Porpoising leads to gear collapse accident

[N9201A]

I’d love to come out and try it. The year that date worked for me, the clinic at KMTB filled up so quickly that I missed my opportunity. 
I appreciate the detailed explanation. If you look back at my previous posts you’ll see that I took no issue with nor claimed any specific insight into formation flying clinic flying or caravan flying. The basics of my post can be summed up in one question (1) and one statement (2).
1) Why is it standard operating  procedure in the formation clinic and the caravan to land at 90kts? To be clear the 90kt reference  made in this thread and others specifically stated landing as in touchdown, as in rolling on a flying airplane at 90Kts, not approaching. I simply wanted to know why as it seems a tad excessive.
2. Landing a Mooney significantly faster than stall speed does not require any special skill and my experience flying with other Mooney pilots is that it’s often the norm. I stand by my assertion that high speed landings have little to no utility outside of specialized operations. I believe that most mooney pilots would benifit from learning to slow down for approach and landing rather than learning to fly on to the runway at high speed.

I wasn’t attributing anything to you, but I see how my post may have led you to think that. I was trying to explain generally. Bob’s post is dead on: Fly final at 90, watch aircraft ahead, maintain spacing with throttle and attitude, and you’ll settle in nicely and safely when the wing stops lifting with good spacing for the folks behind you.

As for normal operations, I couldn’t agree more that there’s no reason for extra speed. For Mooneys in particular, our peers seem to find more ways to prang our kites than most from that.

I agree extra speed on final is very common. I’m less sure it’s more prevalent in Mooney pilots, just watching any few random landings will yield one or two offenders. Of course the consequences are worse for us as our birds are less forgiving of such hamhandedness.

Hope you can make a clinic sometime or at least connect with some of our formators near you who can take you up and show you what it’s about.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, N9201A said:

 

I wasn’t attributing anything to you, but I see how my post may have led you to think that. I was trying to explain generally. Bob’s post is dead on: Fly final at 90, watch aircraft ahead, maintain spacing with throttle and attitude, and you’ll settle in nicely and safely when the wing stops lifting with good spacing for the folks behind you.

As for normal operations, I couldn’t agree more that there’s no reason for extra speed. For Mooneys in particular, our peers seem to find more ways to prang our kites than most from that.

I agree extra speed on final is very common. I’m less sure it’s more prevalent in Mooney pilots, just watching any few random landings will yield one or two offenders. Of course the consequences are worse for us as our birds are less forgiving of such hamhandedness.

Hope you can make a clinic sometime or at least connect with some of our formators near you who can take you up and show you what it’s about.

 

You quoted me so I sort of assumed it was directed my way. 

The posts I was referring to were written by @gsxrpilot in this and other threads. I respect Paul’s insights a great deal and I was trying to coax out the reason for the 90kt touchdown in formation work and what (if any) utility it might have outside of formation work.

If you look at my previous post history or the videos I've posted, you’ll see that I’m an advocate for precise speed and pitch control. I've seen too many Mooney’s pranged over the years by folk of all experience levels. I know of three Mooney’s at my field that have left prop marks on our main runway, one of which ended up screeching off the departure end of the then 5000’ (now 7000') runway. All of these incidents were gear down R-LOC situations. One of the guys was a Navel Aviator and another a 3500hr ATP,  I don’t recall the third pilots details. None of the three were very experienced in Mooneys.  Several of the nearby dromes have similar stories. 

Mooneys land beautifully with proper speed management. Far too many end up in the weeds. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Shadrach

[jaylw314]

While I was doing my Mooney search, one seller demo'd his and pointed out his landing technique--over the numbers at 100 KIAS!

Needless to say, we floated about halfway down the 6100' runway, but he seemed comfortable with that. 

[HRM]

On 2/8/2018 at 1:23 PM, donkaye said:

 If the nose is held up, you can't bounce on it.

'zactly!

