PDA

View Full Version : What's with this jet takeoff?


kamahl
16th Feb 2006, 14:02
I wasn't sure where this should go, so I figured it would be fine in this section....but this takeoff? Did something actually go wrong, or was it supposed to be like this? :confused:

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1140098926/Rookie_Plane_Takeoff

Thanks.

Send Clowns
16th Feb 2006, 14:09
A common way of "playing" in an aircraft with plenty of performance for the runway length, though not common with this size of aircraft! Basically take off but remain about level in ground effect to accelerate, then "zoom climb" - use the speed to get fantastic initial climb angle.

kamahl
16th Feb 2006, 14:14
Yeah, with the size of the aircraft, I thought it was a bit strange/risky.

Fly380
16th Feb 2006, 14:14
Just a test pilot impressing customers to flog em to:}

Newforest
16th Feb 2006, 14:19
Reminds me of the last flight of BA's VC.10 that I was on, light on fuel, full of enthusiasts, the pilot really enjoyed himself. Beat up of the runway at Farnborough, similar climb to altitude and then a low fly over of the Rolls Royce overhaul facility in Wales:ok:

Rainboe
16th Feb 2006, 14:25
Not risky in an Airbus at all, but a lot of fun! The Airbus won't let you stall, so as long as there is high power on, it will eventually pitch down as speed falls to stay in a safe regime. Not really to be done with passengers. Dashed clever beast it is.

airship
16th Feb 2006, 14:31
Sign of poor pilot preparation / reaction times: The pilot was obviously prepared for a leisurely climb after T/O. But passing so low over all those light aircraft he finally thought "Oh shit!" and went to max... :O

Davaar
16th Feb 2006, 14:37
Did he go over those light aircraft? I think not. He was over his runway, and they are parked at the taxi-way.

airship
16th Feb 2006, 14:53
He was over his runway Well, I'm overjoyed. That's alright then. I'll get back to typing out the menu shall I...?! ;)

Micky
16th Feb 2006, 14:58
Rainboe wrote
Not risky in an Airbus at all, but a lot of fun! The Airbus won't let you stall, so as long as there is high power on, it will eventually pitch down as speed falls to stay in a safe regime. Not really to be done with passengers. Dashed clever beast it is.

Sorry for sounding boring but I thought that Below 200' R ALT in "manuell" flight the Airbus operates in the Direct law mode so there is no speed/stall protection(You guys have a name for that but I have forgotten):ugh:
Mayby some bus driver:8 would like to comment....

Cheers Micky

Kestrel_909
16th Feb 2006, 15:05
Sorry for sounding boring but I thought that Below 200' R ALT in "manuell" flight the Airbus operates in the Direct law mode so there is no speed/stall protection(You guys have a name for that but I have forgotten):ugh:
Mayby some bus driver:8 would like to comment....
Cheers Micky

Possible, I'm not sure but I would be sure that after gathering some speed, by the time he's finished pitching up he'll be well through 200ft agl and beyond, and speed/stall protection would come into play. Don't quote me though :}

ExSimGuy
16th Feb 2006, 15:06
Reminds me of the days when BCAL did the Rotterdam-Gatwick at about 2:30 pm with a wunnyleven-500 (I think just 'coz that was the a/c available)

Capacity was 119 pax, but it was often - Two on the flight deck, 4 CC, one UM (the only fare-paying!) and me on a "on-duty ID00"

Seemed like a couple of hundred metres (or 220 yards in those days!) on the runway, and then "sit on the Avons" - UP WE GO :ok:

Fly380
16th Feb 2006, 15:13
Mickey - I think its called 'Alpha Floor' as far as I remember. From 1988 when it first flew commercially.:)

acbus1
16th Feb 2006, 15:55
Whats wrong with it?

1 - The severe and non-standard wake turbulence created for following aircraft. Standard separation invalid. Possible upset/crash/wet pants/brown stain in pants in following aircraft.

2 - Maybe it was my PC playing it jerkily, but the initial pull up looked (maybe) too high on the g loading?

3 - Assuming he was empty, he probably had ballast lashed and netted in the front of the forward cargo compartment. He'd have suffered dangerous handling instability if the pull up had forced the ballast to the rear of the compartment (all a "maybe"....depends upon type).

4 - Some engines suffer oil feed starvation if pitch up exceeds certain prescribed limits.

5 - aah, I've got bored thinking of any more.............

tilewood
16th Feb 2006, 15:55
Exsimguy

I think you will find wunnylevens had Speys not Avons.

Sorry to be picky!! :ok:

Davaar
16th Feb 2006, 15:59
Touché, airship, touché.

ExSimGuy
16th Feb 2006, 16:06
Tilewood - correct! What was I thinking of!!

(it was a long time ago, and I'm an old man ;) )

Send Clowns
16th Feb 2006, 16:06
acbus

There is no evidence to suggest that AoA was higher than a standard departure, in fact it might well have been lower. Of course you know that (for a given configuration) strength of vortex is roughly proportional to AoA, so there need be no increased vortex.

acbus1
16th Feb 2006, 16:21
There is no evidence to suggest that AoA was higher than a standard departure
Apart from what my eyes clearly told me as I watched the sharp pull up.

But I'm not simply referring to angle of attack effects, anyway. That would be far too limited a thought process.

Wouldn't it.

Onan the Clumsy
16th Feb 2006, 16:36
H probably just left the control lock in, so he had to push it forward a little to loosen it, then fiddle with it a bit to get it out at which point he can take off properly. Unfortunately though I think he then drops it cos you can tell he enters a steep bank when he reaches down to pick it up.


Either that or he'd been hired by the airport manager to blow all those GA a/c off the runway :E