I thought I wanted a Mooney...

tawood said:
Yeah, I found his statement funny...like someone saying, "You're not gonna "get" prison in an hour"....lol
Click to expand...

I guess if you consider flying a Mooney somehow compares to prison then your sense of "funny" is way different from mine. I was just saying that most airplanes take some time to acclimate to and one shouldn't shoot from the hip and rely so much on first impressions. Especially in this case where most of the complaints were that it just didn't feel like the other plane I flew.
 
I don’t know but it seems a Tiger comes very close. Around 130 kts at 9 gph. Light control feel. Once trimmed it is almost like being on autopilot. Back seats fold down for your bikes. If it’s hot you can crack the canopy for extra cooling. Like a 172 (or any 180 HP plane), I wouldn’t load 4 adults in one but 3 is fine. Took my pilot buddy up in the club Tiger and he’s like “who doesn’t like flying this plane?”
 
woodchucker said:
I don’t know but it seems a Tiger comes very close. Around 130 kts at 9 gph. Light control feel. Once trimmed it is almost like being on autopilot. Back seats fold down for your bikes. If it’s hot you can crack the canopy for extra cooling. Like a 172 (or any 180 HP plane), I wouldn’t load 4 adults in one but 3 is fine. Took my pilot buddy up in the club Tiger and he’s like “who doesn’t like flying this plane?”
Click to expand...
I’ll consider one/keep my eyes open. I originally had my heart set on a retractable with no real argument for one other than they’re normally faster…but I bet the insurance is cheaper on a tiger.
 
tawood said:
Nope, as I said before, it didn't have the wing leveler...it had a standard autopilot instead (which was turned off). I asked/double checked that when flying. Owner said, "Nope, no wing leveler. M20Js are stiff in roll." His words.
Click to expand...

That’s news to me but I do believe the longer wing span of a Mooney results in a lower roll rate. It’s no RV4.
The plane is not good for aerobatics, but makes a stable platform.
 
thought about you @tawood when I took a quick after-work fuel run in my hard-to-bank, panel-in-your-face mooney. I don't know how I manage to turn that thing. trust me, it wasn't any fun. no sir, not at all. also, I'm posting this from my plane since I can't get out of it. how does anyone get out of these things???


tawood1.jpg
 
eman1200 said:
thought about you @tawood when I took a quick after-work fuel run in my hard-to-bank, panel-in-your-face mooney. I don't know how I manage to turn that thing. trust me, it wasn't any fun. no sir, not at all. also, I'm posting this from my plane since I can't get out of it. how does anyone get out of these things???


View attachment 97624
Click to expand...
Wow dude…sorry I hurt your feelings.
 
tawood said:
Funny, but that's the first thing I told my girlfriend when I got back, that anyone that says a Mooney is like a Ferrari is completely full of it! (when I said it to her I used an expletive) That is without a doubt, the worst comparison I've ever heard! I'm sorry, but from my point of view I found nothing "sports car" like about it, the complete opposite. I told her I felt like I was flying a 200 mph school bus, or freight hauler.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry you had to fly those old SUV’s with worn out shocks and steering linkage so long that you can’t get accustomed to a precise flying aircraft. The short control movement makes for precision, but the controls are indeed heavier as a result.

Like I said, it’s a lot about what you get used to I suppose.

A good friend of mine who is my age (72) grew up in his Dads flight school, learning to fly at 12, and flown everything under the Sun since then including Hueys in Vietnam, every GA plane under the Sun, Citations, Hawkers, Pilates on and on and on….. had never flown a Mooney and commented excitedly about the precision of mine when he flew it.

You might want to work on widening your scope.
 
FastEddieB said:
I don’t think there’s anything inherent in pushrods that would make them take “more force”. That seems to be an engineering/design choice.
Click to expand...

The pushrods have nothing to do with force. They have to do with eliminating slack in the cables. The increased force due to the lack of leverage which is a price for the quicker control surface movement.
 
This was the post I was responding to….

