Safe Landing Distance

[Ario]

Hello Mooney World!

I'm new to Mooney and haven't started my dual training on M20J yet. Hopefully in a week or two.

 

I jump right into the subject. If we don't go with the numbers accurately on landing, it will float and it shouldn't be forced down to land at all. The decision is made, overshoot and try again. But if we follow the numbers closely and we are able to touch down, then how much error margin is enough for the landing distance compared to the POH. In other words, if the POH says for example 1900 feet is required for the given condition, how much more should we consider as error margin to be on the safe side? 

Really appreciate everyone's knowledge and experience.

[N201MKTurbo]

I would at least go 1 1/2 times until you get comfidant that you can consistently make the numbers.

[Releew]

I agree with 1.5 times.  These aircraft need to be landed by the numbers.  Lock in on 80 knots on final let it bleed off airspeed to 75 across the numbers hold the attitude and try and fly the aircraft to the end of the runway and she will land perfect every time!!  Too slow and she will bounce... too fast and she will balloon in the flare.  If you are floating down the length of the runway you're too fast. Also remember to verify your winds.  Just a SLIGHT tail wind will keep you sailing down the runway.  Just always remember there is no forcing these planes to the ground.  I do not know what aircraft you are proficient in but this is a by the numbers bird.

 

Rick

[ryoder]

I haven't landed on anything less thank 4k and I have 75 hours in mine. Just land on good long runways till you are familiar with it. Don't go around if you don't need to. Plenty of people fly the runway to avoid wear and tear on tires and brakes. I rotate at 70mph and obviously won't touch down until under 70. Common sense. Sometimes I make the first turnoff and sometimes I don't but I know it on final. I like to trim while flaring. The flare is a smooth transition to level flight so why not trim? Really there is a round out then a flare. Trim during round out.

[Shadrach]

Everyone has likes to through out a number, but you really should calculate your own.  Figure your threshold speed at 1.2*Vso and all will be well in the flare.  

 

No offense to Rick, but I think his numbers are on the fast side. Even if you're at gross of 2740lbs, crossing numbers 75kts is 1.4*Vso.  If you're lighter, say 2350lbs then it will be float city as 75kts is 1.5*Vso.  NFW you'll get comfortable at smaller strips when you're watching 1200ft of runway float by.  Figure your weight and calculate your stall speed. Fly final at 1.4*Vso shooting for 1.2 over the numbers.  You won't always need to run the calculations, but it's good to have a number to reference for training.

 

These airplanes do fine at shorter fields.  Over the years I have gotten more and more comfortable with fields under fields <2000ft.

[Releew]

No offence taken. He's a new Mooney pilot and should work his way to a number that works best for him after he fully understands the characteristics of the aircraft. There should always be a margin of safety espically while your feeling out the aircraft.

Rick

[gsxrpilot]

As I was turning Base for my very first landing at the controls of a Mooney, I asked the Mooney CFI sitting next to me if I should be 70 or 75 over the numbers. His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane. That one worked out beautifully as have the all the rest. Last Saturday at the 84R Fly-in, I made the Bravo turn-off 3 out of 4 landings. Bravo is 700 ft from the threshold. Of course we had a 15 kt wind right down the runway.  On the other hand during Mooney Caravan formation practice I land, no-flaps, across the numbers at 90 kts (105 mph), roll it on and still have to add power to get to the end of the 6000 ft. runway.

 

Just look out the window, and like with any airplane, if it's not working out, go around.

 

#Stirringthepot

[MyNameIsNobody]

80MPH on final has PLENTY of margin for a Mooney pilot...as stated in a bunch of other threads. I agree with 4000 feet as a self-imposed runway length until you are hitting the numbers or at least getting into flare in first third of runway. I do not look at my ASI after determining runway is made and power is pulled to idle for landing. I am looking out the window at that point too. If you have full flaps you again have PLENTY of margin.

[Bob - S50]

At sea level I'd start with at least a 3000' runway, longer is better, until you find out what you are comfortable with.

 

I used to fly final at 80 knots.  A while later I was using 75 knots.  Now I fly final at 80 knots slowing to 70 knots as I approach the runway.

 

Don't rush it. Start long and get comfortable, then start trying shorter runways to determine your comfort level.  3500', 3000', 2500', 2200'....

