Turbine Comander 680 off a 2600ft strip

Boris Badenov said:
As someone mentioned, he might have been holding out for higher airspeed in case of engine failure. Or just hotdogging. I met a guy who's gotten a mitsi marquise (same engines, much higher wing loading, I'd imagine) in and out of a 2400ft grass strip (lightly loaded) with no problems at all. With flaps 40 (not approved, of course), it'll fly off at 90kts or so without even pulling. At low weights you could comfortably get off the ground in 1500ft or less. Naturally, I use flaps 20 and suck them up as fast as I can at the expense of wallowing to the end of a long runway then going up like a saturn V, but the aircraft is capable of a lot, lot better. Just not lest thee be judged or all the facts are in or something. The whole point of this class of turboprop (for the private owner) is that you don't need 10,000ft of pavement to get high cruise speeds.
Click to expand...

But but, that's not in the manual, I don't understand? People do things that aren't approved? AHHHHHHH.

Seriously, no big deal. If he has no margin of error what so ever, that doesn't mean its bad, it just means its an exceedingly tight fit. Not something I would do, but if that's his thing, that's his thing. Hell, I've taken the slen into some 1200'-ers, and that was hairy enough for me with a full load, but I know guys who've taken bigger airplanes into shorter strips and lived to tell the tale. If you're comfortably able to do something like this, then do it as long as you're not taking any unnecessary risks, (i.e. don't go in heavy, make sure you know the airplane well enough to do it, if you're taking passengers make sure they are well aware of the tightness of the scenario).

Think for yourself, and don't sunday qb this stuff, because all we have is a second hand story from a guy over the internet. It was probably perfectly fine.
 
jrh said:
I've already gotten in to discussions about this here on JC in the past, but why is this type of flying considered unacceptable in a twin yet acceptable in a single?

It's all a matter of risk management. People fly singles out of short strips all the time without having balanced field lengths. If the engine quits in a single shortly after rotation they'll be screwed just as much, if not more so, than in a twin.

As long as the pilot knows that an engine failure during those first few seconds of flight will probably mean death, and accepts that as a risk he is willing to take, I don't see a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Death no, if the strip is so short that you're right on the ragged edge of ####ed to get out of there, you probably aren't going fast enough to kill yourself. Maimed, and potentially killed, but not probable.

I agree though, go for it, if the airplane can do it within the normal realm of operations, do it.
 
darrenf said:
If your perception of distance between the gear and the berm is accurate, that is way too close, and I am NOT impressed. :drool:
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that the OPs perception was slightly off.

I don't have the perf charts handy, but I'll bet that the runway length was well within the aircraft's envelope. If a DC-3 can take off and land in less than 2500 ft I'll bet a Comander can too.

Virtually all the pilots I've met (including myself) have become spoiled by 5000+ft runways. When I was a CFI, I had problems with students not maintaining centerline on a 150 ft wide runway. I started taking them to a 4200x40ft strip with powerlines at one end, that got their attention quickly. Several CFIs at that school told me that it was unsafe. :banghead:

I for one AM impressed when I see a pilot flying an airplane to it's maximum potential.
 
USMCmech said:
I for one AM impressed when I see a pilot flying an airplane to it's maximum potential.
Click to expand...

Word. I'm looking forward to the law of unintended consequences wherein the safety-is-a-giant-runway mafia finally convince the federal government to pave over half the city and then are handed an f-104 and told to "make it work" with reduced thrust. Everyone would like to have five GPSes and a 12,000ft runway every time, but that's not reality. And it never will be. That's how you earn the "big bucks" (either that or having the stones to refuse to do something legitimately outside of the performance envelope.)
 
For every person doing it there are multitudes telling him it can't be done. Then there are those telling him it shouldn't be done.

Pushing the envelope is what flying is about. I'm not talking about the "Hey, watch this" sort of thing. Getting out of the pattern and actually testing and expanding your skills is where it's at.

Be careful out.
 
Alright, enough woth the OP is an idot stuff. I know what I saw. I am no idot. The reason that there is not much info availible about SZP is because it's a privately owned field. And the berm is only about 10 feet high. Clay Lacey brings his Mustang and DC3 in here on an annual basis. I thnik some people over reacted(also notice the prifiles of most of the offended). But as a few pilots have already said, flying is more risk managment than anything else. I don't consider what this guy did very wise, but he did what he did because he knew he could do it. He comes in there on a semi-monthly basis come to find out at work today. I talked to him for a few minutes before he left, and yes, he went striaght to CMA to pick up enough fuel to get back home. And yes, he did leave it stuck to have a better chance at makeing it if something were to happen.
 
The highest Max gross take-off weight I can find is 11750lbs. It doesn't matter though. I don't that that runway is a big deal for that aircraft.
 
USMCmech said:
If a DC-3 can take off and land in less than 2500 ft I'll bet a Comander can too.
Click to expand...

Haha, I once flew into a neat little field in Highgate Falls, VT. There was a DC-3 parked there; runway was an even 3,000'.

Picture40283.jpg
 
c172captain said:
At Catalina Airport(KAVX), 3000ft x 60ft, they have commercial operations of DC3's going in there routinely.
Click to expand...

lol, not claiming it's anything spectacular, but I got my private out of a former AFB with nealy 12,000' of runway. So, even with a generous 3,000', I'm still at the point in my flying where it looks a bit "short" on final. ...:laff:
 
mshunter said:
I work at KSZP, 2665x60, and watched a guy bring a Turbin Commander 680 in, and out of the airport today. Needless to say, I was impressed. I did not think he was going to make it back out. He taxied back to the end of 22, ran it up to full power, let her go and off it went. But, I had the nervous pit in my stomach as he passed the 2/3 point of the runway and haden't rotated yet. There is a 30 ft high berm at the depature end of 22, and he had no more than 10 feet of clearance between it and the gear. I though there was no way. But to the guy how got it off, good job. I was impressed.
Click to expand...


For all of you shocked or surprised by this, I take it none of you have seem Bob Hoover's aerobatic performance in his Shrike Commander?

Have seen his demo a number of times in my life....am amazed each time I see it.

[yt]tOZEgKXJMCE[/yt]
 
Saw a Jet Commander take off from a runway that was just under 4,000 ft and 35 ft wide. Was neat to watch, and I began to get tense but he rotated and flew in time. I think that was about as short a runway as you would want in a Jet Commander though - didn't look like 3,500 ft would have been enough - but 3,987 was just right.
 
MikeD said:
For all of you shocked or surprised by this, I take it none of you have seem Bob Hoover's aerobatic performance in his Shrike Commander?

Have seen his demo a number of times in my life....am amazed each time I see it.

[yt]tOZEgKXJMCE[/yt]
Click to expand...

I saw him at Reno do his entire routine, engines out and all. That man is a master of his machine! I only hope to have half of his skills someday. The best part of that whole clip is that he pours the tea BACK HANDED! I coulden't pour back handed on the ground and not spill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top