Landing A 182 In My Back Yard?

Thanks again for lots of great suggestions!


George182 said:
Have you looked at the Glasiar sportsman. Might suit your needs.
Click to expand...

The Sportsman was also on my short list. I really like that plane and there are a few out there for sale. Do you think that would be better on short fields than the 182? Just lighter I guess? Could not find a lot of short field reports on them.


Jeff767 said:
Bury the line and try and get 1500 feet.
Click to expand...

Might be an option to look into for sure!

Ok... don't hate me for this question if it is really dumb. Just thinking outloud here. I was standing outside tonight thinking... what about rolling under the power lines? I'm not talking about FLYING under them but what about starting your takeoff roll 300' before the lines and rolling under them? Same with landing- could you finish your landing roll under them if you overshot a little? It would take some work to smooth it all out (there is a ditch there) but I could get close to 1500' pretty easy that way and possibly get close to 2000' with some extra work. Still would not help takeoff going towards the lines though so maybe pointless.

Still might be better to re-evaluate the aircraft instead.


The only problem with getting an easement from the farmer is there is a stream that runs between our properties. Otherwise that would be ideal!
 
Last edited:
AMFlying said:
Ok... don't hate me for this question if it is really dumb. Just thinking outloud here. I was standing outside tonight thinking... what about rolling under the power lines? I'm not talking about FLYING under them but what about starting your takeoff roll 300-400' before the lines and rolling under them? Same with landing- could you finish your landing roll under them if you overshot a little? It would take some work to smooth it all out (there is a ditch there) but I could get close to 1500' pretty easy that way and possibly 2000' with some extra work.
Click to expand...
FWIW-I have some landlords who built an airstrip on a farm we operate for them. There were power lines on the south end, and they paid the power company to bury them between the two poles on either side of the strip. No idea what it cost them, but it is a thing. The owner is a pretty frugal guy (which is how you end up as a landlord with an airplane at your house), so it was probably within the realm of reason. Almost certainly cheaper than acquiring additional land.
 
AMFlying said:
Side-by-side seating is a requirement. Tricycle gear is preferred (....I know :)).
Click to expand...

Okay, not trying to change your mind here about the side-by-side seating requirement, but I do want to throw a few things out there for you to consider. I’m saying this as an owner of a four place, low wing plane:

1. In our plane, when my wife and I are going on long (2+ hour) trips, She sits in back, and I sit in front. We both have a lot more room that way. I can pull the seat in front of her all the way forward, She can fire up her laptop, turn a bit sideways, and have a little more space. Same with me. The view isn’t as good back of course; it’s a low wing, but that’s offset by the extra comfort on long flights.

2. Assuming you get a high wing, Tandems are great for sightseeing. You both have equal views to the right and the left. I grew up flying a cub with my dad, and there was that one fun summer where we had access to a Champ on floats. The view from the back seat and the front seat were great.

3. We fly a Great Lakes biplane and sometimes a Decathlon for fun. Both are tandem, and both are great because the views to the right and left are equal for both people. The biplane has equally bad views to the front anyway!

4. Tailwheel planes are a LOT of fun! Just sayin’
 
Last edited:
I will have to check out burying a section of the line. It only goes to my house. Ill call them tomorrow and get a guestimate.

I like tandem but I have heard a lot of reports that tandem is bad for back seat passengers. Sort of like the back seat in a car. My wife gets carsick in the back seat of a car and, if this airplane thing is not fun for her too, then Im afraid on the chopping block it will go. I need all the advantages I can get here :)

Ive wanted to fly helicopters since I was a little kid but Im missing a left hand and, after lots of research, I just don’t see any possible way I could do that safely.
 
Get an early, light 182 and learn to fly it, it will do it.
 
Sounds like a job for a Cessna 207

Bonus points is you and your wife can both be contestants on my 600 pounds life and you can still legally takeoff with full fuel and bags (although she might have to ride in the back row for W&B purposes)
 
AMFlying said:
I will have to check out burying a section of the line. It only goes to my house. Ill call them tomorrow and get a guestimate.
.
Click to expand...

