Shortest runway landing

[Vref]

520 meters=1700 Feet in a J for me ...didn't like the hiway, building in short final and hi tension lines immediatly after take off..;-)..but hey a nice place to learn to fly a mooney..;-)) and doing touch and go's where the go has a different meaning then on a 3000 Ft rwy..;-)

 

[jdrake]

Routinely visit Andover-Aeroflex in North Jersey in my J.  The runway is just shy of 2,000 feet with lakes on both ends.

As others have mentioned, just being on speed makes it a breeze.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/12N

[201er]

I've landed at Andover-Aeroflex as well. It's not the landing but the takeoff that has me sweating! I take off and then turn left 30 degrees to go diagonal across the lake and aim for shorter trees to climb over it all. But with no obstacles, the landing is very reasonable.

[jetdriven]

Landing distance isnt so much a big deal, but the takeoff performance in a J isnt really very hot. Even an Arrow which has the same engine gets off the ground better than a J.

[201er]

So it's not just me?? I used to fly an arrow before the Mooney and the takeoffs/landings became much longer and far more challenging in the Mooney. Also I don't know if it's just my Mooney but the brakes on the arrow allowed me to land and stop witihn 1000ft but in the Mooney I end up overshooting taxiways I want to get off at. I don't think I can land and stop the Mooney in anything less than 1500ft even with perfect power management. This is where the shortness of runway becomes an issue. You know you can land in that much but your margin of error goes way down.

[mooneygirl]

The airport that I flew into with Maggie that made me have a pucker factor was Sonoma Sky Park in Northern California. I believe the runway is 2400 and change and 40 feet wide.  For me it was the eucalyptus trees at the approach end that gave me pause.  I just put in a couple pumps of flaps on final, then when I cleared the trees put all the flaps in.  The word from the locals:  if you aren't down by the "S" in Sierra on the runway, go around. If there are eucalyptus leaves in your gear after landing, increase your angle of descent. HA

I actually did fine both times I have gone into Sonoma Sky Park.  At Oceano,  my home, I never have had a rockstar landing, the kind I do my Happy Mooney Landing Dance after, but I give myself a B+ most times.  As mentioned on this thread.  Speed control, speed control, speed control.

You all need to come and practice landing at Oceano on December 3rd from 10-2. Bring a new unwrapped toy with you!! [wink wink].  T4T day.

[sapientia]

My first post; I am currently obtaining my PPL and hope to buy my first plane by next summer.  Some type of Mooney is my choice so far.  The closest airport to my home is roughly 15-20 minutes away at an elevation of 3500' in the middle of the Appalachian mountains - Boone, NC.  The runway is listed as 2100' but it does have a 500 ft threshold that isn't included in the 2100'.  Aside from budget this will be my biggest limiting factor in which plane I choose.   Currently, my hope is to buy a low time Mooney Rocket and update avionics and interior if necessary.  I realize a lot can change between now and next summer but I have to start somewhere.  I should have my private by the end of November.  I will then proceed to get my instrument and high performance-complex certifications.  When the time comes I am hoping this forum can help me in my decision process; it is certainly much more involved than buying a car!

[MARZ]

Quote: Mazerbase

I live near Kennedy Space Center with a very long runway for the ex-shuttle but I want to know where you land on a 23,000 ft (4.4 miles) runway!

[Jerry 5TJ]

I landed the "C" a few years ago at Mather (MHR) which has 11,300 feet of concrete poured back in the B-47 era.    I think that's short, you ask?    The cross-wind was quite steady and above 30 knots.  There was no way to hold the centerline on final without lowering the wingtip well below the wheels.  So, I turned base a second time and landed going across the runway.  It is 300 feet wide and there was no problem, in fact I needed to add power to roll the rest of the way "across" and onto the taxi apron.

 

[thinwing]

Its the really long runways that wierd me out.I go into kmcc alot due to cheapest fuel arround and friends and museum business .Any way on this 11400 ft runway..speed control is a must....keep the speed up (LIKE 120 kts )Than just plan the flare over the #S and  and   and float  float float a couple miles in ground effect and you done.Since the self serve pump is all the way down at the end of this monster runway it saves a lot of wear and tear on the tires doing a lot of taxing.Works every time..kp couch

[TonyPynes]

My home airport KGSO has a 9000 and 10000. it is the airport I learned to fly on and I have taxied with the nose off the ground for half the length for practice when I was having trouble with flaring.

I usually look for 3000 footers or better if available as I am new pilot.

