C-152 Takeoff Distance vs Weight
05-03-2011, 06:22 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Retired SWA /NOPD. on the sofa looking and bored
Posts: 39
It sounds like you are very well educated and you are planing on doing the calculations and making the attempt. Could you also post you A/C # so that we can all get the details on your attempt on www.ntsb.gov, I do not have the back ground in mathematics that you have. But what I do have is 12000+ hours(accident + incident free) and almost half of that in light aircraft with about 700 of that in 152/150s and I think that you are asking for big trouble. 
stay out of the trees!!!
stay out of the trees!!!
Last edited by xcop; 05-03-2011 at 06:24 PM.
05-28-2011, 04:17 PM
#12
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
A rainy day here produced the following analysis. I did this for a Cessna 150 but you could change the numbers to fit the 152. I did two analyses, a quickie to establish order of magnitude then a more careful one that takes into account more variables.
It is interesting to note the much greater runway require for the more accurate analysis than the quickie. This is because the quickie is a very simple case. Even so, my calculation shows this airplane could conceivably be airborne in 250 feet. That's less than half the POH distance of 655 ft. Some reasons are, the airplane in my example is loaded as lightly a possible with almost no fuel, the msl atmosphere is lower than in POH (1,000 vs. 2,000), and my liftoff speed is based on stall plus 10% as a power on figure, not power off as given in the POH.
Obviously (I hope) this is not something you should attempt and think it might work. This is just for the sake of aeronautical science. I did not bother with the speed required to clear the 50 foot obstacle, and in real life you would never take off from a grass strip using only a ground roll figure. I just wanted to show how this kind of thing is done.
It is interesting to note the much greater runway require for the more accurate analysis than the quickie. This is because the quickie is a very simple case. Even so, my calculation shows this airplane could conceivably be airborne in 250 feet. That's less than half the POH distance of 655 ft. Some reasons are, the airplane in my example is loaded as lightly a possible with almost no fuel, the msl atmosphere is lower than in POH (1,000 vs. 2,000), and my liftoff speed is based on stall plus 10% as a power on figure, not power off as given in the POH.
Obviously (I hope) this is not something you should attempt and think it might work. This is just for the sake of aeronautical science. I did not bother with the speed required to clear the 50 foot obstacle, and in real life you would never take off from a grass strip using only a ground roll figure. I just wanted to show how this kind of thing is done.
05-29-2011, 07:11 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: DHC-8 SIC
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by troyb
I honestly didn't know that any fields that short existed. 1300' are you serious? What kind of planes are based there? The shortest I've used was 2600' turf.
06-01-2011, 06:20 AM
#15
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: CFI
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Cubdriver
Obviously (I hope) this is not something you should attempt and think it might work. This is just for the sake of aeronautical science.
Thank you very much for the work! It is really interesting to see where the numbers in the POH come from. My favorite part of my AE degree was recreating the charts and tables for various aircraft (including the A-10).
The closest we will get to this runway is on our motorcycles, we plan to ride out to see why in the world this short field is still open and public.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
