I'm a newer pilot, 120 hours, mostly in a '56 C172. I am planning to put in a runway at my farmhouse that will be 1200' long at 1200' elevation, no obstructions, on top of a hill. The runway will NOT be aligned with the prevailing winds unfortunately, but for a long term solution, I intend to plant tall, thick trees on both sides of the runway. I would hope the readership of these boards could point me in the direction of the best planes to consider. Two must haves for sure - side-by-side seating and ability to fly on and off my field. My dream plane may have been a Van's RV9, but am hearing from many that the runway is too short. I know that a plane like the Kitfox or Highlander could easily do it, but these are very light planes and not particularly good for longer cross country, though I have not ruled them out. Lately, I've been looking a little closer at a C182 or even a C172, with Robertson STOL enhancements. In any case, I take pride in what I own, and I don't want to fly some spam can - I do like style and comfort.

Any thoughts and recommendations? Thanks!

If I were you, I might think a little before going the route of tall thick trees on the sides of the runway. Abrupt changes in wind at 20' AGL (like that caused by trees) could make landings harder than if you were to just deal with the crosswind. It might be good to seek out a runway set up in this manner before making that decision. I'm also a newer pilot, and this is just what I've noticed. I know this isn't the question you asked for advice on directly, but the airplane question will have lots of answers since there are a bunch of planes that could handle that, so I'll leave that to others. If I were you, I'd buy a C180.. but then again I'm a little biased. Have you tried to see what distances you can get out of that '56 172 in comparison to your hopeful strip length?

-asa

Obviously a Twin Otter. Maybe a Kodiak? Porter perhaps.

No question, 'just buy a Maule'.
235hp, 72gallons, 160mph, takeoff and land 350ft, nearly 5ft wide baggage door, low cost parts, taildragger Or trigear bush prepped.
42 different configurations of wing, engine, prop, fuselage, landing gear etc

I second Jeremy.

Maule.

Tri gear Maule is a little friendlier on the wallet and doesn't sacrifice much on performance. I have a '99 fixed pitch 180HP MXT-7 and even at max gross I find myself well under 1000' both ways. Just have to remember to slow her down on downwind or she'll float to the next county.

You literally cannot get a better plane for the money when it comes to fitting the entire mission. I may have a line on a newer MT-235 nose dragger, but a 90's 180 can be routinely found for the cost of a fully-loaded F-150




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MANY planes will work but a Maule is MADE for what you have in mind.

If it's grass/gravel with no boulders a Trigear or taildragger is fine.

If you want to use that strip at gross weight on a hot day I'd recommend a 235(+) over a 180, but a 180 with a CS prop would be OK.

I second the notion of no trees. There are many runways I've landed with trees (places on the Oregon Coast spring to mind) where things get read weird after you drop below the tree line due to disturbace in the wind. I don't like weird when I'm slow and configured for landing.

RV9 will work for this (I fly one and have done it), but I would agree with the others that a Maule is likely a better choice for load. And depending on strip roughness, the RV gear (and particularly the 9 which is longer legs) is not as robust for rougher fields.

No trees. Wide as possible. Angle across in strong crosswind. 172 will do fine on hill with no obstacles because there is no need to climb. 40 degree flaps with power pitch approach will get you in. Low ground effect will get you out. Load and fuel at airport.

Those are pretty benign conditions for any of the normal backcountry workhorses. Basically any Cessna will work, though some will only work under favorable conditions of wind and DA. STOL kit will help on any of them.

A Super Cub-class airplane will give a bigger fudge factor, but they're certainly not needed for a 1200 strip with clear approaches.

The only planes I'd say to avoid are the ones with hershy bar wings, high landing speeds, or notoriously long ground rolls.

What is the direction the wind comes from looking down the "runway"?

Assuming your 56 172 is running properly, you can run it off of a 1200' strip at 1200' elevation on all but the hottest of days. By "hottest", I mean anything over 85F. I suggest that before you change airplanes, get really good with the old Skyhawk--you won't find a much more reliable, easy to maintain and repair airplane, even if it's not the beauty that you'd like.

