Back Country & Off-Field Landing in a Mooney

[NM Mooney]

So, as discussed in another thread, I'm looking at a '63 M20C.  I know that some people (on other forums) have suggested Mooneys aren't great on unpaved airstrips, versus (for instance) a Cherokee 140/160 with telescoping struts.  So, I'm wondering if people with experience on back country and off-field landing areas could weigh in.  Is this another Mooney Myth or not? 

There's a grass field which the original owner of the ranch that became Bear Paw Lakes northeast of Cuba used to access, but my brother says it was in a high-wing aircraft (he isn't conversant so didn't know what it was).  Next time I'm up there for firewood, I'll walk and measure it and check out obstructions (I think it's oriented east-west but could well be wrong: prevailing wind is directly onto one end of the strip).  But it'd be great to know whether this just isn't a good idea with the older Mooney.

[ShuRugal]

Improved grass airstrips are one thing, but I would never attempt landing at anything not well-maintained for the purpose of landing planes.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[NM Mooney]

Thanks for taking the time.  

To be clear: have you flown your '64 into improved grass strips with no issues?  There's a young guy who flew into one in Idaho (I think), and didn't seem to have any issues with the surface or length--though it was in a box canyon, so his approach required some precision, arcing along the slope of the mountain as he lined up with the runway.  But in general his lack of preparation re: his aircraft didn't leave the impression in my mind that he would've absolutely done a thorough job of sizing up the strip.  So, I didn't want to presume from his experience that this is a safe bet in general with these planes.

I'm thinking in particular about the rubber puck suspension and possible tendency to amplify irregularities in the surface.  But I recall reading an accident write-up where a pilot of a Cherokee 140/160 with a fair amount of experience slid off an improved grass runway because: (i) a flock of birds rose up and she experienced several strikes but decided not to go around; and (ii) she didn't factor in the lack of traction on what was evidently damp grass.  

As for Bear Paw, this is less a focused desire to use the strip (not even sure if the guy still owns the ranch adjacent to the vacation lots in the development).  I intend to walk the field mainly out of curiosity because I'm up there for wood at intervals during the winter (when there's no snow on the ground).  My brother does hike across the field when up there and said it seemed very even--but then he's not a pilot and wasn't assessing it for any particular purpose.    

My brother doesn't know whether the rancher had it graded and then mowed it regularly for his private use, or just concluded it was safe unimproved for his plane (whatever that was - I'm guessing a Cessna from my brother's description).  But at any rate he hasn't seen him landing or taking off for a few years.  So, since it's only 1K higher than Albuquerque, about 6,000 ft., I think there could still be critters digging holes, etc.  At minimum, it'll be a fun diversion while hauling logs back down to walk it and see what's what.  Maybe if the rancher is still alive I can talk to him about his experience using it. 

Joel

[Niko182]

Ive flown my long body into some alright strips. Part grass, part dirt, part gravel. Itll do it. Just be careful and dont push your limit.

 

Research the strips a lot before you go into them. The mooneys can land in some really short strips if light.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Niko182

[NM Mooney]

4 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Ive flown my long body into some alright strips. Part grass, part dirt, part gravel. Itll do it. Just be careful and dont push your limit.

So, in that case, a perhaps uninformed question: leaving aside the surface condition, which is unknown right now - is it generally true that one wants a longer grass strip than paved, to allow for damp grass/poor braking, an unanticipated hop that might suggest a go around, etc.?  I guess I'm trying to arrive at a very conservative number to have when I measure it.  BTW I will check the web but assume there are GPS-based apps that I can get which will net at least a reasonably accurate length measurement versus using one of those wheels--which on uneven ground aren't very accurate in my experience. 

Joel

[Niko182]

7 minutes ago, NM Mooney said:

So, in that case, a perhaps uninformed question: leaving aside the surface condition, which is unknown right now - is it generally true that one wants a longer grass strip than paved, to allow for damp grass/poor braking, an unanticipated hop that might suggest a go around, etc.?  I guess I'm trying to arrive at a very conservative number to have when I measure it.  BTW I will check the web but assume there are GPS-based apps that I can get which will net at least a reasonably accurate length measurement versus using one of those wheels--which on uneven ground aren't very accurate in my experience. 

Joel

Longer strips help a lot. Damp grass makes a decent difference in takeoff roll, and increases landing roll. always keep that in mind, but as you begin to fly the Mooney around more, you'll get a better idea of landing and takeoff rolls. I would however recommend if you are looking at doing off airport consistently, a debonair or older v tail wouldn't be a bad option. I love my Mooney, but had I known I would've wanted to fly to backcountry strips more often, I would've looked hard at an A36. An M20E and C can definitely do dirt and grass strips better than the Mid and long bodies, but at the end of the day you don't have the most prop clearance. It just depends if the improved economy of a M20E compared to a 33 or 35 is worthwhile, or if the the Bo's better backcountry handling is better. Look up piperpainter. he did plenty of backcountry in an M20C.

