T/O and Landing on a 1200FT runway in a PA28

C

callegro

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 30, 2014
Messages
72
Display Name
Display name:
Callegro
Wanted to get others thoughts on runway length. I have a "68 Piper 180D and was planning on doing an Oregon trip up from Los Angeles in the next few weeks, weather permitting. While I'm up there, I thought it would be fun to see about landing on some short turf runways. Most of the ones I am eyeballing are short, 1200 feet being the shortest. I have my short/soft field landings down pretty well, but I just want to be a little more prepared from your guys' insight. It would just be me, and I wouldn't be loading on a lot of fuel at all. Weather in Oregon, I'm shooting for around 13 degrees C and 226 Ft field elevation. Also, I have never landed on a turf runway, heard from a few that it is a fun experience. Would you guys feel comfortable landing on a 1200 FT turf runway in a PA28-180?
 
For your first turf runway (BTW I could strangle your CFI for never taking you into a grass runway before your PPL ride), I'd start with something easy.

What does you book say you can do it in?
 
PA-28-181 pilot here.

No, absolutely not. You have no margin for error there, I wouldn't want to use anything shorter than 2000'.
 
The Op manual I found says it the take off is doable if no obstacles, but not possible with 50' obstacles. The exercise would not interest me at all.
 
Land? no problem. I can pound a PA-28 onto a turf runway and git'er stopped right quick!

Departing again....maybe. Add at least 10% to book numbers for required runway.

Other things to consider are obstructions and wind. Trees at the end of the runway make a situation much different that launching over pasture land with only a 4' fence to clear. Landing into and taking off into a 20 knot wind makes things a lot more comfortable unless there are any of those darn trees again.
 
With no turf experience,I wouldn't even consider it. Get some practice on longer strips,then consult your aircraft manual.
 
I wouldn't do it in mine. Not unless I was bingo fuel. And I'd prey the strip wasn't wet.
 
Trees at the end of the runways or no trees?

I routinely get stopped in under 1200', and same goes for take off when I had my 180D. With no trees I'd do it, with trees, nope.
 
I'm on a slow-mission to do at least 1 full-stop at each public-use airport in Oregon (nearly done), so I've probably done the one you're considering. I'm flying a Grumman Tiger and haven't had any trouble w/ runway-length so far. I have, however, found that some of these fields are pretty rough, and I blew out a nose-wheel after landing at one of these.

I'd also caution you that some of these landing strips will be ill-suited to wet-weather operations. One of the strips here in Oregon had several inches of dirt/powder last summer - I'd be nervous about mud this time of year.

Have fun.
 
I should have been more clear. No obstructions at the departure and approach ends, but I agree, still poses the runway length and my inexperience. I would definitely go for longer runways up there to get experience, but was thinking of also considering the 1200 FT if I feel comfortable. Thanks for the replies.
 
Minshall said:
I'm on a slow-mission to do at least 1 full-stop at each public-use airport in Oregon (nearly done), so I've probably done the one you're considering. I'm flying a Grumman Tiger and haven't had any trouble w/ runway-length so far. I have, however, found that some of these fields are pretty rough, and I blew out a nose-wheel after landing at one of these.

I'd also caution you that some of these landing strips will be ill-suited to wet-weather operations. One of the strips here in Oregon had several inches of dirt/powder last summer - I'd be nervous about mud this time of year.

Have fun.
Click to expand...


You have done a 1200' Turf runway in a Tiger?
 
1200' with no obstacles is no problem if you are light.
 
Minshall said:
I'm on a slow-mission to do at least 1 full-stop at each public-use airport in Oregon (nearly done), so I've probably done the one you're considering. I'm flying a Grumman Tiger and haven't had any trouble w/ runway-length so far. I have, however, found that some of these fields are pretty rough, and I blew out a nose-wheel after landing at one of these.

I'd also caution you that some of these landing strips will be ill-suited to wet-weather operations. One of the strips here in Oregon had several inches of dirt/powder last summer - I'd be nervous about mud this time of year.

Have fun.
Click to expand...
What caused the blow out?
 
hmm if there is nothing at either end i'm sure its doable i'm comfortable with 2k ft runways in a 172 any less and its a bit tense. I'd add about 25% to the book values though. I remember a take off in a 150 that didn't come close to book values. Instead of clearing the trees by 150 ft we held best angle for our very lives and cleared by maybe 10ft you could see some trees on the go pro above the left wing. Scariest moment ever for me seeing the trees go under the cowling and wonder if your about to snag the tops.
I always thought my 10% (add 10% extra weight, temp, altitude)bump in planning would give me good margins but if its close I wouldn't risk it.
 
