Who else loves short field???

Sazzy

Sazzy

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
97
Location
Highland Park, IL
Display Name
Sazzy
Home Airfield
RAC, UGN
Well, as the subject line alludes, today I was introduced to short field takeoffs and landings at this tiny little strip that could barely be seen from the air. I'M HOOKED.

The efficiency of it is so intriguing to me, it's all so quick and precise, it's such a satisfying challenge. Am I strange to find it exciting as opposed to a nuisance?
 
When your around longer runways, put an imaginary 50-foot obstacle on the numbers and then plan your wheels on the 1000 foot markers.
 
First off I absolutely agree that short field takeoffs are fun and exciting. However on a slightly darker note they are also notably more dangerous (well mostly takeoffs assuming you don’t float down the whole runway refusing to go around). Short field takeoffs give way less room for error in the event of any engine problem. Just make a plan especially clear in you mind (I.e if I don’t get to X airspeed by the halfway point then abort takeoff) On your way into the airport really scout out landing options for engine failure on climb out. Even planning something as simple as “if my engine fails on takeoff I’ll turn 20 degrees right to this field” could really save your life.
blue skies
 
Sazzy said:
Well, as the subject line alludes, today I was introduced to short field takeoffs and landings at this tiny little strip that could barely be seen from the air. I'M HOOKED.

The efficiency of it is so intriguing to me, it's all so quick and precise, it's such a satisfying challenge. Am I strange to find it exciting as opposed to a nuisance?
Click to expand...
How long was the strip?
 
wrbix said:
Short is in the eye of the beholder.

.....or something.
Click to expand...
Sounds like some relationship advice I was given once...

“Laughter in the bedroom is encouraged and perfectly okay.... until she points at it”
 
Real world short field and off airport stuff is fun and can be challenging. Almost everything I fly and work on these days are set up to go wherever we want.

How short was the runway and what kind of airplane?
 
Airplane is a Flight Design CTLS, strip was 2500, as opposed to the almost 4500 that I am used to. Airport was 96C (Fox River in southern Wisconsin).
 
Sazzy said:
Well, as the subject line alludes, today I was introduced to short field takeoffs and landings at this tiny little strip that could barely be seen from the air. I'M HOOKED.

The efficiency of it is so intriguing to me, it's all so quick and precise, it's such a satisfying challenge. Am I strange to find it exciting as opposed to a nuisance?
Click to expand...

Hopefully you have been instructed on risks.
 
Disregard all the negative comments by guys with NO idea of what they’re talking about!
 
Clip, I went there apprehensive of the risks to begin with. I have a good instructor and to be honest, I'm fairly skittish, as a student. When my instructor said we were gonna go to ENW and do pattern work again, L'il Miss Thang here had to go and whine about it saying "But we ALWAYS go to Kenosha!" So, he cut my work out for me.
 
Sazzy said:
Clip, I went there apprehensive of the risks to begin with. I have a good instructor and to be honest, I'm fairly skittish, as a student. When my instructor said we were gonna go to ENW and do pattern work again, L'il Miss Thang here had to go and whine about it saying "But we ALWAYS go to Kenosha!" So, he cut my work out for me.
Click to expand...

That is not instructing you on risks and mitigation.
 
Reality check. My Cub stalls at 17mph. It lands at 20 mph. How about your airplanes? Report your numbers. Which one do you want to be in when you hit the ground in a controlled emergency?
 
Stewartb said:
Reality check. My Cub stalls at 17mph. It lands at 20 mph. How about your airplanes? Report your numbers. Which one do you want to be in when you hit the ground in a controlled emergency?
Click to expand...

Are all emergencies controlled?
 
Okay, smart guy. add uncontrolled. What speeds are you likely to hit at? An “uncontrolled” STOL accident will likely happen very near the controlled landing speed, right? Your scare tactics are BS.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Okay, smart guy. add uncontrolled. What speeds are you likely to hit at? An “uncontrolled” STOL accident will likely happen very near the controlled landing speed, right? Your scare tactics are BS.
Click to expand...

Some times I don’t like to travel sunrise to sunset to go 700 nm.
 
Salty said:
Yes. For a student who’s been learning on 4500 feet. And, I wager for the vast majority of non commercial pilots.
Sheesh.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m going to change my answer.
Yes it is a short field. If you try to land on that field treating it the same as a 4500 foot runway you are a fool.

Just because it’s a short field doesn’t mean its scary. It just means you have less runway to deal with. And that’s a fact.
 
Salty said:
Actually, I’m going to change my answer.
Yes it is a short field. If you try to land on that field treating it the same as a 4500 foot runway you are a fool.

Just because it’s a short field doesn’t mean its scary. It just means you have less runway to deal with. And that’s a fact.
Click to expand...
I’d state it the other way...treating a 4500-foot runway differently than a 2500-foot runway in most of our GA airplanes is unnecessary and can result in degraded proficiency.
 
