Mooney article in this month's Flyer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: RVSMLand
Age: 40
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting article, covers a lot of the aircraft...
Whoops...
Plane & Pilot Magazine - Mooney Acclaim Type S: Still The Fastest! | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
The myth is that Mooneys are universally cramped and compact airplanes. The myth is just that—a myth. Width at the elbows in the front seat of the Acclaim Type S is a significant 43.5 inches. To put that in perspective, it’s 1.5 inches wider than a G36 Bonanza or G58 Baron’s cabin. True, seating is more laid-back in the Mooney than in other airplanes, so the vertical dimension is admittedly shorter, but legroom is excellent, and overall comfort is better than you might expect. Baggage goes behind the rear seats in a huge compartment limited to 120 pounds
Plane & Pilot Magazine - Mooney Acclaim Type S: Still The Fastest! | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just 6 full inches narrower than a Cirrus without account of the height and width then.
Have you tried getting into 32 inch jeans when you have a 38 waist?
Sorry, couldnt resist.
Have you tried getting into 32 inch jeans when you have a 38 waist?
Sorry, couldnt resist.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thus far I have not come across a plane which redefines the laws of physics.
Most planes of a similar cockpit cross-section (say TB20, SR22, C400) do almost exactly the same IAS for the same fuel flow, lean of peak.
Obviously with a bigger motor up front you get more speed but with a higher fuel flow so that is irrelevant.
Mooneys are more efficient because of a smaller cockpit cross-section. Stand in front of one and it is readily visible.
A lot of people, myself included, would hope that flush rivets etc make a huge difference but (at 140-150kt IAS) they evidently don't.
Retractable gear does make a huge difference and the last 2 in my list get around that with an efficient hull shape so when they chuck away some 10-15kt in their fixed gear, the end result is still competitive.
Most planes of a similar cockpit cross-section (say TB20, SR22, C400) do almost exactly the same IAS for the same fuel flow, lean of peak.
Obviously with a bigger motor up front you get more speed but with a higher fuel flow so that is irrelevant.
Mooneys are more efficient because of a smaller cockpit cross-section. Stand in front of one and it is readily visible.
A lot of people, myself included, would hope that flush rivets etc make a huge difference but (at 140-150kt IAS) they evidently don't.
Retractable gear does make a huge difference and the last 2 in my list get around that with an efficient hull shape so when they chuck away some 10-15kt in their fixed gear, the end result is still competitive.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, it is strange really that the very laws that enable us to fly and are pretty well understood some think we can defy when it comes to aircraft design - many have tried, almost none have suceeded.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody will ever succeed in shifting the laws of physics.
What you can do is shift what is acceptable for certification. For example if you can convince the FAA etc that your cockpit is extra crashproof and get Vs lifted from 60kt to 65kt, you can make the wings less draggy.
What you can do is shift what is acceptable for certification. For example if you can convince the FAA etc that your cockpit is extra crashproof and get Vs lifted from 60kt to 65kt, you can make the wings less draggy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody will ever succeed in shifting the laws of physics.
However, I suspect that we have already done a pretty good job of extracting most aerodynamic advantages from how we build light aircraft so that the performance enhancements to be had have become pretty small. That is why the only way Mooney can get that speed out of that HP is by making the cockpit erm cosy - which was your point a few posts back.
Of course Mooney owners like to claim otherwise, but then so do some pilots like to claim GPS works differently this side of the Pond to the other side of the Pond.
Take it all with a pinch of salt.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest factors affecting how cramped people find the Mooney cabin is how long in the leg they are. Al Mooney was reputed to be quite a tall chap and built an airplane to match.
I'm 6 feet tall with an inside leg of 32 inches, which seems to work well in the Mooney. That puts the ideal seat position on the third notch from the rearmost setting and leaves me a comfortable distance from the panel. It also leaves plenty of space for the rear passengers.
