Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved - especially given the glide and climb characteristics/ limitations…
Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved
I’ve flown VH-CRF in and out of some dirt, grass and short (-ish) strips. Firstly, you need to understand that it is not a STOL aircraft. Its short-field landing capabilities are quite good - but you could easily land on a strip that you could never take off from. So takeoff performance is the critical issue.
The shortest strip I’ve flown from was 650m - just over 2000 ft. This was paved, and we were close to max gross (2900lbs). I did not use short field technique, and we lifted off well before the end of the strip (but more than half-way down it.) At the expected higher gross weight of 3100 lbs I would have expected to use quite a bit of that strip, but it would still have been adequate.
The unpaved strips I’ve flown from have all been 800m or more (2500’) and have been no problem, although you do tend to get trees near these strips, so the obstacle clearance factor also comes into it. I’ve got a closer look at some trees than I expected on occasion, but not so close as to be a worry.
One thing to realize with the SR20 is that although its climb rate is quite good, it is travelling horizontally at 94 knots at best rate of climb, so it’s covering quite a bit of ground.
So, in summary, runway requirements are not too bad, but you should check the field length against the POH, especially if it’s soft, or you are at a high density altitude. I would regard the POH numbers for takeoff as being accurate, which means I would add 20% for the wife and kids, plus the usual for grass/wet grass etc.
Clyde,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
Could you also tell me if your plane meets the published numbers or would you consider them aggressive or maybe even conservative?
A save operation of this aircraft out of my strip is very important otherwise I might be forced to let my contract go. Of course I’m here hoping to hear words of reassurance, but please from pilots with average experience and not from former aircraft carrier pilots.
Placido
Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved
I’ve flown VH-CRF in and out of some dirt, grass and short (-ish) strips. Firstly, you need to understand that it is not a STOL aircraft. Its short-field landing capabilities are quite good - but you could easily land on a strip that you could never take off from. So takeoff performance is the critical issue.
The shortest strip I’ve flown from was 650m - just over 2000 ft. This was paved, and we were close to max gross (2900lbs). I did not use short field technique, and we lifted off well before the end of the strip (but more than half-way down it.) At the expected higher gross weight of 3100 lbs I would have expected to use quite a bit of that strip, but it would still have been adequate.
The unpaved strips I’ve flown from have all been 800m or more (2500’) and have been no problem, although you do tend to get trees near these strips, so the obstacle clearance factor also comes into it. I’ve got a closer look at some trees than I expected on occasion, but not so close as to be a worry.
One thing to realize with the SR20 is that although its climb rate is quite good, it is travelling horizontally at 94 knots at best rate of climb, so it’s covering quite a bit of ground.
So, in summary, runway requirements are not too bad, but you should check the field length against the POH, especially if it’s soft, or you are at a high density altitude. I would regard the POH numbers for takeoff as being accurate, which means I would add 20% for the wife and kids, plus the usual for grass/wet grass etc.
Clyde,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
Could you also tell me if your plane meets the published numbers or would you consider them aggressive or maybe even conservative?
A save operation of this aircraft out of my strip is very important otherwise I might be forced to let my contract go. Of course I’m here hoping to hear words of reassurance, but please from pilots with average experience and not from former aircraft carrier pilots.
Placido
I would be greatly concerned about flying my SR20 in and out of a 1400 ft strip. Given my skills, I wouldn’t even consider it except for landing in an emergency. Even then, without a headwind, I would be prepared to eat up every inch of that 1400 ft. POH says you need over 1000 ft for ground roll, more than 2000 ft over the FAA’s 50 ft tree and these are test pilot numbers. This is definitely not a short field machine.
Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved
I’ve flown VH-CRF in and out of some dirt, grass and short (-ish) strips. Firstly, you need to understand that it is not a STOL aircraft. Its short-field landing capabilities are quite good - but you could easily land on a strip that you could never take off from. So takeoff performance is the critical issue.
The shortest strip I’ve flown from was 650m - just over 2000 ft. This was paved, and we were close to max gross (2900lbs). I did not use short field technique, and we lifted off well before the end of the strip (but more than half-way down it.) At the expected higher gross weight of 3100 lbs I would have expected to use quite a bit of that strip, but it would still have been adequate.
