G

GTechRV

Active Member
RV Ground Performance

So I'm looking at making a hangar investment at a nearby airport with a uniquely positioned, paved 1800 ft runway. The runway itself sits on a plateau and the grade drops off at either end (almost like an aircraft carrier). This means that the trees at either end (after the drop-off) don't necessarily obstruct the glide path (just the tops of them), but it does make the approach quite interesting. With that preface, I'll ask this question:

Does the Van's published landing distance indicate the amount of roll needed after the plane has touched down, or the distance required from some feet above the runway (at feathering per se)? Whats your experience vs. the published numbers?

Also, I trust the TO distance is pretty short, but is there an easy way to predetermine what the 50' (clearing distance) is for each aircraft at gross? Specifically, I'm referring to the -10, but I'd assume its similar for like airframes. What are your experiences with this? How fast (on average) do you clear 50' after rotation?

Based on Van's numbers for a -10 at gross (260 HP) I'm pretty sure the runway will easily accommodate a -10, but theres no substitute for experience (plenty for speculation).

Oh, and if you want to take a look at the airport, heres the link: http://www.mathisairport.com. Its listed as private, but anyone's welcome to visit, gas up, or grab a coke.
 
Last edited:
Van's numbers for take-off and landing distances are almost certainly ground roll only.

I would expect that a pilot who was proficient at short field technique in the RV-10, should have no problem operating from that strip in a 260 hp RV-10 with C/S prop, in dry weather, if it isn't too windy. Please note all the qualifiers on that statement.

Landing performance is much more likely to be a problem than take-off performance, unless it is extremely hot, or the aircraft is over Van's recommended gross weight. There are a lot more ways to screw up a landing than there are to screw up a take-off. Although it is amazing how creative some idiots can be at finding ways to screw up.
 
The "new" Mathis runway should be no problem at all for the 10. I am very familiar with it, as I used to live at the Stoney Point Airpark, just 3.5 miles NW from Mathis. The old Mathis runway was a different story. :)

Vic
 
There is also a cemetery underneath the new runway. I asked them about it when I visited. Apparently, they had to just move the headstones flush with the runway surface!
 
1,800 is plenty without obsticles

1,800 ft is a lot of runway (sea level no obsticles). With obsticles (tall ones) it could be marginal. You did not mention obstacles.


Yes I agree Van publishes ground roll and pilot skill is key to total landing distance.

Take off you can bet that you will meet Vans (sea level, density alt) Gross weight ground roll for 210 hp, 686 feet for take off. The 260 HP is about 180 feet shorter, so lets use 686 feet.

Landing is the same for all engines 650 feet (at gross wt).

Climb rate at least 1150 fpm for the gross wt. 210hp RV-10.


Doing a little math, over a 50 foot obstacle on a three degree glide path is 954 feet.

Take off climb will be about 6 degrees or about 400 feet to clear a 50 foot obstacle.

Takeoff 686 + 954 = 1640 feet
Landing 650 + 400 = 1050 feet

Add 10% for margin and the kids, 1,800 feet and 1150 feet.

Head wind, less distance
Less weight, less distance
More HP, shorter takeoff (about 180 feet less)
Higher density altitude, longer distances

1,800 feet is plenty from the sound of it. My personal min for my RV4 and RV7 is about 1000 feet no obstacles, 1,800 feet obstacles (assuming hard surface or hard packed short dry grass, sea level)
 
Last edited:
Hi George,

Did you add the approach length to the take-off and vice versa or am I confused???? Doesn't change much, just wanted to understand!!
Thanks Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.