"Rotate" a C 182?
Totally agree Mike. I've been lucky enough to fly a few different types, and have also had a drink with some truly great aviators (Winkle Brown, Patty Wagstaff, Bill Dana, Bob Hoover etc etc) Possibly the best advice I ever recieved was from Bill, who said "fly the aircraft you're flying, on the day you're flying it." Sounds simple, but IMHO its quite profound, and is something more pilots would do well to learn.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best i.e safe way was always to hold it on the deck till a reasonable healthy speed was judged
Yes, it's their plane, and they have entitlement to treat it as they wish, but is it not appropriate to point out that the training that they had received might have been incomplete? In both cases, these two aircraft had been damaged through less than ideal pilot technique of the respective pilots - more than $50,000 damage to each aircraft, and months out of service. In both cases, the damage would not have occurred, had the nose been held light on the runway.
The only aircraft I have ever damaged while undertaking flight was a prop on a 182, because I did not hold the nose light - I learned my expensive lesson. Do I not owe a moral duty of care to my fellow fliers to allow them to share in my experience if they choose to?
Moderator
A few years back, while visiting a client, I spotted a lonely Viking in the back of his hangar:
I jokingly said to him, "if that needs a test flight, let me know". He thought for a minute, and said, "yeah it does, so take it for a run after lunch and report any snags". He'd called my bluff, now I had to check myself out in it. I read the flight manual, and though I was flying accordingly, it was with great caution, as my only exposure to a Viking was a right seat ride 30 years earlier.
I found it to be rather wheelbarrow like on takeoff, as I was letting it accelerate "fast plane" style, then lifting it off. After some practice, I found it was much more stable on the runway if I applied back pressure, so the rudder did more work than the nosewheel steering. I think that the nosewheel steering was sensitive, and the rudder used to that speed, and better damped.
I reported to my client what a super nice plane it was to fly (after I perfected my technique with practice, and an open mind). "Good" he said, "the new owner will need a checkout, you're up...."
As the photo also offers a 182 of a sort, I can say that you really want to keep those little nosewheels light, they can be heavily loaded, and get spinning really fast. You can over heat and tear off a tire if you're not gentle on them - ask me how I know!
As said, horses for courses, just know your plane!
I jokingly said to him, "if that needs a test flight, let me know". He thought for a minute, and said, "yeah it does, so take it for a run after lunch and report any snags". He'd called my bluff, now I had to check myself out in it. I read the flight manual, and though I was flying accordingly, it was with great caution, as my only exposure to a Viking was a right seat ride 30 years earlier.
I found it to be rather wheelbarrow like on takeoff, as I was letting it accelerate "fast plane" style, then lifting it off. After some practice, I found it was much more stable on the runway if I applied back pressure, so the rudder did more work than the nosewheel steering. I think that the nosewheel steering was sensitive, and the rudder used to that speed, and better damped.
I reported to my client what a super nice plane it was to fly (after I perfected my technique with practice, and an open mind). "Good" he said, "the new owner will need a checkout, you're up...."
As the photo also offers a 182 of a sort, I can say that you really want to keep those little nosewheels light, they can be heavily loaded, and get spinning really fast. You can over heat and tear off a tire if you're not gentle on them - ask me how I know!
As said, horses for courses, just know your plane!
I found it to be rather wheelbarrow like on takeoff, as I was letting it accelerate "fast plane" style, then lifting it off. After some practice, I found it was much more stable on the runway if I applied back pressure, so the rudder did more work than the nosewheel steering. I think that the nosewheel steering was sensitive, and the rudder used to that speed, and better damped.
If I ever get a Viking, which is an ambition of mine if life takes me in the right direction, I'll try taking off in the same way...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some confusion here over the technique of allowing the aircraft to fly off when it wants too and taking pressure off the nose during the takeoff.
Yes as soon as the rudder is alive there is no need for the nose to steer the aircraft and it is good practice to lighten the nose or even lift it during that roll.
That is very different to allowing the aircraft to become airborne when it chooses too near the stall.