The unpaved strips I’ve flown from have all been 800m or more (2500’) and have been no problem, although you do tend to get trees near these strips, so the obstacle clearance factor also comes into it. I’ve got a closer look at some trees than I expected on occasion, but not so close as to be a worry.
One thing to realize with the SR20 is that although its climb rate is quite good, it is travelling horizontally at 94 knots at best rate of climb, so it’s covering quite a bit of ground.
So, in summary, runway requirements are not too bad, but you should check the field length against the POH, especially if it’s soft, or you are at a high density altitude. I would regard the POH numbers for takeoff as being accurate, which means I would add 20% for the wife and kids, plus the usual for grass/wet grass etc.
Placido –
-
Speaking for the members of this group who are not ex-carrier pilots, a 1650ft runway, at 1400ft altitude, sounds pretty challenging in general. I’m impressed that you use this as your home base.
-
By the way, what airport is this? Just curious. And what kind of planes routinely operate out of there? Especially in the circumstances you mention – hot summer days at full gross load?
-
There is a way to resolve this question empirically. As the supply of demo planes keeps rising, you could ask the European rep to fly one into your home airport – and then see if he can actually get in and out. Or invite Han K. Presumably landing would not be the challenge. You could then wait for circumstances when you’re absolutely sure he could get out again – very cold day; tanks drained down to 1/4 level – and see how much room there was to spare.
Just a thought! JF
Clyde,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
The situation you describe is a 1650 foot runway at a 3000-3500 foot density altitude; I would consider this situation very carefully. My experience is that the SR20 does use a significant amount of runway on landing, especially if one doesn’t want to abuse the brakes. Very significantly more than a 172 or Archer, perhaps even more than a Mooney.
At a recent CD visit to Palo Alto, multiple demo flights were almost always using every bit of the 2500 foot runway for rollout, on a warm but not hot day at sea level (not much wind), and probably at least 100 lb below MGTOW.
Another concern would be if there are obstacles near the departure end(s) of your field. As Clyde pointed out, while the sr20 climbs well, it does so at 94 kt (compared to 73-76 kt for a 172 or Archer) so the climb gradient can be shallow.
Placido,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
I would be very uncomfortable! The POH gives the takeoff runway requirement at 2000’ and 30C as 1830 ft at 2900lbs (will be more for 3100 lbs). That’s about 560m - so your 500m strip will not do. Maybe you should look at the Peterson STOL.
I consider the POH figures (for takeoff) to be accurate - i.e. neither conservative nor optimistic. I personally add 15-20% to the book figures to get a runway length I would be comfortable with. The landing figures seem to be conservative, but since they’re less than the takeoff numbers, that’s not an issue.
The AOPA directory lists 266 airports for the state of California. Of them, 265 have runways 2000ft long or greater. The 266th is 1820 ft, or some 175 feet longer than Placido’s, at an elevation of 450ft, or a thousand feet lower than Placido’s. This is at a private field, O62 in Carmel Valley, that I think is about to be closed or sold or something.
Placido, that is an impressively short field you’re dealing with! If you moved it to California it would be the undisputed short-runway champion. jf
Placido,
Landing is not the issue (may have to use the low end of approach speds and step on the brakes a bit harder than others), take-off maybe for you when density altitude rises and the POH tables have to come out. My homebase sports a 2,200 ft slightly sloping grass strip (field elev 420). I take off with full tanks and 3 adults and lift off comfortably well before using it all (all at temps below 30C though) and roughly according to POH numbers (depending on whether the grass is mowed/dry etc.). After getting airborne speed picks up well, but at a relatively flat attitude, so ‘clearing the fence’ may need looking into in your situation too.
What’s the OACI identifier for your homebase? I may come along from LFPX with N144CD and have a look.
Han K
Clyde,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
Could you also tell me if your plane meets the published numbers or would you consider them aggressive or maybe even conservative?
A save operation of this aircraft out of my strip is very important otherwise I might be forced to let my contract go. Of course I’m here hoping to hear words of reassurance, but please from pilots with average experience and not from former aircraft carrier pilots.
Placido
Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved
I’ve flown VH-CRF in and out of some dirt, grass and short (-ish) strips. Firstly, you need to understand that it is not a STOL aircraft. Its short-field landing capabilities are quite good - but you could easily land on a strip that you could never take off from. So takeoff performance is the critical issue.
