does it even make sense? landing strip...

[freestone]

So for years I have stared at a meadow wondering whether it could be safely and consistently used by a supercub with bushwheels on it.

Today I paced it off.

About 185 to 200 paces (maybe 2.5 to 3ft per pace?).

Normally a tailwind on landing. Protected from the wind when touched down though for the most part.

One way strip guarded at one end by redwood trees (not the 75' textbook tree; several hundred feet tall so once over the fence you are committed for sure). The approach and departure end though is over a very large field - a vineyard - , with only a 6 ft fence at the end of those 200 paces. So it could be dragged in for at least half a mile if someone wanted.

And it has an uphill slope to it on approach (downhill on takeoff) of at least 20 ft if not more.

Grass meadow with a bunch of mole holes in it.

I figured no, but curious as to the view.

 

[sj]

Freestone, if they were 200 of my paces (3' at least), that is 600'. If you have a flat approach and departure, it is not unreasonable. One of our members has a 350' and a 400' strip at his place - flat approaches.

Granted this is not for the person who is satisfied to land "anywhere on the runway", but somebody who can hit the spot with great alacrity.

sj

 

[freestone]

The only difference I suppose is actually from about 500 or 600 ft before the fence you are committed so no ability to do go around if you don't think the approach will be right. Of course, I think the vertical works out well. And this is about 800ft above sea level, so no real performance issues

 

[5381Z]

If this location was 100 miles past the end of the road, it might make sense. Hell, less suitable sites have, and continue to be, used as landing strips. The presence of the vineyard and fence suggests that this location is readily accessible. Which suggests neighbors who could be annoyed. And which suggests that any unsuccessful attempt to use this spot would certainly be at the top of the page the next morning.

I know there are plenty of pilots who would be attracted by the challenge of being able to claim to have landed there first, if only in an attempt to make the ol' jockstrap fit a little tighter. I hope those folks would be prudent enough to pick their battles carefully. Aviation doesn't need any more negative attention.

Mark

 

[Torch]

Being an Alaskan I would have to ask WHY go there? Great hunting, fishing etc. NO hunting or fishing spot is good enough to risk you and the airplane. I say Pass on this one. Is it such a great place you would risk your airplane and you? Personally I don't know any places like that.

 

[Chris L]

x.

 

[Gordon Misch]

From the written description, I'd think it's "possible", but not "consistently".

Consider this scenario, suggested by your description - tailwind on approach, diminishing as the ground is neared. Result - increasing airspeed for a constant inertial speed, and resulting float. Float could cause overshoot and need to go around. So go around, rise up and encounter that tailwind again. Result - decreasing airspeed for constant inertial speed, and resulting sink. Just as the trees are getting too close - - -

Having willingly put myself in similar situations twice and remembering both instances MUCH more vividly than I'd care to, even though it was more than 25 years ago, I'd say NOT ME!

When I wrecked my 12 it was a similar circumstance, except I was forced down by heavy snow and near-zero visibility at a no go-around landing site. I was a bit high and fast (scared spitless dropping over trees), no braking (glare ice) and I hit stuff at the far end of a street at Whistler B.C. That was 16 years ago, and my plane is STILL in the rebuild process.

No more no-go-around landing sites for this kid, except in a true emergency!

 

[freestone]

Well, the only reason I would go there is because I own the land (not the vineyard) but no one lives within a mile as agricultural.

But that's why for years I have stared at it and done nothing. Still, it seems doable for 95% of the time - it was that other 5% that always bothered me!

And no, I wouldn't ever let anyone else do it. It would just be a field like now.

 

[bob turner]

I have a friend who lands on 400' with stones at both ends. He has 1/15th the time I do, and I wouldn't even dream of taking a Cub in there.

On the other hand, I cannot afford to waste a good Cub on a botched landing, and you won't find me lusting after a sandbar landing either.

I am an OK Cub pilot, but see no need to place myself and my favorite airplane in questionable places. I can consistently stop a C180 in 300' from a clear threshold, and can get my cub stopped in about 83', but I prove all that on carefully marked strips with plenty of room for error.

Have fun!