If the power line is only for your house, you can easily bury it. You can even do a lot of the work yourself for an electrician to help with the final hookup. I ran the underground service lines for my workshop entirely myself, from renting a trencher, laying wire and conduit, to hanging a meter box and attaching the wires. The power company comes after that work is done and hooks up the underground wire to their transformer on the pole and attaches the meter. All the work you do is easy because it is all without electricity.
 
Jim K said:
The Rans s21 might be your answer. Fast enough to go places with stol performance. Of course you'd have to build it, but you could build a nice one for 182 money. I've been daydreaming about building one some day and landing it in the field behind my house
Click to expand...

It looks like the S21 is available as a factory assembled option also but they are backordered for years. I would LOVE to build a S21 kit but I have had an 80% finished Factory Five '33 hotrod kit in my shop for 4 years now. I can't even mention starting a new project without hearing about that car.
 
Last edited:
AlphaMike said:
It’s very doable with the right 182. The Backcountry 182 guy has almost the exact same 182 that I have but he’s a vastly better pilot than I am! Lol. I can’t say I’ve ever taken off on a 1200’ runway but I’ve definitely taken off on several 1800 - 2000 foot runways and have easily climbed over 50’ obstacles. I know the plane can do it! Not sure I can yet. His plane (and mine) have the sportsman STOL, micro VGs and a 280 hp PPONK engine. The plane really jumps off the runway with 20* of flaps and climbs like crazy. It’s a pretty cool setup and makes a big difference when compared to a stock 182
Click to expand...

I thought PPonk was 265 hp?
 
My backyard is 20 acres at 4850 feet with a Husky 180 in the hangar, two runways grass 1100 and 800 feet almost parallel. Density altitudes can be 8000 to 9000 feet in the summer. North end of the runways with trees, power lines and rising terrain. South ends of the runways end on a bluff on the river. River is about 300 feet wide. High trees on the opposite side of the river. Always a River 1 approach and a River 1 departure, below the trees on the river with a turn to landing or turn to climb after takeoff. The 800 foot runway requires less of a turn to final. Winds determine which runway to utilize. Conditions must be perfect for me to fly. Only in the cool of the morning or evening. Always alone never with a passenger. Still a pucker factor despite 50 years of flying. Would think your flying would be too limited on temp winds etc. but I am old and don't mind waiting. I have owned 2 182 with STOL tips, gap seals etc and would not consider using at this altitude.
 
Totally doable and realistic in a 182 with practice, but at 20 hours it’s gonna be a while until you’re probably ready. In any case, at 1,000’ in elevation with no obstacles to clear this would be no problem. You’ll want to keep it light (I’d say two people and half tanks or lighter), and the strip needs to be firm (not muddy, soft, sandy or overgrown with grass). I assume you will be taking off away from the power lines and that this won’t force you to takeoff with a tailwind and that the strip is level or downhill going that direction, any of which not being true would be a dealbreaker. When you go to buy a plane, do yourself a favor and look for planes that have some STOL upgrades, which do make a meaningful difference: a p-ponked or otherwise upgraded engines, sportsman or Robertson STOL kits, wing extensions, etc.

I go in and out of dirt strips like this in my Cessna regularly at elevations a lot higher than 1,000. Down near sea-level, 182s are amazing performers when light, you’ll be outta there in 700’ without much problem if you keep the weight down. 1,200’ is plenty for landing too, you’ll just need to get to where you have full mastery over your approach speeds and touchdown point.

One thing that’s not realistic about this, in my opinion, is hauling, for instance, your whole family and gear and full tanks out of there. Even that could probably be done, but I wouldn’t attempt it. So as a base for regular long trips and heavy loads, this isn’t a great solution.
 
I fly a 77q . I go in and out of an 1180 ft strip, 4 wire fence on each end, 80 degrees plus temp. It's a pucker factor. If the approach isn't perfect, I go around. Until it's perfect. Getting better, but always a challenge. I do have vgs. Dont let the naysayers say it fant be done. Elevation 3600
 
I have not read all the posts since mine so this may have been discussed. It sounds as if you’re very focused on doing this short field in any weather as a Rookie thing. More than one poster has been skeptical. That said, if you’re bent on doing this, and you’re bent on a 182, it seems to me that a 180 would be a much better choice.

A 180 would be much better suited for the grass field mission and the tailwheel training would better prepare you for this kind of flying.

