Whats the shortest strip you will land at?

[M20F]

Will land on anything I can subsequently take off from.  Landing distance generally isn’t the limiting factor, you need to get back out. 

[S.C.]

When I bought my M20C, the guy I bought it from recommended that I find 5000ft runway's flying from Virginia to Texas.  It was really good advice.  (like many new owners, I tended to float and was happy for the extra space)  I've landed on shorter than 3000ft since but prefer to keep it at 3000.  Short field take-offs are no problem, landings are all about having the numbers dialed in and being ready to go around.  I'm working on Advanced WINGS and having an instructor with you while you build confidence in your short take-offs and landings is a big help.  I have a lot of respect for y'all who can go shorter than 2000'!  I hope to join you soon.

[A64Pilot]

Just remember she isn’t a STOL airplane, it’s capable but it’s just not her Forte.

I’m a member of the 120/140 owners group as I have a 140. I’ve argued with those folks over there that a 140 is a fine machine, but it’s just not a STOL aircraft, just because it has a tailwheel doesn’t make it a back country airplane, it’s an excellent over 100 MPH commuter airplane on 5 GPH, but she’s just too heavy, too underpowered for STOL.

Of course I get a lot upset with me who argue they are doing it so it must be OK. Well a week or so one of them got themselves killed trying to play STOL games in a STOL competition, stall / spin on final.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/competitor-killed-in-stol-competition-crash/

There are longer videos where you can easily see he’s in way over his head with purpose built STOL aircraft that probably cruise not much faster than his stall speed

Young guy with I believe a Wife and a bunch of kids

Mooney with its big ole wing if you keep it light is well awfully capable, for its speed it’s pretty surprising how well it can do, but she’s no Supercub, so be careful

Edited May 29, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Shadrach]

On 5/27/2022 at 9:06 PM, M20F said:

Will land on anything I can subsequently take off from.  Landing distance generally isn’t the limiting factor, you need to get back out. 

Pretty sure I can take off within book numbers + 20%. That means at gross I’m off in well under 1500ft on a any day that I’d attempt a short field landing. I’ve done a lot of short field work in the Mooney but it seems unlikely I’d ever attempt to land somewhere that I could not get out of.  

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Just remember she isn’t a STOL airplane, it’s capable but it’s just not her Forte.

Mooney with its big ole wing if you keep it light is well awfully capable, for its speed it’s pretty surprising how well it can do, but she’s no Supercub, so be careful

The Mooney behaves well in slow flight.  Unlike the C150 and some other trainers, I have never flown one that "snaps" into a stall from a non accelerated condition.  I have flown some earlier models where the rigging needed improvement. The plane would give good indication of what it would do approaching the stall by having the wing start to drop off just before the stall.  Still it wouldn't "snap" at the stall, so proper stall recovery could be accomplished very quickly.  Each new Mooney was flight tested and the stall strips were placed where needed to get the best possible stall characteristic.  In all the newer Mooneys I have flown, you can hold the elevator full back, the airplane would not fall off on a wing, and the nose would just bob up and down during the stall.

Having said the above, the Mooney does have a laminar flow wing.  One of the characteristics of that type of wing is that, unlike non laminar flow wings, the back side of the power curve becomes very steep very quickly.  All stabilized approaches in any airplane are done to some extent on the backside of the power curve--but near the bottom of the curve.  

All of this is to say flying a short field approach nose high hanging on the prop in a Mooney is a good way of diminishing the size of the Mooney fleet and its pilot population.  Approaches should be made at a slope of 3° at no less than 1.2 Vso or greater than 1.3 Vso for the weight in no wind conditions.  With a proficient pilot and good airspeed and slope management good short field landings can easily be made.

[A64Pilot]

What will hurt you in any aircraft is if your approaching stall, is using your ailerons, you need to use your feet to raise a dropped wing

You need to learn or be taught to not go to ailerons particularly if she is nibbling in the buffet if you want to play STOL games, of course for normal landings you should never put yourself in that position, there is no upside, who cares if you make the first turn off or not?

The reason of course is to raise that dropped wing the aileron is used to increase lift on that wing, which was right at the max lift it could generate, then you asked for more and it can’t deliver and it stalls, so you instinctively add more aileron which makes it worse of course, and you may spin.

Of course it’s normal and instinctive for a pilot to use aileron to raise a wing that drops just a little without even thinking about it, so to not go there is a conscious decision.

Funny you say that about Cessna’s as I’ve always thought that they were among the gentlest stalling aircraft that telegraphed long in advance what they were going to do, until I intentionally stalled a 210 at low cruise power. There was nothing you could do to stop that aircraft from going over on its back, you had to let it, and recover from it, by fighting it all you did was delay it from going, but you couldn’t stop it. Really surprised me, and I wasn’t even close to aft CG

I just decided that a 210 is simply a different animal than it’s little brothers, but a 120 or 140 is as benign as it gets, but obviously can still kill.

