Safe Landing Distance

[Shadrach]

In a nutshell. Statistically as a group, we do a great job of putting our planes in the weeds at the departure end of the runway. We also do a great job incurring prop strikes with the gear down. No other certified single that I can think of will float like a Mooney with its long, low, laminar wing. We've had 3 mooney incidents at my airport in the last 15 years that I know of, only one was reported, the 2 unreported were both high time comm pilots (one was a Marine Aviator) with very little mooney time. Both of these gents porpoised their planes until the props hit. Another pilot failed to get his new to him M20F down and stopped in the 5460' of runway that was available. It took 2 tries, after floating nearly the length of the whole runway on the second try, he touched down and departed the end of 27 in a cloud of tire smoke. These folks weren't aces, but they apparently thought they were good enough to get into a 5400' runway at near sea level. They all pooched it. Why?...because they were all too fast.

One must learn what it feels like to properly fly the airplane by the numbers for quite sometime before one can properly fly the numbers by the seat of one's pants.

[bonal]

I don't think any one has implied that it's not critical to be on the numbers as well as making the point to go at it with a methodical process and to build confidence and experience. I know I've still much to learn and reading all the different point of views expressed here is both entertaining and informative.

[bonal]

Without exception... Every time I fly from preflight to shut down I always take something new, another piece of knowledge or information that I have acquired from reading the posts found here on Mooney Space. To all of you my sincere thanks.

[Yetti]

What Chuck Yeager thinks of AoA  

about 1:10 minutes

[Mooneymite]

Without exception... Every time I fly from preflight to shut down I always take something new, another piece of knowledge or information that I have acquired from reading the posts found here on Mooney Space. To all of you my sincere thanks.

Good for you! To survive we have to keep being student pilots....always learning.

[midlifeflyer]

In a nutshell. Statistically as a group, we do a great job of putting our planes in the weeds at the departure end of the runway. We also do a great job incurring prop strikes with the gear down. No other certified single that I can think of will float like the long, low, laminar wing on a Mooney. 

 

Grumman (or whatever manufacturer) Tiger. Similar wing to the Mooney. Same landing problems when being off-airspeed. That's the one in which I was introduced to the concept of removing the ASI as a landing training exercise.

 

In my nutshell, everyone in this 5 page thread agrees that it is necessary to fly the proper numbers (I'd go further and say the proper numbers are important no matter what make/model one flies). Disagreement exists solely on the training techniques that effectively get us there.

 

Personally, I'm pretty bad at flying by the seat of my pants, so I don't. (I don't consider attitude flying as in the definition of "seat of the pants.")

[Mooneymite]

Everything you need to know about safe landing distance:

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/video/2015/05/this-is-the-definition-of-a-short-field-landing/

[gsxrpilot]

Well I guess since my Mooney is nearly as old as the Dodo, my seat of the pants flying skills work just fine. I can't think of anything more dangerous than having your eyes INSIDE the cockpit once the runway is in sight.  Especially trying to find airspeed on a GPS or iPad app if the ASI is not functioning. Flying the ILS in hard IMC is a different story. But VFR, once I'm in the pattern with the runway in sight, I don't need ANY instrument inside the cockpit to ensure a safe landing. And with the manual gear in my C, I don't need those lights either.

 

I fly an M20C. Manual gear, no speed brakes.

I regularly land with full flaps within 1200 ft at my home field.

I regularly land in formation flights with no flaps and touchdown at 90 kts on >6000 ft runways. (Lead is watching the ASI during formation flights)

 

The Mooney seems to land just fine in all situations.

 

Of course, an Internet forum is not a great place to debate as there isn't any way to really convey tone or feeling. I'd love to debate this over a beer with atn_pilot.  I'm sure we'd probably agree on much more than disagree.  After all we all fly Mooney's. I guess the real beef I have here is not landing technique but the seeming consensus that Mooney's are difficult to fly or land.  We all spend countless pages of posts writing about how Mooney's are the best machine to ever sprout wings. But then every couple of weeks a new member joins and asks about joining the Mooney Pilot ranks. And it seems that immediately there are 100's of posts about how difficult Mooney's are to fly or land.  This is of course, just my perception, but I do spend way to much time on this forum, and have read many thousands of posts.  I disagree that Mooney's are any more difficult or advanced than any other light single.  I want to believe that any properly certificated Private Pilot with a HP/Complex endorsement should be able to fly AND land a Mooney easily.  IF they can't, they need to go back to their CFI and learn to fly. That could be in a 172 or a Cherokee, it doesn't matter. A pilot who knows how to fly, should be able to fly a Mooney.  And not to disparage the professionals, but my brother who is a 737 Captain flying the line with a major airline, struggles with my Mooney just a bit. Not because he doesn't know how to fly, but he flies thousands of hours in the 73, and maybe 2 hours per year in the Mooney. And certainly there are big differences. But again, in my belief and from personal experience, any Private Pilot with regular/recent experience flying light singles, should be easily able to fly/land a Mooney.  They're not any more difficult, or even much different than any other light single, including brand C, P, or B.

