Mooney info?

Sure. I trained a lady whose husband owned an "E" model. She is 5' 4". She
bought a seat pad, one with a couple inch thick back and bottom. Using that
and with the seat up forward, she had no problems. I'm 6' 2", and her seat
was well forward of mine.
Al


"dlevy" wrote in message
. ..
I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
managed the problem?

There really isn't an alternative.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
Fast plane made for tall pilots.

-Robert, 6'4"

dlevy wrote:
I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
managed the problem?

There really isn't an alternative.

No alternative to the Mooney? Huh?

dlevy wrote:
I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different models.
Any suggestions?



http://www.mooneypilots.com/

Click on "MAPA Log Sample Articles", "Pre-purchase Inspections".

I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have
any problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that
you have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna.
Similar to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.

Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.

After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane
better fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of
just beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I
don't eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.

The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
expensive than owning.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ


Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote:


All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are
short.
Fast plane made for tall pilots.

Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
never sat in a Mooney.


, IMO. I'm
5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F because of the way
I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke. Visibility over the glare
shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is claustrophobic compared to
a Bonanza or a 172.

Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.

Arrgggg...

I meant to say:

They should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit
more expensive than RENTING.

Jon Kraus wrote:

I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have
any problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that
you have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna.
Similar to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.

Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.

After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane
better fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of
just beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I
don't eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.

The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
expensive than owning.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ


Dan Luke wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
Fast plane made for tall pilots.


Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals
or is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously,
I've never sat in a Mooney.



, IMO. I'm 5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F
because of the way I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke.
Visibility over the glare shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is
claustrophobic compared to a Bonanza or a 172.

Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.

What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used selection?
A bonanza? Not for 100k.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


dlevy wrote:
I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
managed the problem?

There really isn't an alternative.

No alternative to the Mooney? Huh?

I don't remember who said it first, but:

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, it is cheaper to rent.

al

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Arrgggg...

I meant to say:

They should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit
more expensive than RENTING.

Jon Kraus wrote:

I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have any
problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that you
have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna. Similar
to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.

Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.

After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane better
fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of just
beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I don't
eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.

The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
expensive than owning.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ


Dan Luke wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:


All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are
short.
Fast plane made for tall pilots.


Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
never sat in a Mooney.



, IMO. I'm 5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F because
of the way I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke. Visibility
over the glare shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is
claustrophobic compared to a Bonanza or a 172.

Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.

I think you'll need a good 2" pad and likely rudder extensions. The
distance from the front of the seat to the pedals is quite long.
However, its been done.

-Robert

dlevy wrote:
What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used selection?
A bonanza? Not for 100k.

A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
cost me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually
true at 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph.
155 kts true costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's
chops? 19" and 2100 gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph. 1271 useful(with 4
seats in) and a cabin that isn't a tomb to crawl into. Look in Trade A
Plane, there's a million of them for sale.

Newps wrote:


dlevy wrote:
What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used
selection?
A bonanza? Not for 100k.

A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
cost me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually
true at 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155
kts true costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops?
19" and 2100 gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph. 1271 useful(with 4 seats in)
and a cabin that isn't a tomb to crawl into. Look in Trade A Plane,
there's a million of them for sale.

Newps,

What year is your S35?

How does the CG range work out? I always heard that it's "too narrow",
but I never really checked into that.

How big are the fuel tanks?

Thanks,

-jav