Stigma Mooneys are small

[mike_elliott]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, M20F said:

The seats though I find really uncomfortable after 3+hrs.

I solved this when I owned my F by having Confor foam seat padding installed. It made for a "hard" seat in the winter when cold for about 5 minutes, then it would form to your butt as your body heat transferred. Most comfortable seats I have sat in an airplane, and that's been quite a few. The company is 3m, EAR specialties division that make the foam, in various densities. They have burn specs on their website I believe.

[Danb]

Mike the foam is awesome, I also find that my sheepskins added a nice measure of comfort. My good friend has a Bo, another C-310, and Cardinal. In my opinion which is the only one that matters the Bravo is by far the most comfy for me and bride. That's with five hour legs.

[Shadrach]

Like any make, different models offer different compromises.  I think the early F's are the best load carriers. Mine has a useful of 1059 and I could improve that a bit with an alternator conversion and ADF removal.  As it stands, I'm almost never even close to gross with my family. 3hrs is about as long as anyone wants to sit in it. That gets us well over 400NM in most situations. With 1hr reserves, that translates to >800lbs of people and stuff in the cabin. With me at 200lbs (hoping to make my new "dad bod" a thing of the past by summer's end) wife at 125lbs (she somehow avoided new "mom bod) we can easily and comfortably (lots of room in the back once seats are adjusted) take another couple our size plus baggage.

It's hard not to admire how the 4cyl birds "overachieve" on modest HP and fuel burn. We flew 233NM to Long Island last week East bound at 11,500' enjoying cool air and 170KTGS. Came back later that afternoon westbound at 6500' making 145KTGS. Did a week in Maine for vacation the following week. Headwinds both ways for the 466NM trip, still did each flight in as near 3hrs as makes no difference, we settled for 135kt GS primarily because we were willing to trade more headwind for smooth air at 9500'.

I feel like the mission profile in the above paragragh is what the airframe was designed to do well. I feel like some of the long bodies suffer from an identity crisis. They desperately want to be a PC12 or a King Air, and they're just never going to be. If you're going to be a FIKI flyer with passengers, you really out to have 2 fans turning or be burning kerosene (both would be best).  If you're a business flyer that wants an efficient one man airline, don't mind a nose hose and know what your getting into, I think a FIKI Acclaim can make a lot of sense.  However, loading a FIKI Cirrus to the gills with people that don't know any better and setting off into IMC with known ice is the definition of poor decision making in my book. I don't see how taking the Acclaim to the ragged edge of certification standards on MGW would be good for Mooney's very good accident rate.  It's nearly there in with it's current set up. The stall speed listed on the website of 61KIAS already takes it to the edge of FAR23.49.  Maybe the Acclaim's limited payload is godsend that will prevent "confident" pilots from risking the lives of ignorant passengers. High altitude, FIKI ops during storm season in a "low powered", unpressurized cabin is fine for folks that are fully aware of the risks they're taking; I think it's a bad idea for those that don't know any better. 

Back to the stigma discussion.  It's really a matter of body type and perception. Short legs and a long torso is the least desirable body type for this cabin. I'm 5'10 with a 31" inseam. I've a buddy that's 6'7" with a 32" inseam (we called him Sneetch in college). Mooney cabin is not his ideal.

Egress and ingress will always be the biggest challenge.

 

The star-bellied Sneetch has a belly with stars; the plain-bellied Sneetch have none upon thars! 

I'm here to preach to those built like a Sneetch to forgo a Mooney in favor of Beech...

 

 

 

[AndyFromCB]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Like any make, different models offer different compromises.  I think the early F's are the best load carriers. Mine has a useful of 1059 and I could improve that a bit with an alternator conversion and ADF removal.  As it stands, I'm almost never even close to gross with my family. 3hrs is about as long as anyone wants to sit in it. That gets us well over 400NM in most situations. With 1hr reserves, that translates to >800lbs of people and stuff in the cabin. With me at 200lbs (hoping to make my new "dad bod" a thing of the past by summer's end) wife at 125lbs (she somehow avoided new "mom bod) we can easily and comfortably (lots of room in the back once seats are adjusted) take another couple our size plus baggage.

It's hard not to admire how the 4cyl birds "overachieve" on modest HP and fuel burn. We flew 233NM to Long Island last week East bound at 11,500' enjoying cool air and 170KTGS. Came back later that afternoon westbound at 6500' making 145KTGS. Did a week in Maine for vacation the following week. Headwinds both ways for the 466NM trip, still did the each flight in as near 3hrs as makes no difference, we settled for 135kt GS primarily because we were willing to trade bumps for smooth air at 9500'.