Obviously, people with shorter legs need the seat further forward to reach the pedals. Because of the low seating position, for every inch they're shorter in the leg they're an inch nearer the panel, yoke and coaming. The close proximity of everything in front of them, restricting their view, makes them feel the cabin is much more cramped.
You have to be the right shape for a Mooney. If you are tall enough the cabin size works well.
I'm 6 feet tall with an inside leg of 32 inches, which seems to work well in the Mooney. That puts the ideal seat position on the third notch from the rearmost setting and leaves me a comfortable distance from the panel. It also leaves plenty of space for the rear passengers.
Obviously, people with shorter legs need the seat further forward to reach the pedals. Because of the low seating position, for every inch they're shorter in the leg they're an inch nearer the panel, yoke and coaming. The close proximity of everything in front of them, restricting their view, makes them feel the cabin is much more cramped.
You have to be the right shape for a Mooney. If you are tall enough the cabin size works well.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Fuji,
Flying is in my perception a mag FULL of in depth articles, which lasts me a month, just like AOPA pilot does to a lesser extent.
I often buy Flyer, but it seems to have less in-depth articles and more very short articles, often accompanied by a photograph or substantial space for the title, leaving less room for written content.
Nothing scientific, just my feeling.
The Flyer ends up in the small bathroom for reading snippets, Flying ends up in the large bathroom for reading in the bath on a lazy Sunday morning....
They are both different types of magazines, but both allow me to dream away so from that point of view I like them both. Should I decide to subscribe, I'd think I'd prefer Flying though.
Flying is in my perception a mag FULL of in depth articles, which lasts me a month, just like AOPA pilot does to a lesser extent.
I often buy Flyer, but it seems to have less in-depth articles and more very short articles, often accompanied by a photograph or substantial space for the title, leaving less room for written content.
Nothing scientific, just my feeling.
The Flyer ends up in the small bathroom for reading snippets, Flying ends up in the large bathroom for reading in the bath on a lazy Sunday morning....
They are both different types of magazines, but both allow me to dream away so from that point of view I like them both. Should I decide to subscribe, I'd think I'd prefer Flying though.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, "Flying" has always had that magic readability content with great columnists esp Richard Collins ( now only an occasional contributor) One just needs to grit one's teeth getting through all the horrible Americanisms ( "gotten" "dove" ( dived) "license", "Color" etc) The nearest UK equivalent used to be "Pilot" in the good old James Gilbert days ( but then he used to work for "Flying" before founding "Pilot" ) The modern "Pilot" is a poor relation to the original.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that is exactly my assessment. I feel sure there is room for a UK Flying - but perhaps as Ian says a different place, a different market. Perhaps we should start an on line version for the UK - I suspect we would have some pretty good contributors from these forum.
BTW I always wondered why pilots getting out of Mooneys were thin lanky healthy looking types - now I know. 
My ski boots are moulded to my foot but moulding the aircraft to the pilot is a whole new concept - I just love it.
I'm 6 feet tall with an inside leg of 32 inches, which seems to work well in the Mooney. That puts the ideal seat position on the third notch from the rearmost setting and leaves me a comfortable distance from the panel. It also leaves plenty of space for the rear passengers.
My ski boots are moulded to my foot but moulding the aircraft to the pilot is a whole new concept - I just love it.
It is a very different market. How often does Mac fly a machine that costs less than $10,000,000? However, the real difference is that last year either Mac or Collins wrote that they drive an extra 30 minutes past an airport that doesn't have a control tower, and base their aircraft at a field that does have a Tower. For most UK and European readers, I would guess that the reverse is true.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW I have just read the Flyer mag Mooney review and apart from it lacking in the kind of detail which would interest somebody wanting to buy a plane, it seemed OK to me.
Lack of detail is the scourge of the UK flying mags. I can see why they do it - it's a thin line to tread between having satisfying their reader base (I guess many readers are pretty skint, and would hazard to guess that many don't even fly at all) and all the free and often highly detailed and technical content available for free online to anybody sufficiently motivated to use google.
