Re: the Official Runway Distance thread


britmcman99
 

2607 feet is plenty of room to land a conventional Q200 taildragger. That's
all you should ever need if everything works out right. I have landed in
less than 2607 feet and on runways with 50' width. If you commit yourself to a
home airport where you must do this every time, then one day you will not
succeed. Plan for success by allowing some margin.

I had a good friend and mentor. He was my Civil Air Patrol Captain in
Shawnee Oklahoma. He had a Beech Musketeer and flew regularly out of his private
ranch airstrip. I had an opportunity to overfly his place in my Cherokee 140
and as a young low time pilot I thought to myself that I would never attempt
to land there in my plane. The day came when bad things happened and it
resulted in the loss of the pilot, plane and a passenger who was along for a joy
ride.

A 3000 foot runway is probably fine for a conventional Q200 pilot who is
proficient in his aircraft. Less than 3000 feet - pick a different aircraft.

I have a hunch that far too many pilots strive to touch the numbers on
landing and thus remove any margin for safety in the event of an engine failure on
final. Good practice would be to be able to make the field in the event of
an engine failure anywhere past midfield downwind. A short runway entices
folks to focus too much on what is at the other end of the runway when they
should leave a little worry about what is in front of the runway.

Just my two cents worth. I have flown and crash landed a Q200 and I am in
the process of prepping a Tri-Q200 and a Revmaster Q2. I love these planes,
but give me lots of runway.


Cheers,

Phil Lankford

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.