[ShuRugal]

Thanks for taking the time.  
To be clear: have you flown your '64 into improved grass strips with no issues?  

I have not, but I have met some who have, and if you look around YouTube, you can find a free videos of Short Body Mooneys operating on grass.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[NM Mooney]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

Longer strips help a lot. Damp grass makes a decent difference in takeoff roll, and increases landing roll. always keep that in mind, but as you begin to fly the Mooney around more, you'll get a better idea of landing and takeoff rolls. I would however recommend if you are looking at doing off airport consistently, a debonair or older v tail wouldn't be a bad option. I love my Mooney, but had I known I would've wanted to fly to backcountry strips more often, I would've looked hard at an A36. An M20E and C can definitely do dirt and grass strips better than the Mid and long bodies, but at the end of the day you don't have the most prop clearance. It just depends if the improved economy of a M20E compared to a 33 or 35 is worthwhile, or if the the Bo's better backcountry handling is better. Look up piperpainter. he did plenty of backcountry in an M20C.

Thank you for this.  It isn't really a major objective of mine; just a capacity that'd be neat to have.  As for another plane, there are so many things that appeal to me about the M20C, including the hand-operated landing gear.  That is just so cool...

I downloaded the 'Distance Tool' free app for IOS and it works great.  Set on the satellite option, you just drop a pin and start walking.  My daily dog walk is 896' (one end of our property to the other) x 2.  I'm eager to go measure that field! 

Edited December 4, 2021 by NM Mooney

[Niko182]

If you want the ability to do off airport stuff, the m20C, and E will be fine. I'd probably go with an older E with johnson bar so you get the 200hp instead of 180, and then add vgs. When I'm light (2500 pounds) ive gotten my eagle stopped in about 700 to 800 ft. With an M20E with one person and 30 gallons should be able to be stopped a bit shorter since its 500 to 800 pounds lighter.

[NM Mooney]

13 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

If you want the ability to do off airport stuff, the m20C, and E will be fine. I'd probably go with an older E with johnson bar so you get the 200hp instead of 180, and then add vgs. When I'm light (2500 pounds) ive gotten my eagle stopped in about 700 to 800 ft. With an M20E with one person and 30 gallons should be able to be stopped a bit shorter since its 500 to 800 pounds lighter.

Cool, thanks for the info.

Here is a pretty awful pic I grabbed off the web of the discussion field.  It's got one of those legends down in the R/H corner that is a gross measurement [1,000'], but it's hard to tell which portion he must have used.  I see a low spot toward the west end of the field that looks like water pooling.  Again, this example is just for fun and discussion re: the aircraft's capabilities.  But I'm going up there with the GPS app to walk it, see if I can find the rancher who used to land there, and have some fun.  I think it's a neat way to learn both the plane and how to scope out potentially viable off-field possibilities, even if only for last-resort use in the future. 

I do have a vivid memory of canoeing on the lake and the prevailing wind was out of the west, so right inline with the field's long axis.

Edited December 4, 2021 by NM Mooney

[tmo]

Grass in and of itself is not a problem, as the previous posters wrote; I am based at a grass airfield with my M20K. The key thing, as others have pointed out, it is an actual airfield, maintained and looked after, not a grass field someone happened to decide to land a plane on. That's what Maules are for

[MB65E]

Google Piper Painter! See if that’s something you are willing to do. 
My Dad is based on a 2800ft grass strip. This summer I landed at a local airport because I did not personally walk the strip. It’s your gear, prop, and engine.
-Matt

[N201MKTurbo]

I’ve operated from some grass, gravel and dirt strips. That being said I have landed at some paved airports that were worse than any of the above mentioned airports. You just need to evaluate them and use your judgement.
 

The worst damage I ever encountered was taxiing at Oshkosh.

[A64Pilot]

I’ve posted this several times, It’s as much to do with the pilot as anything, have you walked the field, do you know where the holes etc are?

This guy has a very Uber expensive painted RV8, look at the tailwheel fairing, maybe an inch, two max of clearance? He and I fly off of the same airfield, which is sort of a rough grass field, not bad, but not a golf course either.

