Mooney gone?

[Tantalum]

Depends on the year. Later in the G3 model the weight seemed to go up. Not sure if the G1000/Perspective avionics are heavier or if it is something else. An early G3, having the Avidyne displays, with TKS and AC often has around 1,050 pounds of useful load, which about the same as my G2 without AC. Cirrus also added bigger tanks in the G3, so if one fills the tanks then payload will go down. I think the bigger tanks were largely for the turbo models as people are often flying them at 75-80% and wanted more range.

The G3 I was flying for a while was one of the last, had every possible thing you could want in a plane, and with 92 gallons it had limited carrying capacity. But tabs+5 per side was my standard.. 70 gallons is plenty of range for most flights and still left you with some UL wiggle room. The G1 SR22 with avidyne I'm flying now has more useful load, but again, I rarely ever need more than 70 gallons, you can actually get four people in it and fly 300-400 nm with it

 

[wayne]

The G3 I was flying for a while was one of the last, had every possible thing you could want in a plane, and with 92 gallons it had limited carrying capacity. But tabs+5 per side was my standard.. 70 gallons is plenty of range for most flights and still left you with some UL wiggle room. The G1 SR22 with avidyne I'm flying now has more useful load, but again, I rarely ever need more than 70 gallons, you can actually get four people in it and fly 300-400 nm with it

That's why I like it when sellers list the useful load. There are variations and modifications. It can be hard for buyers to know all of the W&B impacts for all of those options. While I like the Perspective system, the GFC 700 AP is amazing, I would lean towards an Avidyne model of the G3 partially for W&B; another part is it is so integrated that one issue can cause a bigger problem. A G5 that I was flying had some quirky bug that they had trouble chasing down that kept the plane down for a while.

The one I mentioned flying for 4.5 years was a G1 with a clean wing and just over 1,100 lbs of useful load. The full fuel payload was over 620 lbs. We flew all over the place with the four of us. The kids were light even into high school (two athletic girls), and my wife and I were lighter too.

Even in the G2 I own a share in now, if I drop 7 gallons it's a few pounds lighter than that G1 with the tanks full. Not likely that we'll push the limits of the endurance with four onboard. That's better than 5 hours cruising LOP so stopping for a bathroom break or to stretch our legs will come up before that. Mostly the payload limit is only an impact for me on some Angel Flight missions as the kids have graduated college and are working in other states; the oldest is working here in town, but she doesn't fly in small planes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is gross weight the reason they weren't selling and the reason the company has bounced in and out of bankruptcy?

Not the primary reason, but it sure doesn't help them. I think their main competition (Cirrus, Bonanza, etc) has a better full fuel payload, especially with the new stuff. You can't even get a new Acclaim with long range tanks, AC, and deice because the load that's left over is about one FAA-standard person, ie, a solo pilot who's on the small side.

I put my 97 Ovation on a very expensive diet (avionics!) and have gained 34 pounds of useful load, but I can still only take 529 pounds with full fuel.

It's not a great metric, because full fuel is enough to put me in the GOM or the Atlantic departing from Wisconsin so it's really unnecessary, but it's something people tend to ask early on when shopping for a plane.

 

[steingar]

Full fuel in an Ovation will get you most of the way to Europe if I'm not too far wrong. The legs on those things full of gas are truly amazing. Mooney is like most aircraft, you can take less gas and more pax and stuff. I think the Skylane is still the only plane you can fill the seats and the tanks and still take off.

That said, even with the bigger engine new Mooneys haven't a better useful load than my vintage one from yesteryear.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Full fuel in an Ovation will get you most of the way to Europe if I'm not too far wrong. The legs on those things full of gas are truly amazing.

Well, not quite from here to there. I've got 1,040nm range with full tanks and an hour reserve. I could go from here to Presque Isle, MI; Goose Bay, Narsarsuaq, Keflavik, and from there just about anywhere in the UK, Norway, or Sweden. Give me a healthy tailwind and I can skip Narsarsuaq.

Now, a newer Ovation with the long-range tanks? Whoo boy. That'd be more like 1620nm range in still air. That's direct Goose Bay, then skip either Narsarsuaq or Keflavik... And it wouldn't take much of a tailwind to make the hop from Goose Bay all the way across to Ireland.

I've certainly thought a lot about doing a transatlantic flying vacation someday.

 

[Tantalum]

Not the primary reason, but it sure doesn't help them. I think their main competition (Cirrus, Bonanza, etc) has a better full fuel payload, especially with the new stuff. You can't even get a new Acclaim with long range tanks, AC, and deice because the load that's left over is about one FAA-standard person, ie, a solo pilot who's on the small side.

