Stigma Mooneys are small

[bonal]

it's just a matter of perspective, truthfully the smaller appearance is one of the things I like about Mooney's

Drew.pdf

SKEETER@RANCHO.pdf

[Hank]

It's fun to take other pilots to ride, especially Piper flyers. I took a Piper pilot and his two young boys to ride, as he was plane shopping and wanted to see what Mooneys are like. I told him mine is a small, slow one, then we went to ride in the local area. He enjoyed it, and didn't say anything bad about entry/egress or being cramped.

But I did get his attention when it came time to land. He was all eyes watching pattern entry, flaps and gear, and everything was fine. Probably comparing it to what he did in his club Piper. Winds were easterly, so we landed on 8 instead of the preferred 26; the threshold is displaced several hundred feet (out of the 3000' of asphalt), we're on short final still over the trees and I pulled the throttle to idle. I noticed some motion in my peripheral vision as I cleared the trees and made a normal descent, touching down a couple of stripes past the numbers and slowing for the single exit 2000' from the end. As we pulled onto the ramp, he looked at me with wide eyes and said, " Wow. When you pulled the throttle back there, nothing happened. My plane would have gone down into the trees."

When I moved back south again in 2014, I needed a Flight Review and asked around for an instructor willing to go in my plane instead of renting a Cessna. We take off on the 6500' AUO #18, raise the gear and climb out at Vx, transitioning to Vy around 600' agl. My new CFI is leaning forward, looking out the window and says, "Gee, sure can tell this isn't a Cessna."

Interior space isn't the only thing to surprise other pilots!

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, teejayevans said:

What do you mean? Mine says single engine land and instrument airplane...issued in 2013.

Mine says

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT

  AIRPLANE MULIENGINE LAND

COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES

  AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

... Issued in 2000 (reissued since then)

 

[ArtVandelay]

3 hours ago, teejayevans said: What do you mean? Mine says single engine land and instrument airplane...issued in 2013.

Mine says

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT

  AIRPLANE MULIENGINE LAND

COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES

  AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

... Issued in 2000 (reissued since then)

 

I assume you can't be a ATP without the instrument rating, so they dropped it, FAA is known for being efficient

[Andy95W]

12 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

I assume you can't be a ATP without the instrument rating, so they dropped it, FAA is known for being efficient

Yeah, that's it- FAA efficiency...

But I think you're right, the ATP includes the IR.

[AndyFromCB]

8 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I did not ask but i assumed that the 8"(?) platforms under the mains on the show planes @ KOSH was to mask the tail dragger look of the long body Mooneys. The nose wheel was not raised which made the plane level.

The one problem with Mooney is the fact that the strength is not supported by the landing gear. Screw the other door. I just sold my Bravo to another gentleman on this board (and Mr Maxwell only had to replace the gear pucks during the prebuy/annual, yes, I did lose about $120K in the transaction, but nobody can accuse me of being cheap when it comes to maintenance ). I would have kept the airplane for my personal trips, but with a kid on the way, I'm now looking at 206 for the personal toy. Why, oh why, didn't Mooney spend the money on a real landing gear and a 3600 or 3800 gross weight for the long bodies. They could have killed Cirrus with that. What good do two doors do Acclaim when you can only fit 40 gallons with two people aboard. That aircraft at Oshkosh had less than 800lb useful load. What a joke. A comparable Cirrus has 1100lb. Me, I'm getting my 206HD in a couple of months. Speed is wonderful, but I need to get weight to my destination, 200knots at 12,000 is wonderful but all lost if I have to stop for fuel every hour.

Edited August 6, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, AndyFromCB said:

The one problem with Mooney is the fact that the strength is not supported by the landing gear. Screw the other door. I just sold my Bravo to another gentleman on this board (and Mr Maxwell only had to replace the gear pucks during the prebuy/annual, yes, I did lose about $120K in the transaction, but nobody can accuse me of being cheap when it comes to maintenance ). I would have kept the airplane for my personal trips, but with a kid on the way, I'm now looking at 206 for the person toy. Why, oh why, didn't Mooney spend the money on a real landing gear and a 3600 or 3800 gross weight for the long bodies. They could have killed Cirrus with that. What good do two doors do Acclaim when you can only fit 40 gallons with two people aboard. That aircraft at Oshkosh had less than 800lb useful load. What a joke. A comparable Cirrus has 1100lb. Me, I'm getting my 206HD in a couple of months.

