Landing a Mooney

[Jon Kraus]

We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
been a challange.

I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
did in the Skyhawk .

Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Mooney Owner
'79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ

[Peter R.]

Jon Kraus ) wrote:

> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .

When I transitioned from a Skyhawk to a Bonanza V35 last March, I had a
similar problem. The site picture was a bit different. It just took me
a few rough landings and a bit of practice to smooth things out.

It will come to you, just like it did when you made your first smooth
landing in the Skyhawk as a student pilot. Remember when you once
thought the same thing about that aircraft? :)

--
Peter

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:42:19 GMT, Jon Kraus wrote:

> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .

Jon,

Not sure about the sight picture in the Mooney, but my transition to the
Sundowner was a significant adjustment.

I found that on final, the nose pitches DOWN when deploying flaps. In the
Cessna's the nose pitches up. This means you see A LOT of ground on final.
It felt to me initially, that I was diving toward the ground, when in
reality, it was just the nose pitching down. To somewhat counter the pitch
down, I roll the trim back just a tad on downwind.

Even in normal cruise flight, I see a lot more ground then I did in a
Cessna.

Back to landings, if your Mooney is like my Sundowner, ground effect second
to speed is your friend or foe. Too much speed, and you float. Too
little, and you bottom out like a rock. You nail your approach speed, and
ground effect will cushion your landing.

I found by going to the practice area and climbing to 3000 feet and
practicing descents at my approach speed helped me tremendously.

Hope you are enjoying the joys of ownership!

Allen

[Greg]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
snip
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has

if you're referencing MPH, then your speeds look right... if KNOTS, then
you're 10k fast...
Greg

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my
> 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that
> this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad
> that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not
> been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on
> downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign
> to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as
> I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ

Hi Jon;

I've flown the Mk21 and even the old Mite, but it's been a few years :-)

Mooney's are VERY clean and have a tendency to stay put in the flare
until they bleed off energy (airspeed). It's not a big deal really, but
it pays you to fly a stabilized approach in these airplanes and nail the
flare airspeed right on the nose. Their slippery enough that they can
get a bit away from you airspeed wise almost before you can catch it,
putting you in the flare a bit hotter than you want to be. If this
happens, just hold it there if you have the room and let it bleed into
the landing, or take it around if you have any doubt at all about the
available runway. Ground effect is prevalent in a Mooney because of the
short gear height. It can be tricky, but it's nothing to worry about if
you're getting a good checkout.
One thing to remember in Mooney's; actually any airplane for that
matter, but especially something as slippery in the air as a Mooney;
stay ahead of the airplane. You don't have the drag of that 172 to bail
you out of an airspeed pickup on approach. Start flying the airplane
where it will be ten seconds from now and you'll have a fair handle on
things with a Mooney.
One more thing; stop for a second on line up before takeoff and look
directly ahead of you over the glare. Remember that view. That's what
you'll be seeing at the instant of touchdown!
Good luck;
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:42:19 GMT, Jon Kraus > wrote:

>I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
>90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
>been a challange.

If these speeds are in KIAS (and not MPH), you are coming over the
threshold of the runway much too fast. But check your POH though as the
data I have may not apply to your aircraft.

My book shows that an M20J will stall with gear down and full flaps at 54
KIAS. 1.3*54 = 70 KIAS. While 80 KIAS may be OK when you first turn
final, if you cross the threshold at that speed, you will float a long
ways. You need to get slowed down before thinking about landing. For a
short field landing, even slower speeds work real well.

A Mooney landing is conventional, so long as you are at the right speed.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jon Kraus > wrote:

> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>


Remember to KEEP THAT NOSE OFF! Too many Mooney drivers land too fast,
touch nosewheel first and wheelbarrow down the runway.

Proper flare technique is critical on a Mooney.

[R.L.]

I don't mean to be a dutch uncle...but pahleeeeze! You're wimping out. Don't
give up! Buck up and battle it out. Just do it ... time and time again
until maybe it hurts but you'll do it..I know it, you know it and we all
know it.