[DAVIDWH]

BOUNCE NO MORE :

1. No flaps.

2. Speed brakes activated.

3. Two throttle twists in the flare.

4. Continual back stick pressure .

Don't panic, two out the above four will set you down softly.

That tire squeak is so annoying....

[jaylw314]

You can indeed bounce with the nose held up.  Although the CG is in front of the main gear, if you hit hard enough, the nose will come down but will rebound off the rubber discs, pitching the plane up again.

It's not quite the same as bouncing off the nose wheel first, or bouncing a taildragger, where the bounce itself causes pitch up, but the result can be the same.  Aircraft with oleo nosewheels are probably less susceptible to this, since the oleo acts as a damper on both compression and rebound (I think).

Either way, treatment is the same--go around on the first or second bounce.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, DAVIDWH said:

BOUNCE NO MORE :

1. No flaps.

2. Speed brakes activated.

3. Two throttle twists in the flare.

4. Continual back stick pressure .

Don't panic, two out the above four will set you down softly.

That tire squeak is so annoying....

That's a unique set up for landing and something I would not recommend in my make in model.  I have no PIC time in the R, so I'll take your word for it. 

I've always thought of power on landings under normal ops as unnecessary at best.  Seems that the whole point is to be high drag and high AOA as the wing gently stalls in ground effect with the tires just above the runway?  Leaving flaps up leaves both drag and AOA on the table, and why add energy (power) to a situation where the goal is to dissipate it?  

About the only time I think power should be used in or near flare is when descending to the runway so close to stall as to not have adequate energy to arrest the descent.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Shadrach

[kortopates]

Actually to be really discerning on the terminology, we have bounces and we have porpoising. The distinction in porpoising requires the nose wheel to hit first on a bounce which then leads to increasingly nose high bounces until real serious damage or its corrected. Bouncing alone, off the mains, will still occur if the plane doesn't settle on the runway gently as wings are losing lift to support it. Thus one can bounce from stalling the wings up to high and falling out of the sky from several feet or just coming down too quickly without holding it off with too much speed and lift. But its the latter bounce with too much speed  while the wings still have plenty of lift that will very easily lead to porpoising if the pilot doesn't prevent (hold off) the nose wheel from contacting before the mains. 

I've seen a bad bounce rupture the rubber disk in the nose wheel from falling out of the sky! Flaring too high is the time to ease a bit of power back in to cushion the landing.

Frankly the Ovation is easier to land than vintage birds, its more stable. Although some people like to deploy speed  brakes in the flare I personally hate the idea of making any large configuration changes  while flaring (speed brakes or flaps). Just be patient and hold it off (unless its a very strong x-wind and then fly it on gently if really necessary). On the ground though I've been know to raise flaps and/or pop speed brakes on short fields but we have to be really careful - too many people have raised the gear intending to raise flaps for the ultimate short field approach (and not impossible in a Mooney as we've read about here as well).

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Actually to be really discerning on the terminology, we have bounces and we have porpoising. The distinction in porpoising requires the nose wheel to hit first on a bounce which then leads to increasingly nose high bounces until real serious damage or its corrected. Bouncing alone, off the mains, will still occur if the plane doesn't settle on the runway gently as wings are losing lift to support it. Thus one can bounce from stalling the wings up to high and falling out of the sky from several feet or just coming down too quickly without holding it off with too much speed and lift. But its the latter bounce with too much speed  while the wings still have plenty of lift that will very easily lead to porpoising if the pilot doesn't prevent (hold off) the nose wheel from contacting before the mains. 

I've seen a bad bounce rupture the rubber disk in the nose wheel from falling out of the sky! Flaring too high is the time to ease a bit of power back in to cushion the landing.

Frankly the Ovation is easier to land than vintage birds, its more stable. Although some people like to deploy speed  brakes in the flare I personally hate the idea of making any large configuration changes  while flaring (speed brakes or flaps). Just be patient and hold it off (unless its a very strong x-wind and then fly it on gently if really necessary). On the ground though I've been know to raise flaps and/or pop speed brakes on short fields but we have to be really careful - too many people have raised the gear intending to raise flaps for the ultimate short field approach (and not impossible in a Mooney as we've read about here as well).