Why don't you first find a 3000' turf runway, mark 1200' on it somehow, and do some practicing there?
 
Lets see, you're asking about a '68 Hershey bar wing Cherokee 180 in, and don't forget out of a 1200' strip.
You've never been on grass or dirt before either.

Obviously some people can and have done it and are comfortable with it, and some people would not be comfortable at all either.

Here's a few things to consider, don't just look at the numbers in the "book" to see if the plane can do it. You have to consider that strip conditions can change from day to day. Things like recent rain, how long is the grass, how bumpy or smooth is it and slope are all things that can have an impact on length of landing and takeoff. Don't forget temps and winds, gusty x-winds, field elevation and the weight of the plane too.
Those numbers you see in your aircraft manual are all based on pavement. I would be surprised if in 1968 Piper had any performance numbers for other than pavement.
Then there's less than perfect flying which adds to the length too.

Give your self a break and start out on much longer strips to get the feel for it, save the short one for sometime later in the future.
 
Possible? Yes, depends on how high you need to be in that 1200', how tall the grass is, how dry the ground is, and how heavy you are when you hit the throttle. If you are making 180hp with two up and half fuel, taking of a dry, well groomed grass runway, and all you need to clear after 1200' is the fence, then it's pretty nicely doable. Change any of those factors and you start to get sketchy. I think the book typically says to add 10% for dry short turf.
 
That's exactly where I was going...

Clark1961 said:
Landing into and taking off into a 20 knot wind makes things a lot more comfortable unless there are any of those darn trees again.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
For your first turf runway (BTW I could strangle your CFI for never taking you into a grass runway before your PPL ride), I'd start with something easy.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2: Assuming he did his training around LA, there's a good reason his CFI didn't take him to one, there aren't any. There are a few dirt runways out in the desert, but turf? You're gonna have to refuel a time or 2 on your way to any of those.
 
First rule of STOL is it ain't the getting in.

It's the getting out.
 
Henning said:
Actually there are some turf runways out on the Channel Islands.
Click to expand...

The chart doesn't show any. What it does show is that flying below 1000' AGL violates NOAA regulations. Somehow I don't see too many CFI's taking that trip even if the strips do exist.

Regardless my point was that it's pretty easy to bag on someones training from behind a keyboard, in another part of the country where grass is commonplace. A little different when you're in the desert.
 
Last edited:
What a great idea ! What could possibly go wrong ?
 
StinkBug said:
The chart doesn't show any. What it does show is that flying below 1000' AGL violates NOAA regulations. Somehow I don't see too many CFI's taking that trip even if the strips do exist.

Regardless my point was that it's pretty easy to bag on someones training from behind a keyboard, in another part of the country where grass is commonplace. A little different when you're in the desert.
Click to expand...

2 of the islands are (or were in the 90s) private sheep ranches, the runways aren't charted, but they are there and no one gets fussed if you T&G, if anyone even notices lol. That's how everyone gets on and off the islands.
 
ytodd said:
x2 for effect
Click to expand...

I'm surprised by the number of people that won't go to a grass strip or anything shorter than 3000'.

What does the POH say? You have all the info in that book. Do the math. Add the factors for altitude and turf like the POH states.

I'd do it in my 172 at sea level, with half tanks, by myself, because I know what my plane does at sea level. Anything different, I'll run the numbers.

If you do go, call around before and get someone to check the condition of the field.
 
txflyer said:
First rule of STOL is it ain't the getting in.

It's the getting out.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

Rule #2 is, even if the book numbers with a margin allow for it, make sure you have the background and experience to do it.

For a time, I flew out of Ellington, CT (7B9) - a little longer at 1800 feet. I, and even student pilots who trained there in and out with no trouble. The airplanes I few in and out included 152s, 172s, Diamond Eclipse and Piper Arrow. But, then again, it was our home base so were used to it and trained to do it properly.
 
