I love my mooney

FloridaPilot said:
Are you saying that a Mooney is easier to land than a Cessna 172?
Click to expand...

:oops::oops::oops: I always had issues with the Cessna 172 as I found it hard to hold the yoke back to ensure that the main wheels touch down first. I started flying in a C152 and learnt 'left hand on the yoke, right hand on the gas'. With the C172 I had to support the left hand in the flare with my right hand. It might have been a personal thing between me and the C172s as I haven't had no issues with any Pipers I have flown or now with the Mooney. :)
 
Long time readers of this forum know I'm about as pro Mooney as they come. One of my missions in life has to be overcoming Mooney OWTs. Anyone that can get to east side of Atlanta can come to KCVC, and I'll give you a real time Mooney experience. But be careful. You'll like it. And then I'd be happy to help you with whatever your insurance company wants for transition training. Great planes.
 
I liked everything about the one I flew except the seating position. I'm 5'9" and I either felt like I was too close to the yoke/panel or too far from the rudders to fully use them comfortably. I was also straining to see over the panel because the seats sit so low to the floor. It wasn't the feel of the "race car" setup that bothered me as much as the effects of the position.

I'd guess most other Mooney's may have adjustable height on the seats though to fix that issue? Or I could of used a pillow under my butt I suppose (something I do with the 182 even with the seat all the way up).
 
For some reason, I read the thread title as "I love my money", which seemed wholly incompatible with the activity promoted on this forum....
 
Skywalker said:
:oops::oops::oops: I always had issues with the Cessna 172 as I found it hard to hold the yoke back to ensure that the main wheels touch down first. I started flying in a C152 and learnt 'left hand on the yoke, right hand on the gas'. With the C172 I had to support the left hand in the flare with my right hand. It might have been a personal thing between me and the C172s as I haven't had no issues with any Pipers I have flown or now with the Mooney. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it might be a personal thing. Case in point: I flew a Aeronca Champ for while which is a tail wheel airplane. I'm really good on the landings but with a 172...Nada, not as good. It took me a considerable amount of time to perfect the landings. Many people told me: "If you can land a tail dragger you will ace a 172" Which wasn't true for me. I guess we are all different.

Bonchie said:
I liked everything about the one I flew except the seating position. I'm 5'9" and I either felt like I was too close to the yoke/panel or too far from the rudders to fully use them comfortably. I was also straining to see over the panel because the seats sit so low to the floor. It wasn't the feel of the "race car" setup that bothered me as much as the effects of the position.

I'd guess most other Mooney's may have adjustable height on the seats though to fix that issue? Or I could of used a pillow under my butt I suppose (something I do with the 182 even with the seat all the way up).
Click to expand...

Don't be afraid to use a seat cushion so you can get the best visibility you can. They have them at sportys

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sk...sloimjXOjjyzBCE1g8NiXqqinEtxSZrrc8aAjG08P8HAQ
 
The OPs Mooney looks spanky indeed. I love mine too, though I would not call it easier to land than a Skyhawk. On speed or you float, enough energy or you bounce, hard. Don't ask me how I know about that last part...

At least in the certificated world, nothing but nothing gives a bigger for the buck than a Mooney. I love my M20c. Never used the back seat, so why haul one around? Manual gear and hydraulic flaps, if I loose electrical power I'll just fly home.
 
Mooney.... third try. First was money, than mommy.
 
