I agree.

I'd have to say that of the two, my judgment of the
acceptability of the ROC was more the problem, not the takeoff.

For the takeoff, I had extrapolated as you said, and with a
runway that was more than 2x that value, I felt comfortable.
The takeoff was not problematic.

It was the initial climbout that was ... unpleasant. On future
flights, I will examine the ROC more closely and scrub if it's
too low. An alleviating factor at Bishop was lots of flat
terrain upwind of the runway, but that is the exception at
high aiports, not the rule.

-- dave j

Nathan Young wrote in message . ..
Glad to hear you made it safely. Probably the best lesson learned is
that the real world performance of a 30 year old plane rarely matches
the numbers in the POH, and that when operating near the edge of the
envelope - there is little margin for error (or Mother Nature).

The takeoff distance charts in the POH for my '71 PA28-180 stop @ 7k
density altitude. Extrapolating above the highest values in the table
give an ~1250ft ground run and ~2800ft to cross a 50ft obstacle.

Also, best ROC @ gross @ 7500ft DA is less than 300fpm. Not much
margin for downdrafts.

-Nathan