The shortest strip I’ve flown from was 650m - just over 2000 ft. This was paved, and we were close to max gross (2900lbs). I did not use short field technique, and we lifted off well before the end of the strip (but more than half-way down it.) At the expected higher gross weight of 3100 lbs I would have expected to use quite a bit of that strip, but it would still have been adequate.
The unpaved strips I’ve flown from have all been 800m or more (2500’) and have been no problem, although you do tend to get trees near these strips, so the obstacle clearance factor also comes into it. I’ve got a closer look at some trees than I expected on occasion, but not so close as to be a worry.
One thing to realize with the SR20 is that although its climb rate is quite good, it is travelling horizontally at 94 knots at best rate of climb, so it’s covering quite a bit of ground.
So, in summary, runway requirements are not too bad, but you should check the field length against the POH, especially if it’s soft, or you are at a high density altitude. I would regard the POH numbers for takeoff as being accurate, which means I would add 20% for the wife and kids, plus the usual for grass/wet grass etc.
Joe,
500 meters are roughly 1650 ft. the 1400 ft I referred to is the altitude. But nevertheless, it seems to be quite tight for this machine. My sales guy here in Europe told me it wouldn’t be a problem, but I’m getting more and more concerned that eventually it will. Sigh, no, big sigh!
Clyde,
These issues are of paramount importance for me cause my home base has a paved strip of 500m at 1400 ft. How comfortable would you be operating your plane in and out of this strip in summer (25-30° Celsius) at gross weight?
Could you also tell me if your plane meets the published numbers or would you consider them aggressive or maybe even conservative?
A save operation of this aircraft out of my strip is very important otherwise I might be forced to let my contract go. Of course I’m here hoping to hear words of reassurance, but please from pilots with average experience and not from former aircraft carrier pilots.
Placido
I would be greatly concerned about flying my SR20 in and out of a 1400 ft strip. Given my skills, I wouldn’t even consider it except for landing in an emergency. Even then, without a headwind, I would be prepared to eat up every inch of that 1400 ft. POH says you need over 1000 ft for ground roll, more than 2000 ft over the FAA’s 50 ft tree and these are test pilot numbers. This is definitely not a short field machine.
Would be interested in hearing how the plane does on runways that aren’t 5000 feet and paved
I’ve flown VH-CRF in and out of some dirt, grass and short (-ish) strips. Firstly, you need to understand that it is not a STOL aircraft. Its short-field landing capabilities are quite good - but you could easily land on a strip that you could never take off from. So takeoff performance is the critical issue.
The shortest strip I’ve flown from was 650m - just over 2000 ft. This was paved, and we were close to max gross (2900lbs). I did not use short field technique, and we lifted off well before the end of the strip (but more than half-way down it.) At the expected higher gross weight of 3100 lbs I would have expected to use quite a bit of that strip, but it would still have been adequate.
The unpaved strips I’ve flown from have all been 800m or more (2500’) and have been no problem, although you do tend to get trees near these strips, so the obstacle clearance factor also comes into it. I’ve got a closer look at some trees than I expected on occasion, but not so close as to be a worry.
One thing to realize with the SR20 is that although its climb rate is quite good, it is travelling horizontally at 94 knots at best rate of climb, so it’s covering quite a bit of ground.
So, in summary, runway requirements are not too bad, but you should check the field length against the POH, especially if it’s soft, or you are at a high density altitude. I would regard the POH numbers for takeoff as being accurate, which means I would add 20% for the wife and kids, plus the usual for grass/wet grass etc.
Placido,
guessing from your email address, you won’t be making any sorties to that other short field in Switzerland, Triengen airfield. That’s positively the shortest airfield I have ever had the pleasure to visit: 395m !
Regards, Chris
Placido,
I’m a new and very low time pilot, so others may think I am wrong, but I have flown just about every major GA out there in my effort to find the perfect plane - so let me throw in my thoughts, admittedly based on only a few hours in the sr20 - a total of 10 approaches.
I would not base an sr20 at your field. Period. No matter how good a pilot you are. It is not a “very short-field” aircraft, and your field (as mentioned in an earlier post) is about as short as they come. It is my opinion this is what you sacrifice in order to get 160Kts at 10 GPH. Your field is too short to ensure consistently safe take-off’s/ landings unless you plan to fly solo with 1/4 tanks on cold days.
