which plane for mountain airstrip?

[VAFLYER]

Hello everyone,

I have some property in the Shenandoah valley, VA that has grass airstrip that is at 1800 elevation and 1800' long and am trying to figure if I can afford a plane that would fly me, my wife and two kids in and out of the property. Currently we are at 460 pounds but the kids are growing like weeds. I have flow a 160hp C172 there by myself (in December) but do not have access to the plane now and would like to know if anyone has real world, (not performance figures) experience in a PA-28-140, 180, Warrior, Archer C-172,177 flying into an airstrip with conditions like ours. Really can't afford a C182 even with partners. I would not be flying to the property in July and August (it too hot to want to be down there) but would be all other times.

Thanks for your help.

[bluesideup]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the official performance figures of the POH. While they may not be 100% accurate they can be useful.

Look in the POH at takeoff distance at 2000 ft field elevation at max gross weight and 80 degrees for the airplanes you are considering and see what you get. Add 10% to that number and round up to the closest 100 ft.. The POH is constructed with average pilots using average techniques in mind. You might know of other techniques that give better performance.

How much runway did you use with the 172 in December?

I personnaly have a lot of experience(1200 HRS) in the PA-140. While it is a fine airplane I wouldn't want to operate it out of an 1800 ft grass strip near max gross weight unless it was absolutely free of obstacles. Even then, it's a little risky.

If there was an engne problem on takeoff close to your takeoff speed there would be almost margin in making an abort decision. You should consider if there is an area beyond the end of runway that could be used for stopping without injuring your family.

In general an Archer(PA28-180) or a 172 with 180 hp enigne would be a better choice. You could also put your family, or others in a 172 and see how much runway you use at a different airport.

Some of it boils down to your proficiency in a particular airplane and your personnel appitite for risk. Some pilots can work miracles in some very marginal airplanes because of their familiarity with the ariplane.

[VAFLYER]

Thanks for the reply.

I was hoping the 140 or a 140 w/160 hp would work since it fits the budget better but such is life. The archer would be next on my list but I would then I would need partners. I've heard that the 180hp conversion for the C172 is mostly done for the increase in gross weight and doesn't change the take off performance. Once in the air at the strip, I could glide to a farm field(not that I want to try it). It took less than half of the strip to get off the ground in december but I was mostly trying not to target fix on the trees on the sides of the strip to get an accurate measurement. If we by a plane, I'll have a chain saw party before flying into it again!

Again thanks for the reply

[Mike Simmons]

I think you are going to be tight with any of these aircraft given the parameters you mentioned. If your budget wasn't an issue a Maule would be a great aircraft for this mission or a 182 with performance enhancements. You may also want to check the performance of your list of aircraft with STOL kits installed.

[bluesideup]

I very much doubt the 180 hp engine doesn't change takeoff performance. An extra 20-35 hp on takeoff in a small airplane is noticible. You will accelerate to takeoff speed faster and climb at a greater rate. You should beable to get out of that field on a warm day with ease when you'd be very tight or unable with the standard engine.

Don't go by hearsay, get out and look at the performance and talk to owners.

Flap technique and willingness to rotate 5-6 kts above the bottom of the white arc help a lot.

That will put you sqaurely on the backside of the power curve but that why your instructor had you practice the soft-field takeoff.

A bigger engine is always nice. It's not of an expence stretch from a 172 to a 182.

[Wingtipvortex]

Cessna 180 or 185 tail dragger.

You can pick them up for 60 or 70 grand, if you know how to shop.

They fly like the 172 I hear but with HP up to 260 and with climb props, you will have no trouble taking off with your whole family on board even on the hottest summer days.

If I was in your position, that's what I would get.

[Wingtipvortex]

Following is the specs for the Cessna A185 Skywagon. Although I still have not applied my newly acquired knowledge of how to figure weight, humidity and temperature into performance for an airplane to your specific situation, I believe this plane is a good candidate to consider for your family and your 1800 feet airstrip at EL 1800 feet MSL, even on summer days.

As for the price, I was wrong. Some of the older well used aircraft with 260 hp can be had for 80 or 90 thousand, but for something with this spec you will probably need to spend six figures.


