Shortfield Tips

[ronnie3585]

After watching this video http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=218678 it appears this poor guy got his mass and balance incorrect for a shortfield take off. This got me thinking... I'm only a low hour PPL with not a lot of experience outside of long, wide, paved runways. With the evenings getting longer and the weather finer, I hope to fly (and out) of some short and grass strips around the country this summer.

I think it would be helpful if some of the more experienced pilots on this forum could lend us some words of wisdom re shortfield operations.

Answers on the back of a postcard:ok:

[RatherBeFlying]

Spend serious time with AFM.

Know your density altitude

Pace out AFM ground roll on landing + safety factor from other end of runway and mark it -- if you're not in the air by that point, you have a reasonable chance to stop and reconsider without damage to a/c or people.

Work out distance to clear 50' obstacle and climb rate at density altitude to determine performance margins against terrain, especially if rising.

There is a takeoff performance computer available which can be used to take in account runway slope, weight and wind. Take with big grain of salt.

Remember that overruns are generally less likely to kill you than flying into something:ouch:

[Malcolm G O Payne]

Don't forget that your aircraft flight manual uses results of a new aircraft with a new engine and an experienced test pilot. See the CAA Safety Sense leaflet on performance.

[Rivet gun]

You have probably already read this, but it warrants taking seriously if you are thinking about short strips.
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P036.PDF
Beyond that, several flying schools offer farm strip courses (e.g. Clacton aero club) as do some PFA coaches.

[FlyingForFun]

To add to the good advice so far: Know your aircraft. Is its short-field performance limited by take-off or landing?

Most spam-cans can land in very short distances, but need more runway to take off from. This is generally a safe situation, since it's generally possible to take off in the specified distance (once all the safety factors have been added) regardless of your experience. In which case, all the advice from others on the thread is absolutely correct.

If you happen to be flying an aircraft which needs more runway for landing than it does for take-off, though, then lots of practice at a field with a bit of extra length is required first. You must be certain of being able to approach to exactly the point you want, at exactly the speed you need. Then measure the distance it takes you to stop on that runway (ideally in still wind, and at the same weight that you're planning on going to your short field), and add a safety factor to that to find your personal landing distances, which will improve as you practice.

[Say again s l o w l y]

One of the major problems when teaching short field techniques is the reluctance to feel what the aircaft is doing rather than relying on what the airspeed indicator is showing.

Make sure you know how your machine feels at low speed and forget all the "add 5kts for the wife and kids b*ll*cks" that most pilots seem to think is acceptable. With short strips you'll come a cropper very quickly with that sort of mentality.

As others have already pointed out, make sure you are aware of how much runway you will actually require and don't try to start with a very short field, but work your way down in size.

There aren't really any "tricks" as such for making short strip flying safer. If you are over loaded or don't treat the strip with respect, then there is no one trick that will keep you in one piece.

Use your common sense and practise, try setting limits on the runway you normally use, for instance touching down at a certain point and making sure you are stopped by another.

Eventually you'll be amazed at how little runway you actually need compared to others not flying "correctly."

Farm strip flying is also great fun and opens up a whole new realm of interesting places to go.

Just don't try short strips in something like a TB10 or Cherokee 140!:ouch:

[NorthSouth]

Fly the correct speeds! These will almost certainly be lower than you think they ought to be.

Target threshold speed Vat = 1.3 x Vso i.e. 1.3 times stalling speed in approach config

If you're not sure about the aircraft's stalling speed at a particular weight you can always stall it at that weight - with an instructor if need be - then you have a reference point for calculating Vat

Then if the resulting figures are lower than you're used to flying the aircraft at, have a practice - again, with an instructor if need be - at flying the aircraft around at that speed to get the feel for it. That should make you feel comfortable that the 1.3 margin keeps the aircraft nicely in a controllable regime.

Same applies on take-off - if the flight manual best takeoff performance says rotate at X knots and climb at Y, then that's what you should do - adjusted for weight of course.

NS

[stiknruda]

My best "short-field" advice is pretty obvious and I offer it to all who fly into my strip:

If you put your wheels down on the threshold, you will be unfazed!

Even with good clear approaches this requires the flare to happen before the a/c is over the strip.

Any tailwind component can really spoil your day up so do watch what the windsock is telling you.


Stik

[Monocock]

stiknruda's advice about the flare is particularly worth noting. You can waste most of a 500m strip on a warm and windless day with a speed that is only slightly too high.

There is no magic to strip flying. It is just very different and far less forgiving than 1000's of feet of tarmac. It is very rewarding indeed but just don't get complacent and treat every strip with respect however long, wide or smooth you have been told it is.

Good luck.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Ditto everyone else: nail the speed on the approach and make sure it isn't too fast. Wind is critical, too, obviously. Going into somewhere really short I find the GPS groundspeed readout a real help. It gives that little bit of extra reassurance that it's all going to be OK.

QDM

[englishal]

One tip I seem to remember being told was that if you haven't reached at least ½ your flying speed by the time you are a third the way down the runway on take off you won't make it, but you should still have time to stop.....

[Saab Dastard]

It's true of any approach and landing, but perhaps more so in tighter situations - if you don't like the approach, GO AROUND! Don't try to make an arrival out of a poor approach, have another go.

The big advantage over a glider is that you have got an engine up front that (normally) allows you the luxury of another try (or two)!

Also, if you have made a couple of approaches and still aren't happy - reject the idea of landing! This supposes that you have enough fuel to get back home or to your alternate - so planning for a tricky approach should take this into consideration.

On short field take-offs, my instructors were very keen on not wasting an inch of runway when entering and lining up. Also, be fully conversant with the correct flap settings for the particular aircraft type and model you are flying. Just because one Cherokee / Warrior / Archer uses 2 stages of flap doesn't mean they all do - or that it is true in a Mooney etc.

[jabberwok]

I'm only a low hour PPL with not a lot of experience outside of long, wide, paved runways.

As many pilots are - and short grass strips tend to intimidate to the extent that they are avoided. This is a pity as you will miss so much in your flying career by staying away. However I'll tell you a story...

Many years ago a pilot I knew quite well wanted to go to a grass strip up north. Having only long tarmac experience it daunted him so he wisely took along an instructor for the first trip and again for the second. Go a few months down the line and he'd established a reasonably frequent routine to this airfield.

One glorious June morning he set off again for B***** and rather grandly stuffed the aircraft through the hedge at the end of the runway. Not a mild prang either - wing ripped off (no fire luckily) and some very shaken passengers.

