Short(ish) field in a Grumman Yankee or Traveler

MarkH

MarkH

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
788
Location
Under the SFRA
Display Name
Display name:
MarkH
I'm (still) looking to purchase a plane, and I am looking at a Traveler soon that I am rather excited about.

Part of my planned use of the airplane will involve flying into and out of a 2400 ft airstrip (with obstacles, 900ft MSL). The book numbers say it can clear 50' in 1600'@MSL, flaps up. But, my reading has suggested that Travelers and Yankees Perform much better with 1/3rd flaps on takeoff, but I cannot find any sort of performance numbers on that.

Does anyone have numbers on what kind of short-field performance difference can be expected with flaps on a Yankee or Traveler?
 
I can't help you with the specific performance numbers, but what you describe sounds doable with caution. A couple of questions.

How high are the obstacles and are they right up at the end of the runway?
What is the surface? Turf? Paved? Sloped to one particular end?
Do you need to be able to takeoff from there at or near gross?
 
Are those book numbers for a paved runway, anything less, like grass or dirt will not make those numbers.
 
The surface is turf, 50' obstacle, offset 150ft from the end of the runway uphill and 400ft from the runway downhill. I don't intend to fly out of the airport with more than 2 people and partial fuel but for margin of safety, I want to know that I can do it at gross.

Sloped runway, mostly taking off downhill and landing uphill.

Interesting aside, when typing it, 2400ft seemed short, so I did some research and the runway is reported 2400, 2800 and 3000 ft depending on where you check. I measured it on Google maps, and I am seeing 3000ft, which seems closer to my experience (I did my primary flight training at this strip, so I have some experience with it, but no experience in a Grumman). All of this leads me to the conclusion that this plane can do what I need it to, but I still would like to find some numbers so I can make safer decisions if I do purchase this one.
 
An AA-5, especially with the stock engine, is not a great short, unimproved field aircraft, especially fully loaded. I like at least 2500 feet paved and 3000 feet turf for my AA-5, and would probably not fly off the turf runway fully loaded. Tall grass, density altitude, obstacles, gradients, or crosswinds will reduce margins. You can reduce ground roll in a Grumman with 1/3 flaps but you give it back in loss of climb rate after liftoff. If flying out of shorter fields I would consider replacing or repitching the prop from cruise to climb. Alternatively, get a plane with the HC STC engine, which is a much better climber.

A C-172 would be a better short field performer. You would have no issues with a C-172. The local instructor has a 1600 foot strip on a hilltop with one-way use. It's easy to get in and out in a C-172, but there is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks I could get my Grumman out of there. In, maybe, but not out.
 
Last edited:
A stock Traveler should be fine. I do the same in my Tiger with three in the plane and close to full fuel. I do what the POH says as far as flaps (none). You are correct that many do add 1/3 flaps. I very unscientifically tried both ways (on pavement) and saw zero difference in takeoff length.
 
James331 said:
When did 2400 feet become a short field?
Click to expand...

That's where the ish comes from.

chemgeek said:
An AA-5, especially with the stock engine, is not a great short, unimproved field aircraft, especially fully loaded. I like at least 2500 feet paved and 3000 feet turf for my AA-5, and would probably not fly off the turf runway fully loaded. Tall grass, obstacles, gradients, or crosswinds will reduce margins. You can reduce ground roll in a Grumman with 1/3 flaps but you give it back in loss of climb rate after liftoff. If flying out of shorter fields I would consider replacing or repitching the prop from cruise to climb. Alternatively, get a plane with the HC STC engine, which is a much better climber.

A C-172 would be a better short field performer. You would have no issues with a C-172. The local instructor has a 1600 foot strip on a hilltop with one-way use. It's easy to get in and out in a C-172, but there is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks I could get my Grumman out of there. In, maybe, but not out.
Click to expand...

Most of my planned flying will be to paved strips owned by a municipality, this is my only planned exception.
 
James331 said:
When did 2400 feet become a short field?
Click to expand...
About the same time it became required to apply your experience and abilities onto someone else regardless of the context of the question and post the result without consideration of the posts value or relevance to the original question.
 
MarkH said:
Most of my planned flying will be to paved strips owned by a municipality, this is my only planned exception.
Click to expand...