"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[jharper aaatttt cisco dddooottt com]

Most of my time is high-wing but I've flown various
low-wing planes - SR20, Mooney, Grob, a couple of hours
in Cherokees. They all have something in common compared
to high-wing planes - they feel like they land flatter.
Don't try to full-stall them in a really nose-high
attitude. I managed to hit the tie-down ring in the SR20
doing that once. Of course when I say "flatter" I don't
mean "flat" - there is still a fair amount of nose-up
and the mains touch first but it is a different feeling
and sight picture than the Cessna.

Of course the other comments are all true too, especially
speed control.

John

Jon Kraus wrote:
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[Julian Scarfe]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...

> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .

I think you're most of the way there, in that you've correctly identified
the major issue. Once you've got the speed control mastered (which is
critical, as everyone has told you) it *is* all about sight picture and
knowing where the wheels are in relation to the runway. Mooneys are
particularly unflattering of bad landings because of the nature of the gear,
but no harder to land well.

Julian Scarfe

[Dave Butler]

Julian Scarfe wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
>>problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
>>common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
>>the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
>>did in the Skyhawk .
>
>
> I think you're most of the way there, in that you've correctly identified
> the major issue. Once you've got the speed control mastered (which is
> critical, as everyone has told you) it *is* all about sight picture and
> knowing where the wheels are in relation to the runway. Mooneys are
> particularly unflattering of bad landings because of the nature of the gear,
> but no harder to land well.

I'd add one more thing to the speed control notes. You want to be crossing the
threshold at 71 knots (M20J). On final, if you see you are high, try -raising-
the nose and scrubbing off 5 knots or so. It's counterintuitive, but you will
find raising the nose at this speed will increase your descent angle.

For a normal landing, cross the threshold at 71. For a short-field landing, 65.
Don't go any slower than that or you won't be able to flare. Don't go any
faster, or you'll float or bounce.

There's little shock absorrption in the landing gear, so don't let it touch when
you're going to fast or you'll be airborne again in a heartbeat, with a
wheelbarrow to follow.

[[email protected]]

I can relate. I just got my first few landings in a Comanche-250 the other
day. The downward pitch and apparent nose-scrubbing tendency was the biggest hurdle.
I normally land my Cherokee with 2 of the 3 notches of flaps to keep it from pitching
the nose down so much. With the speed of the Comanche (which I've heard is very
similar to the Mooney save for the strut/puck gear differences), all the flaps are
normally required. It seemed to be a matter of holding the (apparent nose-low)
attitute *by sight* before flaring to let the speed bleed off. Then the actual
touchdown was by feel once slow enough to not balloon and keep the nosewheel off.

YMMV... sure did like the 1500 fpm climb though... :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Robert M. Gary]

How tall are you? If you are not a very tall person you may be having a hard
time seeing over the cowl. The seats are very low in the Mooney since the
plane was designed for 6' + individuals.
What I like to do with students is to pull onto the runway and sit there
lined up with the runway (make sure the CFI is watching for traffic you have
your back too!). Really take the time to get used to the picture down the
runway with the plane on the ground. Notice where the runway edge intersects
your head (probably above your ears). Although some runways are more wide or
narrow the runway edge will always intersect your head at the same point
(its based only on your hight above the runway).
Also, when landing the Mooney understand that if the stall horn isn't even
going off you are far, far from landing speed. The Mooney will float and in
the begining you can use the stall horn to help determine when you should
allow the plane to sink below 3 feet. Anything faster than 65 knots or so
should be kept above 3 feet. The Mooney gets very upset if the nose wheel
touches first because there are no shocks. Because of the donut's
characteristics the nose will push back rather hard and bounce you back into
the air. You get 2 bounces for free, the 3rd will cost about $15,000.
As long as you control your speed in the Mooney, plan your decents far
enough out, and keep ahead of the plane you will find it a very nice, rather
easy plane to fly. It does not deserve the neg reputation it has for being
hard to fly.

-Robert, Mooney CFI


"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[Bob Moore]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

> Really take the time to get used to
> the picture down the runway with the plane on the ground.

Robert, I go one step further, I get out and hold the tail
down in order that the student can see (and hopefully retain)
the landing attitude.

Bob Moore

[Dude]

Don't flare a Mooney.

What you know as a flare will cause nothing but trouble.

