"Rotate" a C 182?

[9 lives]

I was doing some mentor flying with two different C 182 owners in their respective 182s the other day. Both of these owners are multi hundred hour pilots on their aircraft, and have owned them for some time. In both cases, a primary purpose of the mentor flying was to refresh their familiarity with soft field takeoff and landing techniques.

For both pilots, (with my briefing in advance) I started the takeoff with 15 flap*, and the control wheel held full nose up, and slowly applied power to full. As the nose lifted (pretty well immediately) so the top of the cowl just met the far end of the runway, I simply relaxed some up elevator, and held that attitude with pitch precision, while maintaining the runway centerline.

In each case, the owner's apparent surprise that you could hold the nosewheel off at all at such a slow speed, was interrupted by their further surprise that we were now flying with no further fuss, or change in the aircraft attitude at all, after a happily short ground roll.

Both of these aircraft were just repaired from "nose" damage (and these were my post maintenance check flights). I reminded the owners that though robust, the nose strut of single tricycle Cessnas is still worthy of protection from needless wear and tear, and does wear out inside. For 182's and 206/210, that strut is carrying quite a load, so the less pounding it gets during ground roll, the longer it will last.

*I have found that for all tricycle single Cessnas the use of 15 degrees of fly seems to produce the most favourable affect of downwash over the tail, to make the elevator most effective in lifting the nosewheel off at slow speed - but be careful to not bang the tail tiedown ring on the ground, that can cause expensive damage.

So; I am generally opposed to the notion that a single Cessna should be sped down a runway with no pitch input until a mystical "rotate" speed is seen on the ASI, then pulled off. I know that a few Cessna flight manuals do use the word "rotate" in this context, and I find that disappointing. Happily those flight manuals do properly state a soft field procedure. It can be followed any time - and will prevent needless wear and tear on the nosewheel.

Consider "flying" your Cessna from the moment that you smoothly open the throttle on takeoff....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

They are aeroplane drivers, not pilots. Loads of those flying spamcans; just go to any GA field and watch the 'rotate' idiots and the even worse '3-point-land' idiots.

All those broken nosewheel legs (check out the AAIB reports each month) are VERY expensive to repair (firewall damage, prop, engine shock loaded), and that affects the insurance all owners, even pilots, pay.

[ChickenHouse]

I agree with flaps approx 15 for a 182 to have a smooth "early nose lift off", but from experience prefer to use flaps 10 for 172 & 206 on short field T/O. I have the impression the nose and firewall at the 182 is comparably weakest for weight.

But, early nose up does increase drag, so you trade some short take off distance for the early nose up - which may be why Cessna did not write it in the POH. If you know exactly what you are doing and are absolutely sure ISA+T & DA are no issue for the runway you aim to take off, you may proceed on own discretion.

Most of the times, especially with the 182 T/O performance, you will have no problem to lift nose early, but be very careful in x-wind situation!

In the end, it stays a non-approved custom procedure!

[ETOPS]

Agree completely with Step Turn :ok:

Just spend some time at any GA field and count how many pilots don't control the elevator position (or ailerons for that matter) and then look at the accident reports as mentioned by Shaggy - who is of course experienced on tailwheel types and thus knows about ground handling...

[ChickenHouse]

Not only ailerons or elevator position, the worst I see are not stable configured approaches and far too little trimming - very special at the heavier Cessna birds. If weather is not too bad, a well trimmed 182 or 206 does have no nose wheel issue at landing, but without proper trim ... o-m-g.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Chickenhouse - even if it's correctly trimmed, any aeroplane except a Navy deck lander should also be flared and held-off.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

I don't feel I really learned to take off (or land!) until I did my tail wheel rating. The method I was taught is explained beautifully in this article by Budd Davisson of Airbum.com:

How Short is it Really? (http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleLetItTakeOff.html)


We’ll start the takeoff (we’re assuming a tri-gear airplane) as we normally would, but, as soon as the airplane is rolling fast enough that we sense some life in the elevators, we position the yoke aft of neutral and hold it there. What we’ve done is insert a nose-up command in the elevator before the airplane has enough speed to pick the nose up. Then, when the airplane accelerates through the speed required to unstall the tail and pick the nose up, we immediately release some backpressure. At the same time, we look over the nose and visually fixate on where the nose is in relation to the horizon and, from that point on, our entire focus is to hold the nose in that position.