 I've had hard landings that felt like the plane should have bounced, but excluding tundra tired bush machines, I've yet to see a Mooney actually bounce unless it was above stall speed. I'm sure it's possible, but I'm dubious that it would be flyable after...  

Edited February 13, 2018 by Shadrach

[steingar]

I did a formation fly in with Cherokees, and we came in at 90 mph (not knots, these were Cherokees after all).  That said, my Cherokee landed about 50 mph, so we came in fast for me.  Still, it was no big deal bleeding off speed in ground effect and putting her down.  I know the Mooneys will come in faster, but with gear out there's plenty of drag to get slowed down.  And heck, with hydraulic flaps you can get a bunch of that in a hurry if you need it.  Osh has got big runways, doesn't sound like a deal to me.  Heck, if the Bonanzas can do it...

[jaylw314]

45 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Actually to be really discerning on the terminology, we have bounces and we have porpoising. The distinction in porpoising requires the nose wheel to hit first on a bounce which then leads to increasingly nose high bounces until real serious damage or its corrected. Bouncing alone, off the mains, will still occur if the plane doesn't settle on the runway gently as wings are losing lift to support it. Thus one can bounce from stalling the wings up to high and falling out of the sky from several feet or just coming down too quickly without holding it off with too much speed and lift. But its the latter bounce with too much speed  while the wings still have plenty of lift that will very easily lead to porpoising if the pilot doesn't prevent (hold off) the nose wheel from contacting before the mains. 

I guess I was using "bounce" as not just landing hard, but in a way that causes a pitch-up moment.

My experience was a night landing where I lost depth perception and realized the ground was a lot close than I thought.  I pulled the nose up in time, and landed main gear first hard enough to make me go "oof".  The nose gear then came down hard, rebounded and pitched up to the point I was looking at the sky.  I was already in the process of a go around, but if I had tried to save that landing, I probably would have started porpoising.

On the other hand, I have landed hard with a fairly flat attitude (like with full flaps), and that does not result in a pitch-up moment, just embarrassment.

[Steve W]

So, for anyone interested, the current status of the aircraft is that the Insurance company wants a more complete inspection before they commit to repair, so hopefully in the next week or two we'll get it off the ground and in a hangar so the wing inspection plates can be opened, and the belly, nose and gear can be seen to make a more accurate repair quote and the insurance company can make their determination.

Personally, weather permitting, I'm going to be going up with a CFI starting next week in a 172 to work on the basics.

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, Steve W said:

So, for anyone interested, the current status of the aircraft is that the Insurance company wants a more complete inspection before they commit to repair, so hopefully in the next week or two we'll get it off the ground and in a hangar so the wing inspection plates can be opened, and the belly, nose and gear can be seen to make a more accurate repair quote and the insurance company can make their determination.

Personally, weather permitting, I'm going to be going up with a CFI starting next week in a 172 to work on the basics.

Glad to hear you're getting back up in the air. 

[aviatoreb]

On 2/9/2018 at 10:29 PM, jetdriven said:

Having to “push real hard” on a go-around to avoid a stall is an inherently unsafe condition. It requires you to do something unnatural to prevent a stall. Airplanes are designed to fly approach speed while trimmed and to require light and normal forces to correct the flight path or land, or go around.  By trimming it full up to avoid pulling the nose up in the the flare, you defeat this safe, stable condition.  Should you get startled and firewall it, say to prevent hitting a deer, or do a normal style go-around and your seat slides back, you now have an airplane trying to kill you.  

About 4 years ago this is exactly the condition that lead to a fatal in a Mooney M20..J I think it was.

So there was a really nice M20J that showed up at our airport and I walked around and around it admiring it.

