I thought I wanted a Mooney...

tawood said:
That's nice of you to offer Ed. I don't know if you know Ron Keil (he's big in Michigan aviation circles on my side of the state) but he offered to take me up in his Comanche 250 as well. Thing is, I've already sat in a Comanche last fall, and although I didn't fly in it, I didn't care for it either. I was trying to buy a Bonanza 35 from Indy Air that ended up having too many problems in the pre-buy. While I was there, they had a Comanche for sale, and I got in it. It was weird, because even though I believe it was a little bigger than my Cherokee, it felt smaller. Maybe it was the bench seat in back, or the window/dash position, IDK. Comanche's are awesome to me on paper, doing everything on paper that I want or need. Then I see one in person and I'm completely uninspired. I can't imagine owning a plane that doesn't inspire me, doesn't make me want to jump in it and fly.
Click to expand...
The baffling thing to me is the idea that a Comanche is so unappealing to you when most knowledgeable people regard it as one of the best designs ever! You appear to be coming from a Cherokee,which is like a Timex compared to a Rolex if you wanted to really understand what is in these airframes. Mooney is well built, but I think the sixties vintage don't come anywhere near the beauty of a Comanche. Then, there is the life with the airplane. Comanche are not only roomy and comfortable, but are much easier to work on where access counts. Then there is performance and range!
 
steingar said:
But you have two extra cylinders to feed and quite a bit more complexity.
Click to expand...
Curious, such as what? From an operational or mechanical/maintenance standpoint?
 
eman1200 said:
thanks Jeff. looks pretty darn similar, minus the more laid back seating position of the mooney. or should I say the upright seating of the 172.
Click to expand...
Well, the Mooney has a pretty short/narrow view out the front. Looking out the front windscreen is like looking through a mail slot compared to a Cessna. That contributes to the illusion of being panel-dominated.
upload_2021-6-25_9-10-52.png
 
lblandina said:
The baffling thing to me is the idea that a Comanche is so unappealing to you when most knowledgeable people regard it as one of the best designs ever! You appear to be coming from a Cherokee,which is like a Timex compared to a Rolex if you wanted to really understand what is in these airframes. Mooney is well built, but I think the sixties vintage don't come anywhere near the beauty of a Comanche. Then, there is the life with the airplane. Comanche are not only roomy and comfortable, but are much easier to work on where access counts. Then there is performance and range!
Click to expand...

I'm a riddle, in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.

Seriously, you can't understand why someone likes the way something looks, and doesn't like the way something else looks? Do you find all members of the opposite sex equally appealing? (or same sex if that's your thing?)
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Well, the Mooney has a pretty short/narrow view out the front. Looking out the front windscreen is like looking through a mail slot compared to a Cessna. That contributes to the illusion of being panel-dominated.
View attachment 97643
Click to expand...

I see sexy on the left, grandpa plane on the right. but that's just me.
 
eman1200 said:
oh now you're REALLY gonna set edfred off........
Click to expand...

Hehe. I've seen that before, it measures where it doesn't matter for me. But at least it measured the same spot for all of them.
 
EdFred said:
Hehe. I've seen that before, it measures where it doesn't matter for me. But at least it measured the same spot for all of them.
Click to expand...

if they "measured where it mattered", for me they'd have to measure, well, you can see where I'm going with this one. I don't say "I'm haulin balls" for no reason.......
 
RyanB said:
Curious, such as what? From an operational or mechanical/maintenance standpoint?
Click to expand...
Thinking mostly about the landing gear, since there are motors and I think bungies that have to be adjusted. During my search Comanches were also more expensive than comparable Mooneys. Made sense to me, you get more airplane with the Comanche. The deciding factor to me was I fitt really well in the Mooney. @EdFred's comment about the chihuahua wasn't so far off. I'm a tiny little man, another standard deviation and I'd probably be syndromic. In a way it's a good thing that EdFred-sized people don't fit in the Mooney. If they did the vintage Mooneys would sell for more and I'd not be able to buy one.

If someone thinks I'm bashing Comanches you couldn't be more wrong. I flew in Ed's, a very capable machine. That said I don't think you'll find many Mooneys with tip tanks...
 
steingar said:
There are only 1200 parts in the whole airframe... The Mooney airframe has 7000 parts...
Click to expand...
Got a source for that? I would imagine Aluminum GA SEP planes all are within a standard deviation of eachother in airframe parts.
 
tawood said:
please don't say "Comanche", just my opinion but I think they're the ugliest plane ever made. Not trying to insult anyone's comanche, I just don't like the looks of them.
Click to expand...
Would a LoPresti cowl improve its looks enough for you?
upload_2021-6-25_9-25-34.png
 
EdFred said:
And the cowl can be yours for the low low price of only $18,000!
Click to expand...
How much of a premium does it add to the sale price if a previous owner bought it?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Got a source for that? I would imagine Aluminum GA SEP planes all are within a standard deviation of eachother in airframe parts.
Click to expand...
Cherokees are really simple compared to most. I can't honestly say where the 1200 number came from though. I believe it, I performed two annuals under the watchful eyes of a mechanic.
 
steingar said:
I don't think you'll find many Mooneys with tip tanks...
Click to expand...

