I thought I wanted a Mooney...

MBDiagMan said:
Yeah, I wouldn’t post that picture if I had it either. Not after claiming four macho, lean and mean tough guys and four sets of golf clubs.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension IS hard. A picture doesn't exist, because pictures weren't taken. Hard to post something that doesn't exist. What a ****ing tool.

I'm out.
 
tawood said:
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:

View attachment 97648

Obviously exaggerated for effect.
Click to expand...

Great pic! You captured the flapping of the wings. High shutter speed?
 
EdFred said:
I don't care. There's things I would change about the Comanche.
Click to expand...
There are things I'd change about the Mooney. But both are capable ships. The Comanche certainly wins in the capacious department, far more space than my little Mooney.
 
steingar said:
There are things I'd change about the Mooney. But both are capable ships. The Comanche certainly wins in the capacious department, far more space than my little Mooney.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you don’t get something for nothing. What is its speed and fuel burn?
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yeah, and you don’t get something for nothing. What is its speed and fuel burn?
Click to expand...
Oh of course. The Mooney goes fast because of its small frontal area. The Comanche goes fast because it has a big engine out front. Like I said, you don't see many Mooneys with tip tanks. Mooneys don't need them, since they get phenomenal range just from being efficient.
 
bnt83 said:
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.

View attachment 97647
Click to expand...

My Mooney doesn’t have “those stupid things.” Those things are one thing that you can’t blame Mooney for. The models that have them were there because of the engine manufacturer. News Flash! There are other aircraft brands that have “those stupid things.”

BTW, I do indeed agree that those things are stupid things.
 
steingar said:
Oh of course. The Mooney goes fast because of its small frontal area. The Comanche goes fast because it has a big engine out front. Like I said, you don't see many Mooneys with tip tanks. Mooneys don't need them, since they get phenomenal range just from being efficient.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you can true about 150 knots burning under 10 GPH, 64 gallons takes me WAY farther than my bladder.
 
Bill said:
Me seated in my normal position, I don't see the panel as being that close, but to each their own.

View attachment 97639
Click to expand...

Which hole is your seat in? 1 being the closest, 6 aft position.
Also for those who never sat in the Mooney, you can adjust the seat back…looks like yours is in the upright position.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Short, narrow view out the front? Grasping for straws are we?
Click to expand...
I said "compared to a Cessna". I also said that the perception that Mooney's have a panel-dominated view is an illusion. I don't see how that's grasping at straws.
The picture you posted is of an F with the original windshield. Believe it or not there are other models out ther.
Click to expand...
An F with the original windshield is where I spent all my Mooney time. Sorry for lumping the M20F with other Mooneys.
 
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...

And his legs are bent in 90° position…Mooney leg position is to be extended
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Which hole is your seat in? 1 being the closest, 6 aft position.
Also for those who never sat in the Mooney, you can adjust the seat back…looks like yours is in the upright position.
Click to expand...

Usually 4 or 5 depending, and yes, for flying, I like the seat upright.
 
steingar said:
Oh of course. The Mooney goes fast because of its small frontal area. The Comanche goes fast because it has a big engine out front. Like I said, you don't see many Mooneys with tip tanks. Mooneys don't need them, since they get phenomenal range just from being efficient.
Click to expand...
The reason you see tip tanks on Comanches is the early models only had 60 gallons. Later have 90 gal internal. Either can have tips for more range.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If you ever do a power off exercise, the difference between an Arrow and Mooney glide characteristics is striking.
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey!! The Arrow... especially the Hershey bar wing-ed Arrow has safe glide characteristics......

C'mon PoA, you know the punchline to this one....

(says a guy who owns an Arrow with a Hershey bar wing likes Mooneys, too...)
 
lblandina said:
The reason you see tip tanks on Comanches is the early models only had 60 gallons. Later have 90 gal internal. Either can have tips for more range.
Click to expand...
My Mooney has 54. I could boost that to 64, though as it is the aircraft can handily outlast my bladder.
 