 

Enjoy,

 

Bob

[midlifeflyer]

I think the key is what a number have said about leaving a lot of leeway at the beginning as you are learning the airplane and learn what it does. Also keep in mind that the "book" numbers for Vref, whether from the manufacturer checklists or calculated 1.3 Vso are based on the airplane being at max gross weight and, like other load-based V-speeds, adjusts downward for less weight. 

 

I like gsxrpilot's comment about forgetting the ASI and looking out the window. That works great if one learns the visual sight picture that produces the approach speed you are targeting. It shouldn't take more than a couple of turns around the pattern maintaining the proper target speeds to learn that one. Ever since it was done to me during a checkout in a new-to-me make/model, my primary students don't solo without landing with no ASI and I usually include it in flight reviews, checkouts and transitions. For most pilots, it's the easiest thing they'll ever do that they thought would be difficult. It's also a great exercise for anyone who is having landing difficulties.

[Mooneymite]

As I was turning Base for my very first landing at the controls of a Mooney, I asked the Mooney CFI sitting next to me if I should be 70 or 75 over the numbers. His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane. That one worked out beautifully as have the all the rest. Last Saturday at the 84R Fly-in, I made the Bravo turn-off 3 out of 4 landings. Bravo is 700 ft from the threshold. Of course we had a 15 kt wind right down the runway.  On the other hand during Mooney Caravan formation practice I land, no-flaps, across the numbers at 90 kts (105 mph), roll it on and still have to add power to get to the end of the 6000 ft. runway.

 

Just look out the window, and like with any airplane, if it's not working out, go around.

 

#Stirringthepot

The problem with "just looking out the window" is that the picture can be very different.  One picture is not necessarily safe in all conditions and I think the number of accidents that occur either on the downwind turn, or the base to final turn bear this out.

 

If you've ever done much instructing, you know how pilots can get a very wrong perspective based on runway slope, strong headwinds, narrow runways lined with trees, extremely wide runways, and so forth.  

 

Don't ignore the seat of your pants, but "Fly the numbers"....or for those who have AOA sytems, the angel of attack.

[midlifeflyer]

In terms of the original what is a good distance question, I know a lot of folks use 1.5 the book value to account for differences in pilot technique.

[atn_pilot]

I jump right into the subject. If we don't go with the numbers accurately on landing, it will float and it shouldn't be forced down to land at all. The decision is made, overshoot and try again. But if we follow the numbers closely and we are able to touch down, then how much error margin is enough for the landing distance compared to the POH. In other words, if the POH says for example 1900 feet is required for the given condition, how much more should we consider as error margin to be on the safe side? 

Really appreciate everyone's knowledge and experience.

 

You're absolutely right about the importance of flying the numbers, and this is especially important on an aircraft like a Mooney where so many accidents have taken place over the years because pilots have ignored the numbers and flown faster than necessary, resulting in runway overruns. I cringe whenever I read someone here say "I like to fly 80 to have an extra safety margin." That's not an extra safety margin, it's the first link in the accident chain. Fly the numbers!

 

Regarding a margin of error for required runway length, at the airlines we always divided the performance number for landing distance by 0.6 to get a conservative number. By doing this, you know that you've got an extra 40% of the runway to play with. I still do this in my Mooney just like I did in the Boeing.

 

As I was turning Base for my very first landing at the controls of a Mooney, I asked the Mooney CFI sitting next to me if I should be 70 or 75 over the numbers. His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane. That one worked out beautifully as have the all the rest. Last Saturday at the 84R Fly-in, I made the Bravo turn-off 3 out of 4 landings. Bravo is 700 ft from the threshold. Of course we had a 15 kt wind right down the runway.  On the other hand during Mooney Caravan formation practice I land, no-flaps, across the numbers at 90 kts (105 mph), roll it on and still have to add power to get to the end of the 6000 ft. runway.

 

Just look out the window, and like with any airplane, if it's not working out, go around.

 

#Stirringthepot

 

I think I'd find a different CFI. Ask him to try that method in Denver, then ask him how many times he gets the stall horn on final.

[carusoam]

Always check your stall horn before using it...

Some get 'stuck' in the quiet position. They actually appear to be working physically, just not electrically...

Experience from my R,

-a-

[Lood]

Once you get to know your airplane, you'll figure out not only what it is really capable of, but more importantly, what your own capabilities are.