UngaWunga said:
I'm surprised by the number of people that won't go to a grass strip or anything shorter than 3000'.
Click to expand...
Don't be surprised. Apparently, there are big numbers for landing accidents involving too much speed/energy into a landing and continuing off the end of the runway. Lots of clubs and FBOs have minimum strip length rules for exactly that reason.
 
Are there obstacles at the departure ends of the runway that would prohibit you from staying in ground effect if you needed to for acceleration? Getting off the ground in 1,200 feet might be possible, where climbout within that distance may not be.
 
falconkidding said:
I remember a take off in a 150 that didn't come close to book values. Instead of clearing the trees by 150 ft we held best angle for our very lives and cleared by maybe 10ft you could see some trees on the go pro above the left wing. Scariest moment ever for me seeing the trees go under the cowling and wonder if your about to snag the tops.
Click to expand...
Pick an abort point - The frequently quoted rule of thumb is that you want to have at least 70% of your lift off speed at 50% of the runway length - but you may need to adjust this to account for obstacles.
 
I've got a lot of time in PA28-180s, and 1200 feet, though possible without obstacles, would certainly be pushing my personal limits. Things like runway slope, winds, obstacles, etc. would determine if I'd attempt it on a given day. As far as doing it if I had no previous grass experience--not a chance.

I don't know about the D-model, but the C model data is lacking. It only provides data at max gross on a dry paved runway, so lighter weights, wet a grass runways, runway slopes, etc. all can change things up on you. It works in general, but when you are pushing the limits experience is the best way to determine what your plane AND you are comfortable with, and that means finding a reasonable runway and seeing what works.
 
I wouldn't try it in my airplane. I think it's possible, but the margin for error is too small for my likes.
 
UngaWunga said:
I'm surprised by the number of people that won't go to a grass strip or anything shorter than 3000'.

What does the POH say? You have all the info in that book. Do the math. Add the factors for altitude and turf like the POH states.

I'd do it in my 172 at sea level, with half tanks, by myself, because I know what my plane does at sea level. Anything different, I'll run the numbers.

If you do go, call around before and get someone to check the condition of the field.
Click to expand...

I won't begin to get on anyone's case for setting their limits. If you have never been out of anything shorter than 3000', would your next step be to try 1500'? Stuff that's easy and comfortable for you is going to be wandering into the great unknown for a lot of others. When the risk is life and limb, I can't fault anyone for treading carefully and lightly. I'm not suggesting that folks should never push for better skills and more lenient limits, but doing so rationally is key.

For instance, I learned out of KPAO. 2400' strip with a 4* approach (you're coming in with a little more energy on the steeper approach). So, in most aircraft, 3000' feels roomy to me. But for someone who learned in the midwest with long fields, shallow approaches, and no obstacles? Yikes! It doesn't feel right at all.

On the other hand, I land at wide runways very infrequently. Although not dangerous, I often have balloons on landing at the big runways because the wide runway reduces my sense of speed, and I come in too fast and flare too early.

We talk about setting personal limits, then we taunt our fellow pilots for being wusses. It's a bit of double-speak, no?
 
arnoha said:
I won't begin to get on anyone's case for setting their limits. If you have never been out of anything shorter than 3000', would your next step be to try 1500'? Stuff that's easy and comfortable for you is going to be wandering into the great unknown for a lot of others. When the risk is life and limb, I can't fault anyone for treading carefully and lightly. I'm not suggesting that folks should never push for better skills and more lenient limits, but doing so rationally is key.

For instance, I learned out of KPAO. 2400' strip with a 4* approach (you're coming in with a little more energy on the steeper approach). So, in most aircraft, 3000' feels roomy to me. But for someone who learned in the midwest with long fields, shallow approaches, and no obstacles? Yikes! It doesn't feel right at all.

On the other hand, I land at wide runways very infrequently. Although not dangerous, I often have balloons on landing at the big runways because the wide runway reduces my sense of speed, and I come in too fast and flare too early.

We talk about setting personal limits, then we taunt our fellow pilots for being wusses. It's a bit of double-speak, no?
Click to expand...

My first sub 3000' runway was 1800' turf with 50' obstacles in a PA-28.
 
danhagan said:
Sudden loss of tire pressure:rofl:

Shirley you weren't serious posting this?:lol:
Click to expand...

Well, kinda. It could have been something as obvious as a rock that was missed during the low survey or an upset wheel due to a flat landing or something.

Of course the rest was a hole in the tube ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top