The question may be about ground roll, but I agree with you Beagle, considering runway length, "It is not the climb but the getting to 80 mph and then having a failure that sets the length." Your thought on landing short and aborting, I try to make most landings without adding power, either adjusting ground track or admitting that at a particular point in the approach, that with no engine response, the runway wouldn't be reached; and immediately adding power and correcting.
I usta could enter the 6000 ft runway pattern at 200mph and land, maybe float a little, and roll to the last turnoff without braking. Short field landings were occasionally practiced, usually when the pants were off for tire replacement. Plenty of room for fully loaded takeoffs, probably even with your point Beagle, an abort.
Now, operating out of a 4000 ft airstrip, sloping, with hills off the end, things are different. More fun actually. Here the pants are always on, so speed on final must also be "on", along with TE Fences and vortilons on, and me on my toes. Key point is the abeam position, where you must basically be at the speed you want on short final. Turbulence from trees and buildings along the sides has the sidestick stirring gently and continually, even after touchdown, holding the nose up for aerodynamic braking. Cool weather makes me feel smart and talented. Soon, like last summer, in the heat I will wonder if I've lost the magic touch.
As to the ground roll element of this question, actually weight, from hanging around for a few years, I also default to a more significant element than runway length, rather to the effect of that weight on ground roll after a forced landing. As mentined, hitting something on takeoff is fairly rare. My more extended concern is engine failure after takeoff. From training and by choice, every takeoff is made with the expectation that the engine is going to quit.
Rather than minimizing the takeoff roll, I am intent on getting to 150 mph or so for the climbout. Before that point there are few if any options. With that energy, a guy can do a little of that pilot stuff before flaring for the touchdown. Most folks will remember that the Eze needs about 22 mph above minimum speed to trade off to reduce the rate of descent. So I default to 100mph for best range and 90 as a minimum forced landing maneuvering speed, where at that magic moment in the powerless landing the wings would be leveled and the plane would be flown all the way throught the emergency.
Thus runway length is less a consideration than an engine failure, as in any airplane. I read an instructor's comments in AOPA I believe, paraphrased here, that most folks on short climbout in a Cessna 150 or 172, with loss of power, would not be aware enough of the significant force and effort required to push the nose over far enough to retain or regain enough airspeed to accomplish an acceptable landing.
Lots of good answers prior to mine. So what was the question? Runway length? Takeoff roll? As in any aircraft, I think about getting off the ground and into the air with energy very intensely until scooting along at a coupla thousand feet. I like Drew's Eze runway comment, "any condition/airfield east of the Mississippi." And we're doing OK over here to the west.
All things considered, the Eze is still the one.
Good question Flyboy.
