C has an O-360 and I saw 8.5 GPH at 147 KTAS regularly
with the one I owned.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Ken Reed]

>> The M20C has about the same full burn as the Skyhawk (8 gal/hr).
>
> How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.

The Mooney M20C has an O-360 and I saw 8.5 GPH at 147 KTAS regularly
with the one I owned.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Jay Somerset]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:48:48 -0700, "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:

>
> "> Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
> > Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does
>
> How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.
>
> I'd like to know your secrets.
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> N1431A.
>

Easy -- I learned how and when to lean the mixture, and on cross-countries,
to fly at higher altitudes. C172P (1981 w/ O-320).
--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Steven Barnes]

The little red knob...

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "> Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
> > Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does
>
> How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.
>
> I'd like to know your secrets.
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> N1431A.
>
>

[kontiki]

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.

[Grant[_2_]]

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.

[Newps]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> 3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
>> to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
>> flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
>> hours.
>
>
> What AD is that? I'm not aware of that. Is it model-specific?
>


If that's true that is a deal breaker. Take the plane apart every 100
hours for a lube job? Pathetic.

[Newps]

Tri-Pacer wrote:

> "> Depends on the Mooney. The M20C has about the same full burn as the
>
>>Skyhawk (8 gal/hr) but does
>
>
> How many of you guys really see 8 GPH with your O-320s.
>
> I'd like to know your secrets.
>

I see 8 gph with my 520. Great for fartin' around the local area at 150
MPH indicated.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> [Mooneys] There is an AD that requires all flight control connections
> and gear sections to be lubed every 100 hours. There is really no way
> to do this without totally taking the plane apart (figure 10 hours of
> your time to remove all the panels unless you have a one-piece belly).

I've worked with (stationary) machines that had several places that
needed lubrication. Many of them had a couple of panels with several
grease fittings on them, and metal tubing to connect the fittings to
the bearings. That way you didn't have to crawl all over the machine
to lube it - you just worked your way down the fittings, giving N
squirts per fitting.

Would it even be possible to install something like that on a plane?
Or are the places that need lubrication such that it would be difficult
to connect the lines to them? For instance, most bushings and bearings
would be fairly easy to connect a line to. But it would be pretty hard
to connect a line to something like a clevis on the end of a cable.
Even if you couldn't connect to everything, connecting to enough stuff
that you wouldn't have to remove as many panels might be a win.

Matt Roberds

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 8, 12:00 pm, Dave Butler > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > 3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
> > to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
> > flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
> > hours.
>
> What AD is that? I'm not aware of that. Is it model-specific?
>
> The only ones on my list are:
> inspection of fuel injector fuel lines required by AD 2002-26-01
> inspection of Bendix magneto ignition switch required by AD 76-07-12
> inspection of Bendix magneto impulse coupling required by AD 96-12-07
>
> Dave

I've got the records at home so I can send you the AD that requires
the lube. Its all Mooneys between C and K I believe.The title of the
AD actually makes it sound like you just have to check the tension on
the landing gear but when you read it it also says you need to lube
the entire system and the flight control systems (which requires
access through out the belly and much of the wings, which is about 400
screws for me).

The fuel injector AD is no more as I recall. Its been updated to only
be annual. I don't have the mag AD because I have a blue dot on the
back of my switch. That AD says it can be signed by a private pilot
though. I have slick mags so I don't have much in the way of ADs for
that.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 9, 10:18 am, wrote:
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
> > [Mooneys] There is an AD that requires all flight control connections
> > and gear sections to be lubed every 100 hours. There is really no way
> > to do this without totally taking the plane apart (figure 10 hours of
> > your time to remove all the panels unless you have a one-piece belly).
>
> I've worked with (stationary) machines that had several places that
> needed lubrication. Many of them had a couple of panels with several
> grease fittings on them, and metal tubing to connect the fittings to
> the bearings. That way you didn't have to crawl all over the machine
> to lube it - you just worked your way down the fittings, giving N
> squirts per fitting.
>
> Would it even be possible to install something like that on a plane?
> Or are the places that need lubrication such that it would be difficult
> to connect the lines to them? For instance, most bushings and bearings
> would be fairly easy to connect a line to. But it would be pretty hard
> to connect a line to something like a clevis on the end of a cable.
> Even if you couldn't connect to everything, connecting to enough stuff
> that you wouldn't have to remove as many panels might be a win.
>
> Matt Roberds

Many Mooney owners elect to remove all the individual panels on the
belly and replace it with a single piece of metal or plastic. There
are several STC providers of such "one piece belly"s. I believe some
of them even have 1/4 turn screws. However, from the Mooney's I've
owned and taught in, most have not made that change.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 9, 9:59 am, Newps > wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >> 3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
> >> to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
> >> flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
> >> hours.
>
> > What AD is that? I'm not aware of that. Is it model-specific?
>
> If that's true that is a deal breaker. Take the plane apart every 100
> hours for a lube job? Pathetic.

