Bad Landing

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

Not sure about putting a lot of stock in the GPS speed from the camera as I normally see 90 on base to final. (v1.4 * 67 = 93)  Watching the video again it looks like there is a lag in speed update.   We should probably have the camera with the ASI in the view.   The first video has a pretty decent downhill for landing.  If you flare too much the runway just keeps getting farther away  As I recall for the "go around" in the second video I was already pretty high and never landed at that airport prior.  I wanted to check out the runway make sure there were no deer on it and check the pavement condition since the approach was hosed.You really can't do that if you are climbing. Could have maybe got a slip to work, but again first time there.    Also did not want to pop up too soon in case there was a NORADO crossing mid field or the at the numbers. 

I am sure Don is great at what he does and you can learn new things from anyone.  I have had four instructors and they all have their own style

Based on the where I line up for the landings. Gear down abeam numbers.  you can land just in front of the 1000 foot markers depending on wind with power out.    It would make sense that the power off 180 be as part of the "normal" routine.  What one of my instructors told me is that it is simulating the engine loss when you start changing things after cruise.  So I normally put the gear down abeam the numbers if the engine quits I know I can make the field without pulling up the gear and then remembering to put them back down. I like having several different "normal" routines.  You never know when you might need one or the other routine in the dynamic flight environment.  Putting the gear down abeam the numbers gives me 4 more times to check the gear and make sure it is down.

A strong headwind will destroy your best laid plans to make the runway if you lose your engine on base.  Mooney pilots are as good if not better than the pilots of other models of getting the plane to the runway. They also do a far better job of depositing their aircraft in the weeds after launching of the departure end of the runway in a cloud of tire smoke. Your GPS seemed to be updating just fine and was rapidly giving speed variances.  The speed on touch down looked quite fast.  Sorry, but that was not good technique.  When a Mooney is landed well, the plane will touch mains first and the nose will remain aloft for the next 100 to 200 feet until the elevator pays off. It is much kinder to the brakes and tires.

[steingar]

Sorry, way more pilots come to grief from miscontrol than from the mill taking a dump in the pattern.  While looking I saw more than one Mooney with a prop strike, all from coming in too fast and the pilot trying to land the aircraft before it was ready with the resulting porpoise.  Heck, I watched a pilot do it in a baby Beech, just barely missed the strike.

I've never had an instructor who didn't emphasize a stabile approach.  Screaming into the pattern, dropping gear at the last minute and bleeding off speed on short final is not what I'd call stable.  I've just never been in that big a hurry.  Maybe I'm just a cognitively challenged pilot, but I like the have the airframe all set for the landing before I even get into the pattern.  That way I can concentrate on what's going on at the airport and what I'm going to do about it.  Easier to do at 90 mph than 120.  Easier to do when you don't have the clean up the airframe, you just worry about what's going on outside.

[Bob_Belville]

8 hours ago, teejayevans said:

The 60-2 fits in the same spot as a 30 or 50, which makes me think upgrade costs would be minimal.

 

My hanger neighbor, a dentist with a nice Cherokee 6, has a STEC 60 PSS add on for alt preselect and vs rate select. I think it is cost prohibitive for me from the STEC50. $10,000 for the box plus $3,000(?) for installation.

http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/pss

 

 

 

[Lance Keve]

Landing - Just starting to play with the older GoPro Hero2 and first time editing so a bit clunky.

From my limited experience I haven't found the short-body E to be difficult to bring in slowly (read: on speed) and put it where you want.  Although the runway in this video is gigantic and it's a longer final, it's easy to see, that if on speed/slope, it stops flying when you expect and there isn't much roll-out.  The winds this day weren't great but had some odd random gusts now and again which shows in the movements on final.  With no wind it approaches on rails, hands off.

Like Bob has stated, trim is full and it is hard to keep the nose up with certain CG loading's.  In this video there are 2 people in the front, none in the back and no baggage.  Fuel is about 1/4 tank.  So, when it stops flying the nose wheel follows the mains nearly instantly, but never first.  All in all, it speaks for itself....docile.

