Landing flap setting for "normal" landings in a J

[Stephan Kablitz]

Dear Dave,

less important that the flap setting is speed control. And in the above mentioned article from Wayne Fischer he emphasizes on the influence of the actual weight at landing. To me, this combined is all the „mystery“ to landing a Mooney there is. Know your weight and the associated speeds and than control the respective speed.

This will lead usually (landing weight is most of the times a lot lower than max. weight) to seemingly low speeds over the fence. But surprisingly the landings will make a lot more sense. However, you need to know your numbers also when you are at max. gross weight. Once you are behind the power curve at MGW the ship starts sinking fast, pitching up won‘t help. I dinged a gear door once when there would be no energy left to flare.

Cheers, Stephan

[McMooney]

I have an E not a J so there are differences but i find landing at takeoff flaps is about perfect,  plane lands slow and go arounds are a no factor.  Landing wise, she still is down and stopped in less than 2000ft without really trying.

[ttflyer]

I'll just add this from our M20J (205) POH.  Not very often there isn't some crosswind...  I usually use TO flaps for landing.  It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground. Seems most people that have issues landing Mooneys seem to land them flat or on the nose wheel first. Yes, this an airspeed problem but it is what it is... Flaps TO helps this a bit.  Also, as stated in the other thread, there are no configuration changes are required during a go-around. None. Just add power and pitch up. That's it. YMMV.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I always use full flaps. I’ve landed in some pretty wicked crosswinds. Can’t see how partial flaps would help.

Let the flames begin….

[ttflyer]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I always use full flaps. I’ve landed in some pretty wicked crosswinds. Can’t see how partial flaps would help.

Let the flames begin….

I think the theory is that less flaps gives you 1) higher landing attitude so you are less likely to prang it on the nose wheel (particularly at=>; 2) faster speeds so you have more control effectiveness.  As I said, you do you. YMMV...

Edited September 13 by ttflyer

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I always use full flaps. I’ve landed in some pretty wicked crosswinds. Can’t see how partial flaps would help.

Let the flames begin….

I've been the same way.   A few times in high-crosswind approaches when I did use half-flaps, I wound up putting the rest in on short final. 

I think the idea for a faster landing speed with a crosswind is to minimize the correction angle or sideload on touchdown, but I suspect those differences are small for small airplanes.   Reducing energy at touchdown feels more beneficial to me, but my experience level is low compared to some others.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, ttflyer said:

I'll just add this from our M20J (205) POH.  Not very often there isn't some crosswind...  I usually use TO flaps for landing.  It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground. Seems most people that have issues landing Mooneys seem to land them flat or on the nose wheel first. Yes, this an airspeed problem but it is what it is... Flaps TO helps this a bit.  Also, as stated in the other thread, there are no configuration changes are required during a go-around. None. Just add power and pitch up. That's it. YMMV.

 

"I usually use TO flaps for landing.  It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground."  

I think this is great point.  I don't understand why so many highlight wanting full flaps to keep the nose down more.

[N201MKTurbo]

23 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

"I usually use TO flaps for landing.  It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground."  

I think this is great point.  I don't understand why so many highlight wanting full flaps to keep the nose down more.

At all flap settings, the yoke still works. With full nose up trim, it isn’t hard to put the nose wherever you need it. I like to land as slow as possible. Extra speed on the ground never seems like a good idea.

[N201MKTurbo]

I think you guys give too much credibility to the 1/2 flaps thing. The Mooney flaps are not nearly as effective as the flaps on other planes. The only time I use takeoff flaps is for short or soft field takeoffs. For landing they are either up or down. I only land with them up if someone asks me to, or they are broke.

[ArtVandelay]

No matter what flaps I use on landings, I always put them fully down to allow easier step on/off the wing (I don’t have a step).

[ttflyer]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

At all flap settings, the yoke still works. With full nose up trim, it isn’t hard to put the nose wherever you need it. I like to land as slow as possible. Extra speed on the ground never seems like a good idea.

I've never had a problem getting a Mooney stopped on any runway I've landed on.  We're talking a couple of knots here. I fly jets too and the speed doesn't seem to scare me...

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I think you guys give too much credibility to the 1/2 flaps thing. The Mooney flaps are not nearly as effective as the flaps on other planes. The only time I use takeoff flaps is for short or soft field takeoffs. For landing they are either up or down. I only land with them up if someone asks me to, or they are broke.

Yeah, we're talking an inch or two at most. Might make all the difference or none at all. Like I said you do you. There are valid reasons for using TO flaps for landing. Not the least of which is it's what the POH says to do if the is a crosswind. Disregard the POH all you want. Or if your POH doesn't say that, good on you for not making things up as you go and just doing what you do. 

[Ftrdave]

I really appreciate all of the inputs on this topic. The article about landing a Mooney reinforced a lot of what I have been told.

My one "complaint" with GA aircraft ownership relative to this topic is the lack of "truth data" regarding the flight characteristics and OEM provided operating techniques (all relative to what I am accustomed to with military aircraft operations). I feel certain that the lack of data and recommendations is due to the OEM's concern for liability (not unfounded) if they provide detailed recommendations that someone claims leads to a mishap. Bottomline, missing this information leads us all to essentially acting as test pilots and having to discover for ourselves the "right answers." Unless you find a CFI that is experienced in your type/model/series aircraft, they may not have the capability to teach you safe techniques for your specific aircraft. 

So, relying upon the best data as recommended (POH) and the best "consensus" on technique, I went out to discover for myself some numbers. Here are the numbers I captured in my flight today (stall warning, Vso, 1.2xVso and 1.3Vso - all in MPH):  full flaps (65, 61, 74, 80), takeoff flaps (68, 63, 76, 82), no flaps (74, 68, 82, 88). All of this data was captured at 3000' MSL, gear down, level flight, about 15" MAP and roughly 2500 pounds. Each stall was taken to a true "break" and not just airframe buffet (occurs about 2-3 mph prior to the break). First note is that the aircraft stalls in an incredibly predictable manner, no bad behavior (stall tone, then airframe buffet, then a nose beak with only a small roll off that is easily countered) and recovery is very controllable with almost no altitude loss.

I then performed a series of circus landings using the technique recommended from the article:  approach at 1.3xVso and cross threshold at 1.2xVso, idle power and a smooth roundout. No flap landing was not dramatic and when flown on the numbers above was very straightforward (resulting in the aforementioned higher nose up attitude), same story for takeoff flap (I can see why there are a lot of folks who prefer this configuration as their "normal") and full flaps was definitely more predictable and controllable using these numbers and this technique (however, as mentioned, it results in a flatter attitude but comes with the benefits of the shortest landing rollout).

Conclusion, previous to today, I was carrying 4-5 mph more than necessary as I was flying at 1.3xVso all the way to roundabout. Slowing to 1.2xVso across the threshold was a game changer.  Given the 13mph buffer between 1.2xVso and stall, I feel "okay" about this technique, but sure would love it more if Mooney had provided the test flight data and recommended techniques to go along with my test flight....

Hope everyone has a great day. Fly safe and fly happy!

[Ftrdave]

I forgot to mention that my comments about Mooney's lack of information in the POH are relative to the 1977 POH for my J. It appears that later aircraft POH's included additional information and recommendations that align to my findings today (and a lot of your recommendations) and would have been greatly appreciated if included in my POH!