I feel like the mission profile in the above paragragh is what the airframe was designed to do well. I feel like some of the long bodies suffer from an identity crisis. They desperately want to be a PC12 or a King Air, and they're just never going to be. If you're going to be a FIKI flyer with passengers, you really out to have 2 fans turning or be burning kerosene (both would be best).  If you're a business flyer that wants an efficient one man airline, don't mind a nose hose and know what your getting into, I think a FIKI Acclaim can make a lot of sense.  However, loading a FIKI Cirrus to the gills with people that don't know any better and setting off into IMC with known ice is the definition of poor decision making in my book. I don't see how taking the Acclaim to the ragged edge of certification standards on MGW would be good for Mooney's very good accident rate.  It's nearly there in with it's current set up. The stall speed listed on the website of 61KIAS already takes it to the edge of FAR23.49.  Maybe the Acclaim's limited payload is godsend that will prevent "confident" pilots from risking the lives of ignorant passengers. High altitude, FIKI ops during storm season in a "low powered", unpressurized cabin is fine for folks that are fully aware of the risks they're taking; I think it's a bad idea for those that don't know any better. 

Back to the stigma discussion.  It's really a matter of body type and perception. Short legs and a long torso is the least desirable body type for this cabin. I'm 5'10 with a 31" inseam. I've a buddy that's 6'7" with a 32" inseam (we called him Sneech). Mooney cabin is not his ideal.

Egress and ingress will always be the biggest challenge.

 

The star-bellied Sneetch has a belly with stars; the plain-bellied Sneetch have none upon thars! 

I'm here to preach to those built like a Sneetch to forgo a Mooney in favor of Beech...

 

 

 

I don't think the stall at 61 is correct. The manual states 57, so you have 4knots to play with. That's a lot of additional weight. I would not call a combination of Mooney wing and 310hp to be considered low powered, quite frankly at current gross it will out climb many older King Air 90s I've been in the past. At 3800lb the stall would still be under 61knots, the W&B is not an issue in a long body, it would still climb in excess of 1000fpm and be able to carry 3 hours of fuel plus 1.5 reserve and fill up 4 seats. We know the wing can take it. Cirrus G5 pilots do this all the time and I don't see them falling out of the sky at rates higher than other aircraft, actually, I believe it to be the opposite. 

I don't see why launching a FIKI Cirrus into IMC is any more a poor decision than doing it in a KA. The climb rate is there, TKS is about as effective anti-ice system as it gets, if in icing both will be climbing at similar rates due to minimum icing speed and ice vanes opened up on KA and in a C90 if you lose one with ice vanes opened, you're drifting down whether you like it or not. At least the Cirrus has a parachute ;-)

Edited August 18, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[DonMuncy]

6 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I solved this when I owned my F by having Confor foam seat padding installed. It made for a "hard" seat in the winter when cold for about 5 minutes, then it would form to your butt as your body heat transferred. Most comfortable seats I have sat in an airplane, and that's been quite a few. The company is 3m, EAR specialties division that make the foam, in various densities. They have burn specs on their website I believe.

Mike,

Who did your foam padding installation. I'm wondering if any upholstery shop can do this, or if you need some of the super guys.

[Bartman]

I took my wife and her friend up once. Although the friend had flown commercial many times, she was very excited because she had never been in a private aircraft. When I opened the hangar and pulled the aircraft out by hand with the tow bar was when she said "I thought it would be bigger." 

We went up and flew around the local area, but we decided to land due to an approaching thunderstorm. After landing and while we were pushing the plane back into the hangar is when she said "I thought it would last longer."

When I looked at her and told her what she had said she was soooooo embarrassed, but we have laughed about that for years. 

Yes, that happened. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, AndyFromCB said:

I don't think the stall at 61 is correct. The manual states 57, so you have 4knots to play with. That's a lot of additional weight. I would not call a combination of Mooney wing and 310hp to be considered low powered, quite frankly at current gross it will out climb many older King Air 90s I've been in the past. At 3800lb the stall would still be under 61knots, the W&B is not an issue in a long body, it would still climb in excess of 1000fpm and be able to carry 3 hours of fuel plus 1.5 reserve and fill up 4 seats. We know the wing can take it. Cirrus G5 pilots do this all the time and I don't see them falling out of the sky at rates higher than other aircraft, actually, I believe it to be the opposite. 

I don't see why launching a FIKI Cirrus into IMC is any more a poor decision than doing it in a KA. The climb rate is there, TKS is about as effective anti-ice system as it gets, if in icing both will be climbing at similar rates due to minimum icing speed and ice vanes opened up on KA and in a C90 if you lose one with ice vanes opened, you're drifting down whether you like it or not. At least the Cirrus has a parachute ;-)

The M20TN is a 280hp machine but even a 310hp conversion does not match the power to weight ratio of the earliest King Airs. If you don't see the difference between having a derated turbine on each wing vs having one higly stressed TSIO recip on the nose, then perhaps your just the man to use a FIKI SR22T to it's true potential!

