Thinking about buying a Mooney

Ron Natalie wrote:

The E that I flew had plenty of room in the shoulders...and even plenty of height
(I'm a long legged 6'1), but the place my legs go was awfully tight (rubbing uncofortably
against the center console).

Yeah, that happens to me, too, at 6'0". I pull the seat up to the third hole in
the seat rails in order to be able to push the rudders to full travel, but that
means my knees are bent when I'm not pushing the rudder, and that means my right
knee rubs against the center console. I wish they'd put a radius on that corner
of the console so it wouldn't be so sharp.

Actually, on the way out to OSH, I rode several hours in
the back seat along with the pilot's flight bag and some other miscellany. Not the
worst back seat I've ever been in.

Yes, as someone else pointed out, the seat rails have a lot of travel. When my
pilot's seat is pulled up as described above, there's no shortage of back seat
legroom, at least by GA standards.


Of course, the real speed comes with the J or later models.


A lot of the J features can be retrofitted to the earlier models, if you're
willing to pay for it. Of course, you'll still have a pre-J when it comes to
resale, and you will have paid as much as if you'd just bought a J.

On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
certainly is NOT for tiny people.

It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
10gal/hr?

It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
Bonanza though.

Robert;
Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
(about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!

I think I remember reading where Al Mooney was about 6'4". Skinny as
a rail, but the height was there.

In any event, the manual gear and hydraulic flaps are a big plus. If
there are no major squawks with this A/C, it seems to be a good price.

Al,

[...] We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
about 5 gallons less than he did. [...]

Maybe he ran a bit to rich....? ;-)

Difficult to estimate if a bird is more or less economic using data from one
single event happening under unknown conditions.

Best Regards

Kai Glaesner

Al Marzo wrote in message . ..
On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
certainly is NOT for tiny people.

It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
10gal/hr?

It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
Bonanza though.

Robert;
Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
(about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!

Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine )

-Robert

Ah, that explains it. Thanks

On 13 Aug 2004 12:50:05 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Al Marzo wrote in message . ..
On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
certainly is NOT for tiny people.

It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
10gal/hr?

It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
Bonanza though.

Robert;
Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
(about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!

Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine )

-Robert

What other plane does 160 knots on
10gal/hr?

Not the Mooney C model unless there is a good tailwind and running 2300 RPM.

What other plane does 160 knots on 10gal/hr?

Not the Mooney C model unless there is a good tailwind and running 2300 RPM.

The individual that wrote the above was discussing a 'J' model Mooney. A
'J' model will run 160 kts on 10 GPH at 2500 RPM. I get 147 kts on less
than 9 GPH at 2500 in my lowly, stock 'C' model.
---
Ken Reed

A wood wing could be a disaster and you'd be foolish
to buy a Mooney with one.

I was thinking about a wooden wing mooney for fish spotting. Saw one floating
in a magazine article.

In article , Newps wrote:
an annual either. A wood wing could be a disaster and you'd be foolish
to buy a Mooney with one.

Metal wings can be a disaster, too. If you've got an A&P who knows wood
and can do you a pre-buy inspection, there's nothing wrong with a wood
wing plane if the wood is in good condition. I fly a Schleicher Ka-8
glider (with a looong wood wing) that was built in the 1960s, and tow
gliders with an Auster (with a rather shorter wood wing) that was built
in 1946, and both are doing fine.

If you don't have anyone nearby who knows wood, then I'd agree with
staying with what can be supported locally.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

(Martin Kosina) wrote in message . com...
The Mooney gear is quite simple, especially compared to brand-C RG's.
It is one of the few retracts I would not be afraid of,
maintenance-wise. The wood wing issues are so unique and tend to
overshadow other maintenance concerns for prospective buyers that it
is not fair to compare M20A's along with the other Mooney's, IMHO.

I used to fly a Debonair. Sitting under that during a retact test will
blow your mind. A lot of complicated stuff happens when the gear
cycles. No wonder it takes so long to drop the gear. Compare that to
the Mooney electric gear. On the Mooney the gear just pop out, there
are no complicated doors that have to move back and forth. the only
gear door on the mains is simply bolted to the gear itself and moves
with it.

-Robert