My CT182T POH states, 1335 ft required to land over a 50ft obsticle, 580ft
ground roll, 10C and SeaLevel day, subtract 10% for each 9knots of head
wind.. distance should not be an issue.
The gear width is 9ft, runway width should not be an issue.

The issue is pilot techinque and proficiency.. how many pilots do you know
that can consitantly land with the nose wheel on the stripe. Let alone be
accurate for the touch down point down the runway.

BT


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

I was circling over N85 in my partnership's non-retractable 182,
considering landing. Someone had just landed there (on runway 26). He
suggested that I might want to consider 31, given the wind direction, if I
was "up to it".

"Up to it"?

I've landed at N85 a few times, but never on this "crosswind runway". But
looking at it from the air, I didn't see the issue. So I asked "what's
the big deal?" After all, the crosswind on 26 wasn't really that high;
we'll within my comfort zone. So if 31 was a problem...

And I didn't really need to land here. I wanted the cheap fuel, but there
were other options.

Someone on UNICOM described the problem with the runway: it's small, at
25' width and 1800' length.

That's a problem?

I landed on 31. It was an easy landing with the wind practically on the
nose (why don't we call it a "nose wind" instead of a "headwind"?).

Are there really people that would have trouble putting a 182 onto that
runway. I don't consider myself a stick and rudder king, so this is
leaving me a little puzzled.

- Andrew