Mooney grass strip

[tigers2007 662]

Still too daring for me. Now if I still had my C150 that would be a different story...

[Culver LFA 284]

Sometimes the wisdom here on Mooneyspace amazes me, and sometimes I just shake my head and whisper “please stop this thread” (before the people that are new learning about the capability of a Mooney regurgitate the garbage that spews from our mouths).

I have no experience with long-body, but I can assure you a mid/short body Mooney does very very well on short fields and turf.

[skydvrboy 737]

10 hours ago, ESPN168 said:

Thx for all fne respond. Removing door won't have an effect on speed? To what extend? 

Just to make sure you are still referring to the inner gear doors.  Removing the cabin door WILL have an effect on speed and is NOT necessary for landing on grass! 

[Cody Stallings 687]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Remove the inner gear doors and you’ll have no problems there. Does the Rocket feel that much more nose heavy than the F (I know it’s significant)? Are you able to make a gentle mains first touchdown and hold the nose off? At light weights does it feel that different? I think  4cyl mid-bodies are very easy to land gently and in short distances. Even at very slow speeds there’s an abundance of pitch authority (though I run out the nose up trim against the stoop when light with no baggage). I have to imagine that some of that is gone but might be countered with some weight in the baggage compartment.

It’s not hard to do a main first landing, however when slow it’s really hard to hold the nose off.

Its really heavy on the nosewheel, but not unmanageable. I believe I seen somewhere the Conversion added 130lb to the nose.

With 2 months worth of my wife’s baggage in the back for a weekend trip, it’s really no issue at all....lol.

Like you said the F Model was a dream on grass, but the SOB is a completely different animal to say the least.

[gsxrpilot 11,750]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

You seem to be implying that the grass caused the gear to fail. Undulating runways are not limited to grass and misrigged or worn gear does not care what it’s rolling on when it fails. The nose wheel axis was clearly moving for and aft a several inches before it failed. That gear was destined to fail the undulating grass merely hastened the process. 

That video actually looks like the J-bar came loose from the hold down block. If the gear had broken, they wouldn't have been able to set it back up on the wheels and push it off the runway. If the hold down block was worn out as can happen after 50 some years of use, that could easily happen. And like you (Ross) said, the grass wasn't the cause.

[Shadrach 3,573]

4 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

That video actually looks like the J-bar came loose from the hold down block. If the gear had broken, they wouldn't have been able to set it back up on the wheels and push it off the runway. If the hold down block was worn out as can happen after 50 some years of use, that could easily happen. And like you (Ross) said, the grass wasn't the cause.

Looking at that video, everything in the system looked slack, but I agree that the down socket likely as the major point of failure.  It does look like the front truss bushing is shot (front axle is moving for and aft prior to failure).  That much play in the system will load up components that were never designed for it.  The down socket is designed to hold the gear mechanism in the over center position, not support the full weight of the aircraft leveraging against it. 

That plane also looked as though it had been stored in the bottom of a bird cage (and this from a guy with original paint).

[Kris_Adams 317]

23 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

That video actually looks like the J-bar came loose from the hold down block. If the gear had broken, they wouldn't have been able to set it back up on the wheels and push it off the runway. If the hold down block was worn out as can happen after 50 some years of use, that could easily happen. And like you (Ross) said, the grass wasn't the cause.

That's what I was thinking too.  The mains folded right up along with the nose.  I hear the manual gear fans planning their rebuttal lol. 

[kortopates 4,231]

additionally, while looking at the video, its pretty evident the pilot had no clue about operating off a soft field. In taxing we can see the elevator was neutral. At take off the wing cuts out the view much of the time but we can see enough that there wasn't much back pressure on the elevator. That sure isn't helping. The plane might have been saved right there.

[FloridaMan 787]

No problem at all in my m20f. Even landed without a scratch in this field (gear is down, you just can’t see it)

[exM20K 567]

On 5/7/2019 at 11:09 PM, carusoam said:

Two things to be aware of...

