• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Interesting IAP's...

cisforsmasher

cisforsmasher

Active Member
pilot
Those approaches look pretty crazy. That being said, what about actually landing? I would think that 6000 ft of runway sounds rather short for being that high up. What would be your abort speed? How long was your takeoff roll? I assume it took the entire runway to stop after landing, especially with a tailwind. It being ridiculously cold would help the density altitude, but how much?
 
HAL Pilot

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Into Aspen and Jackson Hole, I flew a Piaggio P-180. Minimum for landing was 4500 feet with max reverse and max brakes. About 3500-4000 for t/o. Tailwinds obviously made it worst. I looked at the performance numbers carefully each time. Plus there was none of the "touch down zone" stuff for landing.

Ely was in a DHC-6 Twin Otter. It needed almost nothing for t/o & landing. It is a STOL aircraft.
 
scoober78

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
HAL Pilot said:
Into Aspen and Jackson Hole, I flew a Piaggio P-180. Minimum for landing was 4500 feet with max reverse and max brakes. About 3500-4000 for t/o. Tailwinds obviously made it worst. I looked at the performance numbers carefully each time. Plus there was none of the "touch down zone" stuff for landing.

Ely was in a DHC-6 Twin Otter. It needed almost nothing for t/o & landing. It is a STOL aircraft.
Click to expand...


Case in point....Color me jealous BTW.:)
 
FLYTPAY

FLYTPAY

Pro-Rec Fighter Pilot
pilot
None
Avalon airport on Catalina Island, CA

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0801/06368VDGB.PDF The approach gets some funky winds as you land on the side of a 1600 foot cliff.

I made the mistake of not checking the field hours here. When I landed, I got chased away by the airport attendant. The takeoff is a 1.7 %slope...try going uphill, not going to happen.....going downhill, pray you do not have to abort.


Twin_Harbors_North_of_Avalon.jpg
 
Herc_Dude

Herc_Dude

I believe nicotine + caffeine = protein
pilot
Contributor
Tell you what guys, this is one cool thread. I love seeing these plates and hearing the stories.

Keep em coming ...:thumbup_1
 
HuggyU2

HuggyU2

Well-Known Member
None
http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?southcentral/NGP_vdY_tYr13R.gif

Nothing cosmic, but this is a bit different. I've only flown it in the T-38 sim, but found it difficult for two reasons:
- turning away from the TACAN, while arcing, to intercept the course, was a break in habit patterns.
- it's apparently designed to be flown by something much slower than the T-38. In fast movers, you need to dirty up prior to finding yourself on final,... because by the time you roll out on final, you're at the FAF or beyond. Nevermind the fact that if you haven't slowed enough as you intercept final, it going to be tough, since you need to depart 1500' MSL for 1000' MSL, and you've only got 2 nm to do it (not a "hard" altitude", but it you're not at 1000' at the FAF, you just have that much more of a descent gradiant to get to the MDA).
 
P

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
While not an interesting approach (pretty straight forward actually), I made the mistake of requesting the full arc for this one. In a TH-57. BIG MISTAKE.
 

Attachments

  • 00738T7.pdf
    234.2 KB · Views: 79
HokiePilot

HokiePilot

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
huggyu2 said:
it's apparently designed to be flown by something much slower than the T-38.
Click to expand...

Like a T-34 maybe. I flew this during primary as one of my first approaches. I would agree that it was confusing if not for the fact that any approach was confusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top