How does Mooney handle the Stall?

[Skates97]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Most pilots are not aware of when their Mooney is stalled and continue to pull back lookjng for that big break in what is actually a deep stall. The plane is stalled when the nose starts to drop as you’re pulling back. For faa Private there is no need to go beyond that, it’s a full stall by definition. Pulling it further into a deep stall is just for fun. 

 

-Robert, cfii 

Depends on your definition of "fun." I did that on my first power on stall when doing transition training in my C/D. Had the stall, gave it one more tug, it immediately snapped over to the left and we were looking at the ground about 2,400' below us, CFI quickly recovered the plane after about a half a spin. The second time once I got the buffeting I pushed forward for a smooth recovery.

[PTK]

Two thongs about stalls in the Mooney. Be coordinated and don’t rush it when recovering from primary stall. It’s very important to be coordinated when practicing stalls. Primary stalls from a coordinated condition are a non issue. Left wing (in my Mooney) will break and start to drop. Recover and allow it to fly and don’t be in a hurry to level out. Give it time to fly again. If rush the recovery from primary stall it will enter a secondary stall and will drop the wing even more aggressively than primary stall. Don’t ask me how I know! But it does. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by PTK

[Yetti]

The stall strips are custom installed for each plane.   Some stall strips are better placed than others.    My F stalls very docile

[Releew]

A Mooney stalls like every other plane...... Its how deep you get into the stall that get pilots in trouble.  With the ball out of the middle and continuing to hold back on the yoke can get anybody into trouble really fast.  Practicing Approach and or Departure stalls without the hard wing break should be review by anyone providing a check ride with the advise on applying "quick recovery" techniques and not getting to the point of the wing drop.  What I see in new Mooney pilots is the Hard Tight bank when trying to fly a pattern after coming from a 172.  I'd bet the downwind to base and base to final get more pilots into trouble then the typical departure and approach stalls.

 

Rick  

[ArtVandelay]

12 hours ago, Skates97 said:

Depends on your definition of "fun." I did that on my first power on stall when doing transition training in my C/D. Had the stall, gave it one more tug, it immediately snapped over to the left and we were looking at the ground about 2,400' below us, CFI quickly recovered the plane after about a half a spin. The second time once I got the buffeting I pushed forward for a smooth recovery.

Your CFI should have had you at 6000’, recommended altitude (per POH) for slow flight maneuvers.

[Yetti]

I still think it is bad practice to teach "Hear the horn and keep pulling back"  That is not the muscle memory you want to develop.   Hear the horn and push down fast. 

Slow flight is good to teach.

I found much value to doing climb out configuration and having the engine pulled.    You have to push over fast to stay out of trouble.  find 100 mph configure the plane for glide and start working the problem.  Engine restart, find a place to put it down.   we did this at 2500 feet for safety.   It's going to happen fast at 1000 feet. 

 

[steingar]

The absolute last thing I was concerned about with my Mooney was the stall characteristics.  Its certificated in the Normal category, so they can't be that bad.  I for one did not buy a Mooney to fly slowly enough to stall the thing.  

I've read harrowing things about Mooneys in spins, and am not in any big hurry to try one of those.

[Marauder]

16 hours ago, PTK said:

Two thongs about stalls in the Mooney. Be coordinated and don’t rush it when recovering from primary stall. It’s very important to be coordinated when practicing stalls. Primary stalls from a coordinated condition are a non issue. Left wing (in my Mooney) will break and start to drop. Recover and allow it to fly and don’t be in a hurry to level out. Give it time to fly again. If rush the recovery from primary stall it will enter a secondary stall and will drop the wing even more aggressively than primary stall. Don’t ask me how I know! But it does. 

My plane doesn't wear thongs.

[Skates97]

5 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Your CFI should have had you at 6000’, recommended altitude (per POH) for slow flight maneuvers.

Are you talking about 6,000' altitude or AGL? While I can see the wisdom in being up at 6,000' AGL (more altitude equals more time for recovery), where in the POH does it state that? In both the 1965 (year of my plane) and the 1977 (most recent revision I can find) POH it does not state anything about recommended altitudes for slow flight maneuvers or stalls. The ACS standard is to select an altitude allowing the maneuver to be completed no lower than 1,500' AGL. While we weren't at 6,000' we did start the maneuver above 2,500' AGL which was well above the requirement and also allowed enough altitude for recovery.