I have owned my Mooney for almost 7 years now. Puts a smile in my face every time I go fly it. I did not find it difficult at all to transition from a 172, but then again I was taught not to land an airplane until it runs out of energy and settles on the runway. Worked the same way on the Mooney but it took me a few hours to learn how to manage the speed so it would not float excessively. The manual landing gear on the C models are bullet proof and easy/cheap to maintain. The carbureted lycoming O360 on the C models are pretty reliable and although only 180 HP mine makes 145 Kts burning 8.7 gallons an hour at typical cruise altitudes of between 7K and 10k. I can make it from North Florida to Oshkosh with one fuel stop, and with 1000 pound useful load I can fill he tanks and still have 660 pounds of people to carry. The C model, however, does not make a good family airplane. The back seat does not have much leg room and you would not want to sit there very long. If you need to carry 4 folks look at the F model or later. I have carried 4 people (and a small dog) in mine for short 2 hour flight but not something you want to do routinely. My kids are gone to college so it's just my wife and I and my C is just right for the two of us and our trips to go see the kids. Makes a great IFR platform, a byproduct of all pushrod controls which does give it a heavier control feel but also makes it very stable for IMC flying. I would not let the OWT intimidate anyone wanting to step up into a Mooney. Most will find it easy to manage within just a few short hours. Do get transition training with a CFI that knows Mooneys and you will do great. I took an instrument competency check ride a couple of years ago from a CFI that was not experienced in Mooneys and he was pushing me to carry extra speed on final. He had heard you don't want to stall a Money so was extremely apprehensive of flying below 80 Kts. I took him to the practice area and showed him slow flight and a bunch of stalls. Keep the ball centered and she stalls straight ahead nice and easy. Get sloppy and stall it while uncoordinated and it will drop a wing which can scare folks if they are not expecting it and something you don't want to do close to the ground. Showed him a couple of those as well. Then showed him a short feel landing and how with proper speed I can come to a complete stop in less than 1000 feet. I think he learned more than I did but it was necessary so that he stopped propagating OWT for the next poor soul that comes to him with a Mooney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Perezhr said:
[...] I did not find it difficult at all to transition from a 172, but then again I was taught not to land an airplane until it runs out of energy and settles on the runway. Worked the same way on the Mooney [...]

[...] He had heard you don't want to stall a Money so was extremely apprehensive of flying below 80 Kts. [...]
Click to expand...

My wife and I also transitioned from a 145 hp 172 to the Mooney without any problems. Speeds in the pattern are only about 10 mph faster than with the 172. When landing, let it fly until its done and your good.

80 kts!? Holy smokes! I feel 80 mph (70 kts) is the sweet spot and a good compromise between landing distance and still having enough energy for a nice round out and smooth touch down.
 
Stalls in my Mooney aren't the least bit scary, they were worse in my Cessna 150. I certainly wouldn't spin it on purpose, the tales I've read about spins in a Mooney are certainly hair raising. I shoot for 70mph over the fence in mine when landing, though I try and keep in 12 or 13 inches of manifold pressure all the way to just above the runway. And pattern speeds aren't that much above what I used in my Cherokee.

If I had kids I'd want a different airplane (who am I kidding. If I had kids I'd be blowing all my money on THEM). But I don't so the Ranger is good enough for me. Like I said, no bigger bang for your buck outside Ex/Ab.

Of course, I don't think they're for folks who are wide in the beam. I tried to give an old airplane partner a ride, a somewhat "plus" sized individual (he is indeed in shape, round is shape). All jokes aside he did NOT fit in the airplane.
 
steingar said:
I shoot for 70mph over the fence in mine when landing, though I try and keep in 12 or 13 inches of manifold pressure all the way to just above the runway.
Click to expand...

Can you talk about that some more? Given the reputation for being slippery, I'm surprised that carrying *any* power would be desirable compared to idling the engine and letting the prop do some braking.
 
172andyou said:
Can you talk about that some more? Given the reputation for being slippery, I'm surprised that carrying *any* power would be desirable compared to idling the engine and letting the prop do some braking.
Click to expand...

pitch for speed, power for altitude?
 
