Landing a Mooney

Jose wrote in message .com...
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

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

"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.

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.

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

"Maule Driver" wrote in message . com...
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

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
. com...
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

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.

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

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.