Lack of detail is the scourge of the UK flying mags. I can see why they do it - it's a thin line to tread between having satisfying their reader base (I guess many readers are pretty skint, and would hazard to guess that many don't even fly at all) and all the free and often highly detailed and technical content available for free online to anybody sufficiently motivated to use google.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the article yesterday and thought it was a good, fair, review so I dunno why some people are getting worked up.
Looks nice and fun, but I wouldn't buy one for the money, that is for sure........
Looks nice and fun, but I wouldn't buy one for the money, that is for sure........
Last edited by englishal; 3rd Apr 2009 at 16:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooney Article moan count
11 best Moans in order of appearance:
narrower, smaller fuselage
smaller fuselage
fuselage has no tardis-like qualities
small on the outside and smaller inside
space in the back is reduced somewhat
front seat accomodation is snug
snug environment
Graham's shoulder was hurting
Oli was struggling with his legs
glad the flight was short
Oli is complaining
Ian, you managed to make a day trip to Toussus in the world's best performing single piston sound like torture!
Sure, by all means make a reference to the fact that the aircraft is far more efficient and faster than anything out there because of its reduced frontal surface area but to go on..and on.. and on...
Would you have complained so much if you had been reviewing a day trip to Paris by Ferrari?
I am 6ft tall and fit nicely into the Mooney.
I often have 2 or 3 other on board and have never had anybody struggling with their legs or have hurting shoulders.
More performance figures, less moaning please,
SB
narrower, smaller fuselage
smaller fuselage
fuselage has no tardis-like qualities
small on the outside and smaller inside
space in the back is reduced somewhat
front seat accomodation is snug
snug environment
Graham's shoulder was hurting
Oli was struggling with his legs
glad the flight was short
Oli is complaining
Ian, you managed to make a day trip to Toussus in the world's best performing single piston sound like torture!
Sure, by all means make a reference to the fact that the aircraft is far more efficient and faster than anything out there because of its reduced frontal surface area but to go on..and on.. and on...
Would you have complained so much if you had been reviewing a day trip to Paris by Ferrari?
I am 6ft tall and fit nicely into the Mooney.
I often have 2 or 3 other on board and have never had anybody struggling with their legs or have hurting shoulders.
More performance figures, less moaning please,
SB
Last edited by scooter boy; 4th Apr 2009 at 06:03.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Point
You are all missing the point. Mooneys HANDLE as in, sports car vs. Mini Van. They are tight and precise in all flight regimes (including stalls) and they are a Pilot's vs a Driver's airplane.
Close your eyes and crank a Cirrus around, cant tell it from any other airplane (side stick notwithstanding). A Mooney is like a small fighter.
PS Mooney has a factory option for placing the rudder pedals closer to the pilot
Close your eyes and crank a Cirrus around, cant tell it from any other airplane (side stick notwithstanding). A Mooney is like a small fighter.
PS Mooney has a factory option for placing the rudder pedals closer to the pilot
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][Mooneys HANDLE as in, sports car vs. Mini Van. /QUOTE]
Bad choice! As someone who has been "drifted"over the Rochford bridge (Southend airport) in a Minivan (new, ~1962 ) I can assure you that the Minivan outhandled a Frogeye Sprite.
The driver had owned and raced a Lotus6 or7 under 1172 formula, then a Formula Junior Elva, as well as the Sprite and the van.
but I get what you are saying....perhaps a 100E thames van would have been a better analogy? (or the dreaded CA Bedford)
Bad choice! As someone who has been "drifted"over the Rochford bridge (Southend airport) in a Minivan (new, ~1962 ) I can assure you that the Minivan outhandled a Frogeye Sprite.
The driver had owned and raced a Lotus6 or7 under 1172 formula, then a Formula Junior Elva, as well as the Sprite and the van.
but I get what you are saying....perhaps a 100E thames van would have been a better analogy? (or the dreaded CA Bedford)