Maybe this is too bold an opinion, but I firmly believe it.
-Dean
My home base is Wangen-Lachen in Switzerland. I usually fly a Mooney MSE which also has 200 HP. I have no problems with that aircraft in getting in and out of this field. I thought the Mooney and SR20 would have about the same performance characteristics and I was made to believe it wouldn’t be a problem operating the SR20 out of a 1650 ft strip. I once took off from my field with the Mooney at max gross on a summer morning (20° Celsius) and I used approx. 400m of the field. The climb performance was a meager 600 ft/min.
Another question on this subject could be: The stall speeds of the Mooney and the SR20 are roughly the same, why would you need to have a rotation speed for the SR20 of 70kts (if I remember correctly) and only 60 kts for the Mooney. The approach speed on final for the Mooney is 70 kts why is it 80kts (?) for the Cirrus? Why would you have to climb at 94kts couldn’t you climb at a steeper gradient? Does this sound like a desperate man looking for whatever reason to keep his toy?
Placido
Placido,
guessing from your email address, you won’t be making any sorties to that other short field in Switzerland, Triengen airfield. That’s positively the shortest airfield I have ever had the pleasure to visit: 395m !
Regards, Chris
My home base is Wangen-Lachen in Switzerland. I usually fly a Mooney MSE which also has 200 HP. I have no problems with that aircraft in getting in and out of this field. I thought the Mooney and SR20 would have about the same performance characteristics and I was made to believe it wouldn’t be a problem operating the SR20 out of a 1650 ft strip. I once took off from my field with the Mooney at max gross on a summer morning (20° Celsius) and I used approx. 400m of the field. The climb performance was a meager 600 ft/min.
Another question on this subject could be: The stall speeds of the Mooney and the SR20 are roughly the same, why would you need to have a rotation speed for the SR20 of 70kts (if I remember correctly) and only 60 kts for the Mooney. The approach speed on final for the Mooney is 70 kts why is it 80kts (?) for the Cirrus? Why would you have to climb at 94kts couldn’t you climb at a steeper gradient? Does this sound like a desperate man looking for whatever reason to keep his toy?
Placido
I am not the one to answer those questions, but you might want to have a look at another page on this site under ‘various stuff’ and ‘recommended airspeeds’. There’s a comparison of the Mooney with the SR20. Maybe this will provide some more info.
I know the troubles of short airfields with heavy aircraft too. Fairly often I am flying with an overweight Arrow and that’s pretty much the same story. You’ll be doing better with the Mooney!
I guess that in Wangen-Lachen, you won’t have too much trouble with OCH if I rembember correctly since the field is on/at the lake ?!
Best regards and I hope it will all turn out well for you.
Chris
why would you need to have a rotation speed for the SR20 of 70kts (if I remember correctly) and only 60 kts for the Mooney.
The short field rotation speed for the SR20 is 65 knots. Even so, if you raise the nose at 65 knots it does not leap from the ground, rather it becomes light on the wheels then at about 70 knots you head skywards (takes a few seconds). Once off the ground the plane accelerates very quickly to 80 knots and you raise the flaps, then it accelerates to normal climb speed of about 95 knots. That’s just the way it behaves, I can’t tell you exactly why. The SR20 is heavier than the Mooney, so it accelerates more slowly on the ground.
The approach speed on final for the Mooney is 70 kts why is it 80kts (?) for the Cirrus?
It’s 75-80 knots for the Cirrus, but it flies fine at less, but there is no need to slow any more than that, since full flaps are very draggy, and once you pull the power off (after touchdown) it decelerates quickly. The descent rate at less than 75 knots without power is quite high (with full flaps) so you don’t want to be there, and if you have power on, you might as well fly at the right speed.
Why would you have to climb at 94kts couldn’t you climb at a steeper gradient?
Yes, best angle of climb is 84 knots (at low altitudes and max gross). Doesn’t help the takeoff roll, though. The plane simply will not fly until you get over 65 knots.
Does this sound like a desperate man looking for whatever reason to keep his toy?
Yes, but you really need to extend that runway!
Speaking of carrier landings, has anyone thought about deploying CAPS on the runway? It may be a bad idea, but if you found yourself barrelling toward the trees at the end of a short runway, you might wonder. On one hand it might aid in braking; on the other hand, it might even flip the plane. This isn’t one of the CAPS scenarios discussed in the POH.