Instead of the "flare" do a "round out". If you have good electric trim,
use it instead of back pressure. Also, don't chop the power, remove it
SLOOOOWWWWLLLY. The plane can land before idle.You want a slow transition
from nose down to nose wheel just a bit higher. Let the plane fly down the
runway while the speed bleeds. Worry about spot landings after you have
practiced smooth ones. Once you have the site pictures and techniques, you
can move it to the numbers.

What others have said about airspeed and stabilized approach are more
important than what I just said, but if you got them right this is the next
step.




"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[Barry]

Don't forget that, as with any airplane, stall speed and thus approach speed
vary with weight. If 70 knots works well on short final at max gross weight,
then to get the same flare and float characteristics, you must be slower at
lighter weights. If the plane is 20% below max gross, then approach speed
should be 10% less.

[Jon Kraus]

I should have said MPH... I am just so used to using knots for the
Skyhawk I forgot. My bad!! JK

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my
>>10
>>hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that
>>this
>>thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad
>>that
>>my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not
>>been
>>pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
>>with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on
>>downwind,
>>90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
>>been a challange.
>>
>>I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
>>problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
>>common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign
>>to
>>the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as
>>I
>>did in the Skyhawk .
>>
>>Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>Student Mooney Owner
>>'79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>
> Hi Jon;
>
> I've flown the Mk21 and even the old Mite, but it's been a few years :-)
>
> Mooney's are VERY clean and have a tendency to stay put in the flare
> until they bleed off energy (airspeed). It's not a big deal really, but
> it pays you to fly a stabilized approach in these airplanes and nail the
> flare airspeed right on the nose. Their slippery enough that they can
> get a bit away from you airspeed wise almost before you can catch it,
> putting you in the flare a bit hotter than you want to be. If this
> happens, just hold it there if you have the room and let it bleed into
> the landing, or take it around if you have any doubt at all about the
> available runway. Ground effect is prevalent in a Mooney because of the
> short gear height. It can be tricky, but it's nothing to worry about if
> you're getting a good checkout.
> One thing to remember in Mooney's; actually any airplane for that
> matter, but especially something as slippery in the air as a Mooney;
> stay ahead of the airplane. You don't have the drag of that 172 to bail
> you out of an airspeed pickup on approach. Start flying the airplane
> where it will be ten seconds from now and you'll have a fair handle on
> things with a Mooney.
> One more thing; stop for a second on line up before takeoff and look
> directly ahead of you over the glare. Remember that view. That's what
> you'll be seeing at the instant of touchdown!
> Good luck;
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> for email; take out the trash
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

I don't think you specified either way did you? All I saw were the
numbers with no mph or kts indicated. I think someone mentioned the
difference in a post perhaps?
As I said, I haven't flown the Mooney's for a while, but if indeed you
WERE dealing with knots, 80 kts over the fence in a Mooney might be a
bit hot :-)
Anyway Jon, AIRSPEED control is the vital message here. Fly it by the
book, and alter if needed for conditions, fly a stabilized approach and
NAIL the airspeed at the flare.....and there IS a flare in a Mooney just
like any other airplane. It's just fast, smooth, and slippery, so
airspeed control is more critical with higher performance airplanes.
It's ok to consider the flare as a "transition" into a landing if you
like, because that's all it is anyway :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash


"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
>I should have said MPH... I am just so used to using knots for the
>Skyhawk I forgot. My bad!! JK
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my
>>>10
>>>hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that
>>>this
>>>thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad
>>>that
>>>my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not
>>>been
>>>pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to
>>>film
>>>with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on
>>>downwind,
>>>90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly
>>>has
>>>been a challange.
>>>
>>>I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
>>>problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
>>>common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign
>>>to
>>>the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as
>>>I
>>>did in the Skyhawk .
>>>
>>>Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>>>
>>>Jon Kraus
>>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>>Student Mooney Owner
>>>'79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>>
>>
>> Hi Jon;
>>
>> I've flown the Mk21 and even the old Mite, but it's been a few years
>> :-)
>>
>> Mooney's are VERY clean and have a tendency to stay put in the flare
>> until they bleed off energy (airspeed). It's not a big deal really,
>> but it pays you to fly a stabilized approach in these airplanes and
>> nail the flare airspeed right on the nose. Their slippery enough that
>> they can get a bit away from you airspeed wise almost before you can
>> catch it, putting you in the flare a bit hotter than you want to be.
>> If this happens, just hold it there if you have the room and let it
>> bleed into the landing, or take it around if you have any doubt at
>> all about the available runway. Ground effect is prevalent in a
>> Mooney because of the short gear height. It can be tricky, but it's
>> nothing to worry about if you're getting a good checkout.
>> One thing to remember in Mooney's; actually any airplane for that
>> matter, but especially something as slippery in the air as a Mooney;
>> stay ahead of the airplane. You don't have the drag of that 172 to
>> bail you out of an airspeed pickup on approach. Start flying the
>> airplane where it will be ten seconds from now and you'll have a fair
>> handle on things with a Mooney.
>> One more thing; stop for a second on line up before takeoff and look
>> directly ahead of you over the glare. Remember that view. That's what
>> you'll be seeing at the instant of touchdown!
>> Good luck;
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> for email; take out the trash
>>
>>
>>
>

[Darrell S]

Until you get your visual sight picture down you might try reducing power to
idle at about 50' and just flying it onto the runway with a controlled
smooth descent, making sure you don't land nosegear first. Then when you
have that down you could use the "normal" procedure of holding it just off
the runway until it plays out and lands. With a low wing you have a little
more ground effect near touchdown.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[Maule Driver]

Hard to resist this thread. I was on the Mooney listserver for a couple of
years and there is an 'unlimited' number of landing notes for you. Every
model, vintage, condition. If you aren't on it, you should be. Don't have
the details though.

The various models apparently have different speeds, challenges, and
techniques. I flew a '61 model 21 with the Johnson bar. I fell in love
with landing it, and I'm a high wing guy too. Airspeed as always was the
key.

The thing I liked the most though, was doing short field landings at 65mph
as I remember. At a very specific airspeed (68 I think at our weight), you
apparently fell out of laminar flow mode and the descent angle would
significantly steepen. If you held 65 and pulled the power 2 wingspans up,
it was automatic spot landing. Neat. I think someone else mentioned that
effect (pitch up and slow 5 knots and the descent rate goes up).

Apparently that is a lot trickier on the later heavier models. Have fun!

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
> wrote:
>With the speed of the Comanche (which I've heard is very
>similar to the Mooney save for the strut/puck gear differences), all the
>flaps are
>normally required. It seemed to be a matter of holding the (apparent nose-low)
>attitute *by sight* before flaring to let the speed bleed off.

The transition from floating to landing can be abrupt. If you're a few
feet in the air when that happens you're going to plonk down (properly
inflated struts are important for this maneuver!).

If you round out to about 1' up you will have time to sense that final
sink and flare. You'll have to pull more than you think, otherwise
you'll just fall. This was tricky for me to get used to because if you
balloon it's followed abruptly by the aforementioned plonk. If it works
your touchdown attitude will be very nose-high. If you start to balloon
add power immediately. I found that my fly-just-above-the- runway
reflexes from the C172 led to a lot of ballooning early on.

What I prefer to do now is round out very low and fly as close to the
runway as possible so that the final sink/plonk is more gentle. This
is more like my C172 technique, but the results are much different from
a C172. A 172 will go slower and slower and more nose high until you
land. The Comanche will maintain essentially the same attitude until
you settle onto the runway.

Once you're down, either don't brake (you'll just skid) or raise the
flaps first. A lot of people are squeamish about the idea of touching
the flaps on the runway. If you want to stop in the shortest possible
distance you have no choice, IMO.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>
>>We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
>>hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
>>thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
>>my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
>>pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
>>with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
>>90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
>>been a challange.
>>
>>I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
>>problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
>>common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
>>the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
>>did in the Skyhawk .
>>
>>Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>>
>
>
>
> Remember to KEEP THAT NOSE OFF! Too many Mooney drivers land too fast,
> touch nosewheel first and wheelbarrow down the runway.
>
> Proper flare technique is critical on a Mooney.

