What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Realistic landing distances

pierre smith

Well Known Member
Mornin' everybody,
I flew into a friend's 2000' grass strip last Saturday and figured that was no problem. It has tall trees on one end so basically a one-way-in-one-way-out kinda strip, at 410' MSL. I approached (Solo) at 70 MPH indicated and floated very little but it still took most of the strip to stop. Right now I wouldn't feel too good going into anything less than 1800'.

What do you guys figure you can go into with either a 6 or 7/7A at around 85 degrees, solo, mostly full fuel, 180 Lyc, fixed pitch, 1046 empty? Van's specs shows around 500 feet but I don't see how, :confused:
 
My min is 2000' ... but i think with an AOA or Reserve Lift you might squeeze it down.
 
My strip is 1500'. The only time it is marginal is with a stiff 90 degree crosswind.
I might also mention that it is in Texas.
There are several of my friends who come in regularly, and some who won't. That is fine. To be honest, in a lot of cases, it has more to do with pilot technique than airplane capabilities. (Although airplane capabilities are certainly a factor)
 
Super pilot

pierre smith said:
What do you guys figure you can go into with either a 6 or 7/7A at around 85 degrees, solo, mostly full fuel, 180 Lyc, fixed pitch, 1046 empty? Van's specs shows around 500 feet but I don't see how, :confused:
If you have ever flown with Richard VanGrunsven you will have the answer. He can land in a drive way, width wise. Us mere mortals can double the factory spec numbers. Also remember this is touch down roll out, no margin. It does no say over a 50 foot obsticale does it? If you look at Cessna's numbers they are the same. New plane, test pilot and so on, which typical pilots and typical planes can't achieve.

Unlike GA planes, transport aircraft can not have super pilot numbers. Performance numbers are often de-rated, like a rejected takeoff distance. During certification the test pilots must wait several seconds before initiating the reject, to simulate a more realistic surprise situation.

For me, landing no obstacle, 1000 feet, obstacle and soft, 2000 feet nominal, but every strip and wind condition is different and what Mel said. I just never want to be put into a situation where there's a doubt. I guess rule one is KNOW THY SELF.

One time I regret landing. The ground was wet and soggy and taking back off was too sporty, successful but sporty. Another time I landed on a mountain strip that was rough rough rough. It was fine from a length standpoint but from a happiness factor it sucked. It also had big gopher mounds which a RV-"A" might not like. So rule two, KNOW THY FIELD.

The last issue I has was taking off from a grass strip, firm and plenty long, the ground roll was way too long??? Getting back to home field I noticed I could not push the plane into the hanger easily????? The brakes where dragging. The pads where too thin so the "puck" was extending further out of the caliper, far enough to jam or drag in the extended position, at least while hot. After it cooled it was fine. If that was a MIN length field with obstacles... Rule three is KNOW THY PLANE.
 
Last edited:
I used to fly charters off an 1800 foot grass strip. No problem except an early morning landing, where dew on the grass makes braking almost like ice!

We did have clear approaches, though.
 
Yukon said:
I used to fly charters off an 1800 foot grass strip. No problem except an early morning landing, where dew on the grass makes braking almost like ice!

We did have clear approaches, though.

Charters in an RV6 / RV7 ?
Tom
Northern california
 
I landed my RV-6 on a 1400' grass strip near Creswell Oregon. I didn't have trouble with the strip length, but you have to get down close to the end. It's a rough strip. I wouldn't do it again. My RV-6 has a 160 hp 0-320 and a fixed pitch propeller.

Bob Severns
 
-6A into short fields

Hey Pierre!
Use to fly my -6A into a 1600 to 1700' strip pretty regular. Loganville International we called it, and it could be a real callenge! Kahana also flew his -6A in there. (Hey Kahana, how long is Subob's new strip?) It wasn't really a problem, but you really had to watch your speeds. The guy that owned the strip flew an -8 out of it regularly. I would try to drag it accross the line at no morre than 60 to 65 MPH. Once down, you're on the brakes! Usually we used less than 1000' feet. But, as others have said, you 've got to know your plane!
Later!
 
I fly out of our 1700 ft grass strip with a 7A with an 0-360 A1A and Hartzell BA C/S prop. I often land in less than 1200 ft. We are in Wisconsin at 820 msl.

Roberta
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Unlike GA planes, transport aircraft can not have super pilot numbers. Performance numbers are often de-rated, like a rejected takeoff distance. During certification the test pilots must wait several seconds before initiating the reject, to simulate a more realistic surprise situation.
Sorry to burst your bubble George, but there isn't very much derating going on at all on the rejected take-off (RTO) numbers. Yes, some very small time delays are added, but in my opinion they aren't large enough to account for the "surprise" factor of a real RTO. The test pilot knows he will be doing an RTO, so he hammers on full brakes as soon as he hits the target speed (the time delays are added analytically later). Date from real RTOs shows that the actual time delays are usually longer than is assumed in the AFM perf data.