After you've become really competent with the 172, then start looking. There are obviously a lot of Maule aficionados on this board, some of whom are merely misguided nut cases (sorry fellas! ), and of course, I'm not a nut case at all, mostly because I know nothing about Maules. But there are plenty of other airplanes that will fit your concerns--but I'd strongly recommend that whatever you decide to buy, that you do NOT look for one with a Robertson STOL kit on it. It is a relatively complicated addition, it's not made any more, and those who have flown various airplanes with Robertson kits installed will tell you that it's not one of the friendlier STOL kits from a handling standpoint. There are better STOL kits, but most folks don't actually need STOL kits. Most stock airplanes are a whole lot more capable than the pilots who fly them, which is especially true of newbies.

Coming back full circle, get good with what you have before looking for something that's been highly modified. You'd be surprised how well stock 182s, 180s, 185s, and yes, even Maules, can handle what you want to do with an airplane.

Cary

Good advice here - If I had a 1,200 foot strip, I'd still have my Maule. My only concern would be x-winds and that may be a real consideration based on the orientation of the runway. That can be overcome with good training and a lot of practice. I think the demonstrated x-wind component on mine (2002 mx-180c) was 13KTS. That's only demonstrated though and the limit is really your skill level and competence.

Depending on your elevation, the 172 should do fine; and, of course, there are performance mods that will improve your margin.

Jim

Absolutely best bang for the buck and value is a straight tail Cessna 182 with Sportsman cuff and VGs. Great parts resources available, excellent resale. A real load hauler that you can go somewhere in, yet when loaded light will operate into some pretty short runways. Out here in Idaho/Montana, 182s are quite ubiquitous and a well known workhorse. You see them all over our backcountry strips. I'm biased towards the 180/185, but that inflates the budget a bit. My other choice would be a Maule M4-210 Cont. powered. A real performer in the hands of a knowlegable pilot and highly underrated.

Runway has to be 9/27. Prevailing winds are generally North and South, unfortunately. Understandibly, if I'm going to load a plane up to max gross, I would most likely go to the local airport with a longer runway to load up.

asa wrote:If I were you, I might think a little before going the route of tall thick trees on the sides of the runway. Abrupt changes in wind at 20' AGL (like that caused by trees) could make landings harder than if you were to just deal with the crosswind.
-asa

Excellent advice.
One of the most difficult airstrips I know is this configuration, lined with trees at odds to the wind, and its wrecked many aircraft including a very nice RV.

How does one determine prevailing wind for a given spot aside from standing there for a year?

Historical data from the nearest wx station? Query the closest old timer?

Wunderground.com. You can pull up the historical data for a custom time period. The data I'm referring to is from Corvallis Oregon Airport, which could be slightly different than my hill, just 40 miles away. I have an Acurite weather station, but it doesn't seem to record historical wind direction info. With my proposed runway, I will definitely have crosswinds.

Doctor Ivan wrote:I'm a newer pilot, 120 hours, mostly in a '56 C172. I am planning to put in a runway at my farmhouse that will be 1200' long at 1200' elevation, no obstructions, on top of a hill. The runway will NOT be aligned with the prevailing winds unfortunately, but for a long term solution, I intend to plant tall, thick trees on both sides of the runway. I would hope the readership of these boards could point me in the direction of the best planes to consider. Two must haves for sure - side-by-side seating and ability to fly on and off my field. My dream plane may have been a Van's RV9, but am hearing from many that the runway is too short. I know that a plane like the Kitfox or Highlander could easily do it, but these are very light planes and not particularly good for longer cross country, though I have not ruled them out. Lately, I've been looking a little closer at a C182 or even a C172, with Robertson STOL enhancements. In any case, I take pride in what I own, and I don't want to fly some spam can - I do like style and comfort.

Any thoughts and recommendations? Thanks!

The 172 will work if lightly loaded. No trees as this will cause turbulence. Deal with the crosswind. I flew a 172k for many years under similar conditions. Also temp is a factor. Now I have a 180k and it loves 1200'. Once you master the 180 you will never change. Maule is probably a good choice as well.

I have a few strips I use. 2700' down to 1200'. Also a 400' grass strip on top of a hill. I land on it with the brakes applied. No problem on the right day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My wife and I taught at Tohatchi on the Navajo Reservation fourteen years. One day one of her middle school students, staring out the window at the flag, said worriedly, "Mrs. Dulin, the wind is blowing the wrong way."

Such different than normal natural events are definitely noticed and troubling to traditional Navajos. Elders are held in high respect for their extensive knowledge of what is normal or at least prevailing.

I'll take the "good Indian over the good Pony every time".
The correct technique will always serve you well. I've seen great aircraft very poorly treated.
150 gallons of fuel and a knowledgeable guide would be my .02.
Chaz