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

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
(FL90)

4 Passengers 200 lbs each, (Including the pilot) landing on an 1800 x 100 foot runway which is a grass strip, (6 Foot Elevation) No obstacles. Good fuel economy so we are probably talking single engine planes.


photos_2_09_runway.jpg


What kind of airplanes can perform this mission?


As always thanks for your input!
 
RV-10, C-182, Aeronca Sedan, Bo, Cherokee 235, Navion, Maule, etc.

Lots to choose from with clear approaches. I wouldn't choose a Cirrus or Cessna Corvalis.
 
FloridaPilot said:
(FL90)

4 Passengers 200 lbs each, (Including the pilot) landing on an 1800 x 100 foot runway which is a grass strip, (6 Foot Elevation) No obstacles. Good fuel economy so we are probably talking single engine planes.


View attachment 41682


What kind of airplanes can perform this mission?


As always thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

Cherokee 6-300. C-180/185, Dakota 235, Beaver DHC2,
 
Thanks,

Can those planes do 4 passengers with full fuel?
 
Fearless Tower said:
You'd want to check the numbers on a PA32 closely. You might have a hard time taking off from a 1800' grass strip with that load.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they were so popular up north. that's is prior to the turbine caravan.
 
Cessna 180,185,206,207......yes......no problem.


And, of course, you need to know WHAT you mean by "full fuel." All these airplanes were offered with standard tanks or long range tanks.
 
Last edited:
185F would do it, U206, Helio, bigger Maule.
 
185/206 would do it in half that space. So would a big engine 180/182 but the max gross may be a problem for some, especially the older models.
 
OP asks about landing on such a runway with the given load. I imagine the list for taking off again would be much shorter.
 
A good pilot could land the Cessnas in half that distance without any problem. Getting into places you can't get out if is a potential problem but not with 1800' and no obstacles. That's pretty simple.
 
Last edited:
I think I'd go with a Cessna 210F.

Or, Piper Dakota/Pathfinder for fixed gear.

Weight is the stickler in this situation. those are big load haulers.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Thanks,

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

you'd be hard pressed to find much in the world of piston singles that will carry four passengers at 200Lbs each and full fuel

four adults at 200lbs your looking at a 206. A 182 can do it, but barely, and definitely not with full fuel.

edit: For what it's worth I just ran the numbers on my 2012 182T. four adults at 200Lbs each would leave you with enough weight to takeoff with 44 gallons of gas. You would need to burn off 18 gallons to get down to the max landing weight of 2950 (150Lbs less than max takeoff weight) which would leave you with reserves of 26 gallons, approx 2 hours depending on how you fly. That being said if you wanted to take some cargo you'd have to shuffle around some numbers. It can be done but not with full tanks and your range would be limited to take the four adults at 200Lbs each plus any cargo.
 
Last edited:
No one has spoken to the amount of fuel they will have at landing.
 
hell, my 180 will do it. It does do it, fairly regularly. I do have a 520 on it, though. The plane has been adapted to suit the mission and it does it well. 4-200 pounders and full fuel would leave a couple hundred pounds of useful load. An average 185 would have a 150# advantage over me.
 
Pretty runway. My vote is for something with corrosion protection.
 
JustinD said:
four adults at 200lbs your looking at a 206. A 182 can do it, but barely, and definitely not with full fuel.
Click to expand...

his 4 adults =800# the early 206 has a gross weight of 3300# and an average empty weight of 1705. useful load of 1595#
Those numbers came from the "standard catalog of Cessna single engine aircraft" 2nd edition.

Late versions (1986) max gross is 3600# average Empty Weight, 2027# and a average useful load of 1589. same book
That is with a tank capacity of 92 gallons
 
Tom-D said:
his 4 adults =800# the early 206 has a gross weight of 3300# and an average empty weight of 1705. useful load of 1595#
Those numbers came from the "standard catalog of Cessna single engine aircraft" 2nd edition.

Late versions (1986) max gross is 3600# average Empty Weight, 2027# and a average useful load of 1589. same book
That is with a tank capacity of 92 gallons
Click to expand...

Tom, I'm not quite sure what you were referring to? I was just simply stating a 206 would do the job and a 182 couldn't with full fuel


side note does anyone know where that airport is? Looks like something I saw a picture of from somewhere in SW Florida

edit: I found it! Knew I recognized it! Salty Approach FL-90 it's a private strip down near Ft. Myers
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
You said you didn't have a 206 book, so I posted the numbers.