To add, so far I've had many well stabilized approaches, some high ones which were safely salvaged with slips, but almost no low ones dragged in.  This one in this video is about the lowest one, but it's also an illusion of the camera a bit too.

I've challenged myself at shorter runways too and as many know, short-bodies have no issues there.  I'm not daring anyone to see how slow they can fly on final or how short of a runway they can get into, but carrying the extra speed, above what is required for the wind and gust circumstances is unnecessary and increases risk of things going wrong.

Regards, 

Lance - still and always learning  

 

 

[carusoam]

Just reloaded the thread, and it fixed itself....

 

Unable to view the the video, Lance.

'An error occurred, try again later'

Ipad air.

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Hmmm, works fine on my IPad mini retina. It's 1:25 long with some nice cruise compression and the kind of gentle, kiss the runway landings I only make when flying solo into a deserted airport. Like those calm nights when I do 3 currency full stops, rolling out to the end, turning around and taking off the other direction. That almost makes it like landing at two airports.

[Shadrach]

Works fine on all of my Mac devices.

[carusoam]

Still works today!

 

Hey Lance, Nice Video.  Awesome views.  Smoooth landing!

Thanks for sharing.

 

Best regards,

-a-

[Spenscot]

My landings are almost always full UP trim (long body). On a go around there will be a strong nose up pitch force for 1-2 seconds while trimming back down but nothing unmanageable. 

[Steve Dietrich]

8 minutes ago, Spenscot said:

My landings are almost always full UP trim (long body). On a go around there will be a strong nose up pitch force for 1-2 seconds while trimming back down but nothing unmanageable. 

Full up trim  was also common in the K with two heavies in the front seats, 

 

After looking very carefully at the W&B chart on my 231/252 and my typical mission profile  I changed the Charlie weight to a heavier one which made handling, especially landings easier with lower stick forces . It created a situation where you could not fly the airplane with a single light pilot in front and heavy pax in the rear .   As a stopgap measure before the charlie weight change I flew the airplane with  a 5 gallon water jug in the baggage . 

Several 231's have been lost during go arounds from full flap landings .  At least one was an improperly secured seat and another was a student returning from Flight Safety doing a go around.   In the early years one or two were lost due to  nut that would jam at max up trim.  The seat has to take the forward force on the yoke and the heavy rudder force at full power and low airspeed

SEAT AND SEATBACK SECURE  should be a boldface item on the initial descent checklist . 

[jlunseth]

I don't ever move the pilot side seat.  Sometimes my mechanics do, but I just put it where I like it, make sure it is seated in the holes, and the longer it is there the better I feel about it.

We have had this discussion here before, but I am not at all in the "keep it near the runway" camp on landing.  I've looked at the Nall statistics over several years and I am impressed.  Far more pilots lose their lives to low level maneuvering than to the engine failing in the pattern.  In fact, I don't remember seeing a "loss of engine in the pattern" accident in the Nall statistics.  In the pattern the aircraft is descending a good part of the time and the prop is driving the engine.  Not in the sense of the engine being shut down and therefore the prop is doing all the work, but the engine is not doing much work, it is throttled way back and at least in my aircraft I can lean it out virtually to idle cutoff and it will still run not matter what happens. I can lean it so far that if I land with it that way, as soon as I get on the ground and the plane slows on roll out the engine will die.  It is not going to shut down on you in the pattern.

What does happen, is the wind is bad and pilots blow through turns and try to get back on final, or they just underestimate how much room they have to make the turn, or they get distracted from the ASI because someone is doing something weird on the ground, or whatever the reason is, but we end up turning too tight, get uncoordinated in an effort to point the nose at the runway, and in a flash we are in a half spin dive.  It is a half spin dive because that is all the spin it takes to getto the ground.

Way better to fly a nice, decent sized, graceful pattern than to worry about the engine failing in the pattern and being able to still get it on the runway. I typically look for .75 miles on my GPS from the runway.  That will still get me to the runway, it will be a squeeker but it will work.  What I won't be doing though, is the spin into the ground.

