![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ken Reed" wrote in message
nk.net... The legroom fits with what I've read--but, otherwise, you're the first source who *doesn't* say the Mooney is "a tight fit," "like getting into a sports car," "you wear it," etc. M20s have a 43" cabin width from what I've read--compare to 45" for the Comanche. Are my figures off?? This from an AOPA article: "Although the measuring tape says the cabin is comparable to other four-place retractables, the perception is that the cockpit is not as large." The Mooney is 43.5"and the Comanche is 44", according to Plane & Pilot: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont..._tse_1988.html http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...rcomanche.html 0.5" difference doesn't get me too excited. Nor me. (Though, I should note, the P&P site lists the Comanche at the 45" I'd seen, on both links for a 250; the specs for the 180 show 44"--I thought they used the same airframe??) I wonder if the difference is related to shape? Is the Mooney more rounded, perhaps, leading to less shoulder room than the 43.5" would otherwise indicate? In any case, I've yet to sit in a Comanche, and it's been many years since I've been in a Mooney (and, at the time, I was used to flying the AA-5, so I doubt I would've complained then!) Either way, that "perception" the AOPA article mentions leads me to think there's something to it.... .. If you decide to look into Mooneys further, you may want to consider an 'F' model versus a 'J' (aka 201). The 'J' is a great airplane too, but it may be more than you need. Your 150 MPH cruise figure is slow for any Mooney; the 'F' will cruise at 145-150 kts and the 'J' will do 158-160 kts (real world numbers). If you are looking for 600sm range, in a Mooney you don't need four hours ;-) Oh, absolutely! Of course, 150 mph is slow for the Comanche, too--those were minimum figures. The M20F's number seem to be comparable to the PA-24-2xx's (and the J is faster). Factor in the intangibles, though, and the Mooneys stay on the back burner for now--great airplanes that will meet my needs, but not (in my impression) the best choice for my needs/wants right now.... (FYI, before I "discovered" the Comanches in my research, Mooney was leading the pack....) Thanks for the advice! -- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
Future Home of Comanche prototype #1 | Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh | Military Aviation | 1 | August 13th 04 05:37 AM |
Comanche Aircraft headed to museums | Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh | Military Aviation | 0 | June 11th 04 01:32 PM |
Comanche 260 - 1965 | Sami Saydjari | Owning | 5 | December 8th 03 12:24 AM |
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | November 19th 03 02:18 PM |