I’ve not gone out and done any accelerated stalls in my Mooney and honestly don’t plan to, I’m Retired from that kind of thing now, and don’t see the upside, but I had always thought that along with most of the faster, more efficient aircraft that she would bite, as in have less than desirable stall performance.

As an example there used to be a video of a NASA test pilot who was spin testing a V tail Bonanza, and he was far fwd CG too, but long story short as long as it was arrested early it was recoverable, but once he added aileron after the wing dropped, she wrapped up and he fought it for several revolutions before bailing. I figured a Mooney wouldn’t be much better.

On edit when fwd cg, power at idle many aircraft have benign stalls, because they aren’t really stalling, they just have run out of elevator authority, the Piper Cherokee 140 is a good example as is a Thrush crop duster, and a C-210, but add power or be loaded at aft CG, then it’s likely the stall will actually occur and you may be looking at a very different animal.

I’m real sure at aft CG a Mooney will stall, and without being sarcastic, but why do we have stall strips? Aircraft with benign stall behavior don’t have them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_strips

I only bring this up so that people won’t think that a Mooney’s stall will always be just a mush, just as you say no one should drag a Mooney in, which is of course a normal STOL game, completely normal, but I agree uncalled for in a Mooney, wrong airplane.

However I’m not disagreeing as I don’t think we should be playing STOL games with our Mooney’s or C-140’s for that matter, if you desire to play those games a purpose built aircraft is best. Use the right tool for the job.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I’ve not gone out and done any accelerated stalls in my Mooney and honestly don’t plan to,

Good plan.  I'm responding to @A64Pilot but this is for everyone.  Unless you have a parachute, explosive door removal mechanisms, hydrogen peroxide rockets on the wingtip, and/or an anti-stall tail drogue chute, there are stalls and spins you don't want to try.  I recommend Rich Stowell's excellent book "Stall/Spin Awareness" (test pilot with 30,000 spins).  

[A64Pilot]

I didn’t have to have all of that, but did need the chute that had been repacked within 90 days I think, I had to wear boots and I don’t remember having to have any special door removal system, but the Thrush had one that we rigged so you could pull a wire and the door would fall off, normally you had to knock out a panel, reach through and pull a rod. Pulled the seat bottom out because you sat on the chute and it went up your back too, so you couldn’t sit on the seat the chute was too thick.

Also had to have a chase plane, not sure what they were for and the test plan had to be reviewed by FAA safety guys, that was for any high risk test flight, dives to VD etc. , we were not required to spin the thing, never asked why, because I really didn’t want to, I would probably have farmed that out.

[Fly Boomer]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

we were not required to spin the thing, never asked why, because I really didn’t want to, I would probably have farmed that out.

I don't have your experience, but that "farmed out" thing sounds like another good plan.

[A64Pilot]

31 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I don't have your experience, but that "farmed out" thing sounds like another good plan.

We did one time, Ralph Kimberlin got this guy for us, his name will come to me eventually. old guy, overweight a little etc.

I kept looking at his name tag and as he had a little set of metal wings on them. I finally asked what those wings were. He told me astronaut wings. I said politely that as a kid I was fascinated with the space thing and knew every astronauts name by heart and didn’t remember his.

 It might have been the astronaut pin

He smiled and told me he got his in an F-104, which I thought was really cool of course, what a ride that would have been, astronauts weren’t honestly usually in control that much, but the X-15 and 104 guys really flew into space. Only a few F-104’s had the rocket and RCS thrusters of course, they had to have the thrusters because they went to altitudes that the flight controls didn’t work. There were only three NF-104’s and he wasn’t pleased that Yeager crashed one.

See our problem was we were a tail wheel airplane, and usually only the old test pilots could fly a tailwheel, none of the younger guys could.

Our FAA guy (Clark Walker)who oversaw me would one day fly the G650, then the next day come fly our crop duster, the FAA flew behind me on every 10th airplane I think.

Edited May 30, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Z W]

16 hours ago, donkaye said:

All of this is to say flying a short field approach nose high hanging on the prop in a Mooney is a good way of diminishing the size of the Mooney fleet and its pilot population.  Approaches should be made at a slope of 3° at no less than 1.2 Vso or greater than 1.3 Vso for the weight in no wind conditions.  With a proficient pilot and good airspeed and slope management good short field landings can easily be made.

Agree with this 100%.  You can fly a Mooney in a 3 degree or shallower approach at proper speeds and land short. 

