exceeding POH take-off speed

[BlueJays]

Good afternoon, all.

When flying a PA28, or even a PA38, rotation occurs at around 60kts IAS.
My question is this: Is it considered dangerous If you're traveling at say 75-80kts before rotating (assuming you have a long enough runway)? Apart from experiencing possible positive G, is this considered dangerous?

[SloppyJoe]

Why would you want to?

[CAT3C AUTOLAND]

I second SJ comments, and what speed do your tyres blow up? ;)

[BlueJays]

Ha, sorry. I should have explained why I asked.. I saw a chap take off the other day and was clearly exceeding 60kts, he then proceeded to do a rather rapid climb and that's what made me ask. Apart from looking like a bit of a prat, I was just curious to know if there was actually some danger involved in doing such a stunt

[mutt]

In the corporate/airline world we do it all the time, its called IMPROVED CLIMB.

[Piltdown Man]

Personally I don't believe it's sensible. Firstly, why ask the tyres to do more than they need? Secondly, do you have to give the suspension and undercarriage such a hammering? Thirdly, the brakes will heat up unnecessarily (just with residual brake drag) and last of all, you are wasting climb-out and stopping distance. I also don't think there are improved V2 climbs for singles.

Apart from experiencing possible positive G, is this considered dangerous?

I don't understand.

looking like a bit of a prat

I agree. To look impressive in a PA28 or PA38 you'd have to have full tanks and park either vertically or it in a tall building.

[SloppyJoe]

If you need to stay on the ground longer to try and look cool during the climb the plane you are in will never live up to your expectations of awesomeness. Its a fact of underpowered single engine school/rental aircraft.

If on the other hand you are in something descent you don't need to push the designed speeds or in fact do anything other than fly it within its limits to have peoples jaws dropping.

Probably the most overpowered single engine prop plane in the world, the video drags on a bit but if you forward to 2:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swhSLbQHL74

[RTN11]

When you start thinking about how it looks to the people watching, is generally when things start to go wrong.

The PA28 should get airborne at around 55-60kts, at that speed you can certainly feel it's ready. Any more will do the nose leg no good at all, and it will eventually develop nosewheel shimmy, and eventually fall off if you consistently hold it on the ground until 80kts. it was never designed to deal with such punishment.

[717tech]

Can't remember what the figure is for the PA28 (if it has one), but most aircraft have a max speed limit for the tyres.

[OhNoCB]

If I'm flying an SEP (172, PA28 etc) I will rotate at the correct speed and sometimes hold it in ground effect and gain speed then pull up for climb. I do this not to impress people but because I find it fun and I don't get a chance to do it during the day job. I don't believe that I am the only person that does this sort of thing for fun. I wouldn't recommend actually keeping it on the ground past Vr though just because of the previously mentioned reasons.

[Tarq57]

As indicated above, normal technique is to start raising the nose - a little -at around 55-ish, and let it fly off when ready. The only reason I can think of for not doing that is if you're in a crosswind takeoff, or expecting significant windshear of turbulence airborne. In such a case it would be normal to hold the aircraft nose-level to about 65-ish, maybe a little more depending on type/weight/severity of the weather, and then rotate positively to the climb attitude. 'Holding it on' to a much higher speed risks wheelbarrowing, and excess tyre loading. Wheelbarrowing in a gusty crosswind- or at any time, really - is quite undesirable.

[mad_jock]

I saw a instructor prat try out his theory with the tommy once with an increase to 70knts before letting it fly. It was quite amusing as it was on grass and he couldn`t get it past 65knts. Then he hit a bump and it all ended in tears and brown pants very lucky not to go off the end or have a prop strike.

Just set your trim and let the plane fly you off when its ready. Because there is only one speed which is for mtow. So unless your at that it will usually go before the book speed. If it goes after the book speed you will be over loaded.

[cefey]

There is always increased chance of tail-strike when doing so.

[boga]

Hi y'all,

How to fly the aircraft is printed in the SOP, which is based on the POH. Do not ever try to think that you know the aircraft better than the people that designed it. If you think the POH is wrong, tell the manufacturer so they can correct it.

Taken from the Standard Operating Procedures from South Sweden School of Aeronautics, a school that only trains professional pilots, following POH and Pans-Ops:

TAKE-OFF:
- While entering runway, apply "Spin-Up", 1500 RPM.
- Do not stop on runway unless instructed to do so. When "Cleared For Take-Off", ATC expects immediate departure.
- Softly apply full power. Hand behind throttle.
- On hard runway, keep slight forward pressure on steering wheel, maintaining positive nose wheel contact with runway.
- On soft runway, offload nose wheel.
- On Vr (normally V2-10) rotate aircraft (normally 10 deg nose up).
- Speed V2
- Half runway AND Positive Rate Of Climb, Gear Up. Hand off throttle.
- Not lower than 400 feet AGL, Flaps 0. Turning allowed.
- Speed V2+10
- Not lower than 1500 feet AGL, lower nose so to obtain climb speed, trim while accelerating, when on climb speed set climb power.
- Perform AFTER TAKE OFF checklist.
- On altitude, lower nose so to obtain cruise speed, trim while accelerating, when on cruise speed set cruise power.

C-172:
Flap setting TO: 0 (Soft runway, 10 deg)
Flap setting landing: Full
Vr: 60 kts
V2: 70 kts
Vcl: 90 kts
Vapp: 70 kts

ON HARD RUNWAY ONLY:
- To accelerate flying on the ground effect will give a longer Take-Off distance as compared with accelerating rolling on the runway, the increased angle off attack produces resistance.
- Resistance of rolling a tire on a hard runway is negligible.

...and, by the way...
Maximum tire speed is printed on the tire, normally 120 MPH = 105 KTS.

