Ac for short field takeoff / ldg
Moderator
I see that many posters have provided the identity of an aircraft. There are, however, not as many posts with detailed information as to why the identified aircraft is particularly suitable. Yes, the original question would benefit from more detail and clarity, but does that open the thread up to a "name a plane" exercise?
Nearly all of the aircraft identified have admirable short field characteristics, though some more than others. That having been said, the operational considerations, and operating technique are going to have as much to do with SAFE short field operation, as the aircraft type.
My home runway was 1700 feet long, with good approaches, for the first 18 years of it's use (later lengthened to 2100 feet when I began operating a standard C 207 here). During that early time, I operated aircraft ranging from my STOL C150, C182RG, through to Aztec and Twin Otter with never a problem. However, some of those flights used up every inch of the runway (C182RG), and did not include a suitable margin of safety for the unexpected. Wind and density altitude have quite an affect on the runway length required for operation with a suitable reserve.
I used to occasionally operate a STOL C182 in and out of a runway 750 feet long, with 60 foot trees at each threshold. I brushed trees a few times, but never had a problem. That did not make it suitably safe, or a good idea. The fact that extreme runway operations are possible on certain days, does not mean that planning regular operations in those conditions is wise.
Setting up an operating environment which just fits within the aircraft capabilities requires unusual pilot skill and currency to be safe. The original poster would be wise to consider an aircraft which offers lots of margin (double, anyway) for the runway dimensions proposed for the common operating conditions. An aircraft which will "just do it" would be a poor choice.
Nearly all of the aircraft identified have admirable short field characteristics, though some more than others. That having been said, the operational considerations, and operating technique are going to have as much to do with SAFE short field operation, as the aircraft type.
My home runway was 1700 feet long, with good approaches, for the first 18 years of it's use (later lengthened to 2100 feet when I began operating a standard C 207 here). During that early time, I operated aircraft ranging from my STOL C150, C182RG, through to Aztec and Twin Otter with never a problem. However, some of those flights used up every inch of the runway (C182RG), and did not include a suitable margin of safety for the unexpected. Wind and density altitude have quite an affect on the runway length required for operation with a suitable reserve.
I used to occasionally operate a STOL C182 in and out of a runway 750 feet long, with 60 foot trees at each threshold. I brushed trees a few times, but never had a problem. That did not make it suitably safe, or a good idea. The fact that extreme runway operations are possible on certain days, does not mean that planning regular operations in those conditions is wise.
Setting up an operating environment which just fits within the aircraft capabilities requires unusual pilot skill and currency to be safe. The original poster would be wise to consider an aircraft which offers lots of margin (double, anyway) for the runway dimensions proposed for the common operating conditions. An aircraft which will "just do it" would be a poor choice.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dorset
Age: 49
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick follow up for you. Regardless of the a/c type you eventually go for, I would highly recommend grabbing an hour with an experienced farm strip flyer. A good (well known in aviation circles) friend of mine took me to some farm strips in the archer. He pointed out all the things to look for and reduced my t/o landing distances CONSIDERABLY. Then once you've got such instruction go out and practice regularly - wind/pressure/loading/surface conditions seriously change the considerations you need to make.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another vote for the DR400 as long as you don't include the one with the small engine.
I had a DR400-140 that was based on a 470yd strip but I would limit the payload to three people and 60 lts of fuel.
The DR400-180 using the same strip would lift four people and 120 lts of fuel with the same ground run as the 140 but better climb performance.
I suspect that both aircraft would be able to get off the strip at MTOW on an ISA day but I did not feel that I would have enough margin for the unexpected.
I had a DR400-140 that was based on a 470yd strip but I would limit the payload to three people and 60 lts of fuel.
The DR400-180 using the same strip would lift four people and 120 lts of fuel with the same ground run as the 140 but better climb performance.
I suspect that both aircraft would be able to get off the strip at MTOW on an ISA day but I did not feel that I would have enough margin for the unexpected.
