Cabin Width

[takair]

I suspect this is buried somewhere in the archives, but I came across something I never noticed before.  Is the J really wider than the vintage Mooneys?  I thought they were primarily a cleaned up F.  Didn't think Mooney ever did anything to widen the fuselage?

[Marauder]

I suspect this is buried somewhere in the archives, but I came across something I never noticed before.  Is the J really wider than the vintage Mooneys?  I thought they were primarily a cleaned up F.  Didn't think Mooney ever did anything to widen the fuselage?

I thought that was strange that a couple of Js I fly in didn’t feel larger than my F. I then realized that the footnote on your spec sheets shows my 1975 F serial number falls in the 43.5” width.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Alan Fox]

WooHoo , another selling point for my F

[EricJ]

Derp.   Misread the numbers.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by EricJ

[takair]

8 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

WooHoo , another selling point for my F

If it’s true...and it seems to be, that makes me see my E in a different light.  I had not considered upgrading because I always thought the front seats were no different.  Does anybody know where and how the width increased?  Is it in the front seats or is it in the back, where the extension was added?

[ArtVandelay]

If it’s true...and it seems to be, that makes me see my E in a different light.  I had not considered upgrading because I always thought the front seats were no different.  Does anybody know where and how the width increased?  Is it in the front seats or is it in the back, where the extension was added?

It could be slimmer interior panels?

[Alan Fox]

Probably in the door panels , the problem is not in the cabin width , its in the shoulder clearance , there are planes narrower than the Mooney , but not as oval in profile , and roomier to the occupants...

[wcb]

10 hours ago, Alan Fox said:

WooHoo , another selling point for my F

Did you get that F listed yet? 

[Alan Fox]

11 minutes ago, wcb said:

Did you get that F listed yet? 

I haven't even picked it up yet , will fly it back hopefully this week ,   Wont list it until I fly it 50 hours or so....

 

[wcb]

1 minute ago, Alan Fox said:

I haven't even picked it up yet , will fly it back hopefully this week ,   Wont list it until I fly it 50 hours or so....

 

Those are all the basic mods I want to add on my F so I might consider a trade.  But, I just do not know if I can live without my RayJay TN.  Keep us update on the plane it is an interesting one.

[Andy95W]

We could probably get some measurements.  

I'm thinking door closed and latched, from pilot's window at the sill to door window at the sill, at the most-aft point on the door window.

That would show if the structure itself was changed or if it was different interior panels that made the difference.

I'll check mine today and post the result by this evening ('64 M20C).

[1964-M20E]

2.5" is a lot to make up in interior panels but I guess it could be so.  I think at many places the plastic panel rest on the steel cage or is real close.  If you actually widened the outside of the cabin by 2.5" you would create more frontal plate area and theoretically make it slower but the Js are faster due to other aerodynamic improvements.

The real measurement would be inside dimensions to the tube cage in the location stated above.

I guess you could take the vertical tube at the rear of the door and on the pilot side move or bow them out to the outboard side 1.25" leaving everything else the same.  You may not really affect the TAS of the plane that much.  Looking at the plane form the front o r the back would be hard to tell the difference.  Remember the article about the tail cone jig that was getting worn during production and caused a twist in the tail cone??  Only looking at the planes side by side could you tell there was an issue.  The door would need to be reworked to allow for the different angle.  This would give you more shoulder room but not any more room in the hip area.  Doing more than that and the wing roots would need to be reworked as well as the inboard rib that makes up the inboard side of the fuel tank.

JMHO

 

 

[Bob_Belville]

I'm skeptical. It might be that the sales department in '77 had the engineering folks measure window to window!  I've never heard that the roll cage was changed, but I could be wrong.

I'll measure my E and report on where it's 41" across. I'll be interested in our J owners advise on where theirs measures 43.5".

[Andy95W]

This is why I was trying to pick a spot that was easily identifiable and replicable without any disassembly required.

[Kmac]

I am suspect of the numbers.  If you look at "rudder sqft" above they are all the same, however, the rudder length was increased in 1968 so the square footage must have increased as well.  Am I correct?

Edited February 7, 2018 by Kmac

[Andy95W]

1964 M20C

lower/aft door window corner to lower edge pilot window = 43.5"

Hopefully someone with a J or late model F can do a measurement as well.

[1964-M20E]

OK so it sounds like they may have changed where they are measuring from and no actual airframe differences.  If you go inside the window to inside the window you can pick up about 2.5" over measuring to the inside of the tube cage.

[Bennett]

Aircraft Designs at Pine Mountain Lake uses their proprietary inserts in the side panels to gain additional elbow room. I really notice the difference.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Browncbr1]

I bet they just started using different points of measure in 1974 for the marketing brochure when Republic Steel was in full swing making planes for the 1975 model year.  As I recall, they also published different performance numbers as well.  

[Brandontwalker]

Aircraft Designs at Pine Mountain Lake uses their proprietary inserts in the side panels to gain additional elbow room. I really notice the difference.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice interior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stormflyer]

Great looking work by Aircraft Designs at Pine Mountain Lake!

[Oliver]

I am aware that this is an older thread but can't find a definitive answer to the cabin width question.

I sat a while ago in an Ovation and thought that the cabin is quite a bit wider than the one of our M20E. I don't think that it only had more elbow room, I also felt to have more room at the shoulders.

Did somebody actually measure the cabin width of a J or newer model? If yes, at what point did you take the measurement? I would then take the same measurement in our M20E.

Oliver

[carusoam]

Ovation got longer...

It is called the Long Body...

I suppose if it got wider... it would be referred to as the Wide Body...

Since aerodynamic drag is very much driven by air density and Cross Sectional Area... a wide body would suffer an aerodynamic penalty.

The O is the fastest factory built, NA, four seater, on the planet... I don’t see any aerodynamic penalty here.

 

When you slide into the pilot’s seat... it feels gigantic, comfortable, and modern...

To minimize the drag penalty of the CSA, get the twin snail option for the exhaust system.  that will boost your cruise altitude to the FLs... and maintain the cruise power setting as well... every day is a 200+ KOtG day... (Knots  over the ground)  

Did that help any?

Best regards,

-a-

[Oliver]

12 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Did that help any?

Best regards,

-a-

Haha, not really but I still like your answer.

It‘s just that the cockpit felt so much more spacious than our M20E that I have a hard time believing that something relatively minor like new door panels could be responsible for that.

[ArtVandelay]

Ovations have a larger panel, also fully articulated seats...maybe it just feels wider?


Tom