How about if you are "in" a Mooney? :-)


Matt

[Morgans]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote

>
> The transition from floating to landing can be abrupt. If you're a few
> feet in the air when that happens you're going to plonk down (properly
> inflated struts are important for this maneuver!).
>
>> Ben Jackson

What Mooney has inflatable struts? All I have seen have rubber donuts.
Damn, those are hard to chew, and digest, too.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

[Robert M. Gary]

I generally take 5 knots off everything in my Mooney when I'm light.


"Barry" > wrote in message ...
> Don't forget that, as with any airplane, stall speed and thus approach
speed
> vary with weight. If 70 knots works well on short final at max gross
weight,
> then to get the same flare and float characteristics, you must be slower
at
> lighter weights. If the plane is 20% below max gross, then approach speed
> should be 10% less.
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Excellent idea but I'm not sure if I'm strong enough to do that. I've never
noticed the Mooney tending to tip (unlike a 172). You must be a large muscle
type of guy. You aren't by chance the governor of California are you?

BTW: I find that for tailwheel training its really good to have the student
sit in the plane while we lift the tail. Students tend to think that they
will hit the prop on a wheel landing (some times you can though). They don't
realize that most tailwheels will "tuck" the prop under the plane before it
hits the ground. You generally have to tip MUCH more than students think to
hit the prop in the tailwheel.

-Robert

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote
>
> > Really take the time to get used to
> > the picture down the runway with the plane on the ground.
>
> Robert, I go one step further, I get out and hold the tail
> down in order that the student can see (and hopefully retain)
> the landing attitude.
>
> Bob Moore

[Robert M. Gary]

I also do my short field landings like that when I'm in Mexico with my
Mooney. As you slow the Mooney down below around 70 knots the rate of decent
goes up a lot. You can drag it in on the prop and drop it one a spot easily.
If you run the trim all the way back you can also raise the nose up on take
off and accelerate on the mains. Tricky though, check out a CFI first.

BTW: If you are flying an older Mooney just substitute knots for mph. So the
older Mooneys approach at 75-80mpg, the newer one use 75-80 knots. Same
thing with over the fence speed (should be 5 mph less than your approach
speed). Kinda neat that it works out that way.

-Robert

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
om...
> Hard to resist this thread. I was on the Mooney listserver for a couple
of
> years and there is an 'unlimited' number of landing notes for you. Every
> model, vintage, condition. If you aren't on it, you should be. Don't
have
> the details though.
>
> The various models apparently have different speeds, challenges, and
> techniques. I flew a '61 model 21 with the Johnson bar. I fell in love
> with landing it, and I'm a high wing guy too. Airspeed as always was the
> key.
>
> The thing I liked the most though, was doing short field landings at
65mph
> as I remember. At a very specific airspeed (68 I think at our weight), you
> apparently fell out of laminar flow mode and the descent angle would
> significantly steepen. If you held 65 and pulled the power 2 wingspans
up,
> it was automatic spot landing. Neat. I think someone else mentioned that
> effect (pitch up and slow 5 knots and the descent rate goes up).
>
> Apparently that is a lot trickier on the later heavier models. Have fun!
>
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> > hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> > thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> > my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> > pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> > with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> > 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> > been a challange.
> >
> > I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> > problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> > common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> > the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> > did in the Skyhawk .
> >
> > Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
> >
> > Jon Kraus
> > PP-ASEL-IA
> > Student Mooney Owner
> > '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ
> >
> >
>
>

[Ronald Gardner]

Years ago I did allot of flying in a M20C, they are fast and tend to float.
If I remember the key is to be right on the speed at flare or expect it to
balloon and float. It will get better with practice.

Ron Gardner

Jon Kraus wrote:

> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that
> my CFI has been with me because 75 percent of the landings have not been
> pretty. They are safe (mostly) but nothing you'd want the wife to film
> with the video camera. I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.
>
> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .
>
> Right now any stories would help out tremendously!! Thanks.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
> '79 M20J 4443H @ TYQ

[Jose]

> BTW: I find that for tailwheel training its really good to have the student
> sit in the plane while we lift the tail. Students tend to think that they
> will hit the prop on a wheel landing (some times you can though). They don't
> realize that most tailwheels will "tuck" the prop under the plane before it
> hits the ground. You generally have to tip MUCH more than students think to
> hit the prop in the tailwheel.