Where did the 250 pounds go? AOPA flew an Acclaim and the useful load was 1049.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/september/01/mooney-acclaim-type-s-a-piston-rocket 

ditto:

http://www.flightrun.com/mooney-acclaim-type-s/specifications-dimensions

[AndyFromCB]

5 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Where did the 250 pounds go? AOPA flew an Acclaim and the useful load was 1049.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/september/01/mooney-acclaim-type-s-a-piston-rocket 

ditto:

http://www.flightrun.com/mooney-acclaim-type-s/specifications-dimensions

Did they actually fly it? Or was is a paper review. You find me an Acclaim with a 1049lb useful load and I'll pay you a 20% finder's fee. Find me one with 950lb useful? Most are sitting around 850lb. You find me a TBM 850 that does 320knots and I'll pay for your next 10 annuals. Ask Mooney for the W&B for N240CV. Tad less than 800lb useful with AC and TKS installed and full.

Edited August 6, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, AndyFromCB said:

Did they actually fly it? Or was is a paper review. You find me an Acclaim with a 1049lb useful load and I'll pay you a 20% finder's fee. Find me one with 950lb useful? Most are sitting around 850lb. You find me a TBM 850 that does 320knots and I'll pay for your next 10 annuals. 

I'm not looking for an argument, just asked a question. I'm sure you'll be welcome and more cheerful on the Cessna site. 

G'night mate.

[AndyFromCB]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

I'm not looking for an argument, just asked a question. I'm sure you'll be welcome and more cheerful on the Cessna site. 

G'night mate.

Me neither, I'm stating the facts:

 

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1440677/2007-mooney-acclaim

 

964 without a single option, -100lb for TKS with fluid, is 864, -50 for A/C, is 814LB. Do you really think they got lighter with CF and two doors? Comparable Cirrus with both TKS and A/C sits around 1100lb useful. Mooney could have done the same, especially with such margin between 56knot stall at 3368lb and 61knots available to play with. Still the finest flying aircraft I've ever flown, but a dead end design without landing gear improvement. So many short travel shocks available to choose from, they went for the doors? What were they thinking?

Edited August 6, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[Raptor05121]

I will say, the one thing I despise the most about the Mooney is the shock absorption method. A Cherokee 180 with tires pumped til they burst taxiing on a pothole-ridden grass strip is more comfortable than this thing going over a crack in asphalt. It would've given us more weight? Sign me up. And rebuild kits every 5 years seems to be cheaper than hockey pucks every 10.

I did have a fella on Facebook say he was 190' and 6'0" and he couldn't fit into a Mooney. He never said which one he got into or if he even tried, but I quickly affirmed him that my C model needs to be moved up 2-3 clicks for my 6'3" self to reach the rudder pedals. I am assuming he got a bit of the grapevine word about Mooney instead of actually sitting in one.

[kpaul]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I spent 24 hours in the last month flying a Seneca II.

It made me really love my Mooney even more!

That was the most horrible excuse for an airplane I've ever flown.

But, I'm a multi ATP now...

and im really current on instruments.

Congrats on your ATP!

I did that in May, only in a Seneca I.  That is the least enjoyable aircraft I have ever flown, reminded me of driving the old 2 ton farm truck with no power steering.  I never found a flight realm that the Seneca seemed happy in, but the end result was my ATP and the hope to never, ever, fly a Seneca again.

[Bravoman]

These are great airplanes if you are limber and are in reasonable shape. Otherwise stick to the other makes. A Mooney is like a Vette or Porsche that some people have for a weekend ride. For real utility  for more than two people and stuff go with something else. Even the long bodies are just comfortable two place  planes. If it fits your mission and you can live with the ergonomics, they are unparalleled piston singles. 

[Hank]

My "two people and stuff" short body just took three pax across the state and back, 1:35 each way from turn-and-push to idle cutoff. No one complained, although my large front pax had difficulty getting out with people sitting behind him--not much clearance even with me pushing full forward on the yoke.

One back seater said he had ridden in the back of a Mooney before (a previous PFM owner converted to Acclaim), but admitted afterwards that he had never been in the back of a short body . . . But he still didn't complain.

[Mcoyne34]

It's the ramp stance. That's why people assume they're small. I've sat in a very nice K model, thanks Mr. Muncy, which got me hooked and recently flew in a very nice E model, thank you Mr. Reed. I'm not a big guy but I'm not tiny. 5'9" 190lbs. Room was sufficient,  about the same as the Arrow I am currently flying.  About all you can expect from a small GA plane. Very comfortable and very fast. I've flown Bonanzas before and the only difference is how you sit "on" it vs "in" it. My opinion. 