Don’t take this as an enthusiastic vote for flying anything with less short field capability than a Super Cub out of the field you describe as a rookie is a good idea.

If I were bent on flying in and out of the field you describe with the useful load you want, a souped up 180 with VG’s and whatever STOL mods available including the canard is what I would want. I wouldn’t want to fool with a tricycle or the ground effect of a low wing.

My $0.02,
 
Rural area? Can you just land on the road?
 
My dad flew our 182P out of a 1500 foot grass strip for years, a house on one end and a lake on the other. He was pretty particular about fuel and passenger loading. Often we’d fly to buy fuel after takeoff. I decided I wanted to fly into that strip after I got my private. I took an instructor that was familiar with the field and he informed me that it was really closer to 1200 feet! You need to get some practice and if it’s grass, make sure it’s cut!! We did slingshot take offs, rolling turn with full power as we straightened up, added flaps after the first 3-400 feet and had a no go spot marked!
 
MBDiagMan said:
I have not read all the posts since mine so this may have been discussed. It sounds as if you’re very focused on doing this short field in any weather as a Rookie thing. More than one poster has been skeptical. That said, if you’re bent on doing this, and you’re bent on a 182, it seems to me that a 180 would be a much better choice.

A 180 would be much better suited for the grass field mission and the tailwheel training would better prepare you for this kind of flying.

Don’t take this as an enthusiastic vote for flying anything with less short field capability than a Super Cub out of the field you describe as a rookie is a good idea.

If I were bent on flying in and out of the field you describe with the useful load you want, a souped up 180 with VG’s and whatever STOL mods available including the canard is what I would want. I wouldn’t want to fool with a tricycle or the ground effect of a low wing.

My $0.02,
Click to expand...

What the heck does tri-gear have to do with STOL?

I disagree here - a 180 and 182 are going to perform the same, it’s the same wing and same engine after all. In fact, it’s going to be that much harder to do in any taildragger because you can’t just slam on the brakes or throttle with the same gusto as you can in a tri-gear.
 
I knew a guy who landed his L-5 on his 600 ft driveway a couple times...not a great idea, IMO.
 
skier said:
How about a Maule instead? Little slower, little less useful load, but lot shorter landing distance.

4 seats
1000lbs useful
235 hp
Takeoff 500ft
Cruise: 130kts
Click to expand...

Definitely shorter takeoffs. Not sure about landing (esp compared to the 182). I flew a 180hp MX model which probably lands as short or shorter than the bigger models. The flaps are not as effective as they might be if better designed. A steep approach requires a bit more technique than it should though steep doesn’t seem to be an issue here. Where the 182 can require a well timed muscular pull to stay off the nose wheel, the Maule will simply run out of pitch authority unless given a shot of power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
1700’, 8040msl, uncut grass, not particularly flat, summer time, 2400 pounds. Rarely use more than 1000’. Getting in is the easy part.

im looking for a new property, I want to have at least 1200’. over 6500msl, I’d like 1500. I can land as short as 600’ and take off in about the same, but it’s nice to have some margin.
 
AA5Bman said:
What the heck does tri-gear have to do with STOL?

I disagree here - a 180 and 182 are going to perform the same, it’s the same wing and same engine after all. In fact, it’s going to be that much harder to do in any taildragger because you can’t just slam on the brakes or throttle with the same gusto as you can in a tri-gear.
Click to expand...

Don’t hold back! Say what you really feel! You should work on that.

Too bad the folks before World War II didn’t build tricycles since, according to you, they are so far superior on grass fields, since that’s all they had for the most part.
 
AA5Bman said:
What the heck does tri-gear have to do with STOL?

I disagree here - a 180 and 182 are going to perform the same, it’s the same wing and same engine after all. In fact, it’s going to be that much harder to do in any taildragger because you can’t just slam on the brakes or throttle with the same gusto as you can in a tri-gear.
Click to expand...

Tricycles tend to get off quicker, they don’t Have the excess drag to raise the tail.
 
Wagondriver said:
1700’, 8040msl, uncut grass, not particularly flat, summer time, 2400 pounds. Rarely use more than 1000’. Getting in is the easy part.

im looking for a new property, I want to have at least 1200’. over 6500msl, I’d like 1500. I can land as short as 600’ and take off in about the same, but it’s nice to have some margin.
Click to expand...