I have a 64 Super21 and I love it. I used to own a Cherokee 140 which was tight, but not as tight as the Mooney. It is a little smaller than the Cherokee but not by too much. The Mooney is faster, climbs better, holds about as much and burns less fuel. It takes off shorter and lands in about the same distance, so I can use it on the same grass strips I routinely use. I am 5' 10.5" and 170 lbs, not overly large, and I am comfortable in my bird. It is more difficult to get in and out of, but not dramatically so compared to the 140, once you learn how. There are other differences as well similarities, mostly in flying and handling, but I have learned most of them and am getting better all the time.

Mooneys are unique aircraft, but are not for everyone. It does take a while to get used to them. Maybe you'll feel differently the next time you look at one.
 
I didn't read all the blah, blah, blah in-between, just the first page and this one. I'm going on my 11th year of Mooney ownership and I came directly from Arrow/Archer time. The Mooney cabin is tighter for sure. Everything is tightly packed on a Mooney. Try working on one!:eek:

That's the magic of the Mooney though. I know of no other certified airplane that can seat four people and fly that efficiently and very few experimentals. A '65 M20E flew west to east, coast to coast non stop and it was bone stock. No ferry tank, now special speed mods. That's why I chose Mooney. If you're not limber and dexterous, a Mooney is not for you, but there is a technique to get in and out just as fast as any plane almost. Nothing beats a Cessna Cardinal though for getting in and out.\

As to having to use two hands to bank the plane, that is either hyperbole, or your AME needs to know you're experiencing issues with your hands and arms. Gym maybe? I NEVER use two hands except during a short field landing to slow the plane.
 
TB-20/-21?

RV-10?

SR22 partnership?
 
tawood said:
To me (again, just personal opinion) I think the best looking airplane out there is a Commander. They're beautiful. But from what I've read, a 112 hauls about like my cherokee 140 did: two people, maybe a third if it is a small child. And like I said, a 114 in the condition I'd like is probably going to be more than I want to spend. Beech 35, 33, 36, also very nice, and they seem to do it all...but again I'm not sure I would be happy with a Beech in my price range. I'd like to get my "last plane", as it seems like I've spent my 25-year flying venture constantly upgrading or searching for a better fit.
Click to expand...
Look at the Commander 112TCA. There are two or three for sale right now. Better performance than a straight 112 and close enough performance to a 114. It has a unique TO-360 (so not fuel injected) but the plane still hauls 950lbs, so the same as a M20J. Granted my Comanche will smoke those planes in all parameters, it loses points in not having two doors (and is apparently ugly). Your budget is good so maybe look into a Meyers 200, but those might handle a little too much like a Mooney. Good luck
 
Bill said:
Me seated in my normal position, I don't see the panel as being that close, but to each their own.

View attachment 97639
Click to expand...
I have no dog in the hunt with the 310 I can sit next to fat Albert and not be rubbing shoulders…just found the humor in Bill flying with horse blinders on talking about what he can see. :)

@tawood , looks and room seem to matter…I vote Commander if one pops up in your budget. Love the way they look.
 
Lol, that was my first flight under foggles in about seven years. I did a few quick “warm up” approaches with @RyanB before going down to CVC to get grilled by @Lance F .

And grill me he did, he gave me the first approach for free, the rest of the day was partial panel.
 
Say what you like, but Mooneys are traveling machines. Here's my son's flight yesterday. Weather....handled. Distance....handled. Most of the flight t 11,000' and 13,000'. Went through a cylinder of O2, but only used 53.5 gallons of av gas for the 6.5 hours the engine was running. Not many planes that can touch that.

6993DD9A-6986-4FA5-A867-F5DABC1A929E_1_102_o.jpeg
 
Lance F said:
Say what you like, but Mooneys are traveling machines. Here's my son's flight yesterday. Weather....handled. Distance....handled. Most of the flight t 11,000' and 13,000'. Went through a cylinder of O2, but only used 53.5 gallons of av gas for the 6.5 hours the engine was running. Not many planes that can touch that.

View attachment 97875
Click to expand...

The 22 will do that in about 4.5 hours no wind, 76 gallons of gas. Direct though, not sure what the routing and deviations added. That said, I like mooneys.
 
Lance F said:
Say what you like, but Mooneys are traveling machines. Here's my son's flight yesterday. Weather....handled. Distance....handled. Most of the flight t 11,000' and 13,000'. Went through a cylinder of O2, but only used 53.5 gallons of av gas for the 6.5 hours the engine was running. Not many planes that can touch that.

