Short vs mid body Mooney differences for a new buyer?

[hammdo]

If the TruTrak every comes out, mine is wired for it. I'll get the 2" and it will go lower left (next to the TC).

Insight G2 is great for sure - came with the plane.

The C is hard to beat overall - any Mooney for that matter...

I've flown an F also and yes, it has more room in the back as well as greater fuel capacity/load carrying.

-Don

[skyfarer]

15 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, I think your "a little roomier" comment is eqally silly!  "Feels airy" because of the back window??  LOL!

Prosepective owners need to climb into the back of a Mooney and a 182 and see for themselves.  Of course, the OWNER isn't going to be riding back there anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter

Yeah "roomier" "airy" it's all relative right?  I remember getting checkout in a 172 for the first time after earning my PPL in a 152 back in '91. The 172 felt like a 737 airliner to me.  Fast forward, I'm in a club now with an RV-12, couple 172's and a 182, so I'm bouncing around between all 3. It amazes me what the few inches of extra room in the 182 vs the 172 feels like. When I jump in the 182 after flying the 172, it sure feels "Airy". Now going from the RV-12 to the 182, "cavernous" is how I'd describe it! haha!

Hence why I started this thread.  I'm in the market for a Mooney, having never sat in one. This is good, lots of opinions boiling up out of this, thank you everyone!

 

[skyfarer]

But with 64 gallon bladders it will carry two people and pretty much anything I can fit in it farther, faster, and more efficiently than anything at it’s price point.  Including experimentals.  I think that is pretty remarkable.  


Exactly why I’m looking at Mooney’s! Thank you for your reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, skyfarer said:

But with 64 gallon bladders it will carry two people and pretty much anything I can fit in it farther, faster, and more efficiently than anything at it’s price point.  Including experimentals.  I think that is pretty remarkable.  


Exactly why I’m looking at Mooney’s! Thank you for your reply.

I've flown my wife and I, with luggage, for 4:45, landing with 1:20 fuel remaining. And I have the standard 52 gallon tanks, not oversized bladders. Above 8000 msl, and 140-145 mph indicated. 

[steingar]

The thing is if you want the bigger back seat you pay for it.  That's why I went with a C, I didn't routinely need a back seat so why pay for it?  The airplane the OP is looking at is Spanky.  Spendy too, a C could be had for less, but not with all those goodies.

[Shadrach]

On 12/5/2021 at 8:58 PM, MikeOH said:

And, I think your "a little roomier" comment is eqally silly!  "Feels airy" because of the back window??  LOL!

Prosepective owners need to climb into the back of a Mooney and a 182 and see for themselves.  Of course, the OWNER isn't going to be riding back there anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter

Perhaps, but I have spent more time in the back of multiple GA aircraft (P210, C182, PA-32 and M20F) than most Pilots.  The 182 definitely feels airy because of the rear window, it's absolutely foolish to say other wise as if the greenhouse has no affect on perception.  You can laugh it off if you wish but the truth is that once everyone is seated and the front seats moved into position, the difference is just not as big as people (you included) make it out to be.  Most of the extra room is space above your head. It is marginally wider in some areas but not by much. The mid body Mooney has a full 15" of foot space from the back of the front seat to the spar when the front seater is on the second detent and the front seat is high enough to allow ones feet to to slide under to the ankle. Width wise my guess is the real delta is 5% or less depending on where the measurement is taken.   Now, in terms of ease of egress and ingress, one can honestly say there is no contest. One is like stepping into a narrow automobile and other is like stepping down into a narrow tube.

I don't currently have access to a 182 to get real numbers. If you do, take some measurements and compare (foot well, width at seat cushion and shoulder).  Either one beats a coach seat on an airline for comfort if not total space..

[MikeOH]

41 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Perhaps, but I have spent more time in the back of multiple GA aircraft (P210, C182, PA-32 and M20F) than most Pilots.  The 182 definitely feels airy because of the rear window, it's absolutely foolish to say other wise as if the greenhouse has no affect on perception.  You can laugh it off if you wish but the truth is that once everyone is seated and the front seats moved into position, the difference is just not as big as people (you included) make it out to be.  Most of the extra room is space above your head. It is marginally wider in some areas but not by much. The mid body Mooney has a full 15" of foot space from the back of the front seat to the spar when the front seater is on the second detent and the front seat is high enough to allow ones feet to to slide under to the ankle. Width wise my guess is the real delta is 5% or less depending on where the measurement is taken.   Now, in terms of ease of egress and ingress, one can honestly say there is no contest. One is like stepping into a narrow automobile and other is like stepping down into a narrow tube.

I don't currently have access to a 182 to get real numbers. If you do, take some measurements and compare (foot well, width at seat cushion and shoulder).  Either one beats a coach seat on an airline for comfort if not total space..

Obviously, we are never going to convince the other.  But, that's not the point.  There most certainly IS a difference.  Whether it's important is up to each individual to decide.  Which is why I suggested that the OP (and his wife) go climb in and out of both a Mooney (short and mid-body) as well as a 182 to see if it is important to THEM!

Can you agree with that recommendation, or do you want to debate that, as well?

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Obviously, we are never going to convince the other.  But, that's not the point.  There most certainly IS a difference.  Whether it's important is up to each individual to decide.  Which is why I suggested that the OP (and his wife) go climb in and out of both a Mooney (short and mid-body) as well as a 182 to see if it is important to THEM!

Can you agree with that recommendation, or do you want to debate that, as well?

I was not debating, I was pointing out that the phrase "no contest" overstates the dimensional differences.  The truth is the rear seats are not ideal in any GA piston single.  I think the point you make above is a good one that contradicts the "no contest" comment.  Indeed it is a contest and the differences are close enough to bare investigation.  Unless you're flying older, unsteady/inflexible passengers, in which case most low wings are a poor choice.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just tire of the "conventional wisdom" of the internet that sometimes opposes reality.  Especially regarding the "It'll take whatever you can put in it" C182. If Mooney pilots exaggerate their airspeed (and many do), C182 owners exaggerate the comfort and load capacity of their aircraft.  My F model is comparable to a C182 in carrying capacity if you look at the numbers. Indeed it will carry more payload (currently ~790lbs) than many straight leg C182s on a 500NM trip with reserves but the internet will swear up and down that a Mooney is a two person plane with additional room and UL for an amputee holding newspaper in the rear seat. It's bullshit but it prevails...even among the cognoscenti in the aviation press.  

Edited December 7, 2021 by Shadrach

[McMooney]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I was not debating, I was pointing out that the phrase "no contest" overstates the dimensional differences.  The truth is the rear seats are not ideal in any GA piston single.  I think the point you make above is a good one that indeed it contradicts the "no contest" comment.  Indeed it is a contest and the differences are close enough to bare investigation.  Unless you're flying older, unsteady/inflexible passengers, in which case most low wings are a poor choice.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just tire of the "conventional wisdom" of the internet sometimes that opposes reality.  Especially regarding the "It'll take whatever you can put in it" C182. If Mooney pilots exaggerate their airspeed (and many do), C182 owners exaggerate the comfort and load capacity of their aircraft.  My F model is comparable to a C182 in carrying capacity if you look at the numbers. Indeed it will carry more payload (currently ~790lbs) than many straight leg C182s on a 500NM trip with reserves but the internet will swear up and down that a Mooney is a two person plane with additional room and UL for an amputee holding newspaper in the rear seat. It's bullshit but it prevails...even among the cognoscenti in the aviation press.  

HEY HEY now, i wouldn't NEVER exaggerate my airspeed 8)