In such a state the controls are less effective should you need control inputs to counter adverse situations.
On the approach to landing we normally use 1.3 times the stall in a given configuration there are reasons for that!
Partially to allow excess energy from the transition from a decent profile engine back to a landing configuration, partially to give more control authority for the final stages of landing and partially to add a safety zone above the stall for any pilot or weather related changes which could mean we do stall low level.
With gusts we normally increase the 1.3 to a higher figure half the gust speed onto that VREF speed.
I would increase that further in certain conditions as the winds and gusts are given at surface and could be much higher 200 to 500 feet up.
There was a good U tube on a light aircraft dropping a wing and crashing due to wake turbulence from a larger aircraft. Even in calm conditions wake turbulence could cause a problem at very slow speed and that problem is not just confined to turbulence from heavy aircraft as most of us will have experienced flying through someones slip stream from a light aircraft
We talked about AOA gauges in another thread.
In the Citation I fly it is quite possible to fly at just above the stall on approach but I would be very cautious about the conditions where I chose to do that as they would have to be very calm with very stable air.
I see little difference between this technique on takeoff and advising someone to approach from say 400 feet to a landing holding the aircraft just above the stall all the way down.
Remember in the takeoff you will be close to the ground near the stall with less effective controls until the speed builds you are in a danger zone and for what? Others here talk about saving the nose gear? you should be doing that anyway without letting the aircraft become airborne too soon.
what about the landing onto a short strip? No One talks about the forces on the nose wheel on heavy braking! Far greater than takeoff.
There are certain conditions where with an accurate pilot its safe to do but in the majority of cases for a number of reasons NO and in certain types a definite NO NO
If I am wrong here convince me ) As I am open to convincing and have been through discussion on other subjects I did not agree on ))
Pace
Yes as soon as the rudder is alive there is no need for the nose to steer the aircraft and it is good practice to lighten the nose or even lift it during that roll.
That is very different to allowing the aircraft to become airborne when it chooses too near the stall.
In such a state the controls are less effective should you need control inputs to counter adverse situations.
On the approach to landing we normally use 1.3 times the stall in a given configuration there are reasons for that!
Partially to allow excess energy from the transition from a decent profile engine back to a landing configuration, partially to give more control authority for the final stages of landing and partially to add a safety zone above the stall for any pilot or weather related changes which could mean we do stall low level.
With gusts we normally increase the 1.3 to a higher figure half the gust speed onto that VREF speed.
I would increase that further in certain conditions as the winds and gusts are given at surface and could be much higher 200 to 500 feet up.
There was a good U tube on a light aircraft dropping a wing and crashing due to wake turbulence from a larger aircraft. Even in calm conditions wake turbulence could cause a problem at very slow speed and that problem is not just confined to turbulence from heavy aircraft as most of us will have experienced flying through someones slip stream from a light aircraft
We talked about AOA gauges in another thread.
In the Citation I fly it is quite possible to fly at just above the stall on approach but I would be very cautious about the conditions where I chose to do that as they would have to be very calm with very stable air.
I see little difference between this technique on takeoff and advising someone to approach from say 400 feet to a landing holding the aircraft just above the stall all the way down.
Remember in the takeoff you will be close to the ground near the stall with less effective controls until the speed builds you are in a danger zone and for what? Others here talk about saving the nose gear? you should be doing that anyway without letting the aircraft become airborne too soon.
what about the landing onto a short strip? No One talks about the forces on the nose wheel on heavy braking! Far greater than takeoff.
There are certain conditions where with an accurate pilot its safe to do but in the majority of cases for a number of reasons NO and in certain types a definite NO NO
If I am wrong here convince me ) As I am open to convincing and have been through discussion on other subjects I did not agree on ))
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Jan 2016 at 11:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very different to allowing the aircraft to become airborne when it chooses too near the stall.
In such a state the controls are less effective should you need control inputs to counter adverse situations.
On the approach to landing we normally use 1.3 times the stall in a given configuration there are reasons for that!
In such a state the controls are less effective should you need control inputs to counter adverse situations.
