Retractable gear, c/s prop 4 place aircraft that can deal with grass

If you have access to the US AOPA forums, this was discussed there:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=68084

The IV model is not ideal for grass.

We have flown our Arrow IV out of Rochester [EGTO] – which is grass – for years without a problem.

I did not say an Arrow IV cannot be flown from grass, but my experience is that a straight tail PA-28 works much better than a T-tail. Try flying a T-tail Arrow from a 500 m grass strip when it’s warm … no fun, IMHO.

These discussions are interminable.

A huge factor is what sort of grass?

You can have anything from a properly drained billiard ball field with short cropped grass, to 20cm grass covering a surface so badly undulating you feel like needing new teeth after getting out of there following a 1km (1000m) ground run.

I have known someone operate a Cessna 421-something from the latter surface!

Just because someone operates a Seneca from some field doesn’t tell you much. It might be a shagged rental plane which nobody cares about and the owner is happy to see it gradually trashed because he makes €100/hr and it it already practically speaking written down to zero. Many old twins are worth just the remaining engine time, so people just shag them.

One can operate almost any plane from almost any surface, in the sense that the landing gear isn’t going to get ripped off The only real limiting factor is that if a plane is too heavy, say a bizjet of 5000kg with the usual narrow tyres, then it will sink into the ground. I know a 421C owner who did a grass field once (Project Propeller) which was soft and he needed a fire truck to pull it out so he could depart. He said he would never do this again. And I once needed (TB20) a fire truck to get out of some mud grass at Southend, yet a TB20 is normally fine on grass. So it hugely depends on the details and who looks after the surface. If it is a club where the members bicker about getting a new kettle for making the tea, the “grass” won’t be so good There will be a fair collection of prop strikes too, which you won’t get to hear about. But if the members are well funded, for some 5 figure sum they can make the surface pretty good. For 100k they can reinforce the whole runway and parking area with the “covert” green plastic matting.

Also a lot of people will just tell you something is fine, come on, don’t be a wimp, take a chance for a change, live and let live, but yours isn’t their plane, and the plane they fly is a rented Maule Been there many times and got the t-shirt, which is why I will do grass but only if I am really sure, and that is not easy to do unless one visits by car or something similar.

With a well prepared and drained grass surface, anything “light GA” will be fine, although it will translate to a higher maintenance because the plane will get dirty, and if it is a retractable then more attention will need to be paid to the landing gear. And if you don’t maintain it, eventually you get this. Hence, IMHO, a discussion of which plane is good on grass is just interminable…

tmo wrote:

Reason for asking? We’re trying to see if we can expand the ATO part of the club to include CPL. We already have access to the resident Seneca for MEP, but that’s probably overkill for the CPL requirements.

I have to second what_next’s caution about the finances of such a plane. As a point of evidence, Tréner at LHNY (largest ATO in Hungary) has had an Arrow IV exactly for the CPL course and checkride. Since only a small part of the course has to be done in a RG, and the operating costs are higher for the Arrow than the Warrior (12% higher wet rental rate), only the minimum hours are flown in that plane. Result: it is totally under-utilised, but thankfully always available for self-fly hire. The only requirement is that you tell them at least a full day in advance, because they have to take the plane from the very back of the hangar… I also don’t think that there are too many (or, any) other regular renters for the plane besides me, even though this is the only 4-seater available for rental for longer trips within a 100-mile radius. My renting also hardly qualifies for regular. So a few weeks ago they decided to try to sell it (see Planecheck, HA-TNX, Piper PA-28RT-201 Arrow IV, 1980, Hungary) and use their MEPs (Duchess and DA-42) for CPL training.

Alexis wrote:

I did not say an Arrow IV cannot be flown from grass, but my experience is that a straight tail PA-28 works much better than a T-tail. Try flying a T-tail Arrow from a 500 m grass strip when it’s warm … no fun, IMHO.

As a low hour pilot with about the same amount of experience in the T-tail and conventional Arrow I very much agree with this. The conventional tail version handles so much better at low speeds, which is important if the field is short and/or bit bumpy. I first flew the T-tail version (immediately after doing my PPL on a C152) and it was a handful on short final, while the conventional tail Arrow II was a piece of cake to land.

Yes, anything will operate from grass, but T-tail Pipers are not ideal on grass if there is any chance that the grass will ever be a little soft, or if the field length is limited. With a forward CoG (which is usual during training) you simply cannot hold that nosewheel off the ground during take-off because there is no propwash over the elevator.

@172driver: the 177RG is fine on grass. During 300 hrs and double as many landings on four different C177RG’s I have yet to wheelbarrow one. But the very early 177’s lacked the type’s special slot in the tailplane, which could make the tail stall during round-out, thus causing a wheelbarrow. However, all the rest of the C177RG’s (with the slotted tailplane) fly beautifully – they have better control harmony than either the C172 or the C182 (which is too expensive to operate to be the right choice for this anyway).

Although I happily operate my Piper on grass on a weekly basis, I prefer Cessnas for grass ops. The Cessna undercarriage is much softer which saves the airframe and instruments from much of the vibration during take-off and landing. I believe that transfers to longer life for the landing light and fewer screws to tighten. C172R or C177R would be my choice. The C177RG would be only marginally more costly to operate but could make a popular renter airplane because it has real legroom for 4 people and can lift them as well.

I have completed my training on a grass runway in my 177RG, which after 12 years of ownership I can confirm work’s very well on grass surfaces.
All Cardinals where fitted by Cessna with a slotted tail plane, some after delivery, but most from new. Problem was that under certain conditions during landing, a full flap setting could block airflow to the tail plane and end in a heavy nose wheel touch down, which could result in a bounced landing. That was in1969, long before most here where even born.
The Cardinal has probably got the least AD’s compared to all other Cessnas and was until very recently the most modern design by the Cessna company.
Lots of things are different when compared to other Cessnas:
The wing is set further back, different wing profile, different elevators, it has an all moving tail plane and gives the best access to the cabin of all the Cessna types.
The main landing gear is actuated via one central crown wheel, ensuring that when you see a left main wheel from your seat, there will be a right wheel in the down position, too.
All other SE Cessna RG sytems are actuated seperately and in case of mechanical gear problems that has resulted in one gear leg not deploying fully, can result in a very bad day, as there will be damage to the horizontal stab and may be also to the wing.

I hope I have managed to clarify some of the previous points made in this thread.

Moving on:
All SE Cessna RG designs allow the pilot to see the gear during approach, something to add to one’s landing check.

All Cessna RG’s feature small wheels, though. Which in turn can result in deep ruts in the ground during soft ground operations.
Something to remember, especially if it is your runway.

Althoug I like the 177 RG, I find that each one of the Cessna RG’s has different operational complexities. One ought to have flown each one of them, or just pick any one in best overall condition and one that has received most loving care during previous ownership.

@complex pilot, I´m kind of interested in the C177RG. What are your real world cruise speeds and at which fuel flows? There´s one at my home airfield which the owner claims only does about 130kts TAS. That seems to be a little slow to me.

Hello Caba,

Cruise speed is 140-145 knots depending how much fuel is used, as per Cessna POH.
I tend to set speed at 140 knots & 38l per hour with power set at 71% resulting in low CHT’s and oil temp below 190F.
One can also cruise at about 105 knots and fuel flow of 24l per hour.
With a bit of practise one can safely land and take off from 450 m grass runways, too.