Which one is easier to land? Short or long body?

[nels]

I've never flown a longer mid body Mooney. I have a short body and someone mentioned the longer mid bodies are more difficult to land. Is that true? I would have thought the short plane would be a little more figity and require more concentration while landing.  I am wondering more about the comparison of C and E's to F, G, and J's since they have similar engine weights.

Any input?

Edited January 15, 2016 by nels

[DonMuncy]

I have a 231, and they are hands down the hardest to land.  Couldn't possible be my skill.

[Jeff_S]

The challenge with long bodies is that they are heavier in the nose, and thus more prone to  pilot induced oscillations, the wheelbarrow bounce and dreaded prop strikes. Once you figure out the technique, they are no harder to land than a short- or mid-body, but I know from experience that you do have to pay attention as you transition your skills into the long bodies.

[nels]

I guess I'm more interested in the C and E versus the F, G and J. These should have comparable engine weights.

[Hank]

I only have a handful of landings in an F, and the biggest difference I noticed from my C was that it was much easier with Full Flaps. Then again, that F had three position flaps (Up, Takeoff and Down), while the flaps in my C are infinitely variable. Both start at similar speed with Takeoff flaps on downwind, drop gear and turn base. If I'm high, in my C I can tap in a little more flap, but the F has no in-between settings so go Full Down and compensate with throttle to maintain sight picture.

Neither one is "harder" than the other, and a half dozen landings will straighten you out.

From what I've read, the long bodies (starting with the L) not only have heavy engines (so do the K, Missile and Rocket), but the plane itself sits on its gear with the nose at a higher angle, so they require more of a flare, a change in the sight picture, to not land flat or nosewheel first.

[FlyDave]

As Hank said, the sight picture is a little different from the mid body to the long body.

When I transitioned from my J to the Bravo I had a bit of a time with additional weight and length on the nose. Also, the power off glide seems steeper in the Bravo and it will come down faster than the J. I'm not sure if this is the case in the Eagle/Ovation/Acclaim.

But once you get used to it it's just like anything else you fly.

[Ned Gravel]

I do not know long bodies (or the F and J medium bodies), but I absolutely love the way my short body lands.  It is nimble, responsive, and predictable, if not always forgiving.  Flying the numbers is always the first thing to learn.  See Don Kaye's video.  

When you get comfortable with it, you can do wonderful things: rescue overshoots to final, go arounds in very quick order, stable approaches in the soup, formation training, catch the number 3 wire on the USS Sedona (no one catches the number 1 wire the first time), etc.

I guess I am a little biased.  

 

[kmyfm20s]

Transitioning from the short or mid bodies to the long body is a little bit more difficult not only because of the heavier, longer nose but also the increased pitch attitude it has just siting on its gear. With that in mind you need to put a little more effort in keeping the nose wheel off the ground at touch down. Landing with the same sight picture of a short or mid body will likely result with the nose wheel hitting first.

[carusoam]

Neither...

1) Both require transition training to do it right.

2) Being good with one doesn't automatically make a pilot good with the other.

3) One weighs more and has more power available. Neither will help when the pilot crosses the fence at 90...

4) Both require knowledge of how to control speed.  One is in mph, the other is in KIAS...both put the ASI in a place that is hard to read when looking out the window.

5) Having an AOA device is an interesting way to achieve the stall horn beep just prior to the tires chirp. Mounting the AOA above the glare shield improves on the hard to read ASI....

6) I've had the opportunity to fly with a few NJM pilots in various Mooneys.  All can be landed with great control by their respective owners.

7) If fear of breaking something is a challenge: avoid the Long Bodies, they cost as much as house compared to the short bodies that only cost as much as a brand new nice car..?

Best regards,

-a-

 

[carusoam]

Neither...

1) Both require transition training to do it right.

2) Being good with one doesn't automatically make a pilot good with the other.

3) One weighs more and has more power available. Neither will help when the pilot crosses the fence at 90...

4) Both require knowledge of how to control speed.  One is in mph, the other is in KIAS...both put the ASI in a place that is hard to read when looking out the window.

5) Having an AOA device is an interesting way to achieve the stall horn beep just prior to the tire's chirp. Mounting the AOA above the glare shield improves on the hard to read ASI....

6) I've had the opportunity to fly with a few NJM pilots in various Mooneys.  All can be landed with great control by their respective owners.