Your final speed over the fence will depend very much on your actual weight and this will make a huge difference in how the airplane reacts to different speeds.

I routinely use a 1200ft dirt strip in my '67 F. It sits at 3000' and although it does have rough over runs to both side, which will be useable should the need arise, I have always managed to land and take off, using only the 1200ft part that is maintained.

That said, I never carry more than 24 gal of fuel into this strip and I've carried two pax plus their bags in and one plus bags out. It is of utmost importance that you are able to put the airplane down exactly where you need to, at exactly the correct speed. At the above mentioned weight, I will approach at 75mph and I will touch down right at 70mph.

 

This is probably a rather extreme example, but Mooney's are much more capable than most would appreciate. Below is a GE pic of this strip. The white part is 1200' long and although the rest, towards both end look good in the picture, I can assure you that I will only use either in an emergency. The surface is pretty rough and rocky and it is overgrown with grass and small bushes, about a foot high:

 

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think I'd find a different CFI. Ask him to try that method in Denver, then ask him how many times he gets the stall horn on final.

I used that method (ignore the ASI the way I described it) in Denver. No stall horns with anyone I've done it with

[atn_pilot]

I used that method (ignore the ASI the way I described it) in Denver. No stall horns with anyone I've done it with

 

Then you must be flying your approaches at sea level way too fast.

[midlifeflyer]

Then you must be flying your approaches at sea level way too fast.

I don't think so. 

 

If you read what I wrote, you see I said

 

That works great if one learns the visual sight picture that produces the approach speed you are targeting. It shouldn't take more than a couple of turns around the pattern maintaining the proper target speeds to learn that one.

 

It's not about making up some visual picture out of a vacuum and guessing an airspeed. It's about learning the pitch attitude that produces the proper airspeed for that aircraft.

 

Most of us know that pitch attitude even if we don;t realize it (which is why every time I've done it with someone new, they've done it successfully on the very first try). And if not, how much of a glance out the window does it take after stabilizing on final to say to look out the window and say, "so that's what it should look like: and then forget the attitude indicator.

 

I really haven't noticed that much difference between the ptch attitude that produces 70 K IAS at sea level and the pitch attitude that produces 70 KIAS at Leadville on a descent in the same make/model (there definitely is one for climb). I've obviously seen differences among the  30 or so make/models I've flown, but even there they are not all that different. A glance is pretty much all it takes.

 

As far as I can tell, there are much greater problems on landing with pilots flying ASIs (and often either fixating on or chasing it) than with pilots flying attitude.

 

BTW, like you, I'm very much a fly by the numbers guy, so we definitely agree on that part of it.

[midlifeflyer]

Then you must be flying your approaches at sea level way too fast.

 

I have to chuckle. You sound like the guy I once had a pitch/power argument with. He insisted I was already dead because I couldn't possible have landed successfully when wind shear dropped the bottom out on short final and I had to carry full power to touchdown. You'd probably agree with him because I flew attitude that time also.

[Ario]

I'm thrilled by the answers and the nice and experienced community Mooney has. Thanks a lot for the discussion and the great advices. 

I think I learned that may be the airport with 2500 feet runways (that has more affordable hangar spaces) is not a rational choice of base at least for the first year (till I become more proficient).

 

I'm also interested in flying the numbers and at the same time looking outside and see what I should see for those numbers in my Mooney. May be a combination of both these techniques is not a bad idea. I think I need a lot of practices now. There is also a Proficiency Program at MAPA that I may attend some time in future.

 

Anyway, I sincerely thank everyone for helping me make a wiser decision.

[atn_pilot]

I don't think so. 

 

If you read what I wrote, you see I said

 

It's not about making up some visual picture out of a vacuum and guessing an airspeed. It's about learning the pitch attitude that produces the proper airspeed for that aircraft.

 

Most of us know that pitch attitude even if we don;t realize it (which is why every time I've done it with someone new, they've done it successfully on the very first try). And if not, how much of a glance out the window does it take after stabilizing on final to say to look out the window and say, "so that's what it should look like: and then forget the attitude indicator.

 

I really haven't noticed that much difference between the ptch attitude that produces 70 K IAS at sea level and the pitch attitude that produces 70 KIAS at Leadville on a descent in the same make/model (there definitely is one for climb). I've obviously seen differences among the  30 or so make/models I've flown, but even there they are not all that different. A glance is pretty much all it takes.

