M20M Crash near Pomona, CA

[Cris]

Have you ever lost an engine

Sorry Jlunseth The above was my post but somehow the site decided it was yours.

Oh Yeah, At night, IFR, in snow showers , over the mountains in a M20J. Glided down 20 miles or so to an airport and rolled out on the runway with no damage to A/C or passengers. But the point really is as Junsleth states: "The glide ratio is not very important to how one flies a pattern.  Its only usefulness is to refute the argument that we should fly tight patterns because the engine might quit." Yet I still find comfort (safety) in a plane that glides so well.

[drmarkflies]

Quote: jlunseth

http://www.mooneyevents.com/flying1.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins2.html

 

[jetdriven]

You could bank 50 or 60 degrees in the pattern.  The things to keep in mind are the loading on the wing, and IAS.  Coordination is a basic airmanship thing, and is assumed.  In a descending turn your airplane is not going to stall at 1.43 times the wings level stall speed because you are descending. You ought to try a 50 degree bank in both the downwind to base, and base to final turns for the same reasons you practice stalls and learned turns around a point, to be sure you can accomplish a maneuver the airplane is capable of, and is in the realm of "normal."

I also agree, stall a Mooney below 1000' AGL and your chances of living are slim.  A secondary stall happens and they are none.

Quote: jlunseth

There is another piece of this that needs to be said.  If a Mooney pilot flies a tight pattern and makes, let's say, a base to final tight turn, and the pilot's eyes focus on the ASI and drift away from the turn coordinator a little bit, then the plane skids slightly, the pilot is now in the classic setup for a cross controlled stall.  I have only flown an F once, and we did not stall it, but I understand the older, shorter bodied aircraft are better behaved in stalls.  These pieces, I have to say, really impressed me:

[jlunseth]

Good stuff jlunseth. Thanks. I'm going to APS in two weeks for upset recovery training and these posts will really help me keep my Mooney in mind when I'm flying the Extra 300... obviously the Extra is not a Mooney, not even close, and I doubt any amount of training would help if you screw up with a Mooney in the pattern... but no matter, the take home seems to be that things must be done immediately, correctly, and abruptly... whether breaking a stall, recovering from a spin, or aborting a takeoff. This is completely oposite the smooth and stable way we fly in normal ops.

[Shadrach]

Cris and J, I get what you're saying. To be clear, many Mooneys while not in the same class as "aircraft with 40 something stall speeds", actually do have stall speeds in the high 40s depending on weight. My bird (per POH) stalls at 54kt at gross (2740lbs) at 2300lbs it stalls at 49kts and so on...  The only reason I even chimed in is because I saw a few posts suggesting that bigger patterns (whatever bigger is) are safer; while they may be (I'm skeptical), the root of the issue is airmanship (airspeed and aircraft control) not the size of the pattern.

I have little experience with Bravos. My Neighbor has one and it received a new engine at 100hrs from a runway porpoising event. The other guy that flies it is nervous going into our X runway which is 3165ft. Clearly the extra 628lbs of weight at gross is significant, but are they really that much of a handful at landing weight? With every plane I've ever flown, I've made note of stall speeds for a number of different loading scenarios and the plane reacts as it should.  I see a lot of people giving advice about pattern size and approach speed, but they never seem to care what the plane weighs...  Is it conceivable that a Bravo might be landing at 2600lbs? Would that not feel and fly differently than a Bravo at 3100lbs?  Would you not adjust your speed?  Of course you would, but what I read more of is "fly this pattern", "Cross the numbers at ~80", "Don't bank steeper than XXdegrees" etc... Non of these really addresses the issue, which is maintain a pattern speed that will make final approach speed (1.X VSO) attainable, stay coordinated and don't load the wing in a bank or otherwise.

It seems to me it's that simple without worrying about all of the noise. Tell me what I'm missing?

[flyboy0681]

Quote: Chris

Have you ever lost an engine?

 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jlunseth

Ross, no one discounts your thoughts because you fly an F.  Its a great plane.

But I have to repeat, for every one time the engine quit, twenty pilots stalled and spun, and nine of those pilots died.  That is what started this thread.  And the one time the engine quit, the pilot lived.