Now, if I was in instructor flying some of the trainers I have seen maintained by some of the flight schools I have also seen, maybe I would worry a little more about it.  But with a decently maintained aircraft the chances of an engine failing on takeoff, or even at cruise are the things to worry about.  Getting to the runway out of the pattern, well there are bigger things in aviation to be concerned about.

[Steve Dietrich]

On 1/13/2016 at 0:35 PM, steingar said:

Sorry, way more pilots come to grief from miscontrol than from the mill taking a dump in the pattern.  While looking I saw more than one Mooney with a prop strike, all from coming in too fast and the pilot trying to land the aircraft before it was ready with the resulting porpoise.  Heck, I watched a pilot do it in a baby Beech, just barely missed the strike.

 

 

There was a time when  you could rent a 201 or 231 , get a brief checkout and be on your way. 

The classic was a 231 at Santa Monica.  They  rented it to someone who flew into Lindberg ( San Diego ) buildings,  jets and controllers asking for more speed.  The landing left a lot to be desired including a new prop and engine.   A month later they rented it again to the  same pilot and he  repeated his performance- another engine and prop. 

 

Sadly too many i(non mooney) nstructors have students practicing landings before they are comfortable flying the airplane at approach speeds at altitude. 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by Steve Dietrich

[AndyFromCB]

On January 10, 2016 at 8:33 AM, gsxrpilot said:

One of my worst landings ever. I don't know the exact numbers on the wind, but it was strong and very gusty. Another guy in an Arrow went around twice and left.

 

 

My record still stands at 3 go arounds before landing, so I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. 

[bradp]

I'll put a couple up for consumption.  The first I was hoping @Samurai Husky would take a look at and comment on as he's learning about landing.   You'll have to put up with my ugly mug because it's a cockpit video and please excuse the vibrations.   But it's a nice clear day at LNS with a crosswind 8-10 kts or thereabouts, a LAHSO instruction and a Cherokee six barreling down behind me on final for no good reason except he was probably proud of himself for finally catching a Mooney.  Goal was to plunk down but execution was plus minus. I'd call this a crappy crosswind landing but for two very specific reasons that I can think of (I'm sure there are more).  I didn't realize it was not my best work until I looked at the video a couple of days later.  

@SH with regard to the comments in the other thread re yoke position in a turn and roll stability, note neutral yoke just before roll out on final and I'm sitting in a stable bank.  

Here's to disclosure  :-)

 

[steingar]

On January 12, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Shadrach said:

An M20C at 2575lbs (MGW) in landing configuration stalls at about 49kts.

A Cherokee 180 at 2400lbs (MGW) in landing configuration stalls about 49kts.

Do you wish that the Mooney wing was less docile "flaps up" so that you might feel like the flaps do more?

Sorry, my Cherokee stalled about 48 mph.  Vortex generators might have had something to do wit that.  I just recall the flaps doing way more than they do in the Mooney.  Not that I'd want the Cherokee back, though it was spanky and I do miss it.

I resolutely refuse to put cameras of any type on my airplane.  Last thing I need is evidence...

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

Sorry, my Cherokee stalled about 48 mph.  Vortex generators might have had something to do wit that.  I just recall the flaps doing way more than they do in the Mooney.  Not that I'd want the Cherokee back, though it was spanky and I do miss it.

I resolutely refuse to put cameras of any type on my airplane.  Last thing I need is evidence...

Well, I have nothing to go by other than the POH.

Piper claims Vso of 54mph (46.92kts) for the PA-28-140. An 11% reduction in stall speed is impressive.

http://www.wilgroveairport.net/files/Cherokee%20140%20POH.pdf

[steingar]

Just now, Shadrach said:

Well, I have nothing to go by other than the POH.