 

[reliableflyer]

Geezer said somthing about consistency, I agree completly, as the difficulty goes up, so does the risk. From the written description, I'd think it's possible, but not "consistently.

There are enough risks that we can't eliminate without doing things that are high risk just for fun. It is very doable but the risk is high. The more often you do precice landings in short distances on low risk places, the better you get, but I don't care how good you are the risk goes up when the margin of error goes down.

The people who do high risk work regularly get caught. The pay needs to be very high.

The people who I look at with respect and who's advice I have saught are those who have been working cubs for many, many years and have few incidents. One's skill is only a small part of the equation. Judgement plays a much larger part.

 

[freestone]

Thanks! I will quit looking at that clearing now - or convince the vineyard to clear out a 50ft wide strip (no chance!).

Yep, I don't want that one bad time - the last one.

 

[Mikey]

"The safest place for a ship is in the harbor, But that isn't what they were made for." That said, never fail to ask yourself before EVERY flight if the Reward warrants the Risk? For most landing sites, its more the approach that the strip itself that makes it doable. Your strip sound like it is doable, but not everytime. It you can't come up with a plan "B" for the times it ain't working, don't go there.
Fly safe and regards,
Chris

 

[Marc Olson]

Every landing has 'no go' conditions. Sometimes the conditions can be addressed by approaching from the other end, but in your case that's not possible.

I fly regularly into a one-way strip that often has a tailwind on final and is nestled into a little valley where the approach requires a dogleg on short final. It's 1800' long, and with my PA-12 I rarely use more than 600 feet to be down and taxiing.

Yesterday I turned around (after flying for 50 minutes) instead of landing because I determined that the current conditions weren't worth the risk. Even though the prevailing wind would have been down the approach (a headwind) the wind velocity would have likely setup some sinkholes since the runway was in the lee of the prevailing wind.

I had the benefit of other pilots using the strip who could walk through the different conditions they'd seen; with your strip you'd need to create that reference in a variety of conditions. If you were considering using the strip start with calm days, a familiar plane and with recent experience spot landing somewhere with more options. If you're confident you can nail the landing, then the initial experience is about doing that when there are the distractions of the terrain and the 'voice' in the back of your head once you're committed second-guessing the skills you've already developed when the runway is 100' wide and 5000' long.

 

[Dave Calkins]

I'd like to echo Steve's reply.

Also, The first time would be with no wind and light fuel and one body as the load..........

.....and you'd be a guy who can touchdown where he means to.

What are mole holes? do you need to miss each one?

The first time I read this, I wondered why a guy would even be questioning.

As far as this landing zone goes, you either Will, or you Won't.

I hope that doesn't sound like a challenge, it isn't. DAVE

 

[BritishCubBloke]

In my extremely limited experience, it has become increasingly clear that there can be a large gap between what is possible and what is sensible. The trick if you wish to progress is to constantly push yourself, but not too far at a time. It's quite an art and you only know you've got it wrong after the event!

 

[aktango58]

The knowledge that you can, if you wanted, is worth more than knowing you did and it did not turn out as hoped

But some questions: can you turn out to the side and miss the trees if you need to abort?

Some fields have that tree in front, but a slight turn can give clearance. How about approaching from the side? a slight out of level landing may not be a big deal, you will tend to turn up hill as you slow down.


But the over riding question to ask yourself: What will I gain, what is the risk?

Unfortunatly we can not see the field. At some point you must make the call. 600' is plenty for me, even at some altitude, but I love the ability to touch and go. I like nothing front and back. I have gone in one way, and it sucks.

If you do, put some weight at the most rearward part of the baggage to keep the tail down when you grab the breaks.

IN accuracy of landing, If your wheels are not within one plane length of your desired spot every time, that was THAT MEANS EVERY TIME, you could just as well smash the plane with a dozer as fly into a one way strip.

 

[sj]

In my extremely limited experience, it has become increasingly clear that there can be a large gap between what is possible and what is sensible.

Sensible is when you are on the home field and decide it is too windy to fly.

Possible is when you are at an away game, have to pee, and could use some extra fuel.

sj

 

[Dave Calkins]

The uphill will help spotting the touchdown, help slowing the rollout, and help from the tail coming up with brake application.

Be careful!