MBDiagMan said:
As far as the stiff controls go, the Mooney has pushrods rather than stretch cables and pulleys. Yes, they take more force, but provide for much more precise control.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I read too much into it or misinterpreted, but it seemed to me to be saying that the “more force” was due to using pushrods.

Not a fair comparison, but my Sky Arrow uses pushrods from the sidestick to the ailerons and elevator*. The stick moves only a few inches left or right for full aileron deflection, yet the ailerons remain pleasantly light. I love how they got the 2 axes of control combined:


Seems a bit Rube Goldberg-esque, but I admire the engineering that went into it.

Anyway, I assume if they had wanted to make the Mooney’s aileron control forces lighter, they could have and still used pushrods.

*Rudder remains cable controlled.
 
FastEddieB said:
Sky Arrow uses pushrods from the sidestick to the ailerons and elevator*. The stick moves only a few inches left or right for full aileron deflection, yet the ailerons a pleasantly light.
Click to expand...
Grumman Tiger and Diamond Star DA40 also use pushrods and are far from being considered stiff.
 
MBDiagMan said:
How so? I can fit four reasonable size adults comfortably and true over 150 knots on less than 10GPH for over six hours. Does that not serve a utilitarian purpose?
Click to expand...

Define reasonable.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I’m sorry you had to fly those old SUV’s with worn out shocks and steering linkage so long that you can’t get accustomed to a precise flying aircraft. The short control movement makes for precision, but the controls are indeed heavier as a result.

Like I said, it’s a lot about what you get used to I suppose.

A good friend of mine who is my age (72) grew up in his Dads flight school, learning to fly at 12, and flown everything under the Sun since then including Hueys in Vietnam, every GA plane under the Sun, Citations, Hawkers, Pilates on and on and on….. had never flown a Mooney and commented excitedly about the precision of mine when he flew it.

You might want to work on widening your scope.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a couple Pilates I’ve wanted to fly.
 
I owned a well-equipped Arrow 200 for 7 years and then I owned a well-equipped M-20J for over 8 years and still own it now. I think I like M-20J better.
1. Comparing the cockpit, M-20J is not that smaller than an Arrow. Enter and existing are similar.
2. The M-20J speed and range definitely make a difference. I flys longer and farther trips in M-20J than Arrow.
3. I don't think the controls are that much different among these 2 models. BTW, I flys close-formation (less than 5 feet apart from the other aircraft) in Mooney. I can only hold the yoke with one hand and the other hand on the throttle. I have no trouble controlling it for an extended period of time.

But that's just me. Good luck on searching your next airplane.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the confusion.

The pushrods eliminate slack and cable stretch, adding to control precision. The geometry of the mechanisms have to do with mechanical advantage, or leverage if you will. The same mechanical advantage can be engineered whether rods or cables are used.

Al chose to use pushrods for precise connection, but short throw controls which require more control pressure. This is much the same as the difference between a sports car and a truck or grandmas grocery getter. As with pilots, there are different car drivers with different needs and likes/dislikes.

Al learned this as his designs were created over the decades. The Culver was similar in Control design and it was known as a solid feeling aircraft. The control linkage must have been good because it was loved by the pilots and was also flown as a target drone. Pilots flew them to their location where they were then remotely controlled for gunnery targets.

The Culver was highly thought of. Not sure where in Al’s line the Culver was, but it was the culmination of what he had learned from a pretty long list of previous designs. The M20 was, of all things, his 20th design.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Al chose to use pushrods for precise connection, but short throw controls which require more control pressure.
Click to expand...

All things being equal, yes.

But all things are never equal. Grummans have equally short throws but sprightly handling. Had Al Mooney wanted more responsive control in roll, he could have modified the ailerons to provide it and still had a short throw. I think he saw heavy controls as a feature, not a bug.
 
Sorry for the confusion.

The pushrods eliminate slack, adding to control precision. The geometry of the mechanisms have to do with mechanical advantage, or leverage if you will. The same mechanical advantage can be engineered whether rods or cables are used.

Al chose to use pushrods for precise connection, but short throw controls which require more control pressure.