Do you deflate the tires a bit too, to account for flexing during a bounce?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address
note - replied to r.a.piloting, r.a.student, and r.a.owning, but I only follow r.a.p

[The Weiss Family]

> Not sure about the sight picture in the Mooney, but my transition to the
> Sundowner was a significant adjustment.
>
> I found that on final, the nose pitches DOWN when deploying flaps.


I just transitioned from a SkyHawk to my Super Musketeer, and I noticed the
same thing...
On final with full flaps, the nose is WAY down. Kinda wierd at first, but
it flares out nicely...

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Fly]

Key to a smooth landing ishave the flightpath to be parallel to the landing
surface as the plane touches. Consistent roundouts to land need good
consistent airspeed control. It s amater of timing.

Btw, is you engine a IO-360-A3B6 or still an IO-360-A1B6 ?

Kent Felkins
Tulsa

a

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose > wrote in message >...
>> Do you deflate the tires a bit too, to account for flexing during a
bounce?

I'm not too concerned about that since my students know to add full
power and climb out of a bounce. The mental challenge for students is
to feel ok about pushing forward on the stick after the mains touch to
"stick" the wheel landing. Some feel that any forward rotation will
result in a prop strike. A bounce is a different thing.

-Robert, CFI

[Maule Driver]

I'm not sure I'm strong enough for the tailwheel trick - I guess that
applies to Cubs and such. No one is picking up a Maule tail like that.

OTOH, there is much advice warning against wheelies in the Maule. I can do
'em but don't because you don't need 'em. You can fly it on 3 points quite
nicely with reduced or neg flaps. Still don't know exactly why but make and
model wise, it just doesn't need to be in your kit.

Wish I could operate a Mooney off my grass....

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> Excellent idea but I'm not sure if I'm strong enough to do that. I've
never
> noticed the Mooney tending to tip (unlike a 172). You must be a large
muscle
> type of guy. You aren't by chance the governor of California are you?
>
> BTW: I find that for tailwheel training its really good to have the
student
> sit in the plane while we lift the tail. Students tend to think that they
> will hit the prop on a wheel landing (some times you can though). They
don't
> realize that most tailwheels will "tuck" the prop under the plane before
it
> hits the ground. You generally have to tip MUCH more than students think
to
> hit the prop in the tailwheel.
>
> -Robert
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 122...
> > "Robert M. Gary" wrote
> >
> > > Really take the time to get used to
> > > the picture down the runway with the plane on the ground.
> >
> > Robert, I go one step further, I get out and hold the tail
> > down in order that the student can see (and hopefully retain)
> > the landing attitude.
> >
> > Bob Moore
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> Students tend to think that they
> will hit the prop on a wheel landing (some times you can though). They don't
> realize that most tailwheels will "tuck" the prop under the plane before it
> hits the ground.

My Maule has 9" of ground clearance for the prop tips. The mains are a bit more than
5' behind the prop, so that prop isn't going to "tuck under". The 180hp version has
6" of clearance.

This is one of two reasons I've heard for the fact that Maule discourages wheel
landings in the MX-7 series. As Maule Driver says, you don't need them anyway.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> My Maule has 9" of ground clearance for the prop tips.

Really, that's it? I've got 13" on my 182 and I have a two blade prop.

[Jose]

>>>Do you deflate the tires a bit too, to account for flexing during a
>>>bounce?
>
> I'm not too concerned about that since my students know to add full
> power and climb out of a bounce.

My point isn't the bounce, but the fact that the prop is closer to the ground while the tires are compressed and the wheel struts are deflected (to the extent that happens in a Mooney). So the sight picture you give the students would not be exactly
accurate. I'm not sure an inch makes a difference in the sight picture they will remember, but it would be an expensive inch.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

[Robert M. Gary]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message >...
> I'm not sure I'm strong enough for the tailwheel trick - I guess that
> applies to Cubs and such. No one is picking up a Maule tail like that.
>
> OTOH, there is much advice warning against wheelies in the Maule. I can do
> 'em but don't because you don't need 'em. You can fly it on 3 points quite
> nicely with reduced or neg flaps. Still don't know exactly why but make and
> model wise, it just doesn't need to be in your kit.

