Warning: 25' wide, 1800' long

B A R R Y schrieb:

Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?

That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

The runway I learnt on and still operate from is something like 1700
feet long and you can't see one end from the other, either. Runways of
this lenght are considered pretty standard in wide parts of Europe, and
we typically use no more than two third of the runway length for a
landing with a typical spam can.

The typical pax doesn't even think about it. It requires some discipline
from the pilots, though.

Here's a picture of said airfield:
http://www.eddh.de/x-files/appr-pics/LSZI.jpg

Stefan

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

B A R R Y wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:



The airport had a hump in the middle, couldn't see either end of the
runway.


Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?

That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

Yep, it was a fun Ma & Pa airport.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Stefan wrote:

B A R R Y schrieb:

Wow! A short runway with no visibility of the opposite end?


That HAD to scare the crap out of new pax!

The runway I learnt on and still operate from is something like 1700
feet long and you can't see one end from the other, either. Runways of
this lenght are considered pretty standard in wide parts of Europe, and
we typically use no more than two third of the runway length for a
landing with a typical spam can.

The typical pax doesn't even think about it. It requires some discipline
from the pilots, though.

Here's a picture of said airfield:
http://www.eddh.de/x-files/appr-pics/LSZI.jpg

Stefan


Here is Hillside. I am not sure I would believe the statistics they
provide. http://www.airnav.com/airport/63K

--

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

"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

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