Runway Opinions

[PT20J]

Just now, Fly Boomer said:

Would you do it if you were a "new Mooney M20C owner with 20 landings under my belt"

It would depend entirely on your previous experience, abilities and comfort level in the Mooney. 

[ArtVandelay]

Would you do it if you were a "new Mooney M20C owner with 20 landings under my belt"

I made a perfect landing on 2650’ strip and still needed some braking to stop before the end.

[whiskytango]

I learned to fly my first Mooney, an M20E, at W00, which is 2420' x 40'.  It worked out well, and I was based there for several years.  I think the fact that there was an MSC there, and my transition instructor had a lot of Mooney instruction time really helped.  I was told that some of the owners of long body Mooneys refused to fly into that airport for maintenance, and hired CFIs at the airport to do aircraft deliveries.

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Would you do it if you were a "new Mooney M20C owner with 20 landings under my belt"

I would get a GOOD Mooney instructor and get 20 landings on that runway and see what you think.

[Shadrach]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:17 AM, Joseph Long said:

It's no secret that hanger space is at a premium.  I'm currently hangered two hours away from home.  I'm in the top 5 on the waiting lists for two hangers within 30 minutes.  All other lists are 20+ deep.  I have an opportunity at a private airport.  The catch is the hard surface runway dimensions are 2764 x 25.  My mind is 99% made up, but I'm curious what others would do.  One note...I'm a new Mooney M20C owner with 20 landings under my belt

That’s plenty of runway. I’ve seen a C model based out of an 1800’ strip with a steep decline on one end. The plane is perfectly capable of operating there. With practice, the pilot can be made just as capable. I’d have no qualms about basing my F out of such a strip.  What is the closest bailout with an instrument approach?

[hubcap]

Determine your personal minimums and stick to them. If the runway is not accommodating but it’s the only place you can get a hangar don’t let that pressure cause you to compromise your personal minimums. 
 

My minimum runway length for my M20K 231 is 3000’ for everyday purposes.

[Fly Boomer]

8 minutes ago, hubcap said:

Determine your personal minimums and stick to them. If the runway is not accommodating but it’s the only place you can get a hangar don’t let that pressure cause you to compromise your personal minimums. 
 

My minimum runway length for my M20K 231 is 3000’ for everyday purposes.

^^^THIS^^^

And I'll bet you have way more than 20 landings under your belt!

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, hubcap said:

Determine your personal minimums and stick to them. If the runway is not accommodating but it’s the only place you can get a hangar don’t let that pressure cause you to compromise your personal minimums. 
 

My minimum runway length for my M20K 231 is 3000’ for everyday purposes.

Book landing roll for an M20C at max gross weight is about 600ft.  A good instructor should be able to have him quite comfortable with 2700ft in several hours. One should certainly have personal minimums. On the other hand, one should also strive to be comfortable operating their aircraft well within its performance envelope. The NTSB stats show that too many Mooney owners avoid developing proficiency at spot landing and short field work (2700 is not really a short strip for a C). The strip in question is narrow at 25’ but the main gear span is <10’. 

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

^^^THIS^^^

And I'll bet you have way more than 20 landings under your belt!

He has no way as of yet to determine his personal minimums. No one is encouraging him to land there without training. After landing there with an instructor several times he will be in a much more informed position to determine his personal minimums. Some have noted that these short runways are no big deal and some have been more cautious. No right or wrong, it’s up to the OP and his flight instructor. 

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, whiskytango said:

I learned to fly my first Mooney, an M20E, at W00, which is 2420' x 40'.  It worked out well, and I was based there for several years.  I think the fact that there was an MSC there, and my transition instructor had a lot of Mooney instruction time really helped.  I was told that some of the owners of long body Mooneys refused to fly into that airport for maintenance, and hired CFIs at the airport to do aircraft deliveries.

My hangar neighbors bought a brand new Bravo for their owner flown flight dept. It complimented their two  Conquest IIs and Seneca III for flights of one or two people. One of them told me the Bravo was a runway hog and that they limited it to 3500’ minimum. I asked him about approach speeds and understood the limitation. They used 90kts for short final. They were probably more than 1.4Vso ( for MGW) going into the flare. They were all Flight Safety trained. I don’t think they received good Mooney transition training, but what the hell am I going to say to a bunch of Comm/ATP rated pros that go to Flight Safety twice a year. I found out later that one of them pranged the prop in the first 10hrs but it never did slow them down. .

[T. Peterson]

47 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

My hangar neighbors bought a brand new Bravo for their owner flown flight dept. It complimented their two  Conquest IIs and Seneca III for flights of one or two people. One of them told me the Bravo was a runway hog and that they limited it to 3500’ minimum. I asked him about approach speeds and understood the limitation. They used 90kts for short final. They were probably more than 1.4Vso ( for MGW) going into the flare. They were all Flight Safety trained. I don’t think they received good Mooney transition training, but what the hell am I going to say to a bunch of Comm/ATP rated pros that go to Flight Safety twice a year. I found out later that one of them pranged the prop in the first 10hrs but it never did slow them down. .