The Maule is one of the tailwheels I've not flown. 3pts are nice and a
plane's behavior in a 3pt often is related to how close (or far) from
stall it is in a 3pt attitude. In the Swift it is recommended that you
NOT 3 pt it because the 3pt attitude is so far beyond stalls, most
pilots just end up dropping it in (notice that most Swifts have
wrinkles on the top of the wings). In some planes you are still
totally flying at 3pt attitude (Citabria for example).

> Wish I could operate a Mooney off my grass....

My Mooney does fine off grass and even beaches (I've flown off a
couple in Mexico). The grass just can't be too deep or the holes too
deep. Our local grass field (C14) has big gopher holes all over it so
I've never taken a nose wheel plane in there. I love taking the Swift,
Aeronca, and C140 into that field. The runway threshold has powerlines
over it and a giant oak tree hanging over the runway. You can't go
below these because its backed up against a levy. Some people land the
other direction but then a go-around is suicide. When my kids were
young they referred to C14 as "the airport where the planes live in
the grass".

-Robert

[Maule Driver]

The TWs are all a little different from what I've heard. The Maule is the
only one I've flown. You really have a choice of 3point configs - Landing
flaps will allow you to arrive right at what I'd call "the end of elevator
authority". Not quite a stall but you are done unless you add power. On the
other hand, take-off flaps, 0 flaps or negative flaps (a Maule feature)
allow you to fly it on with authority. All positions approved for landing
in the ops manual.

I've certainly heard that the Maules handle grass fine. But I'm afraid that
my combination of 3300', 50' obstructions both ends, and surface quality
makes it a little too tight for regular operations, close to gross, at 95
degrees. I've never completely run the numbers but even with that light
early model 21, takeoff would be dicey. Then the wet wing.... and all.
Bo's and Commanche's seem to handle it OK but the Mooney seems to push the
limits a bit. But I love that wing on it.
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'm not sure I'm strong enough for the tailwheel trick - I guess that
> > applies to Cubs and such. No one is picking up a Maule tail like that.
> >
> > OTOH, there is much advice warning against wheelies in the Maule. I can
do
> > 'em but don't because you don't need 'em. You can fly it on 3 points
quite
> > nicely with reduced or neg flaps. Still don't know exactly why but make
and
> > model wise, it just doesn't need to be in your kit.
>
> The Maule is one of the tailwheels I've not flown. 3pts are nice and a
> plane's behavior in a 3pt often is related to how close (or far) from
> stall it is in a 3pt attitude. In the Swift it is recommended that you
> NOT 3 pt it because the 3pt attitude is so far beyond stalls, most
> pilots just end up dropping it in (notice that most Swifts have
> wrinkles on the top of the wings). In some planes you are still
> totally flying at 3pt attitude (Citabria for example).
>
> > Wish I could operate a Mooney off my grass....
>
> My Mooney does fine off grass and even beaches (I've flown off a
> couple in Mexico). The grass just can't be too deep or the holes too
> deep. Our local grass field (C14) has big gopher holes all over it so
> I've never taken a nose wheel plane in there. I love taking the Swift,
> Aeronca, and C140 into that field. The runway threshold has powerlines
> over it and a giant oak tree hanging over the runway. You can't go
> below these because its backed up against a levy. Some people land the
> other direction but then a go-around is suicide. When my kids were
> young they referred to C14 as "the airport where the planes live in
> the grass".
>
> -Robert

[WARREN1157]

>I generally take 5 knots off everything in my Mooney when I'm light.
>

I can't remember the numbers on my C model mooney but I would fly the airplane
down the runway to bleed off airspeed and about 5 mph before stall I would
retract the flaps.

This sounds scary but if you do it a few times on long, wide runways it will
become second nature. This and few other things is what makes flying fun.

[Michael]

Jon Kraus > wrote
> We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
> hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
> thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk.

Yes it is. It's also a lot different than other airplanes in its
class.

It's not really that it's harder to land - it's that it advertises
even your most minor mistakes to everyone watching. Some airplanes
make you look good even when you are sloppy - true of the C-172, and
also true of the Bonanza (and pretty much every Beech product I've
ever flown, though I admit I haven't flown and Beech taildraggers).
Some airplanes make you look bad if you do anything short of a perfect
job.

