Mooney spins and stalls

[Schllc]

6 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

How would stall strips get moved?  I believe they are all screwed in (at least mine are). No one is drilling new holes in the leading edge of the wing during maintenance or painting and moving them around. 

The stall strips on tks panels are glued, and they can very easily be moved to different locations when being repaired. 

[Ragsf15e]

4 minutes ago, Schllc said:

The stall strips on tks panels are glued, and they can very easily be moved to different locations when being repaired. 

I want to say the ones without panels are moveable as well if the screws are loosened, but someone else will have to chime in on that.

[1980Mooney]

4 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I want to say the ones without panels are moveable as well if the screws are loosened, but someone else will have to chime in on that.

What A&P is going to Willy nilly unscrew stall strips and move them around requiring new holes drilled in the leading edge?  

[Ragsf15e]

10 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

What A&P is going to Willy nilly unscrew stall strips and move them around requiring new holes drilled in the leading edge?  

I don’t think they would, but I think there are some threads around here where paint shops tried to remove them to paint separately.  Maybe Im wrong?  

[1980Mooney]

18 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I don’t think they would, but I think there are some threads around here where paint shops tried to remove them to paint separately.  Maybe Im wrong?  

No, you’re not wrong – but they reinstall them after painting just like everything else that they removed for painting. 

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

The stall strips on tks panels are glued, and they can very easily be moved to different locations when being repaired. 

Fair point with respect to the small minority of the Mooney fleet with TKS. But the OP previously said he has a ‘85 M20J.   The stall strip is held in place by 4 screws.

@Ragsf15e  I would be very upset if the paint shop did not remove it for stripping, alodining, priming and painting. You can see it is an angle shape with airspace between it and the curved leading edge of the wing.  

[Schllc]

13 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Fair point with respect to the small minority of the Mooney fleet with TKS. But the OP previously said he has a ‘85 M20J.   The stall strip is held in place by 4 screws.

@Ragsf15e  I would be very upset if the paint shop did not remove it for stripping, alodining, priming and painting. You can see it is an angle shape with airspace between it and the curved leading edge of the wing.  

I have no idea why it is not riveted at least. It seems to be a big weak point in the system given they are $700 some odd for the part alone. Hope it doesn’t damage the line. 

[PT20J]

The Mooney wing leading edge is very sensitive to deformities. Mine had some hangar rash on the right wing leading edge about 2/3 out towards the tip that had been repaired and bondoed. The repair was barely noticeable. I didn’t notice it until I had owned the airplane for a year. But it always dropped the right wing at the stall break. When I had the airplane painted, the paint shop improved that previous repair and now it stalls wings level. 

[Fly Boomer]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

How would stall strips get moved?  I believe they are all screwed in (at least mine are). No one is drilling new holes in the leading edge of the wing during maintenance or painting and moving them around. 

Some get moved when aftermarket TKS is installed.  Maybe a little; maybe a lot.  There is no way to get the new stall strips into the perfect position without a Mooney test pilot.  I'm sure they do the best they can, but some TKS systems are installed by installers who don't have a Mooney test pilot available.

EDIT:  Never mind, @Schllc beat me by a mile.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Some get moved when aftermarket TKS is installed.  Maybe a little; maybe a lot.  There is no way to get the new stall strips into the perfect position without a Mooney test pilot.  I'm sure they do the best they can, but some TKS systems are installed by installers who don't have a Mooney test pilot available.

EDIT:  Never mind, @Schllc beat me by a mile.

They don't get moved, they are completely replaced with different titanium stall strips on TKS-retrofitted airplanes. The TKS stall strips are glued on with fuel tank sealant, not screwed on.

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

They don't get moved, they are completely replaced with different titanium stall strips on TKS-retrofitted airplanes. The TKS stall strips are glued on with fuel tank sealant, not screwed on.

By "moved" I meant they don't (can't) end up where they started from the factory.  I don't have any factory stall strips to compare to, but they are probably not precisely the same size and shape either.