On my recent flight back from Texas I landed at Abernathy in Pulaski-Giles which gave me cause to focus a bit and I had to do an overflight first. It isnt very short at 5000ft but does come with a quarry on one end.

You are warned: ROCK QUARRY APROX 1000' FM RWY 34, ADV NTC GIVEN TO ARPT WHEN EXPLOSIVES ARE SCHED

And when I flew in there it seemed to me the quarry was more like 100 feet to the end of the runway. But I am sure it was just my imagination.

Anyway, flying over the quarry I kept envisioning a scifi movie where a big worm would raise up just before I cleared the quarry and was on final and eat the plane up. I am happy to report it didnt happen.

[MARZ]

Quote: jerry-N5911Q

I landed the "C" a few years ago at Mather (MHR) which has 11,300 feet of concrete poured back in the B-47 era.    I think that's short, you ask?    The cross-wind was quite steady and above 30 knots.  There was no way to hold the centerline on final without lowering the wingtip well below the wheels.  So, I turned base a second time and landed going across the runway.  It is 300 feet wide and there was no problem, in fact I needed to add power to roll the rest of the way "across" and onto the taxi apron.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Yes, I was literally a mile left of centerline and still on the runway...

[flyboy0681]

Quote: Mazerbase

I live near Kennedy Space Center with a very long runway for the ex-shuttle but I want to know where you land on a 23,000 ft (4.4 miles) runway!

[jasonwojo]

When we go to the lake, we land right next door at Council Grove (K63).  One of the runways is a 1690x75 grass strip that is humped in the middle (the other is 1845x120, same hump since they intersect in the middle).  Elevation is 1,409 ft.  Never had any issues landing either of the Rockets, or the 201, there.  We have landed on both runways.  Usually able to get them stopped pretty quickly with room to wiggle.  Take offs use a good chunk of runway when a little heavy, though.  Fortunately, there are some outs when departing away from the lake.  Make some noise over the big house with the green roof on the South side and they will pick you up...  

[jetdriven]

Wow, 1690 on grass is really short.  I'm impressed you did this with a 201.  What was the temperature outside and your takeoff weght?

[johnggreen]

Interesting thread.  With my Bravo, I'm nervous with anything under 3,000'.  Understand, I'm no virgin to STOL operations having flown Helios, Cubs, and Maules all my life.  I flew a Twin Bonanza for years (a light one that had not been modified with any weight gaining mods like air stair doors).  That airplane would land, stop, and take off in significantly less runway than my Bravo's take-off run.

The runways at my home base, GNF, intersect.  There is 1,600' on Runway 22 from threshhold to the crossing 13-31.  Not once in five years, regardless of headwind, have I been able to get off on 22 or land on 22 without crossing 13-31 by several hundred feet.  The Twin Bone would land, stop and take off in the same space.  My F-33 Bonanza would as well.

The problem with the take-off run of the Bravo is probably a prop designed for speed; which it delivers.  Initial acceleration sucks and almost nothing is more important to take off run than static thrust.  On a Helio, there are two engines avaliable; the geared GO-480 and the direct drive O-540.  I've owned both.  The GO-480 takes off significantly faster than the O-540 because the GO-480 is geared and the static thrust from the slower turning prop is significant.  BTY, the Twin Bone uses the same geared engine.

The big limitation in landing the Bravo is brakes.  Above 40 I can't touch them without sliding the main tires.  I did once to make a turn off and scrubbed through to the cord in about 100'.   Had to replace both main tires; FROM ONE LANDING YET! 

I've pondered the possible causes and had pretty much figured the culprit to be extreme ground effect due to the closeness of the wing to the runway, but recently a pilot friend offered another clue.

This guy is not only high time, ex-AF, and retired Fed Ex, he has built five airplanes.  Currently he owns a Legal Eagle and a Zenith.  He's been tweaking both for max shrot field performance.  He suggested that gear geometry may be the culprit.  My Bravo sits nose high with a significant positive chord angle to the runway.  He therefore surmises that I am producing a lot of lift even after touchdown and retraction of flaps.  I think he may be right.

If so, there is nothing to be done.  You certainly don't want to place anymore weight on the nose wheel during landing and roll out.  If you had to vote on the weakest link in the Mooney chain it would certainly be the gear.

So, it seems, that I must content myself to 3,000', maybe 2,500' when light.  Besides, I still have a Cub when I want to land in a pasture.

JG

 

[MooneyMitch]

Hello JG.

Seems that possibly your speeds are a bit too fast for your Bravo landings given the amount of runway you are using.  Folks on MooneySpace have given Bruce Jaeger lots of kudos for his Mooney specific instructions.  Maybe you could at least confer with him about some possible information with landing distances/aircraft configuration/speeds. 