> I've got the speeds down good (100 on downwind,
> 90 on base and 80 on final) but getting it to the runway smoothly has
> been a challange.

Those speeds sound right. However, all the correct speed buys you is
a landing that is WHERE you want it. The Mooney gear has very little
shock absorption. In something like a Bonanza, you have long oleo
struts - so a few inches either way is no big deal. Three inches high
and you will never know it. In a Mooney, three inches high is very
noticeable. Those rubber donuts simply are not very good for shock
absorption. Bottom line - you're not just transitioning into an
airplane that lands differently, you're transitioning into one that
requires more skill to land well - not just airspeed control, but
judging your altitude and rate of descent in the flare precisely (and
I mean down to the inch).

> I've never flown a low wing plane before the Mooney and I am having a
> problem with the sight picture working out for me. Is this a pretty
> common issue in transitioning to these planes or should I just resign to
> the fact that I'm not going to get as nice a landings in my Mooney as I
> did in the Skyhawk .

It's not a low wing vs. high wing issue - it's just that you are being
called upon to judge and control your altitude and rate of descent in
the flare more precisely than was ever necessary before. You are
extending your skills. So get a CFI experienced in Mooneys (not some
guy who has 10 hours in one, but someone who actually owns and flies a
Mooney) and practice man, practice. With time, it will come.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:

> It's not really that it's harder to land - it's that it advertises
> even your most minor mistakes to everyone watching.

Also advertises those mistakes to the pilot's rear. There's not much
give in those rubber biscuits.

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Jon Kraus > wrote:
: We just purchased a'79 M20J 4443H. I am in the middle of getting my 10
: hours with a CFI for Insurance purposes and I have to tell you that this
: thing is a lot different to land than a Skyhawk. So far I am glad that

<snip; followup limited to RAO>
Hi Jon! Nice airplane.
The trim is very powerful in these airplanes. Much more powerful than a
skyhawk or cherokee. It's important to trim the plane up to final approach
speed instead of holding pressure or you'll never be able to round out and
flare precisely. I think your final speeds are a couple knots too high
unless you're flying at gross.
One other thing to watch is make sure that you arrest the sink rate with a
good round-out. It's not the same as a flare. If you flare without stopping
the sink rate you'll pound the plane onto the mains (carrier landings).
The plane will slam the nose wheel down and bounce right back up. You can
get away with pounding a skyhawk or cherokee or navion in because they've
got very forgiving landing gears. Mooney airplance have little damping in
their landing gear, the rubber donuts compress then expand right back
leading to impressive bounces.
Also try to lower the nose gently after touching down. "Derotation" it's
called in jets, or "fly the nose to the runway". Just letting the nose
come down of its own accord will usually bounce it.
I find that coming down final slowly, trimmed up to approach speed, using
full flaps, close the throttle over the fence, stopping the sink rate as
the plane gets to 1 or 2 feet, and letting the plane land itself works for
me. Trying to force it onto the runway won't work.
I do feel for you; my first landing in the M20J (a 1983 model) was at
Nantuckett. I was 10K fast, and floated something like 2500 feet before
touching down while listening to the owner screaming "just let it go
don't force it on!!!" Good thing the runway's 7000 feet long...
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Malcolm Teas]

(WARREN1157) wrote in message >...
> >I generally take 5 knots off everything in my Mooney when I'm light.
> >
>
> I can't remember the numbers on my C model mooney but I would fly the airplane
> down the runway to bleed off airspeed and about 5 mph before stall I would
> retract the flaps.

I've discovered this one way to land a small plane in gusty
conditions. Instead of bouncing around in the gusts a few feet or
inches over the runway, let off the flaps. Flare as normal of course,
and the plane will set down very nicely. It's faster till the plane's
weight gets on the wheels this way.

However, I've never seen this taught anywhere. Comments?

-Malcolm Teas

[WARREN1157]

>However, I've never seen this taught anywhere. Comments?

There are a lot of these tricks that are not taught, don't know why but it
would be nice if people would share some of these such as landings like these.

The latest that I have used is that I brought my Aero Commander in by using
the primer when the mixture cable broke at the adjustment screw. Just keep
pumping the primer until the engine goes back to running. I imangine the primer
hase many other applications for fuel starvation besides these.