Whats the shortest strip you will land at?

[Niko182]

How short of a strip are you willing to land in? I know a lot of people here don't really like taking their Mooney's is really short strips but I was curious.

[Wildhorsetrail]

I picked 3000 only because I'm a newbie Mooney pilot. Maybe once I get some more experience, I'll feel comfortable with something shorter.

[Hank]

I earned my license, bought and based my Mooney for 7 years at an obstructed 3000 x 75 field. Moved and was at a 3200 x 75 field for 3 more years.

Used to visit a 2000' grass strip (my limit was 2 people and half tanks).

Mom lives close to a 2770 x 30 strip with bad pavement.

MAPA PPP instructor took me engine-out to his home field, 2440 x 40, watch the tree on final. 

Pay attention, fly the right speed, it's not a problem. Add 10 knots for wind, 5 knots for load and 5 knots "for safety" and it won't work. 

[201er]

I voted under 2000 cause I've done some 1950ft runways. But the plane has to be light and the approaches have to be clear. I think I could consider something like 1600ft of pavement if there's endless space on both ends for safety factor. But most of the time, there's not so you need extra runway for safety margin.

Here's landing at Braden with 1950ft:

Also flew into Andover Aeroflex, similar length, recently with @carusoam for some practice and credit in the 99s challenge.

But realistically, anything under 3000ft needs to be deliberate and planned. Not doing something that short spur of the moment.

 

[MooneyMitch]

2325 feet, Oceano, CA (L52), Ovation, C, E, F models.  Stable approach with correct air speeds are key to a successful landing, with distance to spare. 

[donkaye]

A proficient long body pilot should easily be able to handle a runway such as L52, Oceano, California at 2,325 x 50.  L18, Fallbrook, at 2,160 is barely doable with an Ovation.  I have landed a 231 at Carmel Valley at 1,800 when it still existed.  It had a long lead in and I wouldn't do it again.  The short bodies such as the M20C can land as short as a C150.  The maximum direct crosswind component I've landed my Bravo in has been 35 knots with no flaps and a touchdown speed of about 105 knots.  The runway length at San Jose at that time was 4,500 feet.  The runway was at sea level.  Strong crosswinds require long runways.  The narrowest runway I've landed at has been 45G, Brighton, Michigan. It was plenty long at 3,105, but its approach was over some tall trees and its width is 24 feet.

[Skates97]

8 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

2325 feet, Oceano, CA (L52), Ovation, C, E, F models.  Stable approach with correct air speeds are key to a successful landing, with distance to spare. 

Oceano is the shortest one I have been into and didn't need nearly the whole thing. I routinely make the turnoff at Delta which is about 1,200', I can make the turn at Foxtrot at 1,700' without really touching the brakes. A few times with a decent wind down the runway I have made the turnoff at Charlie and that is about 650'.

 

[Niko182]

9 minutes ago, donkaye said:

A proficient long body pilot should easily be able to handle a runway such as L52, Oceano, California at 2,325 x 50.  L18, Fallbrook, at 2,160 is barely doable with an Ovation.  I have landed a 231 at Carmel Valley at 1,800 when it still existed.  It had a long lead in and I wouldn't do it again.  The short bodies such as the M20C can land as short as a C150.  The maximum direct crosswind component I've landed my Bravo in has been 35 knots with no flaps and a touchdown speed of about 105 knots.  The runway length at San Jose at that time was 4,500 feet.  The runway was at sea level.  Strong crosswinds require long runways.

Other than extra weight, what makes the difference between the short and long bodies? All the Mooneys have the same wing.

[Mooney Dog]

i only land at class C and B airports because of the 10,000ft runways. 

 

I have taken the mooney to a few 3000 strips, never really gone lower than that only cause i havnt found anything smaller. I know i can easily stop around 2000ft with a descent approach. Most the floating comes from someone getting a little to fast on approach. I have set my GPS to only display airports with >2500 runways either way. 

 

Now width wise. I dont really want to land on those 35 feet across runways again. Not that i cant but i like having extra room to play with. 

[MooneyMitch]

40 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Oceano is the shortest one I have been into and didn't need nearly the whole thing. I routinely make the turnoff at Delta which is about 1,200', I can make the turn at Foxtrot at 1,700' without really touching the brakes. A few times with a decent wind down the runway I have made the turnoff at Charlie and that is about 650'.

 

A standard 3 degree approach angle will work too at Oceano.....

One of my very favorite airports to land and takeoff from..... spectacular!! right next to the blue Pacifc Ocean!!  Thank you for posting your video 

[Bolter]

2 minutes ago, Mooney Dog said:

I have taken the mooney to a few 3000 strips, never really gone lower than that only cause i havnt found anything smaller. I know i can easily stop around 2000ft with a descent approach. Most the floating comes from someone getting a little to fast on approach. I have set my GPS to only display airports with >2500 runways either way. 

 

Not to get too far off the topic, but I set my GPS' NRST filter set for what I would use in an EMERGENCY and I did not have time to search manually.  I would take an 1800' grass strip for an emergency over a non-airport.  In a non-emergency, I have time to manually search and disregard short fields.  

-dan

[Mooney Dog]

3 minutes ago, Bolter said:

Not to get too far off the topic, but I set my GPS' NRST filter set for what I would use in an EMERGENCY and I did not have time to search manually.  I would take an 1800' grass strip for an emergency over a non-airport.  In a non-emergency, I have time to manually search and disregard short fields.  