It didn't take long to see where things had started to go wrong. He'd flown there enough to become complacent and didn't see the odds stacking against him. All his earlier flights had been solo but, on this summer trip, he loaded the dice just a little too much:

1. Temperatures were around +21.
2. There wasn't a breath of wind.
3. He had four people on board and a lot of fuel - probably Max AUW minus the 40min fuel for the trip flown.
4. He'd been there enough to think it was no problem.

The scenario was all too obvious to him in hindsight - as it is to most readers here - but he never flew again.

A flight into a short grass strip has to be thought about carefully - not just the first flight but for every subsequent flight. Conditions change enough to make short strips definite go or no go candidates and it is up to the pilot to do the groundwork for every flight to see if they are in his favour.

Never, ever, get complacent on grass.. Keep your head sharp and they can be a lot of fun..

[Saab Dastard]

Jabberwok -

Never, ever, get complacent

Says it all really - for all of our flying! :ok:

[shortstripper]

One good rule of thumb is that you must attain 75% of take of speed by 50% of the TO run. If not abort, unless you really really know what you are doing!

Also, better to hold down in ground effect to build speed than to climb out with low airspeed.

And most of all, if all goes tits up, fly a controlled crash landing (if there is such a thing), and don't just stall into crash with nothing but the hope of a lucky outcome!!

SS

[pulse1]

Watching the video clip mentioned by ronnie3585 reminded me of a lesson I learned about taking off from narrow short strips. If you start to lose directional control either because of crosswind or improper use of rudder, there is a strong temptation to rotate before you attain the proper speed. Most of the spamcans I have flown will lift of at speeds about 5k below the ideal speed and you are then stuck in a high drag profile and you cannot gain enough height/speed to lower the nose.

Reading AAIB bulletins suggests to me that this is a relatively common cause of take off accidents. In my view, if you start to go sideways before you reach proper flying speed, abort the take off.

[wombat13]

There are grass strips and grass strips. Barton for example might be grass, but you really do need to listen to the tower and lining up to wait is often the norm.

Off a farm strip, I see it as one continuous movement, keeping momemtum going when at the threshold, never stopping and running the risk of getting stuck. As has been suggested elsewhere, have a marker on the r/w which indicates the half way point. Know when to abort.

Equally, I do not deploy flap until desired speed has been reached (reduces drag in the roll). Once deployed, get it up sharpish and into the ground effect (for the low wing in particular), once required speed achieved for flight, up you go - for real.

On landing, you must nail the speed early. Always easier to add on a few knots.

Cardinal rule, use an instructor for the first few times.

The Wombat

[QDMQDMQDM]

Another thing's weight. Critical not only on the take-off obviously, but landing too. It puts your stall speed up and can leave you wallowing at speeds where usually you are nicely in control and the plane feels good. Read Stick and Rudder for a nice round-up of low speed handling (and everything else too).

Your aircraft light and your aircraft heavy are two completely different machines, confused at your peril.

Cheers,

QDM

[ronnie3585]

Great advice guys, keep it coming. Hopfully it will keep some of us out of the accident report pages:}

On the point of when it is best to rotate I have heard many differing views. The 172 I fly has will usually want to get airborne at about 55kts (on average of course) however in a shortfield situation i would prefer to keep it on the ground for another 10ks give or take - until it feels right. I dont rotate early as Im not fond of flying in the back end of the drag curve.

Once deployed, get it up sharpish and into the ground effect (for the low wing in particular), once required speed achieved for flight, up you go - for real.

[B]Wombat[B] suggested to lift off and fly in the ground effect to bulid up speed. Would it not be safer to leave the main wheels on the ground (provided you have the runway distance) in case of crosswind, gusts, aborting the take off etc, instead of wallowing around in the ground effect in a low speed/high drag situation?

I know there are many variables e.g. wind, weight, temp & pressure etc but is there one "safer" method for take offs?

[NorthSouth]

The 172 I fly has will usually want to get airborne at about 55kts (on average of course) however in a shortfield situation i would prefer to keep it on the ground for another 10ks give or take - until it feels rightIf you're deliberately keeping it on the ground for another 10kts then that means a greater take-off run and a greater take-off distance. By definition that means you are not using the short field technique, so it is not appropriate for use in a short field situation. Do what it says in the book.
NS

[Tinstaafl]

The technique specified in the manual in all nosewheel light aircraft I've flown is something like:

* Configure the a/c as required
* Hold the a/c on the brakes while applying full power. Confirm that the correct RPM & MP is achieved.
* After brake release accelerate & rotate at the speed specified in the chart to achieve Vtoss by 50'
* Retract gear & flap as scheduled
* Climb at Vx until clear of obstacles.

If you choose to accelerate beyond the specified speed(s) you will have a reduced t/o performance. It's a fallacy to think that doing so improves take off performance OR is necessary to avoid operating behind the power curve. Unlike jets, light a/c aren't behind the power curve after take-off & during climb out.

If they were then rotating at a faster speed would improve performance unless the limiting obstacle is very close - in which case the manufacturer would want to include such things in the performance chart to maximise their claims for the aircraft.

If you rotate at a lower speed than specified then you risk being behind the power curve & reducing take off performance. Some a/c have sufficient power to do this and still improve the take off performance. You lose handling quality protections & buffers built into the scheduled speeds however.

There are considerations & techniques that can be used that are outside the manufacturer's manual but try explaining to the insurers & the CAA if you stuff it up & damage the a/c...

[QDMQDMQDM]

<<There are considerations & techniques that can be used that are outside the manufacturer's manual but try explaining to the insurers & the CAA if you stuff it up & damage the a/c...>>

If you stuff it up, then it is a case of whatever you were actually doing you say "I was flying by the book, M'lud." You're hardly likely to say "Yes, I rotated 10 knots too early / late."

Of course, if the aircraft was overweight / out of CG that won't wash!

QDM

[Sunfish]

ODMQDM you are either not a pilot, or you are dangerously misinformed.

Point (1) GPS groundspeed has absolutely nothing to do with setting yourself up for a good landing, its airspeed thats critical. There is no role for Gps in landing except getting you to the vicinity of the field.