I genuinely feel like the one door and comparatively small feeling cockpit and cabin relative to other planes like the bonanza, saratoga, 182, 210, Cirrus, really are the main factors. People brag about the fantastic airspeeds on the minimal fuel burn but at the end of the day reality has proven that that wasn't enough to pump out sales - the two-door thing came a little too late in my opinion and simply wasn't enough

But the useful load increase is a good start.. and it sounds like the new management are passionate about their product, as opposed to bankers in suits.. fingers crossed!

 

[Tantalum]

I've certainly thought a lot about doing a transatlantic flying vacation someday.

If you do please document the journey here! You need some brass (you know what).. that will be a lot of blue to cross over and I'm not even sure you would see anything else on the 430 even zoomed all the way out!

somebody somewhere posted a picture crossing from Mexico to Florida right across the gulf of Mexico in their J model.. they had the 530 zoomed out as far as it would go and it was a pretty intimidating site

 

[RhinoDrvr]

I sat in the Mooney fuselage they had at Oshkosh (2019) and realized why they went under. I’m 6’2”, and with the pilot seat adjusted for my height, there was no leg room for the seat behind me. Not very little, none. The seat back was butt up against the rear seat. I don’t see how you can be taller than 6’ and use the M20 as anything other than a 2 person airplane...especially for 1000nm! Ye Gads! (And I fly an RV-8...I’m not expecting lots of room...)

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I sat in the Mooney fuselage they had at Oshkosh (2019) and realized why they went under. I’m 6’2”, and with the pilot seat adjusted for my height, there was no leg room for the seat behind me. Not very little, none. The seat back was butt up against the rear seat. I don’t see how you can be taller than 6’ and use the M20 as anything other than a 2 person airplane...especially for 1000nm! Ye Gads! (And I fly an RV-8...I’m not expecting lots of room...)

The C model I used to fly was an RV9 with lots of baggage space that happened to have seats and seat belts in it.

 

[Tantalum]

I sat in the Mooney fuselage they had at Oshkosh (2019) and realized why they went under. I’m 6’2”, and with the pilot seat adjusted for my height, there was no leg room for the seat behind me. Not very little, none. The seat back was butt up against the rear seat. I don’t see how you can be taller than 6’ and use the M20 as anything other than a 2 person airplane...especially for 1000nm! Ye Gads! (And I fly an RV-8...I’m not expecting lots of room...)

Yes!

this is what no one understands and why it's so frustrating when all you keep hearing is people raving about the gallons per hour versus airspeed

The plane is simply not comfortable

 

[eman1200]

Yes!

this is what no one understands and why it's so frustrating when all you keep hearing is people raving about the gallons per hour versus airspeed

The plane is simply not comfortable

that's an interesting fact. can you quote an official source on that factual statement? looks like I should return my clearly defective, comfortable mooney. man, the previous owner sure pulled a fast one on me, claiming it was all "comfy" and whatnot.

 

[Salty]

Yes!

this is what no one understands and why it's so frustrating when all you keep hearing is people raving about the gallons per hour versus airspeed

The plane is simply not comfortable

Maybe not to you. I don't find a 182 any more comfortable than a Mooney.

 

[German guy]

[...]The plane is simply not comfortable

Lol, suuuure!

The C model I used to fly was an RV9 with lots of baggage space that happened to have seats and seat belts in it.

This is exactly how we look at our M20E. The baggage space of a RV6 / 7 / 9 is simply not sufficient for us, since we like to bring our folding bikes, camping gear of fly for Pilots'n'Paws.

 

[Bill]

I sat in the Mooney fuselage they had at Oshkosh (2019) and realized why they went under. I’m 6’2”, and with the pilot seat adjusted for my height, there was no leg room for the seat behind me. Not very little, none. The seat back was butt up against the rear seat. I don’t see how you can be taller than 6’ and use the M20 as anything other than a 2 person airplane...especially for 1000nm! Ye Gads! (And I fly an RV-8...I’m not expecting lots of room...)

I'm 6'2", and if I put the Mooney seat fully back, I can't even reach the rudder pedals.

 

[Salty]

I'm 6'2", and if I put the Mooney seat fully back, I can't even reach the rudder pedals.

Yeah, I don't get that comment. The guy I bought mine off of is 6' and mine is a short body and there is room for a small person behind him. The long body should be plenty of room for a 6'2 person and someone in back.

 

[kayoh190]

I'm 6'2", and if I put the Mooney seat fully back, I can't even reach the rudder pedals.