View attachment 97875
Click to expand...

Great mission for a Mooney!
 
PaulS said:
The 22 will do that in about 4.5 hours no wind, 76 gallons of gas. Direct though, not sure what the routing and deviations added. That said, I like mooneys.
Click to expand...

Actual route was about 230nm longer, 22 has 2 extra cylinders and more HP than the J, hence the extra fuel and is little faster.
 
So it looks like I'm a month late to the party. Thanks @Mtns2Skies for tagging me!

tawood said:
...but then I flew one, and YIKES! NOT FOR ME! I looked at a nice for sale M20J (actually bought an airline ticket for the next day, and went from Michigan to Texas in less than 24 hours after the ad posting). Shame on me for never flying (or even sitting in) in a Mooney before "picking" one as my upgrade from the Cherokee that I just sold.
So, my impression was I wasn't flying it at all...It felt like I was guiding a missile...a missile that I was crammed into/took 5 minutes to get out of...I was feeling completely claustrophobic! Then the pitch was very sensitive, while the roll was, well, just not there. I had to use two hands to roll the thing into a normal bank, literally unable to bank with one hand (I thought there was something wrong with the plane, but after we landed, I could move the ailerons no problem/without binding). The seller was very nice, and took me for a long flight, but quite frankly, flying it/flying in it was not fun. I couldn't wait to get out of it.
My complex time/high performance time, up to this point, has all been in either a Piper Arrow, or a Cessna 182. Even though one is a high wing 230 hp and fixed gear while the other is a retractable with 200 hp, they both felt somewhat the same to me to fly. Granted, there were slight differences, but mainly the same I guess, and similar to the Cherokee or Cessna 172 or Taylorcraft or even experimental I've all owned in the past. The Mooney, on the other hand, didn't seem to fly like anything I was used to at all.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, you may just not be used to what a fast plane feels like. The Mooney rides like it's on rails, because there's more air going over the surfaces when you're going faster. In addition, full deflection on the ailerons is only 45º deflection of the yoke, so for the same travel on the yoke you're getting twice as much control deflection so it may feel heavier than it is at first.

In any case, I really like it for a cross country plane. If you want it to feel sportier - Slow down.

tawood said:
I think that is my biggest issue with the mooney, as I'm vertically challenged, so I have to move the seat waaaaaay up to reach the pedals, which makes the claustrophobic thing worse. Not to mention, even though I'm not fat, I'm NOT limber, I have a bad back, bad knees, etc.
Click to expand...

Ooooh. Yup, that'll do it. The Mooney is a tall person's airplane. I *LOVE* the panel being closer - I did my IR in a PA28 and I had a backache at the end of every lesson because I had to lean forward to reach the panel every time I needed to adjust the DG or put in a new frequency. Ugh! In the Mooney, with a comfortable seating position, everything is right there within arm's reach... But I'm 6'4". I can see you feeling cramped if you're really that comfortable in an Arrow.

aftCG said:
Mooney's aren't for everyone. I'm a larger dude who is comfortable in a C152, I'm a kayaker, I used to drive a Miata, etc. In other words not particularly claustrophobic.

I love the panel in my face, especially for IFR. Roll is stiff, which is not undesirable in bumpy IMC. It is improperly compared to a sports car. Maybe by seating position and higher cruise speed, but certainly not because of its snappy handling. They do fly well though and can handle a hell of a crosswind. They are hell for strong in turbulence.
Click to expand...

And in crashes. Unlike most metal airplanes which use a stressed skin construction, Mooneys are more like tube-and-fabric airplanes except they're tube-and-metal. Built like freaking tanks... And I've seen pics from two recent crashes that you wouldn't believe anyone survived, but everyone survived. One of them flew into the side of a freaking mountain and everyone lived. Amazing.

The J (201) is a really good plane with Roy's speed mods. Is it way better than a 200hp Arrow?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. Ask my partner in the Mooney, who was coming from an Arrow. I'm pretty sure what sold it was when, after the demo flight, he was flying the Arrow back to his base and I just happened to have a meeting there that night so I was flying the Mooney there too. A couple minutes after takeoff, they called him... "Arrow 2213Whiskey, Traffic 6 o'clock and 3 miles is a Mooney with a 40-knot overtake." SOLD!!! :rofl:
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Where's @flyingcheesehead he's a dude that shoehorns his whole family in.
Click to expand...

