Hah! Oh, this is sweet!

[RotaryWingBob]

The resurfacing of the runway at N99 begins tomorrow. This is probably a good thing because there are numerous cracks.

But here's the really cool part. Runway 9-27 will be closed beginning tomorrow. But, the NOTAM, carefully crafted by the airport Manager, who is a good friend and a fellow rotorhead, reads:

!IPT 10/091 N99 9/27 CLSD WEF 0610161100-0610202100

The runway is closed, not the airport

It would be unsafe to land an airplane on the taxiway. But rotorcraft can and do safely use it, the grass, the ramps -- you name it -- for takeoffs and landings.

In other words, for two weeks, excepting the intervening weekend when the runway will be reopened, we own the airport. And fly we will

Rotors Rule!

 

[rmciottijr]

The resurfacing of the runway at N99 begins tomorrow. This is probably a good thing because there are numerous cracks.

Well Bob I don't think they are going about this the right way they are resurfacing the runway and in two years they are winding it. I think that's a little backwards but I could be wrong. Also being a share holder very small part (maybe one of the cracks)but non the less a share holder and the way I found out about it was on here from you. We don't need the plane for two weeks so it's now a big deal but it would of been nice to know officially

well that's my two cents

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Well Bob I don't think they are going about this the right way they are resurfacing the runway and in two years they are winding it. I think that's a little backwards but I could be wrong. Also being a share holder very small part (maybe one of the cracks)but non the less a share holder and the way I found out about it was on here from you. We don't need the plane for two weeks so it's now a big deal but it would of been nice to know officially

well that's my two cents

Bob, you must not be on the shareholder email list. The runway resurfacing project has been reported to shareholders many times over the last year or two and was also discussed at the annual meeting. Contact John T. to have your email address added -- the board tries very hard to have every shareholder's email address on their list -- normally it is asked for when shares are transferred. The board also sends out a status report about the airport every month or two to shareholders.

Depending on weather, phase one is supposed to complete next friday, but could be completed earlier. The runway will be open again next saturday and sunday, and then closed again the following when phase 2 is scheduled. Phase 2 should be complete the following friday, but could again be completed earlier.

 

[Laurie]

Rotors Rule!

And fixed wings drool

 

[SCCutler]

And fixed wings drool

...rub it in, huh, rub it in!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Bob, you must not be on the shareholder email list. The runway resurfacing project has been reported to shareholders many times over the last year or two and was also discussed at the annual meeting. Contact John T. to have your email address added -- the board tries very hard to have every shareholder's email address on their list -- normally it is asked for when shares are transferred. The board also sends out a status report about the airport every month or two to shareholders.

Also check your spam filters. Sometimes these legitimate mass e-mails are blocked simply due to having your address in the BCC field, even though that's exactly what it's there for.

 

[Graueradler]

!IPT 10/091 N99 9/27 CLSD WEF 0610161100-0610202100

The runway is closed, not the airport

It would be unsafe to land an airplane on the taxiway.
Rotors Rule!

And why would it be unsafe to operate fixed wing aircraft from the taxiway?? What are its dimensions?

 

[RotaryWingBob]

And why would it be unsafe to operate fixed wing aircraft from the taxiway?? What are its dimensions?

You could have looked that up yourself, couldn't you have?

Only one taxiway which is used by a/c, fuel trucks, cars, obstructions, proximity to hangars and ramps, width maybe 25-30'. No place to turn around after a back taxi.

 

[JRitt]

I think they should close runway 09 and resurface it, then close runway 27 to resurface it so they keep half of the field open for traffic.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I think they should close runway 09 and resurface it, then close runway 27 to resurface it so they keep half of the field open for traffic.

Trouble is, how do you know which part belongs to 9 and which part belongs to 27?

Split it down the middle? Give each 50% of the total length?

 

[Graueradler]

You could have looked that up yourself, couldn't you have?

Runway dimensions yes. Taxiway where?

 

[kevin47881]

Runway dimensions yes. Taxiway where?

Airport diagram shows taxiways. If you are an AOPA member, look up the airport then on the upper right of the screen choose "airport diagram".

 

[rmciottijr]

Also check your spam filters. Sometimes these legitimate mass e-mails are blocked simply due to having your address in the BCC field, even though that's exactly what it's there for.

I get the bills from them just fine. I hate bills.

 

[Graueradler]

Airport diagram shows taxiways. If you are an AOPA member, look up the airport then on the upper right of the screen choose "airport diagram".

I guess I should just drop it but- My initial question asked about taxiway dimensions, not layout. AOPA Airports Database shows runway dimensions and taxiway layout.