If you are going to fly into shorter, turf strips with an AA-5, get some Grumman-specific instruction and practice for short field procedures before doing so. It's not at all like a C-172: no barn door flaps, and less tolerance for excessive speed on final for landing. Takeoff performance and initial climb is not stellar, so good technique is a must to safely fly out of shorter fields. An AA-1X has even poorer performance fully loaded. An AA-5 at 2000 lb (2 plus luggage) is not too bad. I maintain wide safety margins for my own flying. 2500 feet is adequate if everything is right, but downwind approaches and runway gradients will sap performance in ways you may not be able to completely quantify.
 
Salty said:
About the same time it became required to apply your experience and abilities onto someone else regardless of the context of the question and post the result without consideration of the posts value or relevance to the original question.
Click to expand...

In my experience as a CFI I’ve signed first solos off in Grummans in similar fields, if not shorter.

2400 shouldn’t be considered short for most of the GA fleet


This isn’t a dig on the OP as much as where flight training has been going

Etherway ground effect, get more of it, energy reserve, build it
 
The debate over no-flap vs 1/3 flaps takeoffs has been had (repeatedly I think) over at the Grumman Gang - but it’s been a while.
Might go there and re-kindle that discussion........and if you’re really interested in Grumman’s then that’s the place to frequent none the less.
grumman-gang-request@mailman.xmission.com
 
chemgeek said:
An AA-1X has even poorer performance fully loaded.
Click to expand...
And the original slick-wing American Aviation (not Grumman) AA-1 Yankee poorer still. Drag goes up dramatically at high AOA with that airfoil, so if you try to pull it off the ground too soon it'll extend your ride in ground effect -- maybe all the way to the fence and the trees.

It's a blast in the air, and a little faster than the cuffed-wing AA-1A/B/C, but takeoff and climb is not its strong suit.
 
James331 said:
In my experience as a CFI I’ve signed first solos off in Grummans in similar fields, if not shorter.

2400 shouldn’t be considered short for most of the GA fleet


This isn’t a dig on the OP as much as where flight training has been going

Etherway ground effect, get more of it, energy reserve, build it
Click to expand...
You’re ignoring the context in order to grind an axe. It’s a turf field with obstacles. The guy is unfamiliar with the type and considering a purchase where this information is important to make the decision. He’d be a fool not to ask this question.
 
chemgeek said:
If you are going to fly into shorter, turf strips with an AA-5, get some Grumman-specific instruction and practice for short field procedures before doing so....good technique is a must to safely fly out of shorter fields.
Click to expand...
This.

I’d also mention that grass/turf seldom requires soft field technique. I’ve seen pilots blow through way more than the “50% safety margin” that the thought they had by using the wrong technique.
 
Salty said:
You’re ignoring the context in order to grind an axe. It’s a turf field with obstacles. The guy is unfamiliar with the type and considering a purchase where this information is important to make the decision. He’d be a fool not to ask this question.
Click to expand...

Unless it’s tall grass or soggy, again not seeing the issue.

Get some transition training or just fly with the old owner a bit and he should be good to go, it’s a Grumman AA1/5 not a F104.
 
James331 said:
Unless it’s tall grass or soggy, again not seeing the issue.

Get some transition training or just fly with the old owner a bit and he should be good to go, it’s a Grumman AA1/5 not a F104.
Click to expand...
The issue is he didn’t know something so he asked for information. Making his thread an essay on all that is wrong with the world was unnecessary and didn’t help him any. Not everyone knows what you know. There’s no need to act like they should. The post I just quoted actually has information in it. Your first one didn’t help anyone except your ego.
 
Does your field have a good aviation-themed restaurant? If so, I saw a Grumman easily fly out of it with two on board. The pilot took a slight tail downhill and was comfortably off. Think it was a Cheetah.
 
I simply said 2400’ IS NOT A SHORT FIELD for 90% of GA planes.

I’m not a very new age sensitive male type, so sometimes I have a hard time posting something that seems completely normal to me and somehow offends people :dunno:
 
James331 said:
I simply said 2400’ IS NOT A SHORT FIELD for 90% of GA planes.

I’m not a very new age sensitive male type, so sometimes I have a hard time posting something that seems completely normal to me and somehow offends people :dunno:
Click to expand...
There’s a long distance between spending a half second to consider where the other person is coming from before replying and being a “new age sensitive male type”. Putting yourself in another persons shoes can do both of you good.
 
