Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

That first plane looks like Bryan Painter's plane.     Don't know if he still owns it.  Update: He doesn't, but I don't know when that video was from.  I'm pretty sure he painted it (haha) so this would have to be after he bought it.  But he was very much into doing this sort of thing, so I would be not at all surprised if he's the one that was flying it for this video.

 

Survey (and FAA) says no:

https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N5842Q

Date Owner Location
24-Jun-2019 BRADFORD MICHAEL SAN JOSE CA
28-Mar-2019 TAYLOR GAIL L RED BLUFF CA
14-Mar-2018 CARTER TERRANCE B SACRAMENTO CA
14-Feb-2018 PAINTER BRYAN J RENTON WA
07-Nov-2014 PAINTER BRYAN J AUBURN WA
10-Feb-2012 PAINTER BRYAN J FAIRFIELD CA
25-Jul-2008 PAINTER BRYAN J TACOMA WA
18-Jul-2008 REGISTRATION PENDING TACOMA WA
02-Jun-2006 ORR RONALD L BRYAN TX
Posted

I think Bryan bought a Cessna tail dragger more suited to the strips he was exploring.

I am surprised at the number of Mooney owners that I’ve encountered that have never done a full cross controlled slip in their aircraft. It’s almost as if some think it’s undignified…

 

 

 

Posted

Yet I’ve read on this site that the Mooney test pilot says don’t do it.

If that’s true why isn't it prohibited in the POH, which tripped the argument of whether your truly prohibited in a 172 or not. I do slip mine on occasion, seems to slip well, most aircraft with a lot of side profile slip well and a Mooney has a lot of side profile, so it slips very well, meaning it’s rate of descent goes up a lot in a slip, drag of course.

Slipping is one of those old school skills that are being forgotten, like spins. Not that long ago spins I believe were required to be taught. Now they are feared by most.

Its not hard to get a Mooney into a strip that it can’t get out of, that’s true for most GA though

Due to the elevation change and a Mooney’s glide slope where I live landing to the East gives you 1,100 usable, it’s not hard to get into 1,000. (There is lots of overrun if you mess up). But there is no way I could get out in 1,000 Ft, not even close. Taking off there is 2,000 available and while it’s plenty the trees at the other end are closer than I like.

The N/S runway gives me 3400 so it’s almost always the runway I use unless the cross wind is 15 kt or so then I’ll go to the E/W one, 15 kts of wind make 1,000 a lot easier, but it’s do-able in no wind, and this is grass, meaning poor braking at best.

So long story short I can get into half of what it takes for me to be comfortable getting out of with the common 50’ trees off of the end.

I habitually fly heavy though, pretty close to gross so if I gutted the airplane and was short of fuel that would help a lot getting out.

Crazy as this sounds but my little C-140 isn’t that much better a short field airplane than the Mooney, with it’s mighty 85 HP it’s power limited to a much greater extent than the Mooney.

The Maule I was comfortable with 300’ in or out, add maybe 200’ for obstacles at the ends. It would easily get off the ground in zero wind in 150’, get it light and add just a little wind and it would take off before the end of the numbers on a runway, however big they are. Starting from the end of the pavement.

Long way to say that if or when you get comfortable at the slow end of flight a Mooney is actually a pretty darned good short field machine, for whatever reason people usually land one WAY to fast. If you start practicing holding the aircraft about a foot or so off the ground until she lands with the nose way high and get used to that speed / sight picture. Then you will see just how good she flies slowed down

Even the C-210 if kept light was at least as good a STOL airplane as a 182, wasn’t a rough field airplane though.

M20, I assume all models excepting the Mite has 174 sq ft wing area, a C-180 and C-185 have, you guessed it 174 sq ft wing area. Of course we don’t have the rough field capability of those two tail draggers but with the same wing area we don’t give up much in short field, just don’t have those wonderful Fowler flaps so we can’t get their descent angle.

Plus the nose dragger Maule and the Tri-Pacer prove over and over that a nose dragger can take off slightly shorter, simply because you can raise the nose higher in a nose wheel airplane.

Of course a Mooney isn’t usually thought of as a short field airplane and the majority of them fly from one mile long paved runway to another so the owners never really try short field, but they do much better than most think, as they don’t slow down well you just have to get comfortable with a slow approach speed.

Crazy as this sounds but a Mooney has almost 10 more sq ft wing area than a long winged maule, early Maules had at least two foot less wing length.

I bet a little short body Mooney flown well would really surprise some folks

Posted

@A64Pilot, the prohibition on slips is for long body Mooneys. The video shows a C, and mine slips well too. Your J should also slip just fine.