The glide ratio is not very important to how one flies a pattern.  Its only usefulness is to refute the argument that we should fly tight patterns because the engine might quit.  It does that alot less than we kill ourselves, and if it does quit in a Mooney, you don't need to be over the hangar buildings to make the runway. 

There is another piece of this that needs to be said.  If a Mooney pilot flies a tight pattern and makes, let's say, a base to final tight turn, and the pilot's eyes focus on the ASI and drift away from the turn coordinator a little bit, then the plane skids slightly, the pilot is now in the classic setup for a cross controlled stall.  I have only flown an F once, and we did not stall it, but I understand the older, shorter bodied aircraft are better behaved in stalls.  These pieces, I have to say, really impressed me:

http://www.mooneyevents.com/flying1.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins.html

http://www.mooneyevents.com/spins2.html

What impressed me most was two things.  First, "Full stall -- BAM! -- we're upside down in a spin. " is pretty fast.  Second, some of the comments were that it does not take much of a cross control, and very little error on the pilot's part in responding the wrong way by pulling back on the yoke.

We practice these types of stalls precisely because they are the kinds of things that happen in the pattern. 

I am not impressed by controllers or guru's who put Mooneys in the same class as aircraft with 40 something stall speeds.  They would not make comments if a Citation or King Air flies a wide pattern into the very same airport. 

I posted a comment to Landsberg's blog, never heard back. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Shadrach

It seems to me it's that simple without worrying about all of the noise. Tell me what I'm missing?

[Cris]

Quote: Shadrach

 Non of these really addresses the issue, which is maintain a pattern speed that will make final approach speed (1.X VSO) attainable, stay coordinated and don't load the wing in a bank or otherwise.

It seems to me it's that simple without worrying about all of the noise. Tell me what I'm missing?

[Shadrach]

Seems that Cris and I were in actually agreement the whole time!

I've posted this before, but it bears reposting for those who've not seen it.  Most would do well to calculate the VSO of the plane they fly at 2 or 3 different load scenarios. Other scenarios can be interpolated if you know both the heavy and light sides of the spectrum.  I have done so below using the POH numbers from my F. This formula will work for any aircraft! For Short fields, I always round up the decimal...

 

Per the POH

Vso @MGW 2740lbs = 54 knots = 62mph.

Short Final Approach Speed (Sht Fld Lnd) 1.1 x 54KCAS = 60KCAS = 69mph

Short Final Approach Speed 1.2 x 54KCAS = 65KCAS = 75mph

Short Final Approach Speed 1.3 x 54KCAS = 70KCAS = 81mph

 

2100lbs =

2100/2740 = 0.766
Square root of 0.766 = 0.875

Vso = 0.875 x 54KTAS= 47.25KCAS = 54mph

Short Final Approach Speed (Sht Fld Lnd) 1.1 x 48KCAS = 53KCAS = 61mph

Short Final Approach Speed 1.2 x 47.25 KCAS =  56.7KCAS = 65mph

Short Final Approach Speed  1.3 x 47KCAS = 61.1KCAS = 70mph

[richc22a]

[richc22a]

I bet for every airspeed indicator that sticks there are 100 pilots in the grave who simply got distracted and stalled the airplane. Distractions are the number one thing. Stall a laminar flow wing mooney below 1500 feet and you're dead it is as simple as that. It got Joel Smith. 

 

Studying the stall characteristics of a laminar flow wing is veeeery educational.... good study.

[Shadrach]

Quote: richc22a

I bet for every airspeed indicator that sticks there are 100 pilots in the grave who simply got distracted and stalled the airplane. Distractions are the number one thing. Stall a laminar flow wing mooney below 1500 feet and you're dead it is as simple as that. It got Joel Smith. 

 

Studying the stall characteristics of a laminar flow wing is veeeery educational.... good study.

[jetdriven]

Ross, I know I can stall a Mooney and recover in 200'.  In practice.  But in reality most people haul back and stall the plane, recover with ailerons, and then secondary stall it.  Then its all over.  We all scratch our heads and wonder how a pilot with 20,000 Mooney test flight hours can crash a 201 on a turn to final.  I think mostly because practice stalls are nothing like the real thing.