Salty said:
There’s a long distance between spending a half second to consider where the other person is coming from before replying and being a “new age sensitive male type”. Putting yourself in another persons shoes can do both of you good.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

Saying 2400’ isn’t short shouldn’t offend a normal person.
 
James331 said:
Sigh.

Saying 2400’ isn’t short shouldn’t offend a normal person.
Click to expand...
Sign indeed. Your post served no purpose other than to put the guy down and puff yourself up.
I agree with you 99% of the time, even this time. But I think “Oops, you’re right, i wasn’t very helpful” was the right response in this case.
 
MarkH said:
The surface is turf, 50' obstacle, offset 150ft from the end of the runway uphill and 400ft from the runway downhill. I don't intend to fly out of the airport with more than 2 people and partial fuel but for margin of safety, I want to know that I can do it at gross.
.
Click to expand...

You say the obstacle is offset, if so, why would you need to clear it if offset?
Getting in would never be a problem unless you carried to much speed, but that goes for any grumman, as mentioned get some short field practice first. Taking off, a lot would depend on the condition of the turf, surrounding terrain and where that obstacle is. I believe the biggest accident problem with grumman's were people running off the ends of runways due to excessive speed.
 
1RTK1 said:
You say the obstacle is offset, if so, why would you need to clear it if offset?
Getting in would never be a problem unless you carried to much speed, but that goes for any grumman, as mentioned get some short field practice first. Taking off, a lot would depend on the condition of the turf, surrounding terrain and where that obstacle is. I believe the biggest accident problem with grumman's were people running off the ends of runways due to excessive speed.
Click to expand...

Offset may not be the best term. But the obstacles do not sit right on the end of the runway, they are 150' and 400' beyond the end of the runway.
 
Salty said:
Sign indeed. Your post served no purpose other than to put the guy down and puff yourself up.
I agree with you 99% of the time, even this time. But I think “Oops, you’re right, i wasn’t very helpful” was the right response in this case.
Click to expand...

Not really, but if it offended you, oh well.

I told the OP 2400 isn’t short for the plane unless it’s soggy ground or tall grass

Said to stay deep down in ground effect
Build up energy reserve
-both of which are good to do even at a 10,000’ paved strip.
Don’t try to fly over the trees, stay in ground effect and aim right at them till you have the most energy possible than smooth but confident pitch up to VX, clearing trees to VY, past 1000’ to cruise climb.

Also made a valid comment that it’s odd that training is to a point this question of a 2400’ strip being considered short comes up, myself and many other pilots learned to fly on grass strips shorter than that, and that’s not a ego boost as many find learning to fly on sub 2400’ grass strips a non event.

I’d say I gave some good advice, for what little advice there was to give on said non issue.
 
James331 said:
Not really, but if it offended you, oh well.

I told the OP 2400 isn’t short for the plane unless it’s soggy ground or tall grass

Said to stay deep down in ground effect
Build up energy reserve
-both of which are good to do even at a 10,000’ paved strip.
Don’t try to fly over the trees, stay in ground effect and aim right at them till you have the most energy possible than smooth but confident pitch up to VX, clearing trees to VY, past 1000’ to cruise climb.

Also made a valid comment that it’s odd that training is to a point this question of a 2400’ strip being considered short comes up, myself and many other pilots learned to fly on grass strips shorter than that, and that’s not a ego boost as many find learning to fly on sub 2400’ grass strips a non event.

I’d say I gave some good advice, for what little advice there was to give on said non issue.
Click to expand...
Stuff your offense. I never said I was offended. And you didn’t say any of that in your first post. Had you actually said that, I wouldn’t have brought the subject up.


James331 said:
When did 2400 feet become a short field?
Click to expand...

there’s nothing sadder than a person that is incapable of admitting when they are wrong, even on a tiny matter, but insist on digging in further instead.
 
Salty said:
Stuff your offense. I never said I was offended. And you didn’t say any of that in your first post. Had you actually said that, I wouldn’t have brought the subject up.




there’s nothing sadder than a person that is incapable of admitting when they are wrong, even on a tiny matter, but insist on digging in further instead.
Click to expand...

My first post

“When did 2400 feet become a short field?”

That’s a fair question.

And I’m not remotely offended, I’m somewhere between amused and confused at your responses actually
 
James331 said:
When did 2400 feet become a short field?
Click to expand...