• Length and moisture of the grass itself.  The grass has a tendency to adhere to the tires and adsorbs energy as it gets pulled off... this adjusts the T/O and landing distance in hundreds of ft....

 

• The squishy-ness of the soil beneath the grass... can’t be ignored... because it might keep the plane from moving...

 

PP thoughts only, not a CFI.

Best regards,

-a-

Does your Ovation POH have grass runway performance charts? My 2009 Acclaim POH has blank pages  "Pending Data."  I don't interpret this as a limitation, though.

-de

[carusoam 12,473]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

Does your Ovation POH have grass runway performance charts? My 2009 Acclaim POH has blank pages  "Pending Data."  I don't interpret this as a limitation, though.

-de

-de,

I just looked in my electronic version of a POH... and there is only one chart... (O2’s POH)

under the runway note.... it says paved, dry, level....

I was expecting (fuzzy memory) that there is a second chart (and assuming that would cover the soft field...) I will have to check the O1’s POH...

The 310hp’s STC only has one T/O performance chart, paved, dry & level...

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam 12,473]

@exM20K

Good news/bad news...

My memory retrieval is getting better! 

I remembered to bring in the paper copy of my O1’s POH...

The POH for the O1 has Two separate T/O distance charts... 

• Paved, dry, level 5-13
• Grass surface, short dry grass, level 5-14

Best regards,

-a-

[exM20K 567]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

@exM20K

Good news/bad news...

My memory retrieval is getting better! 

I remembered to bring in the paper copy of my O1’s POH...

The POH for the O1 has Two separate T/O distance charts... 

• Paved, dry, level 5-13
• Grass surface, short dry grass, level 5-14

Best regards,

-a-

Thanks.  What does the difference look like for your typical weight?

-dan

Edited May 14, 2019 by exM20K

[carusoam 12,473]

Dan, @exM20K

See if this works for you...

280hp O1 POH...

Data shared by a PP, not a CFI...

For better performance get the O3 numbers using the 310hp IO550...

Lightly Loaded, T/O distance goes from 1.2k’ to 0.8k’, when going 280hp to 310hp paved, level, dry...

No grass data for the O3 that I am aware of... (I haven’t looked either)

Best regards,

-a-

[patrickf 47]

We operate a long body O2 off grass in Aus. A lot of Mooney guys here would -the tar strips can be few and far between.

No real issues except you do lose elevator authority when you get slow so need to get it right first time and catch the mains to look after the front.

We have 800 feet of tar on one runway (YCAB) which we take any time we can. Can get off one up and light without using the grass but haven't managed to land on it yet !

I don't have any grass numbers in our POH so when I was doing my XL sheet I used these factors for ground roll - once you are off it doesn't matter:

https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-performance-7.php  - I'd stay away from the long wet grass

Anthony @carusoam my numbers come out to close to your book for short dry grass - certainly within the margin for error for the graphical/fat finger method !

Off POH Graph
Takeoff Distance	1539	ft
Takeoff Dist (50')	2928	ft
Surface	Dry short grass		1.1
Takeoff Distance	1693	ft
Takeoff Dist (50')	3082	ft

PatrickF

[carusoam 12,473]

Hey Patrick!

I was thinking of you while posting these graphs.

Grass seems like extra skill still needs to be required...

Proof I need more flight time, to re-build that level of skill... 

To be off the ground in 800’... that takes HP...

Since you are at 5,000’ msl...  turbo enabled HP...

A Long Body at 5,000 msl...  Go 310hp Acclaim... 

Joe Z had the only 310hp Acclaim that I was aware of... most are born with the 280hp IO550(g)

Got any consistent head winds to help out?

Let me know if you need any additional info regarding the grass chart posted above...

Best regards,

-a-

[patrickf 47]

@carusoam - Crossed info - we are at sea level (40') at YCAB !

800 foot of tar is just enough to get off if I'm solo with about 25 gallons on board - and not much else. And the sea breeze is usually good for a few kts. 

