231 Mooney

[67 m20F chump]

I fly a 67’ M20F from a 2500’ grass runway that is in good shape.  I have always had the wondering eye for a turbo so I could fly over class B airspace and on top of summer clouds.  A plane that would be great in the low teens.  Any of you flying turbo’s from grass and how short is to damn short for a runway?  
 

I have never flown a turbo Mooney but have lots of time in F and J models.

[wombat]

Not grass, but I fly my turbo Mooney out of a 2,700' runway at 1,600 MSL.    It's totally acceptable although during the summer I will not plan any flights departing in the afternoon unless the plane is very light.

[67 m20F chump]

How much of that 2700’ are you using?  I’m at 800’ FE in the deep south.  I use less than half my runway to get in the air or land.  The non turbo F is a good short field performer because they are low weight.  Maybe I should be looking at how much more the turbo’s weigh.  Are they more nose heavy so that you wouldn’t want them on grass?

Any chance you have POH copies of TO/LND charts?  

[jlunseth]

I have a 231. Minnesota has a program called Fly Minnesota, where you get a leather jacket if you land at 135 of Minnesota’s 138 public airports. Somewhere around 25 or 30 of those are grass. Another pilot and I rented a Skyhawk and made about a dozen grass landings one day. Once I had done that, I did the rest in my 231. After that I was used to it so I did quite a few more grass strip landings just for the heck of it. The landings are pretty easy. You want to use a soft field technique. The grass has considerably more drag than asphalt unless it is wet, so I found that it was more comfortable to land on short grass strips than short asphalt. The plane slows quickly once the wheels are on the ground. I found the takeoffs to be the more demanding task. Soft field takeoff calls for lifting the plane off the ground and into ground effect, then allowing the plane to accelerate in ground effect before starting a climb. The nose of the 231 is pretty heavy. It takes some practice to lift it off and then drop the nose quickly to stay in ground effect, but it can definitely be done. The technique is helpful for any short field. You realize that, after the first few hundred feet you don’t actually need runway under the plane, just decent ground without tall grass or brush. I noticed that lots of grass strips in our area had what I would call “runouts” - areas past the end of the runway that were low flat ground, so you could use that to finish your takeoff if needed. There were lots of comments about dropping a wheel into a gopher hole and generating a prop strike. The prop clearance is not much compared to, say, the Skyhawk. I found all the grass strips I landed at to be well maintained and the gopher hole is probably remotely possible but not very likely. I always flew over and inspected a grass strip before making a landing. There was one strip in northern MN that had a patch of swamp grass in the middle and I elected not to land at that one, never have landed there, its one of two landing strips in the state that I have not landed on. All in all, you can do it, but the novelty wore off and the 231 was not the best plane to be landing on grass. I didn’t like the takeoffs frankly, it is a tricky balancing act to get off the ground and into ground effect and hold it there, so I have not done it for quite a few years now.

One of the problems with grass landings in MN, where I live, is that quite a few of them require coming in over a lake, staying high, and dropping over a tree line onto a short field. Lakes suck. The water is relatively cold compared to the land and you will need more power to maintain altitude or a reasonable descent rate for landing, and then right when you get to the runway that changes and the warm earth causes updrafts that lift the plane, as does the orographic effect of the tree line. You need to stay in practice to drop a 231 onto grass in those conditions. You can’t just do it because you have a plane and it is legal to land there.

[67 m20F chump]

I find the Mooney to not be the best on the grass as well.  They will get it done but it rides like an ox cart.  Thanks for the PIREP.  I found a 231 POH to download and get good numbers from.  I think my F is probably a good match for what I mostly do.  A turbo would be nice but not a must have for where I play.

[PeteMc]

2,500 ft is not an issue if you're light and the grass is WELL maintained.  But if you're talking about leaving a grass strip on a hot summer day fully loaded for a trip, I'd give it a second thought.  

I've flown my 231 into a few grass strips, but I knew them well and knew people that were flying into them frequently.  The one runway I did multiple times, Basin Harbor (B06) was 3000 ft and never an issue.  But it was maintained by the grounds crew for the golf course that was there.  So as long as they didn't have a lot of rain in the preceding days, that runway was better than some hard surface ones I've landed at. 

Also, you need to be careful about the lower gear doors on the 231.  If the grass is not cut short, and some grass strips keep it a bit long to maintain the field, that will be an issue. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:07 PM by PeteMc

[AndreiC]

Also, flying above a class B should not be an issue for an F. The top of O’Hare’s class B is at 10k. I’ve had my NA E model at 16500 and would have had no issues climbing further. (True, I was alone, but with a decent amount of baggage and full tanks.)

[hubcap]

I see where several respected members have flown their 231’s on to grass. Personally, I will not land on grass, nor do I need to, so it’s not an issue. At max gross weight, 3000’ is my personal minimum on pavement or concrete. 

[Z W]

I don't like going to any runway less than 3,000 feet in a K model. I have done it on a few occasions, down to 2,700 feet, but you really have to be on your game and nail your speeds for your weight.  The plane will do it when piloted properly but not a lot of forgiveness and it likes to float a long ways if you're just a few knots fast. Throw in high, hot, heavy, or a crosswind and I'll pass. Taking off is less of an issue than landing, but you have to land there before you can take off...