I personally try to impress any onlooker by flying safe and consistently.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There's no such thing as 'rotate speed' with a SEP. When it's ready to fly, it will.

Bad airmanship to hold it on the ground after it wants to fly. Also shows poor mechanical sympathy on the part of the 'driver' (think of those forces on the noseleg it was never deigned to take!). Nosewheel should be unloaded early in the t/o run (and while taxying)... and actually held off ASAP on a rough or muddy field.

Sometimes (muddy field) one drags it into the air before it's ready to fly to get the wheels out of the gloop, however, and accelerate just above the surface in ground effect before climbing away (know your aeroplane before doing this).

A party trick in the Yak was to get the gear up ASAP but hold the aeroplane down just above the runway, accelerating all the time and requiring more and more forward stick to hold it down. When the trees at the upwind end were starting to fill the windscreen, ease back and up she went like a rocket, almost vertical. For about 350 feet! Then a very careful push-over to level flight! Why? Because it was fun and because one could!

[mikehallam]

A word of caution about didactic statements regarding what to do 'when it's ready to fly'.

For example.
The Rans S4 (& I hear the old Aeronca Champ.) will fly off at a ridiculously slow speed and be completely uncontrollable.

In these a/c one has to hold them down to gain a few more mph (say ~15% extra) judged by feel. So that in the initial climb, even when in ground effect, the thing doesn't float off, or sideways if any cross wind, with little P1 can do.

I do know !

mike hallam

[BackPacker]

What I find is that the Vr in the POH is typically quoted in the context of short field performance. At that speed you've got to put the nose on the horizon (or something like that) and when it's ready to fly, it will. You then accelerate in ground effect until Vx, or something close to that, and then start the climb.

That may all be best for short field performance, but requires excellent flying skills and might be pretty uncomfortable for your passengers, with all the pitching up and down. It also means that you are initially flying at a very slow speed, and hardly able to compensate for crosswind and gusts.

At a long enough runway, holding the aircraft on the deck until you reach a speed maybe halfway between the published Vr and Vx, and then pitching smoothly into a climb at Vx, might give you a longer ground run but feels much smoother and controlled.

But keeping the aircraft on the deck beyond Vx (or maybe Vy when doing flapless take-offs) doesn't sound healthy to me.

[mad_jock]

How the hell can a C172 have a V2 speed.

What utter ****e.

If the plane is rotating before it is safe to fly you have the trim setting wrong end of story.

[mad_jock]

typical ****e from a commercial school who is not training pilots to fly single engine aircraft.

[Johnm]

Having done lots of cross wind take offs in a PA 28 under very gusty conditions I can tell you that a conventional still air approach is positively dangerous. Under those conditions you can safely hold the aircraft down by slight forward pressure and the rotate at about 75 KIAS confident that the aircraft will then leave the ground more or less instantly and stay up.

[mad_jock]

In the highlands of Scotland it is regularly 20knts plus with 15 knots gusts. To boot.

In the 1000 hours or so I flew training aircraft PA28,PA38,C172,C152,C150 up there I had never then need to hold the aircraft down and neither did the students I sent solo.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not sure if Johnm is approaching or taking off, but there's never a need to hold a PA28, 38, C150, C172 down after it wants to fly, regardless of xwind (just allow it to fly when it's ready and let it weathercock while maintaining runway heading in the climb).

No wonder there are so many broken noselegs in the AAIB reports! (They generally beak on landing, but mis-use on T/O will weaken them).

[Johnm]

I'm guessing Mad Jock's wind conditions were not cross wind. Having tried to take off cross wind at normal rotate speeds in those kind of conditions I concluded that a bit faster and airborne cleanly and quickly was safer.

I still do the same in a Trinidad for similar reasons.

[Johnm]

I don't disagree with shaggy sheep driver but if the cross wind is gusting it'll try and fly in the gust but won't stay up when the gust drops, the consequences of that can be pretty hairy. Ask me how I know :uhoh:

Therefore the take off speed needs to have a bit of gust factor.

[mad_jock]

No john a 10-15knt cross wind is considered normal as well.

I think the strongest wind in the tommy I landed in was 27G39with 15knts of xwind. And the fire boys had to get me in using the engines as a wind break to the tie down area.

You just fly off and set the correct climb attitude and the aircraft does the work for you. Its when you start chasing needles that things get interesting.

Your statement leads me to suspect you have never been taught the correct method of attitude flying.

[Johnm]

Mad jock I'm talking cross wind component for take off exceeding 20 kts with 10kt gusts. The worst I've done out of Alderney in a PA 28 was 22 gusting 30 at close to right angles to the runway. I've done 28 gusting 42 in the Trinidad, which has more rudder authority and is heavier.

The poor blighters flying the Trislanders have to give it best much beyond that.

You have to be absolutely certain that when the aircraft leaves the ground it's definitely staying up as you weather cock around 20 degrees as soon as the wheels leave the ground.

[RTN11]

hold the aircraft down by slight forward pressure and the rotate at about 75 KIAS

Johnm, how many other people fly this aircraft? With that sort of punishment, the nose leg really isn't going to last long. First it will start to develop nosewheel shimmy, then eventually someone will do a slightly nose heavy landing and it will just collapse.

The very fact you're having to "hold it down" shows that it is ready to fly, so all you're doing is putting extra stress on the undercarriage which is wasn't really designed to take.

Out of interest, how many oleo seals do you generally get through? Or are you just an occasional hirer so don't see all the extra maintenance work you create?

[Johnm]

I was the sole owner of the PA 28 which never used an oleo seal and I share the Trinidad. There isn't anything savage in holding an aircraft down like this, if it's really ready to fly then off we go, it's all about not letting the aircraft be fooled by a gust, as soon as it's pushing to fly then it flies. I have no desire to control an aircraft on a narrow runway any longer than I need to.