[Shadrach]

On 1/14/2026 at 7:59 PM, jcolgan said:

I can fly them.  I just don’t think it is worthwhile.  Nor can I think of any times I would absolutely have to fly slower than I prefer.  Divert, change plans, adapt.  
 

Training used to require spins, but that was abandoned after it proved dangerous.  The standards can be changed, but until they are I will comply while believing the slow flight portions are not helpful.  

Someday a pilot may be called upon to guide their aircraft to a safe outcome with a fixed amount of energy. Doing so may require competently using the full spectrum of the Aircraft’s aerodynamic performance.  

Your comments read like you believe that there are tools in the tool box that you feel you never need to practice using.  I disagree with that assessment , but I don’t have a burning desire to convince you otherwise. I wish you the best of luck.

[jcolgan]

14 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Someday a pilot may be called upon to guide their aircraft to a safe outcome with a fixed amount of energy. Doing so may require competently using the full spectrum of the Aircraft’s aerodynamic performance.  

Your comments read like you believe that there are tools in the tool box that you feel you never need to practice using.  I disagree with that assessment , but I don’t have a burning desire to convince you otherwise. I wish you the best of luck.

Any flight below best glide speed engine out is less efficient.   Managing limited energy doesn’t require speeds near stall.  When about to impact terrain slower landing speeds and configurations are warranted.

Every pilot has had slow flight and stall training, and pilots still stall and crash. 
The training doesn’t work well to prevent that outcome.  Getting pilots comfortable with slow flight and stalls reduces their wariness of being in that realm of flight. 
 

Perhaps I have overblown the danger in my mind, but that keeps me focused on the danger of low stalls every time I land.  It’s part of my landing areas of focus, every downwind to base and base to final turn I make I am thinking about airspeed, flaps, and bank angle.  Even when crosswinds are challenging, passengers are in distress, or equipment has failed.  
 

I think fewer crashes would occur if pilots were less comfortable with slow flight and stalls.

[Shadrach]

23 minutes ago, jcolgan said:

Any flight below best glide speed engine out is less efficient.   Managing limited energy doesn’t require speeds near stall.  When about to impact terrain slower landing speeds and configurations are warranted.

Every pilot has had slow flight and stall training, and pilots still stall and crash. 
The training doesn’t work well to prevent that outcome.  Getting pilots comfortable with slow flight and stalls reduces their wariness of being in that realm of flight. 
 

Perhaps I have overblown the danger in my mind, but that keeps me focused on the danger of low stalls every time I land.  It’s part of my landing areas of focus, every downwind to base and base to final turn I make I am thinking about airspeed, flaps, and bank angle.  Even when crosswinds are challenging, passengers are in distress, or equipment has failed.  
 

I think fewer crashes would occur if pilots were less comfortable with slow flight and stalls.

Managing energy may indeed require speeds near stall when one is dealing with  terrain and obstacles during the final phases of an off an off airport landing into an area with limited places to . Being able to comfortably operate on both sides of the drag curve is important to me and is why I practice slow flight. Energy management iand is why I practice power off, high key, low key approaches.

Mooney pilots are notorious for carrying a surplus of energy into landing phase of flight. 

I recall this quote from AOPA’s analysis of the airframe nearly 30 years ago and I doubt a lot has changed statistically.

”The statistics show Mooneys are involved in overshoots twice as often as the comparable aircraft. The good news is that in the decade we studied, only one pilot succeeded in putting a Mooney down short of the pavement — a unique, if dubious honor.”

 

[midlifeflyer]

22 hours ago, jcolgan said:

 Getting pilots comfortable with slow flight and stalls reduces their wariness of being in that realm of flight. 

I haven't seen that. Quite the contrary. Comfort with slow flight means acute awareness of performance and awareness of how the airplane reacts in a configuration that you actually do quite often: landing.  Not only how it acts in that configuration, but the advance signals it is heading there. 

That's the problem with the way most maneuvers are taught. They are taught as if it's just something the FAA says to do rather than what it means to the rest of flying. 

