what's the shortest runway you.....

[navigator72]

Hey,
What's the shortest runway you would feel comforatble landing on in a C172 under normal conditions?

 

[avbug]

The distance prescribed by the aircraft flight manual under those specific conditions, taking into account ambient local issues such as crosswind, terrain, obstacles, and of course, recency of experience in type, etc.

What does your AFM say?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Depends on what you consider 'normal conditions'.....normal can mean alot of things.

Generally, I worry about takeoff distance first......since published takeoff dist in a 172 is greater than the landing distance under the same conditions, I would limit myself to that. Not much sense in landing on a runway I can't takeoff from.

Considering the POH charts were derived by test pilots flying new airplanes, I like to error on the conservative side. The shortest field I've ever taken a 172 into is 2100' at sea level. Despite what the POH says, I don't think I'd be too comfortable doing it in less than 2000'.

 

[NW_Pilot]

Landing is one thing getting out of places you can land in a 172 is another.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I used to take off and depart a few times a day in a C175 off of an
800' grass strip.

In a 'normal' C172, meaning tired and old, fully loaded with that person
who says he/she is 150 lbs but you know is at least 180... all of this on
a 40c day at sea level, I'd suggest 3000', even more of you have a
high density altitude.

CE

 

[CalifDan]

I agree with all of the above posts with a special emphasis on allowing some margin for the fact that POH numbers are done with experienced pilots trying to make the numbers look as good as possible. In a 172, 2000 feet would probably be a minimum, unless the engine failed or was about to, and something shorter but promising was nearby.

My Duchess has a Accelerate stop distance at sea level just at or over 2,500 feet. I prefer 3,000 if I can get it for take-off, but routinely land on the 2,500 foot strip, with little braking, that parallels a 6,000 foot runway.

CalifDan

 

[unreal]

Yeah, I would prefer at least 2000' for personal comfort level. Can you get a C172 into an airport with a runway less than 2000' long? Sure, but the question is, can you takeoff from it again? You don't want to get the airplane down on a high DA day and find that you lack the performance to depart again.

 

[woutlaw]

I did my primary training out of a grass strip in a tired 172. We used the shorter 1,900' grass runway frequently, both for takeoff and landing, without much trouble, although I was skinnier back then. (Low field elevation, thankfully.)

Like everyone else said, it depends on DA and weight, but 2,000' is plenty if you have no significant obstacles to clear and the DA is reasonable.

With two big guys in a 172 on a hot day, the 2,500' crosswind runway at my home field is marginal for takeoff, especially with wires and trees near the departure end.

There's only 2,110' available for landing and it's still plenty long for a 172. (Makes life interesting in the Cirrus though.)

Take the performance charts and add 50% (or better yet, 100%) and things should go just fine.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

I've done this place in a Cessna 172 and 172RG... http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDTG

This place I have done in a Cessna 310R.... http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFES

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

BTW, I would take students to DTG on their last dual X-country. If they could land there without my assistance, I felt more than comfortable sending them out solo. That's going back along time ago, but I only ever had one guy that had a problem with the short runway. Oh, and it was also gravel covered.