Mooney info?

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.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Robert M. Gary 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.

I have flown a Mooney. I'm 6'2" and it's like crawling into a coffin.

Newps,
I'm guessing you're not getting a Porche for Christmas.

I don't think so but in case somebody wants to know which one to shop
for I would like a mid to lates 80's 911 convertible with a whale tail.
Or a 69 Vette convertible with the 454. Either one. Doesn't matter.



Robert M. Gary wrote:
Newps,
I'm guessing you're not getting a Porche for Christmas.

Newps wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:

Robert M. Gary 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.


I have flown a Mooney. I'm 6'2" and it's like crawling into a coffin.

I feel almost that way in the 67 Arrow I now fly after owning a 182 for
several years.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:



I feel almost that way in the 67 Arrow I now fly after owning a 182 for
several years.

What was the point of that switch?

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

-Robert, 6'4"

Tall narrow pilots, and for fast you need to go with the J or later
models.

My 1976 F does 150 kts on 9.5 gals/hr. The older E and C models are a
little faster because they have shorter cabins. I've sat in the back of
mine with another full size guy. Its not like a full size BMW but
better than a 172. If you are comparing a 172 with a C you'll end up
going MUCH faster in the C for about the same purchase price.

-robert

Are you getting your 150k alone or at gross? I get very close to that
when alone in my Arrow, which is supposed to be a lot slower.