Because the airplane is accelerating, if we don’t release back pressure and set a given nose attitude, the nose will continue coming up as the airflow over the tail increases with speed. What we’re trying to do is establish a slightly nose up attitude that positions the nosewheel something like six inches off the ground. Our goal is to hold that attitude firm, which will require us to gradually ease off the backpressure as the airplane accelerates. The first few times you do it, it’ll be a little counter intuitive because we’re actually moving the yoke forward slightly as the airplane takes off. The name of the game, however, is to use the nose like a rifle sight and absolutely nail it on a given position on the horizon and hold it there no matter what.

The net result of this little exercise is that the nose will come up, the airplane will run on the mains for a few seconds and will lift off when, and only when, the lift/speed curves cross and exactly match the environment in which the airplane is operating. It’ll compensate for every single thing having to do with the takeoff and won’t leave the ground until every factor is right. This is an instance where we can’t possibly know as much as the airplane does in terms of what is needed at that precise moment, in that precise location, with that specific airplane to safely leave the ground and be guaranteed of a positive rate of climb.

[9 lives]

In the end, it stays a non-approved custom procedure!

Not at all! From the 182S flight manual:

"Soft or rough field takeoffs are performed with 20[degrees] flaps by lifting the airplane off the ground as soon as practical, in a slightly tail low attitude. "

It does not say that the runway has to be soft or rough to use this procedure! Yes, it will cost a little increase in required distance to 50 feet, but honestly, how often are these airplanes being operated in runways which are so close to the stated performance capabilities anyway? If you don't need to get out of the short distance, why beat up on the nosewheel by leaving it on the ground?

And yes SSD, I always wheel land taildraggers, about for the same reason!

[mikehallam]

For once we're all agreeing !

Certainly when the grass trip here in Sussex England isn't tooooo soft (far too soft now; I walked it today) I do the same with the tail wheel Rans S6-116.
It always is a pleasant surprise how soon she lifts off from starting with 2 of 3 flap stages set and stick held back all the way.
Naturally once just aloft one levels off to gain a sensible speed before climbing away.

The technique is principally aimed at doing my best to avoid nose over tendencies if/when she hits a particularly soft patch.
So no finesse required.
Landings at full flap allow squirts of power to select almost exactly where she'll hit the runway, that is avoiding the known boggiest bits. Then she's beautifully responsive and slow enough to not worry if one lands long as the worst area cuts 200 yds off available length.

Funnily enough in Summer I revert to conventional flat roll to about 44 mph then lift off, though why I don't always use the Winter method - shurely shorter? - I don't know.

mike hallam

[piperboy84]

I have about 600 hundred hours over the last five years on my tail dragger Maule (my first TD airplane) . Upon buying it I was taught during conversion training that the approach and speeds should be flown at 1.3 of the stall speed leaving on about 1300 rpm of power all the way down into ground effect and throughout the flare, removing power only when I reached the tail end of the flare, this method retains a low descent rate and higher level of rudder authority for the entire landing sequence which is obviously handy in a crosswind. I landed the plane like this till about six months ago then I tried something different, same approach speed but killed the power about 50 feet above ground effect and gently but with increasing back elevator pulled all the way back trading the energy for lift prior to entering ground effect, as I enter ground effect there is next to nothing left, I'm now in the 3 point attitude with yoke and elevator trim all the way back with I assume the ground effect being the sole margin between remaining flying and a stall which makes her sit right down on the deck with with no flare or float and an extremely short and weak rollout. Getting the timing exactly right is very satisfying, if my timing is off and I feel I need a quick blast of power to arrest the higher than usual descent rate but delay it too long I get a sore arse, conversely doing it too early I get left hanging in mid air high above the strip with zero energy left and right on the edge of a full stall which is not a nice feeling. I've always wondered if the higher decent rate/ increased downward inertia is a better landing method in crosswinds than having the power on thru the flare.