Jolie and I met him last year at the MAPA convention and he seems very approachable.  www.jaegeraviation.com 

Happy Mooney flying. 

[johnggreen]

Mitch,

Speed control is critical on every airplane and super critical on a Mooney.  When I am approaching and transitioning to flare with no float, then immediately touching down with the tail nearly dragging, and stall warning blaring, there really isn't much else one can do.  I asked my mechanic if my idle might be a tad too high and he said that it was right where it should be.  The other critical aspect to landing safety is "landing attitude".  If you never heard the term, think of someone banging a tail on the runway (if they didn't stall first) or wheel barrowing down the runway on the nose gear; both are incorrect landing attitudes.  If you are touching down with the proper landing attitude, your touchdown speed is correct or you wouldn't be touching down.

I talked to an aeronautical engineer once about the Mooney float and he had done a research paper for a doctorate on ground effect.  A lot of the issue of the Mooney float is certainly tied to the fact that you simply don't have any significant induced drag from the Mooney wing at touchdown because of the wing's proximity to the runway.  I have read that the frontal area (parasite drag) of a Mooney is less than four square feet so until you can get on the brakes, there is almost nothing slowing you down.  All you can do is go along for the ride.

Until a couple of years ago, the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook had a great graph showing the % reduction of induced drag coefficient in relation to ratio of wing height to span h/b.  It is really interesting to read.  The reduction is exponential and dramatic as you near the surface.  The graph shows that at 7 % of the span above the runway (about where the Mooney wing sits) you have achieved a 95% reduction in induced drag as compared with flying out of ground effect.  Thankfully, I have an old copy FAA-H-8083-3.  If you see one, grab it.

Another consideration is that the Mooney's laminar flow wing is not nearly as predictable in slow speed behavior as the "fatter" wing of a Cessna or Beech. I am very careful about slowing below 1.3 VSo on approach.  A Mooney is a good, stable, safe airplane, but if you fly it like a Skylane or a Bonanza, it will kill you and does quite often as clearly shown by accident reports.  I don't drag the airplane in and am not going to start.  Anytime I need to demonstrate my slow flying skills, I can always roll out the Cub and do a drunk farmer act.

We should also keep in mind that the Mooney airframe and gear was built around an airframe that in the early days grossed less than 2,600#.  My Bravo has never seen 2,600#.

I'm afraid that there is really no solution.  Landing short is of no use if you can't then take off.  My takeoff and landing rolls are about the same.  I have a fast, efficient, high altitude airplane that won't follow a Bonanza or Skylane into a short or rough field.  After all, every airplane is indeed a compromise.

JG

[jetdriven]

John, your analysis is right on.  The only thing us Mooney pilots can do is raise the flaps as soon as possible.  You can even do it in the flare, Im not advocating it as SOP, but for a <2000' runway, sure is safer than running off the end.

[Shadrach]

John, There's some really good info in your post about ground effect and induced drag.  However, I disagree with you about the danger of flying Mooneys at <1.3 * Vso.

I fly my F into and out of an 1800ft grass strip as well as an 1800ft with a 277ft dsp threshold and a 2.1% downhill gradient.  Full flaps and 1.1 * Vso on short final for short field work is the only way to do this. I've been doing it for years and it has not "killed me" or even come close.

What do you mean by this statement?

but if you fly it like a Skylane or a Bonanza, it will kill you and does quite often as clearly shown by accident reports.

Please give me some examples of the accident reports that you're referring to? We lose far more Mooneys to pilots who are afraid to...or simply don't know how to slow down then we do to folks flying too slow on approach. 

I appreciate your experience, but I think you're doing a disservice to others that might take it as gospel. "dragging" a money into the round-out under power is poor technique. For short fields, by the time the plane is short final, one should be maintaining 1.1*Vso with pitch, wing unloaded in the descent and full aft elevator in the flare. There is no float and ground effect will help arrest the descent. It works and it works well. The only downside is that to the unaccustomed it feels a bit like you're falling towards the ground, but that's a comfort issue, not a safety issue. 

[gregwatts]

Cat Cay, Bahamas in a 68 C model. Landing not an issue....taking off required every inch of runway plus staying in ground effect over open water and a change of underwear. 1100' according to my Bahamas guide. That was my "never again" moment....now I know what those numbers in the POH are for.