There is a whole laundry list of better off airport aircraft than a Mooney, but if your careful just like this guy with his RV, you’ll be OK, but your margins for error is a lot tighter than say a C-182

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by A64Pilot

[cferr59]

In the 60's there were a lot more grass airports around the country so a lot of these planes have landed on grass.  I will land my C on grass if I can talk to someone at the airport about the condition and I am not convinced it is a bad idea, but I would not land at an unimproved field that I have not personally walked. 

[ArtVandelay]

I’ve posted this several times, It’s as much to do with the pilot as anything, have you walked the field, do you know where the holes etc are?
This guy has a very Uber expensive painted RV8, look at the tailwheel fairing, maybe an inch, two max of clearance? He and I fly off of the same airfield, which is sort of a rough grass field, not bad, but not a golf course either.
There is a whole laundry list of better off airport aircraft than a Mooney

RVs landing gear looks to be a bit more forgiving of rough ground than a Mooney.

[Bolter]

2 hours ago, MB65E said:

Google Piper Painter! See if that’s something you are willing to do. 
My Dad is based on a 2800ft grass strip. This summer I landed at a local airport because I did not personally walk the strip. It’s your gear, prop, and engine.
-Matt

Especially true for an unimproved strip.  Check your insurance. You are not likely covered for intentionally landing at a strip like this.  Even if you consider the plane expendable, if you could not fly out for some reason, you would be stuck with the costs of getting it out of there.   

[Hank]

I've taken my C to several grass strip, 2000-3500 feet. Like with paved fields, short grass fields are better at lighter weight, and obstructions can exacerbate that.

Go to YouTube and check the many videos of PiperPainter taking his M20-C into back country strips that look more like washed out goat paths. He certainly outperformed many of his tailwheel buddies at some of them. So I would say that it's less of a limit I posed by the plane, and more of a pilot ability thing. I would nit be comfortable landing at some of those places in anything but a helicopter!

[Pasturepilot]

I’m on my way back home from a trip out west. One stop was a 3,600’ gravel runway in a border town at 2,717’ elevation. I studied it on Google maps, Google earth, Foreflight, and grilled the owner. Non event, but did pick up some light prop erosion. 
 

I’m based on 3,000’ grass. I’m not afraid of well-tended runways, but I’ll leave the crazy stuff for folks trying to feed a YouTube audience. 

[NM Mooney]

Thanks, gents.  I have little desire to please You Tubers, and even less interest in damaging a plane or myself.  

So, are the openings that the gear retracts into on the early M20s large enough to fit larger diameter tires?  Or is the fit pretty close?  I mean, even if one rarely used a grass field, a slightly larger tire wouldn't hurt.

[Patrick Horan]

I have taken my Mooney M20C into dirt strips multiple times. The plane handled it very well

[tmo]

3 hours ago, NM Mooney said:

are the openings that the gear retracts into on the early M20s large enough to fit larger diameter tires?  Or is the fit pretty close?

They are a tight fit, to the extent that retreaded tires sometimes don't fit properly.

[BDPetersen]

My brother-in-law had an 1800’ farm strip from which he operated his “C” and later an A36. Also a menagerie of other stuff including an AgCat, Champ and Stinson. You pick your touchdown spot and make it happen.

Which brings to mind an unrelated story that I recall in the form of a newspaper story(maybe) about a guy who routinely flew a DC-6 into his farm strip in Wisconsin. I wish I had the article. Having flown the “6” a fair amount myself I only regarded it as a fun challenge.

[Ibra]

You have to walk on it first or took C172 or PA18 first before taking your Mooney? in theory, the 4 cylinders can take on dirt & turf, the 6 cylinders surely need smooth and most importantly very long grass and it’s not “very normal” to operate long body on grass …

Note that what matters when surface is rough is ground speed, if surface is rough touching > 50kts GS is likely to cause oscillations no matter how refined your landing technique but with headwind it should be fine, also, the aircraft is unlikely to bounce when main wheel touches the bumps the stick is way back, flaps full down and you have put some sideslip drag…and don’t hesitate to go-around !

Also be careful, the touchdown on landing is one bit but takeoff distance is one limiting factor and it’s on taxi where you may bend your prop…

With the right conditions, you can go and mix with ultralights, tailwheels, wood & fabric in their turf, the hard bit is joining a tight pattern at slow speeds (if you join a vintage fly-in they may halt their airshow departure sequence due to Mooney speed delta )

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ibra

[NM Mooney]

18 hours ago, Bolter said:

Especially true for an unimproved strip.  Check your insurance. You are not likely covered for intentionally landing at a strip like this.  Even if you consider the plane expendable, if you could not fly out for some reason, you would be stuck with the costs of getting it out of there.   

Interesting.  I'll be sure and scrutinize competing policies for related provisions.  Thanks.