Max performance takeoff

[Trans Lift]

Hey,
Just a quick question in relation to a max performance takeoff (using FAA technique). I have been teaching it pretty much the way it's laid out in the Rotorcraft flying handbook. This way suggests starting to get translational lift as soon as possible. This would obviously depend on the conditions of the day, obstacles, etc, etc. I prefer to do a vertical takeoff where possible, as I believe this other way may get you into trouble in a confined area.
I was always showed to lift up, whether straight from the ground or a hover, in a fairly slow controlled ascent until you reach the desired height to clear your obstacles. As long as your power and everything else permits of course.
Today I flew with a high time pilot who literally pulled the arse out of the heli doing an extremely quick vertical takeoff. I was just wondering about peoples opinions in relation to a very fast ascent or a slower more controlled one(or what seems to be more controlled!).

Thanks :ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

Not familiar with FAA techniques but if you don't pull all the available Tq then how can you call it a 'Maximum Performance Take Off'?

Normally a MPTO would be required when power available was marginal so using all you had available would be the natural way out. IMO if you are in a confined area you use a vertical if conditions permit but when push comes to shove and space permits you try your best to get translational lift (15kts) then haul the nose back to hold about 35 kts which will approximate the Best Angle of Climb speed. I used to teach confined areas in Sea Kings and I wouldn't necessarily say that such manoeuvres were using the bottom half of the 'skill meter' but with practice you can get that technique weighed-off and make it very effective.

G
:ok:

[that chinese fella]

'If in doubt, tower out'

very simplistic little ditty that obviously comes with the usual caveats of power available etc etc, however....

I have had the biggest scare doing the old 'rush at the trees and hope we get over technique'. I always used to tower out (of a 'confined area') and the only time I didnt was when the area was not that confined, but not a large paddock either, kinda in-between. In this instance as I got closer to the trees the wind that was avialable at the start diminished as I got closer to the trees and when ground speed/closure rate is increasing and airspeed is decreasing it scared the crap out of me.

For what it's worth?:\

[IntheTin]

I assume you are teaching in R22's Trans lift?

After teaching in Florida in the Summers past, try doing a vertical climb on a hot day in an R22 and you will really struggle to get out of anywhere.
Geoffersincornwall said it how I was taught to teach it. Transition forward until you get to ETL and then 30 knot attitude over the obstacle. Even the 44 used to struggle on those days when it was hot and you are heavy. Not a good feeling! :ouch:

[Shawn Coyle]

The Maximum Performance Takeoff myth persists. I've done two articles on it in Vertical Magazine - one blowing it to smithereens, and then later, another one that shows the way to really get the maximum angle of climb out of the helicopter if you can't climb vertically above the trees.
Those who don't get the magazine or missed the articles can PM me.

[mikelimapapa]

Trans Lift,

I know exactly what you are describing. I've also flown with students that learned elsewhere to yank up on the collective, which in my experience, those pilots overtorque every time.

I teach the method you describe; gradually increasing to max power, although I don't prefer a towering takeoff, I try to utilize any translational lift available. My thinking is the slower, more controlled ascent allows you more time to abort the takeoff if you're not going to make it.

Mike

[SASless]

When learning the British way of helicopter flying years ago after learning the US Army way.....one of the biggest differences I saw in the two schools of thought involved confined area takeoffs.

Each system seemed to mirror one another in the method for doing a "towering" takeoff but differed greatly in the decision to use that particular method.

The US Army, in its infinite wisdom, taught us three techniques for doing confined area takeoffs....those being the "towering takeoff", the "ETL" method, and the third being a combination of the two where the profile had you moving forward and up but below ETL to clear your barriers as a safe height (same height as used in the British/American Towering Takeoff).

Bill Barrell, a well known Bristow Instructor with tons of experience and I experimented with the three methods in one of the overpowered Bell 47's assigned to the Bristow School at Redhill.

Our exercise seemed to show the power required for the US Army Foreward and Up profile and the Towering Takeoff required the same amount of power with the only difference being the forward speed as one crossed over the near barriers. The question that remains is whether the greater speed across the ground using the Towering takeoff vice the slower speed using the US Army takeoff presented the less desirable situation. The Army method meant you were giving up room in front of you while still below the barriers but you had a slower rate of closure.

As usual in helicopter flying....sometimes there might be more than one correct answer to the question in my view.