Clyde,
Obviously, on a 500 m strip we never land with power on. It’s also a matter of noise here in Switzerland. We have a lot of “militants” against any kind of airport. Our descents are steeper, we hardly ever drag in a plane on power. We are “dead stick” pilots. I wonder how the SR20 behaves when landed power off at a steeper angle. Clyde, why don’t you go out and make a few test runs for me 
Cheers,
Placido
why would you need to have a rotation speed for the SR20 of 70kts (if I remember correctly) and only 60 kts for the Mooney.
The short field rotation speed for the SR20 is 65 knots. Even so, if you raise the nose at 65 knots it does not leap from the ground, rather it becomes light on the wheels then at about 70 knots you head skywards (takes a few seconds). Once off the ground the plane accelerates very quickly to 80 knots and you raise the flaps, then it accelerates to normal climb speed of about 95 knots. That’s just the way it behaves, I can’t tell you exactly why. The SR20 is heavier than the Mooney, so it accelerates more slowly on the ground.
The approach speed on final for the Mooney is 70 kts why is it 80kts (?) for the Cirrus?
It’s 75-80 knots for the Cirrus, but it flies fine at less, but there is no need to slow any more than that, since full flaps are very draggy, and once you pull the power off (after touchdown) it decelerates quickly. The descent rate at less than 75 knots without power is quite high (with full flaps) so you don’t want to be there, and if you have power on, you might as well fly at the right speed.
Why would you have to climb at 94kts couldn’t you climb at a steeper gradient?
Yes, best angle of climb is 84 knots (at low altitudes and max gross). Doesn’t help the takeoff roll, though. The plane simply will not fly until you get over 65 knots.
Does this sound like a desperate man looking for whatever reason to keep his toy?
Yes, but you really need to extend that runway!
I wonder how the SR20 behaves when landed power off at a steeper angle.
It lands ok, but it’s very hard to make it smooth. It will descend quite nicely at a steep angle, about 5 degrees works well with power right back, but you need to feed in a smidgin of power in the flare to smooth the touchdown. Just raising the nose in the flare does not do it.
I believe the reason is the large, very effective, flap area. When you lower the second stage of flap it feels like you have stood on the brakes - the plane slows quite significantly. I think that in the flare, the flap drag increases as the angle of attack increases, and there is not enough energy left to completely arrest the descent - result - a firm landing. But feed in a little power and it’s a greaser every time.
But I have no doubt you could land the SR20 quite ok on your strip - it’s the takeoff that would be a problem.
Placido’s field wouldn’t be the short-runway champ of the whole US, but it would be in the top (bottom) 1.5 per cent.
There must be something screwy with the AOPA numbers, since they list nearly 100 fields with runway lengths of 0 to 200 feet. (Heliports?) But apart from that odd group, only 63 fields, out of more than 5200, have maximum runway length of 1600 feet or less. Placido, maybe you actually were a carrier pilot in a previous life?
Not wanting to throw a wet towel on the conversation, but are you guys nuts? I don’t know about you, but I don’t use the POH landing and takeoff numbers as anything more that a STARTING place for my field requirements considerations.
If you use a minimum length strip and the wind changes, your engine burps or just isn’t quite producing full HP, your tires are underinflated, you hit a puddle, your skills and timing aren’t perfect; what happens then? How about if you’re a few pounds over gross?
Maybe I’m too conservative, but I try to find a place on the runway that if I’m not AIRBORNE by, I will still have time to stop the plane. If you use a minimum length strip, this is impossible. To figure this out, you can look at the runway length for takeoff and adding the length for landing without obstacles as good length to consider.
Guys, you have no outs! (sorry women, not trying to be sexist, you wouldn’t have any outs either).
For starters, I’m looking at a minimum length of 3,000’ - 3,500’ until I’m experienced with the plane, and that is an absolute minimum, not a desired field.
Currently with a 5,000’ strip, I land my 172N with 20 degrees of flaps, some power, little brakes and then only if necessary, and rarely use more than 1,500’ - 2,000’. I always have full flaps, brakes, etc., in reserve. I hate trying to see the trees over the cowling! Makes me worry too much!
Marty (#119 and still looking forward to January 
in duluth)