Then you edited.
Click to expand...

Ah I misunderstood my mistake! :) .... I do not have a 206 book so It's interesting to see the numbers you mentioned! it's clear it's quite the utility airplane. One day I'll upgrade to one (or at least keep dreaming about it)
 
A 182 can do it, P or Q model with the Trolltune MGTOW increase STC. Throw in at least a Pponk (275 hp) engine for good measure, but not strictly needed.

We (182Q) can have full fuel (75 gal useable) and a bit over 800 lbs in the seats and still be within limits. Need to burn off about 1 -1.5 hrs of fuel before landing to meet MGLW restriction on the STC. If you need significant bags and the 4x200#ers and full fuel, then no, a 182 isn't your ride.
 
FloridaPilot said:
(FL90)

4 Passengers 200 lbs each, (Including the pilot) landing on an 1800 x 100 foot runway which is a grass strip, (6 Foot Elevation) No obstacles. Good fuel economy so we are probably talking single engine planes.


View attachment 41682


What kind of airplanes can perform this mission?


As always thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

North Captiva ???:dunno:..

Been there several times 30 years ago with the Ex...... KOOL place for sure..

Warrior, mostly fully loaded,, used about 2/3 runway getting off... Fun times..

As for your scenerio..... Probably not a good idea.. IMHO..
 
FloridaPilot said:
Thanks,

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

Why do people obsess about "full fuel"? A versatile aircraft has the option between load and range. If you have long range tanks you don't fly your fat buddies out for a hundred dollar burger on Saturday with them full.
 
Cessna 182,206 ,prefer conventional gear.
 
Stewartb said:
185/206 would do it in half that space. So would a big engine 180/182 but the max gross may be a problem for some, especially the older models.
Click to expand...

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!

N801BH said:
North Captiva ???:dunno:..

Been there several times 30 years ago with the Ex...... KOOL place for sure..

Warrior, mostly fully loaded,, used about 2/3 runway getting off... Fun times..

As for your scenario..... Probably not a good idea.. IMHO..
Click to expand...

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!
 
Even a 172 M or N with a 180 conversion and the 250 lb GW increase. That gets you over 1,000 lbs useful load. 4 200 lb adults and full fuel (40 gallons) is 1,040 lbs. Depending on how the plane is equipped you may need to take off just shy of full tanks.

Now, would you really want to shoehorn 4 big guys in a 172? Probably not but it would work.
 
Silvaire said:
Why do people obsess about "full fuel"? A versatile aircraft has the option between load and range. If you have long range tanks you don't fly your fat buddies out for a hundred dollar burger on Saturday with them full.
Click to expand...

Depends. Sure, but often with 172/PA28/M20 there's a narrow window which allows you enough fuel to be useful while still filling the seats. Loading up a 172 with 4-200lb'ers and 10 gallons of fuel doesn't exactly fit the bill for most. I think the obsession about "full fuel" is the fact that you can fill the seats and not have to worry much about sacrificing fuel. I suppose the other option is finding skinnier friends/family. :dunno:
 
There is fuel 15 miles away from FL90.......

To carry large people, carry less fuel to get off the runway. land 7 minutes later and top off...

Easy Pleasy......
 
Tom-D said:
Why do you think they were so popular up north. that's is prior to the turbine caravan.
Click to expand...
Well, the biggest reason is the cavernous interior and ease of loading.

But, you are correct, I just looked it up in the POH and a PA32-300 should be able to handle an 1800 ft grass strip fully loaded at sea level provided the grass isn't wet/soft.

It's at the higher altitudes that the PA32 starts to be a bit of a runway hog.

Downside of a PA32 is a much tighter CG envelope at heavy loads compared to something like a C206.
 
The downside to any Cherokee on a rough strip is the propensity to have a landing gear punch up through the wing.

That's why at the end of every rough strip in Alaska there are a pile of old Cherokees that were bulldozed there after the strut went through the wing.
 
Cessna 185 on wheels.

image.jpg




image.jpg
 
On amphibious floats

image.jpg


image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why settle for just four friends buy an Antanov AN2 and bring a dozen of your closest friends. :yes:

ETA: Never mind the runway is TOO LONG for an Antanov. :rofl:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top