Then the total phase of the eclipse would last longer. Also, it is more likely that there is a total phase at all.
It would during a solar eclipse, but probably not during a lunar eclipse.
Because the sun's light and heat is blocked during a solar eclipse, the air gets cooler.
During a lunar eclipse, a resident of the Moon would experience a solar eclipse; the Sun would be hidden behind the Earth.
An astronaut on the Moon - or any of the Moon residents, starting about 30 years from now - would see a solar eclipse where we here on Earth see a lunar eclipse.
Because the Earth's shadow is much bigger than the solar disc appears, so the entire sun is blocked out, while on the Earth viewing a Solar Eclipse, the moon's disc is approximately the same size as the sun's.
In a complete line with the sun.
From the perspective of a lunar observer, it would be a solar eclipse; the Earth would pass between the Sun and the Moon.
Both result in the moon's orbit around the earth. In a lunar eclipse the moon is on the far side of the earth from the bright sun, and earth's shadow passes across its surface. Earth is larger than the moon, and casts a bigger shadow on it than the moon would cast on the earth during a solar eclipse. Therefore I would have to argue that the lunar eclipse should take longer, or be slower to complete.
People who are in the path of the eclipse.
The Moon phase during a solar eclipse would be a New Moon.
It is a new Moon. For a solar eclipse, the moon has to be between Earth and the Sun. We get a total lunar eclipse when Earth is between the Sun and the Moon. The Moon would have to be full for it to be eclipsed.
The moon is never "blocked out". It's not even clear what that might look like, or what it means. -- During a solar eclipse, the moon gets in the way, so that you can't see the sun for a few minutes. -- During a lunar eclipse, the Earth gets in the way, so that the sun can't shine on the moon and light it up for a few hours.