Both POH have a demonstrated cross wind speed which is way below the aircraft's capability.

[Pace]

If the conditions are gusty with windshear hold it down as that extra bit of speed will be a good buffer when you are in the air.
Just a crosswind NO.
There are times when especially on bad surfaces ie Grass the aircraft wants to fly and you get launched by a hump.
I can remember being airbourne in a Seneca twin at 65 kts because the bumpy grass runway determined that.

Pace

[mad_jock]

I know that John but the aircraft will sort itself out at the right attitude. As soon as the wheels come off the deck you get a boost of performance as you get rid of the rolling friction.

the trilander has other advantages over normal aircraft.

this was stolen from another thread.

Britten-Norman BN2 XL


By a well-known ‘Flight magazine’.

Undaunted by technical realities, the design team at Pilatus Britten-Norman has announced plans for the BN2-XL, promising more noise, reduced payload, a lower cruise speed, and increased pilot workload.

We spoke to Mr. Fred Gribble, former British Rail boilermaker, and now Chief Project Engineer. Fred was responsible for developing many original and creative design flaws in the service of his former employer, and will be incorporating these in the new BN2-XL technology under a licensing agreement. Fred reassured BN-2 pilots, however, that all fundamental design flaws of the original model had been retained. Further good news is that the XL version is available as a retrofit.

Among the new measures is that of locking the ailerons in the central position, following airborne and simulator tests which showed that whilst pilots of average strength were able to achieve up to 30 degrees of control wheel deflection, this produced no appreciable variation in the net flight of the aircraft. Thus the removal of costly and unnecessary linkages has been possible, and the rudder has been nominated as the primary directional control. In keeping with this new philosophy, but to retain commonality for crews’ transitioning to the XL, additional resistance to foot pressure has been built in to the rudder pedals to prevent over-controlling in gusty conditions (defined as those in which wind velocity exceeds 3 knots).

An outstanding feature of Islander technology has always been the adaptation of the O-540 engine which, when mounted in any other aircraft in the free world (except the Trislander) is known for its low vibration levels. The Islander adaptations cause it to shake and batter the airframe, gradually crystallise the main spar, desynchronise the accompanying engine, and simulate the sound of fifty skeletons fornicating in an aluminium dustbin. PBN will not disclose the technology they applied in preserving this effect in the XL but Mr. Gribble assures us it will be perpetrated in later models and sees it as a strong selling point. "After all, the Concorde makes a lot of noise" he said, "and look how fast that goes."

However design documents clandestinely recovered from the PBN shredder have solved a question that has puzzled aerodynamicists and pilots for many years, disclosing that it is actually noise which causes the BN2 to fly. The vibration set up by the engines, and amplified by the airframe, in turn causes the air molecules above the wing to oscillate at atomic frequency, reducing their density and creating lift. This can be demonstrated by sudden closure of the throttles, which causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. As a result, lift is proportional to noise, rather than speed, explaining amongst other things the aircraft's remarkable takeoff performance.

In the driver's cab (as Gribble describes it) ergonomic measures will ensure that long-term PBN pilots' deafness does not cause in-flight dozing. Orthopaedic surgeons have designed a cockpit layout and seat to maximise backache, en-route insomnia, chronic irritability, and terminal (post-flight) lethargy. Redesigned "bullworker" elastic aileron cables, now disconnected from the control surfaces, increase pilot workload and fitness. Special noise retention cabin lining is an innovation on the XL, and it is hoped in later models to develop cabin noise to a level which will enable pilots to relate ear-pain directly to engine power, eliminating the need for engine instruments altogether.

We were offered an opportunity to fly the XL at Britten-Norman's development facility, adjacent to the British Rail tearooms at Little Chortling. (The flight was originally to have been conducted at the Pilatus plant but aircraft of BN design are now prohibited from operating in Swiss airspace during avalanche season). For our mission profile, the XL was loaded with coal for a standard 100 N.M. trip with British Rail reserves, carrying one pilot and nine passengers to maximise discomfort. Passenger loading is unchanged, the normal under-wing protrusions inflicting serious lacerations on 71% of boarding passengers, and there was the usual confusion in selecting a door appropriate to the allocated seat. The facility for the clothing of embarking passengers to remove oil slicks from engine cowls during loading has been thoughtfully retained.

Start-up is standard, and taxiing, as in the BN2 is accomplished by brute force. Takeoff calculations called for a 250-decibel power setting, and the rotation force for the (neutral) C of G was calculated at 180 ft/lbs. of backpressure.

Initial warning of an engine failure during takeoff is provided by a reduction in vibration of the flight instrument panel. Complete seizure of one engine is indicated by the momentary illusion that the engines have suddenly and inexplicably become synchronised. Otherwise, identification of the failed engine is achieved by comparing the vibration levels of the windows on either side of the cabin. (Relative passenger pallor has been found to be an unreliable guide on many BN2 routes because of ethnic consideration).

Shortly after takeoff the XL's chief test pilot, Capt. Mike "Muscles" Mulligan demonstrated the extent to which modern aeronautical design has left the BN2 untouched; he simulated pilot incapacitation by slumping forward onto the control column, simultaneously applying full right rudder and bleeding from the ears. The XL, like its predecessor, demonstrated total control rigidity and continued undisturbed. Power was then reduced to 249 decibels for cruise, and we carried out some comparisons of actual flight performance with graph predictions. At 5000 ft and ISA, we achieved a vibration amplitude of 500 CPS and 240 decibels, for a fuel flow of 210 lb/hr, making the BN2-XL the most efficient converter of fuel to noise after the Titan rocket.

