What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Landing distance

Don

Well Known Member
I am flying an RV-9A with a O-320 (160 hp), with a fixed pitch prop. I've got better than 120 hours in it. Van's states the take-off and landing distance with this plane solo is 300'. At gross he says they're 475 and 450. It's also generally agreed that Van's numbers are very close to reality as opposed to some companies that are rather optimistic. I also note that other RV's have similar or shorter landing distances.

When it comes to the take-off, I believe I'm coming pretty close to Van's numbers by just using full flaps, getting the nose wheel barely off the runway until I rotate as I pass 50 knots. I've never actually measured it but I'm always startled at how fast it happens and I'm positive it's well under 1,000'.

Landings are a different story. I can fairly consistently land in 1,000' by reducing my speed over the fence to 57-58 knots and keeping a bit of power on until the flare. I landed once at 55 knots with the engine idling in calm conditions and when I rolled out parallel to the runway and started the flare - there wasn't enough energy left for ANY float and the mains touched down. I don't know what that landing distance was but it was more than 500'.

I'm curious how to land this plane in 500'?or 600 or 700'. Is the trick to break really hard? While I'm not opposed to braking, I'm not keen on standing on the breaks. I figure there's something else I'm missing. I also find it interesting that when folks here ask about using short fields, say 1,000' on a regular basis, a lot of people advise against it because the margin for error is low.

The shortest airport I've landed at so far was 1,534' (x 24') and it wasn't an issue but I'm guessing I used 1,100' of it with modest braking. The fact that it was up hill in spots helped limit the landing distance.

In closing, I'm sure folks will want to know stuff I failed to mention and I'll try and answer questions. My indicated stall speed at gross, with flaps down is 44 knots (Van's says 50 mph, so I think I'm real close). My intent for doing this isn't to make every landing this short but I want to be able to fly the 9 to its limits when I want or need to do so. I would also like to generally shorten my landings to under 1,000' if I can do so with no more than gentle braking.

My standard approach speed for a landing where distance is not limited is 65-67 knots over the fence. With moderate braking I'll get the plane stopped in 1,500 to 1,800'. If I'm landing at an airport that's between 2,000 and 2,400' I'll reduce the approach speed to 60 knots, which is limiting me in gusty conditions. These figures are all for paved runways.

So my questions are: Can you land your RV in under 500'? If so, what's your technique?
 
The numbers Van?s publishes are the absolute best they could get from the airplane (maximum effort) it is also the distance from the touch down point to the stopping point, not from the end of the runway to the stopping point, these numbers are just ?specks? and don?t reflect normal landings by normal pilots on most days.

Back in the day Van had a video where he demonstrated landing and taking off his RV-4 on his family farm with a passenger, I think that strip was 680? long, this proved his numbers where real. For us guys with nothing to prove, if you?re comfortable landing on a 1500? strip you can go most anywhere you want.
 
Don, there are no secrets whether you're in an RV or any other airplane. The shortest landings involve touching down as close to a selected point as possible (without coming up short), as slow as possible. Then it's a matter of braking as much as is safely possible. You need to carefully think about how hard you really want to get on the brakes on grass in a tricycle gear RV. Watch how the bush pilots do it. They're generally approaching dirty in the 1.1Vso range with power, and pulling power off for a precise touchdown on a point. Then they are braking as hard as possible. You will likely drag the tail in your RV-9A touching down at absolute minimum speed from a power-on approach. Keep in mind that if you indicate 44kts at the dirty power-off stall, 1.3Vso is 57 kts. This number should work perfectly well even for power off landings. 65-67 kts seems pretty fast for the RV-9. With a little power, you should be able to very comfortably fly in the 1.2Vso range (53kts). Like any other aspect of flying, getting very good takes a lot of careful, dedicated practice.
 
If it's any comfort to you ...

... My experience (performance?) with my 9A is just like yours. Taking off in very short distances is easy, but no way can I land it in those Vans numbers.
 
