Mooney or Cardinal?
- Thread starter Rock Berube
- Start date
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Congrats, looks spanky. There are a couple places where you can seal the tanks. They aren't cheap. You can also get bladders. You give up a bit of useful load, but the benefit is a permanent solution.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,103
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
Looks awesome, the 201 windscreen greatly improves the looks of the older models!
charheep
Cleared for Takeoff
Did you notice the tail was put on backwards? Congrats on becoming an owner. Very nice looking bird!
Rcmutz
Cleared for Takeoff
How did your tail get bent like that!
BrianNC
En-Route
Mooney cabin is wider than both the 172 and 182. It's also wider than the 36 Bonanza.
172 - 39.5" (POH)
182 - 42" (POH)
Mooney 201 - 43.5" (POH)
Cardinal - 48" (at the shoulders)
NordicDave
En-Route
Wider where? I've never been in Mooney where I wasn't rubbing shoulders with the person next to me. Mooney's are wider on the floor and narrower across the shoulder to head area. A reason why the right/left seat tracks are so close together compared to other planes in this list.
Last edited:
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
These "width" measurements are usually taken at the elbow. In most low wing airplanes, the cabin cross-section is rounded above the window line, so the width narrows as you go up. In most high-wing airplanes, on the other hand, the width is nearly constant from the seat cushion all the way up to the ceiling.
This comparison sketch is from a mid-1970s Mooney ad. Notice that the fuselage really isn't much wider at all than the competition, but Mooney gets its "43.5 inches" at cutouts in the sidewalls at elbow level. I'd like to see the width measurements compared at shoulder and eye level. I wonder if a Mooney is any wider at eye level than a 172. See the photo in Post #89 above.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,723
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Empirical taping of the elbow rest of the 182 have demonstrated that width is 44" not 42". The POH lists the 42 at the lower window line, which inside of the radius of the door post bulkhead, which protrudes inwards and is always behind the front occupants shoulder line. Aka a worthless metric.
(182RG)
The Cardinal for instance, also shows an unimpressive floor board width, but the doors are bowed out to attain the famous cabin width it's noted for, which is uncommon for airplanes in that underpowered class ( perhaps joining company only with the commander 112). The rest in that class are significantly narrower in fit, my PA-28R very much included. When I took a tape two summers ago to a C33A (back when I had a very short and momentary lapse in judgement and thought I could swing conti engine ownership) I found the recess on the arm rest provides 43.5", wider than the 42" they list. The Mooney F I taped back in the day when I bought the Arrow, holds to that by the use of the same recess. It is otherwise cramped in every other metric compared to a Bo/Deb volumetrics. This is compatible with @Pilawt explanation of tapering differences between high and low wing cabins. A 182 is a fregging cave in overall volume compared to a mid body mooney, but vertical visibility is a challenge for most sub 6 footer occupants who don't carry their height in torso length.
Cabin volumetrics has become a sort of a hobby of mine. My wife is currently my saving grace; says she loves the Arrow backseat, even with the kid back there, so I get to stretch in the front. She's saving me a bundle on not having to lateral airplanes. Personally, I'm pining for something 45 inches across or better. I don't think I want to go back to rubbing shoulders when she gets back to sitting up front.
(182RG)
The Cardinal for instance, also shows an unimpressive floor board width, but the doors are bowed out to attain the famous cabin width it's noted for, which is uncommon for airplanes in that underpowered class ( perhaps joining company only with the commander 112). The rest in that class are significantly narrower in fit, my PA-28R very much included. When I took a tape two summers ago to a C33A (back when I had a very short and momentary lapse in judgement and thought I could swing conti engine ownership) I found the recess on the arm rest provides 43.5", wider than the 42" they list. The Mooney F I taped back in the day when I bought the Arrow, holds to that by the use of the same recess. It is otherwise cramped in every other metric compared to a Bo/Deb volumetrics. This is compatible with @Pilawt explanation of tapering differences between high and low wing cabins. A 182 is a fregging cave in overall volume compared to a mid body mooney, but vertical visibility is a challenge for most sub 6 footer occupants who don't carry their height in torso length.