Sazzy said:
Airplane is a Flight Design CTLS, strip was 2500, as opposed to the almost 4500 that I am used to. Airport was 96C (Fox River in southern Wisconsin).
Click to expand...
I learned to fly at a 2500-foot strip and have been based there for 28 years, so to me it just seems normal. Of course I was taught not to land long or fast.
 
Must be nice to have always been perfectly proficient in every way. Unfortunately, it seems to have impaired some of you from seeing it any other way.
 
2500 ft at sea level isn't a very short field, if you are using normal small planes. For instance I have the larger 6 seat Bonanza which I fly with 4 seats and I regularly go into Glenwood Springs, GWS and it is 3300 ft at bout 6000 elevation and has a river and bluff at the approach end of 32. If it was 500 shorter I would think long and hard about using it. Its a snap for my Cub, don't need half of it. I recall landing our Mooney 201 years ago at a paved runway near Detroit with 4 people and on 2300 ft and it was of course at sea level. .
 
Last edited:
Sazzy said:
Well, as the subject line alludes, today I was introduced to short field takeoffs and landings at this tiny little strip that could barely be seen from the air. I'M HOOKED.

The efficiency of it is so intriguing to me, it's all so quick and precise, it's such a satisfying challenge. Am I strange to find it exciting as opposed to a nuisance?
Click to expand...

Not strange at all.

Now, what you can do is incorporate that into every landing, no matter the airfield. Go into somewhere that has a 10,000' runway? Make it a goal to make the first turn off. Go into 4000' runway? Make it a goal to be stopped by the halfway point. After the short field becomes 'normal feeling' set up a landing goal (stop point) for every landing. After a while it becomes old hat, and in 10 (probably less) years, you'll be able to participate in the "2500 feet, that's not short" dick measuring contests (even though you don't have one) on PoA!
 
Bill Greenwood said:
2500 ft at sea level isn't a very short field, if you are using normal small planes. For instance I have the larger 6 seat Bonanza which I fly with 4 seats and I regularly go into Glenwood Springs, GWS and it is 3300 ft at bout 6000 elevation and has a river and bluff at the approach end of 32. If it was 500 shorter I would think long and hard about using it. Its a snap for my Cub, don't need half of it. I recall landing our Mooney 201 years ago at a paved runway near Detroit with 4 people and I think if might have been 1800 ft not sure and it was of course at sea level. It mighth have been a few feet more.
Click to expand...

Detroit is at sea level? Wow the sea levels have risen!
 
If I was to advise a beginning student today how to best start lessons, the first thing I'd say was try to start in a J3 Cub or maybe Tiger Moth, and the next thing would be to use an airport with a short runway. If you start that way you never feel cramped, its becomes normal. Long runways make bad pilots.
I am told Bob Hoover came into Boulder, but ive never seen another Mustang there. Its 4100 ft, but at 5300 ft elvation and with a lake at approach end of 8 and a big cliff at the other end 26.
 
We owe a great debt to "EdFred" to pointing out that Detroit is not exactly at sea level, it's about 650 ft. Think how much smarter you might be Ed if you concentrated as much effort on being smart as on being a smart ass.
 
I see no reason to ever use more runway than absolutely necessary, so, as a rule, I've done (with a Skyhawk, mostly) steep approaches and short landings, even with two miles of runway, unless conditions dictated otherwise. Making the acute left turn on to Bravo when landing 3R at KLUK was SOP, as our hangar was just off the end of Bravo, and a long landing would require an extra two-nautical-mile taxi! And every landing is short-field practice.
 
Salty said:
Must be nice to have always been perfectly proficient in every way. Unfortunately, it seems to have impaired some of you from seeing it any other way.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see how a person who trained at a longer field and hasn't had experience with shorter ones might find it intimidating. I'm just pointing out that if you stay on glide path and within the recommended airspeed range, depending on conditions the intimidation factor may be more perception than reality for light piston aircraft.

I even saw a Citation operating at San Carlos once, which is also 2500 feet. Of course that and my home field at Palo Alto are both sea-level airports with reasonably benign obstacle environments.

On the other hand, when I flew to Pinehurst, OR, which is 2800 feet long and has an elevation over 3600 MSL, with FAA-standard fifty-foot trees on all sides, the safety margin was reduced. There still was a safety margin, but I made sure that I had less than full fuel, and I spent the evening before departure carefully studying the takeoff performance data. It's a good thing I did have a safety margin, because the terrain had enough slope so that I felt it necessary to take off with a mild tailwind, which turned into a stronger tailwind as soon as I got above treetop level! That turned out to be a real test of airspeed discipline, since I had to lower the nose at a height AGL that was only about 150% of the height of the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top