To match Van's landing numbers, you have to drag it in with power.
At least that's been my experience.

I have 1500' with clear approaches and a Catto 3-blade. My only "white knuckle" moments come with a direct cross-wind.
My runway is 20' wide.
 
To match Van's landing numbers, you have to drag it in with power.
At least that's been my experience.

I have 1500' with clear approaches and a Catto 3-blade. My only "white knuckle" moments come with a direct cross-wind.
My runway is 20' wide.

Hi Mel,

Any suggestions about how to sneak up on dragging it in with power to keep things safe? When I get much below 60 knots in the 9 I usually carry a little power - may 1,100 rpm and kill it just before I start the flair. My sense is you're suggesting more power and maybe a slower speed. I think I'd practice that at altitude first.

I'm starting to get the sense that 500' landings isn't within the scope or comfort level of many RV pilots.
 
Unless there are other extenuating circumstances, a short field landing should include a moderate amount of power when stabilized on the approach.

Pitch for airspeed and adjust your power to control your descent rate. This is frequently referred to as "flying on the backside of the power curve."

The approach will be steeper than a "standard" long-runway approach so it'll take some getting used to.

To practice, first practice slow flight at altitude. It's imperative that you are comfortable in this airspeed regime. In a Cessna, I'd tell you to slow to the point where the stall horn starts to squawk, but the plane doesn't quit flying. Practice turns and get used to how the controls feel. Trim the plane. Reduce power 500rpm while maintaining the airspeed. Note the descent rate. Continue reducing power to sample varying descent rates.

You'll inevitably stall the plane in this learning process, but that's a learning experience, too. Make sure you've got enough altitude to recover from the stall with a minimum of fuss and panic. The best thing you can learn from an inadvertent stall at altitude is how the controls felt just before the stall.

Once you've accumulated significant experience at altitude, take the exercise to the runway. For heaven's sake, don't pick the end of the runway for this portion of the learning experience. That gives you an error margin of plus 4000 feet and minus ZERO feet. Not necessary or advisable.

Depending on the airframe, your indicated POWER ON stall speed in landing configuration might be significantly different than the POWER OFF stall speed in the landing configuration.

I once flew a friend's Cub... He's got a ~1200 foot grass strip here in Colorado (5100' MSL). We practiced just as I have described at altitude and I found that with the power on, we could get the indicated airspeed to settle on ZERO. Now we can assume that the actual airspeed was something above zero, but the point is that the stall speed was significantly lower than the 30-something indicated with the power off.

Nobody should be embarrassed about asking for advice regarding short field landing technique. I watched a training partner fail his initial CFI checkride 15 years ago when I took my CFI checkride. Lucky for me, I had Champ and Cub experience and a healthy dose of advice from a good friend and some practical experience flying into his farm strip. [Thanks, Bill!]

Hope this helps!

Rod
 
Last edited:
There is no way to instruct you over the internet as to how to safely drag an airplane in using power over the fence and plunk it on the numbers, with that said your using power to enable you to fly at an increased angle of attack and lower then power off stall speed, check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuE2cW8NMx8 The guy in the C-150 right at the beginning did a great job.

Now after you drag your A model -9 in on power and touch the mains you then need to slam on the brakes to stop in 500’ this will slam the nose wheel down hard, not a practical idea for someone who wants to be kind to their airplane, on my tail dragger -4 this would mean dragging it in and touching the tail wheel on the ground while the mains are still 2 or 3 ‘ in the air and letting them slam down and then stand on the brakes, I have no interest in trying to land/stop in 500’ in my RV. What this 500’ number actually tells me is that if I touch down on the first 25% of a 1000’ runway I’ll be in good shape, so long as the grass is dry!
 
Unless there are other extenuating circumstances, a short field landing should include a moderate amount of power when stabilized on the approach.

Pitch for airspeed and adjust your power to control your descent rate. This is frequently referred to as "flying on the backside of the power curve."

The approach will be steeper than a "standard" long-runway approach so it'll take some getting used to.