He learned this as his designs were created over the decades. The Culver was similar in Control design and it was known as a solid feeling aircraft. The control linkage must have been good because it was loved by the pilots and was also flown as a target drone. Pilots flew them to their location where they were then remotely controlled for gunnery targets.

The Culver was highly thought of.
 
Anyone saying Mooneys lack in utility has been smoking something that recently became legal in a number of states. My Mooney will go 140 knots all day long burning about 9 gallons an hour (actually a tad less). My payload is nearly a thousand pounds. I can fill the seats, though I have to admit I'll run into trouble if I try and fly some of the truly gigantic people on this site. Then again, I think there are a lot of aircraft for which that is the case. But with me and mine I really haven't had that big a problem. Sux for all you big people, Mooneys are great planes.
 
steingar said:
Anyone saying Mooneys lack in utility has been smoking something that recently became legal in a number of states. My Mooney will go 140 knots all day long burning about 9 gallons an hour (actually a tad less). My payload is nearly a thousand pounds. I can fill the seats, though I have to admit I'll run into trouble if I try and fly some of the truly gigantic people on this site. Then again, I think there are a lot of aircraft for which that is the case. But with me and mine I really haven't had that big a problem. Sux for all you big people, Mooneys are great planes.
Click to expand...

Way to ad hominem the **** out of the discussion...
 
EdFred said:
Define reasonable.
Click to expand...

Well I’m 6’1” and 200. I can get the seats WAY too far back and have plenty of leg room. Someone else my size can very comfortably sit to my right. Mine is an F model which has plenty of room in the back for two more my size. The short bodies like the C and E have the same amount of room in the front, but limited leg room in the back.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Well I’m 6’1” and 200. I can get the seats WAY too far back and have plenty of leg room. Someone else my size can very comfortably sit to my right. Mine is an F model which has plenty of room in the back for two more my size. The short bodies like the C and E have the same amount of room in the front, but limited leg room in the back.
Click to expand...

So me at 6'3" 210 (48/50 jacket) my buddy at 6'3" 240 (50 jacket) and 2 others at 6'0 180 would fare how well without staggering seats? Or are we unreasonably sized? Oh, and all of us are widest at the shoulders by far, so it's not like we are fat asses. Oh, and we have to toss the golf clubs in there too.

Edit: I just measured, and realized why Mooneys never work for me. I'm almost 26" across at the shoulders, and my arms are big enough that I have to jam my elbow into rib cage to get the door shut (I only have right seat Mooney time)
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
So me at 6'3" 210 (48/50 jacket) my buddy at 6'3" 240 (50 jacket) and 2 others at 6'0 180 would fare how well without staggering seats? Or are we unreasonably sized? Oh, and all of us are widest at the shoulders by far, so it's not like we are fat asses. Oh, and we have to toss the golf clubs in there too.
Click to expand...

I can't find the pic I had but I flew in a friends E.......he and the right seater were both 6'+ and 200# plus I was in the back at 4'22" and we were fine, staggered seats or not (in case you weren't aware, you can't stagger the back seats). people make such a big deal about "staggering seats" it's silly. although I didn't measure, it appeared as if the seats were roughly the same. but so what, how often, in any plane, are seats on the exact same lock hole? put the "yeah well you gotta stagger the seats" bs to rest already, it's tiring.
 
I havent flown many planes in my life but ill say this....there is nothing like a bonanza! They are so comfy, fast, and just an all around joy to fly. Like you I came from a cherokee 180 and the first time in a V35 I was hooked, nothing that I have previously flown can even come close. I've tried a mooney and it didn't tickle my fancy, I've tried a C177 but was just to slow, same with a Sierra. Truthfully Im not a fan of high wings in general because it seems I have less visibility looking out or up. Sightseeing they are great no doubt. But don't fly in a bonanza unless you are fully prepared to buy one because I promise it will make you want it.

And no reason why $160k can't get you a really nice S or V35. The v35b will always be the most but the S35 is the first year of the fast ones, its it is the fastest. I have a V35, got a good off market deal on it, and flight plan at 170kts but your 160k can get alot of a bonanza. Maintenance hasn't been bad, fuel is about like my cherokee in that I get there an hour or 2 faster but insurance, my heavans insurance. I went from $450 annually to $2200! But no regerts! It's my last plane.