Some of my worst landings have been high and steep approaches, on the back side of the power curve, all the way to the runway.  It's very easy to get behind the plane and land very abruptly, with not enough energy to properly flare.  Would also be easy to misjudge it and land short of the numbers, though I've never done that.  This is a neat STOL trick in a Cessna 172 but does not work well in a Mooney.

I'll get behind the power curve, intentionally, if I'm high and fast, to get back on glideslope and speed, but the plan is always to add significant power and lower the nose to get out of that condition once back on the standard 3 degree glide path.  If there's not enough time to do that, then it's time to go around.

[rbp]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:18 AM, Z W said:

Some of my worst landings have been high and steep approaches, on the back side of the power curve

Please explain how one gets on the back side of the power curve on a steep approach at the recommended approach speed.

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, rbp said:

Please explain how one gets on the back side of the power curve on a steep approach at the recommended approach speed.

Agreed. Seems impossible to do all of those things at once.

 

[M20F]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:51 PM, Fly Boomer said:

Good plan.  I'm responding to @A64Pilot but this is for everyone.  Unless you have a parachute, explosive door removal mechanisms, hydrogen peroxide rockets on the wingtip, and/or an anti-stall tail drogue chute, there are stalls and spins you don't want to try.  I recommend Rich Stowell's excellent book "Stall/Spin Awareness" (test pilot with 30,000 spins).  

Wally Sedgwick who was a legendary Chicago DPE, former WWII fighter pilot, 50K+ hours, AND the list of experience and stories.  He and a friend of mine got a C into a spiral that took about 5K to break out of.  Wally said it was the most scared he had ever been in a plane. 
 
Important distinction is a spin is a maneuver where the plane holds a constant speed right around stall.  Many airplanes spin great.  A spiral is what kills you as it comes with ever progressing airspeed.  Many nice spinning planes will progress to a spiral if you release the back pressure.  
 
It’s a cool circus trick but rolls are better and safer if you want to show off.  

[rbp]

11 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed. Seems impossible to do all of those things at once.

 

you can't be on the back side of the power curve if you don't have any power in , which is a fine way to make a steep approach and a short-field landing (on *speed*, please)

[Shadrach]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:18 AM, Z W said:

Agree with this 100%.  You can fly a Mooney in a 3 degree or shallower approach at proper speeds and land short. 

Some of my worst landings have been high and steep approaches, on the back side of the power curve, all the way to the runway.  It's very easy to get behind the plane and land very abruptly, with not enough energy to properly flare.  Would also be easy to misjudge it and land short of the numbers, though I've never done that.  This is a neat STOL trick in a Cessna 172 but does not work well in a Mooney.

I'll get behind the power curve, intentionally, if I'm high and fast, to get back on glideslope and speed, but the plan is always to add significant power and lower the nose to get out of that condition once back on the standard 3 degree glide path.  If there's not enough time to do that, then it's time to go around.

In my opinion, max performance short field landings in a Mooney are accomplished by using a steep, power off approach at less than or equal to 1.2Vso slowing to 1.1Vso by shot final. The goal is to be power off with a nose down steep descent to stay out of the buffet. Found effect provides additional margin for the flare. Very little float if an and full aft elevator on touchdown. The airfoil is on the back side of the Drag Curve both descent and speed can be controlled with pitch. Increase pitch to slow down and increase sink, decrease pitch to speed up and descend. The throttle is used to add energy to he equation.

It’s not comfortable, I would not recommend it to new pilots, especially with a passenger, but it yields best performance. Despite being uncomfortable, I also think it is safer than dragging the airframe in at a shallow angle, under power at high AOA. It’s more focused on managing energy and drag, than using power to hold the airplane in a configuration that would not be sustainable without it.

 

[rbp]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

In my opinion, max performance short field landings in a Mooney are accomplished by using a steep, power off approach at less than or equal to 1.2Vso

I have heard many mooney drivers say they like to "carry a little power" on landing, but that never made sense to me. energy is energy, and its gotta bleed off before the plane will stop flying. I always fly the numbers, use full flaps, and pull the power once landing is assured.

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

In my opinion, max performance short field landings in a Mooney are accomplished by using a steep, power off approach at less than or equal to 1.2Vso slowing to 1.1Vso by shot final. The goal is to be power off with a nose down steep descent to stay out of the buffet. Found effect provides additional margin for the flare. Very little float if an and full aft elevator on touchdown. The airfoil is on the back side of the Drag Curve both descent and speed can be controlled with pitch. Increase pitch to slow down and increase sink, decrease pitch to speed up and descend. The throttle is used to add energy to he equation.

It’s not comfortable, I would not recommend it to new pilots, especially with a passenger, but it yields best performance. Despite being uncomfortable, I also think it is safer than dragging the airframe in at a shallow angle, under power at high AOA. It’s more focused on managing energy and drag, than using power to hold the airplane in a configuration that would not be sustainable without it.