Yeah, I’m 6’1” and it’s the same for me. Tantalum is PoA’s hyperbole king.

 

[Bill]

Yeah, I don't get that comment. The guy I bought mine off of is 6' and mine is a short body and there is room for a small person behind him. The long body should be plenty of room for a 6'2 person and someone in back.

I've ridden in the back of our J a couple of times when another partner was up front flying, and it was a totally enjoyable experience. Plenty of room, and those big rear windows give fantastic views.

 

[steingar]

I've put people in the back seats, but only once. Thing is, I never used the back seats in my old Cherokee. Maybe once or twice. That's why I went for the short-body Mooney. I don't want to pay for a big back seat nor do I want to schlep it around. Those of you convinced you need a back seat, if you have kids I suppose it's a big deal. Other than that I suspect you're like me, and won't find yourself using it. I loved RVs and would have liked to buy one. But they don't fit Mrs. Steingar at all. And no, I can't afford an RV10.

 

[luvflyin]

I was thinkin Mooney when I was plane shopping. I’m 6’ 2”. Plenty of reach the pedals legroom. It’s the your azz is practically on the floor and your legs stick straight out I didn’t like. And your knees are like in like a tunnel and can be higher than your feet and azz. Now factor in head room. And all this range and endurance. What I wanna know is, how in the hell do you take a whiz?

 

[Tantalum]

I don't find a 182 any more comfortable

Trust me, I loathe the 172/182 as well.. Too bad about the Comanche.. it's almost like Piper stole the basic Mooney wing design and tweaked the cabin just to make it a bit more comfortable

I'd own any Mooney every day of the week though before owning a 182. The comfort difference is nominal and at least the Mooney has the performance chops to back it up. Yes, 182 can carry a lot.. but outside of a short ground roll they generally don't perform that great when loaded.. you're wheezing out a 250 ft/min climb at 100 knots inching your way up to 10K and then settling in at 130-140 ktas

I do put a premium though on comfort.. planes like the Rockwell Commander, Trinidad/Tobago, Lance (all it's "Six" brethren) don't get enough love or appreciation. There are lots of other "big" plane options outside of the standard 210/Bo. Granted, the Commander is slow, but everything in flying is a tradeoff and just depends on what's more important to who

 

[Juliet Hotel]

that's an interesting fact. can you quote an official source on that factual statement? looks like I should return my clearly defective, comfortable mooney. man, the previous owner sure pulled a fast one on me, claiming it was all "comfy" and whatnot.

He's not wrong, he just forgot to add the words 'to me' on the end of the not comfortable statement. And he's not entirely alone. I fit in the short body Mooney I flew just fine same as I fit into a 172 just fine. But I've never found either of them to be truly comfortable. Tolerable yes, comfortable no. Both would need a lot more width for that and the Mooney could also use a bit more height. But then you'd have a Commander and you wouldn't go nearly as fast on that fuel burn.

 

[Tantalum]

that's an interesting fact. can you quote an official source on that factual statement? looks like I should return my clearly defective, comfortable mooney. man, the previous owner sure pulled a fast one on me, claiming it was all "comfy" and whatnot.

I know, the "Mooney-comfort" this is a trigger for Mooney pilots but there are basic levels of comfort that most people would agree on and this has been a common theme with Mooney and why they might lose a sale from a buyer to something bigger, even if it means a performance loss

For someone who flies mostly alone, or with one other person, who love flying and enjoy Mooney performance, sure, they can look past having to stagger their seats and have someone's shoulders in front of the other cramped into the cabin. But once you start having to add people in the back seat.. damn. It can be done, and people have different thresholds for tolerance.. but I think there's a minority of people who would call it a "comfortable" plane. That title is reserved for Bonanza and the others listed above. The AvWeb with Paul B really showed just how itty-bitty it is inside.. and those camera shots usually make a plane look bigger inside, not smaller. Mind you, Paul is not a big guy

But arguing about comfort is dumb. It's a good performer and a very well engineered solid plane. I'd take a Mooney (especially J) over many other common planes out there. But as someone who usually has 3-4 seats filled it's just not something that would be right for my mission

 

[NordicDave]

I know, the "Mooney-comfort" this is a trigger for Mooney pilots but there are basic levels of comfort that most people would agree on and this has been a common theme with Mooney and why they might lose a sale from a buyer to something bigger, even if it means a performance loss

Mooney's are fast and economical on fuel. I just don't like having to sit one seat forward and one set aft to keep from bumping shoulders. Most Mooney owners I know fly a lot of single pilot sorties.