Yep... And after flying the TBM, I've realized that my Ovation really is the perfect plane for me. I can beat the airlines pretty much anywhere east of the Rockies at an operating cost per mile lower than a 172... Which means it's also cheap enough to fly that I can take it up and just go poke holes in the sky and not care about the expense.

We are getting to the point where I can't take the family places with full fuel because even though my four-year-old is like 45 pounds, he comes with 197 pounds of toys, extra clothes, snacks, more toys, cleaning supplies, etc... However, departing the Milwaukee area with full fuel is enough to put me into the Atlantic or the Gulf, so that's OK. I don't particularly enjoy 5 and 6 hour legs anyway.

But yeah, we just returned from a family trip to TN, SC, and DC. Last leg home was non-stop KHEF-KUES in about 3.8 on 50 gallons of fuel total at 8,000 feet. My favorite leg in the Mooney was Santa Fe, NM back to WI in 4:37 on 53 gallons of fuel, truing 172 KTAS on 10.1 gph at 13,000 feet.
 
FastEddieB said:
As far as the Arrow goes, it’s revealing to look at its performance compared to a Tiger. The Arrow has the advantage - albeit the added complexity - of retractable gear, has 20 more hp, and a constant speed prop. Yet they both go about the same speed at cruise - typically 130-140kts. Roy LoPresti was quite gifted in the aerodynamics department. Combined with the sliding canopy and light handling, I’d go with the Grumman every time.
Click to expand...
yup. I went with a traveler which isn't as fast or capable as the tiger.. but I absolutely love this airplane and the support community just can't be beat
 
EdFred said:
Because I am somehow supposed to be able to quantum tunnel 1/4 of my body? Yeah, OK.

How do you solve sitting in the middle of the seat and having your arm pressed into your rib cage?
Click to expand...

Something is off here. My elbow ends up in front of my (not insubstantial) body. Are you giving dual in these Mooneys and keeping your arms back or something?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
...Uh, yeah. Ask my partner in the Mooney, who was coming from an Arrow. I'm pretty sure what sold it was when, after the demo flight, he was flying the Arrow back to his base and I just happened to have a meeting there that night so I was flying the Mooney there too. A couple minutes after takeoff, they called him... "Arrow 2213Whiskey, Traffic 6 o'clock and 3 miles is a Mooney with a 40-knot overtake." SOLD!!! :rofl:
Click to expand...
LOL, and here I am now, with a pre-purchase scheduled on Monday on a pristine Arrow. I would have loved to have the speed of that M20J I looked at, but I'll take some comfort instead. Looking back, that $500 trip to Texas was some of the best money I've ever spent to find out a Mooney isn't for me. The real icing on the cake was a week or two after I got back, my girlfriend and I were at the airport, and a guy in a M20J landed/pulled in with a plane that looked identical to the one I looked at in Texas. We struck up a conversation with him, I told him how I had originally wanted a Mooney but changed my mind, and he let my girlfriend have a seat in his plane. She had been doubtful of my explanation on why I no longer wanted a Mooney ever since I got back from Texas. She sat in that Mooney for less than 5 seconds before she exclaimed, "No FRIGGIN way! People can actually fly in these things? Get me out of here!" She, like me, couldn't believe how tight it was even compared to our Cherokee.
Like all things aviation, there are compromises. We are compromising speed for some comfort. To those who find the Mooney comfortable, more power to ya, but to me the Mooney is more uncomfortable than I can tolerate.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
For what it's worth, you may just not be used to what a fast plane feels like. The Mooney rides like it's on rails, because there's more air going over the surfaces when you're going faster.
Click to expand...

I again disagree. There’s zero reason to correlate speed with control pressure from plane to plane.

In addition, full deflection on the ailerons is only 45º deflection of the yoke, so for the same travel on the yoke you're getting twice as much control deflection so it may feel heavier than it is at first.
Click to expand...

The Grummans have equally short yoke deflection, but are wonderfully light. Aerodynamicists have many tricks up their sleeves to increase or decrease control pressures. So the Mooney’s heavy controls were either a design choice or a mistake. I assume the former.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top