I’ve often toyed with the idea of buying a field and creating a 28-day-rule airstrip in mid-Wales where I live – or possibly even find somewhere remote enough to get planning permission. My budget would be tight, but land here is cheap enough that if a suitable field comes up for sale I could probably afford it. However, if possible I’d want it to be suitable for more than STOL types and microlights, and perhaps to have a few visitors as well as home pilots.
On paper, many aircraft can be operated from quite short runways. However, I’d be interested to canvas opinions as to what the requirements for a cohort of touring pilots might be.
It’s not intended to take itself too seriously. Just to give me a slightly better idea, when I see land advertised for sale, as to whether I could realistically imagine turning it into a grass airfield.
kwlf enjoyed the survey!
More important that length is the quality of the ground under the grass. It MUST be free draining and firm if you want to operate anything remotely heavy. This makes a huge difference. I have a 700m grass strip from which I operate a 1.95 tonne Malibu Mirage. It is normally very firm, but the first 100m at the east end gets a bit boggy in winter, so put in a 120 m asphalt strip to help get the plane moving when departing to the west. To have 700 m with a bit of buffer around you will need at least 20 to 30 acres. Must have no trees on approach and departure of course. Good luck. There is nothing like having your own strip.
Survey done. For grass, the condition is important. Less than 500m tarmac, with a slight drop at the end, was OK with no wind, near max weight, and a warm day. Last year 800m grass, soggy ground, and wouldn’t risk any pax. Grass was short. Aircraft had a LOT of mud afterwards.
Any obstacles on departure push me to require longer runways. Getting airborne in ground effect is less a problem than poor angle of climb. But turning at low level to avoid obstacles is O.K. Aircraft has a coarse pitch cruise prop.
600m if it is perfect but most “faster” SEPs will be “very marginal” at MTOW in the summer.
Peter is right in that anything less than half a mile will terrify 90% of the GA population, but how often does any of us fly at MTOW, and what have “summer” and “Wales” got to do with each other?
Seriously, 1/4 mile of flat runway with no obstacles is plenty for most common GA airplanes (C1xx, etc.) if the driver pays attention and loads his machine according to the conditions. With a bit of slope, Corlier’s [ local copy ] 340 metres is more than enough for a C172 or similar. Glenswinton’s original 380 m was just enough for a Seneca – but only if both brakes were working.
For landing, you can’t really separate usable runway length, slope, and ground speed when stalled with flap extended. The three are related. To see roughly how, you can plug your figures into µ = (((V^2)/(2*g))-H)/L or this spreadsheet: [ local copy ]
Rather than fuss about runway length, look for a fog-free site where you can achieve a smooth all-weather surface (grass or gravel) with good excellent drainage. Mud and bumps are bad for take-off and landing.
P.S. Nice joke about taxiing up a slope with a VW engine, but in fairness to Doc Ferdinand, few aircraft can stop and be sure of re-starting on a steep runway.
I agree almost entirely about Wales and the lack of summers, though in practice there are quite a lot of flyable days near the coast where I live. Frustratingly, more so than there are inland where my aircraft is currently based. Fog in a valley can take a long time to clear. On the other hand, if 90% of people aren’t comfortable flying from a short runway, then that makes such a short runway unviable even if the aircraft are technically capable of using it.
The good news from the survey is that those that responded seemed willing to put up with less-than-perfect runways. Perhaps those who are unwilling to use grass runways simply didn’t complete the survey (you had to pay for ‘logic’ functionality and I was feeling cheapskate last night) but 100% of respondents were happy with 800m; 80% were happy with 600m, but only 40% were happy with 500 metres or less. A slightly roly-poly runway or a bit of a slope didn’t seem to be too much of a problem.
There is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a slightly bimodal distribution with a fair number of aircraft – mostly microlights/STOL types – happy with 300 metres or less. However, most people prefer 600 metres+ and there aren’t so many people in between.
100LL is clearly the most popular of fuels. Only two people out of 50 wanted Avtur.
There are a lot of whiskey smugglers in the EuroGA community.
The bad news is that there just doesn’t seem to be that much land available, even round here in the wilderness. I forced myself to ignore a lovely flat bit of coastal land a few months back because I’d like to invest in something considerably above sea level. Unfortunately that either means finding some land up a valley, or finding a flat hilltop – easier said than done. Then there are the practicalities of crosswinds and rotor in hilly locations.
There are a few reasonable looking sites 15 miles away, but nothing closer. I gather from some of my colleagues that farmers round here often do land-swaps or organise things via private deals rather than going through estate agents. Some of the more viable looking bits of land often seem to have houses attached – and even a derelict house puts up the price a lot as it would be so much easier to get planning permission to put something new in its place.
One issue I see is that the “whole point” (well, a common objective, since 28 days a year is not enough for most flyers) of using the 28 day rule is normally to exceed the 28 day limitation and by means of logging the actual movements one can then apply for the statement of lawful use after 10 years, which covers the actual movements.
But one needs to avoid or at least minimise complaints during those 10 years, which is why you cannot get based at most private strips unless you are a freemason your grand-grand-father fought in the Boer War with the similar ancestor of the strip owner 
Plus most won’t allow syndicates (“too many movements”). Strict PPR is the rule for visitors.
The way around this is to apply for a full planning permission from the outset, which is a prospect that totally scares everybody, and would not be cheap (expert noise surveys etc).
So if you succeed in creating this strip, you will probably not want to advertise it. Does Wales really have so many places which are totally in the back of beyond, so that approaching traffic won’t pass over any houses at all? I have flown over Wales a great deal (Welshpool remains my most visited airport, despite not having been there for about 10 years) and while most of Wales is barren there is a lot of sporadic population.
The avgas preference doesn’t surprise me, for a number of reasons, but there might have been a 100LL+91UL option which would cover most Lyco non-turbocharged engines. Having said that, if you are going to stock 100LL you really don’t want to stock 91UL also; a conclusion most other airports have come to also
Welshpool is positively suburban compared to many parts of Wales, but you’re right: I think it would be hard work to get planning permission anywhere. There are places where you can find e.g. a 1×2 km square with no buildings in it, but they’re often on very rough land.
There’s currently an advert for a farm where you could make a 400m runway and avoid coming near any houses other than the farmhouse, even on an extended approach… It’s too far away for me to be interested, but stuff does come up from time to time.