To practice, first practice slow flight at altitude. It's imperative that you are comfortable in this airspeed regime. In a Cessna, I'd tell you to slow to the point where the stall horn starts to squawk, but the plane doesn't quit flying. Practice turns and get used to how the controls feel. Trim the plane. Reduce power 500rpm while maintaining the airspeed. Note the descent rate. Continue reducing power to sample varying descent rates.

You'll inevitably stall the plane in this learning process, but that's a learning experience, too. Make sure you've got enough altitude to recover from the stall with a minimum of fuss and panic. The best thing you can learn from an inadvertent stall at altitude is how the controls felt just before the stall.

Once you've accumulated significant experience at altitude, take the exercise to the runway. For heaven's sake, don't pick the end of the runway for this portion of the learning experience. That gives you an error margin of plus 4000 feet and minus ZERO feet. Not necessary or advisable.

Depending on the airframe, your indicated POWER ON stall speed in landing configuration might be significantly different than the POWER OFF stall speed in the landing configuration.

I once flew a friend's Cub... He's got a ~1200 foot grass strip here in Colorado (5100' MSL). We practiced just as I have described at altitude and I found that with the power on, we could get the indicated airspeed to settle on ZERO. Now we can assume that the actual airspeed was something above zero, but the point is that the stall speed was significantly lower than the 30-something indicated with the power off.

Nobody should be embarrassed about asking for advice regarding short field landing technique. I watched a training partner fail his initial CFI checkride 15 years ago when I took my CFI checkride. Lucky for me, I had Champ and Cub experience and a healthy dose of advice from a good friend and some practical experience flying into his farm strip. [Thanks, Bill!]

Hope this helps!

Rod

Very good description!
 
one more observation....

Don, I have a similar experience. 150 hp FP -9a.
I generally glide to landing, of course carry power when I have to adjust for poor glidepath control.
But what I think I have observed, not scientifically, is when i have a stable approach at about 65 kts IAS, and hold that, when I flare, I bleed off speed to the stall and settle on the mains as expected.
When I am high on approach, I slow to more like 60, and the rate of sink increases dramatically! When I flare from this high energy descent, there seems to be a 'zoom' forward in ground effect, and it seems I float at least as far, if not farther, before actually touching down!
This kind of agrees with the true, 'drag it in with power' short field approach that we all practiced in spam cans.
a couple extra knots of forward speed may be easier to dissipate that 1500 lbs coming down at 1500 fpm!
 
The -4 does the same thing when you flare going slow but a high rate of decent. If you need to land short and you've made a gliding approach then simply flare at 15 or so feet up. It's extremely unnerving the first few times but it will make your short field over an obstacle much shorter.

I'm not saying to try to hold the flare at 15. Just stop the decent rate higher so you don't get that kick in the butt you get with a low flare. You may even add power but land shorter.

Don, I have a similar experience. 150 hp FP -9a.
I generally glide to landing, of course carry power when I have to adjust for poor glidepath control.
But what I think I have observed, not scientifically, is when i have a stable approach at about 65 kts IAS, and hold that, when I flare, I bleed off speed to the stall and settle on the mains as expected.
When I am high on approach, I slow to more like 60, and the rate of sink increases dramatically! When I flare from this high energy descent, there seems to be a 'zoom' forward in ground effect, and it seems I float at least as far, if not farther, before actually touching down!
This kind of agrees with the true, 'drag it in with power' short field approach that we all practiced in spam cans.
a couple extra knots of forward speed may be easier to dissipate that 1500 lbs coming down at 1500 fpm!
 
and, guys, i would emphasize a couple of points...

...practicing all this low speed stuff at altitude first and then very carefully, incrementally, in the pattern, before trying it when it HAS to be done. get LOTs of practice. get really comfortable with slow flight before doing it down low. always remember you are engine dependent when dragging it in to land short, and always remember you are not committed to any landing as long as the engine is running. i.e., be prepared to go around in a heartbeat if the slightest question about having it under control arises. my final comment is remember also that these airplanes react a lot differently in slow flight with an aft CG than with a forward one.
 
