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.
That's interesting. I have let a LOT of people sit in my Mooney, especially after they're surprised to see a guy my size who flies one after all the people told them Mooneys are for tiny folks (and don't realize Al Mooney was 6'5"). The reaction is almost always "Wow, that's not at all like everyone says, I fit in here just fine."
Maybe it just becomes what you expect it to be.
Or maybe the long bodies are that much more roomy-feeling? I doubt it though, since the only measurement that differs is the length.
I again disagree. There’s zero reason to correlate speed with control pressure from plane to plane.
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.
It is a cross country plane, and it is absolutely amazing to hand-fly IFR. I'd expect it to be a design choice as well. However, the M20 design is old. 1950s old. I'm not sure the aerodynamicists were particularly good at controls back then...
There are two reasons for speed:
- You frequently make longer (>500 nm) trips.
- You want bragging rights in the pilot lounge.
...
So while the Mooney might take 25% less flight time, in this typical scenario it takes only 12½% less
trip time (3:30 vs 4:00). That's why you really need to be making longer trips to see real benefit from a faster plane; otherwise, it's mainly just bragging rights (which, granted, may bring you legitimate joy).
For a shorter trip, you're right. But, on a longer trip where you're making stops between departure and destination, the math goes back in favor of the faster plane. Generally, my family will tolerate 3-hour legs. On a 1500-mile trip, that's two stops in the Mooney. In the 182 that I flew out to the west coast (solo, mind you) that would have been at least 3 stops, 4 if there was any headwind at all. And I would have needed to fuel at every one, not just one. And I would have needed a hotel room overnight, which adds another round of schlepping stuff around.
But this past week I flew a 1967 M20F over a thousand nautical miles in five legs, from Bremerton WA to Goodyear AZ (
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/daily-pic.54513/page-141#post-3117591). I have a frame of reference now, since I had just flown a Cessna TR182 on the northbound trip to fetch the Mooney; and I presently own a PA-32 after having sold a C-172N.
If you're used to a PA32 and a TR182, the Mooney is going to feel very tight. The PA32 is incredibly roomy but it costs you big-time in speed and efficiency. They're very different missions.
Above elbow level, the semi-circular cross-section of the upper cabin narrows considerably at eye level. The sloped windshield provides a welcome sense of spaciousness compared to the original (years ago when I flew an unmodified M20C I felt like I could create simulated IMC by just exhaling).
Interesting. I've never thought of the cabin cross section as "semi-circular". It's MUCH less so than the Bonanza, but not quite as square as a Comanche. I bump my head on Bonanzas and Barons because they're too semi-circular. However, looking at your picture, I think on mine all of the vents and such are close to the center so there's more actual head room.
For this midsummer flight, cabin ventilation was inadequate, and it was hot.
Also fixed later. I have TWO vents per seat, one overhead and one down low. I use the lower one to point at my iPad on hot days. In addition, the main cabin vent pumps an impressive amount of air in - It's maybe 2-3 inches high and 8 inches wide, and the air probably comes through it at 20-30 mph. But that vent is in a center console between the seats and from your description the 67 F didn't have that.
And it was loud. Boy, was it loud. Maybe this early model had less cabin soundproofing and thinner glass, but the noise and vibration were oppressive.
Mooneys are loud. Most metal airplanes use the stressed-skin semimonocoque construction. Mooneys are closer to tube-and-fabric, except they're tube-and-metal. That leads to the incredibly strong structure, and increased survivability, but it definitely transmits engine noise a lot more, especially on the takeoff roll, because the skin can move and transmit vibrations more freely. An ANR headset is a must for a Mooney.
The high-mounted baggage door makes it awkward to lift small or heavy items out of the baggage compartment - not unlike fishing the last pair of socks out of a deep top-loader washing machine.
See, I greatly prefer the high baggage door! I don't have to kneel down on the ground to get things into the baggage compartment, and I can easily fill up the baggage compartment completely because I don't have to try and load it from the bottom.
I mean, there's more to airplanes and why people fly them than the ratio of speed vs gph. The ubiquitous 182 that everyone loves fails that category miserably (the RG less so, but still fails it) yet it's about as common of a GA plane as can exist. Comfort is huge for people, one of the things the 182 has going for it is how big it feels inside
And I'm a big proponent of the 182, and it's the only airplane I feel like I've "worn" other than the Mooney... But the 182 is the do-it-all airplane you use to find your desired missions, the Mooney is the plane you use if you want to go places. It may be less comfortable than the 182, but you also spend less time in it, and you spend less per mile to get somewhere.
Not everyone! I can't even say 18...yawn...2, without without almost falling asleep. I don't dislike them. I can't dislike them, because they stir up zero emotion for me. I "nothing" them. They are just so common, so run of the mill, so, just, blah. That's another plane that people seem to like/love, and I say "more power to 'em", but don't want any part of.
It's certainly not an attention getter, and nobody wants a ride in your 182 at fly-ins. The entire PA28 series is in that club too though...
