Australian Flying magazine May-June 2021, published an article by the editor Steve Hitchen called Echoes of the Future. He described having a dual flight on a Tecnam P92 Echo Mk 2. After Tecnam Australia's Bruce Stark had shown Hitchen around the aircraft at Barwon Heads, Hitchen wrote "Then Stark did something no other aircraft representative has ever done: he threw the keys to me and my instructor-in-crime Murray Gerraty and went and got himself a cup of coffee. Have keys: have aeroplane ...let's fly!
Although the article was comprehensive and entertainingly written I must say my eyebrows were raised on reading the takeoff technique taught by the instructor which appeared to be his personal technique rather than that of the manufacturer. The manufacturer's Flight Manual for the Tecnam P92 Echo publishes, among other items, a Vr (rotation speed) of 41 KIAS [45 KCAS]
In contrast, Hitchen's instructor tells him: "As soon as you power up, raise the nose until the nosewheel is about two inches off the ground and hold it there. Keep her straight with the pedals and she'll fly off the runway sooner than you think. Right. Let's go!
"Hitchen's description follows: "I applied full power and raised the nose; too far apparently and earned a rebuke from the instructor. I eased up on the stick and did a frantic dance on the pedals to keep 1712 within the narrow confines of the sealed section and waited. Soon everything became lighter, and the strip dropped away.."
The Tecnam Flight Manual says nothing about "as soon as you power up raise the nose until the nose wheel is about two inches above the ground and hold it there." That takeoff technique is one of many Old Wives Tales permeating from Australian flying schools that often disregard manufacturer's advice in favour of non-standard personal opinion of the instructor. Excuses offered for this practice vary. Some instructors claim it takes the weight of the nosewheel which is the weakest part of the airframe. Another excuse is it reduces the chances of nosewheel shimmy. Both these excuses are invalid. . Granted, the POH for Cessna singles under Secton 4 Normal Procedures states "Soft or rough field takeoffs are performed with 10 degrees flaps by lifting the airplane off the ground as soon as practical in a slightly tail low attitude." However nowhere in these POH is there mention of taking the weight of the nosewheel during the takeoff roll.
Using the takeoff technique advocated by Hitchen's instructor can lead to immediate loss of nosewheel steering capability; particularly in a crosswind. More problematic is the difficulty in judging two inches of nosewheel clear of the ground as demonstrated when Hitchens was rebuked by his instructor for pulling back too far. The pilot cannot see the nosewheel to confirm the distance from the runway. Another problem is where a wind gust can cause the aircraft, already at a higher angle of attack than optimum due to premature back stick, to become temporarily airborne in a stalled condition. All these problems are solved by lifting off the ground at the recommended airspeed. In the case of the Tecnam P92 that speed is 41 knots.
I recall contacting the Cessna Aircraft Company in USA many years ago and describing the weight off the nosewheel technique commonly used at Australian flying schools on Cessna singles and other similar light types. Their reply was they had never heard of that technique and strongly recommended pilots use the procedures published in the manufacturers POH.
In the late 1940's, flight manuals of many British designed aircraft recommended raising the nose wheel just clear of the ground as the aircraft approached lift-off speed. I understand this was to cater for the significant drag on the nosewheel if slush was present on the runway. The idea being the aircraft was allowed to fly off the ground in its own time rather than have a specific rotation speed. This technique was recommended for the early DH Comet airliner and most other tricycle undercarriage types including the Canberra bomber and Vampire fighter series. In contrast, American designed aircraft rotated at a specific published airspeed. Vampires and the Canberra were exported to the RAAF in those days along with their respective flight manuals.
Indeed, the RAF Pilots Notes for Vampire clearly stated: " Keep straight initially by gentle use of brakes, then, as speed is gained, by coarse use of the rudders. As soon as the aircraft reaches a speed of 60-70 knots IAS, lift the nose wheel just clear of the ground, then at 82-87 knots IAS, ease the aircraft off the ground." Why nose wheels were lifted off the ground at such slow speeds is lost in antiquity but it became SOP for all takeoffs for both civil and military aircraft. This writer flew the early Vampires at RAAF Base Williamtown and Central Flying School where the takeoff technique was to raise the nosewheel around 80 knots and allow the aircraft to fly itself off the ground when it was ready rather than at a specific airspeed. It was an uncomfortable feeling mushing off the ground barely flying.
There were at least two fatal accidents to Comets where the pilot, unable to judge nose attitude over the short nose at night, mistakenly raised the nose too high during the takeoff run. It was also difficult to judge the nose attitude on instruments because of limitations of the design of the artificial horizon. Probably unknown in those days was the significant increase in drag that can form if high nose attitudes are allowed to occur during a takeoff roll. . In both cases the Comets overran the runway because of the failure to accelerate to lift off speed. In the RAF there were similar difficulties with the Vampire.
Closer to home was the overrun accident to a New Zealand civilian registered De Havilland Venom at Ardmore aerodrome on 17 November 1991. That aircraft failed to accelerate during the takeoff run primarily due to the pilot lifting the nosewheel early in the takeoff roll. The resulting high drag caused by the wing being at a too high angle of attack was sufficient to reduce acceleration to a dangerous level. There was also conflicting information in the various flight manuals used by the pilot. See :
https://www.taic.org.nz/sites/defaul...nts/91-023.pdf
Finally, my apologies for the somewhat lengthy comment on the Steve Hitchins experience of flying the Tecnam P92 Echo MK 2 for the first time. The intent of this post was to highlight the difference between aircraft manufacturer's advice on how to fly this aircraft and the instructor's personal technique which in turn was passed on to his student. Despite a similar technique (taking the weight off the nosewheel during the takeoff roll) being widely taught at flying schools in Australia and at flying instructor courses, the danger of this technique being inappropriate for an aircraft type for the reasons given above, as well the student carrying this over to other types, is ever present.
It is difficult enough trying to judge how far to lift the nose "to lighten the weight off the nose wheel" as often there is no reliable nose attitude reference especially at night. Far better to stick to the common sense advice published in the manufacturer's flight manual than to listen to Old Wives Tales born of someone's personal opinion from another era.