Point (2) The aircraft stall speed increases with the mass of the aircraft, however the Vs quoted in the manual is at max weight

Point (3) Aircraft these days are relatively predictable beasts, refined by geniuses for us idiots to fly. If you stuff it up, then its because you didn't do it by the book - the question then becomes - were you a simple idiot or did you do it deliberately? 10 knots by the way is unforgiveable, 5 knots maybe. By the way, lieing to the authorities is a 'crime involving dishonesty" that at least over here will put your licence, as well as your aviation security identification card (ASIC) renewal in jeopardy

Most schools teach using a reference speed of 1.2 or 1.3 Vs over the fence, however if you are even two or three knots over that in a Cessna you will bounce and float forever.

Best advice is to read the Pilots Operating Handbook and do exactly what it says, otherwise as wiser folks have said, you are your own test pilot.

"bouncing" the aircraft by fiddling with the flaps on takeoff is also a recipe for disaster, you should be concentrating on speed and attitude, not fiddling with a switch or a johansen bar.

do what the manual says no more and no less.

[stiknruda]

Sunfish,

you obviously have too much time on your hands - almost a thousand and a half of posts in less than two years....

I saw the flaming that you got on Mil Pilots.

QDMx3 (David, great doctor, great GA pilot) really can fly.


Albeit some of the stuf that you wrote was bonzer, some wasn't, so my suggestion would be; read what was being written in context and then you might want to wind your neck in a bit!

Stik

[Sunfish]

Looking at GPS speed on approach?
Confusion over stall speed?
Advocating lieing?

I think not.

Best advice is from NorthSouth do it by the book

[Sunfish]

On a more serious note, either do a course, or you might like to consider setting up a sort of "navex' that takes you to five or six different strips.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Wow, sunfish, you need to chill out a bit mate.

The book can quote whatever stall speed it likes. The indicated speed your particular aircraft stalls at is another matter. In my aircraft, which is a Super Cub, the ASI is not all that reliable down at stall speeds and low speed flying is a lot about how the aircraft 'feels'. That is critically dependent on weight. You ignore the weight of your aircraft in strip flying at your peril, both on the approach and obviously on take-off.

GPS groundspeed on approach is an extremely useful indicator when going into a very short strip and here's someone else who thinks so: http://cubdriver749er.com/

Airspeed 45 knots, groundspeed 45 knots is one thing. Airspeed 45 knots, groundspeed 40 knots is a completely different thing. A glance at the Pilot III on the dash when going into somewhere really short can be a reassuring, wonderful thing: picture looks right, plane feels right, airspeed is right, groundspeed is right, let's keep going.

QDM

[Sunfish]

My apologies QDMQDM, I didn't realise you drive a Cub. I am somewhat sensitive to this issue after learning the hard way about what happens when you land a Cessna even a few knots too fast - $1500 insurance excess on a new firewall.

I am now a strong believer in "the book" and practicing with rearward CG and at gross weight as well. One thing I wish for is that performance charts were of a standardised layout - Cessna's seem about the most comprehensive, I also wish that the use of "factored" (ie +15%) and "non factored" charts was discontinued because its confusing. The most incomprehensible charts I've seen are the good old Tobago's.

[wombat13]

[B]Wombat[B] suggested to lift off and fly in the ground effect to bulid up speed. Would it not be safer to leave the main wheels on the ground (provided you have the runway distance) in case of crosswind, gusts, aborting the take off etc, instead of wallowing around in the ground effect in a low speed/high drag situation?
I know there are many variables e.g. wind, weight, temp & pressure etc but is there one "safer" method for take offs?

Ronnie, one of the problems with asking a question on the forum, particularly a question of such importance as short field take off technique, is that you will inevitably get contradictory answers and as has happened in this case, things do go off at a tangent.

I watched the spat sunfish / QDM and this made me rethink what I told you. In the case of my advice, deploying flap just before rotating into the ground effect is, perhaps, best left until you have a bit more experience. Deploy prior to the roll. In both cases however, get it up into the ground effect at the advised speed. The ability of the aircraft to accelerate when in the ground effect is better than with wheels on the ground. When you reach speed to achieve a positive rate of climb, "rotate" a second time and up you go. Speeds for this in the Archer I fly are 45kts rotate into the ground effect (with 2 stages of flap), increase speed in the straight and level until 65 kts, then climb - still with flap. 500 ft, get rid of flap in stages.

Regarding using a gps to assist with shortfield landings is again, something I would suggest left until you have more experience. Whilst QDM may suggest a "glance" at the gps speed indicator prior to landing, the truth of the matter is that it is one more thing to worry about in what is already a high workload scenario. Leave it until you have a better idea of what you are doing.

When I learned STOL, (and I don't include in learning the five minutes you get during your PPL training) I found a FI who had a good reputation for such things. He started me off on a 600 mtr hard surface and only after I had nailed it (about four attempts) did he take me to the 450 mtr grass strip.

I must confess that I find STOL very very rewarding and get a buzz out of pulling up after a good short field landing. In fact, I am still amazed in how short a distance you can bring an aircraft to a full stop when doing it correctly.

Enjoy

The Wombat

[FlyingForFun]

I know there are many variables e.g. wind, weight, temp & pressure etc but is there one "safer" method for take offs?It depends on the aircraft type, too. That's why the best advice is to follow the advice in the book.

I learnt to fly on PA28s. My instructor taught me to do a short-field take-off by holding the controls fully back and getting the aircraft airborne asap, then holding it in ground effect. This technique works perfectly well on a PA28. I then tried it on a C152, and found that holding the controls fully back in a C152 results in a sufficient increase in drag that the aircraft will not get airborne. Fortunately, I was on a long runway when I discovered this.

(Incidentally, although I don't fly PA28s all that regularly any more and never into short fields, I don't believe the technique I've described is what the book says, so it's not what I would teach either. But it does demonstrate nicely that a technique which works well on one aircraft type might not work on another.)

FFF
--------------

[MichaelJP59]

GPS groundspeed on approach is an extremely useful indicator when going into a very short strip and here's someone else who thinks so: http://cubdriver749er.com/

I've just watched the videos on that site, and am staggered that he can land in places like that! How on earth does he know he can take off again??

[QDMQDMQDM]

I should have clarified when talking about using GPS groundspeed that most of my landings are in places without windsocks. Most of the time you can assess wind directly from track across the ground, but when the wind is light it is useful to have a GPS groundspeed readout.