The suggestion that I ashould have looked it up myself was a little irritating and prompted my second question - where?

Please don't answer. Just chalk it up to me being a grumpy old man.

 

[JRitt]

I've never seen taxiway demensions listed anywhere but looking at it from Google Earth the taxiway looks to be about 30' wide and 2200' long and it's about 60' from the edge of the taxiway to the hangers. And the runway has a 20' high hump in the center (440' elev on the ends and 460' in the center)

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I guess I should just drop it but- My initial question asked about taxiway dimensions, not layout. AOPA Airports Database shows runway dimensions and taxiway layout.

The suggestion that I ashould have looked it up myself was a little irritating and prompted my second question - where?

Please don't answer. Just chalk it up to me being a grumpy old man.

And your question was seriously obnoxious... You were arrogant. I'm a grumpy old man too. I didn't like your phrasing, I see no reason to like you...

So land at N99. I hope you don't kill me, or anybody I know. But, feel free to kill yourself, so long as you don't take anybody else out with you...

Oh. And you're irritated with the thought that you might have done some research youself? Actually, please, please stay away from airports where I fly.. I'll feel safer...

 

[SkyHog]

if that picture in your avatar is N99, I think I could land there too.

I don't know if I would, but I could.

 

[jesse]

If it was 1,200 feet and wide enough to put my gear down on it with 5 spare feet on each side. I would land there. Landing a 172 in 1,000 feet isn't really that difficult. I would have no problem with takeoff as long as there weren't any real HUGE buildings or mountains in the way. I would have to see it first though. 1,000 feet goes away really quick if you float. You just have to be extra aware of your airspeed and altitude.

I weigh 145 pounds and typically fly solo with no luggage.

Even if you do end up a little high. You'd be surprised how much altitude can be lost if you get creative about it. I flew a downwind today 2,000 feet above PATTERN altitude (3,000 AGL). This was about a 3/4 mile pattern. I think I was still 1,500 above pattern when I turned base. I had to do some pretty interesting steep slipping s-turns to make it work. But it played out nicely.

 

[tonycondon]

the taxiway looks to be about 30' wide and 2200' long and it's about 60' from the edge of the taxiway to the hangers.

wider, just as long, and with more side clearance than the airport i flew from this summer, we did tons of training in 150s at max gross on hot days. no sweat

 

[RotaryWingBob]

if that picture in your avatar is N99, I think I could land there too.

I don't know if I would, but I could.

Could? Yes. Safely, I don't think so Nick, the taxiway is too close to the hangars, and a/c coming in to it from a hangar have to go fairly fast because there's an upslope. There is also rather poor visibility from the hangar area to the taxiway. I wouldn't use it (in a fixed-wing, that is) except in an emergency.

 

[Graueradler]

I yield the Grumpy Old Man trophy

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I yield the Grumpy Old Man trophy

Hey, it's tough to out-curmudgeon an old guy who has this decal on his truck

Another helicopter pilot who's one year older thinks it should be mandatory for all rotorheads to carry the warning

 

[Anthony]

I see no reason to like you...

Jeez Bob, I'm glad I'm on your good side!

BTW. How do you like the R44 over the R22? Does the stability make it easier to fly/hover, etc? Is the R22 more fun?

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Jeez Bob, I'm glad I'm on your good side!

BTW. How do you like the R44 over the R22? Does the stability make it easier to fly/hover, etc? Is the R22 more fun?

Who said I have a good side, Anthony

The 44 is a joy to fly. It's not really and easier or harder to fly than the 22, but it is definitely less fatigueing to fly since the hydraulic system eliminates all pressure on both the cyclic and collective -- the 22 has a trim control on the cyclic which is supposed to ease the pressure on your hand, but it still gets tiring after maybe an hour and a half of flight. The R44 has more tail rotor authority and is easier to handle in a hover if there are gusty winds.

The 44 also turns out to be at least as much fun -- maybe more so because it's got gobs of power and it's every bit as responsive (and because my wife likes it!).

My original thinking was that the R44 is twice as expensive to fly as the R22, but the comparison doesn't work -- for one thing the hobbs on the 44 only advances while the collective is raised, so one hour in it is equivalent to maybe 1.2 hours in the R22 (since its clock is running from the time there is oil pressure). Also, with 2 people aboard you motor on out at 115-120 KIAS versus maybe 75-80 KIAS in the 22, so an hour gets you much further. Still, the R22 is a fun helicopter for joyrides around the 'hood.

Of course, the crazy guys I'm in with are probably going to want the new turbine-powered R66 when Robinson finally gets it certified.