172andyou said:
Can you talk about that some more? Given the reputation for being slippery, I'm surprised that carrying *any* power would be desirable compared to idling the engine and letting the prop do some braking.
Click to expand...
A lot of mooney pilots hold a bit of power. It lets you squeak it on the runway smooth. But it takes a lot more runway to land. Passengers prefer it to stall horn and then a noticeable bump when you hit, but you're floating more. It's also not prepping you for engine out scenario. Personally, I like to be on speed and close enough to make it in without power, but it's not as nice of a touchdown.
 
eman1200 said:
pitch for speed, power for altitude?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Mooney's aren't slippery and require some power to arrest an otherwise overly aggressive sink rate in the pattern? That's the opposite of their reputation.
 
Salty said:
A lot of mooney pilots hold a bit of power. It lets you squeak it on the runway smooth. But it takes a lot more runway to land. Passengers prefer it to stall horn and then a noticeable bump when you hit, but you're floating more. It's also not prepping you for engine out scenario. Personally, I like to be on speed and close enough to make it in without power, but it's not as nice of a touchdown.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks.
 
I'll let steingar answer why he lands his own plane the way he lands it, but I know in the heavier-nosed Lance I fly, I keep a touch of power in until I round out, then pull the rest.
 
172andyou said:
Can you talk about that some more? Given the reputation for being slippery, I'm surprised that carrying *any* power would be desirable compared to idling the engine and letting the prop do some braking.
Click to expand...
The one problem I've had with my aircraft is if I do bring it in at idle power at 70 mph it develops a pronounced sink. Pronounced enough to cause a hard bounce and prop strike on one occasion. You can come in power off and be at 70mph over the numbers, but you had better be pretty low so the aircraft hasn't time to start sinking. Otherwise, if you are power off a little more speed over the fence is a good idea, again to arrest that sink. Although I do try to hit the speed over the fence I've found it really isn't that big a deal. Dirtied up the airplane will loose speed, certainly not as fast as my old Cherokee but fast enough.

Landing a Mooney well isn't just about speed, its about energy management. Too little you bounce, too much you float (or bounce and porpoise). Trainers are a bit more forgiving because, well, they're trainers. I arrest the sink with a bit of power until just above the runway, others will do it differently.

That's why I don't think it as easy to land a Mooney as a Skyhawk.
 
steingar said:
The one problem I've had with my aircraft is if I do bring it in at idle power at 70 mph it develops a pronounced sink..
Click to expand...
With Vy at 105-110, it's no wonder that it sinks at 70. In M20E I shoot for 80 over the fence with full flaps and I don't let it start slowing down until I'm 50 feet off the ground. Granted I'm heavier than you are.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
With Vy at 105-110, it's no wonder that it sinks at 70. In M20E I shoot for 80 over the fence with full flaps and I don't let it start slowing down until I'm 50 feet off the ground. Granted I'm heavier than you are.
Click to expand...

I shoot for 65kts over the fence in the 201, which is 75mph. 70mph sounds a bit slow, you aren't going to have a lot of energy in reserve for the roundout. And probably why at that speed you have to keep a little power in.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I shoot for 65kts over the fence in the 201, which is 75mph.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Bill. I'll start dipping under 80 mph next time when I practice. I have a roughness on one magneto currently, so right when I test-fly it :-)
 
Oh, damn, wrong attribution. My comments were for Micheal coming in at 70mph with power.
 
How does Mooneys handle wind shear? (I don't know, never flown one)
 
zaitcev said:
With Vy at 105-110, it's no wonder that it sinks at 70. In M20E I shoot for 80 over the fence with full flaps and I don't let it start slowing down until I'm 50 feet off the ground. Granted I'm heavier than you are.
Click to expand...
Mooney M20E's aren't that much heavier than M20C's. Your strategy works just fine, and to be honest if I'm not right on top of it I'm at 80mph sometimes too. Just takes up a little more room, which is no big deal. I still hit the first taxiway at my airport, so I'm good with it.

Now, if I'm flying somewhere like 6Y9 I have to be way on top of it. But the Mooney can still do it (though the turf field gives me the willies. One gopher hole away from a prop strike). What caused my prop strike was coming into a short field over an obstacle. Pulled power after the obstacle, which was a huge (and expensive) mistake. That said, in a Skylane it would have just been an embarrassing bounce. But Mooneys sit low, which is why I think they tend to suffer prop strikes. Airplane developed enough sink to cause a prop strike. What I should have done (and what I will do henceforth) is to keep power in, but put the aircraft in a slip in such a situation. Over the fence with a little power at 70 mph. Pull power just above the runway and let it sink in.

Flying into the same strip with a CFI, I think I was at 90 on short final, and high too. I was ready to scrub the landing, but the CFI told me to stay with it and he was right. Settled in with plenty of room. This was a 3K foot strip, by the way. Part of what bit me was the last time I flew in it had been about 2600 feet, but had been subsequently lengthened.
 
zaitcev said:
Thanks, Bill. I'll start dipping under 80 mph next time when I practice. I have a roughness on one magneto currently, so right when I test-fly it :)
Click to expand...

My target is to roll wings level on final at 85 mph, and slow down to 75 on short final. I never have a fence to land over . . . call it 75-100 agl, 1/4 mile or less from the numbers. When I have the field made, I pull power to idle and come on in.

When I bought the plane, I was based at a 3000' field with trees at both ends; the preferred landing direction, you had to level off at 150 agl to clear the trees, at which point I would often go to idle, and the numbers became visible.

Landing the other way, the trees were closer and I generally went to idle more than 1/8 mile out, over the trees with numbers still obscured. Should have seen the face of a Cherokee pilot I gave a ride to, landing in that direction! After an uneventful landing, he told me that had he done that in his plane, we'd have been in the trees. "But in your plane, nothing happened!" I was there for 7 years.

Landing a Mooney is all about speed control, and controlling to the right speed. 70 mph is a good speed over the numbers at 20' or less. I generally touch down on the third stripe.
 
zaitcev said:
With Vy at 105-110, it's no wonder that it sinks at 70. In M20E I shoot for 80 over the fence with full flaps and I don't let it start slowing down until I'm 50 feet off the ground. Granted I'm heavier than you are.
Click to expand...

Exactly what we do. A little slower, like 75 mph would still be OK, but I frankly see no reason why I should do this. We fly our M20E with 80 mph at idle power and full flaps all the way to the round out and still easily make the 1400 ft exit at our airport, with only a little bit of breaking. I also try to decent at least the last few hundred feet almost at idle power.

Under 80 mph the sink rate goes up quite a bit and becomes excessive at 70 mph, power is definitely needed at that speed to avoid a (very) firm arrival.

I really don't like to drag a plane in - what if the engine fails on final? What about low level turbulences? What about a go around while hanging on the prop in a high drag configuration, behind the power curve? It also adds another variable to the actual landing, particularly at the required power settings.
 
German guy said:
I really don't like to drag a plane in - what if the engine fails on final? What about low level turbulences? What about a go around while hanging on the prop in a high drag configuration, behind the power curve? It also adds another variable to the actual landing, particularly at the required power settings.
Click to expand...

If the engine fails you will probably drop like a rock and not make the runway.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I shoot for 65kts over the fence in the 201, which is 75mph. 70mph sounds a bit slow, you aren't going to have a lot of energy in reserve for the roundout. And probably why at that speed you have to keep a little power in.
Click to expand...
Everyone is throwing out numbers...depends on your weight, you have have to adjust, about 5 kts per 300lbs.
Yourself with half tanks, maybe 70mph is a good number, fully loaded, more like 80. I tried 75mph in a J at half weight but I don't like the stall horn going off during the round out, so I shoot for 80.

In regards to stalls, some claim Mooneys benign, some don't. Again it Depends...the short bodies are more benign, when they extended the body without adding weight to the nose, they became more balanced and less nose heavy, Js are probably the worst. After that they added bigger, heavier engines.

Each model has it's own characteristics, be careful when someone makes a blanket statement about Mooneys without stating model, weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top