And commanches are down right sexy planes. Never flown in one but they were on my list of upgrades.
 
eman1200 said:
I can't find the pic I had but I flew in a friends E.......he and the right seater were both 6'+ and 200# plus I was in the back at 4'22" and we were fine, staggered seats or not (in case you weren't aware, you can't stagger the back seats). people make such a big deal about "staggering seats" it's silly. although I didn't measure, it appeared as if the seats were roughly the same. but so what, how often, in any plane, are seats on the exact same lock hole? put the "yeah well you gotta stagger the seats" bs to rest already, it's tiring.
Click to expand...

Well, when you're the same height ya do. I am not forcing my buddy who is the same height as me, and just as wide to ride with his face in the panel. And most of the time I'm going with someone, it's someone my height I'm rolling with. And it's you Mooney guys that say "well if you stagger the seats it's fine!"
 
EdFred said:
Well, when you're the same height ya do. I am not forcing my buddy who is the same height as me, and just as wide to ride with his face in the panel. And most of the time I'm going with someone, it's someone my height I'm rolling with.
Click to expand...

when I get anyone in the plane, I show them how to adjust the seat and say put it wherever you feel comfortable. I fly in my flying position no matter what, then adjust one notch in cruise. I've never once said "oh, maybe I should stagger the seats because we don't have enough room". BUT, if moving the seat a notch or two does give u more room.........in ANY plane..........DO IT, who gives a fark?
 
eman1200 said:
when I get anyone in the plane, I show them how to adjust the seat and say put it wherever you feel comfortable. I fly in my flying position no matter what, then adjust one notch in cruise. I've never once said "oh, maybe I should stagger the seats because we don't have enough room". BUT, if moving the seat a notch or two does give u more room.........in ANY plane..........DO IT, who gives a fark?
Click to expand...

Like I said, even with the seats staggered I still have my arm jammed into my rib cage to close the door, and you know first hand I'm not fat. Now put another person my size next to me, we would have to sit so far towards the center of the plane our shoulders would be overlapped. Mooneys are fine for some people, but not for most of my group of friends. Until my social dynamic shifted in the past 4-5 years, I was the SHORTEST (and narrowest save 1) of all my friends.
 
WDD said:
Take the time to sit in the planes and fly them a bit - will do wonders to sort out what would work for you.
  • When I first got my ppl, I knew I wanted a Skyhawk. After renting one for a few X Country trips with wife, I knew I didn't.
  • I knew I wanted a Tiger. After renting one for a X Country trip with wife and daughter, I knew (actually was told as well) never a Tiger - too small for more than 2 people, too hard for wife to get into, too light/bounced too easily for wife.
  • I knew I wanted an Archer/Arrow. I sat in one at an airshow recently to try it out. After 2 seconds I knew it didn't feel right - too cramped. I can take Mooney of the list as well.
  • I thought about a Skylane. After renting a fixed leg Skylane a few times for local and X Country with wife (sometimes another in back seat), it all seemed to work.
  • I knew I wanted a RG Skylane. I called an insurance company about rates, I reviewed the maintenance costs for our club's 182 RG. I know I don't want an RG version.
  • So now I'm focusing in on a straight leg 182 to buy in next few years in retirement.
Theme here is to take some time, rent and fly a variety, and then figure out what you might want.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you realize the PA-32 is your answer.

and understand to NEVER allow your wife to sit in one until you’re ready to buy.
 
40 years ago sitting in a low position sports car was fun. Now I find myself driving a tall sitting SUV. Heck, when I get in the 172 now I crank the seat all the way up to sit as tall as possible (I'm 5'11"); it just sits better for me.

But remember, it isn't about what it the most comfortable for you; it's what I think is the most comfortable, and if you don't agree I'll post 100 times about what I think it is best. And I'll mention it's your fault for being too big/small, and too tall/short. Go Bonanza. (I have no idea why I feel compelled to keep typing that - I've been conditioned I guess).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top