When I do an aircraft transition, we are definitely doing slow flight before landing. When I get checked out in a new type, it's also one of the things I do before that first landing. 

[Echo]

16 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I haven't seen that. Quite the contrary. Comfort with slow flight means acute awareness of performance and awareness of how the airplane reacts in a configuration that you actually do quite often: landing.  Not only how it acts in that configuration, but the advance signed it is heading there. 

That's the problem with the way most maneuvers are taught. They are taught as if it's just something the FAA says to do rather than what it means to the rest of flying. 

When I do an aircraft transition, we are definitely doing slow flight before landing. When I get checked out in a new type, it's also one of the things I do before that first landing. 

I don’t fly different airframes. I am not cavalier or think I am a great pilot. I don’t land on short fields and 3000’ is my number. I am not, even in an emergency, going so close to stall to reduce energy. What I did learn last flight review was holding yoke to chest on landing rollout REALLY shortens ground roll. I use this now and save brakes.  Slow flight with turns is just boring to me. Not difficult. I have long since learned how plane feels and behaves. Power on stalls in a Mooney E or Missile require a stupid nose high attitude. If you stall here by accident you are (insert your word). In my opinion. I reject them now in my plane. 

[jcolgan]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Managing energy may indeed require speeds near stall when one is dealing with  terrain and obstacles during the final phases of an off an off airport landing into an area with limited places to . Being able to comfortably operate on both sides of the drag curve is important to me and is why I practice slow flight. Energy management iand is why I practice power off, high key, low key approaches.

Mooney pilots are notorious for carrying a surplus of energy into landing phase of flight. 

I recall this quote from AOPA’s analysis of the airframe nearly 30 years ago and I doubt a lot has changed statistically.

”The statistics show Mooneys are involved in overshoots twice as often as the comparable aircraft. The good news is that in the decade we studied, only one pilot succeeded in putting a Mooney down short of the pavement — a unique, if dubious honor.”

 

Transitioning between best glide and stall is a necessity for landing, on or off field.  Continuous flight below best glide expends energy faster than necessary.  Burning off energy with flaps, gear down, speed brakes, step extension, (if desperate slips) are acceptable methods. Flying along in a mush seems a poor choice to expend excess energy.  Maintain best glide speed until transitioning to stall speed before touchdown/impact.

Unless, of course, you are in a short landing competition or flying into St. Barts, then mush away to your hearts content.

[Shadrach]

57 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I haven't seen that. Quite the contrary. Comfort with slow flight means acute awareness of performance and awareness of how the airplane reacts in a configuration that you actually do quite often: landing…. 

Agreed. I haven’t seen it either whether anecdotally or statistically. And the statistics would definitely be biased towards showing a greater number stall/spin incidents. A significant number of runway overshoot accidents never get reported, which is not something one can say about stall/spin accidents.

[Hank]

26 minutes ago, jcolgan said:

Transitioning between best glide and stall is a necessity for landing, on or off field.  Continuous flight below best glide expends energy faster than necessary.  Burning off energy with flaps, gear down, speed brakes, step extension, (if desperate slips) are acceptable methods... Maintain best glide speed until transitioning to stall speed before touchdown/impact.

Unless, of course, you are in a short landing competition or flying into St. Barts, then mush away to your hearts content.

Best glide speed is much too fast for landing!

Even in my C, Vbg = 105 mph; pattern speed is 90 mph, and I target 70-75 mph over the numbers depending on speed.

I can't imagine trying to land coming over the numbers at 105!

(Instrument approaches are flown at 90 KIAS = 105 mph, but I start slowing down at breakout, and the resulting landings are more "roll it on" than full stall . . . )

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, jcolgan said:

Transitioning between best glide and stall is a necessity for landing, on or off field.  Continuous flight below best glide expends energy faster than necessary.  Burning off energy with flaps, gear down, speed brakes, step extension, (if desperate slips) are acceptable methods. Flying along in a mush seems a poor choice to expend excess energy.  Maintain best glide speed until transitioning to stall speed before touchdown/impact.