[n5296s]

I have just shy of 1000 hours in my TR182... what the OP describes is what I'd call a soft-field technique. On a normal runway I use 10 degrees of flap but just apply light back pressure to 55 knots or so, then a tad more pressure lifts things nicely without feeling like a rocket launch. I suppose you could call that "rotation" but it's not like an A380, it leaves the ground practically immediately.

I really don't think you can damage the nose gear on a takeoff roll (unless you hit something or there's a hole). The way you bend the nosegear and the firewall is in a badly bounced landing.

Personally I don't like the idea of holding the nosewheel way off the runway in a normal takeoff. It seems to me there is a lot more that can go wrong, especially with an inexperienced or low-time-in-type pilot.

For sure the 182 is all about trim. It's a delight to fly, and land, if you are ALWAYS in trim - including on short final. I imagine it would be a monster to fly if you didn't do this, though I've never tried (why would I?). Unlike say the Pitts where unless it's massively out of trim you barely even notice.

The POH says to use anything from 0-20 degrees of flap for a normal takeoff, though then it says rotate at 55 which is a bit early with no flap imo. When I practice no-flap takeoffs I find that it picks up nicely at around 60.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally for lower time pilots I teach what n5296s described for the takeoff. Nose wheel steering is a control like any other so it seems sensible to use it. However that does not mean run level and then yank it off. With the trim set properly light back pressure through about 50kt will cause the aircraft to smoothly fly off with no further action by the pilot.

Keeping the aircraft straight during the early part of the takeoff is easy if the nose wheel is on the ground. As the aircraft accelerates the rudder is nicely effective as the nose wheel is lightened and you have the added bonus of being able to see where you are going. With the nose wheel off the ground the aircraft it is impossible to see ahead.

Certainly you have to know and be proficient with the soft field technique but I dispute that you have to use it on every takeoff, I certainly don't

As for the perrenial problem of bent firewalls and nose wheel damage, that is almost entirely a landing issue. The root cause is usually a too fast approach followed by a flat touchdown. When checking new pilots out on the C 182 I make a point of doing a run down the whole runway with me holding the aircraft in the landing attitude running on the main wheels with the nose wheel well off the ground.

I want the student to have the sight picture burned into his brain. I also won't sign off anyone as competant until he/she can consistently flare to a tail low touchdown.

[India Four Two]

With the trim set properly light back pressure through about 50kt will cause the aircraft to smoothly fly off with no further action by the pilot.

Exactly, that is the way I was taught for normal takeoffs. For a soft field or rough surfaces, yoke all the way back at the beginning and ease forward once the nose wheel has come off.

[irish seaplane]

Good point on the 15 degrees flap. I use this on the C210 where I need to leave the flaps halfway between the 10 degree and 20 degree detent for a short field take off. Obvious it goes without saying I watch to make sure they don't drop to 20 on the roll.

On my old mount, the 180K there was an argument for using 40 degrees flap and taking off in a 3 point attitude. I had a dozen ways of doing it but it was one method for very soggy strips.

[9 lives]

Anything that you do which lightens the nose on takeoff, will result in an improved situation. When the nosewheel is in contact with the ground, it will be subjected to some wear and tear, though if it is hardly bearing weight, it will be less.

In addition to tire and wheelbearing wear, which is negligible, the inner bushings of the oleo strut will wear, and worse, the torque link pivot points are easily worn. The result will be progression to shimmy. The repairs to Cessna oleos are very costly, and easily preventable with care. I agree that firewall and mounting damage to oleos is reserved for landing events only, but the discipline to handle the aircraft nose light for takeoff, will extend itself to well handled landings.

Yes, there is reduced visibility with the nose up, but there is still enough. I have never found that you cannot still see the far end of the runway ahead of you with the nosewheel off the ground in any tricycle Cessna I have flown - it just takes some practice holding it there with precision. I find that owners, when they see how I treat their aircraft, are inclined to lend them again to me with little worry - A privilege I like to earn by handing aircraft well.

The application of precision pitch attitude control near and on the surface is moderately necessary in tricycle aircraft. Every other fixed wing aircraft landing gear configuration is going to demand much more attention to pitch attitude control. Taildragger, whether wheel landing or three point will demand some precision, and water flying much more so. Why not practice better skills all the time? (And reduce maintenance costs while you're at it!)