Grass at 5000' -  now that would be a different game ! One advantage we do have here - we are pretty flat.

I did the calc at 5000 to check my numbers against yours for the grass chart you have and it seems to match pretty well - which gives me some confidence on the factors quoted on that web site.

regards

[Shadrach 3,573]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

To be off the ground in 800’... that takes HP...

Since you are at 5,000’ msl...  turbo enabled HP...

Ha! A 200hp E will do that at gross (with little margin) at sea level.  If you dive into the numbers, I think you’ll find that the vintage 4 cylinder machines get up, off and out faster than most of the high horsepower brethren when operated at what would be considered useable weights.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Shadrach

[steingar 2,381]

8 hours ago, patrickf said:

@carusoam - Crossed info - we are at sea level (40') at YCAB !

800 foot of tar is just enough to get off if I'm solo with about 25 gallons on board - and not much else. And the sea breeze is usually good for a few kts. 

That's assuming everything is working at 100%.  Hopefully there's nothing big and solid to hit after that 800 feet in case something isn't working at 100%.

[patrickf 47]

30 minutes ago, steingar said:

That's assuming everything is working at 100%.  Hopefully there's nothing big and solid to hit after that 800 feet in case something isn't working at 100%.

All good @steingar - you may have missed it - we have another 4000 ft of grass after the tar before we get to trees.

Just a fun challenge to get off and avoid the bounce on the grass ! 

regards PatrickF

 

[Shadrach 3,573]

2 hours ago, patrickf said:

All good @steingar - you may have missed it - we have another 4000 ft of grass after the tar before we get to trees.

Just a fun challenge to get off and avoid the bounce on the grass ! 

regards PatrickF

 

Looks like you’ve a few 1000” of paved taxi way that would work as well.

[jaylw314 1,383]

14 hours ago, carusoam said:

Dan, @exM20K

See if this works for you...

280hp O1 POH...

Data shared by a PP, not a CFI...

For better performance get the O3 numbers using the 310hp IO550...

Lightly Loaded, T/O distance goes from 1.2k’ to 0.8k’, when going 280hp to 310hp paved, level, dry...

No grass data for the O3 that I am aware of... (I haven’t looked either)

Best regards,

-a-

That's interesting, I noticed the two charts specify the same takeoff speed.  I would have thought they would specify soft-field technique with grass takeoffs, which should have a slower takeoff speed?

• nose up attitude on roll
• take off and level off in ground effect
• increase speed to Vx or Vy before climbout

[steingar 2,381]

4 hours ago, patrickf said:

All good @steingar - you may have missed it - we have another 4000 ft of grass after the tar before we get to trees.

Just a fun challenge to get off and avoid the bounce on the grass ! 

regards PatrickF

 

That's all good.  I know too many people who cut it too damn close to the envelope.  Even the best stick is going to eat it if the mill ain't working right.

[Hank 8,250]

52 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

That's interesting, I noticed the two charts specify the same takeoff speed.  I would have thought they would specify soft-field technique with grass takeoffs, which should have a slower takeoff speed?

• nose up attitude on roll
• take off and level off in ground effect
• increase speed to Vx or Vy before climbout

I generally take off and land on grass just like I do on asphalt, except I use a lot less braking on roll out. Oh, the takeoff roll may be a little longer, depending on field conditions. Full power, 70 mph, rotate. If it's wet, I try to either not go there or wait for it to dry before leaving; if I really can't wait, I take off with just me, and meet pax / baggage at a paved field hopefully nearby. My Owners Manual doesn't have any soft field or short field procedures, and my normal paved runway takeoff has worked well on 2000' grass strips.

YMMV, PPL advice not a CFI, etc., etc. This is just what I do . . . .

[steingar 2,381]

Of course the real thing that bothers me about turf is most of the turf strips hereabouts are short and heavily occluded.  That's already a challenge, and trying a nice soft landing while you're at it just ups the ante.