On the approach to landing we normally use 1.3 times the stall in a given configuration there are reasons for that!
Approach is different from leaving the surface during takeoff. Of course, I do not advocate allowing the plane to be airborne below a safe flying speed. However, providing that directional control can be maintained, it is not necessary to achieve that agree 1.3Vs at the point of leaving the surface. For climbing away, yes! Vy, or Vx if you must. Vy plus if you're flying a single, and there is room. (I think I feel another thread coming on...).
For many types, it would be be difficult to drag the plane into the air at much below a "safe" flying speed (albeit slower than 1.3 Vs) as you'd be dragging the tail on the runway to do it. If the aircraft comes off the surface with a peep of the stall warning (a warning, not the actual stall!), that's okay, just don't climb away yet, allow it to accelerate! There should be ample room ahead (or the runway was a bit short to begin with) and as long as you do not drift off the side of the runway, acceleration in ground affect is perfectly fine. In seaplane flying, this can be more the norm in many conditions - just off the rough water, hanging on the stall warning horn, as the plane accelerates in "ground" affect, so you can climb away.
If, for round, and conservative numbers, we think of a very general AoA for CLmax of 12 degrees (and I know it varies greatly), most tricycle aircraft have an angle of incidence of 3 or so degrees, and maybe another degree or so of angle of incidence to the ground while the three wheels bear their stopped weight. So, perhaps 5 degrees AoA in a three point take off attitude. Lifting the nose a couple of degrees higher than that does not get you to 12 degrees AoA. If you're going down the runway inducing 7 degrees AoA, and hold it there until you achieve a speed faster than "stall" speed, the aircraft will find it's own way off, and happily accelerate in that attitude.
That said, I learned the "surprise!!!" way that this technique is much less suited to T tailed Pipers, which could startle you if they suddenly leap into the air, so I agree, what I present is not for every type.
But, with the forgoing, I seek to more "inspire" than be didactic! Pilots hire me to mentor this type of flying, so I thought I would pay it forward to a broader audience. I have some thoughts on the climbout....
ST,
I'm in agreement with you. Like a lot of things in flying, my take-off procedure is somewhat automatic and I had to think about what I do.
In a tricycle-gear aeroplane, I apply full-power and ease back on the yoke, to raise the nosewheel (or at least get the weight off it). A quick glance at the ASI to make sure it is working and also a look at the RPM (and MP) and temps and pressures.
I don't look at the ASI again until I'm off the ground, when again I glance at it. If I haven't yet reached my selected climb speed, then I will stay in ground effect until I have reached that speed.
Most of my takeoffs are with a glider attached, so there are a lot of other things to think about, but those are not relevant to this discussion.
I'm in agreement with you. Like a lot of things in flying, my take-off procedure is somewhat automatic and I had to think about what I do.
In a tricycle-gear aeroplane, I apply full-power and ease back on the yoke, to raise the nosewheel (or at least get the weight off it). A quick glance at the ASI to make sure it is working and also a look at the RPM (and MP) and temps and pressures.
I don't look at the ASI again until I'm off the ground, when again I glance at it. If I haven't yet reached my selected climb speed, then I will stay in ground effect until I have reached that speed.
Most of my takeoffs are with a glider attached, so there are a lot of other things to think about, but those are not relevant to this discussion.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok explain what you are trying to achieve by letting the aircraft go when it wants to ? Now you have to Level in ground effect to still build speed before re pitching to a stable climb speed so you are still back to numbers )
At the point of lift off you are flying above the ground at slow speed with less effective controls so still in a slow speed sloppy control danger zone until that speed builds?
I have no disagreement in lightning the nose wheel in the takeoff roll or raising it clear but still cannot see the advantage in using this technique as a modus operandi ))
On very rough strips the aircraft might launch itself and there are times when you have little choice but in some types it's a dangerous procedure and you are in a danger zone until that speed builds
As for saving the nose wheel you do that by accurate control of where the nose wheel is in the takeoff run even lifting it clear but not letting it fly when it wants too then flying level to build speed ! Then pitching again for climb sounds very messy and pointless with more potential hazards than benefits
Pace
At the point of lift off you are flying above the ground at slow speed with less effective controls so still in a slow speed sloppy control danger zone until that speed builds?