The other comment regarding Socata TB-10/TB-20 regarding comfort and ergonomics is spot on. What a difference flying a plane designed in the 80's instead of the fifties or sixties. High wing Cessna's get a slightly bad rap since so many are ragged out, with the rigging still original from date of manufacturer. Many have never seen a control wire tensioner or had a heim joint replaced.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The plane is simply not comfortable

*to you*. I'm 6'4" and it's one of the most comfortable piston singles I've flown.

Yeah, I don't get that comment. The guy I bought mine off of is 6' and mine is a short body and there is room for a small person behind him. The long body should be plenty of room for a 6'2 person and someone in back.

I'm 6'4" and one of the few times I've used all four seats I had my 6'2" brother and his 6'0" wife in the back.

I think there's a minority of people who would call it a "comfortable" plane. That title is reserved for Bonanza and the others listed above.

I love the Bonanza, but it simply is not comfortable.

TO ME.

That semicircular top of the fuselage cross section means I bump the top left part of my head. Too bad, because it uses less runway than the Mooney, and I'd love me an A36 with that big back door and the extra seats. The Mooney ain't gonna work if the family expands to two kids and a dog...

 

[Tantalum]

*to you*. I'm 6'4" and it's one of the most comfortable piston singles I've flown.

Fine, to me. But it's not all about the height. Al Mooney was allegedly a bigger person and it's not about the headroom or legroom. It just feels narrow. it's uncomfortable to be mashed up against the window and rubbing your shoulder against the guy next to you and staggering the seats fore and aft is an insufficient solution in my book

Granted, the "small" fuselage combined with the wing is why it can get those crazy speeds on such low fuel burn

The Mooney is a fine bird, it's just not for me. The Comanche kept the good parts and improved the other parts.. like cabin comfort

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It just feels narrow. it's uncomfortable to be mashed up against the window and rubbing your shoulder against the guy next to you and staggering the seats fore and aft is an insufficient solution in my book

Maybe I don't notice because I don't really know a whole lot of other people who are my height so the seats are "naturally staggered".

The Mooney is a fine bird, it's just not for me. The Comanche kept the good parts and improved the other parts.. like cabin comfort

The Comanche is a truly wonderful airplane - I've always lusted after a Twin Comanche.

But the last one was built in 1972, 25 years before my nearly-25-year-old Mooney was built. They're antiques. And the other thing that Piper copied far too well was the difficulty in building, which is why Piper never spun the Comanche line back up after Agnes flooded the factory. The bean counters decided to focus on pumping the cheap Cherokees out instead... But the Arrow is no Comanche, and the Seneca, while it is in many ways more capable, is a pig compared to the Twin Comanche.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Fine, to me. But it's not all about the height. Al Mooney was allegedly a bigger person and it's not about the headroom or legroom. It just feels narrow. it's uncomfortable to be mashed up against the window and rubbing your shoulder against the guy next to you and staggering the seats fore and aft is an insufficient solution in my book

For me its not so much the narrowness, although that's definitely a big part of it. For me, its more the closeness. Once you're in the seat and you have it adjusted so you can reach the pedals and everything else you need to reach, everything is... close. Its all right there. There is no need to reach out for anything, it's all right there. The panel feels right in front of you compared to the Cessna's and Piper's you might be used to flying.

And if it's a mid/late 60's Mooney the windshield is also right there. Which means any fantasies you had about putting anything on top of the 4" dash that caps the panels are just that, fantasies. Flight log? Cell phone? Car keys? Forget it, it ain't gonna fit on the space that exists between the edge of the panel and the windshield or if it does fit, it ain't gonna stay once you start making turns.

Whereas in a 172 you can put all the documents supporting your flight plan plus your cell phone and car keys and a ham sandwich on top of the panel and still have lots of room left for your tax returns and a change of clothes.

In a Mooney, everything you're going to need had better be able to clip to your knee or fit neatly on the floor between your legs (if you're not solo) or you're not going to have access to it until after you shut down.

They're tight. That's just how it is. For some folks its no problem, for others its a complete deal breaker.

 

[Tantalum]

ham sandwich

Hahahaha.. true story!

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Seem pretty comfortable to me:

 

[FastEddieB]

For me its not so much the narrowness, although that's definitely a big part of it. For me, its more the closeness. Once you're in the seat and you have it adjusted so you can reach the pedals and everything else you need to reach, everything is... close. Its all right there. There is no need to reach out for anything, it's all right there. The panel feels right in front of you compared to the Cessna's and Piper's you might be used to flying...