65 Kts in a 9(A)?

I do ALL my approaches at 60 Kts at full idle. Really simple, abeam the touchdown point, put in all the flaps and trim it for 60 Kts. Fly the entire pattern at 60, slowing it over the fence.

Remember, trim for airspeed and power for distance.

Even then, once in ground effect, you must slow it down before touching down to minimize your ground roll.
 
I'd trade short field landing capability for the RVs amazing takeoff and cruise performance anyday.

My Cessna can land in a much shorter spot than it can take off in, and the shortest landings come from full flap, full stall, 3 point landings at min controllable airspeed for approach. Power off makes hitting your intended touch down point tougher, but dragging it in with power makes it easier if there is no margin for missing it.

Here is one on a no wind day, with a 50 knot approach, power off, full flaps, touchdown right at the threshold, & applying brakes without lifting the tail off the ground while simultaneously removing all flaps right after touchdown for more weight on the wheels and firmly planting it on the runway. Stopped in about 200'. You'll notice full up elevator just before touchdown, holding it off until it just can't fly anymore.

If you really want short field landings, I'm willing to trade for an RV-8 :D There's nothing exciting about being able to land really short/slow unless I'm worried about the engine quitting over hostile terrain. Then it's nice to know you just need a parking lot sized space.

Click the photo below for the video
 
Last edited:
Can get it to stop in a little bit shorter distance if you stand on the brakes, but it's hard on the airframe when the tail comes down.

 
...practicing all this low speed stuff at altitude first and then very carefully, incrementally, in the pattern, before trying it when it HAS to be done. get LOTs of practice. get really comfortable with slow flight before doing it down low. always remember you are engine dependent when dragging it in to land short, and always remember you are not committed to any landing as long as the engine is running. i.e., be prepared to go around in a heartbeat if the slightest question about having it under control arises. my final comment is remember also that these airplanes react a lot differently in slow flight with an aft CG than with a forward one.

Completely agree! I go out at full gross with the family and practice slow flight at 3000' AGL and 1' AGL(using 3/4 of the runway before going around), every 3-4 months. Thanks to my friend/CFI Ted for showing me the 1' AGL slow flight practice. Also stalls in all configurations. I approach at 68-70 kts in the -10, full flaps, power to idle, 1000 fpm descent, at full gross and still float for 100-200', so I know you -9 guys can get those speeds down safely. I rarely use brakes and mostly use aerodynamic braking...2500' unless brakes are used then I can get stopped in 1000' without catching them on fire. No way would try to make Van's numbers unless it is an actual emergency.
 
Flying in my Cessna 180, which has a similar wing loading and stall speed to an RV, short landings have a relatively slow speed on final, but at about hangar height or a little higher, I do a sort of pre-flare, where I reduce speed to the over-the-fence speed. The over-the-fence speed is way, way behind the power curve. I'll use power as necessary right after the pre-flare to get to the aim point on the runway. For a real short landing the final approach is flown to an aim point short of my real touch-down spot, knowing that the pre-flare and power will get me there; if I don't do it that way I land a bit long. This first point seems to be a hundred yards or so short of the real one.

What I've found is that there's a speed at which the plane will flare and round out nicely. There's a slower speed where it'll rotate for the flare, and moderate its rate of descent to near zero in ground effect, but with zero float - this is optimum. There's a still-slower speed where the attitude will change, it'll rotate just fine, but its trajectory won't change a whit until runway contact. This is too slow.

Power is, of course, at idle during the flare, but will probably - not always - be used before that.

All this takes practice.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Flying in my Cessna 180, which has a similar wing loading and stall speed to an RV, short landings have a relatively slow speed on final, but at about hangar height or a little higher, I do a sort of pre-flare, where I reduce speed to the over-the-fence speed. I'll use power as necessary right after the pre-flare to get to the aim point on the runway. For a real short landing the final approach is flown to an aim point short of my real touch-down spot, knowing that the pre-flare and power will get me there; if I don't do it that way I land a bit long. This first point seems to be a hundred yards or so short of the real one.