Cabin volumetrics has become a sort of a hobby of mine. My wife is currently my saving grace; says she loves the Arrow backseat, even with the kid back there, so I get to stretch in the front. She's saving me a bundle on not having to lateral airplanes. Personally, I'm pining for something 45 inches across or better. I don't think I want to go back to rubbing shoulders when she gets back to sitting up front.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
I love these single measurement comparisons. It's like we are all locked into the marketing departments of the various 1970s airplane makers, looking for the sidewall upholstery indentation that will give us an extra 1/2". LOL.
I'm 6'4", 235'ish lbs. There is absolutely no friggin' way a Mooney cabin is anywhere near as comfortable or as spacious for me to sit in as a 182 (or a Cherokee, any Cherokee). I could care less about some single width measurement comparison. The Mooney is faster than most other airplanes with similar (or bigger) engines in large part because the cabin is not as wide and not as tall - it's a "squished down" airplane with measurably less flat plate area. Sit in 'em and most people (at least those my size) recognize the comfort difference immediately.
But, would I own a 182 if I wanted to go places as far away as I would want to in a Mooney? Not a chance. But then I am one of those rare idiots that flies an Aztec, which should put paid to any uncertainty as to how much I value spacious comfort and useful load when flying.
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm 6'4" 300#, so don't "my size" me.
I also have more time in both Mooneys and 182s than anything else. I would say they're equally comfortable - They're just very different. The 182 has you sitting very upright, while the Mooney has the "sports car" seating. But the Mooney has oodles of legroom, which I like a lot.
But the idea that the Mooney is tiny and cramped compared to a Bonanza, 182, etc is just BS and I think you find Mooney owners such as myself quoting cabin measurements simply because we're sick of hearing that BS "Mooneys are small" crap. Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built an airplane to fit himself. I think a lot of people think it's small because you're closer to the windscreen than you are in a lot of other planes, especially in the pre-J models. I don't do anything useful with the room there anyway, so who cares? At the end of the day, the Mooney and 182 are both very comfortable, and sitting in the airplane for less time gives the Mooney the edge on comfort.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
You know, I've heard so much about the expense of a tank reseal that when I found out how much it actually cost, I was shocked - It's about an order of magnitude less than I was expecting given the amount of talk about it. I'm expecting my oxygen tank replacement due in another few years is going to cost more than an eventual tank reseal.
No, it's not a permanent solution. Bladders go bad too... In fact, they go bad on a roughly similar timescale to wet wing seals! You also give up several gallons of fuel capacity when installing bladders in a Mooney.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
That's a negatorie good buddy. Bladders can be pulled out through the holes they went in through. They can then be refurbished in situ. 5 years ago when I talked to Joey Cole about it he said it would cost about an AMU.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
None of which contradicts anything I said... You still lose the fuel capacity, and they still go bad. It is not a permanent solution, and it does have drawbacks.
Neither solution is perfect... But when the time comes, we'll probably be resealing our wet wings.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
That just says “proudly not a wannabe jet.”
Says this poster who still thinks the early straight tail 172s and 150s looked better.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
I'm 6'4" 300#, so don't "my size" me.
I would say they're equally comfortable - They're just very different. The 182 has you sitting very upright, while the Mooney has the "sports car" seating. But the Mooney has oodles of legroom, which I like a lot.
But the idea that the Mooney is tiny and cramped compared to a Bonanza, 182, etc is just BS and I think you find Mooney owners such as myself quoting cabin measurements simply because we're sick of hearing that BS "Mooneys are small" crap. Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built an airplane to fit himself. I think a lot of people think it's small because you're closer to the windscreen than you are in a lot of other planes, especially in the pre-J models. I don't do anything useful with the room there anyway, so who cares? At the end of the day, the Mooney and 182 are both very comfortable, and sitting in the airplane for less time gives the Mooney the edge on comfort.
I remain completely unpersuaded that you and I, side-by-side, in the front seats of a Mooney at the same time is a good idea.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
That can’t be correct. Most of the folks that have never sat in a Mooney say that they are more cramped than a 172 or 182.
