Mooney land article on how to land a Mooney

[Desertdoc75]

I'm sure others have seen and possibly have opinions on this, but I just ran across this article:

http://www.mooneyland.com/how-to-land-a-mooney-properly/

Does anyone use the low RPM setting recommended in this article on their older Mooney?

It's interesting and hold merits from a propulsion standpoint, but dropping the RPM to 1900 just seems foreign to me?!?!

 

 

[rainman]

The late Richard Zefro "Zef" wrote that article. He was a local here in central Texas prior to his passing from health problems. I have used his method, and his advice on standard rate turns in the pattern require a wider pattern. He was a Mooney promoter who constantly reinforced the need for speed control. He also bragged about winning a spot landing contest in a Mooney emphasizing speed control.

[donkaye]

16 hours ago, Desertdoc75 said:

I'm sure others have seen and possibly have opinions on this, but I just ran across this article:

http://www.mooneyland.com/how-to-land-a-mooney-properly/

Does anyone use the low RPM setting recommended in this article on their older Mooney?

It's interesting and hold merits from a propulsion standpoint, but dropping the RPM to 1900 just seems foreign to me?!?!

 

 

The author "tries" on this article.  Some of it is decent, but in general he misses the point on how to land a Mooney correctly EVERY TIME.  Yes, I teach using low RPM to avoid using less MP than 15" on descent.  Although "Shock Cooling" is a myth per the Advanced Pilot Course, you still want the engine to run the prop and not the other way around.  RPM is just as good a way of reducing power as reducing MP.  Remember the "Key Numbers" discussion?  3 of any combination or inches of MP or 100s of RPM gives approximately a 10% reduction in power.  So a 300 RPM reduction will reduce power to the same extent as a 3" MP reduction.

[carusoam]

Don,

Thanks for quantifying the relationship between the MP and RPM in the key number equation...

I was looking for something like that the other day...

As we were discussing RPM choices during cruise.

The O gets exactly 30hp (280hp to 310hp) roughly 10%, but only uses 200 rpm to do it. (2500 to 2700rpm)

I have to think about this some more... then build a new chart...  

Best regards,

-a-

I always like to read whatever Zef wrote. I also see an MSer in the comment section at the end of that article...

@ryoder was that you back in the day?

[mpg]

His style and chattyness of writing bogged me down and was hard to get..

[carusoam]

Expect part of his writing style is trying to fit a tremendously wide demographic, covering a wide geographic area as well.

Another part of his style is trying to sell his services.  Or, not oversell his services...

He only got to deliver in a One way, dissertation style...  not the two way conversation we get to have here at MS today...

A third part doesn't match the technical level we may have become accustomed to over the past decade.

Either way, it was better to have him, than to not have him... His expertise will be missed...

Fortunately, we get the option to choose who we read, and who we don't... for a really funky style of the same era, read the old MooneyMart articles...that grew into an entire monthly magazine...

Best regards,

-a-

[donkaye]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

Don,

Thanks for quantifying the relationship between the MP and RPM in the key number equation...

@ryoder was that you back in the day?

Deleted

[wcb]

So my RPM yellow are starts a 2000 and the placard says avoid continuous use between 2100 and 2350.  Is there an issue with dropping below.  I am willing to give the 1900 RPM a try like the article says, but just was unclear about the usage under 2350 or any length of time.

Edited September 18, 2017 by wcb

[Vance Harral]

17 hours ago, donkaye said:

Although "Shock Cooling" is a myth per the Advanced Pilot Course, you still want the engine to run the prop and not the other way around.

Don, can you expand your thoughts on this?  John Deakin - who is on the APS staff - says concerns about the "engine driving the prop" in flat-4/6 engines are just as much of a myth as shock cooling.  See https://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/186778-1.html

[jetdriven]

OWT or not I don't do it. When the engine is driving to prop the pressure on the Pistons is always positive. But when you pull the throttle all the way off at a higher speed, the prop drives the engine and now there's negative pressure on top the Pistons.. because of that you get ring flutter and I've seen a lot of broken rings from airplanes with a pilot who likes  pull the power off suddenly. With good technique and proper planning you can avoid it. 

