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.

 

[knewhigher]

http://www.airnav.com/airport/N61

I did 1400 ft in a C172RG when I used to be on top of my game. We did a fly by first to inspect the condition only to see the farmer jump off his tractor and chase the livestock off the strip.

 

[CSY Mon]

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.

 

[navigator72]

I know somebody who landed regularly on an 800' dirt strip as a charter op in a C206.

 

[timeoff]

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.

 

[FrozenPilot]

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.

 

[timeoff]

Checking my past flights, my shortest runway was X25, 2313' of grass.

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???

 

[momalley81]

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.

 

[FrozenPilot]

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???

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.

 

[time builder]

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.

 

[RedGuy]

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.