Exploring the Constant noise/Variable noise concepts, we found that in a VNE dive, vibration reached its design maximum at 1000 CPS, at which point the limiting factor is the emulsification of human tissue. The catatonic condition of long-term BN2 pilots is attributed to this syndrome, which commences in the cerebral cortex and spreads outwards. We asked Capt. Mulligan what he considered the outstanding features of the XL. He cupped his hand behind his ear and shouted "Whazzat?"

We returned to Britten-Norman convinced that the XL model retains the marque's most memorable features, whilst showing some significant and worthwhile regressions.

PBN are not, however, resting on their laurels. Plans are already advanced for the Trislander XL and noise tunnel testing has commenced. The basis of preliminary design and performance specifications is that lift increases as the square of the noise, and as the principle of acoustic lift is further developed, a later five-engined vertical take-off model is also a possibility."

All in all, a wonderful aeroplane.

[mad_jock]

Rereading that rubbish from Boga.

This school it teaching them to do a close in noise abetment procedure as a standard departure.

That is utterly criminal and irresponsible to teach pilots to fly SEP's in that manner.

[Desert185]

Bluejays

If improving initial climb over an obstacle is your intent, then lifting off at a normal speed and holding it down while accelerating clear of the surface will reduce the drag of the wheels being in contact (particularly on grass), resulting in faster acceleration. Holding it on in a little airplane for more than just a few more kts/mph for a gusty XW is a rookie error.

[AdamFrisch]

On a fixed single it doesn't make much sense. But on a twin it can. Many twins will start flying below redline, but that's not a good place to be when one fails. Much safer to stay on the ground well above redline or even until blue line and then rotate.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh dear God what a depressing way to start my day.

First I read this gem...


- On hard runway, keep slight forward pressure on steering wheel, maintaining positive nose wheel contact with runway.

And by the time I got to...

On Vr (normally V2-10) rotate aircraft (normally 10 deg nose up).
- Speed V2

Depression for the state of the training industry had increased to the point I may go to my doctor for anti depression drugs.

How is it possible for any so called school to teach such absolute rubbish to students?

I just came back to reading these forums and sure enough the dumbing down of flight training is progressing downwards at an alarming rate.

How sad to see such garbage.

[Pace]

Be careful with that windshear comment, depending on aircraft type that is not a typical windshear recovery technique, most recoveries are executed near the buffet without configuration change or chasing speed but using a constant attitude as much as possible, and yes I realise we are talking about a single piston aircraft.

900

Could you elaborate on that! Normally in windshear conditions you would add half the gust factor to the reference speed on approach In that situation more than likely you have potential energy from the engine but you also have potential energy available if you have height in the airframe.
In the takeoff early on you have no potential energy available from the airframe and can only dig into the engine which will probably be maxed out on takeoff anyway.
I appreciate holding attitude but we maybe talking about fixed gear flapless takeoffs with a low powered engine.

Pace

[mikehallam]

BTW.

My earlier reference to 'holding it on' for some a/c so as not to be flying too early for authority, doesn't hurt the nose-wheel at all !

Rans S4 & Aeronca Champ have the third wheel at the proper (rear) end !

mikehallam.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My earlier reference to 'holding it on' for some a/c so as not to be flying too early for authority, doesn't hurt the nose-wheel at all !

Rans S4 & Aeronca Champ have the third wheel at the proper (rear) end !

As does the Chippy. No excuse for barrowing along the runway tail-high, oleos compressed, though! :)

[fireflybob]

Good grief, I never thought take off in an SEP was so complicated!

There's no such thing as 'rotate speed' with a SEP. When it's ready to fly, it will.


Here, here!

[Piper.Classique]

You just fly off and set the correct climb attitude and the aircraft does the work for you. Its when you start chasing needles that things get interesting.


Quite. Whichever end the little wheel is at.

[Pace]

F900

The two are related and when you find gusts you are also likely to find windshear

Pace

[mad_jock]

You two are into a clash of culture FAA V EU on windsheer along with your talking about different things.

There is a rule of thumb out there that you take some factor of the mean speed and third of the gust and add it onto approach speed and Vref. This comes from high momentum aircraft, large fan engines with a slow spool up time. Now this stipulated in the aircraft manuals that you need to add it. The performance manuals have taken this into account and it has also been tested.Unfortunately this has dropped down the aircraft classes and people are doing it to low momentum fast response engine machines. Which don't require it and isn't included in the manuals and hasn't been tested.

The result is aircraft are trying to land with 30-60% more energy than the designer had envisaged. Which causes other issues. My work type there is no requirement to add it and its an up hill struggle to get the practise stopped because it leads to a heap of other issues related to getting raped in the flare and performance issues and also a vastly increased maintenance bill.

Which is what I think PACE is on about which may or may not be in his aircraft manuals for his work machine to add the additions.

F900 eX is on about your in the poo your going down due windshear usually microburst not just a change in direction/speed and there is nothing you can do about it. Which you pitch to just below/on stick shaker don't change the configuration and max power. Then hang in there until you either crash or recover.

Which is the EU method for all aircraft and is also used by airbus and Boeing and the other big jets.

Now the smaller TP types under FAA there is mixture of theory's out there some pilots have been trained to get rid of the drag flap and go for Vyse. On the basis that the drop in height you get removing the flap is more than made up by the additional performance gained by loosing the drag.

Some also say the same for putting the gear up.