2400 feet is not "short" on level pavement for an AA-5. Add a turf surface, maximum loading, density altitude, crosswinds, obstacles near the end of the runway, downwind arrivals and departures due to one-way usage, and/or significant runway gradients and it could be a lot shorter than you think. Without knowing the exact configuration and condition of the proposed runway and the one-way landing and takeoff requirements, I would hesitate to give a "blanket approval" to flying an AA-5 in and out of there. Especially a pilot without experience in that make and model. You can put a C-172 into a lot shorter field than you could ever safely fly an AA-5, and have larger margins for short field ops in general. There is about a 10 kt difference in landing speeds. Food for thought...
 
I learned to fly at a field that was 2600 and about 30" wide that seemed long compared to some other private strips around then. I guess we never knew any thing different.

Now a 65 horse Champ fully loaded off wet grass on a hot day and obstacles a mile away begin to worry me. :)
 
James331 said:
Got like 100hrs in one, I’d have no issue with 2400’
Click to expand...
My reply above was meant to be more sarcastic than factual. That said, my Yankee was the only airplane I've flown that would not hold altitude in a steep turn, two aboard, and 1/2 tank of gas, even with full power.
 
chemgeek said:
You can reduce ground roll in a Grumman with 1/3 flaps but you give it back in loss of climb rate after liftoff. If flying out of shorter fields I would consider replacing or repitching the prop from cruise to climb. Alternatively, get a plane with the HC STC engine, which is a much better climber.
Click to expand...

wrbix said:
The debate over no-flap vs 1/3 flaps takeoffs has been had (repeatedly I think) over at the Grumman Gang - but it’s been a while.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy tested the "flaps" vs "no flaps" in the Tiger. It was shorter take off with flaps. Problem is, the POH has ALL takeoffs without flaps .... That said, if you PRANG your Tiger and insurance figures out you were using flaps on take off, which according to them is not recommended in the POH, it may give them an out as far as coverage ...
 
danhagan said:
Ron Levy tested the "flaps" vs "no flaps" in the Tiger. It was shorter take off with flaps. Problem is, the POH has ALL takeoffs without flaps .... That said, if you PRANG your Tiger and insurance figures out you were using flaps on take off, which according to them is not recommended in the POH, it may give them an out as far as coverage ...
Click to expand...
Dunno....admittedly this discussion there did go back and forth...but here’s a quote from Ron Levy himself there:
In most cases, rotating the nose to the proper short-field pitch attitude with
zero flap (and thus being able to fly at a lower speed) makes up nearly all
the difference, but it takes some training to know just where that pitch
attitude is, and particularly on initial rotation and in ground effect, the
stall horn may chirp, which tends to cause pilots to lower the nose a bit.
And once airborne, your climb gradient is better without that drag, so for
obstacle takeoffs, any ground roll distance gain by use of flaps is offset by
the increase in distance from liftoff to 50 feet.

I suppose that with an extremely deft touch, selection of the perfect point to
retract the flaps, and a perfect rotation of the nose as the flaps are in
transition (to prevent a big sink as the incidence angle changes), one might
improve distance from brake release to 50 feet by 100 feet or so, but any lack
of perfection is going to make a much larger increase in that distance.
Generally speaking, you get the best short/obstructed field takeoff by using
the book short field technique -- flaps up, nose low acceleration to rotation
speed, crisp rotation to the Vx climb attitude, and hold the nose there as you
accelerate to Vx while climbing in ground effect.
 
Use of 1/3 flaps will significantly reduce ground roll in all of the AA1 and AA5 series. In my 35 years of ownership and experience flying this make (mostly in the AA1A and AA5, with some rental time in an AA5B) I haven't found there is a significant benefit in using flaps on takeoff from paved runways. What you gain in ground roll you lose in climb gradient. IIRC, the no flap takeoffs were required as a result as a part of certification to get acceptable gross weight climb rates.

However, nonscientifically speaking, there may be some benefit from using 1/3 flaps on turf fields in order to mimimize rolling resistance time on soft, rough, or draggy ground and get into ground effect quicker. But your climb rate over obstacles will still be less. I've used partial flap takeoffs in that situation, but haven't done extensive testing to evaluate the real world benefits. Adding an effective 10 hp to the 150 hp models with the HC STC is much more effective than flaps. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top