But the long bodies are longer, the horizontal stab is further back, the fuselage roof profile is different, and in a full flap slip the tail is blanketed and loses airflow, which would be a problem near the ground . . . .

  • Like 4
Posted
On 1/30/2024 at 7:42 AM, A64Pilot said:

Its not hard to get a Mooney into a strip that it can’t get out of, that’s true for most GA though

I see and hear this frequently, but I just don't see how the numbers add up.  Book take off roll is almost always significantly less than landing roll. Even the 50' calculations for both show that significantly more is needed for landing.  Your average weekend warrior is going to have a much harder time approximating book landing numbers than the will book take off numbers.  

I fly into many sub 2000' strips and indeed some that are sub 1800'.  I am relatively proficient at spot and stop in well under 1000'.  If you haven't taken some time to become proficient, it's not so easy.  Once you get comfortable, it's a skill that does not tend to atrophy as much as other skillsets. However, max performance landings are kind of hairy business that most are not performing. If done correctly, ALL of the aft elevator travel is used (and needed) in the flare to ensure a soft touch down. 

It is most definitely not "easy" to get a Mooney into a strip that the airplane can't get out of, but it becomes more possible at higher weights and DAs.  Prudent to avoid short, back country, strips at DAs above 5,000 with the airplane at max gross.  I doubt that it'll much trouble for most Mooney owners to avoid such conditions.

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Its not hard to get a Mooney into a strip that it can’t get out of, that’s true for most GA though

It varies. With most of the makes/models I've flown, that true - the determining factor is takeoff performance.  But Mooney wings tend to be an exception. You really have to look at the numbers for the airframe rather than generalizations. 

Posted
7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Yet I’ve read on this site that the Mooney test pilot says don’t do it.

I think the long body may be more of a potential issue than the others (blanking the tail and pitch oscillations).

Posted
7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

If that’s true why isn't it prohibited in the POH

Not prohibited, but my K POH specifically has a big CAUTION BOX followed by: Avoid sideslips with flaps extended and partial power (15-25 In Hg MP) applied.

And I was told in various PPPs as @Fly Boomer said, it can disrupt the airflow by the elevator/rudder.  So just one of those things you need to be aware of and realize what may be happening if the controls seem off. 

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

Not prohibited, but my K POH specifically has a big CAUTION BOX followed by: Avoid sideslips with flaps extended and partial power (15-25 In Hg MP) applied.

What section is that admonition found in?  Also, what version of the POH does your airplane have?  Mine is 1236.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

What section is that admonition found in?  Also, what version of the POH does your airplane have?  Mine is 1236.

REV F 3-7-84   ISSUED 11-16-78   MANUAL NUMBER 1224   S/N 25-0001 thru 25-04460

Maneuver Limits 2-8

image.png.08a3360767eaecae746347ea6f2dd7bc.png

Posted
4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I see and hear this frequently, but I just don't see how the numbers add up.  Book take off roll is always significantly less than landing roll. Even the 50' calculations for both show that significantly more is needed for landing.  Your average weekend warrior is going to have a much harder time approximating book landing numbers than the will book take off numbers.  

I fly into many sub 2000' strips and indeed some that are sub 1800'.  I am relatively proficient at spot and stop in well under 1000'.  If you haven't taken some time to become proficient, it's not so easy.  Once you get comfortable, it's a skill that does not tend to atrophy as much as other skillsets. However, max performance landings are kind of hairy business that most are not performing. If done correctly, ALL of the aft elevator travel is used (and needed) in the flare to ensure a soft touch down. 

It is most definitely not "easy" to get a Mooney into a strip that the airplane can't get out of, but it becomes more possible at higher weights and DAs.  Prudent to avoid short, back country, strips at DAs above 5,000 with the airplane at max gross.  I doubt that it'll much trouble for most Mooney owners to avoid such conditions.

 

 

 

So, you can get out of a strip well less than 1,000 ft? Grass strip remember. I wouldn’t try the repercussions of almost making it are too severe.

You can honestly get a Mooney down and stopped in well less than 1,000 assuming you’re not coming in over 50’ trees. 

Technique can significantly shorten landing distance, but it can’t really shorten takeoff distance.

Maule was an outlier, it needed 150’ takeoff roll and I think that’s at gross because light it was way less than 100’.

 

Most don’t understand max performance landings, you carry some power until touchdown because your in the region of reversed command, some tailwheels you keep some power in, the airflow over the tail keeps it down during hard braking. Maule you came in if memory serves at 1500 RPM and full stall with the brakes locked, she would stop in I’d guess 100 ish feet, but if you got it slightly wrong or if one wheel found better traction you would ground loop or if both did, she’s going over on her nose.

