How to answer negative Mooney IMAGE Issues

[M20BE]

Maybe you guys could add some of your thoughts/ideas to help non-Mooney flyers come over the Mooney image issues which are incorrect...

In bold i tried to note why people are reacting this way... 

A Mooney cramped ? They say that because the panel is more close to the face, i'm 6ft and i had never problems fitting in a Mooney, it's a lie and it should be marketed hard that it's not true, i have no problems fitting in a Porsche or a Ferrari even for very long drives, and they are not really like the Bentley if you compare it to interiour space... so for purpose of this type of planes, travel distance in comfort Mooney did the job well, no problem there

Hard to fly : This plane has push-rods instead of cables you need to apply pressure what some people seems to hate i just love the push rod feeling of a mooney, nothing compares to that, it's a really good ifr plane that will give you a great control feeling with its controls and the safety of the continues  tip to tip spar, the mooney is not hard to fly, it's easy to fly, pilots should have positive control over their planes, if they don't, they don't belong in the air IMHO

Hard to land The mooney will just keeping floating over the runway indeed it will, this is a plane that needs to be flown at the NUMBERS it was designed for, that means like 80 on final 70 over the numbers, flare and you'll get a greaser.. what's wrong with that ? pilots should learn to fly the numbers, not to buy planes who will forgive their bad flying habbits... i have no problems landing a mooney

Expensive to maintain Parts are more expensive than a C152 or a C172 that is ofcorse true if you compare it to some of the planes that are made by the numbers BIGTIME compare it to a Bonanza or a Piper Malibu and you know mooney is not that more expensive to maintain. It's also true A&Ps have more work because everything is a little bit more cramped inside, it pays you back in speed and less fuel burn

[NWI_Pilot]

My own take on it, having sat in an F model once, in the right seat, with the door open, is that they're relatively comfortable for someone of my stature.  It seemed to me like the passenger compartment wasn't as well designed as the rest of the aircraft.  Of course, I am 6'2" and about 175 lbs.  Perhaps that's why everyone thinks the panel is so close, their legs aren't long enough  It didn't seem any closer to me than in the Cherokee I usually fly.  Of course, I'd probably want to take another look at it to make sure that my assumptions are right

[M20BE]

This is a better link i think ... 

http://forums.piperowner.org/read/1/108226/page=1

[M20BE]

Funny how one guy replied: ", I am too tall for a Mooney, but if you are short and skinny, go for it. "

[RobertoTohme]

Well, I'm 6'3", weigh 245 lbs., and I'm as comfortable as it could get; also, my rear seat passengers have never complained about them either.  I have flown in the back seat of an Acclaim and, although it doesn't have the legroom of a C182, it was very comfy.   Bad rap and misinformation has killed many Mooney sales....

[mooniac227]

The "bad rap" could and should be confronted head on by Mooney.  I owned a C182 and there is just as much room in my Acclaim as there was in the C182, it's just "different".  You sit in the C182 like a minivan - seat is higher and your knees bend more.  My Mooney is more like a sedan.  I can actually stretch out MORE in the Mooney and I'm more comfy on long trips in the Mooney that I was in the C182.  And rear seats of the Mooney have the C182 beat hands down.

I told Jennifer (at the air races in Reno) that they should make a big chart and show an overlay of the square footage of the Mooney, the Cessna 400, and other competitors.  I studied them, flew them, and compared them closely.  The bad rap is just that  - a BAD rap and could be easily dispelled with some graphic illustrations.   The differences are not nearly as extreme as is generally talked about.

Hard to land?  Sure, if you ignore the numbers.  Pay attention to approach speed and you'll nail it every time.  Easy.

[triple8s]

Mooney=setting in slightly reclined lounge chair

C-172=setting on a bar stool

Ok maybe I exagerated a bit but I am 6'2 and MUCH more relaxed setting in my old Mooney than a Cessna, and as for the Piper argument my cousin owned a Turbo Arrow and my M20C flies almost the same speeds albeit I do have numerous speed mods, the difference in fuel burn and the cost of aquisition make it no contest when it comes to economics. You can buy a good vintage mooney with a few speed mods for thousands less than an Arrow. I never realized it but, a good well maintaned Mooney, even an old one, is a true misers airplane and a true performer. Another difference is the safety of having a 4130 roll cage. I'll take the Mooney anyday!

[N207LS]

I am 5'11" and 230lbs and find my Mooney very comfortable on long trips.  One of my closest friends owns a T-Tail Arrow and I have flown it on several occasions.  In my opinion, the Mooney is more comfortable without question...  Usually when he and I are flying together (he is 6'  and 250lbs) in either airplane, we end up sitting shoulder to shoulder.  The Mooney feels a bit wider at the waist though (I am not sure that it actually is, but certainly feels that way, maybe it is seat location or whatever).  Second, the Mooney has much more of an "Indy Car" feel to it.  You have more leg room in the Mooney, but the panel appears much closer to you (better viewing).  Finally in the back seat there is absolutely no comparison.  The Mooney wins hands down.  If I sit in the back of the Arrow, my head is touching the roof and my knees truly are wedged in behind the seat.  In the Mooney, however, there is much more rear seat headroom and actually more legroom (remember I fly a G model, so it is longer than the C model).  Finally, my G (although loaded with speed mods and the Powerflow Exhaust) is definately faster than his Arrow IV.  We have flown together (flight of 2) and talked back and forth.  He needs 23" and 2400 RPM to compare with me at 19" and 2300 RPM.  He does not have a fuel flow analyzer, but at 19" and 2300 RPM my EI says that I am burning 7.2-7.6 GPH at 3000' (50 degrees ROP).  I am quite sure that he is burning closer to 10 GPH at 23" and 2400 RPM at the same altitude. 

The only advantages that I can see with the Arrow IV as compared to the Mooney are the following...  First, the Arrow IV is easier to get into, lets face it climbing into the Mooney is not always the easiest for big people.  Second, the useful load is slightly greater in the Arrow IV, but more than offset by carrying 20 gallons more fuel than my G model.  

Finally, like most of us who love our Mooney's, I wouldn't trade mine in, especially for an Arrow.  I am convinced that the Mooney is much more airplane than the Piper. 

[Lood]

I usually reply with the following question: "Have you actually flown a Mooney?"

Almost ninety percent of the the answers will be: "No, but Iheard it from someone or read it somewhere." I started my flying career with a C172 - lovely airplane, but not compareable to a Mooney. Definately not if you have to go far in little time. I will take on much more in my Mooney than in a C172. Regarding the landing part of a Mooney - also just a lot of bull. In my C172, I basiclly went along for the ride - it flies itself with no real challenge to me as pilot. If you come in at "around" 65 mph, you'll be fine. 60 mph will be fine, 70 mph will be fine. It was so forgiving that I actually became a bit sloppy in my flying.

A Mooney will cure anyone from that very quickly. It needs to be flown by its pilot - not the other way around. And thats why I fly.