[Andy_P]

There is short field and then there is soft field.

short field nose up so aircraft rotates at safe speed.

soft field, take-off and fly in ground effect till safe speed to climb out.

Most US pilots wont get it as they are scared of gravel and grass or simply not taught it. I assume Canadians would get their fair share, although maybe that depends on where in Canada you live. Aussie, outside the major regional Class D airports a good 60-70% of your landings will be unimproved gravel/grass or ****ty bitumen that is worse than gravel. On said strips, soft-field is preferred not just for the safety of the gear, but just because its uncomfortable as hell rolling down a pot hole infested airstrip.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I went back and re-read Steps first post, and then my own. I realize I did not pay enough attention to this comment from Step when describing the pitch attitude he was setting on the takeoff roll.

so the top of the cowl just met the far end of the runway,

I would suggest that at the moment of lift off the technique I described

With the trim set properly light back pressure through about 50kt will cause the aircraft to smoothly fly off with no further action by the pilot.

will result in pretty much exactly the same pitch attitude at the moment of lift off. The only area we disagree on is how to get there. He advocates immediate full up elevator at the start of the takeoff role where I described an initially level attitude with the nose smoothly rising to the takeoff attitude described later in the takeoff roll as the controls, particularly the elevator trim becomes aerodynamically effective.

I commented because Step implied that his method was the only "right" way to do a takeoff, an assertion I respectfully disagree with.

I also think it is important to note that in the C 182, with cowl raised so you can just see the edge of the runway the nose wheel will still be on the ground. A true full on soft field takeoff is best performed with a sufficient pitch attitude so that the nose wheel is just off the ground. This requires a sufficiently nose high attitude that there will be no view at all of the runway ahead. The aircraft will also lift off at a speed only slightly above the stalling speed and care is needed to hold the aircraft in ground effect until a safe speed is attained particularly in gusty winds or hot/high/high weight.

Finally one last nit to pick.

Step said

I have found that for all tricycle single Cessnas the use of 15 degrees of fly seems to produce the most favourable affect of downwash over the tail, to make the elevator most effective in lifting the nosewheel off at slow speed

I think it is important to point out that while the C 182 is approved for up to 20 degrees of flap for takeoff, "all " single engine Cessna's are not. The POH for the C 150/152 and C 172/177 series specifies that a maximum of 10 deg of flap is permitted for takeoff.

We are in violent agreement on the general concept though. You should not be a passenger in the aircraft takeoff until some arbitrary "rotate" speed shows up at which point you yank the aircraft into the air :ugh:. Instead you should be "flying" the aircraft by proper and effective use of all the control surfaces for the entire takeoff and landing run and the taxi as well, if there is significant wind present.

[Vilters]

I learned from a grass field. => The first thing on all take offs was to unload the nosewheel, maintain nose position, and fly the rudder and ailerons.

Strangely enough most pilots do not "fly" the ailerons until airborne and that can always be seen by the wiggle - waggle when the wheels leave the ground.

Flying "all controls" from the very first power increase is something most only learn when they start flying tailwheel airplanes.

It is part of what "scares" and overwhelms most during the tailwheel transition. => "Flying" starts at start-up, and stops at shutdown.

I can not remember the number of times I see beginning "tailwheel" pilots release the stick at touchdown.
=> Can be interesting LOL. Always be ready to take over.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I can not remember the number of times I see beginning "tailwheel" pilots release the stick at touchdown.
=> Can be interesting LOL. Always be ready to take over.

And the rudder! The closest, by far, that I ever came to serious disaster was in an L4 Cub when I 'gave' the landing to the front seater, a highly experienced ATPL and GA instructor, but not a tail wheel pilot.

Directional control was lost pretty much as we touched down and I was onto the ailerons, rudder, elevator, and power all together as soon as I sensed it was going badly wrong.

The wing tip must have come within an ace of hitting the runway (I still don't know why it didn't) but I managed to get wings level, tail up, and full power on and we departed the hard runway at 45 degrees before getting airborne again. Calls don't come closer than that, and it taught me a lesson!