The next day I heard in the news that the pilot and two young people had been killed nearby at Lake Placid, NY airport - the two young people were grad students from my university and the pilot was the dad of one them.  The dad apparently had just purchased the plane and was fresh from his transition training and had come up I think it was from North Carolina.

Long story short, LKLP is a bit of a trick airport with mountain terrain, and even the olympic ski jump structure that literally pokes up just a few hundred feet below the actual pattern, and terrain that hugs the glide path as you descend to the runway which makes a tricky optical illusion.  He needed to make a go around which upon doing it went just as you described above.  The airplane went to steep nose up, stall, and then smoking crater.  Perhaps he should have could have pushed on the yoke hard snd saved the day, and I know even in partly trim back position it is surprising to me how much force it takes to over come trim up, but it didn't work out that day.  Also if you need the seat forward, then under significant back pressure to maintain controlled flight what happens if the seat pins give way?  

[aviatoreb]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:35 PM, carusoam said:

VGs have an interesting task...

They are needed down low during landing...

They are unwanted up high in cruise...

until, they can become retractable....

On a TN’d plane, cruise can be in very thin air, making VGs almost invisible to the windstream...

Laws of nature actually working with the Pilot. 

Best regards,

-a-

The theory of VGs (vs the experimental practice - which might not always match perfectly) is not exactly as you said and isn't about thin air vs thick air,  It is about boundary layers.  Moving an object through a fluid there needs to be a boundary layer, a thin layer of fluid that is essentially stationary, attached to the body. Then also a transition zone between the boundary layer to the general fast moving fluid near the body. This is part of PDE theory - partial differential equations.

So imagine an airplane wing (or a ball or whatever) traveling through a fluid.  Then say maybe a 1'' layer of fluid touching the body is actually not moving (much). Then above that the next inch (I am making up off the top of my head the number one inch), progressively faster and faster fluid.

AND the thickness of that boundary layer grows as the body moves faster.  So say (making up numbers) its 1'' at 50 knots.  But 2'' at 200kts.

The idea of the VGs is they are completely hidden in the boundary layer and so supposedly negligible drag at cruise speed, but the tips of them do poke out of the thinner boundary layer of the wing when going slower, near stall speed.

And then they can do their job at slow speed which is to ad vorticity to the flow to help it stay attached longer, not only delaying stall, but also allowing the control surfaces to remain effective longer.  Crisp controls at slower speeds.

Do they actually not slow you down?  I can't say - I never made a before measurement since I added them at the moment I purchased the airplane since at that time I was intimidated by the fast mooney and wanted to slow down the airplane in the runway environment which I figure is a safety enhancement.

Yes I know that TKS slows down the airplane 5-8 knots but even if VGs slowed the airplane 5-8kts (and I have hear reports it has an effect of 0 to 2 knots from various people), that those numbers would not be additive.  The thing that slows the wing down is it looses its laminar flow, the earlier it looses it the worse the effect.  But once its lost, then you can't loose it again.  So if you loose your nice flow at the leading edge due to tks, then you will not suffer the full effect of loosing it further back by the time the Flow reaches the vgs.  BTW it looses the laminar flow at the TKS not due to roughness but due to the radiusing that is not matching the laminar flow wing.  It is a strip placed in front of the properly radiuses original wing.  If it could have been somehow embedded then there could be zero effect.  Also, the boundary layer will be much thinner at the leading edge that even a few inches back at the VGs so the roughness at the seam of the tks may be important.

My airplane is 6-10 knots slow to rocket-book speeds but I blame mostly the tks, and I also blame that book was done on a 252 with smooth belly etc, and I have a 231-rocket without that.

 

[carusoam]

Hmmmm...

Boundary layers measured in inches...! 

Air is a strange fluid.

The stuff has been unchanged for millennia, but it’s secrets are still not very well known...

Removal of the boundary layer is what makes a convection oven interesting.  Cooking a big turkey faster by forcibly moving the stagnant boundary air around the bird...