QDM

[Tarq57]

There are many possible variables to take into account, and what might be right on one day, wrong on the next.
Getting it airborne, or at least getting the nosewheel up early, is appropriate for long grass or soft (draggy) surface. Once free of the drag, accelerate as stated above (to what airline pilots, who do this every time they fly) call v2, then climb.This should take only a very few seconds. On a firm strip, that's not necessary, and in fact can be counterproductive, as the increased drag produced by high AoA wings will reduce acceleration.
For landing, as stated above, speed control is all-important. Since there is reduced margin to counter windsheer etc, very wise to become sensitive to that phenomenon, at those low speeds, in a safe environment first. Practise doing minimum-speed steady-rate descents at altitude. Chuck in a turn or two. Learn to feel when the controls get sloppy.(Or sloppier). Most light singles have a mediocre power/weight ratio, so get a negative gust on short final, with a heavy load, at min speed, be very ready to use all the throttle. For this reason, deselect carb heat at least above 100'.
Some lighties (eg the 172) were originally recommended to climb for obstacle clearance at 1.2 Vs; this changed to 1.3 when the certification requirements changed about 20-25 yr ago. My point being that if you are capable, the aeroplane can be made to perform better than the book says it can. I've tried this and it works. (Not recommended in a slab-wing cherokee, though.)
IMO the 182 pilot in the sad video dragged it off the ground prematurely, losing directional control in the process, and was partially stalled for about the next 6 seconds (I reckon the right wing drop after liftoff was the beginning of a wing drop stall) and once clear of the buildings was pretty
much completely stalled.
Best advice, go to a few strips with a good instructor. Get happy in operating into them,in a variety of weight/weather conditions.
What sort of a/c is it you'll be using?

[ronnie3585]

Just watched the video of the Super Cubs landing on the gravel spits...WOW my jaw is still on the floor!
How do they take off again? Especially the guy that used the river to begin his landing roll!

[ronnie3585]

What sort of a/c is it you'll be using?

It was a 172R but just upgraded to a 172SP. Its better for STOL as you really notice the extra 20hp on take off.

Re my previous post, maybe I over estimated a bit when I said I would hold it on the ground for an extra 10kts, its more like five.

I cant but agree about nailing the approach speed. A flying buddy of mine recently left very big skid marks on a very small runway! Was too high and too fast but committed anyway...bloody stupid of him but at least he walked away with no damage done.

[pulse1]

That's why the best advice is to follow the advice in the book.


The POH in my PA28 says absolutely nothing about short field take off. All it says is that the normal T/O procedure is, no flap, full power and rotate at 74 mph. This is the configuration for the take off performance data in the POH.

However, on grass, I was trained to use 2 stages of flap , rotate at 65 mph and accelerate in ground effect to 74. Many years ago I was taught, in extreme cases, to increase flap to full at 60 mph and then gradually reduce back to 2 stages while accelerating in ground effect. I was also taught this, incidentally, as a rough water technique in a Cub float plane. I have never done it without an instructor in either case.

Can anyone tell me what effect the use of 2 stages of flap is likely to have on take off distance. I still use the normal calculation in the book because its the only one I've got.

[FlyingForFun]

Can anyone tell me what effect the use of 2 stages of flap is likely to have on take off distanceAs a general rule, flap allows you to rotate at a slower speed, which has the effect of reducing the ground roll.

However, the extra drag from the flap will reduce climb performance. (Remember that an aircraft climbs because it has more thrust than drag - so any extra drag reduces the amount of thrust available to climb with.) Which is why many aircraft's POH give the option of different amount of flaps depending on whether there are obstacles at the end of the short field (use less flap) or not (use more flap).The POH in my PA28 says absolutely nothing about short field take offStrange - I'm sure mine does, but as I said, it's been a little while since I last looked. I'm pretty sure it suggests 2 stages of flap and a lower rotate speed..... but maybe my memory has failed me?

FFF
---------------

[QDMQDMQDM]

All aircraft are different, natch.

In the Super Cub full flap pops you off the deck into ground effect like a cork and then best angle climb is at a truly terrifying 45mph with full flap. What happens if the engine fails in that attitude at 100 feet does not bear thinking about.

QDM

[Tinstaafl]

Pulse1

The book doesn't specifically mention a short field procedure because the one given *is* the short field procedure. The technique specified meets certification criteria about handling qualities, speed buffers etc. Other techniques may get the a/c off the ground earlier - although not necessarily clear an obstacle further along, or may clear a higher obstacle nearby but usually do so at the expense of losing protective speed buffers or reduced handling qualities.

Landing techiques have the same caveats.

Do other techiques work? Sure, but you'd better be very sure of your skills & judgement. My previous job required me to fly into strips as short as 380 m, often in strong turbulence & with obstacles nearby, sometimes at night for air ambulance in rather nasty weather. There are times when operating on the very edge of the performance ability of the a/c will get you in or out, but there will be an increased risk.

[Sunfish]

For goodness sake, do it by the book!

For what its worth, here is what my Piper Arrow manual says:

"Short field takeoff with an obstaccle or soft field differs slightly........Flaps should be lowered to 25 degrees (second notch)....allow the aircraft to accelerate to 50 to 60 knots depending on aircraft weight and rotate to climb attitude. After breaking ground accelerate to 55 to 65 knots and select gear up. Continue accelrating etc etc.

As for landing, all they say is for short field is full flap and enough power to maintain approach speed (75 knots). Reduce speed during the flareout and contact the ground close to the stalling speed (55 knots). It then goes on to talk about holding the nose wheel off, putting weight on the mains and raising flaps. It then cautions about using partial or no flaps in high wind or crosswind conditions.

From memory the Warrior manual says much the same thing, except I can't remember if you use flaps at all.

Please be very very cautious about instructors who show you a "special" technique unless they are old and very experienced and can explain in detail how and why the procedure works.

Remember that most training is done at well below max weight and what works when your instructor demonstrates it may not work so well when you have Mum and the two kids on board.

Please note that in a Cessna 210 (laminar flow wing) if you rotate too early you will simply traverse the entire length of the airstrip before hitting the fence.

There are a few other interesting ways to get killed, like getting a little too slow on approach and falling out of the back of the drag curve.

As for applying flap during the takeoff roll, you are asking for trouble. One day you will either forget because you are dealing with some other problem, or something will occur just as you reach down for the switch or the bar. I've already nearly been killed by a sticky Cessna flap switch and I don't take my eyes off the runway just to check if the flaps are extending. Things can happen very fast and you don't need to add unnecessarily to your own workload pulling this trick. The gravel strips I've used require all your attention just to keep the aircraft pointing in the right direction and on "centreline"

For goodness sake, use the book!

[stiknruda]

For goodness sake, use the book!