I have no disagreement in lightning the nose wheel in the takeoff roll or raising it clear but still cannot see the advantage in using this technique as a modus operandi ))
On very rough strips the aircraft might launch itself and there are times when you have little choice but in some types it's a dangerous procedure and you are in a danger zone until that speed builds
As for saving the nose wheel you do that by accurate control of where the nose wheel is in the takeoff run even lifting it clear but not letting it fly when it wants too then flying level to build speed ! Then pitching again for climb sounds very messy and pointless with more potential hazards than benefits
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Ok explain what you are trying to achieve by letting the aircraft go when it wants to ?
Ok explain what you are trying to achieve by letting the aircraft go when it wants to ?
Pace
As for saving the nose wheel you do that by accurate control of where the nose wheel is in the takeoff run even lifting it clear but not letting it fly when it wants too then flying level to build speed ! Then pitching again for climb sounds very messy and pointless with more potential hazards than benefits
As for saving the nose wheel you do that by accurate control of where the nose wheel is in the takeoff run even lifting it clear but not letting it fly when it wants too then flying level to build speed ! Then pitching again for climb sounds very messy and pointless with more potential hazards than benefits
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC
I have nowhere in my posts discounted this method as a useable method which has merit. I have cautioned it as a method which is used as a norm and pointed out potential hazards in using it on the wrong type of aircraft or in the wrong conditions.
Yes on short takeoffs especially on rough fields it has merit and there are field conditions when adding everything up its better to take to the air early and accept the negative risks but that is a pilot judgement where weather conditions are taken into account as well as aircraft type.
I believe the Seneca fatal crash from a field takeoff was due to an early departure before a safe flying speed was achieved for the type of aircraft with the resulting loss of control.
So i am not against this as one method for specific situations if handled carefully but would be against it as a normal nearly every day departure technique as other than on a very short field or very rough field I cannot still see the point or merit but can see many potential negatives
Pace
I have nowhere in my posts discounted this method as a useable method which has merit. I have cautioned it as a method which is used as a norm and pointed out potential hazards in using it on the wrong type of aircraft or in the wrong conditions.
Yes on short takeoffs especially on rough fields it has merit and there are field conditions when adding everything up its better to take to the air early and accept the negative risks but that is a pilot judgement where weather conditions are taken into account as well as aircraft type.
I believe the Seneca fatal crash from a field takeoff was due to an early departure before a safe flying speed was achieved for the type of aircraft with the resulting loss of control.
So i am not against this as one method for specific situations if handled carefully but would be against it as a normal nearly every day departure technique as other than on a very short field or very rough field I cannot still see the point or merit but can see many potential negatives
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I think we are in agreement; however some posts here are suggesting procedures outside of the AFM, although obviously well proven through time, for example some of the short field techniques used in bush flying are clearly not in the AFM but work for the well trained and practiced pilot.
I firmly believe that every pilot should be properly trained to fly all manoeuvres in the AFM correctly and then practice them, the belief that a one procedure fits all situations is wrong, and in many cases is what gets taught in flying schools under the guise of safety.
For your average private pilot flying a few hours a month its most likely the safest bet, but when they gain confidence and get themselves in to a corner thats when it can all go horribly wrong having not been trained to fly a particular manoeuvre correctly.
I think we are in agreement; however some posts here are suggesting procedures outside of the AFM, although obviously well proven through time, for example some of the short field techniques used in bush flying are clearly not in the AFM but work for the well trained and practiced pilot.
I firmly believe that every pilot should be properly trained to fly all manoeuvres in the AFM correctly and then practice them, the belief that a one procedure fits all situations is wrong, and in many cases is what gets taught in flying schools under the guise of safety.
For your average private pilot flying a few hours a month its most likely the safest bet, but when they gain confidence and get themselves in to a corner thats when it can all go horribly wrong having not been trained to fly a particular manoeuvre correctly.
