1800 x 100 Ft Grass runway carrying 4 people 200 lbs What plane would you use?

Go with a goose and forget the runway.
 
I do it in a 207 every day, no problem at all.
 
Full fuel!??! What are the odds that all four passengers would have bladders that would last as long as a full load of fuel would? :-)
 
FloridaPilot said:
It's probably because you guys are use to flying shorter runways in Alaska. Most people I see down here: "Float across the runway" Alaska flying must be beautiful!



Yep,

FL90 I'm going with my new CFI. He will be flying the whole time. You have to have permission to land there, excited to see what it is like!
Click to expand...

If someone was able to get this thing off the ground, they should be able to land it in 1800 feet. We are talking about landing are we not? Usually one can get a light aircraft into a short field that they cannot take off from. 1800 feet is not so short to me say in a 180. All depends on whats at each end.
 
You could do it in a Cherokee 235 with full mains and tips (84 gallons) and still have room for 160 pounds of baggage.
 
strangebird said:
I recommend wearing swim suits for the swim at either end when you go off the end on the hot summer days fully loaded. Ther have been a few accidents on that strip if I remember right.
Click to expand...

Just last year with a Piper PA 32R.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/07/piper-pa-32r-301t-n297as-fatal-accident.html

It was reported that The pilot was carrying 666 pounds of Ceramic tile and didn't strap them down in the plane. Lucky for me I would never have that issue. I would leave it to the professionals.
 
180 hp Cessna 170B. I've been flying one off 1500'x100' for more than 20 years. Aim for the end of the runway and over the fence at 60 mph or so. 30 degrees of flaps. Don't be afraid to dump the flaps and apply the brakes on rollout.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Thanks,

Can those planes do 4 passengers with full fuel?
Click to expand...

If you can fill the seats and still carry full fuel, your tanks aren't big enough.

The question is not "full fuel" but "enough fuel."

I rarely (even when only flying solo) carry full fuel in the Navion. That's enough gas to fly for 8 hours. It exceeds my bladder capacity.
 
flyingron said:
If you can fill the seats and still carry full fuel, your tanks aren't big enough.

The question is not "full fuel" but "enough fuel."

I rarely (even when only flying solo) carry full fuel in the Navion. That's enough gas to fly for 8 hours. It exceeds my bladder capacity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there is an STC that would allow you to install smaller tanks so you can fly with full fuel.
 
flyingron said:
I rarely (even when only flying solo) carry full fuel in the Navion. That's enough gas to fly for 8 hours. It exceeds my bladder capacity.
Click to expand...

While your bladder can be safely emptied in flight...
 
My RV-10 landing gear and wheel pants would take a beating unless it was smooth with short grass, 40 gallons of fuel max and 4- 200 pounders would exceed my aft cg limit. No thanks. Emergency landing yes.
 
Standard 61 gal tanks on a Cessna 185 would give you your 4 200# pax plus full fuel and still have about 200# of baggage.
 
kgruber said:
Standard 61 gal tanks on a Cessna 185 would give you your 4 200# pax plus full fuel and still have about 200# of baggage.
Click to expand...

I believe that. I don't believe that a typical 170 can carry fuel fuel and 4 200lbers though.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I believe that. I don't believe that a typical 170 can carry fuel fuel and 4 200lbers though.
Click to expand...

Some of the 48s will have the numbers to do so, But it will be at Max Gross.

An 1100# Empty weight 48 will have a 1100 useful load.

Not many are that light.
 
Always wanted to land there! Invite us for a fly in when you pick out your plane. With Page field 10 minutes away you can always drop a passenger or two off if its wet or you have too much fuel on board.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I believe that. I don't believe that a typical 170 can carry fuel fuel and 4 200lbers though.
Click to expand...

Book numbers on the 170B are 995 lbs of useful load. 800 pounds of live meat leaves 195 for fuel. Not quite full tanks but getting pretty close.
 
Not many planes weigh their book numbers after 60 years of real life.
 
flyingron said:
Book numbers on the 170B are 995 lbs of useful load. 800 pounds of live meat leaves 195 for fuel. Not quite full tanks but getting pretty close.
Click to expand...

Book #s were made in the early 50s. Most of these airplanes have gained a lot of weight since then.

I own a 170 dude. It's a great airplane, but I wouldn't recommend it for the OPs stated mission.
 
I fly off a short strip that has tall trees. I'd rather fly an airplane using 75% of the useful than one at 100%. If your mission calls for lifting 1000# you'll be safer flying that load in a plane that can lift 1500# compared to a plane that has 1000# useful. Short fields with loads requires horsepower. I've never met a pilot who flew a short strip that wouldn't have preferred more power.
 
Stewartb said:
I fly off a short strip that has tall trees. I'd rather fly an airplane using 75% of the useful than one at 100%. If your mission calls for lifting 1000# you'll be safer flying that load in a plane that can lift 1500# compared to a plane that has 1000# useful. Short fields with loads requires horsepower. I've never met a pilot who flew a short strip that wouldn't have preferred more power.
Click to expand...


I totally agree!!

That applies to everything within Aviation, Weight, Fuel, Distance..etc
You always want to error on the positive side, it may save your life one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top