Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
navigator72

navigator72

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
913
Hey,
What's the shortest runway you would feel comforatble landing on in a C172 under normal conditions?
 
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?
 
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'.
 
Landing is one thing getting out of places you can land in a 172 is another.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
300' in a C-207.

Full flaps and feet hard on the brakes before touch down.
Approach close to stall speed with plenty of power, fly below any kind of normal glide path.
Power off and flaps up just before touch down.
Wheels will dig into the gravel rocks flying and plane stops smartly.

They paid us to do that stuff in Alaska.
 
I know somebody who landed regularly on an 800' dirt strip as a charter op in a C206.
 
Departed one morning out of a 1900' wet grass strip in a Duchess with 4 guys and 100lbs of gear (SL, 35c). I honestly thought I was going to die (I was in the back seat). Cleared the obstacle by maybe, and I mean maybe, 10-15ft.

It scared me so much that I won't ride in the back of GA planes anymore. Either I get a seat up front, or I will see you when you get back.
 
I've been able to land using <1000' of runway (threshold to where I stopped), but I dont think I'd ever land on a 1000' runway. At least not on a normal runway in a normal Skyhawk.
Checking my past flights, my shortest runway was X25, 2313' of grass.
 
FrozenPilot said:
Checking my past flights, my shortest runway was X25, 2313' of grass.
Click to expand...

Thats funny, X25 is the strip I was refering to in my previous post. The threshold is displaced a couple hundred feet on both ends (around 1900' usable).

Imagine departing that strip in an over gross Duchess???
 
Boss kept his C175 and C150 here, and used it regularly without problem http://www.airnav.com/airport/JY04 (don't believe the numbers, last 400-500' is unusable) In the Cubs we'd regularly land downwind towards the hanger, and aim for midfield to save taxi time.

Friends of mine flew 172's off this one daily all summer long- http://www.airnav.com/airport/0NJ6 (and I don't know how that guy measured, unless it was property line - property line, but the landing surface was 1900' long)

The fun one was the short runway at BLM; 14L/32R. From the looks of Google Earth they've lengthened it to 1300x16. Last time I used it was when it ended at the fuel tank, 1000x16. 'Course that was in a Super Cub, and I didn't back-taxi the whole length.
 
timeoff said:
Thats funny, X25 is the strip I was refering to in my previous post. The threshold is displaced a couple hundred feet on both ends (around 1900' usable).

Imagine departing that strip in an over gross Duchess???
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm guessing you departed the same way I did, on 18. It sure felt tight enough in the 'hawk. Good thing you didn't become an NTSB report like a few others there.
 
I agree with those who put more emphasis on getting back out. I can consistently get my 172 off at the first exit (1000 ft.), but it typically takes a temperature of less than 40F and 200 lbs below max gross to get it off in less than 1000 feet (disregarding wind).

The C206/C207 on the other hand, is whole different animal. If I were to take any plane I've flown out of a short field at light weight, that would be it. Other than that, I hate 'em. With 300 horses, you really should be indicating more than 110 kts.
 
The Shortest runway I've ever landed on was alittle 800ft private grass strip. But that was by far not normal since I was about 500lbs below gross weight and obviously used a maximum performance T/O and Landing. The shortest distance I've ever landed was about 75-100ft ground roll in a 172 RG. Tower asked me to make the first taxi way, so I got low and slow for a short field touched down within the first few feet of the end and stopped before the end of the threshhold lines!LOL I got off on the entrance taxiway, taxied around the jet that was waiting to depart. When I called ground they said we didn't mean the VERY first taxiway! I could hear the people in the tower laughing in the back ground.LOL But for normal every day use I don't have a problem with 2000ft in an older 172, 2500 for a R model 172. Actually I'd probably want alittle more right now since I only flew about 5 hours in singles last year. So I'm not on top of my game in a 172.
 
Last edited:
I saw Mike Mullins land a Helio Stallion in the width of the runway in West Memphis (STRONG CROSSWIND), very impressive.
 
avbug said:
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?
Click to expand...

Man you just don't know how to have fun do you? I've gotten an F-18 airborne in 200'... I promise the book says it needs more than that.
 
Have my students land on a 1600 ft soft field strip with obstacles on either end. C-172M : 150hp but 40 degrees of flaps = wooot! Ironically it was my manager who almost killed us trying to take off in a crap warrior, not someone with 7 hrs... (K2B1)

With a good headwind you don't need a thousand feet, in or out.
 
Hey FrozenPilot - Just curious as th where you got your avatar.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom