Cessna 152
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 150; Flight Crew Total 1650; Flight Crew Type 50
Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Airport; Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
After landing at KMRC for fuel; we elected to take off using the grass runway. The winds were been relatively calm; and despite training numerous 'soft field' takeoffs and landings for private and commercial ratings; we had never actually used a grass runway. We spoke with some of the regulars in the FBO; who said that the turf condition was good and they provided some tips for using that particular field. We had two pilots in the aircraft; which put the C152 within 3 lbs of max gross weight when full of fuel. We back taxied the length of the field to reposition and test the smoothness of the turf. At the end; we turned a 180 and conducted a rolling takeoff without coming to a stop.The plane reached rotation speed after about 1;000 ft. (of 1;800 ft. available) but on climb out; it became apparent we would not clear the power lines and trees on the far side of the airport. With no more power to give; the aircraft already in clean configuration; and the stall horn starting to sound; I cut power and put the plane back on the runway; resulting in the plane coming to a stop in the grass after the end of the turf runway across Runway 24 and the taxiway. No damage to the plane; facility; or any injuries; but definitely two shaken up pilots after a close call.A combination of factors contributed; most of which were related to operating at max gross weight on a hot summer day. Application of soft field considerations (not coming to a stop) over short field considerations (max power before releasing brakes) reduced the amount of available runway to less than full length.We did not recalculate a takeoff landing distance card for that particular runway because we had been flying all day. However; if we had; we still would have tried the takeoff. The fact the performance charts indicate we needed a total of 2020 ft. to clear a 50 ft. obstacle with approximately 1;000 ft. of ground roll. We had 1;800 ft. runway plus another 900-1;000 ft. of clear climb out space before the first obstacle; which should have been more than adequate; but was not enough on that day.We suspect the combination of flying a 40 year old airplane with pilots relatively new to the C152 also significantly reduced aircraft performance from the best case numbers in the published charts. Biggest lesson learned is that when close to the margins on gross weight and high Density Altitude; to always take the longest runway winds will allow.
C152 pilot reported difficulty climbing on departure from a grass runway; resulting in a rejected takeoff.