 

 Big selling point for me, the Mooneys do the same as a bonanza with so much less... (Engine and fuel)

Edited August 7, 2016 by Mcoyne34

[Hank]

1 minute ago, Mcoyne34 said:

 

 Big selling point for me, the Mooneys do the same as a bonanza with so much less... (Engine and fuel)

That right there is the Mooney experience in a nutshell. It sold me . . .

[carusoam]

Mooneys were small when compared to cars in the 60's...  In the 70's, Cadillac advertised the length of their wheel base...

Mooneys are small when compared to a 737.  No center aisle that you can walk down...

Big selling point for me, the Mooneys do so much more than the Bonanza with the same power plant. 

(MCoyne made me think about this)

Now that Hank agreed...  Pick a good engine and find the Mooney that it fits!

Best regards,

-a-

[kevinw]

My "two people and stuff" short body just took three pax across the state and back, 1:35 each way from turn-and-push to idle cutoff. No one complained, although my large front pax had difficulty getting out with people sitting behind him--not much clearance even with me pushing full forward on the yoke.

One back seater said he had ridden in the back of a Mooney before (a previous PFM owner converted to Acclaim), but admitted afterwards that he had never been in the back of a short body . . . But he still didn't complain.

The short bodies seem to have the highest useful loads and certainly payload with full fuel. I own a mid-body and sometimes think an R will be my next bird. One reservation I have is the payload. Sure, there are a few out there with 1000+ UL but most are not. I have a 515 lb payload with full fuel and 600 at the tabs and this is with the TKS penalty. I can't give up any payload when I buy my next bird and I'm afraid I will going to a long body.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, kevinw said:

The short bodies seem to have the highest useful loads and certainly payload with full fuel. I own a mid-body and sometimes think an R will be my next bird. One reservation I have is the payload. Sure, there are a few out there with 1000+ UL but most are not. I have a 515 lb payload with full fuel and 600 at the tabs and this is with the TKS penalty. I can't give up any payload when I buy my next bird and I'm afraid I will going to a long body.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, my full fuel payload is 670 lb. but I was just over 10 gals under full and was happier on the return trip with more fuel burned off. High temps and heavy load don't make a happy combination, I was thankful for long runways and open approaches at both ends.

[Bob_Belville]

19 hours ago, Bravoman said:

These are great airplanes if you are limber and are in reasonable shape. Otherwise stick to the other makes. A Mooney is like a Vette or Porsche that some people have for a weekend ride. For real utility  for more than two people and stuff go with something else. Even the long bodies are just comfortable two place  planes. If it fits your mission and you can live with the ergonomics, they are unparalleled piston singles. 

Sure glad I didn't know that before I took off on this flight in our little E for a trip of 3 hours each way to and from west TN. Nancy and I are in our 70s - she has had a knee replacement. Guess we ought to find a nice Cherokee 6.   

[Mcoyne34]

On August 5, 2016 at 9:22 PM, AndyFromCB said:

Did they actually fly it? Or was is a paper review. You find me an Acclaim with a 1049lb useful load and I'll pay you a 20% finder's fee. Find me one with 950lb useful? Most are sitting around 850lb. You find me a TBM 850 that does 320knots and I'll pay for your next 10 annuals. Ask Mooney for the W&B for N240CV. Tad less than 800lb useful with AC and TKS installed and full.

Challenge accepted

[Mcoyne34]

Not 1050 but close. 

 

http://www.aso.com/Mobile#viewad/154662/235713

[kevinw]

Not 1050 but close. 

 

http://www.aso.com/Mobile#viewad/154662/235713

Check that link; doesn't seem to work (at least on an iPhone).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mcoyne34]

2 minutes ago, kevinw said:

Check that link; doesn't seem to work (at least on an iPhone).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's weird. Doesn't work on my phone either. 

[Danb]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

Sure glad I didn't know that before I took off on this flight in our little E for a trip of 3 hours each way to and from west TN. Nancy and I are in our 70s - she has had a knee replacement. Guess we ought to find a nice Cherokee 6.   

Bob works for me, I just got back from Windsor to Wilmington in comfort and a wife with two knee replacements, last one ten weeks ago, she got in and out with no trouble.