[dubbleyew eight]

gawd stuff me. talk about lost the plot.

there are two speeds of interest to a pilot at takeoff.
the minimum stall speed is a speed below which you cant fly.

if you takeoff at just over this speed as you rotate the aircraft slows slightly and you touch wheels again.
do that in a cross wind and with the aircraft skewed into wind in some aircraft and that is a recipe for an aircraft destroying ground loop.
in those more critical aircraft there is a 'takeoff safety speed' beyond which you will most assuredly establish a positive rate of climb and not be at risk of touching the wheels on again.

a typical takeoff safety speed is stall speed times 1.3
you can work it out yourself.

can you take off faster than that?
wheel hub strength and tyre rating are the limits that come to mind.
most aircraft tyres in lighties are rated to 120mph.

takeoff safety speed is the minimum speed advised not the maximum.
make sense?

[Flyingmac]

My ASI tells porkies on the take-off roll so I've learnt to ignore it.
Too busy tap dancing on the rudder pedals and looking where I'm going.
Can't remember when I last glanced at anything other than RPM.

Edited to add... It lifts off with full power at below the indicated power off stall speed.

[Pace]

F900

I may have used the word loosely and would have probably been better using the words strong wind conditions where you are likely to experience all of the mix of wind direction vertically and horizonatlly of air masses and pockets.

Wind shear itself is a microscale meteorological phenomenon occurring over a very small distance, but it can be associated with mesoscale or synoptic scale weather features such as squall lines and cold fronts. It is commonly observed near microbursts and downbursts caused by thunderstorms, fronts, areas of locally higher low level winds referred to as low level jets, near mountains, radiation inversions that occur due to clear skies and calm winds, buildings, wind turbines, and sailboats. Wind shear has a significant effect during take-off and landing of aircraft due to its effects on control of the aircraft, and it has been a sole or contributing cause of many aircraft accidents.

Pace

[BackPacker]

How is it possible for any so called school to teach such absolute rubbish to students?

Not sure I entirely agree with this sentiment.

What this particular school is trying to do, is to teach airline operations to their students. In a perfect world they would do so in an actual airliner, such as a B737 or A320.

Unfortunately using an airliner for ab-initio training is pretty darn expensive. That's why they are using SEP aircraft instead of airliners. But that's not the same as trying to teach someone to fly a SEP aircraft.

In fact, AFAIK on most integrated courses students don't even do a SEP exam. So at the end of their training they don't even get a SEP class rating.

As an aside, did you know that there was an option available for the PA-28 "gear down and welded" Cadet/Warrior, that would add a mock gear lever to the panel? Green lights and all. It was extremely annoying to fly in aircraft fitted with these, since the green lights would blind you during a night flight, but if you "raised the gear", an alarm would sound upon deploying flaps or something. In the end we just pulled the CB to disable the system altogether.

[mad_jock]

Backpacker that's the issue.

they are trained to fly a commercial jet.

They are licensed to fly everything.

If they were banned from flying the stuff they are clueless about and haven't been taught properly how to fly there wouldn't be a problem. And there wouldn't be this dragging down of flying standards in the GA world.

this has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to a light piston single operation , a bit like Boga's post of complete bollocks, people dragging larger aircraft idea's into light aircraft operations.

I agree.

the problem is these high momentum slow spool types SOP's are being taught from the word go to the commercial students as shown by the guff that was posted from a commercial school in Sweden. These pilots then can't get a job and get an instructor rating and teach the same guff to PPL's.

And then people wonder why there are so many runway excursions, nose legs broken, engines shock loaded, PPL's struggling to go solo, etc etc.

Pace the effect on aircraft is completely related to the aircrafts momentum and by momentum I mean its resistance to change.

A light aircraft when encountering Windshear will virtually instantaneously arrange itself into the new conditions. Something big will take seconds if not 10s of seconds.

So this good airmanship additions to approach speed and landing speed are a complete load of bollocks with anything under 5 tons. In fact they are a load of bollocks with my 7 ton type pref A type as well.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

dubbleyew, sorry mate but that's bollox. I can hoink the Chippie into the air in the 3-point attitude at a speed way below that at which it'd fly with the power off, and drag it along just above the surface way out on the back of the drag curve. As we accelerate in ground effect one can feel the wing 'come to life' as the AoA moves to min drag and beyond. Then we can climb away normally. This is quite usefull on very boggy strips.

In normal ops one gets the tail up ASAP and lets it fly off when it's ready, x-wind or not!

[glendalegoon]

Dear Original Poster:

There is no good reason for keeping the plane on the ground too long. While it may look "COOL" for a quick pull up, it is just someone playing ''spitfire ace" or something like that. Well, let me take it back, if you planned on doing an aileron roll right after takeoff, it might be useful. But then again a cherokee isn't authorized for acrobatics/aerobatics.

I once had a student checkout for someone claiming hundreds of hours in a piper seminole. On a very short strip he held the plane on the runway until blue line (single engine best rate of climb) speed PLUS. AS the dyke or is it dike, at the end of the runway looked quite solid I took over and Pulled up. Circled the field and landed. I told the student/checkout he had never flown the seminole and to get off the field. Honestly a nut job.

ASSUMING you are capable of using your hands and feet normally and have not intended to exceed demonstrated crosswind component, you should take off at normal speeds or so. Otherwise you use too much runway. The reason I mention hands and feet normally is that some people are convinced extra speed allows them to use less deflection of controls. And to some extent they are correct. However, the controls if fully deflected should produced the same result as the test pilot's. Using higher speeds means the controls are required to move less, giving a false comfort to those reluctant to put the pedal to the stop, etc.

I've seen some things written here about landing and additives to vref. We use half of the steady state wind and all of the difference between the steady wind and gust (called the gust factor), so wind 20 gust 40 would be

10 plus 20 equals 30, but NOT TO EXCEED adding a total of 20 knots to vref. IF you have to add more than 20, consider waiting or diverting.

