Kevin wrote:

I guess this is new to you but concept of flying a plane is based on
safety. There are always going to be people like you who think you can
change the rules of safety and make a runway any dam way you please
but the math doesn't add up. People like you may insist "I only need a
1000 foot runway" and one day you will found on the end of your runway
waiting for an ambulance. If that is what you want to do, fine, but
stay away from the rest of humanity because you are a crackpot.

I fly a Maule. If I'm found at the end of the runway, waiting for an
ambulance, it's because I called it for somebody else.

Now, if I was flying my Tampico, or the Baron, or any of several other
airplanes, yes, that'd be close.

See the difference? In the Tampico, I'd be comfortable with 2000 feet.
On those incredibly rare days when things (most likely a combination
of wind and density altitude) make that 2000 feet unsafe, I have a
really simple solution: *I don't take off.* Follow that rule, and yes,
I do only need 2000 feet of runway in that airplane. In the Maule, 1000
would be more than enough. I'd take off on a 300' strip, if I thought
it was safe to do so; I'd look at my loading, the density altitude,
wind, and runway condition, and make that determination. That number's
not arbitrary, BTW--I *have* gotten the Maule in and out of 300 feet,
and I'm by no means the best Maule driver out there. Michelle, you want
to chime in here?

The point is, just saying that he's building it x feet long doesn't
mean much without knowing the type of airplane and the type of
operation, and the pilot's attitude and decision-making process.

--Dave

--
Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com