Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...

I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The name
was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways.


Well, duh...of course if the airport at which you regularly operate is like
that, you'll be well-practiced at it.

My point is that most pilots don't fall into that category.



Oh, I agree. Those pilots that learned to fly out of 9000' runways have
a disadvantage unless their instructor took them to short runways. I
have a friend that has a 1400' runway with clear approaches and I can
get the Skyhawk down and stopped in half that length, depending on the
wind. I once got check out in Hanscom Field in Boston and wanted to land
at short runways. (I forgot what their limit was at the time) and had to
prove that I could do it. The instructor picked 3 or 4 local airports
that were short (~2400') and I nailed each one. I didn't think they were
short.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

In article ,
Ross Richardson wrote:

I once got check out in Hanscom Field in Boston and wanted to land
at short runways. (I forgot what their limit was at the time) and had to
prove that I could do it. The instructor picked 3 or 4 local airports
that were short (~2400') and I nailed each one. I didn't think they were
short.

yeah - not a lot of real short fields around KBED, though there are
plenty with trees at both ends.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Ross Richardson wrote:

I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
a Beech 18 going in and out.


I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

My charter company has two Caravans & a Pilatus down in St.Barth's
right now. Their airport has a 2000' runway with an *very* interesting
approach, VFR day ops only. Even at high landing weights the PC12 only
uses up half the runway thanks to an 80kt OTF speed, big brakes, and a
reversing prop. I'm guessing the Caravan does just as well.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ross Richardson wrote:

I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
a Beech 18 going in and out.


I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used as
a bomber trainer.

The British called it the Hudson, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also
used as a bomber trainer.


The "Plane and Pilot" that landed in my mailbox this week has some Beech
18 info.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ross Richardson wrote:

I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
a Beech 18 going in and out.


I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also
used as a bomber trainer.

The British called it the Hudson, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

Pics of a really nice specimen at:

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/copperstate2006

5th, 4th and 3rd from the bottom.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Morgans wrote:
I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used
as a bomber trainer.

The British called it the Hudson, I believe.


And our air force called it the C-45. My dad used to carry around cadets in one
for orientation flights back when he was teaching ROTC back in the late 1950s.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ross Richardson wrote:

I learned to fly out of a 1800' runway south of Kansas City, MO. The
name was Hillside. Never had problems with short runways. They even had
a Beech 18 going in and out.


I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.

A good old airplane. There are still a lot of them flying. It was also used
as
a bomber trainer.

The British called it the Hudson, I believe.

Nope -- the Hudson was the bomber version of the Lockheed Model 14
Lodestar (a much bigger plane).

"Kingfish" wrote

I'm not that familiar with the BE-18 but that does sound impressive.
Crap, I was going to post a link to a picture and info. site. Here it is:

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/expeditor.html
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
For that matter, when I was a relatively new pilot, I recall landing on a
1800' runway in a 172. I had to go around on the first approach, and even
the second attempt resulted in me using a good portion of the runway, much
more than was really needed for a 172 (nearly all of it, in fact).

I flew a 150 or 152 into 6R5 (Alvin, TX) one day... Don't remember which
runway, but the longest is 1500 ft, so probably that one... It was tight,
but I managed to get stopped before I ended up in the ditch between the
runway and the road... I don't think that I would attempt to go in there
with my Grumman though... I've gone into 2X53 with my Grumman and
the 1900 ft of paved runway was just barely enough for that attempt...
Luckily, it has enough of a grass overrun that the runway is not really
as short as it seems...