On larger types, holding forward yoke during the start of the takeoff roll is normal to improve nosewheel contact, however as the plane accelerates it is removed.

One more bit of information,not asked for: there is a rule of thumb that if the steady wind, even right down the runway exceeds half the stalling speed in the takeoff or landing configuration (as appropriate), you might want to reconsider flying. We usually call it a day at 60 knots in larger types.

Before I knew this rule, I have landed a PA28 arrow in 50 to 60 knots wind. Ground roll quite short, hands quite full, including to the stops.

Remember, if you are too fast, your nose is too low and you might want to see the new video involving the jet crash at aspen, colorado, USA.

[mad_jock]

We use half of the steady state wind and all of the difference between the steady wind and gust (called the gust factor), so wind 20 gust 40 would be

10 plus 20 equals 30, but NOT TO EXCEED adding a total of 20 knots to vref. IF you have to add more than 20, consider waiting or diverting.


And does you aircraft manual tell you to do this?

Have you worked out what the additional energy you have added to the aircraft by doing this.

Work it out for Max landing weight you might be surprised.

[glendalegoon]

http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn8-2-apprspeed.pdf

while I would always differ to the specific aircraft manual for advice on additives, I refer you all to the above.

madjock, yes my aircraft manual says to do the above as I have listed. Half the steady, and all of the difference between steady and gust. NOT TO EXCEED 20 knots.

This is industry standard. Our FAA POI and our company have used this for years.

Tailwinds are not used in calculation.

Certainly if your manual, approved by the FAA/CAA says something else for your plane, that takes over.

[Pace]

F900 and MJ

I have landed a business jet on 4 occasions with winds of 40 gusting 70 (yes 70kts)

On the approach the ASI was leaping plus and minus 15-20 kts are you both suggesting if ATC wanted you to drag in for spacing from 8 miles you would happily fly VREF?

MJ you often quote light aircraft as being little different to other types yet claim they are completely different here.
Also if you have 30=40 its headwind component on your Heathrow length runway are you really going to worry that much about your inertia? What would that do to your stopping distance?

I think I would be more worried about slamming into the runway when I am hovering over the stall and catch a large downdraught or being in a very bad situation on the approach

Pace

[Johnm]

I seem to have created quite a future sharing my practical experience of PA 28 and Trinidad flying in strong gusty cross winds. I do follow the POH guidance contrary to popular opinion on here. However I have found from practical experience that in very strong and gusty crosswinds the aircraft can become airborne in a gust and then settle back in a very hairy position at around 55 to 60kias, which is also close to 60 kts ground speed. This is seriously tricky on a narrow runway.

I have found that if one nudges forward very slightly on the yoke then the aircraft won't fly under those circumstances it just becomes a little light and can be kept straight with aileron and rudder (nose wheel steering) input. A positive rotation 5 to 10 KIAS above normal take off speed then gives a reliably quick and permanent departure from terra firma.

The aircraft can then be cleaned up while tracking the runway heading with a suitable drift angle which can easily be 20 degrees under these circumstances.

With a PA 28 or Trinidad fully loaded there's easily enough runway at Alderney for this to work.

I shall now sprint for hills and hide behind a suitable rock.

[Pace]

JohnM

in strong and gusty winds I would not be holding off just above the stall for a chairmans landing :E but fly it on.

Pace

[Johnm]

I'm talking about take off not landing. For landings I fly the book speeds and crab down to about 200 ft or so then transition to wing down onto the centre line. For cross winds adding much of a gust factor is asking for trouble you have to be quick on the throttle and ready to around if you get sudden sink.

[Pace]

No I wouldn't, but feel free to show me where I have suggested doing that in a biz jet, we have been talking about about light aircraft in this discussion, you suggested applying a gust factor correction to Vref in a light aircraft I.E bringing larger aircraft techniques and applying them to small aircraft.

F900

Ok we will talk light aircraft! We have runway 27 winds 300/25 gusting 40
you are flying a PA28 6 miles out on final how would you fly that approach?
You do have shear on the approach and across some hangers? ;)

pace

[mad_jock]

exactly the same way as I would flying with the wind calm.

Exactly the same speeds and also configuration for landing as well.

As I have said I have done 27G39with 15knts of xwind in a tommy with all manner of ****e coming off the hills from the south.

You just fly the correct attitude the issue with momentum has nothing to do with runway length.

And gusting 70 really isn't anything strange if you fly into Shetland regularly. Again in the work machine normal speeds and full flap landing way more than 4 times. Those shetlanders have to get there sunday sport you know.

And momentum is a completely different thing to inertia.

I think I would be more worried about slamming into the runway when I am hovering over the stall and catch a large downdraught

This is the nub of the problem. People think that excess energy helps. But the aircraft won't stop flying until exactly the same energy state what ever wind its in. So by giving it more energy to get rid of you just expose yourself longer nearer the ground to anything mother nature throws at you.

[glendalegoon]

Pace

I would add 12.5 knots for the steady and 15 knots for the gust, but as this equals 27.5 knots, I would only add the 20 knots to vref as we are NOT TO EXCEED 20 knots additive.

I've not calculated the x wind component nor do I know the limits.

ask the other guy what he would do flying a tomahawk at 70 knots on final with the wind 80 knots right down the runway

[glendalegoon]

I went back twice to make sure

Pace indicated the steady wind was 25

the gust was 40


last time I checked half of 25 was 12.5 is

and 40 minus 25 is 15 (this being the difference)

25 plus 12.5 equals 27.5. and NOT TO EXCEED 20 knots additive.

so I don't know where you get 7.5 for anything.

[glendalegoon]

I do fly jets for a living and have not flown props for well over 25 years.

So, I called up a friend who is a current CFI and asked her opinion , asking specifically for any FAA stuff from her last CFI clinic.

