Back Country & Off-Field Landing in a Mooney

[NM Mooney]

12 hours ago, Patrick Horan said:

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

Thanks for the info--and nice photo.   The paint scheme looks very similar to the plane I'm looking at...

[NM Mooney]

10 hours ago, tmo said:

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

Wow... okay, thanks.  BTW, my maternal grandfather left Poland with his brother to land in Wisconsin, and his first date with my grandmother was... totally true, you can't make this up... barnstorming in a biplane across the countryside.  

[NM Mooney]

6 hours ago, Ibra said:

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 )

 

 

 

That's hilarious, re: the departure sequence...

As I've said earlier, the identified field was chosen: (a) by pure chance, having seen it while fishing and hauling firewood from my brother's cabin; (b) as a fun example for discussion and gaining valuable real-world experience from the folks weighing in on this thread. 

Depending on work stuff, I am planning on heading up there for more wood sometime this week, so will walk it with the GPS app and charge up the GoPro to take some stills and video of the field to inform this discussion.  I think this is a neat exercise in ruling out a proposed unimproved airstrip--as I've said, even if only with an eye toward having an emergency set-down location in mind. 

Toward that end: I will also take shots of the nearest obstructions, which from memory aren't tall trees but rather various peaks of the surrounding Jemez Mountains. 

[201er]

On 12/4/2021 at 12:29 PM, NM Mooney said:

So, I'm wondering if people with experience on back country and off-field landing areas could weigh in.

 

14 hours ago, NM Mooney said:

So, are the openings that the gear retracts into on the early M20s large enough to fit larger diameter tires?

 

I think you may be looking for the wrong plane for the job... There is an abundance of airplanes better suited to those purposes than a Mooney.

 

[NM Mooney]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

 

 

I think you may be looking for the wrong plane for the job... There is an abundance of airplanes better suited to those purposes than a Mooney.

 

Sorry if I've been less than clear - my chief objective is not selecting a bush plane.   Rather my objective is to apply the collective experience and help of the forum's M20 pilots to this exemplar strip, in order to:

(i) learn the limitations of this excellent vintage aircraft, especially to the extent the '63 short body I'm looking at is any different;

(ii) qualify or rule out a potential emergency landing area; and

(iii) have some fun in the bargain--ideally for everyone, not just myself. 

Joel

[Immelman]

Been to plenty.... a constant habit? No. Is it good for the fuel tank sealant? Probably not. Will it stop me? No. Goal is to land at all public airports in CA... got most of 'em done. Some of the grass was so nice I go back and visit sometimes. Others would not want to make a habit of, better for a taildragger...

[N201MKTurbo]

16 minutes ago, Immelman said:

Been to plenty.... a constant habit? No. Is it good for the fuel tank sealant? Probably not. Will it stop me? No. Goal is to land at all public airports in CA... got most of 'em done. Some of the grass was so nice I go back and visit sometimes. Others would not want to make a habit of, better for a taildragger...

So, what was it like to land at SFO LAX and Lindbergh? I haven’t Landed at a big air carrier airport in quite some time.

[mike20papa]

This fellow shows you how.

Edited December 5, 2021 by mike20papa

[Immelman]

7 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, what was it like to land at SFO LAX and Lindbergh? I haven’t Landed at a big air carrier airport in quite some time.

I've flown 121 for a living for a while so the fields with airline service were picked off mostly at work. The fun ones are small, in the middle of nowhere, and possibly without the luxury of pavement.

[RobertGary1]

I’ve landed mine on the beach jn Mexico. But I wouldn’t take it to most of the grass fields I take the Aeronca to. 

[N201MKTurbo]

52 minutes ago, Immelman said:

I've flown 121 for a living for a while so the fields with airline service were picked off mostly at work. The fun ones are small, in the middle of nowhere, and possibly without the luxury of pavement.

So, you haven’t done those in the Mooney?

[Immelman]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, you haven’t done those in the Mooney?

Nope! No intention to either. Landing fees are a real turnoff.

[steingar]

Landed mine in a highly occluded 2500 foot turf strip a year or two ago. Soft field techniques for taxi, and I was still on pins and needles.  Still, very doable. I'd not land anything in worse shape, that's for sure.  Didn't get what was so special about this magic grass strip the OP was going on about.  Has to be something I really want to go see before I do the grass thing.

Thing is that 2500 foot strip was in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  I certainly couldn't have gotten there in my time frame without a Mooney.