[bd32322]

Quote: Cris

 You are absolutely correct!!. The reality is that stall speed increases as weight and bank angle increase. It is shown in the POH which you have accurately described. The issue of a wider pattern is really only to allow for a higher A/S in the pattern (not a good idea) so as not to cause one to overbank. Your point of good piloting skills is really what its all about. For instance we seem to forget that 45-60 bank angle 360 degree turns are often done as part of proficiency training. The aircraft does not fall out of the sky. With that said if one were to overbank in a pattern then the nose needs to be droped to increase airspeed not to mention being coordinated. Again good piloting skills. You are missing nothing!!   

[bd32322]

hmm my previous post would imply a revised pattern entry procedure to establish the initial crab angle over the runway (enter the upwind leg). Not sure what the implications of that are with regards to visibility of aircraft in the pattern etc. and how it compares to the 45 degree downwind entry.

[Shadrach]

Quote: jetdriven

Ross, I know I can stall a Mooney and recover in 200'.  In practice.  But in reality most people haul back and stall the plane, recover with ailerons, and then secondary stall it.  Then its all over.  We all scratch our heads and wonder how a pilot with 20,000 Mooney test flight hours can crash a 201 on a turn to final.  I think mostly because practice stalls are nothing like the real thing.

[PTK]

Quote: Shadrach

You're right... I suppose if someone is distracted enough to stall in the pattern, then they are not likely to handle the recovery well. In my mind that is more about the human factor than laminar flow.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

Ross, I know I can stall a Mooney and recover in 200'.  In practice.  But in reality most people haul back and stall the plane, recover with ailerons, and then secondary stall it.  Then its all over.  We all scratch our heads and wonder how a pilot with 20,000 Mooney test flight hours can crash a 201 on a turn to final.  I think mostly because practice stalls are nothing like the real thing.

[Shadrach]

Quote: allsmiles

You're right... I suppose if someone is distracted enough to stall in the pattern, then they are not likely to handle the recovery well. In my mind that is more about the human factor than laminar flow.

[Shadrach]

Quote: aviatoreb

That incident just goes to prove that no one is above having a very bad day.

How about statistically?  Have Mooney's been involved in more pattern stall and stall-spin incidents than other models of airplanes?

[jlunseth]

So let me see if I get the "airmanship" position straight.  Good airmanship dictates that Mooney pilots fly a tight pattern, including 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern to keep it tight.  That's why we are taught 45-60 degree turns to begin with.  Don't be concerned about stalling because you can recover in 200 feet.  It is poor airmanship to plan an approach so that 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern are unnecessary. 

Thanks.  I think I understand it now.

[PTK]

Quote: jlunseth

So let me see if I get the "airmanship" position straight.  Good airmanship dictates that Mooney pilots fly a tight pattern, including 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern to keep it tight.  That's why we are taught 45-60 degree turns to begin with.  Don't be concerned about stalling because you can recover in 200 feet.  It is poor airmanship to plan an approach so that 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern are unnecessary. 

Thanks.  I think I understand it now.

[Shadrach]

Quote: jlunseth

So let me see if I get the "airmanship" position straight.  Good airmanship dictates that Mooney pilots fly a tight pattern, including 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern to keep it tight.  That's why we are taught 45-60 degree turns to begin with.  Don't be concerned about stalling because you can recover in 200 feet.  It is poor airmanship to plan an approach so that 45-60 degree banked turns in the pattern are unnecessary. 

Thanks.  I think I understand it now.

[AndyFromCB]

I do not understand how all of this is supposed to work. I fly my Bravo, as I did after a 45 days on not using it because I needed to use a twin with useful load:

downwind, midfield: 20"/2400, drop the landing gear

downwind, abeam: 20"/2400, put in full flaps

turn base, turn final

still doing 95knots, no more turns, pull the power out, something like 10" manifold pressure, two mile out final, slowly glide to over the numbers are 75knots. That's how it feels to me.

It takes a willful effort to slow a Mooney down to a landing speed. If you do not feel you're 5 degrees nose up and slowing down, oh well, you weren't meant to fly. It takes hard work and effert to keep the speed at 75knots even without any power. The plane just wants to fly and haul ass.

Plus, the older I get, the less I fly what is called "a pattern". Airlines fly straight in and so do I most of the time at nice 3% slope. Why? Because it works safety wise.