-dan

My nearest searches have been when i have to divert for fuel, not for actual emergencies which at that point i dont care, the insurance owns the plane. 

[MooneyMitch]

28 minutes ago, donkaye said:

A proficient long body pilot should easily be able to handle a runway such as L52, Oceano, California at 2,325 x 50.  L18, Fallbrook, at 2,160 is barely doable with an Ovation.  I have landed a 231 at Carmel Valley at 1,800 when it still existed.  It had a long lead in and I wouldn't do it again.  The short bodies such as the M20C can land as short as a C150.  The maximum direct crosswind component I've landed my Bravo in has been 35 knots with no flaps and a touchdown speed of about 105 knots.  The runway length at San Jose at that time was 4,500 feet.  The runway was at sea level.  Strong crosswinds require long runways.  The narrowest runway I've landed at has been 45G, Brighton, Michigan. It was plenty long at 3,105, but its approach was over some tall trees and its width is 24 feet.

L18, never went there with aeroplano.... 

Is that a little whoop de do in the middle? Could definitely make things a little more exciting!!  Yes, I probably would not have enjoyed taking the R model there..... lots of things depending..... temperature, wind, ooooooh and those trees !!! 

[donkaye]

4 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

A standard 3 degree approach angle will work too at Oceano.....

I had just finished filming my landing video in Porterville and we decided to fly over to Oceano by the beech and stay overnight at a very nice group of condos nearly on the beach.  There were strong crosswinds that day.  Once committed to landing there there is no going around.  I have seen a Bonanza stuck in the mud off the end of the runway in the past.  I went around the first time.  I went around the second time.  I told Shirley that if we couldn't land the next time we were heading to Santa Barbara.  The 3rd time was the charm.  The gusty crosswind came around just enough to make a safe landing.

[Schllc]

Difficult to pick one in that succinct of an answer.

Florida Everglades, X01 is 2400 with zero displaced threshold and water on both ends.  I have landed on shorter with much longer displaced thresholds.

That is as short as I would like to try outside of an emergency.  

[donkaye]

9 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

L18, never went there with aeroplano.... 

Is that a little whoop de do in the middle? Could definitely make things a little more exciting!!  Yes, I probably would not have enjoyed taking the R model there..... lots of things depending..... temperature, wind, ooooooh and those trees !!! 

In addition to being short for a long body, it's like landing on an aircraft carrier with drop offs on both sides.

[mooneyflyer]

Different answers for short/medium/long body and heavy/light

[McMooney]

M20E 2000ft, knqa.

Some dumb guy didn't check notams before picking the airport. Runway was being reworked, they had temporarily shortened it to 2000ft.

No drama or pucker factor, probably only needed 1500 ft

[Jcmtl]

2000 is fine.  1500 is doable if you really have to, ideally with a good headwind.  Will probably need to slam on the brakes as soon as the plane is down.   

[Skates97]

4 minutes ago, Jcmtl said:

2000 is fine.  1500 is doable if you really have to, ideally with a good headwind.  Will probably need to slam on the brakes as soon as the plane is down.   

You might be surprised. I know the POH for my D which I would think is the same for the rest of the short bodies, has the ground roll at sea level at 550' at 2,200 lbs, 595' at max gross of 2,575 lbs. If you put it down on the numbers you don't need much runway. If you float it for awhile that is a whole different story.

[Hank]

38 minutes ago, Mooney Dog said:

Now width wise. I dont really want to land on those 35 feet across runways again. Not that i cant but i like having extra room to play with. 

You do realize that your treadwidth is only 9', right? So a 35' wide runway is almost four times that wide, but that's not wide enough?

Yes, it can be intimidating if you're used to commercial airports that are 200' wide, but you'll get used to it. It's really not a big deal, so what if there's no pavement under the wingtips?

[MooneyMitch]

32 minutes ago, donkaye said:

 I have seen a Bonanza stuck in the mud off the end of the runway in the past.

I remember that Bo sitting there a few days!  Someone had placed a sign on the door saying........in the future, please park in transient area on North side of airport............

[MooneyMitch]

9 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that your treadwidth is only 9', right? So a 35' wide runway is almost four times that wide, but that's not wide enough?

Yes, it can be intimidating if you're used to commercial airports that are 200' wide, but you'll get used to it. It's really not a big deal, so what if there's no pavement under the wingtips?

Harris Ranch, CO8, CA is 30 feet wide [no taxiway].  That one keeps you quite honest!!  Super yummy restaurant [Harris Ranch beef!] and destination motel w/ wonderful pool too! 

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Harris Ranch, CO8, CA is 30 feet wide [no taxiway].  That one keeps you quite honest!!  Super yummy restaurant [Harris Ranch beef!] and destination motel w/ wonderful pool too! 

Yap, that's 33A--2770 x 30, bad asphalt, uphill towards a church barely off of centerline, no taxiways, no fuel, no services. But if landing uphill on 32, there's a truckstop on the interstate that makes a dandy reference to aim for on base leg.    Takeoff downhill when possible, the ground continues to slope down for a while.

[Mooney Dog]

28 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that your treadwidth is only 9', right? So a 35' wide runway is almost four times that wide, but that's not wide enough?

Yes, it can be intimidating if you're used to commercial airports that are 200' wide, but you'll get used to it. It's really not a big deal, so what if there's no pavement under the wingtips?

oh no its not that i cant. I just dont like it. I prefer at least >50 across.

Take a look at DWH airport. The 35 is right next to the water lane and i have watched quite a few student pilots almost go swimming.