[jaylw314]

49 minutes ago, Marauder said:

My plane doesn't wear thongs.

Ah damn, you beat me to it!

[Shadrach]

20 hours ago, Danb said:

Ross my Long body is much nastier in a stall than my two J's were, there's a chance the long guys will act as described, I had one spin encounter during a BFR,when it was called that, a few years ago, must respect the big guy..

My thinking is that some of that’s due to the  extra weight in the nose and some of it to aircraft to aircraft build variance. There was a C model on the field where I learned to fly. I did stalls with the owner and it would give a gentle buffet and drop the nose like a rollercoaster dropping into a decline. It was gentle, progressive and level. My F will stall gently but almost always drops to the left; how violently is dependent on configuration and power setting. I set out to do a clean, full power stall one day but the pitch angle got to be so rediculous and the broken deck below presented the real possibility of ending up in the soup during recovery. I decided it was a silly idea and nosed over at the first sign of buffeting.

[ArtVandelay]

Are you talking about 6,000' altitude or AGL? While I can see the wisdom in being up at 6,000' AGL (more altitude equals more time for recovery), where in the POH does it state that? In both the 1965 (year of my plane) and the 1977 (most recent revision I can find) POH it does not state anything about recommended altitudes for slow flight maneuvers or stalls. The ACS standard is to select an altitude allowing the maneuver to be completed no lower than 1,500' AGL. While we weren't at 6,000' we did start the maneuver above 2,500' AGL which was well above the requirement and also allowed enough altitude for recovery.

AGL obviously, this is from section 10 of the J POH:

 

My transition instructor (who was a AF Thunderbird pilot BTW), took me up to 8500’ AGL.

[Shadrach]

12 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

AGL obviously, this is from section 10 of the J POH:

 

My transition instructor (who was a AF Thunderbird pilot BTW), took me up to 8500’ AGL.

What was your instructor’s name?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Shadrach

[Skates97]

13 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

AGL obviously, this is from section 10 of the J POH:

 

 

My transition instructor (who was a AF Thunderbird pilot BTW), took me up to 8500’ AGL.

Interesting, what year is your J? I wonder what made them decide to add that to the POH and what year they started adding it. The only mention of altitude in the POH for the C's in relation to maneuvering is in the 1977 POH and is in regards to the amount that you will lose in a spin.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

AGL obviously, this is from section 10 of the J POH:

Hm...the POH for my J model doesn't have a Section 10.   1977 J, SN 24-0077, POH 1220.

[Danb]

Richard I'd bet the lawyers advised to add the 6000ft buffer.

[ArtVandelay]

Hm...the POH for my J model doesn't have a Section 10.   1977 J, SN 24-0077, POH 1220.

78, maybe not part of original, revision C. Revision D came out in 11-20-1980.

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

78, maybe not part of original, revision C. Revision D came out in 11-20-1980.

I have an electronic copy of Rev G of 1220, issued 3-7-84, still no section 10.    Apparently 1977 models are less hazardous. 

 

[ArtVandelay]

I have an electronic copy of Rev G of 1220, issued 3-7-84, still no section 10.    Apparently 1977 models are less hazardous. 
 

Newer ones do, see below, if you are missing it from 84 electronic copy, then someone probably got tired of scanning and stopped. I would discard that copy.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, teejayevans said:

Newer ones do, see below, if you are missing it from 84 electronic copy, then someone probably got tired of scanning and stopped. I would discard that copy.
 

I suspect you're not using POH 1220, which is for the earlier, 1977, S/Ns.   My Rev G of 1220 has the Rev G, 3-7-84, list of effective pages, which ends at 9-2.

[PTK]

5 hours ago, Skates97 said:

Are you talking about 6,000' altitude or AGL? While I can see the wisdom in being up at 6,000' AGL (more altitude equals more time for recovery), where in the POH does it state that? In both the 1965 (year of my plane) and the 1977 (most recent revision I can find) POH it does not state anything about recommended altitudes for slow flight maneuvers or stalls. The ACS standard is to select an altitude allowing the maneuver to be completed no lower than 1,500' AGL. While we weren't at 6,000' we did start the maneuver above 2,500' AGL which was well above the requirement and also allowed enough altitude for recovery.