All very well and good if there is a book. Thankfully not all of us have to fly Piper Arrows.

As for applying flap during the takeoff roll, you are asking for trouble. One day you will either forget because you are dealing with some other problem, or something will occur just as you reach down for the switch or the bar. I've already nearly been killed by a sticky Cessna flap switch and I don't take my eyes off the runway just to check if the flaps are extending. Things can happen very fast and you don't need to add unnecessarily to your own workload pulling this trick. The gravel strips I've used require all your attention just to keep the aircraft pointing in the right direction and on "centreline"


Let's face it, ace, you've already confessed to putting one in aeroplane in hospital, perhaps you are not the next Chuck Yeager and might be better off finding a less challenging hobby, may I suggest cross-stitch?


Neck-winding-in mechanism obviously an optional extra for you?



Stik

[RatherBeFlying]

TSB Accident Report
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98o0190/a98o0190.asp
Aviation Occurrence Report
Stall/Collision with Trees on Take-off
Piper PA 28-151 C-GDVL
Espanola West, Ontario
27 July 1998
Report Number A98O0190
Summary
The pilot and three passengers were departing in the Piper PA 28, serial No. 28-7615332, on a visual flight rules (VFR) flight from Espanola West to Ottawa, Ontario. The runway surface was grass on uneven, sandy soil, made soft from recent rain. The pilot made two excursions down the runway before the aircraft became airborne on the third excursion. After the aircraft got airborne, it struck trees to the left of the departure path and crashed into a wooded area. An intense, post-crash, fuel-fed fire immediately broke out which consumed the cabin of the aircraft. One passenger, an infant, perished in the aircraft fire. The pilot and the other two passengers escaped the burning aircraft and were found about 40 feet from the wreckage by ambulance and fire-fighting personnel. They were transported to hospital where they died later from burns.
There was another airport North of Espanola where the runway was sand. Taxy with 3 aboard fully fueled C-172 took considerable revs. Stationary runup was not done to avoid sand ingestion. Started with stick full back and kept nosewheel off sand. Did not accelerate past 40 kt. Lowered nose as recommended in pre-takeoff discussion with local CFI, Bernie Cryderman, and lifted off. No rising terrain and trees cleared considerable distance past runway -- thanks Bernie:ok:

The one good thing about sand was that you needed less than 100 yards to abort -- without braking.

[Say again s l o w l y]

People seem to be mixing up short field and soft field. These require two different techniques.

Soft field, you pop the a/c up into ground affect to accelerate, whereas with a short field you use standard techniques for take off, except you are rotating at a lower speed than normal and using a higher flap setting (generally...). Plus if needs be when lining up on the strip, if you need to, then shut down and push the machine back into the hedge as far as it'll go before commencing you take off run. With a soft field, one of the major issues is don't stop or you'll sink!

If you are half way competent, there is no problems with putting flap down just before rotation. That is a normal thing, especially if you operate from rocky or very short strips where you need every ounce of acceleration.

Pulling a couple of great big flaps through the air is never going to help your rate of acceleration!

[Sunfish]

Be my guest sticknruda, I learned a lot from creasing a Cessna:

(1) Not all instructors know everything.

(2) Read the %^&*ing book and follow its instructions.

Pulling the flaps out during rotation is asking for trouble. For a start on a Piper, you need to reach down to the floor. On a Cessna you need to either place a switch in a particular setting (you cannot rely on those little plastic ridges) or hold a switch down while watching an indicator. Quite a lot of C172's don't even use flap on short field anyway. All you need is for some other problem to appear while you are performing this act and you are stuffed.

But go right ahead and develop your own technique. Its not as if anyone took any care writing the manual, you obviously know better.

[wombat13]

Ronnie, one of the problems with asking a question on the forum, particularly a question of such importance as short field take off technique, is that you will inevitably get contradictory answers and as has happened in this case, things do go off at a tangent.
I watched the spat sunfish / QDM and this made me rethink what I told you. In the case of my advice, deploying flap just before rotating into the ground effect is, perhaps, best left until you have a bit more experience. Deploy prior to the roll.
The Wombat

I tried, without success, to pour some oil on what has rapidly become a urinating competition. Ronnie, to try and encapsulate the best of what has been suggested:

Understand the correct technique for your aircraft.
Read up on STOL (both short and soft) for your aircraft.
Find a FI who can instruct.
Try deploying flap both before and during the roll - settle with what you are comfortable with. The difference will be only a few fields you won't be able to use.
Don't be afraid to ask the FI to "test" the speed tolerence of your aircraft. The POH is vital as a "get out of jail card", but for sucessful STOL, experimenting with an FI beside you could save your life later.

It takes some balls to come on the forum and admit bending an aircraft. The sh1t that is being poured on Sunfish by one or two people for doing this is representative of appalling ignorance and does not help.

A wise man learns from his mistakes. A very wise man learns from other mens mistakes.

Let's keep the forum as a place where we all can continue to share and learn.

The Wombat

[englishal]

Pulling the flaps out during rotation is asking for trouble
It's what my POH suggest for "really" short field - "Extend flaps after the beginning of the take off run"....Anyway, I highly recommend Leading Edge slats ;)

An examiner once showed me a SF landing in a 2000 172SP. We touched the runway right at the end, and were stopped in about 100m. He came in at 50kts, and just flew it into the ground and stood on the breaks. Never knew a 172 could do that......

[Saab Dastard]

An examiner once showed me a SF landing in a 2000 172SP. We touched the runway right at the end, and were stopped in about 100m. He came in at 50kts, and just flew it into the ground and stood on the breaks. Never knew a 172 could do that......

englishal, when I was taught short field landings in a Warrior (161), the trick was to to get onto the back of the drag curve, with the final approach flown with a rather nose-high attitude, lots of power keeping the descent rate in check, no flare as such - the nose is already high! Then chop the power when just above the runway, and jam on the brakes! Very much "flying it on"!

My personal best was getting the stall warner just going off on short final, touching down on the displaced threshold and stopping before the PAPIs.
SD

[Dude~]

Sunfish, I often point out the GPS ground speed to students when they are on final approach. Why? Because in high wind conditions for example a 30kt headwind on approach will result in a much steeper angle of descent if descending at a normal rate.

My point being is that if a student does not 'think wind' they can easily end up very low on approach.

[QDMQDMQDM]

The pilot made two excursions down the runway before the aircraft became airborne on the third excursion.

Here's the best lesson from this thread: three attempts at take-off is too many. The Elizabethan in the Munich aircrash made two aborted take-offs before its final, fatal attempt.