Piper claims Vso of 54mph (46.92kts) for the PA-28-140. An 11% reduction in stall speed is impressive.

http://www.wilgroveairport.net/files/Cherokee%20140%20POH.pdf

To be honest, the speeds just don't tell the whole story.  If I landed by Cherokee power off and hit 60 mph over the numbers it would land just fine.  If I bring the Mooney in power off and hit 70 mph over the numbers the thing will bounce to the moon.  Way more sink at low speed.  I'm good with it, its a complex airplane and not as easily landed.  But comparing V speeds doesn't give the whole picture.

Then again, the Cherokee didn't have a  steel roll cage around its occupants either.

And like I said, if the landing in the first video is the OP's worst one I'm really glad I don't allow cameras aboard mine.

[Shadrach]

23 minutes ago, steingar said:

To be honest, the speeds just don't tell the whole story.  If I landed by Cherokee power off and hit 60 mph over the numbers it would land just fine.  If I bring the Mooney in power off and hit 70 mph over the numbers the thing will bounce to the moon.  Way more sink at low speed.  I'm good with it, its a complex airplane and not as easily landed.  But comparing V speeds doesn't give the whole picture.

Then again, the Cherokee didn't have a  steel roll cage around its occupants either.

And like I said, if the landing in the first video is the OP's worst one I'm really glad I don't allow cameras aboard mine.

My bird is heavier than yours and I often cross the numbers at <70MIAS unless I'm near MGW.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

To be honest, the speeds just don't tell the whole story.  If I landed by Cherokee power off and hit 60 mph over the numbers it would land just fine.  If I bring the Mooney in power off and hit 70 mph over the numbers the thing will bounce to the moon.  Way more sink at low speed.  I'm good with it, its a complex airplane and not as easily landed.  But comparing V speeds doesn't give the whole picture.

Then again, the Cherokee didn't have a  steel roll cage around its occupants either.

And like I said, if the landing in the first video is the OP's worst one I'm really glad I don't allow cameras aboard mine.

Here's a video I did last winter of a few power off, mains only, T&Gs in a 9 kt crosswind.

 

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

My bird is heavier than yours and I often cross the numbers at <70MIAS unless I'm near MGW.

Steiney, in my C, I roll wings level on final at 85 mph and decelerate to 70-75 on short final (75 if heavy, less 5 mph per 300 lb below gross), throttle to idle when I know I have the field made, and cross the numbers below 65-ish on my way to the stall horn. The only times I have significant bounce are when I'm descending too many feet per minute (no, I don't look at the VSI) or stall too high above the runway, not when I'm flying too fast . . .

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Here's a video I did last winter of a few power off, mains only, T&Gs in a 9 kt crosswind.

 

Nice!  Now I'm waiting to hear people freak out that

1.) you do touch-and-goes (the horror)

2.) you rashly retracted the gear while you still had runway remaining!

[Shadrach]

Just now, N1395W said:

Nice!  Now I'm waiting to hear people freak out that

1.) you do touch-and-goes (the horror)

2.) you rashly retracted the gear while you still had runway remaining!

and

3.) Took off with full flaps...

[Hank]

Hey!

1. I do the first without horror,
2. and I do the second with forethought to improve my climb rate and distance from the ground quicker.
3. Only did the third one time by accident, and plan to not do that again!

When I do wheelies, I do it with Takeoff flaps.

Fly safe out there, ya'll.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Hank

[Raptor05121]

Interesting discussion, guys

[steingar]

I really appreciate the discussion.  My experience has been having a closed throttle over the numbers at 70mph.  Wham!  Keep a bit of power in it smooths things out.  I can come in power off a bit fast and let it settle in it works, but boy do I float.

I take it back, if I come in low behind the power curve I can then close the throttle coming over the numbers and have a nice greaser.  I just philosophically don't like coming in behind the power curve, just in case something happens to the power.  Rare, I know, but not unheard of.

Shadrach is a better Mooney pilot than I, since I don't have the self confidence to do T&G's in the more complex aircraft.  Then again, I imagine he's been flying one a bit longer and is significantly more dialed in, designing a new nose for them and all.

Actually, I imagine most folks here are better Mooney pilots than I.  At least for now.  Enjoy it while it lasts, boys!