POH or not the decision to intentionally risk spins in the Mooney at 2500 AGL is suspect. Your instructor should know better and you as PIC should also. You may wish to consider a Mooney specific instructor and/or the MAPA safety foundation seminars.

http://www.mooneypilots.com/calendar.htm

Edited January 23, 2018 by PTK

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, Skates97 said:

Interesting, what year is your J? I wonder what made them decide to add that to the POH and what year they started adding it. The only mention of altitude in the POH for the C's in relation to maneuvering is in the 1977 POH and is in regards to the amount that you will lose in a spin.

I am glad @teejayevans commented on your earlier remark about doing stalls in the Mooney below 3K AGL. But yes, the ACS just gives a minimum of 1500' for single engine and 3K' for multi - but its an absolute minimum limit and your expected to use higher when advised to do so such as by the the warming in the POH such as you may loose 2000' as you quoted out of your POH - surely that's suggesting the minimum in the ACS is not enough per manufacturer guidance. And of course if you have Section 10 then that makes are accountable for not doing stalls without being above 6K 

Should you attend one of our MAPA PPP's, such as the upcoming one in Henderson, NV in April, you'll learn we require in excess of 6K for stalls for all models,  just as the modern Mooney POH's suggest. In a high performance Mooney we can climb quick enough that using 9-10K' msl is a no brainer to ensure we have well in excess of 6K AGL. The other consideration as a CFI is, we want enough altitude that the pilot has some time to recover such that CFI doesn't have to take over if the pilot isn't immediate in starting the recovery. Otherwise there isn't much learning since our utmost priority to provide a safe environment for learning. 

As per Section 10, I don't know what year Mooney started adopting it. But recall sometime around 75 Mooney was pushed like all manufactures to replace their free format AFM manuals, and adopt the GAMA new standardized POH specification for content and format. As Mooney switched to the GAMA format, initially they didn't include Section 10 because it was optional, but obviously eventually they too included section 10 which contains a lot of valuable information in many areas in addition to stalls and spins. My later J model POH revisions in the 80's all have section 10.

Regardless if yours doesn't have it, I think its worthwhile to obtain the latest for your model just too see and understand all the enhancements that were made in subsequent  revisions. For the most part in my experience this equates to improved/refined and often additional  emergency procedures. Of course you'll also see a few things that may not pertain to your model, such changes in Vspeeds, gross weights etc, but you'll also see many refinements to procedures that do apply that will probably be of interest. 

 

 

[Skates97]

15 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I am glad @teejayevans commented on your earlier remark about doing stalls in the Mooney below 3K AGL. But yes, the ACS just gives a minimum of 1500' for single engine and 3K' for multi - but its an absolute minimum limit and your expected to use higher when advised to do so such as by the the warming in the POH such as you may loose 2000' as you quoted out of your POH - surely that's suggesting the minimum in the ACS is not enough per manufacturer guidance. And of course if you have Section 10 then that makes are accountable for not doing stalls without being above 6K 

I appreciate the input guys. My POH has no notes about anything regarding altitude for slow flight/stalls. What I quoted is out of the 1977 POH which I found and downloaded quite some time after purchasing my plane, completing transition training, and flying it a lot. Learning is a lifelong journey, you just hope that none of the mistakes you make along the way as you learn end your journey.

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, Skates97 said:

I appreciate the input guys. My POH has no notes about anything regarding altitude for slow flight/stalls. What I quoted is out of the 1977 POH which I found and downloaded quite some time after purchasing my plane, completing transition training, and flying it a lot. Learning is a lifelong journey, you just hope that none of the mistakes you make along the way as you learn end your journey.

Love your sentiment and couldn't agree more. One of the ways I personally learned the importance of plenty of altitude, as in lots of excess altitude, came not from stall practice but unusual attitude recovery. I like to give candidates a meaningful simulated runaway trim event and let them recover. Not wanting to take over too prematurely so that my candidate could learn the importance of a nose down unusual attitude recovery as the airspeed was building with nose down trim, my student was being way to gentle about pulling up and Va came and went and we were still accelerating towards redline. It was a never again moment for me since it took some time and a lot of altitude pulling up while ensuring we didn't over stress the wings. We both learned on that one and in only a C172. But if we didn't have lots of altitude we would have had to change more than underwear. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by kortopates

[EricJ]

You can check the latest rev of your pertinent POH here:

http://www.mooney.com/en/pdf/OM_POH_Pubs_Status.pdf

The 1977 J Model POH 1220 is still at the Rev G level, which is what I have and has no Section 10.   So the earliest J models do not have that in the latest POH.