I didn’t do much short landing competitions, the risk of damage was too great.

But a Mooney is just the wrong aircraft for the job, I’m just commenting they are more capable than most realize

I assume this guy hopefully won his class, wonder what it cost? He was dragging it in and missed the timing by just a smidge. Or maybe he grabbed full reverse just a little early.

IMG_1672.png

Posted (edited)
On 1/30/2024 at 7:42 AM, A64Pilot said:

Yet I’ve read on this site that the Mooney test pilot says don’t do it.

the six cylinder turbo planes are working the tail much harder, hence the small extension on the K and TN elevator trailing edge.

 

I might know someone mentioned in this clip….

Bob%20Krommer%20on%20Mooney%20Slips-Part

Link not working correctly, so here's the text

From the Mooney List

December 2, 2005

by Bob Kromer    

Slipping a Mooney    

During development and certification on the M20K 252 at the factory, I encountered the aerodynamic buffeting while slipping on approach as described by Dan Eldridge in his posting on slips in his M20K 231. Obviously, this gets a test pilot's attention and we began an investigation. Thought you might be interested in what we found.  For our slip tests, we flew the M20K, the M20J and the Mooney/Porsche engineering prototypes that were at the factory at the time.  This gave us a good cross section of different aircraft configurations (short/long fuselage, different pitch trim requirements on approach, etc.)  What we found was 1) All airplanes were fine above 85 KIAS in full rudder deflection forward slips, flaps up and flaps down.  2) But somewhere between 80-85 KIAS and lower, AERODYNAMIC BUFFETING FROM THE HORIZONTAL TAIL/ELEVATOR occurred in the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche airframes ALONG WITH A SLIGHT LOSS OF ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS AND A SLIGHT NOSE DOWN PITCHING MOMENT.  These conditions were worsened with flaps down compared to the flaps up.  Aerodynamic tufting of the horizontal tail revealed what was happening.  In the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche with their more forward CGs, almost full nose up pitch trim is required for a "hands off" approach at the target approach airspeed.  This puts the horizontal stabilizer of the Mooney tail at a high negative angle of attack (to keep the nose up).  With the horizontal tail at this high negative angle of attack and especially with flaps full down, the local airflow over the horizontal tail is getting pretty close to max alpha, the angle of attack where the tail will stall.  I want to emphasize that IN NORMAL FLYING, THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN - no need to worry about the tail stalling in your M20K or long body Mooney.  But start slipping the airplane at 85 KIAS and below or have a little ice on that stabilizer leading edge and those margins can get mighty thin.  Combine a slip maneuver with some pretty good yanking on the control wheel in turbulence and you might get a partial tail stall.  We did in flight test - in the M20K the result was buffeting felt in the control wheel and the slight nose down pitching moment.  So my advice from the test pilot's seat is don't go there - especially if you fly a Mooney model that requires lots of nose up pitch trim on the approach.  An aggressive  forward slip in those airplanes with the speed low and the flaps down puts the tail in an extreme airflow condition.  The airplane will warn you with buffeting and a slight pitch down, but who knows - add some ice and look out.  This is not the way to fly your Mooney.  My bottom line opinion - keep the ball near center on the approach and you're flying the Mooney design correctly and safely with the safety margins it was meant to have.    Best Regards;    Bob Kromer  

-dan

Edited by exM20K
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Its not hard to get a Mooney into a strip that it can’t get out of, that’s true for most GA though

Acclaim (and likely ovation/bravo) are not so.  Especially with 310HP STC, landing distance is the limiting factor for me.

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-guide/aircraft/mooney-acclaim

-dan

Edited by exM20K
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I fly into many sub 2000' strips and indeed some that are sub 1800'.

I went into Elizabeth Field on Fishers Island, NY (0B8) years ago.  It's showing 1,806' now and I don't think they've extended either Rwy (2,345' for the "long" Rwy).  Sort of cheated though as there are ZERO issues with the trees at either end (or at least back then).  And if you're landing 07, you come right across the water and over a tiny rising beach to the Threshold. 

But I was doing a lot of flying back then, including a lot of smaller strips.  But I don't think I'd try that today without a lot of short field practice. 

 

Posted

A64...That is how mis- information gets out there.  You should modify that post or at least acknowledge/clarify that slips are NOT an issue in majority of Mooney's.  The issue was/is with long bodies.

