Whats the shortest strip you will land at?

[carusoam]

11 hours ago, Niko182 said:

I guess im just curious what makes a short body at gross weight and a light long body different.

15% higher stall speed… more or less….

But compare actual data for light LB stall speeds….

The LB has a pretty high empty weight compared to the SB…

 

I used both the long and the short at the same fields… 2k+’ Falmouth Airpark… 5B6 MA….

Variable winds with altitude makes it interesting…. The steady headwind can fade closer to the ground…. With some trees….

PP memories….

-a-

[Z W]

When I flew a C model with a 3-bladed prop, after learning proper speeds, it seemed able to land in about the same distance as the 172 trainers I came out of.  I bet if we got the manuals out the 172's were capable of shorter, but the C could stop short pretty easy.  You really got a lot of drag out of the 3-blade when you put the engine to idle.  I never really did much short field work before we sold it but didn't give it that much thought either.

Our current K model with a 2-bladed prop is not that way.  It's harder to slow it down, and it just wants to keep going, especially when lightly loaded.  I've always thought it's a combination of higher weights and aerodynamic cleanups.  Being on speed is critical and it will absolutely land and stop in 2,000 feet, but I'm not sure I would try it where that's all the runway there is.  I was based at a 2,800 ft field with very large trees at each end for three months and while the plane would do it, even at max gross per the POH, I was paying extra attention to the speed for every landing, and going around if I was a little fast.  I made the turnoff at 2,000 feet down the runway every time (it was the only turnoff).  I never did go try that with a significant crosswind.  Shorter than 2,000 feet would be an absolute no-go for me in the K.

[Mooney Dog]

7 hours ago, McMooney said:

yeah, that dip at E will absolutely get your attention.  I believe they are slowly fixing things, kinda tired of having my prop filed every annual

Well tomball jet was sold off and the rumor is the guard is moving in so maybe thatll force them to change a few things as well.

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

15% higher stall speed… more or less….

But compare actual data for light LB stall speeds….

The LB has a pretty high empty weight compared to the SB…

 

I used both the long and the short at the same fields… 2k+’ Falmouth Airpark… 5B6 MA….

Variable winds with altitude makes it interesting…. The steady headwind can fade closer to the ground…. With some trees….

PP memories….

-a-

I think Niko is asking about different length airframes at same or similar weights. In which case stall speed should be same or similar. 

[Niko182]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I think Niko is asking about different length airframes at same or similar weights. In which case stall speed should be same or similar. 

Yep. Thats exactly what im asking.

[201er]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I think Niko is asking about different length airframes at same or similar weights. In which case stall speed should be same or similar. 

I bet it's close but still not the same. The long body near empty vs a short body near full still needs more downward tailforce to counteract heavier engine. Wing has to produce more lift to overcome loss from tail. Thus a higher stall speed at equal gross weights. Just my guess.

[A64Pilot]

1 minute ago, 201er said:

I bet it's close but still not the same. The long body near empty vs a short body near full still needs more downward tailforce to counteract heavier engine. Wing has to produce more lift to overcome loss from tail. Thus a higher stall speed at equal gross weights. Just my guess.

CG should be the same or very close, so tail down force should be the same. The position of the wing determines wher the CG is, CG is often expressed as a percent of MAC

[Niko182]

3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

CG should be the same or very close, so tail down force should be the same. The position of the wing determines wher the CG is, CG is often expressed as a percent of MAC

Also the tail on the long bodies is longer. Wouldnt that mitigate the downforce required for the heavier nose.

[A64Pilot]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Also the tail on the long bodies is longer. Wouldnt that mitigate the downforce required for the heavier nose.

If the tail is further back, then it should require less down force. What I am saying is if the CG is 24” back from leading edge, then it should be very close to be 24” back in every model. I have no idea where it is, just picked 24

[Niko182]

1 minute ago, A64Pilot said:

If the tail is further back, then it should require less down force. What I am saying is if the CG is 24” back from leading edge, then it should be very close to be 24” back in every model. I have no idea where it is, just picked 24

Sorry. Thats what i was trying to say. Since the tail is further back, it has more leverage requiring the same amount of downforce on a shortbody. So why would the stall speed be higher on a LB at the same weights.

[A64Pilot]

11 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Sorry. Thats what i was trying to say. Since the tail is further back, it has more leverage requiring the same amount of downforce on a shortbody. So why would the stall speed be higher on a LB at the same weights.

I don’t know, is it?

However how short you can land is only half the problem, average GA airplane can usually land in less space required than to takeoff, we can decelerate faster than we can accelerate. There are some outliers of course, my Maule required 150’ to takeoff, but I’d be hard pressed to land on a 150’ strip.

[Niko182]

At least in the 310 ovation, takeoff is shorter than landing distance. In my experience, if i can land there, i can takeoff without worry.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

At least in the 310 ovation, takeoff is shorter than landing distance. In my experience, if i can land there, i can takeoff without worry.

True for my F but there is not a lot of margin. Book numbers for a standard day take off run at gross is 880' while landing roll out under same conditions is 785".  I have hit those landing numbers or better solo (would not even try at gross) but my bird is more than 700lbs under gross with me and 2.5hrs of fuel. A 2000lb Mooney is a lot of fun to fly once you learn to slow it down.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

Sorry. Thats what i was trying to say. Since the tail is further back, it has more leverage requiring the same amount of downforce on a shortbody. So why would the stall speed be higher on a LB at the same weights.