They were flying it like it was a jet. I initially did the same thing, but fortunately the light bulb went on after reading this forum and 3 or 4 go-arounds from porpoising down the runway like a lovesick “Flipper”! At first I had no idea why the durn thing was doing the dolphin impersonation. Everything looked good and the touchdown was not hard. Sure, the airspeed was 80 to 85 knots but I like airspeed, and it was a lot less than the 135 to 140 I was used to seeing. So I was all set up, feeling good and suddenly we were off to the races! Finally it got through my thick skull that the Mooney was not a jet and it loved airspeed for flying, but not for landing. So even though touchdown was not hard, my pride and joy would just skip off the runway if there was any flying speed at all if for no other reason than to embarrass me!
Many on this forum contributed to enlightenment. 
Even highly trained professionals need the advice of other aviators. A true professional will recognize this and seek it out.

[PT20J]

An 10,000 hour ATP corporate pilot I know bought a Bonanza and the insurance company made him get 10 hours dual. He asked why and they said they had many more claims from pilots going from jets to single engine pistons than the other way around. After the training, he said they were right.

[Fly Boomer]

52 minutes ago, PT20J said:

An 10,000 hour ATP corporate pilot I know bought a Bonanza and the insurance company made him get 10 hours dual. He asked why and they said they had many more claims from pilots going from jets to single engine pistons than the other way around. After the training, he said they were right.

I would have guessed that to be true anecdotally, but this is the first time I have heard it "from the horse's mouth".

[exM20K]

9 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I would have guessed that to be true anecdotally, but this is the first time I have heard it "from the horse's mouth".

Back when I sold Diamonds, some of the most memorable landings I had the privilege of participating in were with high time airline pilots. The sight picture and height of your eyeballs above the landing surface are quite a bit different in the little planes.

-dan

[rbp]

10 hours ago, exM20K said:

Back when I sold Diamonds, some of the most memorable landings I had the privilege of participating in were with high time airline pilots. The sight picture and height of your eyeballs above the landing surface are quite a bit different in the little planes.

-dan

I took a FOAF who was a UA747 check airman on a fight in 54X about 15 years ago.  He flew from the right seat and I was his navigator and flight engineer. He nailed every airspeed heading and altitude like the plane was on rails, which was quite impressive for a first-timer, so I decided to take him to the former Castle Air Force Base with its 12,000x250 runway to see if he could land it. He flew the approach perfectly, until he decided to level off at 50', when I said, OK my airplane, and flew down to 1'. After the flight he told me he expected the wheels to come up through the wings. 

[rbp]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:17 AM, Joseph Long said:

2764 x 25

with training and a proper approach, its very doable, except in high DA

[Jim Peace]

I have seen pilots have trouble with the 200 foot wide runway at my airport....

[rbp]

On 5/8/2023 at 8:43 AM, Jim Peace said:

I have seen pilots have trouble with the 200 foot wide runway at my airport....

one day I'd like to see STOL simultaneous parallel landings perpendicular to the numbers 

[Hank]

On 5/8/2023 at 7:43 AM, Jim Peace said:

I have seen pilots have trouble with the 200 foot wide runway at my airport....

I've seen a twin Apache land over the trees and make the turnoff at 950'.

I've also seen a professional pilot, with hundreds of paying passengers, unable to land a jet transport from a visual approach; the runway was a couple miles long and at least 200' wide.

[Mooney in Oz]

27 minutes ago, Hank said:

I've also seen a professional pilot, with hundreds of paying passengers, unable to land a jet transport from a visual approach; the runway was a couple miles long and at least 200' wide.

Most airlines have strict criteria for stabilised approach by 1,000 feet, no matter the weather conditions. Flight Ops will know by recorded means if too high, low, fast, slow, landed too long, short, or even too much brake application. The Captain will probably get a please explain call.  

Easiest solution is to go around.

[Jim Peace]

1 hour ago, Mooney in Oz said:

Easiest solution is to go around.

Go around is not an option for those cultures that lose face if that happens....even if it means certain death to continue.

Also you cant question your boss in some asian cultures...even if it means certain death to continue.

This was proven at SFO....

 

 

[Mooneymite]

43 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Go around is not an option for those cultures that lose face if that happens....even if it means certain death to continue.

As my Navy flight instructor used to say derisively about the Marine instructors:  "They think a smokin' hole is a small price to pay for a $hit-hot approach."

[PT20J]

DC-3s regularly land at Riverside/Flabob (KRIR) for maintenance at Garsa Air. We took the museum DC-3 there for service when we lost a generator at San Diego. The runway is 3190 x 50. We could have made the 2000' turnoff but it was too narrow.

[larrynimmo]

I probably have 2000 landings in my J….and I do really check for crosswinds when I plan on landing on 25’ strips.

40’ is my minimum comfort 

and I consider 2,500’ length or longer with no issue.

the other day, I did three night landings at my home base with full stop by 1,700’ and wasn’t really trying to nail it….my guess is 1,500’ is possible

[A64Pilot]

If you’re going for short fields, numbers are irrelevant it’s completely pilot dependent. One person is comfortable with 1500 or less next guy sweats 2500.

Be comfortable and practiced with go-arounds and don’t be embarrassed to go-around, I’d even say go-around once a week just to maintain proficiency. Go-arounds are free.

Then don’t try to salvage an approach, if it’s doesn’t feel right simply go-around, if you adopt that ideology it’s very unlikely to have a landing incident, one that brakes the airplane and will take several months to repair, costs thousands of $$$ and not do your insurence any favors either.

I stalled my Maule in on a downwind landing trying to make a turn off, broke the Oleo strut, prop strike, right aileron and wingtip, which precipitated an engine overhaul, new prop, new fabric covering, new transparencies, new interior etc, tens of thousands and probably a year without the airplane, all because I didn’t go-around.