7) If fear of breaking something is a challenge: avoid the Long Bodies, they cost as much as house compared to the short bodies that only cost as much as a brand new nice car..?

8) Drop the gear and Set the flaps with flicks of a couple switches.  Setting the trim, another switch....  Long Bodies are easier to land....

Best regards,

-a-

[Bravoman]

As I have said before, I am amazed at how good the Bravo makes me look with landing. Never flew any other Mooney so no basis for comparison there. perhaps  flying a Saratoga for about 1000 hrs prepared me well with its long heavy nose. Have never been as good in the Toga though. Go figure!

[Loogie]

Every plane has different characteristics, the skills required to land them are directly proportional to airmanship, training and experience.  A/C like Mooney's are designed to have docile character, with proper instruction proficiency is easy to achieve in any model.  Experience counts when learning new skills, the ability to translate the proficient skills of flying one plane to another is a skill in itself.  Not every body learns at the same speed, hard or easy is a relative term to the individual.  I would say if you had a hard time learning to fly and land one due to instruction or lack of experience, doesn't mean you would not learn to land another plane quicker etc.. It could go both ways; I have checked out fighter jet jockeys that had a tough time, however their learning curve was faster than say a 100 hr doc that just bought a new Bo.

Short answer: it depends on experience, airmanship, and learning ability.  Short bodies have a quicker pitch pivot than a longer body model and less weight to deal with, heavier Mooney's are steadier but require different lead times to react to pitch etc.. All different skills but achievable for the average joe.   And they all require laminar flow to break up at landing so they stay on the ground (hold them off until they quit flying about 6 inches of the ground). 

[1964-M20E]

I've flown the E and the F and neither was any more difficult or easier to land than the other.  Working on going flying in an Ovation for comparison.

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

I have never flown a short body, only two K models and then M and R. I find the long body with a little weight in the back easier to make consistently good landings in than the mid body.

[jrwilson]

The op was asking about C or E vs F or J, but I recently transitioned from 12 years in a C to a K. I have found the K to be much easier to land consistently. The op mentioned the short body being "fidgety", which I agree with. I flew a J and an eagle a bit in college, and found the eagle easier than the J. More pitch stability the longer the body, at least I think so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Higher weight also adds to stability. Seems the fuselage behind the firewall grew 5-6" for the mid body and another (6"?) for the long body, so the tail is further away from the Center of Gravity, increasing it's effectiveness.

[Bennett]

I owned a K (261) for about 18 years, and now a J for about three years. I found that the K was actually a bit easier to land consistently vs the lighter J which seems more susceptible to crosswinds. I always kept a bit of power on for the K to maintain elevator authority with the heavier engine and longer nose. With that bit of power until touchdown, I never had a bounce. I land the J with power at idle, and at a bit lower speed at touchdown. Still, I've had a few bounces (minor) and one that I elected to go around to avoid a porpoise. The learning curve for the J was more difficult for me, and I am still experimenting with her to get that elusive "roll her on" that was easier with the K. Any power on and the J wants to float, and with San Carlos 2600' long, float is not good. Most of the time I can make the mid-field turn off, but any float or tailwind (towered airport that sometimes assigns the runway with mild tailwinds) can result in a longer landing run. By by the time I have owned her for 18 years I'll be better at it.

[MyNameIsNobody]

2 hours ago, jrwilson said:

The op was asking about C or E vs F or J, but I recently transitioned from 12 years in a C to a K. I have found the K to be much easier to land consistently. The op mentioned the short body being "fidgety", which I agree with. I flew a J and an eagle a bit in college, and found the eagle easier than the J. More pitch stability the longer the body, at least I think so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually he asked about LONG bodies and then re-stated that he meant mid-bodies...Define Figety.  I could not disagree more.  The Short body aircraft are a very stable platform and not Figety...unless that means stable.  A short body is an easy plane to land...with practice.  Once you get it I find it easier than a 172 or Cherokee in the wind.  If the longer the more stable...that settles it.  Long and Mid body birds are SUPER  and Spectacularly easy to land while short body birds are just "easy"...

Edited January 17, 2016 by MyNameIsNobody

[donkaye]

If speed is properly adjusted for weight, slope is maintained, power is smoothly reduced to idle as the flare is begun, and the the rate of flare is such that the airplane touches down with the stall waring sounding and just the slightest bit of lift remaining to grease it on, then all the Mooneys are easy to land.