 

#RantOff.

[Shadrach]

Grumman (or whatever manufacturer) Tiger. Similar wing to the Mooney. Same landing problems when being off-airspeed. That's the one in which I was introduced to the concept of removing the ASI as a landing training exercise.

 

Midlife, I am really trying to find some common ground here, but I don't see the similarities in the wings...  Do you think Marauder's girls are similar to...well...normal girls?

Mooney vs Grumman.tiff

[Shadrach]

Well I guess since my Mooney is nearly as old as the Dodo, my seat of the pants flying skills work just fine. I can't think of anything more dangerous than having your eyes INSIDE the cockpit once the runway is in sight.  Especially trying to find airspeed on a GPS or iPad app if the ASI is not functioning. Flying the ILS in hard IMC is a different story. But VFR, once I'm in the pattern with the runway in sight, I don't need ANY instrument inside the cockpit to ensure a safe landing. And with the manual gear in my C, I don't need those lights either.

 

I fly an M20C. Manual gear, no speed brakes.

I regularly land with full flaps within 1200 ft at my home field.

I regularly land in formation flights with no flaps and touchdown at 90 kts on >6000 ft runways. (Lead is watching the ASI during formation flights)

 

The Mooney seems to land just fine in all situations.

 

Of course, an Internet forum is not a great place to debate as there isn't any way to really convey tone or feeling. I'd love to debate this over a beer with atn_pilot.  I'm sure we'd probably agree on much more than disagree.  After all we all fly Mooney's. I guess the real beef I have here is not landing technique but the seeming consensus that Mooney's are difficult to fly or land.  We all spend countless pages of posts writing about how Mooney's are the best machine to ever sprout wings. But then every couple of weeks a new member joins and asks about joining the Mooney Pilot ranks. And it seems that immediately there are 100's of posts about how difficult Mooney's are to fly or land.  This is of course, just my perception, but I do spend way to much time on this forum, and have read many thousands of posts.  I disagree that Mooney's are any more difficult or advanced than any other light single.  I want to believe that any properly certificated Private Pilot with a HP/Complex endorsement should be able to fly AND land a Mooney easily.  IF they can't, they need to go back to their CFI and learn to fly. That could be in a 172 or a Cherokee, it doesn't matter. A pilot who knows how to fly, should be able to fly a Mooney.  And not to disparage the professionals, but my brother who is a 737 Captain flying the line with a major airline, struggles with my Mooney just a bit. Not because he doesn't know how to fly, but he flies thousands of hours in the 73, and maybe 2 hours per year in the Mooney. And certainly there are big differences. But again, in my belief and from personal experience, any Private Pilot with regular/recent experience flying light singles, should be easily able to fly/land a Mooney.  They're not any more difficult, or even much different than any other light single, including brand C, P, or B.

 

#RantOff.

So what your saying is that it's routine if not SOP to touchdown 25kts over stall speed when formation flying?  I was not able to attend the formation clinic last weekend, but I will review the materials. That just sounds sketchy. 

[midlifeflyer]

Midlife, I am really trying to find some common ground here, but I don't see the similarities in the wings...  Do you think Marauder's girls are similar to...well...normal girls?

The LoPresti design goals were similar with the result that so is much of the handling, particularly the need to control airspeed on final within very tight parameters.

 

Curiosity - are you exclusively a Mooney pilot? I ask because those who fly multiple makes and models tend to see more similarities than differences while those who limit themselves to only a select few tend to see everything as completely unique.

 

But really, at this point, you really seem to be looking awfully hard for things to argue about when the "common ground" is enormous.

[midlifeflyer]

Well I guess since my Mooney is nearly as old as the Dodo, my seat of the pants flying skills work just fine. I can't think of anything more dangerous than having your eyes INSIDE the cockpit once the runway is in sight.  Especially trying to find airspeed on a GPS or iPad app if the ASI is not functioning. Flying the ILS in hard IMC is a different story. But VFR, once I'm in the pattern with the runway in sight, I don't need ANY instrument inside the cockpit to ensure a safe landing. 

