Short Field landing technique.

[Shadrach]

Wow. How do you find the time to do all those calculations on short final? I barely have enough brain power to double-check that the gear is down.

 

I just wing it like everyone else. 

[FloridaMan]

Drop into ground effect and hang it off the prop. You can set it down on a postage stamp. 

[FloridaMan]

Wow. How do you find the time to do all those calculations on short final? I barely have enough brain power to double-check that the gear is down.

I use the arc on the airspeed indicator. Bottom of the white arc is Vso. I just add about 30% for it. 

[Shadrach]

I use the arc on the airspeed indicator. Bottom of the white arc is Vso. I just add about 30% for it. 

huh?  The difference in stall speed between landing near gross and say single pilot with with 4hrs of fuel is 8 mph.  If you want it down and short, one needs to fly the numbers by weight.  Once you get some experience you can bull sh... I mean guesstimate.  I am pretty sure commercial ops run TO and landing numbers by weight for every flight.

[N201MKTurbo]

I would never advocate "making it land on a spot". That is not the point I was making when I talked about spot landing practice. The intention was to practice making a proper landing at your intended spot. It is dangerous to make a Mooney land where it doesn't want to.

[gsxrpilot]

I would never advocate "making it land on a spot". That is not the point I was making when I talked about spot landing practice. The intention was to practice making a proper landing at your intended spot. It is dangerous to make a Mooney land where it doesn't want to.

 

Isn't it all about getting the Mooney to "Want" to land exactly where YOU want it to land?

[StinkBug]

Isn't it all about getting the Mooney to "Want" to land exactly where YOU want it to land?

 

Yup! I know better than to force the plane to land.

 

Spent a few hours in the plane today doing shorts, softs, and power off 180s. Did about 20 landings in total and things are MUCH better now. Thanks for all the input. 

[Alan Fox]

If you can get it in the "mush" 3 feet over the runway , you will have it made.... (the Mush being a higher angle slightly higher than normal power setting , and just above the runway ,  I recommend doing some MCA and approach to landing stalls at attitude to get the feel of it)   Its not rocket science , just practice , and s eat of your pants feel of where you want it to be....

[Tankinbarber]

One of my personal preferences if I don't have an obstacle is moving my aiming point further out. This allows me to keep the normal airspeed and float that airspeed off. keep in mind you need to make sure you can make the runway! lol

[Shadrach]

Steep approaches yield the shortest landing distances.

[midlifeflyer]

Steep approaches yield the shortest landing distances.

LOL! As soon as I read your post, a visual immediately came to mind. Some years back I watched a spot landing event. One of the pilots, flying a 152, had the longest landing, and there were both HP singles and twins in the group. He did a very steep approach, but it involved lowering his nose and diving at the numbers, building up enough energy that we were worried he'd float all the way off the far end of the runway (almost but not quite). OTOH, I've seen folks do normal not-so-steep approaches, level off to very little vertical speed and drag it in, dropping it on a spot and almost immediately coming to a full stop.

 

In theory, yes, I think you are correct. But it depends a lot on pilot technique.  Airspeed + descent rate gives us a total energy package that needs to be dissipated for touchdown. The issue, whether steep or not, is still going to be the pilot controlling pitch and power to produce a combination that gives a comfortable stall buffer and control, but results in the smallest combined energy package.

[Shadrach]

LOL! As soon as I read your post, a visual immediately came to mind. Some years back I watched a spot landing event. One of the pilots, flying a 152, had the longest landing, and there were both HP singles and twins in the group. He did a very steep approach, but it involved lowering his nose and diving at the numbers, building up enough energy that we were worried he'd float all the way off the far end of the runway (almost but not quite). OTOH, I've seen folks do normal not-so-steep approaches, level off to very little vertical speed and drag it in, dropping it on a spot and almost immediately coming to a full stop.

 

In theory, yes, I think you are correct. But it depends a lot on pilot technique.  Airspeed + descent rate gives us a total energy package that needs to be dissipated for touchdown. The issue, whether steep or not, is still going to be the pilot controlling pitch and power to produce a combination that gives a comfortable stall buffer and control, but results in the smallest combined energy package.

 

The thing is, extracting a maximum performance short field landing out of a Mooney is not a comfortable thing.  It feels unnatural and unsafe; the margin for sloppiness is pretty thin.  I agree if you "dive and drive" you'll float for ever.  The short field landing as I was taught consists of pitching for somewhere between 60 and 70mph depending on weight (~1.1Vso) in descent. There are 2 ways to do this - one is to drag it in behind the power curve and chop and drop. The method I prefer is to reduce speed just as I turn final and use the descent to hold desired speed. The wing will be somewhat unloaded and the descent rate will be on the high side. In this situation there should only be enough energy for the flare; ground effect helps cushion what would otherwise be a rather firm touchdown. It's not comfortable but it does make for the shortest landing distances. We have a lot of interesting little strips (sub 2000ft) in and around Maryland.  You meet some most interesting people at these places and hardly ever run in to any Cirrus owners  ...not that there is anything wrong with them!

[midlifeflyer]

You meet some most interesting people at these places and hardly ever run in to any Cirrus owners  ...not that there is anything wrong with them!

 

The last two pilots I saw win a spot landing event are Cirrus pilots. In one case less than  10' from the line; in the other, the flour line "poofed" from his mains hitting it. 

 

I'm not sure what is "uncomfortable" about a short Mooney landing. Doesn't feel any different to me than in anything else I've flown.

[Andy95W]

The last spot landing contest at my airport was won by a Bonanza pilot who had temporarily lost his medical because of "a minor stroke-like event" (he had a current, qualified person with him). This does make me wonder why a 3rd class medical is necessary.

[Shadrach]

Unloaded wing, high descent rate, mushy control response, little to no energy left. Not a lot of margin. some folks are more comfortable than others.

My Cirrus comment was a reference to another thread, not an actual dig on cirrus pilots.

[Hank]

A spot landing on a 4000+ runway is a whole different thing than landing on a 2000' or shorter strip . . . .

[midlifeflyer]

A spot landing on a 4000+ runway is a whole different thing than landing on a 2000' or shorter strip . . . .

True. Landing on a 2000 or shorter strip is much easier.

[philiplane]

I teach short field and spot landings based on weight, which is what really matters. Figures in the POH are for gross, and are way too fast.

 

I load the plane and calculate the stall speed for the weight, then we go practice minimum controllable airspeed to get familiar with the handling and sight pictures.

 

A few approaches and landings later, the pilot will have the experience he needs but never got in primary training. 

[Shadrach]

^^^^^This...