short Field in a 172 is frustrating me !!! HELP

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Big Pistons Forever]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

What is your point....or are you just being a smart ass....

[trampbike]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

I dont even have 100h, and I think it is not that difficult to land within the POH short field landings numbers...

Foward slip is the way to go!

[Big Pistons Forever]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

I dont even have 100h, and I think it is not that difficult to land within the POH short field landings numbers...

Foward slip is the way to go!

100hrs = I know what I am doing
1000hrs = I am sure I know what I am doing
10,000hrs = I have learned the hard way things can go to shit in a heart beat so I always try to give myself a bit of extra margin.

[niwre]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

I dont even have 100h, and I think it is not that difficult to land within the POH short field landings numbers...

Foward slip is the way to go!

100hrs = I know what I am doing
1000hrs = I am sure I know what I am doing
10,000hrs = I have learned the hard way things can go to shit in a heart beat so I always try to give myself a bit of extra margin.

smile dude

[trampbike]

I do not think I am an ace... I just think that the numbers are quite realistic and landing within these is very doable. Don't you?

[niwre]

I do not think I am an ace... I just think that the numbers are quite realistic and landing within these is very doable. Don't you?

yes

I just forget that humor is lost on these boards sometimes

[trampbike]

My question was for Big Pistons

[iflyforpie]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

200 ft is a float? Do you know that 200ft is roughly the length, center to center, between each dash of the runway centerline? I highly doubt that more than 50% of the pilots on here (I am being conservative) can pick which dash line they are going to land on from downwind and hit it ten consecutive times...

I get our 172 down and stopped consistently within the first 800ft of runway with no wind. If I really work it and brake hard, I can do it in 500ft on most days.

The main limitation of the short field in the 172 is not how quick you can get it stopped, it is how long it takes to get it airborne. Don't go into anywhere you can't get out of....

[niwre]

that may be so

but then add 1000 feet cause of aiming for the 1000' marker practice and add 200' cause people say they can't get the plane to stop floating

200 ft is a float? Do you know that 200ft is roughly the length, center to center, between each dash of the runway centerline? I highly doubt that more than 50% of the pilots on here (I am being conservative) can pick which dash line they are going to land on from downwind and hit it ten consecutive times...

I get our 172 down and stopped consistently within the first 800ft of runway with no wind. If I really work it and brake hard, I can do it in 500ft on most days.

The main limitation of the short field in the 172 is not how quick you can get it stopped, it is how long it takes to get it airborne. Don't go into anywhere you can't get out of....

dude forgive me for having a little fun

[iflyforpie]

You are forgiven. I usually use the when I am being sarcastic...

[sufian]

Hi there,
Performace charts.
You're allmost there my friend, since you calculated that you float a 200 ft past your aim point(the number). the rest, it all depends on where your actual or simulated obstacles are?..Are they at the threshold or farther away..what i'm try to say here.. the distance from the position of these obstacles down toward the touchdown point is readly available to you from your POH-shortfield charts (landing distance to clear 50 ft obstacle) just you need to substract the landing roll from that distance, also apply the wind to be more acurrate. That should give you the air distance from the 50 ft obstacle down to the thouchdown point from that point aim for 200 ft for your float.

hope that helped.

Getting ready for the CPL ride but those ShortField landings are getting frustrating. The 172 seems to want to float forever and ever!!!

I usually do a shallow approach,drag it in to the threshold and chop the power just before the threshold (Aiming to touch down on the numbers) however it floats about 200 feet past the numbers.

I know i can always idle it a little earlier but my worry is the airplane might drop and wind up short of the runway on the grass.

What is a good practice for the FLIGHT TEST ! somehow 100ft tolerance seems too tight to me.

Any help would be appreciated !

thanks[/quote]

[niwre]

You are forgiven. I usually use the when I am being sarcastic...

Thanks

[Big Pistons Forever]

My question was for Big Pistons

So you think you can make the ground run figures because "it is not that hard". First of all I have yet to meet a sub 100 hr pilot ( I have probably seen over 50) who could do that everytime, because it is in fact rather hard to do it everytime without fail which is the only standard that matters. Second ...so what.

Here is your wake up call and some free advice.

1) The book figures were demonstrated by a test pilot in a brand new airplane.

2) Achieving a short ground is usually meaningless as real world short runways almost always have obstacles

3) A "real" short runway looks really tiny on short final. Doing well landing short on a long runway doesn't really count because you know you can mess up and it won't matter, definitely not the case on the "for real" short runways.

4) You need at 50% more runway to takeoff than to land for most light aircraft so the real test isn't the short field landing it is the short field takeoff.

5) The true test of the pilot is knowing when not to make the landing attempt, not squeezing it into the "book" distance

This is a forum to discuss issues pertaining to flight training. There are two types of posters. Those who want anwers and those who have answers. You Mr Trampbike frankly do not IMO likely have much to contribute to the "have answers" catagory when it comes to flying technique.

