3
$\begingroup$

I am familiar with simple single engine props and twins and am thinking of moving up to turboprops like a Soccata TBM 700 or Pilatus PC-9.

How much runway do aircraft like these need to operate comfortably? (think grass strips with trees at the ends). By "comfortably" I am not talking about test pilots in perfect conditions. I am talking an amateur pilot on a windy, rainy day with enough runway that he won't be shaving bird nests out of the trees on takeoff.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Notwithstanding what the manual says, this depends most on the pilot. $\endgroup$ – STWilson Jun 9 '17 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ If you are considering transitioning to a complex turboprop from simple singles or twins, you might want to consider adding a margin of at least 60-100% to the book figures in order to establish comfortable personal minimums. $\endgroup$ – J Walters Jun 9 '17 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ Define amateur pilot. When you ask this question and qualify it by amateur pilot, you are qualifying it with a wide range. A better qualification might be someone who has completed Flight Safety Simulator Training in the aircraft, or has accomplished an insurance checkout. Even those are tremendously broad. However, if I was giving dual in either plane, I would look for a field with 2X the book figures for starters, with a green pilot, if that helps. $\endgroup$ – mongo Jun 9 '17 at 22:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mongo That seems to be a good guideline. So, basically it seems like 4000 to 4500 feet seems to be the right minimum. $\endgroup$ – Tyler Durden Jun 10 '17 at 0:11
  • $\begingroup$ @TylerDurden Yeah, if your aircraft is light and at low density altitude. If you are operating high, hot, and heavy you might want more than that. $\endgroup$ – J Walters Jun 11 '17 at 0:07
3
$\begingroup$

TBM quotes the distances for the 700 at

Take-off: 2,133 ft (650 m)

Landing: 2133 ft (650 m)

And Pilatus for the PC-9

Take-off distance over 50 ft obstacle at sea level: 1,300 ft (397 m)

Landing distance over 50 ft obstacle at sea level: 2,255 ft (687 m)

The PC-9 and TBM 700 are very different beasts (did you mean PC-12?)

comfort is about you the pilot and there are some pilots who operate right down to book minimums. Like anything else in aviation the pilot is the ultimate decider and you can operate both of these planes off a 2256 foot strip in clear weather. I'm not sure I would. I would think 3000ft. is enough to comfortably fly either of these planes. The FBO I rent from at KDYL flys King Air 200's out of there all the time and they only have 3000 ft there. For planes like this, considering their common missions I would also look for a strip with a solid IFR approach, sells Jet-A on the field, enough ramp room to fit your plane, and taxiways wide enough for your wing span as well as sufficient runway length. Its also going to take a lot more than "familiarity" with single engine prop planes to move up to a turbo prop.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And as with all takeoff performance, the figures will vary significantly with gross weight and density altitude. $\endgroup$ – J Walters Jun 9 '17 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ For example, the figures from the TBM 700 PIM show the following distance required to clear a 50' obstacle off of a dry, paved runway: 1591 ft at PA of 0 MSL, ISA, and low weight (5512 lbs); 3182 ft at PA of 4000 MSL, ISA +30°C, and high weight (6579 lbs). That is a very significant increase, and those figures reflect the skills of a test pilot of with no margin for error. Add 7-25% for grass runways. $\endgroup$ – J Walters Jun 9 '17 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A good rule of thumb for amateurs: take calculated takeoff and landing then add them together. $\endgroup$ – STWilson Jun 9 '17 at 20:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.