[johnggreen]

Shadrach,

I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to expand on my views.  First, let's talk about "our" airplanes.  Your F model grosses out at 2,740#.  Fill your F with fuel, four people and 600# of sandbags and you will have the gross of my Bravo.  With myself and unusable fuel, I weigh more than your gross.  Other than wing tips, our wings are identical.  Now, that being said, neither your nor my Mooney's laminar flow wing behaves anything like a Cessna or Beech (Bonanza).  The stall characteristics and recovery characteristics are completely different.  I think one of the great disservices to Mooneys is that people shy away from the fact that they do indeed behave differently and certainly not as begnin as either of the other two airplanes.

First, allow me to give myself a modicum of qualification about the subject.  I stall and spin an airplane probably 100 times a year. I am not an aerobatic instructor (I am an instructor though not particularly active) or an airshow pilot, but I think that I have a somewhat better understanding of airplanes in the stall/spin configuration than the average general aviation driver.

When the laminar flow wing of the Mooney stalls, it gives less warning and a less predictable break than any Cessna or Beech I have ever stalled including a Beech 18.  We won't talk about Barons because they will kill you in an instant with an inadvertant spin.  Recovery in the Mooney is different as well.  Stall a Skylane and all you need to do to recover is lower the nose and fly out.  The Mooney takes a very definite pitch down with a full recovery.  If you fail to do this, you will likely enter a secondary stall that, if you are lucky, will merely scare the hell out of you.  It is my opinion that many Mooney accidents are a result of an incomplete recovery after an inadvertant stall.  With the significant pitch down, the pilot sees the ground, something that you will almost never see in a Cessna.  He pulls back before a full recovery, enters a secondary stall, and likely a spin.

I have and will spin a Skyhawk or Skylane without a second thought.  The straight tail Bonanza is not far behind, but unless it is the aerobatic model, I had rather not.  I wouldn't spin a Mooney if you held a gun to my head and don't know anyone who will or even has other than for certification.  Several years ago, the airshow pilot, flying expert, Gene Biggs developed a hands off stall procedure that he went on to prove by stalling and recovering almost every general aviation airplane he could lay his hands on and some war birds.  To my knowledge Gene did not spin the Mooney.

As for accident reports, I would strongly recommend that any responsible pilot review the NTSB accident reports for his airplane to see in what flight mode and how pilots bend them.  Mooney reports are rife with examples of losing control in the takeoff and landing mode.  I will here relate statistics that are readily at hand and reported by, I think Flying magazine, a few years ago.

Based upon fatalities per flight hour, you had (for the time period reported) twice the chance of getting killed in a M20J as a Skyhawk and a 60% higher chance than in a Skylane.

Those, my friend, are not insignificant numbers.  This is not a condemnation of the Mooney.  85% of fatal airplane accidents are pilot error.  Proper "aircraft specific training" is essential in all airplanes but especially in a Mooney; hopefully, that will be with an instructor who has actually done a spin and understands them.  I don't know why it seems to be such an irritant to point out the fact that the Mooney has "different" flying characteristics than a 172.  One problem is that most pilots are indeed trained in more benign aircraft and never understand the significance of stepping up to the Mooney.

So, I must not only stand behind my statement but reiterate it.  If you fly a Mooney like a Cessna or Beech (Bonanza) it will kill you.  I hope you will not take my rather agressive stance personally.  I certainly do not mean it as such.  I simply see a serious and consistent refusal of Mooney owners to admit the obvious differences of their airplanes.

Thank you,

JG

 

 

 

[jetdriven]

I seocnd John in this, a Mooney with its laminar flow wing does not stall like a 172 or even a Bonanza. You must unload the wing to reattach airflow, and carefully load it up again.  A secondary stall is violent. If you stall a Mooney anywhere near the ground its very likely to kill you. It just goes down like a stone. You must add power and lower the nose if getting near a stall situation. Point being fly this thing like a jet, hard on the numbers and have a healthy respect for the stall. As Ross says, you can land it short and at 1.1 Vso, but you must be very precise with airspeed control and G-loading. There is no "stretching the glide" if behind the power curve. The drag curve there is very steep. It ends suddenly.

The highest time Mooney pilot in the world, Joel Smith, was killed in a 201.  They stalled turning to final.  He had 25,000 hours in Mooneys, and if you look in your airframe logbook page 1, likely his signature is there.  Here is some good reading starting on page 30. Credit to Coy Jacobs and MOA for the article, found in Sept 2004 Mooney Pilot.

http://www.moapilot.com/pdf/Sept04/Sept04ALL.pdf

[N33GG]

John Green and jetdriven: Harrumpf! Spot on.