[Hank]

20 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

OWT or not I don't do it. When the engine is driving to prop the pressure on the Pistons is always positive. But when you pull the throttle all the way off at a higher speed, the prop drives the engine and now there's negative pressure on top the Pistons.. because of that you get ring flutter and I've seen a lot of broken rings from airplanes with a pilot who likes  pull the power off suddenly. With good technique and proper planning you can avoid it. 

Yep, it's easy, just descend power on until slowing for pattern entry. 500 fpm puts me at 170 mph, just below the yellow. And it makes up for the slow climb at the beginning of the trip.

[DonMuncy]

9 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Don, can you expand your thoughts on this?  John Deakin - who is on the APS staff - says concerns about the "engine driving the prop" in flat-4/6 engines are just as much of a myth as shock cooling.  See https://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/186778-1.html

Bob Kromer (at one time he was Mooney's production test pilot) said they used a torque meter between the crankshaft and prop, so they could see when it went from "engine pushing prop" to "prop pushing engine". However, if you are saying that there is no problem with the prop pushing the engine, I have no knowledge about that. 

[jclemens]

Try letting the prop drive the engine in a C-421 (or any other gear deducted engine) and see how expensive it gets.  Most pilot's strive for bigger and better things, learning bad habits that won't harm the plane your in is not good for that goal.

[Bob - S50]

9 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

Bob Kromer (at one time he was Mooney's production test pilot) said they used a torque meter between the crankshaft and prop, so they could see when it went from "engine pushing prop" to "prop pushing engine". However, if you are saying that there is no problem with the prop pushing the engine, I have no knowledge about that. 

And what did they find?

[Mooneymite]

Does anyone else find all the mystique about "how to land a Mooney", a little silly?

The Mooney is not a peculiar airplane in any way.  It flies very nicely, exhibits no mean characteristics and lands (and flies) pretty much like any other certificated general aviation tricycle gear airplane.

Or am I oblivious to its treachery?

[Hank]

The treachery is that if you add a few knots "for safety," it can bite, especially if you are impatient during the ensuing float and try to force a landing. There's just not enough drag for a simple, quick recovery ftom a botched (fast) approach . . . 

Fly right, and landing is a breeze. I transitioned with 62 hours in my logbook, landing wasn't especially difficult. 

[steingar]

I tend to think about insurance rates.  Those guys have quite a bit of expertise evaluating risk.  So are Mooneys insured at a rate commensurate with trainers of similar hull value?

[ArtVandelay]

Does anyone else find all the mystique about "how to land a Mooney", a little silly?
The Mooney is not a peculiar airplane in any way.  It flies very nicely, exhibits no mean characteristics and lands (and flies) pretty much like any other certificated general aviation tricycle gear airplane.
Or am I oblivious to its treachery?

I've never flown a Bonanza, but from what I hear, they are much easier to land, hard rubber pucks vs oleo struts, I'd take the latter.

[N201MKTurbo]

35 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

I've never flown a Bonanza, but from what I hear, they are much easier to land, hard rubber pucks vs oleo struts, I'd take the latter.

I like the Mooney landing gear. I can feel when the wheels start to flirt with the pavement. You can't feel that with oleo strut airplanes.

I was flying an A36 the other day and I used my Mooney technique and reduced power to 20 inches on the 45. That plane almost turned into a brick. You have to carry a significant amount of power all the way down. It slows down very rapidly. It is way more forgiving of poor speed management on final then the Mooney.

I think learning in a Mooney has the advantage of not allowing you to develop bad habits with your speed control.

[Mooneymite]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

The treachery is that if you add a few knots "for safety," it can bite, especially if you are impatient during the ensuing float and try to force a landing. There's just not enough drag for a simple, quick recovery ftom a botched (fast) approach . . . 

The exact same thing can be said for many aircraft....up to and including jets.  Speed control is not peculiar to the Mooney.

The Mooney just helps form good, general flying skills.

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

And what did they find?

I forget the exact number (or numbers), but somewhere around 14 inch MP, the prop starts pushing the engine. Bob was/is a fine pilot and has a lot of good information. I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, but his facts are great. Ie. I fully believe the part about the prop driving the engine, but I am not sure that is necessarily that bad.