Realistic landing distances

[pierre smith]

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,

[n468ac]

My min is 2000' ... but i think with an AOA or Reserve Lift you might squeeze it down.

[Mel]

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)

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by pierre smith

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,

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.

[Yukon]

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.

[tin man]

Originally Posted by Yukon

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

[hngrflyr]

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

[rvpilot]

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!

[robertahegy]

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

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

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.