Yes, in most cases you can get in places from which it’s difficult or impossible to get out of.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Don’t hold back! Say what you really feel! You should work on that.

Too bad the folks before World War II didn’t build tricycles since, according to you, they are so far superior on grass fields, since that’s all they had for the most part.
Click to expand...

Take it easy, or should I say... what the heck does WWII bombers have to do with it??

It was bad advice.
 
Lots of ultralights can do this easily. Powered parachutes, maybe even a weight shift trike. STOL experimentals can do it. A Supercub maybe. A Skylane? Maybe once, flown by a really good stick under the right conditions. Routinely? Accident waiting to happen.
 
AA5Bman said:
Take it easy, or should I say... what the heck does WWII bombers have to do with it??

It was bad advice.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously not know what the milestone of WWII has to do with it?

Before WWII, there were very few paved runways, thus, most all aircraft were tailskid/tailwheel before that period of time.
 
I was joking.. you might be taking this a little too seriously. That said, I would point out they didn’t use taildraggers for any certain STOL characteristic, which is what we’re talking about here, so yeah... what the heck does WWII have to do with it?
 
A few things to consider:

1) Sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Can you buy / find other land (even if a mile or two from your house) that you can get 2500' by 100' of grass laid out? Can you buy / get an easement from your neighbor as previously mentioned? You'd have to pay him/her for what couldn't be put in wheat each year.

2) Remember you'll have to pay $150k for the plane, $30k after getting it to sort it out, build a hanger, buy (if you don't already have) a tractor and a golf course sized grass cutter to pull behind, pay someone to initially grade it, plan drainage, tons of grass seed to start with, etc. And then insurance, getting a fuel tank, figure out how to get 100LL, etc.

3) If you are going to do all of that, please post your address, as you'll easily have a few hundred new best friends who will come over and play with-- I mean work the bobcats, tractors, consult on endless topics, and fly in at any moment and share a cup of coffee with you. A few might want to move in......
 
If you don’t need the cruise speed, but want better short field performance (and are ok with a homebuilt) how about a Zenith CH-801.

1050lbs useful load
Takeoff roll: 290ft, 390 at gross
 
skier said:
If you don’t need the cruise speed, but want better short field performance (and are ok with a homebuilt) how about a Zenith CH-801.

1050lbs useful load
Takeoff roll: 290ft, 390 at gross
Click to expand...
WDD said:
A few things to consider:

1) Sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Can you buy / find other land (even if a mile or two from your house) that you can get 2500' by 100' of grass laid out? Can you buy / get an easement from your neighbor as previously mentioned? You'd have to pay him/her for what couldn't be put in wheat each year.

2) Remember you'll have to pay $150k for the plane, $30k after getting it to sort it out, build a hanger, buy (if you don't already have) a tractor and a golf course sized grass cutter to pull behind, pay someone to initially grade it, plan drainage, tons of grass seed to start with, etc. And then insurance, getting a fuel tank, figure out how to get 100LL, etc.

3) If you are going to do all of that, please post your address, as you'll easily have a few hundred new best friends who will come over and play with-- I mean work the bobcats, tractors, consult on endless topics, and fly in at any moment and share a cup of coffee with you. A few might want to move in......
Click to expand...
Easiest solution, sell your place and move to an Airpark.
 
Hey. Question was about landing. He never mentioned taking off .......
 
Kinder said:
Easiest solution, sell your place and move to an Airpark.
Click to expand...

Lol, a bit harder to convince the significant other of that, especially if the current place checks all of the other boxes. May be a long way away from an airpark as well.
 
Turn your existing place into an airpark. Wife doesn’t move, problem solved.....
 
WDD said:
Hey. Question was about landing. He never mentioned taking off .......
Click to expand...

They got the Constellation into Greenwood Lake (barely), knowing it would never be able to depart again. There is a youtube video made from the old 8 mm footage somewhere on the 'net. So sometimes that's a viable plan.
 
GaryM said:
They got the Constellation into Greenwood Lake (barely), knowing it would never be able to depart again. There is a youtube video made from the old 8 mm footage somewhere on the 'net. So sometimes that's a viable plan.
Click to expand...


and the world's first rocket mail airplane at Greenwood Lake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top