What I've found is that there's a speed at which the plane will flare and round out nicely. There's a slower speed where it'll rotate for the flare, and moderate its rate of descent to near zero in ground effect, but with zero float - this is optimum. There's a still-slower speed where the attitude will change, it'll rotate just fine, but its trajectory won't change a whit until runway contact. This is too slow.

Power is, of course, at idle during the flare.

All this takes practice.

Dave

Yes, we like the ones where we do a constant rate flare, level off and stall 6" up with 25-50' of float. Unfortunately it is difficult for me to repeat this every time.

I have not experienced the "not enough energy in reserve, flared too high, too late to add power, jar your teeth crash landing where pieces get left on the runway and bent metal".
 
Lots of Good Advice Here..

Don:
Practice.
At a field where there's a VASI or PAPI lights.
Stay on the glide path.
Work your way progressively down to 53-55 on final.
Stay on the glide path.
Stay off the brakes.
Don't let the nose touch until you run out of elevator.
Note how your float and rollout distances decreases with lower approach speeds.
You should have plenty of energy left for a smooth flare even at 53-55.

If your approach is too flat (you're dragging it in):
You'll have difficulty clearing obstacles when you need to.
You'll have to maintain a higher angle of attack (and likely add power).
Attempting to flare with the wing near the critical angle increases the odds of banging it in.
Practice.
Stay off the brakes.
Don't let the nose touch until you run out of elevator.

If you ever get near KPTK, look me up. We'll practice together.

Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
I am confident I can touch down and stop my RV-8 in the VAN's number if - like the C-170 video shows - I have 2200' of clear flat land before my touch down point and 750' of that is assault.

For most cases, "short field" comes with a number of other attributes like grass or unimproved surface, trees or power lines or structures, etc.

For me, there is no magic. It's energy management and practice in lots of different situations.

... I'm a practicing pilot.
 
Last edited:
landing short

I have landed my -8 on a relatively short (for a RV) back country strip in Utah with high bushes near the end. The strip is around 4000' feet in elevation. I practiced quite a bit before bringing it in there using the powered/drag it in approach technique. The trouble with this is that the pitch angle to maintain just above a stall with power and a decent angle to clear the bushes was substantially nose high, wiping out forward visibility which then made a spot landing difficult. It was also then difficult to judge my wheel clearance over the tall bushes. I landed to a full stop in about 600 ft from the end.
I have since had better success approaching at about 60 to 65 kts in a steep enough angle to clear a obstacle, then chopping the power completely so that my prop is as idle as possible at touchdown. This requires good timing and accurate pitch adjustment to touchdown firm but not hard.
With a fixed pitch prop, the windmilling effect really hurts the deceleration, so having the prop "unwound" as possible at touchdown helps substantially.
 
65 Kts in a 9(A)?

I do ALL my approaches at 60 Kts at full idle. Really simple, abeam the touchdown point, put in all the flaps and trim it for 60 Kts. Fly the entire pattern at 60, slowing it over the fence.

Remember, trim for airspeed and power for distance.

Even then, once in ground effect, you must slow it down before touching down to minimize your ground roll.
Let me add...

Solo and / or at light weights I fly final at 55 knots. I still have enough energy to flair. Much slower than that and your sink rate goes up pretty good.
 
Incredible high altitude performance!

This goes back almost 20 years ago but I landed at the highest airport in the U.S. 9988 ft. 3000 ft. long and paved. (Coyote Flats by Bishop California) The temperature was about 60*f + or -, no or little wind. I was at gross weight (about 1550#). The RV4 160 H.P. and a CS prop. On take off we rolled about half the runway before we became airborne. NOW THAT IS PERFORMANCE!

Steve Barnes
 
Back
Top