Rocket in landing incident at KHND.

[47U]

On 7/4/2025 at 1:13 PM, 1980Mooney said:

It is hard to tell from the pic but the spinner looks like it is crushed in and one blade is completely bent under the lower cowling.

 

I think the spinner took out the TAXIWAY E sign which would account for the prop blade bent under, and the remnants of the sign are lodged in the horizontal stab.  A runway light might have been involved, too.

[NickG]

9 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

If ever there was an airplane that needs a gentle touch on taxiing, takeoff, and landing, it's the Rocket.  I think the prop clearance is about 9".  They have been known to have a prop strike while taxiing.

@donkaye, MCFII’m assuming they’re quite nose heavy as well?

[KLRDMD]

3 hours ago, cliffy said:

The world of GA aviation is changing.  Steel tube, sheet metal and rivets are going away with the new generations of pilots looking to composite and parachutes.  While we try to hang onto Model Ts they look forward to Ferraris. 

Don't forget the experimental world. Lots of RVs out there now. Mooney cruise speed with Cessna 150 speeds in the pattern.

Edited Sunday at 05:38 PM by KLRDMD

[Slick Nick]

There was a guy at my local airport who bounced pretty hard this past winter. The plane is still sitting in the weeds with collapsed landing gear, I assume until the insurance company decides what to do with it.  According to the accident report, it was on takeoff:

C-FGLX, a privately registered Mooney M20J was departing from Calgary/Springbank Airport (CYBW), AB, for Lethbridge Airport (CYQL), AB. After take-off the aircraft climbed to approximately 50 feet AGL and then settled back to the runway. Mixture was full rich; the throttle was full, the propeller control was full fine for the take-off and the engine instruments were indicating in the correct range. The aircraft exited the left side of the runway and contacted an airport sign damaging the left wing and collapsing the left main landing gear.

[Slick Nick]

Couple things come to mind with that one. CYBW is at 4000’. In all my decades operating out of there, I’ve never had the mixture full rich on departure, especially in my J. You’ll be significantly down on power. Maybe it’s possible that the plane was overloaded? If no mechanical failure, that’s about the time you’d get out of ground effect. 

[donkaye, MCFI]

3 hours ago, NickG said:

@donkaye, MCFII’m assuming they’re quite nose heavy as well?

Very nose heavy.

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

Couple things come to mind with that one. CYBW is at 4000’. In all my decades operating out of there, I’ve never had the mixture full rich on departure, especially in my J. You’ll be significantly down on power. Maybe it’s possible that the plane was overloaded? If no mechanical failure, that’s about the time you’d get out of ground effect. 

How much ground effect do you get at 50 ft AGL? 

[NickG]

3 hours ago, IvanP said:

How much ground effect do you get at 50 ft AGL? 

I would imagine none - Starts at 1 wingspan (36') and most effective 20% of that (7.2')

[Slick Nick]

5 hours ago, IvanP said:

How much ground effect do you get at 50 ft AGL? 

You shouldn’t get any at 50 feet, which is why it probably fell out of the sky. Read above. 

[IvanP]

39 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

You shouldn’t get any at 50 feet, which is why it probably fell out of the sky. Read above. 

I doubt that "getting out of ground effect" was significant factor there, but who knows.  

[Slick Nick]

8 hours ago, IvanP said:

I doubt that "getting out of ground effect" was significant factor there, but who knows.  

Just armchair quarterbacking here of course, but my theory is this:

Induced drag is much lower while in ground effect, which on the M20 should be around 30’-35’. If the plane was overloaded, had an incorrect flap setting, etc. it would be possible for it to get airborne in ground effect, but then unable to overcome the additional drag once clear. Eyewitness accounts said it appeared as though the aircraft stalled and came back to the runway. 

Again, just my armchair quarterback theory, but I’d love to hear yours. 

[skykrawler]

15 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

Very nose heavy.

Every airplane I've flown is nose heavy when I try to land trimmed for 20kts above the landing speed.

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, skykrawler said:

Every airplane I've flown is nose heavy when I try to land trimmed for 20kts above the landing speed.