I have not done any grass in the K except for taxiing at Oshkosh which was fine. I did some grass runways in a C model Mooney and it was a non-event, but that plane was a much better short field performer. I would do it in the K if I had a reason, and 3,000+ feet of runway, but have not had those two criteria line up yet. Maybe the triple tree fly in sometime but it got rained out this year.

I would say if your mission is grass runways under 3,000 feet there are much better choices than a K model Mooney, and I love mine.

[bigmo]

Are you looking for a bunch more speed? Your F seems like a good match already. I stay low when on short trips but have zero issues taking my F up into the teens in long trips if the winds are cooperating. Ive got built in O2 which is nice and I enjoy the quiet, frankly. The F and J perform great up to 14k. After that, it’s a little out of its comfort zone, but still climbs well. My last trip over Idaho, center kept me over 15k longer than I needed, and the F seemed to not miss a beat. Frankly, 9-12k is kind of sweet spot - not to mention you’ve got cheap ops and good short field performance.

I only find myself wishing for more going west when the winds up at altitude are not in my favor. 

[67 m20F chump]

More speed is always the right answer!  I was thinking flying higher with O2 would be a good option to have.  I found a POH in the download section and looked it over.  I think the 231 would be nice but I’m better off staying with the plane I have for what I normally fly.  

[Hank]

14 hours ago, AndreiC said:

Also, flying above a class B should not be an issue for an F. The top of O’Hare’s class B is at 10k. I’ve had my NA E model at 16500 and would have had no issues climbing further. (True, I was alone, but with a decent amount of baggage and full tanks.)

The Atlanta Bravo goes to 12,500, so crossing it VFR must be done at either 13,500 or 14,500. So that's 60 miles wide, plus a buffer on both ends to guarantee that you don't clip it. 

So at 150 knots it would take 70/150 = 0.466 hours, or 28 minutes.

At 13,500 the pilot is required to be on oxygen after 30 minutes, and this calculation includes zero time climbing above 12,500.

At 14,500 the pilot is required to be on oxygen immediately. 

My C has no oxygen, and I'm not sure it would make 150 groundspeed over Atlanta both directions on a trip, so I comply with ATC's instructions to "stay out of the Bravo" and fly the extra 20-30 penalty minutes in each direction (quite a bit when dorect would go over the field and take 90 minutes; what is safer than above the field and 45° to the runways?). Because in 17 years of flying past ATL, their instructions have changed from "remain clear of the Bravo" and I have yet to be allowed inside the sacred space except when driving my car . . . . And my little C just doesn't have the legs to make it over.

If only the ATL Bravo was only 10K!

If only ATL controllers were as nice as Charlotte, who let me transition through regularly, and once directed me to fly over the field at 5000 msl headed almost due East . . . No penalty box there!

[M20F]

22 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

I find the Mooney to not be the best on the grass as well.  They will get it done but it rides like an ox cart. 

Taxing in and out of OSH is about the most stressful thing I do in an airplane. 

[jlunseth]

There are a few short grass strips among those 138 public airports in MN and I landed on and took off from them. But at the time, trying to make all the airports in the state, I was doing at least a dozen landings a day on all kinds and lengths of strips, so I was on my game. From memory, there are a couple in the 2800-2900 range and there may have been one that was 2500. I emphasize that those were grass strips where the grass improves braking, and they had runouts so you could stay in ground effect if needed, even if the plane was not ready to climb yet. But all that was awhile ago. There is no room for error. These days the shortest I land on on a regular basis is a 3000 strip, 4R5. I do about ten trips up there during the summer. It works, but I am always mindful of the end of the runway coming quickly when I land. Takeoff is just not an issue, the 231 makes 100% HP for takeoff wherever you are. Which reminds me, if anyone from out west or wanting to land out west is reading this, my personal minimums out there are quite a bit longer. The engine makes plenty of power, even at Leadville, but you will be landing at a higher true airspeed and need a longer runway. Most of the runways out there are around 1,000 longer than here in the Midwest. Don’t think you can take a Midwest minimum and use it out west at 6,000 or 10,000, not the same.

[Pinecone]

On 12/18/2024 at 6:53 PM, hubcap said:

I see where several respected members have flown their 231’s on to grass. Personally, I will not land on grass, nor do I need to, so it’s not an issue. At max gross weight, 3000’ is my personal minimum on pavement or concrete. 

While I look for 3000 feet or more, my home field has a turn off at 2000, that I can make if I want, but the next one is at 2500 and is very easy to make.

[Will.iam]

I live at an airpark that the runway is only 2600ft. I take-off max weight both winter and summer. I run the charts in the summer to verify I’m still under 2500ft. We have a bump at 2000ft down the runway and i have yet to hit that before I’m airborne. The only issue i have is my insurance would be cheaper if the runway was 3000ft but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. My neighbors M20R easily gets off early so does the m20J. In fact i think my M20K is the biggest runway hog of all the mooney fleet but that’s my personal opinion.