On the flaps issue, using flap in various ways and indeed putting it on during the take-off roll are standard techniques in a variety of aircraft. There is no controversy.

People seem to get rather stressy that a novice may read advice on this forum, go away and try it and end up in the trees. Indeed they may, but more fool them. If you get your licence and you still don't realise that flying is waiting to bite you then you deserve all you get. On the other hand, we all need to learn ways of expanding our personal flight envelopes and I have certainly learnt a very great deal from this forum and others, especially www.supercub.org.

Today on the radio an MP was introducing a bill to limit (yes, by law!) domestic hot water temp to 48 degrees so that babies don't get scalded. Many of us fly because it gives a feeling of release and freedom from this kind of BS we have to put up with in society today. Don't let's infuse flying with the same neurotic over-protection.

Yrs,

SafetyQDM

[robin]

I'm sorry, but this seems to be a distraction. The groundspeed is an irrelevance in keeping the aircraft in the air and not stalling.

Certainly on short finals, it is the 'picture' and how it changes that has to be monitored. On finals you have to monitor the picture and the airspeed. To switch to read the digital output on a GPS would seem to be dangerous. I was always taught that once at base, don't look into the cockpit except for quick checks on airspeed.

There are lots of other signals to indicate wind direction, drift and ground-speed - such as smoke from chimneys when approaching the destination - which would help in planning your arrival

Add to that a decent circuit and, if necessary a go-around, I see no need to even switch the GPS on.

Having flown at Camphill and Nympsfield you are taught to recognise what will happen in a strong wind, and adjust your circuit accordingly. I can't believe anyone teaches the use of GPS groundspeed. Wasn't it quoted as a possible cause of the crash at Blackbushe?

[QDMQDMQDM]

robin,

In heavy winds you're right, but in light winds, with no windsock, into a very short strip GPS groundspeed is very useful. It is. One of the fields I take the cub into is 240m with an 8-10 foot hedgebank at either end. In that context, 5mph of wind is significant, especially if it is on your tail. Judging a light breeze like that is not easy, at least I don't find it so and certainly round here local wind direction is very variable. Many factors dictate whether an approach will end up in a good landing and wind direction and speed are critical. The more marginal the situation, the more critical is the wind and the more useful becomes GPS groundspeed. By choice, I wouldn't do without it.

This all relates to low land flat field ops. If you are in the mountains, then the wind issues are different and runway slope will dictate approach speed and ultimate stopping distance.

QDM

P.S. Real Supercub pilots would think me a girl's blouse for saying that 240m is short!

[robin]

QDM

I hear what you say, but as a glider pilot I have never even thought of using the GPS for this purpose. I'm not sure it is even capable of resolving ground speed to that accuracy (well my one isn't)

And with my eyesight, looking down into the dark cockpit to resolve a small digital readout and then looking back up into the brightness just seems bad news to me.

I've gone into some short fields, but to me a properly setup and managed approach is what counts, not the numbers

I have flown a Cub into short fields on occasion, but, as I say, it is the view that counts, and with a powered jobby you can always go around, or do a low pass first if you aren't sure.

However, I will bow to your better judgement and experience

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, I wish to point out the logical fallacies going on here and my slavish devotion to "the book".

Some have suggested that "the book" includes procedures that are capable of being followed by pilots of low skill levels and that superior beings are free to practice other procedures which produce superior results. In one case, someone even posted that they could get much better performance from their aircraft than the performance charts indicated by using different procedures from those specified!

This is deceptive. As my arrow manual says :"(the performance detailed herein)...can be duplicated by following the stated procedures in a properly maintained aeroplane". In other words they are repeatable, if you adhere to them, they work every time. I mean it quite literally when I quote an instructor who wrote;" If you don't follow the book you are literally your own test pilot." In other words, they are repeatable.

To put it yet another way, the flight envelope (remember that lift/drag/ attitude thing?) has been established in conjunction with the procedures in the book. Use any other procedure near the edge of the envelope and you risk disaster. It was this unknown territory that claimed an acquiantance of mine, a highly experienced former leader of the fleet air arm (Australian Navy) who was helping a mate test fly his experimental turbine powered Lancair. They were testing its stalling behaviour and on the third stall they entered what appears to have been an unrecoverable spin.

The tone of one or two posts here seems to suggest an even lower level of experience than I've got, or a flippant attitude to safety, which bugs me enough to reply in the first place. I try and do at least one short gravel strip a month to keep my hand in. These strips are about fifteen feet wide with a high crown and one of them has rising terrain, trees and powerlines quite close to one end.

They require great concentration, as well as instant reactions if things are not going to plan. These strips, and thousands like them, are definitely not places to be reaching for a Flap switch or Johansen bar at fifty knots. During your takeoff roll, your right hand should be holding in the throttle/prop/mixture and nowhere else. Your eyes should be on either on your airspeed or your abort point (rule of thumb - 70% speed at halfway), or the windsock.

Here's a tip, next time you do a flight review, tell your examiner that you can get better performance from the aircraft than whats published in the book, and that you have some real great non-standard procedures to achieve them that you are going to demonstrate to him, and see what happens next.

PS: QDM,

"Today on the radio an MP was introducing a bill to limit (yes, by law!) domestic hot water temp to 48 degrees so that babies don't get scalded. Many of us fly because it gives a feeling of release and freedom from this kind of BS we have to put up with in society today. Don't let's infuse flying with the same neurotic over-protection."


QDM, there is by law in, at least this State in Australia, a thing called a tempering valve, installed in all new homes, that limits maximum water temperature to around 48 degrees by mixing hot and cold. The valve costs about forty dollars.

Its fitment was requested by pediatric burns surgeons, hardly purveyors of "neurotic over-protection" after considerable research into both the causes of pediatric burns and the cost/benefit of doing something about it.

We were also the first State in the world to require seatbelts be fitted to cars.

Good luck with your Cub, I'll continue to neurotically stay within the boundaries of the flight envelope and the specifed procedures.

[FullyFlapped]

This is a non-argument. Sunfish is absolutely corrrect : his "by the book and nothing else" policy will (hopefully) ensure that he flies safely, and that if anything does go wrong, he won't get the book thrown at him. Good luck to him.

Then again ... two weeks ago at Cranfield my plane landed with absolutely no problems in a cross wind of exactly twice the "demonstrated maximum limit" specified in the POH. I've often heard people say that this limit is simply there to cover the manufacturer's backside, a philosophy born of the litigious '80s in the US.