Boundary layers of slow moving high viscosity fluids are probably measured in microns...

This could keep the door open for @Piloto piloto’s lubrication theorem...  WD40 or RainX used for minimizing air boundary layers?

The strength of the boundary layer is incredible.  Essentially, it is responsible for the friction known as parasite drag.

Imagine for a moment... a wing being even more efficient by cutting through the air with less drag... like a hotter knife cutting through butter at a higher rate...

A simplified version of parasite drag is done by comparing flat plates of cross sectional areas...  adding an inch above and  below the plane’s known dimensions accounts for the boundary layer tax...

Since the classic CSA comparison already takes into account the boundary layers, removing the boundary layer would be akin to cutting an inch off the dimensions in all directions!  A small, but effective way, that Al Mooney used to make his plane faster and more efficient, less draggy, than the others.... but in this case, the cabin footprint doesn’t get smaller, just its drag gets smaller... 

Thanks Erik, for the applied transport phenomena reminders!  

Having a cup of coffee with the prof... makes you feel smarter?

Best regards,

-a-

[steingar]

22 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

About 4 years ago this is exactly the condition that lead to a fatal in a Mooney M20..J I think it was...

Last summer I was doing a bit of a landing safari that really wasn't going all that well.  No bent metal, but lots of bruised ego.  I went for one takeoff inadvertently and unknowingly having forgotten to reset the trim and flaps from the previous landing.  After securing the J-bar I looked over and was about 3mph away from a stall.

That said, I was high in the air, and I think a stall would have been recoverable so long as I stayed coordinated.  Still, got my attention.

[aviatoreb]

11 minutes ago, steingar said:

Last summer I was doing a bit of a landing safari that really wasn't going all that well.  No bent metal, but lots of bruised ego.  I went for one takeoff inadvertently and unknowingly having forgotten to reset the trim and flaps from the previous landing.  After securing the J-bar I looked over and was about 3mph away from a stall.

That said, I was high in the air, and I think a stall would have been recoverable so long as I stayed coordinated.  Still, got my attention.

Yeah - and that's the danger of trim in landing position.  Vs full aft trim which is much more significant.

[gsxrpilot]

This is why pilots should do full stop landing and touch and goes in all different configurations... Not just what's published in the POH!

I know I can take off in my 252 with full up trim, flaps, gear and speed brakes out. It's not easy, but I know I can climb out. Why? Because I've done it.  I did the same in my C when I had it.  I can also land with any flap configuration from full flaps to no flaps. I can land with full up trim and full down trim. There is no configuration that I can't land or take off in. And I know this because I do it regularly. And I can do all of this with the ASI covered up. That's what it means to know the airplane that you fly.

 

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

This is why pilots should do full stop landing and touch and goes in all different configurations... Not just what's published in the POH!

I know I can take off in my 252 with full up trim, flaps, gear and speed brakes out. It's not easy, but I know I can climb out. Why? Because I've done it.  I did the same in my C when I had it.  I can also land with any flap configuration from full flaps to no flaps. I can land with full up trim and full down trim. There is no configuration that I can't land or take off in. And I know this because I do it regularly. And I can do all of this with the ASI covered up. That's what it means to know the airplane that you fly.

 

I have done a take off in landing configuration and it is quite a handful to push against the force it creates on the yoke while correcting the trim preventing the airplane from doing what it then wants to do which is nose straight up.

I have not done it in full aft position, but I presume I am strong enough to over come that - but - I consider it a slightly risky practice maneuver to attempt single pilot - bring your pilot friend - since what if your seat pins give way?  This practice event might turn into a real emergency,  Luckily I am tall enough I can fly the airplane with the seat all the way back touching the back seat but still...