The 61KIAS number came from Mooney's website:

 

[mike_elliott]

6 hours ago, mike_elliott said: I solved this when I owned my F by having Confor foam seat padding installed. It made for a "hard" seat in the winter when cold for about 5 minutes, then it would form to your butt as your body heat transferred. Most comfortable seats I have sat in an airplane, and that's been quite a few. The company is 3m, EAR specialties division that make the foam, in various densities. They have burn specs on their website I believe.

Mike,

Who did your foam padding installation. I'm wondering if any upholstery shop can do this, or if you need some of the super guys.

Logbook says "H. Fairy "

[DonMuncy]

Mike,

Ordinarily, I would wait and ask you personally, but I suspect it would be of interest to many people here. What thickness, density, etc. of foam was used in which places. Could we impose on you for a step by step method for doing this padding. I have always been a little unhappy with the comfort of the plane's seats, but just stuffing in padding doesn't seem to be a good way to solve the problem.

[mike_elliott]

I , err, the hangar fairy used the soft and medium densities. Cut it to shape with a foam knife. Fit in your lumbar support. I used the existing leather seat covers. Took 3-4 hours I am told

[Andy95W]

46 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I , err, the hangar fairy used the soft and medium densities. Cut it to shape with a foam knife. Fit in your lumbar support. I used the existing leather seat covers. Took 3-4 hours I am told

You can just make a logbook entry yourself, based on FAR 43 Appendix A, Preventive Maintenance.  Owners/operators who have at least a Private Pilot's license are permitted to perform Preventive Maintenance on their own aircraft and sign their own logbooks.  The two pertinent excerpts are below:

----------------------------

(11) Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft.

(15) Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the aircraft, not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating system.

----------------------------------

Your logbook entry would note that the materials were burn tested IAW the applicable regs.  

 

[jetdriven]

8 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

Mike,

Ordinarily, I would wait and ask you personally, but I suspect it would be of interest to many people here. What thickness, density, etc. of foam was used in which places. Could we impose on you for a step by step method for doing this padding. I have always been a little unhappy with the comfort of the plane's seats, but just stuffing in padding doesn't seem to be a good way to solve the problem.

Oregon Aero makes the best seats for RV's, and they use different densities of foam, in layers. perhaps they will give up the secret sauce, because my Mooney needs new foam and a re-rag in the worst way.

[MB65E]

Oregon Aero can build your cushions to spec. They will quote leather, but probably no better at leather than another shop. However, They have a 3inch portable soft seat with a back. That might be a good place to start with. They are expensive, but probably the most comfortable. I had some old foam I saved from a citation re-rag. It's not Oregon Aero's memory foam, but it's super nice. I built up the seat back with some dense foam, and slapped some low back sheep skin covers over the seat after some trimming and limited sewing. Overall there is about 2.5 inches more foam in the seat pan than there was before. Much better angles that I played with.m too.  It's light years more comfortable. 4.25 hr legs with ZERO Burn, or numbness. Stock fabric store original mooney foam lasted only about 40 min before I couldn't feel my right leg. My airplane partner is maybe 5-5. I'm 6-1. He still needs a cushion. We have the crappy Nelson flight seat, but will most likely do the nice Oregon aero soft seat cushions in the future. I had about 3 weeks of working in my spare time and $300 total in the project. New rollers, foam, sheepskins, glue, and paint. 

I think the 3 inch soft seat with the  2in back retails for under 400 each. The stock back is higher than you would need in the stock M20 seat. They can trim and re-sew the cover. I actually like their fabric, very rugged, useful. If you just wanted to slap te soft seat in there, it would be way more comfortable than stock and about 1/8 the cost of a full 4 place seat re-work at a shop. 

I wrote about it last year when I was excited it was finished. I'm glad they are as comfortable as I wanted them to be a year later. 

-Matt

[mike_elliott]

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

17 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

8 hours ago, DonMuncy said: Mike,

Ordinarily, I would wait and ask you personally, but I suspect it would be of interest to many people here. What thickness, density, etc. of foam was used in which places. Could we impose on you for a step by step method for doing this padding. I have always been a little unhappy with the comfort of the plane's seats, but just stuffing in padding doesn't seem to be a good way to solve the problem.

Oregon Aero makes the best seats for RV's, and they use different densities of foam, in layers. perhaps they will give up the secret sauce, because my Mooney needs new foam and a re-rag in the worst way.