Which does tend to make you wonder ... after all, I've flown with a lot of very experienced guys who do things which defy the manual, and I'm still here. I'm not saying this is the way to go, I'm just stating facts.

Looking at my X-wind example, and watching these guys do their "non-POH" things, has made me wonder how much of the POH actually reflects real aircraft limitations, and how much "don't sue me" margin is built in to many POH "limits" ...

Let me say quite clearly that if you're a new or low-houred pilot, and you decide not to follow the POH to the letter, I think you're stupid. If you decide to try out a new "technique" simply because you've read about it on this forum, without actually flying with someone with the requisite experience first, you're equally stupid. But would I slate the guy who showed me how to really get my plane out of a short, very soft field recently, using techniques which don't appear anywhere in my POH ?

Well, perhaps when I've got 12,000 hours as well ... :rolleyes:

Fly safely,

FF :ok:

[QDMQDMQDM]

sunfish,

The official POH of my Super Cub contains precisely nothing whatsoever regarding flying techniques in different situations. Zilch. What do you suggest I do, therefore? Stay on the ground.

And the idea that reaching for the flap lever on take-off is somehow dangerous is preposterous. You really have no idea and I am not sure why I am rising to this. I suggest the real barrier to safety is your blinkered attitude, not people using tried and tested techniques to get the maximum performance out of their aircraft..

QDM

P.S. I am very glad I do not live in a place which limits hot water temperature by law. If vehicle speed was limited to 10mph there would be fewer road deaths and presumably orthopaedic surgeons would then be as happy as paediatric surgeons are in your state.

[Sunfish]

Good luck to you QDM, lets hope you never expereince flap assymettry while using your "technique"

[jabberwok]

This is a non-argument. Sunfish is absolutely corrrect : his "by the book and nothing else" policy will (hopefully) ensure that he flies safely, and that if anything does go wrong, he won't get the book thrown at him. Good luck to him.

Of course this assumes every aircraft has a book to follow and that it covers all situations. They possibly do now since Product Liability reared its ugly head but don't expect to find much in books written for earlier aircraft. The handbook for the Leopard Moth is laughable.

If we all had to fly by the book most of the aircraft at Old Warden would be grounded - and most are a lot nastier than your average spamcan.

[Sunfish]

I suspect that "the book" for older aircraft is simply the techniques of the flying syllabus of the day. I suspect that the Cubs "book" probably not be much different from the book "Stick and Rudder" or the military ab initio training syllabus of the day. So its nonsense to say they should be grounded.

As for lowering flaps during takeoff roll, you are asking for trouble along the lines of what happened to the guys mentioned in the report referenced below. It describes resulting accidents as well when either the flaps choose that moment to fail to extend or have simply been forgetten because of workload.

"Being suspicious of such claims in increased takeoff performance, I spoke with an Air Tractor representative who confirmed that not only was this takeoff procedure improper, but the theory behind making such a departure is untrue; the drag created by the wing flaps is negligible during this phase of operation, and will not decrease the takeoff distance by a measurable amount."


http://www.agairupdate.com/aau/articles/Other/FlapEnglish.html


Flappy, I'm surprised that your manual contains a "demonstrated Maximum Crosswind limit". Mine simply states "Demonstrated Crosswind Component", and I was taught that this is indeed not a limit, but only what has been demonstrated. If your coordination is very good or you get a lucky gust, you can sometimes do better than whats been demonstrated, but again of course you are being your own test pilot.

[FullyFlapped]

Sunfish, the last lines of your quoted text :-

Editor’s Note: The opinion of this author does not necessarily reflect the opinion of AgAir Update. It should be noted that lowering flaps before takeoff may be a safer practice, as per the preceding accident reports. However, it does not preclude that lowering flaps midway during a takeoff roll will reduce the takeoff distance.

Now why is this included, I wonder ? Does it mean that they disagree with the author's statements ? Or are they perhaps just trying to stop themselves getting sued by some smart-ar*ed lawyer ? Hang on - didn't I say something similar very recently ? :)

FF :ok:

PS : Calling me "Flappy" - does this mean we're engaged ?:p

[wombat13]

If your coordination is very good or you get a lucky gust, you can sometimes do better than whats been demonstrated, but again of course you are being your own test pilot.

Sunfish, I have been at pains to understand where you are coming from on this thread, but your comment on x wind maximums is simply too much.

I put an Archer down in Bussleton WA last month with a recorded x wind component of 28kts. There was no lucky gust and at 120 hours I don't consider my coordination to be very good.

My difficulty up to this statement was what I felt was QDM's somewhat cavalier attitude and that yes, some idiot stude would take what he was saying and give it a go - irrespective of their experience.

Your comment on x wind maximums and not exceeding them is simply too slavish.

The Crown tasted pretty good that evening.

The Wombat

[Sunfish]

I'm sure the crownie tasted good Wombat, I've had a similar experience at Broken Hill. I was taught that the crosswind thing is "demonstrated" and you do not need to head for an alternate if the crosswind is up there.

The "demonstrated" seems to me to be a function of the rudder authority for a classical sideslip type arrival, but it doesn't allow for the alternate "crab till the last minute and then get straight" type of landing. In theory you can land in just about any crosswind with this technique.

Older and bolder instructors have demonstrated to me:

(1) Taxiiing the full length of the runway with nose gear off ground.

(2) Landing with windward main wheel alone until well below stallling speed.

These appear to be good exercises in aircraft control.

To be fair, there are a number of ways to satisfy the "book" requirements.

Furthermore, where i fly from, a decent crosswind is regarded as a training bonus,

[djpil]

sunfish,
I am very glad I do not live in a place which limits hot water temperature by law. It is quite frustrating, especially for those of us who live in the mountains and use that water for heating in the home. Another thing is the law about a fence around my outdoor spa pool - council inspected after installation - nothing said about the swift creek across the road or the lake around the corner. Can't chop down trees without permission. Asked the council to chop down a dangerous tree but no response so when the crash came in the middle of the night I checked that no-one was injured then gave them another phone call. Still, I've lived in UK and USA and I could probably think of a few things to whinge about there too.
And another thing - the holder of the certificate of registration is responsible, by a specific law, to provide pilots with adequate information for safe operation of their aircraft. So, when Sunfish comes to fly my Decathlon he'll find my notes recommending that certain parts of the POM be disregarded.
eg "Approach airspeed - 55 mph" compared to a book stall speed of 53 mph. It does note, however, "A relatively high rate of descent is possible ..."