 

[Dave Calkins]

PS, if you don't think you can put it on the spot, you probably can't.

That's why I wondered why a guy would ask the whole worldwideweb when he already has the answer.

 

[freestone]

Oh, I figure I could do it, but that doesn't mean I SHOULD do it. And also is it a statistical game before I screwed up. The thing is, I keep looking at it wondering thinking it would be nice to fly into my land there. Same way I keep looking at lakes sizing them up for the beaver.

Ah well. I am not that good so I should put it out of my mind. But we all want our own strip, don't we?

I am glad I asked since it just confirmed for me my own thoughts!

 

[reliableflyer]

Some folks have mentioned putting the plane on the spot and of course that is true. I didn't see any mention of the proper speed at the proper spot.

One of the sport fishing lodges I worked at, let a retired navy carrier pilot go because while he could get the plane to the right spot his speed was never right, always way too fast. If you stall at let's say 40 and your doing 45, your ground roll is considerably longer. Both speed and location have to be right. The guys who do the hard core stuff regularly are at the right spot at the bare minimum of speed all the time. That means a light plane. The heavier they are, the faster they need to go to stay in the air. The half a mile per hour makes a world of difference. If your at the bare minimum speed at the right spot, it's a short landing, if your too fast you roll too far and if your too slow, you loose.

 

[Cajun Joe]

In my extremely limited experience, it has become increasingly clear that there can be a large gap between what is possible and what is sensible.

Sensible is when you are on the home field and decide it is too windy to fly.

Possible is when you are at an away game, have to pee, and could use some extra fuel.

sj

Sensible: Leave the girlfriend home and take the wife.

Possible: Leave the wife home and take the girlfriend.

Ridiculous: From your home field.....

Ignorant: File a flight plan .......................

 

[bearsnack]

Before the "SC.Org peanut gallery " board evaluates this any further I vote that several photos of the Landing Zone be submitted for further evaluation, where upon the gallery will deem safe or unsafe.
All in favor say "Yeh"

 

[Ruidoso Ron]

Thanks! I will quit looking at that clearing now.

Yeah.........right! I know that I can't land between my house and the Bonito River................but it hasn't stopped me from looking every time I drive up to my house! Always making that mental calculation.

 

[Dave Calkins]

....what Bearsnack said.

 

[NimpoCub]

Yeah, I like BearSnack's idea (& his handle)
I ASSume that these trees are on a neighbors' property or you'd have 'em down by now. Maybe you could convince him they'd make better lumber than obstacles.
Logan... ex faller

 

[popsdory]

Practice someplace else getting down over the fence, It's gonna add at least 40 feet to the landing run. Also, practice getting on the brakes hard. I think that you can use all the brakes you want, as long as you start with the tail wheel really close to the ground. I have to agree tho, speed Slow, and close throttle completely the instant you know you have the fence cleared. Then step off what you've got back to the fence a bunch of times. Be sure to try it with a slight tailwind too... Then ......... see if you can get someone else to try it first.........

 

[Seaworthy]

After flying in helicopters for twenty five years without a sneeze ( well there was one occasion) I kinda look at things as the law of averages.
If a LZ appears "iffy"---I pass. Law of averages and the law of diminishing returns says I'm going to run outa luck if I push the envelope. "Do I wanna kill myself today and wreck the plane or vice versa?" Nahhhhh----maybe some other time. Helicopter crew are very paranoid people!

 

[aktango58]

Popsdory: use all the brakes you want..... I don't think so.

Even with my 150 hp, light stuff up front, that tail loves to rise above it all with braking, even with an average person in back.

Someone mentioned tree removal. That would be my thought first. Another of the difficulties is that thoes trees, however far apart, will cause wind current changes with a headwind. With a tailwind you are going to have fun anyway, and not the 8) kind.

Remove the trees, extend into the grapes, find an angle around, buy a bell, or dream lots. All will save you money.

Please post pictures!

(just for refference, a seven knot tail wind added about 40% to my landing the other day)

 

[flynlow]

600' is very doable unless you get that unexpected bounce and need a shot of power to straighten things out and no option for a go around.

On the other hand if the unexpected happens, you still have the trees to stop you.