Can you land shorter than you need for takeoff or takeoff shorter than land?

What requires shorter runway for your plane?

  • takeoff

    Votes: 22 33.3%

  • land

    Votes: 42 63.6%

  • other

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Total voters
    66
FORANE

FORANE

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
4,457
Location
TN
Display Name
FORANE
Home Airfield
0a9
Which requires less runway for your plane?
 
Last edited:
Takeoff by far. Before attempting to land I check to make sure I have enough to get back out.
 
Flying C-172s, and with my skill level (~200 hours) I can definitely land shorter than takeoff.

For the record, I don't get all that close to book numbers on either...
 
frfly172 said:
Takeoff by far. Before attempting to land I check to make sure I have enough to get back out.
Click to expand...

I think you read it backwards.

When I had my 172 takeoff distance was definitely the governing length.

With my 182, and its "tweaked" engine, landing distance is the determinant. As the engine ages though (currently 1,100+ hours), the takeoff distance is creeping up to almost my landing distance.

Edit: I should qualify the above with "at the weights I typically fly" which is nowhere close to gross. At gross it would have been a close race when my engine was fresh. Landing probably would've been a tad shorter.
 
Last edited:
I usually take off on a paved runway and land on the grass, if the winds allow it. Since I don't usually use brakes to slow, I'm not really sure what takes more. I do know that if I takeoff and land on the paved runway, I'm usually about airborne or turning off the runway when landing at the same spot about halfway down the runway.
 
The stock numbers on the Navion are pretty balanced 850' for ground roll, 1100 for the 50' obstacle for ether takeoff or landing. I suspect that my takeoff numbers are actually better given the extra HP in my big engine retrofit.
 
Depends. Do you want to use the plane again, or not?
 
With normal braking, landing takes about twice as much (paved) runway. DA20
 
I can probably land within a few feet if I wanted to.

(Of course I wouldn't be taking off again after that.)
 
The question has no honest or plausible answer unless the type of aircraft is stated. A taylorcraft ,65 hp, flown correctly, can easily land where it will not be able to take off. A super cub will easily take off anywhere it can land. A standard 172 might have trouble getting out, but a 180 hp conversion might not. Each aircraft has different parameters depending on horsepower, wing design, on and on.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The question has no honest or plausible answer unless the type of aircraft is stated. A taylorcraft ,65 hp, flown correctly, can easily land where it will not be able to take off. A super cub will easily take off anywhere it can land. A standard 172 might have trouble getting out, but a 180 hp conversion might not. Each aircraft has different parameters depending on horsepower, wing design, on and on.
Click to expand...

I think the OP has that covered. "Your plane."

Of course if you own multiple airplanes, that could be an issue.
 
In the Grumman AA-1/5 types, takeoff distance is about twice landing distance, so you learn to check takeoff performance before landing anywhere short.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The question has no honest or plausible answer unless the type of aircraft is stated. A taylorcraft ,65 hp, flown correctly, can easily land where it will not be able to take off. A super cub will easily take off anywhere it can land. A standard 172 might have trouble getting out, but a 180 hp conversion might not. Each aircraft has different parameters depending on horsepower, wing design, on and on.
Click to expand...
Also depends a lot on who is flying.
 
It depends, what's off the ends of the runway, and am I figuring a balanced field type calculation. If I'm light, as Av Shilo's niece put it, "This plane is surprisingly athletic." Yeah, light weight it will get out surprisingly short. If one fan quits on rotation, then the pre takeoff brief of what's in front of me pays off. If I want to use up brakes, I can get in pretty short, under 1000', but I don't, without brakes I'm rolling off at 2000'. With 3000' DA at my typical flying weights leaving 750lbs un carried I am well served for either so I try to base with more than that. Since I normally land 700lbs or so lighter than I took off though, I can definitely get in fields I could not get out of for normal operations. The shortest field I'd consider using for ops someone was paying for is 1200', and I would have to be able to be really light on fuel. Otherwise I'd prefer a minimum of 2200'.
 
I flew for many years in Alaska and I could get an empty C-206 off the ground in 100 feet. Now this was the middle of winter and density altitude was -6000 ft. Another time the wind was really blowing straight down the runway. I landed and made the turn off the runway on the same taxi way that is used to enter the runway. Probably had a 25 foot roll out. A 727 was waiting for me to land so they could depart, and the captain asked me why I needed the runway. I told him it upsets the passengers when I land right next to our terminal door... :lol:
 
I think the results of this survey will be clouded by the way in which the question was written. I mistakenly clicked "take off", as I thought the question was "which requires more runway, landing or takeoff". I am betting that some other respondents do the same. The way that you have worded it is quite odd, in my opinion. (I associate "require" with "more", not less).

Wells
 
I have a memory of reading about an island runway in the Adriatic Sea that was full of B-24's that would never fly again. It seems that it became the emergency landing spot for wounded B-24's flying back from Romania. They could land but not take off in that distance. They just dragged them off the runway and piled them off to the side.
 
timwinters said:
I think you read it backwards.

When I had my 172 takeoff distance was definitely the governing length.

With my 182, and its "tweaked" engine, landing distance is the determinant. As the engine ages though (currently 1,100+ hours), the takeoff distance is creeping up to almost my landing distance.

Edit: I should qualify the above with "at the weights I typically fly" which is nowhere close to gross. At gross it would have been a close race when my engine was fresh. Landing probably would've been a tad shorter.
Click to expand...

Too bad you can't do a Katmai conversion on an A, it makes the 182 an awesome short performer. On of the guys on the Red Board stopped by so I could try it out. If I had the money I'd work out an amphib STC for it with the fiberglass floats, Aerocet IIRC. That makes the 182 an awesome performer with non existent power on stall characteristics, I couldn't make it stall within the parameters of non aerobatic flight. I also managed the first turn off on 08 at FXE (the one right after the end) on my first landng in it, it's that controllable that slow, It would be interesting to see what it would do to a 185 or 206.
 
Last edited:
N5922S said:
With normal braking, landing takes about twice as much (paved) runway. DA20
Click to expand...

You're landing way too fast. I found you can slow it way down nose high and get a good rate of sink then put the nose down a bit over the fence to pick up speed and stretch the glide and let ground effect take it then pick the nose back up for drag. You can get a DA-20 in as short or even shorter than getting out.

One thing I have always found with rental DA-20s, and they are one of my favorites, is that the idle is set too high and that requires real behind the power curve operations or you eat runway. I haven't found many of the instructors who check me out in them very adept at flying them well. Don't worry about the stall horn either until you get a good calibration number.

I have never flown a Diamond yet that didn't have the stall horn blaring all the way down final if flown at a measured 1.3Vso. They are not well calibrated and often will be blaring 12-15kts above actual stall, that's over 1.4Vso in a plane that is basically a high power motor glider. If you use the stall horn for your over the numbers speed, you're going to chew runway. I calibrate them using white medical tape so they go off 3-5kts above stall.

The only thing I don't like on the DA-20 is the trim switch location, it's un ergonomic to operate, I would stick a better grip on if I owned one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top