Mooney gone?

flyingcheesehead said:
Ugh. Quit. I'm 6'4" 300# and it's one of the most comfortable four-seaters I've flown. Of course, the Cirrus is reasonably comfortable too. I'd call this a wash.
Click to expand...

Then why at 100# less than you and only an inch shorter are they the second most uncomfortable 4 seater I've flown? The Viking being the most uncomfortable.

I'm thinking owner bias is probably a consideration here.
 
EdFred said:
Then why at 100# less than you and only an inch shorter are they the second most uncomfortable 4 seater I've flown? The Viking being the most uncomfortable.

I'm thinking owner bias is probably a consideration here.
Click to expand...

6'2", 220, no issues in the 201 for me.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, I don't know. I have to fly with my shoulders rolled forward and my elbow wedged into my ribcage when I'm in a Mooney, Not comfortable for me at all.
Click to expand...

Same here. Cramped yet fast due to smaller air frame and less drag. If the pilot and co-pilot have the seats forward or aft of each other, the elbow room is manageable.
 
NordicDave said:
Same here. Cramped yet fast due to smaller air frame and less drag. If the pilot and co-pilot have the seats forward or aft of each other, the elbow room is manageable.
Click to expand...

It might just come down to what people define as comfortable, or what they convince themselves to be comfortable.
 
I have two sons 6'5" and 6'7" respectively. They love flying Mooneys. But they are also both not overweight.

Their dad (me) is 6'2" and 240 lbs (fat). I don't like sitting in a Mooney.
 
EdFred said:
Then why at 100# less than you and only an inch shorter are they the second most uncomfortable 4 seater I've flown? The Viking being the most uncomfortable.

I'm thinking owner bias is probably a consideration here.
Click to expand...

You also own one of the most comfortable four-seaters out there. It's not even that different. I do think the PA24 feels more roomy, but it's only 1.5 inches wider. And it's not "owner bias". The Mooney chose me, not the other way around... I merely grew to love it so much I found a way to keep it.
 
You cant just measure at the widest spot and say it's only this much wider so it has pretty much the same amount of room inside.

Take a square with a base X
A semi circle with diameter X
An isosceles triangle with base X and height X
A symmetrical trapezoid with base X height X and top of X/2

They all have the same amount of area because they have a base of X? I know you know better than that.

Take the measurements where they actually count.
 
Tantalum said:
it's actually a pretty incredible that the designers of 1960s era aircraft thought of putting cigarette lighters and ashtrays but not cup holders.. crazy town
Click to expand...
Smoking cigarettes increases endurance. Drinking would decrease it.
 
EdFred said:
You cant just measure at the widest spot and say it's only this much wider so it has pretty much the same amount of room inside.

Take a square with a base X
A semi circle with diameter X
An isosceles triangle with base X and height X
A symmetrical trapezoid with base X height X and top of X/2

They all have the same amount of area because they have a base of X? I know you know better than that.

Take the measurements where they actually count.
Click to expand...

I never said they have the same area... But the dimensions work fine for my (large) dimensions. There is less wasted space.

One major example relating to the Mooney is that relative to the rudder pedals, the panel is further aft than in something like a Cherokee or Comanche. Some people say this makes them feel cramped, but it's not something that's taking up useful room and frankly, I like it way better because I can reach things on the panel easier. When I was getting my IR (in an Archer) I used to end every lesson with a backache from repeatedly leaning forward to adjust things on the panel.
 
Just about anybody outside of some Mooney owners will admit that the aircraft is very cramped and not comfortable..

So it has decent legroom, but that doesn't count when one shoulder is crushed up against the side of the airplane and the other is cuddling the person next to you

And let's not even talk about the back seat

they're fast, efficient, and can go great distances, but they're useful load and cabin comfort is trash
 
Flybuddy said:
I've got over 3000 hours in various Mooney models. The misconceptions seem to work both ways. Here's a link with some facts on width and useful load.
http://mooneyland.com/why-mooney/
Click to expand...

But like I said, it's where you measure that width. Sure it may be 43.5" wide, but is that a triangle or a square that's being measured. It certainly isn't measured at my widest point (shoulders). I'd like to see what the measurements of each of those are where they count - not 2" below the seat. (I don't know where they measure them.)

Convenient they left a certain aircraft off their comparisons.
 
The actual measurements they tout were taken at elbow level, there's minimal change to shoulder level (probably 42 inches) but the overall height is significantly less and it does give a feeling of claustrophobia to some larger people until you get used to it as there is minimal headroom. In turbulence you can be glad you're in a very strong airframe BUT with the lack of headroom you can smack your head very easily if you don't strap your seat belts really tight.
 
Sitting in a Mooney vs. sitting in a Cirrus ... two different worlds. The Cirrus may be only inches larger inside, but it feels like feet. And dollar for dollar, I know what I'd buy if I was to buy a new plane. And it wouldn't be either of those.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sitting in a Mooney vs. sitting in a Cirrus ... two different worlds. The Cirrus may be only inches larger inside, but it feels like feet. And dollar for dollar, I know what I'd buy if I was to buy a new plane. And it wouldn't be either of those.
Click to expand...

I would buy a fleet of airplanes so that I could have something different to fly every day.
 
Tantalum said:
Just about anybody outside of some Mooney owners will admit that the aircraft is very cramped and not comfortable..

So it has decent legroom, but that doesn't count when one shoulder is crushed up against the side of the airplane and the other is cuddling the person next to you

And let's not even talk about the back seat

they're fast, efficient, and can go great distances, but they're useful load and cabin comfort is trash
Click to expand...

I think the criticism of useful load is highly misplaced.

Show me another 180 HP plane that has a useful load of 688 pounds when loaded with 4.5 hours + VFR reserve of fuel at 140 knots like my C model has.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Show me another 180 HP plane that has a useful load of 688 pounds when loaded with 4.5 hours + VFR reserve of fuel at 140 knots like my C model does.
Click to expand...
Edit: useful load refers to their current offering.. granted, full fuel payload is not great on any airplane currently on the market.. still, 688 lbs would be a challenge leaving for a ski weekend with a few friends. Horses for courses though

I want to like the airplane, they look pretty badass, but I just don't find them comfortable
 
Tantalum said:
Edit: useful load refers to their current offering.. granted, full fuel payload is not great on any airplane currently on the market.. still, 688 lbs would be a challenge leaving for a ski weekend with a few friends. Horses for courses though

I want to like the airplane, they look pretty badass, but I just don't find them comfortable
Click to expand...
Again, you’re not taking a few friends and gear very far in any 180 HP plane.

the part of your criticism that is right, is that it is a challenge to fit 688 pounds of people or cargo into the short body comfortably. I’ve never run out of useful, but I’ve often run out of volume.
 
People size and comfort in a Mooney. General comments from a non owner.

I am 6 feet, broad shoulders, the owner was nearly a foot shorter, but also broad shoulders. He rolled his seat forward for comfort and proper reach to the controls, I rolled back to help keep my feet out of the pedals. I did not notice a tight cabin.

Our wives sat in back, my wife behind the owner, and his smaller wife behind me. They were 5-6 and 5-2. No comments from my wife about space or comfort either.

I flew part of the IFR trip south, but did not log it for insurance reasons, enjoyed the responsive controls, with a suitably stable basic response.

We spent a night in southern North Carolina, and flew back home along the beaches at low altitude, sight seeing, stopped at Billy Mitchel for some walking in the ocean, and continued home.

I would have considered joining him in his partnership, but the Mooney was hangered at an airport too far from my home. The flight had nothing to do with recruiting an additional partner, just a vacation with a friend.

I also rode back seat while his son became instrument current, and even from that seat, I was reasonably comfortable.

I do not remember which model he had, but it was one of the faster ones, as he made long business trips in it, and time was money.
 
EdFred said:
But like I said, it's where you measure that width. Sure it may be 43.5" wide, but is that a triangle or a square that's being measured. It certainly isn't measured at my widest point (shoulders). I'd like to see what the measurements of each of those are where they count - not 2" below the seat. (I don't know where they measure them.)
Click to expand...
This diagram is from a 1970s Mooney brochure. I wonder what the numbers would be at shoulder level, or eye level.



I'm 6'4" and 190 lb, and find Mooney front seats comfortable enough, in an old shoe short of way. It's not a spacious, airy, freedom-of-movement kind of comfort, but it's adequate.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I like it way better because I can reach things on the panel easier. When I was getting my IR (in an Archer) I used to end every lesson with a backache from repeatedly leaning forward to adjust things on the panel.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that T-rex arms are a prerequisite? :D

I thought my time in an M20F was comfortable in an "old jeans" kind of way, but my CFI was giving me a workout at the time so I didn't really dwell on it much. What I didn't particularly care for was that looking out the window was like looking out a turret, at least compared to the Grumman I was flying at the time. Definitely felt like a machine built to get you as far as quickly/efficiently possible.
 
Pilawt said:
This diagram is from a 1970s Mooney brochure. I wonder what the numbers would be at shoulder level, or eye level.



I'm 6'4" and 190 lb, and find Mooney front seats comfortable enough, in an old shoe short of way. It's not a spacious, airy, freedom-of-movement kind of comfort, but it's adequate.
Click to expand...

This is a measurement across the floor and not the shoulders. Mooney’s taper in fast from elbows up to the shoulders and head.

In general low wing planes are widest on the floor and high wing planes wider at the top. The Mooney, though a great plane tapers in even quicker than an Arrow. Part of what makes Mooney’s high speed performer is less drag from the smaller silhouette of the cabin coupled to a large engine.

A 182 feels cavernous by comparison, but flys more like a truck and the Mooney a sport car.
 
Ever the diplomat, and seeking resolution, former President Obama intervenes in the spirited discussion on PoA:

"If you like your Mooney, you can keep your Mooney"
 
I'm almost spot on FAA average and find the Mooney to be pretty average as far as airplanes go. No it's not Cirrus comfortable by a long shot, but it's not 172 uncomfortable. I find the room adequate but the relationship of the panel to the seat and the low seating position to be less than ideal for my taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top