She said there isn't anything by regulation and that just the other day she added 20 knots to her PA28 on final at KMDW due to wind.

Now, I know two things.

ONE: half of 25 is 12.5

Two: it is up to the pilot using all resources to determine the right speed for landing...POH, MANUFACTUER's info, local knowledge of turbulence/etc

and I'll add my 20 knots like I said.

IF the airfield is very short, I might reduce my speed on very , very short final or as the wind changes, but this is something that would take considerable time to discuss.

[glendalegoon]

dear f900x

if you actually read the document, which I just pointed out to show you that there were other ways of thinking, you would see the phrase :SUCH AS

(not limited to).

my original post stands as half the steady and all of the difference between gust and steady, not to exceed plus 20. none added for tailwind.


IF you google wind additives to vref, you will find many things, if you read what I posted with link there is even another way of doing it involving another two methods.

However, I stand by my original post.

[mad_jock]

Glen the machine i fly into 70 knt winds for landing has a Vmo of 250 knts and Vref of 110knts.

Crack on though it took twenty years and the rudder falling off an airbus before the faa stopped another dirty habit of lifting the wing with the rudder during flight upsets.

[abgd]

Some of the numbers you've been talking about, I would be adding oodles to my landing speed not to deal with turbulence but just to avoid flying backwards.

[Johnm]

Well it depends to some extent whether it's IFR or VFR but leaving that aside I'd fly 5 miles at around 90 KIAS with a crabbed set up and in the last mile I'd transition to wing down reduce speed to around 65 KIAS and drop the flaps and then land on the centre line. I might have a bit of fast footwork and engine management to deal with in that last mile and few hundred feet, if VFR I'd probably go for a fairly steep approach angle too.

[mary meagher]

The discussion seems to have evolved from Taking Off Faster than recommended by the manufacturer, to handling the approach in interesting conditions.

I have flown various light aircraft, including Cherokee Warrior, Archer, Sundowner, whatever, over in the US of A where runways are long and hire costs are affordable.

In the UK it was a 152 at Wycombe Scare Centre....

But by far the most entries in my logbook consist of my good old PA18. With a 150 engine. Got a bit of a fright once, taking off from Wellesbourne, forgot about their eccentric British habit of the overhead join. Gave the other guy a bit of a fright as well. Refueling habitually at Enstone, why just line up, give it plenty of wellie and we are at 1,200 feet by the end of the runway.....no worries about windshear or crosswinds on take offs.

Landing in crosswinds....its not the landing, really, its when you slow down and the taildragger tries to groundloop. If the option is available, go around and choose another runway!

Landing in strong wind not a problem if the wind is on the nose. Just get two heavy guys to walk the wingtips. or push it backwards into the hangar....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

whether it's IFR or VFR but leaving that aside I'd fly 5 miles at around 90 KIAS with a crabbed set up and in the last mile I'd transition to wing down reduce speed to around 65 KIAS and drop the flaps and then land on the centre line.

How many airline pilots fly the last mile using the wing down method of drift control during the landing approach?

[Pace]

MJ

Usually the VREF speed for a single piston is 1.3 x the stall speed for a given configuration you are stating that regardless of wind strength and shear that you would be happy to fly the whole approach from say 6 miles out at 1.3x the stall?

I stated that I have seen +and - 15 to 20kts indications on the ASI in windshear conditions.

In your light piston single you probably will not fly in 70 kt winds so lets take +10 and -10 kts on the ASI due to shear. At 1.3 times the stall you either maintain that speed by descending with the shear or you stall?

That is ok if you have altitude to play with but not so good if you do not and are near terrain or obstacles.

if you carry extra speed at a higher rate than 1.3 Xs the stall that gives you more energy to combat that sink than if you are flying at 1,3X the stall!
You have potential energy in the engine (minimal in a low powered single) and in the airframe.
May i also add that by carrying more speed you will have more control authority than messing around at slow speed. Why??? drag in slow?

On actually landing in those conditions (I am not talking about tricky taildraggers) an aircraft will land at any speed if the distance between the nose wheel and mains is great enough to keep the nose from impacting the runway!
Remember your landing speeds at 1.3 X s the stall will be higher clean than at full flap.

We talked in another thread about my friend who landed a Citation at 200 kTS at way above a typical 105 KTS its VREF and way above the tyre limiting speeds! He stopped on the runway at Edinburgh I believe with even the tyres intact and you were there to witness it. He had percieved control problems.

If a pilot has to land at or near the stall then its a matter of technique not the speeds that the aircraft is capable of landing at.
fly it on or put it down do not mess around holding off.

Headwind component down the runway will make one heck of a difference on the landing roll.

So do you really want to be playing around in strong winds and shear at 1.3 Xs the stall? It Makes little sense to me and is indicative of lack of confidence in speed control and changing those speeds by the pilot flying as well as lack of confidence in landing at anything much above the stall and one landing technique

please feel free to pull the above apart ;)

Pace

[Desert185]

Chuck:

Quote:
whether it's IFR or VFR but leaving that aside I'd fly 5 miles at around 90 KIAS with a crabbed set up and in the last mile I'd transition to wing down reduce speed to around 65 KIAS and drop the flaps and then land on the centre line.
How many airline pilots fly the last mile using the wing down method of drift control during the landing approach?

None that I have ever flown with. I don't do that in my Cessna, either.

Just to make it clear...the most common additive is 1/2 the HEADWIND COMPONENT (not the full steady state), plus all the gust, max additive 20 kts. Cross the threshold with only the headwind additive.