I think that, and what follows, encapsulates my feelings precisely.

I’ve got a bunch of Mooney time, and while I find them comfortable enough once in and adjusted, I’ve always found them just a bit claustrophobic. But like I said, you summed it up well.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Over the years I'd heard a few people say that sitting a Mooney was similar to sitting a Porsche, but I'd never been in a Porsche. Then a friend of mine bought a late 60's model. First time I sat in the passenger seat and looked at the dash that seemed like it was 4" from my chest I said what'd you know, it really is just like sitting in a Mooney.

 

[SCCutler]

i remember how folks always railed about the "narrow" Mooney cabin; turns out the Mooney is wider than my Bo. Go figure!

I prefer the seating position/relationship between the seat/pilot/panel/pedals in my Bo better than a Mooney. But that would never stop me from considering (strongly) a Mooney if the right combination of price and performance came along. Mooneys are hell for stout, and fast per power.

 

[wayne]

Sitting in the M20J is fine to me, I drove a BMW 328i for a few years and loved it; they sit low too. It was the getting to the left seat in the M20J that wasn't so great, but I only flew it a few times, so I probably just didn't figure out how to do it well. Once I was in the left seat it was good. Still a bit narrow, but most GA piston planes are. I wasn't wild about sliding over in the Baron either and it had a throw over yoke and the seats were actually above the floor, so it was a little easier for me than the M20J. My wife was ok with the Baron. She didn't particularly like the 328i, but a large part of that was she was not used to sitting so low to the ground after years of driving minivans and Crossover-SUVs; she didn't find getting in and out of the car easy either.

She loves the SR22. Two doors, wider cabin and no yoke in front of her. She'd be even more pleased if there were no rudder pedals on her side. From what I've read I think she'd like the SF50 even more, but that's outside of our budget.

The kids like the SR22 as well. They also liked the big back cabin of the Baron 58 too. I moved the middle daughter out of her freshman college dorm with the Baron. That was a lot better than driving 6 hours each way to do it in the Kia Sportage. Her stuff fit in the Baron easier than it did the Sportage.

Like Tantalum I regularly have 3 or 4 in the plane. Or, like back in May, I had two people and two dogs; flew my daughter and her two dogs down for the weekend and then back.

Even though the Mooney planes are not my favorites I hope they can get more built and sold. An increase in useful load would be helpful. I would love to see Mooney, Pipistrel, Cirrus and others selling more GA planes. Competition is good and more planes and pilots would be great.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

For me its not so much the narrowness, although that's definitely a big part of it. For me, its more the closeness. Once you're in the seat and you have it adjusted so you can reach the pedals and everything else you need to reach, everything is... close. Its all right there. There is no need to reach out for anything, it's all right there. The panel feels right in front of you compared to the Cessna's and Piper's you might be used to flying.

That's actually what I like about it! I did most of my instrument rating in an Archer, and I would end up with a backache after every flight because, at 6'4", I can't reach the panel in an Archer without leaning my entire upper body forward. In the Mooney, everything is accessible by arm movements only. It's a GREAT airplane for tall people, like I said before, and even not-so-tall people. I have my seat on the farthest back setting. The only person I know who used the available pedal extensions in a Mooney was 5 foot nothing.

It was the getting to the left seat in the M20J that wasn't so great, but I only flew it a few times, so I probably just didn't figure out how to do it well.

At 6'4" and 315#, I've flown a lot of airplanes and it's *always* about how to get in. Heck, I've flown a J-3 Cub. In the Mooney, I finally figured out that it's easiest to just face the tail of the plane standing on the wing walk, drop down so that my right knee is on the right seat, and then just roll right into the left seat. I kinda laugh at the "Ultra! Two doors!" that Mooney was hyping more recently because even if I had an Ultra I'd get in from the right side, I find it way easier to get into the far seat than the near one now that I know how to do it.

There have been a few I couldn't fly at all:

* Columbia 300. Sitting in the left seat, I was looking at the door frame.
* Diamond DA-20. Same sort of thing, I'd have had to cut off about the top 5 inches of my head to fit under the canopy. The DA-40 fits me fine, though.
* Globe Swifts with the "152 seat" option that lets you move the seats also makes the seats too high for me.

The 152 is also tight enough that, while I can get in, it probably wouldn't be particularly safe for me to fly with the geometry of the controls and seats.

The trick on the J-3 (or Super Cub or Husky) is to sit at the far back end of the door, get your legs in through the front of the door, and pull yourself forward into the seat using the bars above the glareshield.