 

Sorry, but that is quite simply impossible for mere mortal pilots. If you don't stare at the ASI you will surely meet your maker   (No, I'm sure that, just like those of us who focus on pitch, power and visual cues, those of us who focus on the ASI are not excluding the use of the other (although some of the ASI-only proponents do sound that way) 

 

On a more substantive note, GPS and tablet apps will typically give you ground speed (some, TAS) not indicated airspeed. So relying on that could have significant issues in addition to head-in-the-cockpit syndrome, whether the differential is due to winds, density altitude or a combination.

[Shadrach]

The LoPresti design goals were similar with the result that so is much of the handling, particularly the need to control airspeed on final within very tight parameters.

 

Curiosity - are you exclusively a Mooney pilot? I ask because those who fly multiple makes and models tend to see more similarities than differences while those who limit themselves to only a select few tend to see everything as completely unique.

 

But really, at this point, you really seem to be looking awfully hard for things to argue about when the "common ground" is enormous.

On the common ground, I was talking about the wing comment.  I own a Mooney and it is by far the aircraft that I have the most time in. I have flown many different makes and models over the years (off the top of my head - C23, C24, A36, B55, C150, C152, C172, C421, PA22, PA24, PA28, 7AC, 11AC, 8KCAB).  None of my "other airplane" time is recent save for the Super Decathlon which I flew about 20hrs last year, maybe 10 this year.  I do not consider myself to be much above safe and adequate in that airplane.  I cannot speak to the handling characteristics of the Grumman as I do not have anytime in them.  I think maybe I just take things literally when they're in this format.  When someone says similar wing, I expect they mean similar wing (like say a PA24).  If what you meant was that the Grumman wing sits low to the ground and like a Mooney has a propensity to float in ground effect if not on speed, then I'd take your word for it. I think a lot of back and forth takes place because sometimes folks expect others to just understand what they mean (whether or not it's what they've actually said).  Conversely folks infer meaning from things that weren't actually said at all.  There is a long paragraph above arguing against "fixating on the inside of the airplane"...there are others on fixating on the ASI.  Where is this argument rooted?  Who in this thread is "pro fixation"???  The answer is no one.  No one ever stated that as a premise (which is why it's not quoted before the arguments).  It's like answering a question no one asked.

 

I'm out of popcorn... No hard feelings. See you around! 

[rbridges]

  Do you think Marauder's girls are similar to...well...normal girls?

 

yes, they just have 3-4x the normalness.  

[midlifeflyer]

 There is a long paragraph above arguing against "fixating on the inside of the airplane"...there are others on fixating on the ASI.  Where is this argument rooted?  Who in this thread is "pro fixation"???  The answer is no one.  No one ever stated that as a premise (which is why it's not quoted before the arguments).  It's like answering a question no one asked.

 

I'm out of popcorn... No hard feelings. See you around! 

 

The fixation argument  is rooted in the exact same process that makes you appear to be thinking that those arguing in favor of visual cues are anti-airspeed control. Mis-charaterization works both ways, you know. 

 

No hard feeling here either  

[chrisk]

 

  They're not any more difficult, or even much different than any other light single, including brand C, P, or B.

 

 

 

I would argue that a Mooney is easier to land than a 172, particularly with a gusty cross wind.   --The Mooney will take more runway than a 172, but not a lot.  2500 feet at sea level should be enough for any model of Mooney.  And my concern with shorter runways is not landing, but taking off and clearing obstacles. 

[Mooneymite]

  Who in this thread is "pro fixation"???  The answer is no one. 

 

 

Well, just to be argumentative, I'm definitely PRO-FIXATION!

 

Whatever that means.....

[Ario]

Everything you need to know about safe landing distance:

http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/video/2015/05/this-is-the-definition-of-a-short-field-landing/

 

Now, this is a real competitor for Mooney

[Danb]

we need to focus more on Chris's lovelies..and what do these do to his stall speeds?

[Marauder]

we need to focus more on Chris's lovelies..and what do these do to his stall speeds?

What stall speed? I never get off of the ground with them onboard. I just go around and around the airport on the taxiways.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

What stall speed? I never get off of the ground with them onboard. I just go around and around the airport on the taxiways.

 

 

just showing them off to the airport folk.  no one likes a braggart.