Unless, of course, you are in a short landing competition or flying into St. Barts, then mush away to your hearts content.

There was a Bonanza pilot who tragically lost his life last year after an engine failure.   He overflew his intended, landing location, an 1800” open field, at 100kts without ever touching down and then collided with trees at at the opposite end.  Deadsticking a bonanza into an 1800’ field without damaging the aircraft would be a tall order. Deadsticking a Bonanza into an 1800’ field and surviving is more doable. Getting the airplane, slow enough to actually land in the desired field is a good first step towards survivability.

I can’t speak to the pilot’s training, but it’s clear that on that day he avoided slow flight.  The aircraft never reduced speed to anywhere near stall.

Using the backside of the drag curve is the only brake that an airplane has other than a slip (which should also be practiced).  I do my best to stay proficient so that I’m comfortable using whatever is needed to get the job done, but I prefer coordinated flight at speeds under 80mph.

 

[jcolgan]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed. I haven’t seen it either whether anecdotally or statistically. And the statistics would definitely be biased towards showing a greater number stall/spin incidents. A significant number of runway overshoot accidents never get reported, which is not something one can say about stall/

It appears we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. With everyone being taught slow flight, there is no control group for comparison on safety outcomes.     Every year stall crashes occur after slow flight and stall training, practice, BFRs etc.  

Transitioning through the realms of flight where stalls can occur as quickly as possible while being aware of and leery of the hazards involved seems a more prudent approach to me than getting comfortable flying in those realms.

[jcolgan]

13 minutes ago, Hank said:

Best glide speed is much too fast for landing!

Even in my C, Vbg = 105 mph; pattern speed is 90 mph, and I target 70-75 mph over the numbers depending on speed.

I can't imagine trying to land coming over the numbers at 105!

(Instrument approaches are flown at 90 KIAS = 105 mph, but I start slowing down at breakout, and the resulting landings are more "roll it on" than full stall . . . )

Transitioning to stall speed is NOT an instantaneous event on final.  Slowing to pattern speed, over the numbers speed and flair are part of the transition.   I never said to come in over the numbers at best glide.  

[Shadrach]

On 1/16/2026 at 12:17 PM, jcolgan said:

It appears we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. With everyone being taught slow flight, there is no control group for comparison on safety outcomes.     Every year stall crashes occur after slow flight and stall training, practice, BFRs etc.  

Transitioning through the realms of flight where stalls can occur as quickly as possible while being aware of and leery of the hazards involved seems a more prudent approach to me than getting comfortable flying in those realms.

This forum is a repository of make and model specific technical information, opinion, and general discussion.

I’m not really making the argument to you so much as I am to future readers who are just embarking on their journey into Mooney operations. 

[PT20J]

One point to keep in mind is that a spin is a combination of roll and yaw. It takes both to spin. You cannot control roll with ailerons because the wing is stalled. But if you use rudder to counter the yaw, the airplane will not enter a spin. 

[kortopates]

Power on stalls in a Mooney E or Missile require a stupid nose high attitude. If you stall here by accident you are (insert your word). In my opinion. I reject them now in my plane. 

I agree pointing the nose to the sun to do a power on stall isn’t that useful. But it’s the wrong way to simulate a power on stall. Most accidents involving power on stalls are departure stalls with the nose below or near about 15 degrees. This is happening because the pilot is pulling with too much back pressure well below Vg after take off and is often compounded by being at a higher density altitude than their normal departure.
The more realistic way to practice this is to greatly reduce the power with nose only at about a normal departure climb and allow IAS to continue dropping till about 10 kts above stall speed and then add 65% power and continue pulling back the nose till stall and you should get it to stall between 15-20deg pitch. This is much more realistic and can be done straight ahead or with some bank to practice recovery and see how the plane behaves.
Think of it more like a high density altitude departure stalls although the accident records show it doesn’t need the high density altitude to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk