JOe, I believe we're talking about two different Connies, right? Your first post said the "out of gas" airplane was geared-up/out of fuel in a field... and the video posted later by Steve shows a healthy Connie deliberately flown in to an airport for static display. (I just wanted to clarify which pilot we're praising.)
Yes... we've all run close of fuel. I've done so more than once. I was just thinking of the difference between a pilot who is short on gas and makes a precautionary landing....versus the pilot who fails to take precautionary action and ends up dead-sticking into a field. I see a vast difference between skill and judgment...and personally require both for one to warrant praise.
Most airplanes will get into fields much shorter than they require for takeoff. We all know a 170, properly flown, will land, over obtacles, in less than 600 feet. The factory specs for a HS125 claim it needs 4100' minimum for landing distances, yet I've demonstrated a measured 1900 including the distance to the airfield boundary to the actual stop. (Wouldn't want to do that w/pax onboard tho'....that was a sales-demo flight to a chief-pilot who needed to be reassured about an airplane which had no thrust-reversers.)
I would think a Connie deliberately landed gear up could use far less than 2700 as long as a panicked pilot didn't forget that stopped props and no hyds for flaps and no gear would have less drag than normal and attempt it too fast.
But I guess if everyone walked away....
It looks like the Greenwood pilot could have had it completely stopped in about 3/5ths of that 2700' runway. No blown or scorched tires! That IS a good one!
Here's a "belly landing" Connie...with added features!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfIzR1bi ... re=related