Horsepower: 300
Gross Weight: 3350 lbs
Empty Weight: 1565 lbs
Fuel Capacity: 65 gal

Top Speed: 155 kts
Cruise Speed: 147 kts
Stall Speed (dirty): 51 kts
Range: 470 nm


Takeoff
Ground Roll: 745 ft
Over 50 ft obstacle: 1330 ft


Rate Of Climb: 1040 fpm
Ceiling: 17500 ft

[a_man0311]

You might look at a 172 with a 180hp and a constant speed prop. The prop makes a difference at high altitudes as you can get a bigger bite. That's basically why all f/p planes top out at 12,000 or so and why most c/s planes can get up to or near 18k. The other thing is that the 180ho in the 172 provides more h/p without also adding more room and without adding a larger airframe. When you go up to the 180 series you are getting a heavier bird so in terms of raw performance (sacrificing comfort) I'd take the 172/180. Just an opinion though...

BTW I used to fly a 172 that had a STOL kit and a 160hp engine in AZ. When flying up to Sedona at 117 degrees I could easily take off and climb. STOL kits make a BIG difference!

Other things to look at:
Powerflow exhaust
Fixed prop that's pitched for climb performance (will sacrifice in cruise speed)

[tdfuller]

I know you said a 182 is out of the question, but, they are nice for STOLs.

I have a 1978 Cessna 182 RG and did a short field t/o and L at a 2300 foot grass strip with ease just Saturday. It has a Horton STOL kit on it - I was able to easily clear 50-100 feet with 500-750 feet of rwy left on t/o - granted at about 700 MSL, not 1800 MSL - but here in the South on a warm late fall day - so density altitude was probably around 1,000... I think.

... It is a buyer's market for single engine pistons I hear b/c relative fewer people are flying, and they all want those fancy plastic airplanes - Diamonds, Cirrus, etc.... I would use trade-a-plane.com and controller.com and look, you may find a good deal or partial.

I am curious to know if there are any Helio Couriers out there for sale. I watched one of those land and full stop in 3 lengths of the plane.

Todd

[cstolflyer]

Consider a Helio Super Courier H-295, with 60 gals. of fuel and 3 pax. you are off and flying in 200 feet. There is nothing on the market that gets off shorter, flies slower, and with excellent performance margins.......very safe as well.. If you are looking for one let me know, I've owned 3 and would not have anything else in this category.

Some stats: Helio H-391B (GO-435-C2B2 260 HP) Helio H-395 (GO-480-G1D6 295 HP) Helio H-295 1200 series gross at 3400 lbs. Helio H-250 Mk.II (O-540-A1A5 250 HP) a bit under powered, but 2000 hr. TBO...

Std. fuel 60 gals. optional 120 gals (long range tanks) some mods to 3800 lbs. if you plan to add floats

[sternone]

Find a second hand Maule ...

[cstolflyer]

Maule's are not safe and break easily

[sternone]

Originally Posted by cstolflyer

Maule's are not safe and break easily

Mountain flying isn't safe... there was a guy named fletcher anderson that wrote good books about mountain flying, sadly he died in the montains with his plane...may he RIP...

Aspen Times News for Aspen Colorado - News

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by Wingtipvortex

Cessna 180 or 185 tail dragger.

I agree. I think the 185 will be above your budget but the 180 does fit. I would also look at the Maule, Super Cub, or Husky. I personally think the 180 would be the best. If a tri-gear is a must then look into the tri-Maule.

[AerialPhotos]

I'm interested in a Helio for my aerial photography business. Do you know what mods are required for a vertical port? I'm concerned about the exhaust flow....

Thanks,

John

<<consider a Helio Super Courier H-295, with 60 gals. of fuel and 3 pax. you are off and flying in 200 feet. There is nothing on the market that gets off shorter, flies slower, and with excellent performance margins.......very safe as well.. If you are looking for one let me know, I've owned 3 and would not have anything else in this category.

Some stats: Helio H-391B (GO-435-C2B2 260 HP) Helio H-395 (GO-480-G1D6 295 HP) Helio H-295 1200 series gross at 3400 lbs. Helio H-250 Mk.II (O-540-A1A5 250 HP) a bit under powered, but 2000 hr. TBO...

Std. fuel 60 gals. optional 120 gals (long range tanks) some mods to 3800 lbs. if you plan to add floats>>