 

While that drag curve is fine for non laminar flow wings, it is not for laminar flow wings.  The backside of the curve for laminar flow wings is much steeper.  Therefore, more difficult to control.  I do not recommend using the procedure you describe.  It's dangerous in a Mooney.  A stabilized approach at the nominal 3° slope at 1.2Vso is the safest procedure for short fields in a Mooney.  If you can't land on a field with that procedure, don't use that field.

[Shadrach]

12 minutes ago, donkaye said:

While that drag curve is fine for non laminar flow wings, it is not for laminar flow wings.  The backside of the curve for laminar flow wings is much steeper.  Therefore, more difficult to control.  I do not recommend using the procedure you describe.  It's dangerous in a Mooney.  A stabilized approach at the nominal 3° slope at 1.2Vso is the safest procedure for short fields.  If you can't land on a field with that procedure, don't use that field.

So then, what multiple of calculated stall would you recommend for approach speed?

 

[Shadrach]

40 minutes ago, rbp said:

I have heard many mooney drivers say they like to "carry a little power" on landing, but that never made sense to me. energy is energy, and its gotta bleed off before the plane will stop flying. I always fly the numbers, use full flaps, and pull the power once landing is assured.

I have heard the same. It makes zero sense to me.  I know better than to argue with most of them though. 

[rbp]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I have heard the same. It makes zero sense to me.  I know better than to argue with most of them though. 

don't argue about flaps either. AS REQUIRED evidently means whatever you feel like

[PT20J]

If I want to land really short, and cannot afford to float, I need to get it really slow and if I am on the backside of the power curve, carrying a little power is useful because it lowers the stall speed and once the flare achieves a nose high attitude simply closing the throttle allows an immediate touchdown. 

Summer's coming and the runways get hot and the thermals can cause ballooning. I find it easier to manage this by adding a touch of power in the flare than just horsing around with the elevators while the energy is decreasing. The latter technique seems to often lead to a firmer touchdown than I like.

The biggest challenge I see with the Mooney is that the airspeed stability is not great at low speeds and it takes some work to against the rather high control forces caused by the bungees to keep Vref +/- 2 kts while maintaining glidepath.

Skip

[rbp]

30 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Summer's coming and the runways get hot and the thermals can cause ballooning. I find it easier to manage this by adding a touch of power in the flare

how does adding power help with ballooning? i would think that adding power would help with sink rather that lift? 

[A64Pilot]

44 minutes ago, PT20J said:

If I want to land really short, and cannot afford to float, I need to get it really slow and if I am on the backside of the power curve, carrying a little power is useful because it lowers the stall speed and once the flare achieves a nose high attitude simply closing the throttle allows an immediate touchdown. 

This, you control rate of descent with power not with pitch as in a normal landing, you hold airspeed steady, enough power and she will climb, idle and it drops, like a rock, so be careful. Lose power and you will tear up the airplane.

Just before touchdown you must add power to arrest the descent or you will break something. Adding power is often required also to get the nose up, average airplane at idle and at stall speed has very little elevator authority, but thrust from the prop adds airflow over the tail and it will bring the nose up. Be comfortable with rudder too or she will drop a wing when you add power if you aren’t on top of the rudder, don’t go to ailerons or you will stall the low wing

Bush guys call this “dragging it in”.

The 3 deg approach at 1.3 VSO is fine for normal flying into paved airports, but if you have to come over 100’ trees it’s not going to work.

This kind of flying a Mooney isn’t a good pick for, sort of like the C-140, but worse.

‘If you look up the word compromise in the dictionary, you should see an airplane pic, because they are compromises.

A good bush plane when you pull the power off will glide about like a coke machine, which is desirable, cause that’s how you get into that strip with the 100’ trees on the end, but a Mooney glides very well even with gear down and full flaps

If you want to play this game and it’s fun, I did for years, go get yourself a Kitfox or Zenith or whatever and have a blast, but leave the Mooney at home, playing STOL games in a Mooney makes as much sense as taking a 911 mud bogging.

Edited June 4, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

6 minutes ago, rbp said:

how does adding power help with ballooning? i would think that adding power would help with sink rather that lift? 

The aircraft will respond quicker to throttle input than it will by pushing the nose down. So you balloon on final and you push the nose down, which is fine it’s safe as speed will increase but that of course means float.

It’s not so much adding power as it is having the ability to adjust rate of descent at a constant airspeed with power.

Just be careful use just a little like 1500 RPM. I’d rather have higher but where I want to be puts me in the avoid range.

Idea is of course a stabilized approach, very few heavier / larger aircraft shoot an approach at idle, they carry power until the flare.