 

[Oscar Avalle]

I think that the M20C is not the best plane to take to unprepared fields. Its prop clearance is small and therefore I always try to ensure that the fields I use are smooth and don't have any holes. Having said that I do fly rather often into grass fields. I just make sure that I know where I am going, how the fields are and any suggestions local pilots may have for me.

Taking off from grass fields has also its issues. You have to make sure that you use soft-field techniques and don't get stuck in a hole... and that the little bumps on the take off roll that may actually get you airborne are managed well.

 

 

[moontownMooney]

I have an M20F based at a ~2200 ft grass strip surrounded by hills. Agree with most of what has been said here. You will have to pay more attention than at a paved runway. I would only land at a maintained airstrip that id personally been to or had a direct PIREP on. Note the 3-bladed prop can have a smaller diameter, helping with prop clearance, which can be one of the concerns at a grass strip. Slope, moisture, grass length/thickness, ground firmness/smoothness all play a large role on your performance. You have to give yourself more margin as there is not good specific performance data unique to your plane and any specific grass strip combined with the conditions of the day and that combination matters. There is no ATIS or AWOS to give you the grass length or how moist/soft the field is from the rain 3 days ago. The details matter. Your takeoff performance at a given field could change by 50% or more based on how recently the grass has been cut and how moist/soft it is. A dry grass strip will usually have a shorter landing roll, but any moisture can dramatically increase the required distance due to limited available friction for braking.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[Shiny moose]

These figures were done for a particular airplane (H295/H395), I sure you can apply slope, wind, and wet to most planes and the performance will be close. I will post a better copy if people want 

[Hank]

@moontownMooney, note that3-blade Mooney prop blades are the same length as 2-blade props. Some planes use smaller diameter 3-blade props, but not our Mooneys.

[Niko182]

19 minutes ago, Hank said:

@moontownMooney, note that3-blade Mooney prop blades are the same length as 2-blade props. Some planes use smaller diameter 3-blade props, but not our Mooneys.

Does that also apply to the MT 3 blade?

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Does that also apply to the MT 3 blade?

Someone else will have to answer. Mine is Hartzell, same size as 2-blade prop. Climbs great, cruises above book and makes a great speedbrake when needed. 

[Niko182]

1 minute ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Hank is right but MTs are the exception. For E, F, and J model Mooneys their maximum diameter is 71” whereas all of the others are 74”. 

I know the STC applies only to the E, F, and J model, however I might add MT will happily get anyone with a pre E model a fiel approval. Theyve done it here before. And MTs diameter is 71 to 69 in. 1.5 to 2.5 inches extra prop clearance is pretty big.

[Oscar Avalle]

3 hours ago, Niko182 said:

I know the STC applies only to the E, F, and J model, however I might add MT will happily get anyone with a pre E model a fiel approval. Theyve done it here before. And MTs diameter is 71 to 69 in. 1.5 to 2.5 inches extra prop clearance is pretty big.

I had the field approval for my M20C for a MT. Not a big issue to get the approval. The MT prop is really a great addition. Specially for a M20C. First you lose a lot of weight. Second you get rid of the red arch and finally it runs smoother and quieter. So I am a big fan.

[Hank]

5 minutes ago, Oscar Avalle said:

I had the field approval for my M20C for a MT. Not a big issue to get the approval. The MT prop is really a great addition. Specially for a M20C. First you lose a lot of weight. Second you get rid of the red arch and finally it runs smoother and quieter. So I am a big fan.

Do you really cruise 2000-2250? Avoiding that has never been a problem for me--I cruise 2300 down low, 2300 mid-level and 2500 up high (>7500msl).

[ShuRugal]

Do you really cruise 2000-2250? Avoiding that has never been a problem for me--I cruise 2300 down low, 2300 mid-level and 2500 up high (>7500msl).

I would love to be able to cruise in that range.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Oscar Avalle]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

Do you really cruise 2000-2250? Avoiding that has never been a problem for me--I cruise 2300 down low, 2300 mid-level and 2500 up high (>7500msl).

I agree, but it feels nice. The most interesting thing is that the plane runs smoother, quieter and it is lighter. Also, because it is lighter it is amazing how easy it is to start the engine.

[Tommooney]

Here is a video my PAX did. I cant edit so just go to minutes 4 and 11 to see Baja landings on dirt strips in Baja in an Ovation heavy with three PAX and plenty of fuel to go back to Loreto with huge reserve:

These are fine graded dirt runways with regular pireps by BBP pilots. I wouldn't intentionally try anything rougher in my plane.

Take Care

Tom