It should not be.  I plugged the numbers into my threshold speed spreadsheet for the F.  I increased the load until the calculated weight hit 3368lbs (LB MGW).  Calculated stall was 60KCAS which is a rounding error from the Ovation's certification number of 59KCAS. 

I think that the pronounced difference in control authority at slow speeds makes some pilots uncomfortable. My guess is this is more true of LB pilots.  It's not unwarranted.  I went into our local pilot shop strip at 2W2 (1840X30'' - 277' displaced threshold all of it downhill) last year and the gusting crosswind required a brief moment of full left aileron to correct an uncommanded right roll on final.  I decided not to land there anymore when Xwinds exceed 10kts.

[carusoam]

Book values…
1) Stall speed of fully loaded M20C… 49kias

2) Stall speed of a very light M20R…. 53kias

 

Landing configuration…

Braking distances will also be different…. As weight and brake systems are different….

The empty weight of an M20R is pretty close to the MGTW of an M20C….

Roughly speaking…..

PP thoughts only, data was looked up, but relies on memory too much to write down reliably…. 
 

And yes… both POHs reference %MAC…. Not sure how to use that particular piece of information…. Tell us more about this.

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

And yes… both POHs reference %MAC…. Not sure how to use that particular piece of information…. Tell us more about this.

Best regards,

-a-

Don’t really think from an operators perspective there is a need to know CG as a %of MAC, but if your doing test flights of a model who’s CG range is yet to be determined you use %of MAC to be sure you have a safe CG. Most all airfoils are known and a safe CG is also known, only rarely are there odd ball airfoils. I’m pretty sure Maule was an oddball airfoil, I think he took a Pacers airfoil (USA-35B) and merely flattened the bottom surface seeking more lift, BD was known to be somewhat of a Rebel trying ideas himself, but as he built an airplane (his own design) and taught himself to fly he was that kind of person.

A friend has a set of experimental wings BD flew once, full span flaps, roll control was to be spoilers. Story is BD flew them ONCE.  

Datum for CG is often just something picked from random it could be anything. AH-64 I believe it was a point out in front of the nose, that ensured all Arms were positive numbers and couldn’t confuse a pilot.

It’s the % of MAC that actually is the CG but giving a range with Arms and just remembering WAM is easier than computing percent of MAC and accomplishes the same thing as far as a pilot is concerned.

WAM weight x arm = moment

Edited May 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Flash]

On 5/25/2022 at 12:41 PM, sleeper-319 said:

Oceano is probably the shortest field I've been to, and agree with others that there was plenty of room. By contrast, I recently flew into Garberville, CA (O16). Despite being about 500' longer (2783), and not much above sea level, it felt way smaller because of rising terrain all around. Oceano is in a big, wide open space. Garberville felt like it was inside of a bowl.

Totally agree. Garberville is much, much trickier than Oceano. Really got my attention when I flew in for the first time a month ago. Oceano allows for a normal pattern. Landing O16 is like standing on the tee at a hole with a water hazard on the left, out of bounds on the right, and bunkers surrounding the green.

[Dick Denenny]

For me it totally depends on whether it's hard surface or grass. Landed last week at Cavanaugh at Priest Lake (North Idaho) no problem. 3100. But took everything I had to get up on wet grass on take off with just two of us in it.

[hubcap]

I won’t land Myrtle on less than 3000’. 
 

If you are 5-10 knots too fast it uses up runway fast. When the winds are twitchy and you want to carry a few extra knots, 3000’ can get used up quickly.

Edited May 27, 2022 by hubcap

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, Dick Denenny said:

For me it totally depends on whether it's hard surface or grass. Landed last week at Cavanaugh at Priest Lake (North Idaho) no problem. 3100. But took everything I had to get up on wet grass on take off with just two of us in it.

Grass must have been on the tall side or the ground saturated.  The turf strips I use are pretty well mowed.  When it's wet, stopping is a bigger challenge than going.

[A64Pilot]

A lot depends on the comfort of the individual and how much experience they have with STOL ops, whether your comfortable “dragging it in” etc. I can easily get my heavy J full of fuel etc into 1,000 ft or less on grass, but I couldn't get it out, probably take twice that to get out, but then I have years of playing STOL games in my Maule and thousands of hours in crop dusters. Spot landing is second nature.

‘I know someone was playing with a Mooney in Idaho strips, He or She would be a good answer as to how short the aircraft is capable of. I’d expect a light Mooney near seal level, standard day that 1000 in and out would be easy. Hot and or high of course is different.

I dislike paved runways, makes me odd as a Mooney driver I guess.

[ArtVandelay]

KSQL is the shortest (2600’) I’ve landed, 2000’ is probably my limit under benign conditions.

[PT20J]

I'm comfortable with anything 2000' or more in my J.

[MikeOH]

The fact that there is nearly always some headwind helps a lot.  As far as landing goes, in my F at 2300#, I've made the Charlie turn-off on 26L (KPOC) many times with 10 kts. on the nose.  (Yes, braking was required, so I don't do this often).

It's 650 feet, threshold to Charlie.  Definitely not taking off in 650 feet, though

[Shiny moose]

Its all about the density altitude! Cold and short always easier than hot high and short