Opinions on a M20J

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:37:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
And if you are talking about a 2,000' (610m) runway with trees to the end,
then yes, I would not want to be based there, given a choice. But, at
least here in the US, I don't believe I've ever seen a paved, short runway
where the 50' obstacle was at the beginning of the runway.

I'm struggling to think of one myself.

However, I have seen many paved runways with 100-150' obstacles not very far
from the runway (500-1000' perhaps). These are roughly equivalent to a 50'
obstacle right at the runway.

Here's one of the "easier" examples of the above:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W10

Pete


Well they are certainly rare. Even the example you cite really doesn't
cause a big problem, if I do the math correctly.

It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
Mooney. Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
hasn't flown much recently :-).

I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
[...]
It shows a 100' tree 800' from the end of one runway. But the runway is
2400 (732 m). So to touch down with 2000' remaining requires about a 6°
glide slope -- something that is certainly doable, with practice, in a
Mooney.

"With practice". No one should land at that airport without being confident
in their short field techniques, and many pilots are not.

If Julian said that the Mooney simply couldn't be landed on a 2000' runway
with a 50' obstacle, then I missed it. IMHO, the point is that even though
it's doable, it requires even more careful attention to technique than many
other airplanes would.

Definitely not for a new owner, or even for an old owner that
hasn't flown much recently :-).

Exactly.

I note that despite the tree, there are 28 single and 2 twin engine
aircraft based at that field, and 39 operations per day!

Well, the word "tree" in the A/FD description is misleading. What there
actually is, is an entire forest of mature Douglas Fir. I'm actually a bit
skeptical of the 100' height, as mature Douglas Fir is generally at least
that high, and the forest north of the airport is on a hill above the
airport.

Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Anyway, even with those caveats, I'm not saying you couldn't land a Mooney
there. A person flying by the numbers, using proper technique, should be
fine. It's just no place to be sloppy.

I think that's the key. I implied in my original post that the M20J
requires more landing distance than comparable tourers. On reflection in
the light of others' posts, and perusal of some numbers, I think that's
misleading. The issue is that it's much less forgiving of any imprecision
in technique. Given that we're all human, I still think that's a good
reason to think hard about whether you want to base a Mooney at a relatively
short field.

Julian