I believe they use memory foam from EAR also.  Here is a pic, sort of

[MyNameIsNobody]

I made a HUGE mistake being a C.B. When I had seats recovered.  My seat is just awful to sit on.  I sit on an Oregon Aero cushion (on top of seat), but the Butt pad on seat is so broken down it provides NO support.  I re-position on 2-hour flights and simply HATE the lack of support and resultant right leg and right Gludious Maximus ache that occurs on a cross-country....

Sigh...seats "Look" great.  Functional?  Not so much...

[MyNameIsNobody]

19 hours ago, Bartman said:

I took my wife and her friend up once. Although the friend had flown commercial many times, she was very excited because she had never been in a private aircraft. When I opened the hangar and pulled the aircraft out by hand with the tow bar was when she said "I thought it would be bigger." 

We went up and flew around the local area, but we decided to land due to an approaching thunderstorm. After landing and while we were pushing the plane back into the hangar is when she said "I thought it would last longer."

When I looked at her and told her what she had said she was soooooo embarrassed, but we have laughed about that for years. 

Yes, that happened. 

As long as the engine keeps running hard until she says flight is finished and I can shut down...she's good.

Great story Bartman.  Had me laughing out loud...

[Yetti]

the seats are not that hard to take apart and put new foam in.  say half a day start to finish.  It was a full day to resew a leather cover.

In the better walley worlds they have seat foam in the crafts department.  no need to suffer

[MyNameIsNobody]

On August 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, mike_elliott said:

I solved this when I owned my F by having Confor foam seat padding installed. It made for a "hard" seat in the winter when cold for about 5 minutes, then it would form to your butt as your body heat transferred. Most comfortable seats I have sat in an airplane, and that's been quite a few. The company is 3m, EAR specialties division that make the foam, in various densities. They have burn specs on their website I believe.

Please provide "How to" details on quantity etc. for this foam.  I am super interested in upgrading my seat pan cushions!  Thanks in advance.

[captainglen]

Nobody, I like that little story. Does size matter? When I had my F Bonanza 4 place I was always a bit proud of the interior room, the bench style front seat and how much leg room the rear seat passengers had. I was however always jealous of the Mooney owners who got nearly the same performance with only four cylinders and lower fuel bills and fewer cylinders to fail compression checks. Now the only thing I really miss in the bonanza was how much gentler it was in the flare.

[MB65E]

Wicks Aircraft sells the memory foam in the below dimensions. 

Probably extremely similar to 3M and Oregon aero.

http://aircraftproducts.wicksaircraft.com/viewitems/cockpit-equipment/seat-cushion-foam

-Matt

[mike_elliott]

On August 18, 2016 at 4:51 AM, mike_elliott said: I solved this when I owned my F by having Confor foam seat padding installed. It made for a "hard" seat in the winter when cold for about 5 minutes, then it would form to your butt as your body heat transferred. Most comfortable seats I have sat in an airplane, and that's been quite a few. The company is 3m, EAR specialties division that make the foam, in various densities. They have burn specs on their website I believe.

Please provide "How to" details on quantity etc. for this foam.  I am super interested in upgrading my seat pan cushions!  Thanks in advance.

It has been about 6 years ago. EAR used to be my primary sponsor for my road race team back in the day, so obtaining material was easy for me. Exactly how much I don't recall, but use a tape measure to get the SF area. Find our what size sheets are available and economical. Mine were 2x4 sheets. Use 3m headliner glue to fasten to frame and layer.

[Marauder]

I had my seats redone this summer and the new memory foam made a huge difference. So much in fact, it required me to relearn the landing sight picture. With my old seats I never had an issue with my head coming close to the roof. They do now.

Speaking of seats, I have new leather seats instead of the perspiration soaked cloth ones I had. Anyone have a lead on sheepskin covers?

VS.

Another thing to keep an eye on is whether your seat pan is cracked. Mine were broken on both sides. No comment on how they got broken.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[captainglen]

Mike, are those Jaeger plastic side panels? I am considering buying a set in beige. Whatever your interior they really look sharp! I will get the armrest upgrade for the pilot position only because on long flights I do notice some left arm fatigue.

[MyNameIsNobody]

7 hours ago, MB65E said:

Wicks Aircraft sells the memory foam in the below dimensions. 

Probably extremely similar to 3M and Oregon aero.

http://aircraftproducts.wicksaircraft.com/viewitems/cockpit-equipment/seat-cushion-foam

-Matt

Any suggestions from everybody on what comfort level would be best for seating?

[Jerry 5TJ]

18 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Any suggestions from everybody on what comfort level would be best for seating?

I had seats rebuilt this summer.  New foam throughout.  There's a thin top layer of comfort, then 1" of memory foam, then 1-2 inch more foam under that.  The memory foam is good for long flight comfort.  

I hear that on cold days it stays hard for half an hour (no jokes, please) before it conforms to your, ah, contours.  Winter will tell.

Aside: Anyone have an STC for heated seats?