The pilot of N66JG did so many things wrong that I didn't even want to begin to get into it.  The fact is that the Rocket was originally a 231 and was modified to have a much heavier engine with Charlie Weights needed in the rear.   Couple that with the very small prop clearance and, if not flown carefully, a prop strike is easier to have than in other Mooneys with larger prop clearances.  Also, the prop clearance could have been even less if the shock disks were in need of replacement.

[201er]

1 hour ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

Couple that with the very small prop clearance and, if not flown carefully, a prop strike is easier to have than in other Mooneys with larger prop clearances.

Given the extent of the damage, I’m pretty sure the fact that it was a rocket made no difference. The slightly greater prop clearance or any other Mooney may have varied the exact extent of damage but not whether or not this approach would cause it. Heck, I’m not sure another brand airplane would fair well under the same circumstances either.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

. . . the very small prop clearance and, if not flown carefully, a prop strike is easier to have than in other Mooneys with larger prop clearances.

Huh. My Mooney doesn't seem to have that "larger prop clearance."

[donkaye, MCFI]

44 minutes ago, 201er said:

Given the extent of the damage, I’m pretty sure the fact that it was a rocket made no difference. The slightly greater prop clearance or any other Mooney may have varied the exact extent of damage but not whether or not this approach would cause it. Heck, I’m not sure another brand airplane would fair well under the same circumstances either.

My comment about the Rocket was made in general, not this particular case where the plane was flown so poorly and with so lack of judgement that nothing could have saved it.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

My comment about the Rocket was made in general, not this particular case where the plane was flown so poorly and with so lack of judgement that nothing could have saved it.

Sure appears to be the case.

I thought all Mooneys had about the same prop clearance, i.e., not very much. 

[donkaye, MCFI]

11 minutes ago, Hank said:

Sure appears to be the case.

I thought all Mooneys had about the same prop clearance, i.e., not very much. 

The Bravo has a prop clearance of 11".

[MikeOH]

My M20F has 9.5"

I wonder what the actual travel, under landing compression at a given fpm descent, is on the gear.  I.e., how much of that 9.5" is 'used up' when the nose gear hits?  And how much more is due to worn shock discs?  I suspect the extra weight on newer models is a huge effect, as well; more inertia at a given fpm impact.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

The Bravo has a prop clearance of 11".

It can be improved.  The 4 blade my on my rocket has 2” of prop clearance recovered and removes 35lb from the nose which greatly improves the balance.

[Fly Boomer]

39 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

My M20F has 9.5"

I wonder what the actual travel, under landing compression at a given fpm descent, is on the gear.  I.e., how much of that 9.5" is 'used up' when the nose gear hits?  And how much more is due to worn shock discs?  I suspect the extra weight on newer models is a huge effect, as well; more inertia at a given fpm impact.

I'll be interested to read what @donkaye, MCFI has to say, but I would be surprised if old elastomeric gear discs shrink much, and if the nose is slamming down, it sounds like technique.

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

It can be improved.  The 4 blade my on my rocket has 2” of prop clearance recovered and removes 35lb from the nose which greatly improves the balance.

How many Charlie weights are in your tail, and did the new prop allow you to remove any?

[aviatoreb]

38 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

How many Charlie weights are in your tail, and did the new prop allow you to remove any?

The Charlie weight bay in the tail is full as it comes from the rocket conversion.  Yes I could have removed several to keep balance as it was - nose heavy but within allowable envelope.  I removed none since I preferred the more balanced centered envelope of a lighter Mooney.  Better road feel.

[201er]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

The Charlie weight bay in the tail is full as it comes from the rocket conversion.  Yes I could have removed several to keep balance as it was - nose heavy but within allowable envelope.  I removed none since I preferred the more balanced centered envelope of a lighter Mooney.  Better road feel.

There isn't a penalty for this at the rear CG envelope with baggage and rear seats filled?

[Fly Boomer]

10 minutes ago, 201er said:

There isn't a penalty for this at the rear CG envelope with baggage and rear seats filled?

I doubt it's possible to get outside the aft envelope.