Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s true for spamcans but not for slick composite aircraft like the DA40
True, but not sure how much of that relate to aerodynamics? or thrust-to-weight ratio? but we need more horse power to carry draggy airframe with also tend to have small takeoff/landing rolls 
For TPs/Jets, do even runway calculations assume reverse thrust or propeller breaking is available?
Neil wrote:
Get a Super Cub. In general if you can get in to a strip you can get out
The Vagabond doesn’t get off as quickly as a Super Cub, but there’s not much in it so I know what you mean.
I was really referring to four-seat metal aircraft through. For instance I can land and stop the TB10 in a pretty short distance if I need to, but I would never be able to take off from that same space.
For TPs/Jets, do even runway calculations assume reverse thrust or propeller breaking is available?
No
Reverse helps a bit in the highspeed regime. Powerful brakes do the job though.
At many major airports the landing is generally on the short runways, take off on the long ones. It’s easier to stop after having burned a lot of weight in fuel than it is to take off heavily loaded.
A few basic rules.
Any aircraft which needs more runway to take off than it needs to land needs a bigger engine.
Any aircraft which needs more runway to land than it needs to take off needs better brakes.
Any aircraft which can take off with full fuel and full seats needs bigger tanks.
But really – beta in TPs is not normally used for braking unless you have to, at lower speeds it doesn’t make for long prop life; it ‘sucks’ whatever is kicked up by whichever wheel happens to be below the engine through the disk.
Ibra wrote:
For TPs/Jets, do even runway calculations assume reverse thrust or propeller breaking is available?
The Performance section of the Piper Meridian e.g. states “Without Reverse, Braking: Moderate with Beta” as conditions for their landing distance calculations.
But really – beta in TPs is not normally used for braking unless you have to,
Then you have never flown with Widerøe (Dash 8)
The largest CAT operator in Europe now. It could very well be that they have to on the short airfields, but I am not so sure
I think it may have to do with how high the propeller is mounted. It’s high on the Dash, so less stones sucked in.
For the TBM, I’d rather not reverse or brake when I have a 3km runway ahead. On the other hand, the sound is so sweet that I would sometimes use it just for that. I also remember an experienced Lufthansa captain telling me how nice it is to pop reverse in flare when landing on short runways (not allowed per POH).
Are the Dash 8 really breaking hard to stop before runway end? or they just making lot of noise with the propellers?
(they can’t just fly a bit slower, they are CAT operations )
Cobalt wrote:
A few basic rules.
Any aircraft which needs more runway to take off than it needs to land needs a bigger engine.
Any aircraft which needs more runway to land than it needs to take off needs better brakes.
Any aircraft which can take off with full fuel and full seats needs bigger tanks.
Any aircraft with high top speed (high wing loading & small section) while sitting on small trolley wheels needs big drag chutes, on other aircrafts they just look cool
Ibra wrote:
Any aircraft with high top speed (high wing loading & small section) while sitting on small trolley wheels needs big drag chutes
Why does every thread turn into one about the Cirrus and it’s parachute? ;-)
I took a ride in the Piaggio L136 Royal Gull seaplane and it had reversing props on its piston engines. Very useful on the lake.