Your Bonanza doesn't require lube every 100 hours? You probably have
less panels to pull but most high performance singles require lube and
landing gear inspection every 100 hours one AD or another.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

On 5/9/2007 1:40:13 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> You probably have
> less panels to pull but most high performance singles require lube and
> landing gear inspection every 100 hours one AD or another.

My '73 V35b does not.

--
Peter

[150flivver]

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/022EF974FDE32DBA86256A3B006FA1EA?OpenDocument

[Darrel Toepfer]

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...

[Peter R.]

On 5/9/2007 8:18:40 PM, 150flivver wrote:

>

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/022EF974FDE32DBA
86256A3B006FA1EA?OpenDocument

Sorry, 150flivvewr, I was responding to Robert's comments about all Bonanzas
having similar ADs out there as this Mooney version, but my poor quoting left
off his sentence about the Bonanza. My mistake.



--
Peter

[Al G[_2_]]

"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

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On May 9, 9:59 am, Newps > wrote:
>
>>Dave Butler wrote:
>>
>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>3) Also, if you fly more than 100 hours a year, you will end up having
>>>>to do an annual every 100 hours. There is an AD that requires all
>>>>flight control connections and gear sections to be lubed every 100
>>>>hours.
>>
>>>What AD is that? I'm not aware of that. Is it model-specific?
>>
>>If that's true that is a deal breaker. Take the plane apart every 100
>>hours for a lube job? Pathetic.
>
>
> Your Bonanza doesn't require lube every 100 hours? You probably have
> less panels to pull but most high performance singles require lube and
> landing gear inspection every 100 hours one AD or another.
>

Yes, I do. It's a 10 minute deal however. You said you may as well
schedule the annual for every 100 hours because of all the labor
required to accomplish this. That's pathetic and an absolute deal breaker.

[Newps]

Your uplock rollers need to be lubed evey 100 hours. Have to check your
elevator fittings if they are still magnesium.

Peter R. wrote:

> On 5/9/2007 1:40:13 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
>
>>You probably have
>>less panels to pull but most high performance singles require lube and
>>landing gear inspection every 100 hours one AD or another.
>
>
> My '73 V35b does not.
>

[Peter R.]

On 5/10/2007 5:50:47 PM, Newps wrote:

> Your uplock rollers need to be lubed evey 100 hours. Have to check your
> elevator fittings if they are still magnesium.

But this is not mandated by an AD, which is what I thought Robert was
previously implying. My V35b only has four applicable ADs: One related to the
main spar (dye-penetrant) every 500 hours, one related to the V tail every
400 hours, one related to the ignition every 100 hours, and the final related
to a Tornado Alley turbo clamp every 100 hours.

--
Peter

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> On 5/10/2007 5:50:47 PM, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Your uplock rollers need to be lubed evey 100 hours. Have to check your
>>elevator fittings if they are still magnesium.
>
>
> But this is not mandated by an AD, which is what I thought Robert was
> previously implying.



Yes it is mandated by an AD and it incles the V35B. 72-22-01 is for the
uplock rollers every 100 hours.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/7997DF736C7D221286256A080072F61C

If that link got munched then Google the AD number.

You're not subject to the elevator control fittings AD because the V35B
didn't have magnesium fittings.

[Peter R.]

On 5/10/2007 11:39:24 PM, Newps wrote:

>
>
> Yes it is mandated by an AD and it incles the V35B. 72-22-01 is for the
> uplock rollers every 100 hours.

Nope. Excluded from the AD by serial number. D-9495

--
Peter

[vincent norris]

> 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

[Greg Copeland]

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"

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Newps]

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.

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Newps]

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.

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 19 May 2007 19:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

> Socata Tobago/Trinidad

PRETTY airplane!

[Ken Reed]

> > 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

[Newps]

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.

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Longworth[_1_]]

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

[Greg Copeland]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Greg Copeland]

On May 20, 2:04 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> 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)

Actually, I'm not denying the "these properties". I'm denying a
specific set of properties to which only you two seem to have
observed. Heck, the window and associated visibility complaint is so
common no other Mooney owner I've spoken too has ever even heard of it
before; yet they know the other old wife's tales. It usually gets a
laugh or a roll of the eyes when I ask about it. Yet it's so
obviously well known, only you two know about it. Heck, you might
want to try it at your next hangar mixer. You'll find it gets a good
laugh and livens things up.

In stead of providing any type of fact to prove me wrong, the sights
are now turned on me. You then seem to imply something by using the
word "vehementely". You do know what media this is right? ;) Of
course you do. The direction a rat fart blows is vehemenently debated
here. Why would serious errors and opinions presented as fact be any
different? That's a rhetorical question.

At this point, I think we've beaten the horse. You wanna deliver the
death blow? ;)

Cheers,

Greg