There was one -- sort of. It was a one-off experimental with an M20E fuselage and wings, Beechcraft Musketeer vertical fin & rudder, a Continental IO-360 from the rear engine of a C-337, and Beech tip-tanks. It was destroyed in a fatal crash about 15 years ago.

1B887686-EFE9-41B9-81CA-33382D5D6207.jpeg
 
tawood said:
But according to some here, its a VERY PRECISE dump truck! LOL
Click to expand...

I've taken a loaded Debonair around the patch a few times in July heat with the owner and its a way better feel than the Mooney.

They don't have these stupid things either, a bunch of Mooneys do, tho 4 banger versions.

upload_2021-6-25_11-47-38.png
 
asicer said:
Would a LoPresti cowl improve its looks enough for you?
View attachment 97644
Click to expand...
No. I think its the cabin/windows, and straight lines of the fuselage, that bother me. I read someone once say they look like a kids drawing, or a drawing from 1930 of what they thought (and were wrong) what airplanes would look like 100 years in the future. That's what I think of when I see a comanche. Something like this:

upload_2021-6-25_12-48-7.png

Obviously exaggerated for effect.
 
But other than the flipped tail, the Mooney and Comanche are pretty damn similar in lines and shape.
 
asicer said:
How much of a premium does it add to the sale price if a previous owner bought it?
Click to expand...

I dunno. Got my controller mag this week and didn't see any Comanches for sale in it.
 
EdFred said:
But other than the flipped tail, the Mooney and Comanche are pretty damn similar in lines and shape.
Click to expand...
Similar, yes, but also different. Its like a Lark and a 172. The 172, although not sexy, is, well, "cute". The Lark is like the cessna's ugly sister. Yet they are similar. (Here I am angering more plane owners by insulting their aircraft! LOL)
 
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. And it's you Mooney guys that say "well if you stagger the seats it's fine!"
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no need to ride with “ your face in the panel. In fact even for someone WAY over six feet, you can get the seats back way too far.

Are you aware that there are different models with different lengths? Even though you and you’re buddies have such low percentage of body fat and are such big, manly bruisers you will need an F or J. BTW, exactly what plane are you planning on using to haul you and your macho buddies AND your golf clubs? I’m anxious to know.
 
tawood said:
Similar, yes, but also different. Its like a Lark and a 172. The 172, although not sexy, is, well, "cute". The Lark is like the cessna's ugly sister. Yet they are similar. (Here I am angering more plane owners by insulting their aircraft! LOL)
Click to expand...

I don't care. There's things I would change about the Comanche.
 
MBDiagMan said:
There is absolutely no need to ride with “ your face in the panel. In fact even for someone WAY over six feet, you can get the seats back way too far.

Are you aware that there are different models with different lengths? Even though you and you’re buddies have such low percentage of body fat and are such big, manly bruisers you will need an F or J. BTW, exactly what plane are you planning on using to haul you and your macho buddies AND your golf clubs? I’m anxious to know.
Click to expand...

Same one I've been flying for 11 years.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yeah, little kids ALWAYS find a way to justify what they want or their opinion.
Click to expand...

You mean like how Mooney owners justify it being so spacious that Yokozuna (if he were alive) fits easily?

Just wondering.
 
MBDiagMan said:
So then do you care to share what that is, or is it a Top Secret fact that must be concealed for reasons of national defense?
Click to expand...

Reading is hard. It's only been mentioned 50 times in this thread, and once immediately after you posted.
Piper Comanche.
 
Believe it or not, I’m not so impressed with you that I study what airplane you fly.

So now that I have am so privileged as to have this information, where do you load the four sets of golf clubs?
 
MBDiagMan said:
Believe it or not, I’m not so impressed with you that I study what airplane you fly.

So now that I have am so privileged as to have this information, where do you load the four sets of golf clubs?
Click to expand...
Self absorption does tend to put a damper on knowing other people especially when the information is right in front of you.

Generally most people put baggage in the baggage area. I fall into that category. Drivers come out of the bags and protrude into the seating area a little.
 
asicer said:
Well, the Mooney has a pretty short/narrow view out the front. Looking out the front windscreen is like looking through a mail slot compared to a Cessna. That contributes to the illusion of being panel-dominated.
View attachment 97643
Click to expand...

Short, narrow view out the front? Grasping for straws are we?

The picture you posted is of an F with the original windshield. Believe it or not there are other models out ther.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Only butt holes fly Comanches.

I’ve always wanted one. Actually a twin Comanche.
Click to expand...

I have the option to trade single for a twin right now. But I'd be going a long ways backwards with the panel.
 
MBDiagMan said:
…..protrude a LITTLE? Got a picture?
Click to expand...

Nope. In all my years of ownership I don't think I've ever taken a picture of my planes loaded up with anything. Pictures of a redone panel, and pictures of a redone interior. This weekend, it's softball gear for a tourney. Probably won't take a picture of that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top