Some companies are using 1/2 the steady state (not HW component) to save the poor overworked pilots the effort of doing the math...also known as dumbing down. :ugh:

In any case, those additives are too much for little airplanes. The most I have ever used as an additive in a small aircraft was 10 mph due to strong mechanical turbulence and fairly strong downdrafts. It usually helps, especially at high density altitude airports in lower powered airplanes, to reduce approach and landing flaps for better sink response (less drag). Some aircraft also respond better to strong crosswinds in the landing phase with less than full flaps.

[mad_jock]

happy to fly the whole approach from say 6 miles out at 1.3x the stall?

why on earth would you do that you wouldn't do that in still conditions.

It Makes little sense to me and is indicative of lack of confidence in speed control and changing those speeds by the pilot flying as well as lack of confidence in landing at anything much above the stall and one landing technique

Means the opposite to me. A pilot that can consistently operate the aircraft in the full envelope of the aircraft operating by the operating manual which has been created by highly qualified test pilots to allow pilots of average skill to be safe doing. Is obviously that average skilled pilot.

I have seen loads of theory's over the years, reduced flap, landing with power on, increased speed. By far the best way is do as the manual tells you to. Which is what I do. Yes I can do flap 0 if you like and land with 30% power on and land 20knts to fast. But I choose not to.

Its not only the in the air stuff you have to worry about. Once on the ground you want the plane to stop flying as quickly as possible while keeping directional control. Extra energy is just going to cause you problems.

I haven't landed on a black runway in weeks braking factor over 0.3 is a good day. 35G47 1200m white runway in 2000m viz at night in SN BA 0.28 and only runway edge lights off a NDB/DME. Came over the threshold beautifully at the correct speed according to the manual. No twitchy moments on the roll out. Only it wasn't me on the controls until below 70knts it was a 750 hour TT first officer. You just have to teach them right from the beginning and its just normal to be able to do it.

[Pace]

exactly the same way as I would flying with the wind calm.
Exactly the same speeds and also configuration for landing as well.

MJ

This was your response to how you would fly onto a runway 270 with winds 300 25 gusting 40kts from 6 miles out.
Sorry if I misunderstood :ok:

Pace

[mad_jock]

Well it is true its exactly the same approach and speed profile to still wind.

Just there is a bit more grunting and swearing involved.

To be honest when its really hairy you can't see the instruments anyway, well you can see them but you can't really read them as you get bounced around. Just have to nail the correct attitude and fly the bloody thing to keep the correct attitude and only correct the major deviations and ride through the self cancelling minor deviations.

Well that's what I do, and it kept me alive on the west coast of Scotland, Highlands and Islands, Faroes, West coast of Norway for 4-5 years, winter or summer, CAVOK or down to mins and aircraft limits with all the ****e mother nature throws at us.

How many airline pilots fly the last mile using the wing down method of drift control during the landing approach?

Depends what aircraft type it is chuck, I haven't heard of any of the swept wing jet types advocating it.

The high wing types there is a smattering of it eg ATR, BAe146 and the like.

Have only heard it mentioned a couple of times in low wing none swept types. And only then by pilots who previously were on high wing types.

[FullWings]

The limiting factor is more whether the geometry of the aircraft will allow you to touch down with significant sideslip than anything else.

It's Boeing recommended technique of the 777, obviously not on the 747 with the much lower engine pod clearances. If I remember rightly, the first thing to touch on a 737-200 if you overbanked it near the ground was the leading edge flap, or something like that.

I use wing down but in the last 100-200' as I find myself unconsciously relaxing the control pressure if I try and do it for longer.

[BillieBob]

How many airline pilots fly the last mile using the wing down method of drift control during the landing approach? Those who do not mind arriving on stand with fewer engines than they started with, mainly.

[mm_flynn]

Having taken the 'only do what the POH tells you' message, I will need to significantly alter my flying. From now on...
[SARCASM ON]
Take-offs are always full power against the brakes - even on a gravel runway as that is the only described process.

Take-offs will also be firmly rotated at the specified speed (3 knots above stall) and accelerated in ground effect to be at Vx at 50 feet, regardless of the gusts or length of runway

Soft fields will be approached the same as short, none of this lighten the nose gear, get it off early and accelerate in ground effect stuff (as there is only one described process).

Crosswind landings will be the same as no wind landings (as there is no cross wind comment in POH)

and finally, when flying the ILS at commercial airports I start to decelerate to 78 knots at DH and then over the threshold retard power to develop the required 7.5 degree glide slope (the only one called out in the POH as it is associated with a minimum distance landing over a 50 foot obstacle) and drop it in nice and short and then apply maximum breaking before taxing to the exit at a brisk walking pace (even if MJ is coming down the ILS behind me ;) ). Interestingly, I appear to only be allowed to land on a paved, dry, level runway as once again, that is the only described procedure.
[/SARCASM OFF]

While I agree that some of the suggestions made in previous posts are wholly inappropriate for light aircraft, it does seem to be a little silly to do a full short field take-off on a gusty day when gently accelerating at the start (so you are moving before throwing up any potential stones) and letting it fly off at Vs1+10% rather than a good pull at Vs1 to get it off at Vs1+5% gives a bit of gust protection at no real cost in mechanical wear. You still even achieve the 50 foot target the same distance down range (but at the cost of a couple hundred feet of runway)

On landing, I had never seen any of the discussed add ons recommended for light aircraft other than 1/2 the gust speed (specifically called out I believe in the 172N POH) over the average speed so 25G40 would have one adding 7 knots - which seems a reasonable given the gusts could easily put you from a nice Vref to 1 or 2 knots above stall... and an alarming sink rate.

Adding 20 knots in gusty conditions would seem to just be asking to float not quite flying not quite rolling into an accident.

Of course, if one is counting on book performance, one ought to fly it the way the book said (and also make sure you have some significant margin over the book performance)