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
Looks great! Welcome to the Mooney world. Does it have manual gear? I had a manual gear before my current F and had to change to an electric gear version after a shoulder injury. I REALLY miss the manual gear.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I remain completely unpersuaded that you and I, side-by-side, in the front seats of a Mooney at the same time is a good idea.
Good thing my wife is smaller than you.
But, we probably shouldn't be side-by-side in anything smaller than... Well, probably your Aztec!
ktup-flyer
En-Route
My 182 has a leaky left wing, and I'll be flying to Miami this winter to get it resealed. Got quoted $2500-3500
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Why don't we all take cabin width measurements where are shoulders are in our airplanes? It's not rocket science
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,535
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
Because that changes depending on body torso length and seat back position.
You can always stagger the seat position to avoid rubbing shoulders.
Tom
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
So what you are saying is that Mooney's marketing of how "spacious" the cabin is may not be entirely accurate. If staggering seats is required, there's a definite design flaw. Also how's that work during flight reviews or instruction when the CFI is the same height as the pilot? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
AA5Bman
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 792
- Display Name
Display name:
He who ironically no longer flies an AA5B
It all depends on your build. The guys in my family are nick-named “pop machine” because that’s how we’re built. My jacket size is 46.
At one point I really wanted to buy an M20J. I found a local one that I was considering and asked the owner for a test flight. Met him at the hangar, looked inside quizzically and said “let me try that on”.
Needless to say, we didn’t even take it out of the hangar. Crunched between the side window and the ceiling, we sat in it for a while and my hopes for 10gph at 155 knots withered and died right there.
At one point I really wanted to buy an M20J. I found a local one that I was considering and asked the owner for a test flight. Met him at the hangar, looked inside quizzically and said “let me try that on”.
Needless to say, we didn’t even take it out of the hangar. Crunched between the side window and the ceiling, we sat in it for a while and my hopes for 10gph at 155 knots withered and died right there.
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,535
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
Design flaw because it doesn’t fit 2 large people without staggered seats?? Yes maybe FAA should issue an AD and all planes that can’t fit 2 large people be grounded. Brilliant! Even in commercial planes you’ll rub shoulders with the person next to you is large.
We’ll ground those too!
Tom
Way to go Rock!
That’s a great looking Mooney. I hope you have a lot of fun traveling in it.
gary
That’s a great looking Mooney. I hope you have a lot of fun traveling in it.
gary
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Design flaw = airworthiness issue?
Hysterical much?
"Mommy the bad man on the internet said something about my plane. How do I best overreact?"
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,535
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
This coming from the guy who said if 2 large people rub shoulders in a small plane it’s a design flaw.
Tom
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
2 average people also rub shoulders. That's the design flaw. So is the single door entry in a crap ton of low wings.
But say something bad about a Mooney and watch the sand start pouring down the pants leg.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think you've confused the word compromise with the word flaw.
You can't get the speed and efficiency of the Mooney with a wider cabin. It's a compromise.
A single door is cheaper and allows for lighter and stronger construction without enlarging the airframe. Again, a compromise, not a flaw.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
And in those two aircraft what % of people can get in or out while everyone else remains seated?
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
How many aircraft can you refuel in flight. Obviously the entire civilian fleet is a flawed design.
Even 747's don't allow everyone to get in while everyone else remains seated. You drinking a bit too much?
Change of subject. I was only responding to your comment that G650s are crap low wings with a design flaw of one door.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,723
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Semantics, a POA Holiday Season Special.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
crap ton != crap plane
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
and in that 747 is a passenger seated right in front of the main door not allowing anyone else to get in or out?
Rock Berube
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2019
- Messages
- 54
- Display Name
Display name:
Alpineman
Thanks Doc, and Ya Manual gear and no issues. actually really liking it.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Actually, I think my vintage Mooney is fairly small inside. I don't mind, since I'm fairly small outside. It fits tall guys really well, broad guys less so. The new Mooneys aren't any bigger in the cockpit, though they have much larger back seats. If you're that big a guy the Mooney might not be for you. Comanches are cavernous inside. If you can't fit in a Comanche you need to loose some weight.