[Tarq57]

Could well be wrong, here, because I'm paraphrasing what I read in a publication a while back, but the demonstrated x-wind component is related to the side load the gear will handle without damage (plus a margin) and the aeroplane remain controllable, if the aircraft is landed without drift correction at that crosswind component. (Any volunteers to test that one?):}
By a happy coincidence, that often seems to coincide with the maximum sideslip speed (side-ways speed) available at landing speed with full rudder.
I think it was a flight safety type journal; the article concerned how limits are determined for initial certification.
And, if remembered/interpreted correctly, explains at least in part, why so many of us can put one down relatively elegantly in more than the book crosswind. Especially if a higher than normal landing speed is used.
And right or wrong, wise or not-so, many aeroclubs I've been a member of had a lot of members, and often instructors, who were interested in relishing the difficult and trying out different ways of doing things. Not in a stupid, unplanned way, but in a thought-out, pre-planned way. (Well, sometimes not) And if it wasn't for attitudes similar to this, aviation just wouldn't progress much; improved procedures would evolve more slowly.
Re "jacking" the aircraft off the ground with flap, this is something I've tried, but would only consider using with manual flaps. Very direct reponse; no chance of flap runaway (had that once), and the reverse works well, too, that is, to abrubtly retract the flaps immediately after the flare, if there is any tendency to float coz you're a couple of knots too fast, or you get a gust.
Once again, I wouldn't do that with electric flaps, coz they go up slowly enough that lift produced, for the first few seconds of retraction, at the flare attitude, actually seems to increase briefly, then decrease slowly. Makes sense...if the wing is almost stalled flaring to land, then the area above the flaps is probably well and truly stalled, or at least closer to it. Raising them slowly might unstall the flaps, giving the aircraft an extra few seconds of float when it is least wanted. Plus of course, if at that point you need/decide to overshoot, you (or I) don't want the flaps retracting through 15 degrees on the way to nought. But with manual flaps, it can be real useful, and a tip I first heard about from an experienced bush pilot.
It seems though that this business of leaving the flaps up then lowering them at rotate probably wouldn't shorten the takeoff very much, because they simply ain't that draggy until a bit of speed has built up. I can't say for sure I've noticed any difference, it's just something I've played with a bit. The early 172's with the four-notch levers were real good in this regard, and gave the impression of using less distance,and with a more willing unstick.
I think PAFL has more to do with takeoff distance, than at what point during takeoff you lower the flaps.:E
Oh, by the way, in our little nanny-state, the hot water is limited to about 55 Celcius.:*

[LowNSlow]

I was told by a very experienced ex-ag pilot with many thousands of hours in his log books that setting second stage of flap (25 deg) in the Auster when the tail was up would pop her into the air. I'm waiting for a relatively crossswind free day to give it a try.

One trick I have found useful in the Auster (which has quite effective split flaps) is that, after landing with full flap (third stage about 40 deg), it is advisable to get them retracted as soon as possible as they blank the airflow over the rudder when the tail is down. This is probably why it is inadvisable to select second stage flap when starting the take off roll.

[Andy_RR]

I suspect a lot of the disagreement in this thread is due to the cultural differences between the UK and Australia.

By way of background to my opinions, I have done my GFPT in WA and have done some 20-odd hours flying training in the UK.

Australians have an obsession with following rules and fixing things with legislation, hence many of Sunfish's arguments, Student Pilot's Licences ASICs, wire fences around GA aerodromes, compulsory throttle locks, mandatory bathwater temperature and policemen behind every bush with radar devices.

The Brits, on the other hand follow the 'rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools' mentality. They allow you to solo with only a medical, leave planes unlocked in an open field with the keys on the coaming, use many non-standard approaches to airfields and, it seems to me, generally have a lot more variation to deal with than Aussie pilots. Oh, and if you're lucky enough to have a shower in your house, you can crank the temperature right up! :)

Maybe I'll change my opinion as my hours accrue, but I suspect it may be just reinforced.

A

[Tim Inder]

Very interesting post Andy.
Not having been out to "the colonies" myself, I think that the general impression we are fed over here is the complete opposite of that, with us all wearing pinstripe suits and bowler hats moaning about the weather and the Gov't and the Aussies all doing pretty much what they want in the sunshine wering a pair of old KD shorts! (and feeling obliged to beat the sh1te out of petty bureaucrats whilst swigging VB :)

[High Wing Drifter]

It seems the Paspalum Notatum is always greener on the other side of the fence :D

[shortstripper]

I thought Australia was so bl@@dy big that short strips couldn't possibly exist? :p :E

SS

[Sunfish]

I think that's a bit over the top Andy, so I won't start an international p&*^^ing contest. I simply refer you to the old truism "There are old pilots and bold pilots...". I am simply acutely aware of the human capacity to stuff things up, having reached the relatively advanced age of 55 and stuffed many things up in many fields, fortunately without getting anyone killed or injured, in the army, working for an airline and an aerospace company and elsewhere.

As far as flying goes, I am gradually exploring the limits of the envelope, do a "recovery from unusual attitudes" course and an "outback flying" course.

It may be that the Auster pops into the air when you lower flap, it might even be in the handbook, but the advice I've seen in two places is that the savings in takeoff roll are negligible in most aircraft, if the flaps malfunction while lowering them you are history, and you don't need the workload at 40-50 knots if you really are on a short rough outback strip. Instead you should be watching for that errant Kangaroo:ok:

[pulse1]

setting second stage of flap (25 deg) in the Auster when the tail was up would pop her into the air.

LowNSlow,

Its a very long time since I've flown an Auster but the thought of trying to change the flap setting during the take off run amazes me. I seem to remember that it took both hands and teeth just to pull the handle out so that you could move it.

[Malcolm G O Payne]

Yes, there was a knack with operating the Auster flaps. As an instructor on them I got adept at reaching past the student and operating them from the right hand seat. I know I couldn't do it now, but it became second nature after a while.

[LowNSlow]

Sunfish the flaps on the Auster are manually actuated via a long lever above the left seaters left shoulder. As Pulse1 points out, the operation can be a bit difficult which is why I have not tried this "technique" yet. I feel that is better to be using the right hand to attempt to push the throttle through the firewall rather than faffing around with the flap lever. If the throttle friction let the throttle retard it would overcome any gains made by lowering flap apart from any potential control difficulties caused by reaching aross to the flap lever.