Oooohh, this comment sounds pretty harsh....somebody just step on yer tail? It's ok tho, we all have those days.
While I never measured the Mooney & compared to any other (don't need to I'm small), it does feel smaller/tighter/snugger than everything else I've been privileged to command. I love that feel though, and also the handling response is quick in every axis. The yoke moves about half as far left & right as other brands, and less elevator travel as well, (no measuremente her just perception) giving it the feel of "sporty".
So snugger fit, legs out in front, quick response, all combine to give rise to the Porshe comparison.
But here, I'll offer this for salve on yer tail....maybe it really should be likened to Porshe's first cousin, my '67 VW beetle! It too was snug fit, quick steering (I had a 10" dia steering wheel for the race car imitation, ported & polished, open headers, wide tires, etc etc), extremely economical, and I would argue for it's superiority over everything else!
See there now, it's all better

I feel that the Mooney is a very solid IFR platform. Very solid in bumpy IFR......

This thread has a lot of talk about the dual structure in the money fuselage... Steel tube roll cage plus aluminum skin.

If I understand the history right, this was a common approach for airplanes based on a rag-and-tube design that were converted to aluminum skin as the market shifted to semi monocoque design. (In other words, a. Design like the Bonanza where the skins and integrated stiffeners carry the load). It looked like a modern design, so that's what people wanted to buy.

The Piper Aztec was another plane that was built that way.

The pros and cons were that the "adapted" designs like the Mooney and Aztec were both stronger and heavier than a clean sheet aluminum design. Also, more expensive to manufacture as you have build it twice. I've heard it said that the higher manufacturing cost of the Mooney contributed to the cyclic rise and fall of the company's fortunes. In lean times the other manufacturers could lower prices and still break even, but not Mooney.

Can anyone confirm this history? I don't pretend to have complete knowledge about the Mooney Mite and early history. (That Mite sure looks like fun, though.......)

Shawn,

Very interesting post.....
Points out some important differences.
Really nice to see you and some of the BTers at Sun n Fun yesterday. Hope you had the chance to blow a lot of money.

Interesting.... but that's not really hard to do with a Bonanza, if one wants to go that slow. I "raced" my buddy with his Mooney several times. He had the early metal one with the 180 hp. I could beat him every time, in speed, fuel economy, payload, short take off and landing and comfort with my old K35 Bonanza. Embarrassed the heck out of him.

Jesse, there's been a ton of stuff written on this over the years. Mooneys do take a lot of man-hours to construct, but I'm not sure that can be singled out as the primary obstacle to financial success for the airplane maker.

Mooney suffers, as evidenced by this thread, from the notion of being uncomfortably small and cramped. Most agree they're fast and efficient, and well-built.

The company changed hands many times, but I'd suggest that the lack of corporate stability and aggressive cost containment conspired to undermine buyers' faith in the company as a going concern. If you're not sure the company will be there to support the product, would you buy it? The company seldom reached break-even volume, and often concocted sales structures with dealers that didn't work out well for dealers.

And then there's the lack of product line diversity. Yes, the air frame lengthened over time, and the powerplants got bigger, but the product never really evolved (same could be said of the A36/G36). LoPresti and team cleaned up some drag in the 70s, and then the long body came along and represented a "new product", but everything else done has been window dressing. The Acclaim represents several decades of polishing a diamond into an incredible product. But it's still a four-place unpressurized single. There's nowhere to move up to.

Now the Chinese have created the M10, and they seem to have not witnessed the black hole of capital that was Mooney for so many prior owners. Maybe they have the ability to turn it into a profitable company by tapping into the vast emerging Chinese market.

I think it's a phenomenal airplane (J, S, R, etc.), and while the controls are heavier than other singles, they are well balanced, and the feel and stability of the airplane inspire confidence.

One of the reasons I discounted a Mooney, a relatively minor one as a Mooney is probably about the worst choice for back country stuff but one I kept in mind. When I'm on a cross country flight I will often take my legs and stretch out across the passenger space including the seat. Can't do that in a Mooney.

Interesting.... but that's not really hard to do with a Bonanza, if one wants to go that slow. I "raced" my buddy with his Mooney several times. He had the early metal one with the 180 hp. I could beat him every time, in speed, fuel economy, payload, short take off and landing and comfort with my old K35 Bonanza. Embarrassed the heck out of him.

And what Dr. Tavis fails to mention is that he too used to be one of those lying Mooney aficionado's. Maybe since owning a Banana he has seen the light but at least for quite a while he was in the cult and singing the Mooney praises LMAO

Excellent way of describing a Mooney, every time I wear a suit the first thing I want to know is when will I be out of it...

I think Shawn's numbers perfectly illustrate why I like sitting in my Bonanza. While I am only 6'2", I have relatively short legs with a 32"inseam. That puts my torso height in the average 6'5" to 6'6" person's range. One position or two back on the seat rake and I'm good to go.
My body proportions were hell in the back seat of a Viper BTW when I was in the Air Force.
I would lower the seat all the way and barely get a finger's width clearance between my helmet and the canopy.

So....you have really really small hands and short thumbs?

This thread is funny. People arguing whose plane is more cramped. My Cardinal is 48" wide at the shoulder. I would have never thought I would have to "downgrade" to move to a Mooney or Bonanza.

Vince

You missed one dimension, which is the leg well to the rudder. Frankly this is the only dimension that I think Mooney has the advantage in -- which is really only an advantage for tall/long-legged people. 5'6" women like me can't take advantage of that extra volume and need 3" rudder pedal extensions to reach. There is no question in my mind that hip-to-hip and shoulder-to-shoulder a Bo is noticeably less cramped. But we do fine with the Mooney, never felt uncomfortable from anything except the throttle quadrant (something only found in the 1977 model) intruding into the right seat leg space, the solution to that is I always find myself int he left seat .

As a Mooney 'guy', our rationale for the M20J over a Bo was lower purchase price for a newer airplane + 9-10 gph at 150 kts. If we had more disposable income, we'd have a Bo, its "more for more". But a Mooney was already at the upper limit of our purchase and operation expense budget when we bought it. Also our mission only ever requires two people, so we never really worried about cargo or backseat space.