And to cap it all off, the manufacturers specifically do the testing on parts of the runway that have minimal rubber on it. In the real world, if you are on a limiting runway, you are doing the stop on the far end of the runway, which is almost certainly covered in rubber. The braking performance on the rubber is worse than it is on areas with no rubber.

Please don't bank on any derating on RTO data.
 
I was flying my RV-6 this afternoon, remembering yesterday's discussion of landing distances. I was alone in the airplane. I landed very close beyond the runway threshold line. The wind was calm, and the engine at idle. It was a smooth landing and I just let the plane roll along. My RV-6 has very low rolling resistance. The first taxiway exit off the runway is 2000' from the end. I had to brake just a little to get it slowed enough to make the turn off the runway with ease. My airplane has a fixed pitch wood propeller.

Bob Severns
 
I occasionally do stop and go landings at a local field. On a decent day (no gusty winds) I can land, stop using medium braking, and takeoff again in 1500'. Of course, this is on asphalt and solo. I figure 800-1,000' is my practical minimum landing distance on asphalt. I would add at least 30% for grass, because bumps and slick grass can add to stopping distance.

If I was to go all out I could get the landing distance on asphalt to 500-600', but that is leaving very little margin for the flair and probably killing the engine once the wheels hit the ground. I imagine the residual thrust on a FP installation like mine adds a couple hundred feet to the landing distance.
 
Obstacles.

Everyone is quoting landing run.
Landing distance is what it is all about and that includes obstacle.
Not many strips I use have zero obstalce before the threshold, especially short runways or else they wouldn't be short. If it's not trees or power lines, then it is nearly always a fence.
Landing distance over a 50' obstacle is a very different case.
Maybe Kevin can give us an approximation as to how much this would add.
Pete.
 
fodrv7 said:
Everyone is quoting landing run.
Landing distance is what it is all about and that includes obstacle.
Not many strips I use have zero obstalce before the threshold, especially short runways or else they wouldn't be short. If it's not trees or power lines, then it is nearly always a fence.
Landing distance over a 50' obstacle is a very different case.
Maybe Kevin can give us an approximation as to how much this would add.
For type certificated aircraft, the published landing distance is the sum of the distance from an obstacle to touchdown (known as the air distance) and the distance from touchdown to a full stop (the ground distance). The obstacle height is usually 50 ft.

With the test techniques that are allowed today for type certificated aircraft, the performance data usually has an air distance of about 1000 ft. In the "good old days", you were allowed to lower the nose after crossing the obstacle, and add power in the flare, and the air distance would be a bit shorter. I recall reading descriptions of the landing data for the DHC-2 Beaver which suggests an air distance of about 500 ft. But the Beaver was specifically designed for short-field operations.
 
Depends on how bad you want it

Part of it depends on how bad you want to land short.

When I took my plane to be painted, the shop was on a field that looked fine in Airnav ("Low Pass", in OK City) -- 2600 turf. But when I got there, the north end had power lines just across the street with big orange balls on them, and from the air it looked like last two thirds of the runway was washed-out mud. I was determined not to get into the mud with my new airplane, but it took me four tries to get over those power lines and still make the end of the runway. As it turned out, what looked like mud from the air was only exposed sandstone. All that worry for nothing.

I didn't measure it, but I'd guess I was probably stopped in less than 800 feet -- over a 50' obstacle, in zero wind, on loose turf, with only 25 hours of RV experience under my belt. I've never equalled that performance since.

On the other hand, at my current home field (Weiser, in Houston), I can usually make the turnoff without maximum effort. It's about 1000 ft from the end of 9, over a stand of 25' trees. Of course, that's assuming there's not a 90 degree gale blasting from the south, which hardly ever happens at Weiser.
 
rvpilot said:
Hey Pierre!
. (Hey Kahana, how long is Subob's new strip?)

Subobs is 1100ft and I make 3/4 with a tail wind, half no wind, less than have head wind. Thats with my fat A#@ Super 8. Been in there at 2200lbs gross. As others have stated. Its not the engine prop, it the weight and technique.
900' is my personal limit
Best,
 
My buddy lands his hornet at 145kts in 300ft with no problem.......oh wait...he uses a tailhook..uhm....sorry. Tailhook on an RV anyone?
 
Last edited:
US Enterprise

You can land a B747 on the US Enterprise whilst it is moored in Hong Kong Harbour......... if you wind enough headwind into the simulator.
Backing up with reverse for TO, without falling off the approach end is the tricky bit.
Pete.
 
Back
Top