Edited February 26, 2018 by aviatoreb

[jlunseth]

I am on Don Kaye’s side of this equation.  Don’t get me wrong, I like to land at low speed, mine is 75 kts. in my 231.  But have had to go around twice in some 1200 landings, both times because I let myself get lulled into always landing that way.  In swirling, gusty crosswinds it is just a recipe for disaster, or at least for a go around, in my aircraft there just is not enough control authority to keep the aircraft lined up to the runway.  I need 85 or even 90 knots for that, and a different way of landing, fly the plane down to the runway, half or no flaps, pull the power and it will drop.

Holding the nose off will definitely prevent porpoising and will save landings.  Too many don’t really understand what that means though.  Too easy to hold the nose off until the moment of touchdown and then let the yoke go in that moment.  That will start a porpoise.  The nose doesn’t lever down, you the pilot let it lever down.  Then you are in trouble.  You can save some pretty serious porpoising simply by getting the nose back in and air and off the ground.  The plane may bounce on the mains once or twice, in anything approaching a normal landing that will not hurt anything.  The gear is strong, the plane will settle and the nose can be let down. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by jlunseth

[Mooneymite]

I still say, the best Mooney landing instruction you will ever get (at least for a short-body) is in a tail-dragger.

[ShuRugal]

When I did transition training in my C model, Lee warned me strongly about porpoising:  He said that bouncing on the Mains is fine, so long as the nose doesn't touch, but if the nose touches, you only get two free bounces, and the third one will net you a prop strike.

 

I've managed to avoid any porpoising bounces so far:  A few mains-only bounces, but even then I am ready to throw that power in if i feel the nose try and get in on the fun.  Going around costs less than a busted plane.

 

On 2/8/2018 at 6:14 PM, xcrmckenna said:

I’ve gotten in the habit of landing with only half flaps. To me it feels much more firm and easier to control. And I’m set up better for a go around incase I need it.

I've found that, unless it's gusty out, flying final at full flaps and 1.3 VSO (1.2 VSO for short field) works great.  Go-arounds really aren't a problem.  I'f I'm trimmed for a hands-off approach in this config, simply applying power puts me into go-around mode:  Power -> climbing -> gear up -> flaps to T/O -> 3-5 swipes on the trim wheel -> clean flaps -> 3-5 more swipes of trim.  Barely any pressure on the yoke required the whole time.

 

Only time i land at TO flaps is in strong/gusty winds.

On 2/9/2018 at 9:39 PM, gsxrpilot said:

I always retract flaps as soon as all three wheels are firmly planted. I guess it's how we were taught. My CFI told me about other CFI's who disagreed with him but he didn't see any reason not to clean up the plane rolling out after landing. So that's the way I learned and what I practice. 

I have also found that this is best for really smooth rollouts.  Once the plane is down, put the flaps away and weight shifts onto the mains (off the nose) and rollout practically manages itself.  Leave them out, and more weight stays on the nose, which makes it hyper-sensitive to the pedals.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

I still say, the best Mooney landing instruction you will ever get (at least for a short-body) is in a tail-dragger.

 

 

I'll second that, and add that the reverse is true as well.  I did a lot of hard-core PC flight simulation before i got into Real Planes.  After doing a couple rounds of transition training with Lee in my C model, I fired up the old simulator (DCS, if anyone is curious) and fired up the Mustang.  Now, prior to flying the Mooney, landing the Mustang was a real chore;  If I hadn't done it recently, I would usually bang it up pretty bad.  Applying the techniques I had just been taught for the Mooney to the 'Stang made a night-and-day difference.  I was immediately greasing landings, every time.  And after an evening spent practicing my technique there, I went out the next day for more training and was told that I had improved perceptibly.

[DXB]

12 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

This is why pilots should do full stop landing and touch and goes in all different configurations... Not just what's published in the POH!

I know I can take off in my 252 with full up trim, flaps, gear and speed brakes out. It's not easy, but I know I can climb out. Why? Because I've done it.  I did the same in my C when I had it.  I can also land with any flap configuration from full flaps to no flaps. I can land with full up trim and full down trim. There is no configuration that I can't land or take off in. And I know this because I do it regularly. And I can do all of this with the ASI covered up. That's what it means to know the airplane that you fly.