[trampbike]

You Mr Trampbike frankly do not IMO likely have much to contribute to the "have answers" catagory when it comes to flying technique.

I surely don't. A guy asked for what we thought was considered a short field in a 172 of a piper cherokee, I answered by the POH's numbers, hoping to get a discussion about the said numbers. Posting that led you, a "have answers" category pilot, to post on the subject, which I really appreciated. I don't see the point in any personal attack. It's not like I gave an expert opinion, I specified I was a 100h "pilot"!

3) A "real" short runway looks really tiny on short final. Doing well landing short on a long runway doesn't really count because you know you can mess up and it won't matter, definitely not the case on the "for real" short runways.

You are right. I did not think about real short field landings when saying the POH numbers were not that hard to hit. I was thinking about short field landing on a not-so-short runway, which is much more likely yo happen in a CPL exam. I do not think I would hit the numbers every time on let's say a 800 feet runway! In fact, I would not even attempt to land if any significant obstacles are around.


Anyway, thanks for your anwser, too bad I sounded like a smart ass.

[iflyforpie]

There are two types of posters. Those who want anwers and those who have answers.

I would hope that most of us fit into the unmentioned third category. Those that have some answers but are always looking for more....

[sky's the limit]

4) You need at 50% more runway to takeoff than to land for most light aircraft so the real test isn't the short field landing it is the short field takeoff.

And that, is the essence of off-strip work. I used to love it when people asked me if I "could land on that sandbar/mountain?" I always had the same reply, "I can land you anywhere, it's taking off again that's the tricky bit." Judging a take-off is infinitely more difficult than a landing, as you only get one shot, and on really short, downhill, or soft strips/bars you're committed when you turn the keys...

stl

[niss]

4) You need at 50% more runway to takeoff than to land for most light aircraft so the real test isn't the short field landing it is the short field takeoff.

And that, is the essence of off-strip work. I used to love it when people asked me if I "could land on that sandbar/mountain?" I always had the same reply, "I can land you anywhere, it's taking off again that's the tricky bit." Judging a take-off is infinitely more difficult than a landing, as you only get one shot, and on really short, downhill, or soft strips/bars you're committed when you turn the keys...

stl

And that is why I asked my question, what is considered a short field for these a/c. Not what the numbers say but what is actually out there as a short field. Can I expect to get in and out of a 1500' grass or gravel strip? Am I going to find field shorter than this that I should be able to get into and out of? etc.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[niss]

Thanks for that Hed,

Where my cherokee is based is 2100 but my knowledge of other rwys is very limited, I didn't know if this is considered short by most standards or if I should try to get it down for shorter.

Cheers.

Niss

[LousyFisherman]

Thanks for that Hed,
Where my cherokee is based is 2100 but my knowledge of other rwys is very limited, I didn't know if this is considered short by most standards or if I should try to get it down for shorter.
Cheers.
Niss

Niss, I normally fly a C150 off of 3000 feet, generally my takeoff numbers are 20-30% more than the POS, sorry POH, however, my landing numbers are 10% more.

Like you I needed to improve my PDM so I started flying into airports with shorter runways. Luckily Vulcan with a 2100 foot grass strip (50 foot trees 100 feet off of one end) is close by so I spent a day there when it was 30 degrees C.

At 3000 feet ASL, 30 degrees and 200 lbs below gross on a hard grass strip I need a 2100 foot strip. (I suspect I need a 1900 foot grass strip but my sphincter will not tighten that much)

Going away from the trees I only need 1600 feet.

I learned more about soft and short runways in those 4 hours than during all of my training. Teaching soft field work on asphalt is a waste of time and money. I learned more about obstacle clearance as well.

Since you are currently on a 2100 foot strip, assess where you leave the ground and are 10 feet high and then look for a runway that length to practise on. Reduce as needed. Be very careful about your gross, OAT and height ASL.

Have Fun
LF

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[trampbike]

One short field trick I used to use in older Cherokees
is to pop the flaps with the johnson bar to get it off
the ground, so it could accelerate in ground effect.

When doing that, do you go to the second notch (25 degrees) or just the first?

[niss]

I've done that once or twice as per my instructors suggestions and it was 25 (2 notches).

[Old Dog Flying]

Niss: Many moons ago I was doing an instructor re-ride out of CYMJ in your aircraft. It was very hot, no wind...unusual for the bald-assed prairies...and the inspector asked for a short field take-off. He thought that I was completely out of my mind when I calculated a ground run of 3800' and a rate of climb of 10' per minute.

We used 08L, used 3700' and cleared the fence a mile away by very little margin.

Ol' CF-UBC flew like a laminar flow man-hole cover that day!

Barney

PS: I passed the ride