 

As far as I can tell, there are much greater problems on landing with pilots flying ASIs (and often either fixating on or chasing it) than with pilots flying attitude.

 

BTW, like you, I'm very much a fly by the numbers guy, so we definitely agree on that part of it.

 

I'm not sure how you can say that you're a "fly by the numbers guy" when you aren't even looking at the numbers. Getting used to a sight picture and using it if you lose your airspeed indicator is one thing. Not looking at your airspeed indicator as a normal course of business is just a bad idea all around.

[Mooneymite]

Getting used to a sight picture and using it if you lose your airspeed indicator is one thing. Not looking at your airspeed indicator as a normal course of business is just a bad idea all around.

 

There are several well documented "sight picture" illusions that have repeatedly fooled pilots.  As we become accustomed to an aircraft, we do develop a "sight picture", but we must always cross check it with our instruments.

[Guitarmaster]

The only thing that I could add is, you CANNOT force this airplane down. If you attempt to, all you will succeed in doing is banging the prop on the runway.

Have fun with the new bird! It flies like no other piston single out there.

[Shadrach]

I don't think so.

If you read what I wrote, you see I said

It's not about making up some visual picture out of a vacuum and guessing an airspeed. It's about learning the pitch attitude that produces the proper airspeed for that aircraft.

Most of us know that pitch attitude even if we don;t realize it (which is why every time I've done it with someone new, they've done it successfully on the very first try). And if not, how much of a glance out the window does it take after stabilizing on final to say to look out the window and say, "so that's what it should look like: and then forget the attitude indicator.

I really haven't noticed that much difference between the ptch attitude that produces 70 K IAS at sea level and the pitch attitude that produces 70 KIAS at Leadville on a descent in the same make/model (there definitely is one for climb). I've obviously seen differences among the 30 or so make/models I've flown, but even there they are not all that different. A glance is pretty much all it takes.

As far as I can tell, there are much greater problems on landing with pilots flying ASIs (and often either fixating on or chasing it) than with pilots flying attitude.

BTW, like you, I'm very much a fly by the numbers guy, so we definitely agree on that part of it.

You seem to be implying that pitch and AOA have a constant relationship and that one can fly "attitude" using the outside site picture. I think that site picture changes with speed, density altitude and temp as well as weight, CG and configuration. We should all be able to put the plane on a runway sans ASI, but I don't think site picture is what I use when doing an approach. Sink rate and control responsiveness (or lack thereof) are the cues that I think I use to interprit approach speed. I don't really think about it, but I know it's by feel, not site picture.

[Shadrach]

I'm thrilled by the answers and the nice and experienced community Mooney has. Thanks a lot for the discussion and the great advices.

I think I learned that may be the airport with 2500 feet runways (that has more affordable hangar spaces) is not a rational choice of base at least for the first year (till I become more proficient).

I'm also interested in flying the numbers and at the same time looking outside and see what I should see for those numbers in my Mooney. May be a combination of both these techniques is not a bad idea. I think I need a lot of practices now. There is also a Proficiency Program at MAPA that I may attend some time in future.

Anyway, I sincerely thank everyone for helping me make a wiser decision.

If you have a good instructor that teaches you to fly the numbers, 2500 is plenty. I know of a C model that's based at a strip that's <1800'.

Find a longish runway and practice full stall, mains first, landings... It will make you more comfortable and proficient. When a medium bodied mooney is properly landed on the mains, the nose can be held off for an additional 3 to 5 seconds or about 250 to 500ft depending on weight and CG.

Here is the formula for calculating stall speed by weight. I listed MGW and 2100lbs for comparison.

2100lbs is light but entirely common weight for me in my M20F when solo.

Vso @MGW 2740lbs = 54 knots = 62mph.

1.2 x 54KIAS=65KTAS = 75mph

1.3 x 54KIAS=70KTAS = 81mph

2100lbs =2100/2740 = 0.766. The Square root of 0.766 = 0.875

0.875 x 54KTAS= 47.25KTAS = 54mph

1.2 x 47.25 KTAS = 56.7KTAS = 65mph

1.3 x 47KTAS = 61.1KTAS = 70mph

If 1.2 x Vso feels uncomfortable, start at 1.3 and try working your way down to 1.2...you'll find what you like. Steep descent at 1.1x Vso is shortfield technique, but that's for later in your training