 

I’d like to think I know my bird pretty well, but compared to you, not so much.  Maybe there’s something to be said for keeping a ‘lil mystery in the relationship with the mistress? 

[jonhop]

11 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

When I did transition training in my C model, Lee warned me strongly about porpoising:  He said that bouncing on the Mains is fine, so long as the nose doesn't touch, but if the nose touches, you only get two free bounces, and the third one will net you a prop strike.

 

I've managed to avoid any porpoising bounces so far:  A few mains-only bounces, but even then I am ready to throw that power in if i feel the nose try and get in on the fun.  Going around costs less than a busted plane.

 

I've found that, unless it's gusty out, flying final at full flaps and 1.3 VSO (1.2 VSO for short field) works great.  Go-arounds really aren't a problem.  I'f I'm trimmed for a hands-off approach in this config, simply applying power puts me into go-around mode:  Power -> climbing -> gear up -> flaps to T/O -> 3-5 swipes on the trim wheel -> clean flaps -> 3-5 more swipes of trim.  Barely any pressure on the yoke required the whole time.

 

Only time i land at TO flaps is in strong/gusty winds.

I have also found that this is best for really smooth rollouts.  Once the plane is down, put the flaps away and weight shifts onto the mains (off the nose) and rollout practically manages itself.  Leave them out, and more weight stays on the nose, which makes it hyper-sensitive to the pedals.

 

 

 

 

I'll second that, and add that the reverse is true as well.  I did a lot of hard-core PC flight simulation before i got into Real Planes.  After doing a couple rounds of transition training with Lee in my C model, I fired up the old simulator (DCS, if anyone is curious) and fired up the Mustang.  Now, prior to flying the Mooney, landing the Mustang was a real chore;  If I hadn't done it recently, I would usually bang it up pretty bad.  Applying the techniques I had just been taught for the Mooney to the 'Stang made a night-and-day difference.  I was immediately greasing landings, every time.  And after an evening spent practicing my technique there, I went out the next day for more training and was told that I had improved perceptibly.

I couldn't of said it better... I've learned a lot from MooneySpace and this thread. @ShuRugal outlined many points that I would've made...

Here on MooneySpace, I've learned that porpoising is very bad in a Mooney but a bounce is different and as long as you hold the nose off it should settle gently on the runway. My landings while transitioning to the Mooney were a bit bouncy, as I was a bit fast on many occasions but my transition instructor let me recover by saying keep the nose up. I found myself flying it on during many solo sessions after my transition. I've still bounced my J numerous times, as it is easy to come in too fast... Hopefully those days are behind me--knock on wood...

On the other end of the spectrum, going back to my PPL training, I religiously trim the plane for fingertip flying. That includes Climb, Cruise, Descent, and Approach. Please note I didn't mention take-off or landing... For take-off, the Mooney is trimmed very well by the checklist/trim indicator. For landing, I can't see the need to deviate from the Approach trim setting--trim off all flap and power settings to allow a stable approach--to alleviate control forces when the focus should be on landing. Upon landing, my trim indicator is roughly halfway between the take-off setting and full-up trim, which leads me to my next potentially unpopular point.

Not to start flame wars but I am one who will perform a touch and go in my Mooney! I don't do it often but when I see an opportunity to do something fast or efficient, I'll take it. That's why most of us fly Mooney's after all... I can tell you from my T&G experience that during this maneuver, my left thumb is on the trim down button when reconfiguring from landing to take-off while my right arm is dumping flaps and pulling open the cowl flaps. Otherwise, the nose up and forward push is significant--lessons learned in T&G operations. That said, the procedure is not for everyone but considering @jetdriven's point regarding full-up trim... I'd hate to have to add the push of full-up trim to my operating procedures or a need to go around, as my approach trim up is readily apparent and forceful on throttle application. 

Caveat emptor, I'm a PPL with less than 300hrs total time so YMMV...