Posted
1 hour ago, Echo said:

A64...That is how mis- information gets out there.  You should modify that post or at least acknowledge/clarify that slips are NOT an issue in majority of Mooney's.  The issue was/is with long bodies.

Well technically the 252 is a mid-body that bob tested and found issues with as well as the long bodies. The J did not suffer from it as the CG is more balanced. Throw a couple of water jugs in the baggage compartment and the 252 would not have the issue either. Really it’s anytime you have alot of nose up trim which equates to alot of negative horizontal stab angle of attack to the point that it’s on the verge of stalling. 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

So, you can get out of a strip well less than 1,000 ft? Grass strip remember. I wouldn’t try the repercussions of almost making it are too severe.

You can honestly get a Mooney down and stopped in well less than 1,000 assuming you’re not coming in over 50’ trees. 

Technique can significantly shorten landing distance, but it can’t really shorten takeoff distance.

Maule was an outlier, it needed 150’ takeoff roll and I think that’s at gross because light it was way less than 100’.

 

Most don’t understand max performance landings, you carry some power until touchdown because your in the region of reversed command, some tailwheels you keep some power in, the airflow over the tail keeps it down during hard braking. Maule you came in if memory serves at 1500 RPM and full stall with the brakes locked, she would stop in I’d guess 100 ish feet, but if you got it slightly wrong or if one wheel found better traction you would ground loop or if both did, she’s going over on her nose.

I didn’t do much short landing competitions, the risk of damage was too great.

But a Mooney is just the wrong aircraft for the job, I’m just commenting they are more capable than most realize

I assume this guy hopefully won his class, wonder what it cost? He was dragging it in and missed the timing by just a smidge. Or maybe he grabbed full reverse just a little early.

IMG_1672.png

Grass is kind of a crap shoot. So it would depend on the specific location/conditions.  I’ve had my bird on grass many times, It certainly shortens landing roll and increases take off distances, whether it’s enough to reverse the tendency of my airplane to take off shorter than it lands will depend. At 2300lbs (heavier than I would be for short field work) the book says landing at SL should take 640’ and take off should take 595’. I’m confident that most of us are going to have an easier time with achieving something like book takeoff numbers over than on landing. I’m not saying one cant get into something they can’t get out of. I’m saying it’s not easy.

Posted
8 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Well technically the 252 is a mid-body that bob tested and found issues with as well as the long bodies. The J did not suffer from it as the CG is more balanced. Throw a couple of water jugs in the baggage compartment and the 252 would not have the issue either. Really it’s anytime you have alot of nose up trim which equates to alot of negative horizontal stab angle of attack to the point that it’s on the verge of stalling. 

I think most Mooneys of any length take a lot of nose up trim when light and slow. I have had mine against the aft trim stop of short fins more than once.

That being said, I have never been able to induce a tail stall in my F.l

Posted
2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I think most Mooneys of any length take a lot of nose up trim when light and slow. I have had mine against the aft trim stop of short fins more than once.

That being said, I have never been able to induce a tail stall in my F.l

My typical landings have the trim very near the Takeoff mark. It's just where it often ends up, I never look at the Trim Indicator except prior to takeoff unless I'm curious.

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hank said:

My typical landings have the trim very near the Takeoff mark. It's just where it often ends up, I never look at the Trim Indicator except prior to takeoff unless I'm curious.

Just look at the trim indicator after you have landed unless you “trim in the flare” it should be at what you approached the runway with. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I think most Mooneys of any length take a lot of nose up trim when light and slow. I have had mine against the aft trim stop of short fins more than once.

That being said, I have never been able to induce a tail stall in my F.l

The test pilot didn’t get it either until he got below 85 knots. Since the F flies a slower approach than a 252 i wonder if it happens to an F but it’s just at a slower speed. One of these days i will go up and practice a few slips at altitude and slow it down to 80 kias just to see what buffeting she does and how quickly the tail stalls beyond the buffeting. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

The test pilot didn’t get it either until he got below 85 knots. Since the F flies a slower approach than a 252 i wonder if it happens to an F but it’s just at a slower speed. One of these days i will go up and practice a few slips at altitude and slow it down to 80 kias just to see what buffeting she does and how quickly the tail stalls beyond the buffeting. 

I could probably find some configurations I have not explored. I have done full cross controlled, forward slips at under 70KIAS with full flaps…at  altitude. That being said, there’s rarely an operational need for an aggressive slip at that speed, and when there is, it’s  likely that an alternative correction could have been done earlier. I’ve been guilty several times of having to take more aggressive measures to correct what could have been mitigated gently just a few moments prior.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.