[9 lives]

Yes, BPF and I are in violent agreement (I like that term!). Anything you do to lighten the nosewheel early in the takeoff is better. I like nosewheel off earlier, but it's not a "gotta have" for a good or "right" takeoff. What I oppose is the notion that the aircraft is hurtling down the runway with no nose up control application, waiting for a number to be seen on the ASI, when then flying is commenced. "Fly it" from the moment you open the throttle - nosewheel light, or nosewheel off, as you wish. If you're on a gravel runway and/or the prop is brand new (as was one of the two 182s I was flying in), I like to get it as far away from the loose surface as possible.

My recent experience (because I was mentoring it and drawing attention to it, was that is was possible to see the far end of the runway over the top of the cowl with the nosewheel just off the surface. I was holding the plane in this attitude to draw attention to this. But, I'm tall, so this might not be the case for everyone.

I agree that more than 10 flap is not approved for the 172/152/150, hence my sneaky wording of "started the takeoff with...". Leaving the ground with more than 10 in those types would not be conforming to the flight manual - I'll leave that to pilot judgement.

Trim as you wish, I don't depend upon trim position indicators when flying a plane new to me, I just make it do what I intend, and trim control forces out as appropriate.

My theme is that held nose light, single tricycle Cessnas will not need to be "rotated", they will nicely fly off themselves when they reach a suitable flying speed. In doing it this way, there is no downside.

There is no improvement in steering because the nosewheel is on the runway an the latter phases of the takeoff roll. Once you're going faster than 20 knots, the rudder is doing it all anyway, as it should. The only plane I have flown with separate nosewheel steering is the Twin Otter - I could not wait to get the nose light, aligned down the centerline, so I could center the steering lever, and ignore it after that!

I assert the foregoing for single Cessna tricycles. Not T tailed Pipers, they can be a little bit startling if lots of nose up control is held in prior to a certain speed. Fly the T tail Pipers as the flight manual says...

[Bob Upanddown]

The technique where the aircraft should be sped down a runway with no pitch input until a mystical "rotate" speed is seen on the ASI, then pulled off. is taught by instructors who are building hours for the airlines.

I can remember being taught to rotate a Cessna 150 and to crab and kick straight only to then be taught by an old experienced guy who taught me otherwise.

Holding the nosewheel off the ground as soon as you start rolling is not just applicable to Cessnas but to most light aircraft. Not teaching this is just plain wrong but I have had many a prospective airline pilot telling me that I must hold the nosewheel down on the runway until rotate speed. But then this type of instructor is taught to believe he is always correct (which is more to do with having confidence to challenge Captain in the cockpit than it does his flying technique) so there seems little point trying to argue with them.

[Talkdownman]

I've lost count of the number of times on 'biennials' I have called for 'back pressure, back pressure, she wants to fly, she wants to fly' with the ASI 15kts into the green arc, the nose-wheel wanting to make like a supermarket trolley, and no sign of any aft elevator input.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Step turn has the same opinion I do.

Reduce weight on the nose wheel right from the first application of power and wait until the AOA for that airplane is correct for lift off, then hold that AOA by reducing up elevator and the airplane will fly when it is ready...smoothly and not ripped off the earth.

If you need nose wheel steering on the take off roll in a basic light airplane you should go get better training.

[Jhieminga]

The technique where the aircraft Quote:
should be sped down a runway with no pitch input until a mystical "rotate" speed is seen on the ASI, then pulled off.
is taught by instructors who are building hours for the airlines.
At many flight schools, at least the ones I used to work at and trained at, the syllabus and operating procedures are written with this technique included. The ab-initio students would not be able to discriminate between two very different take-off techniques and are therefore taught to fly a Cessna as if it's a Boeing. As a large percentage of this group will most likely stay away from GA flying once the coveted right seat has been attained, they will never notice that they're missing an important bit of piloting technique.

[Pace]

The only caveat I would add is not to fixate on one technique but to be adaptable to surface and weather conditions and aircraft type
There are times on rough strips when you need to get as much weight off the nose wheel as possible.
there are also weather related times when allowing the aircraft to fly too near the stall is not the best idea
One hat doesn't fit all heads especially when there are strong downdraught s

the Seneca was a bugger at wanting to fly too soon with a stall speed of just over 60 KTS infact it was this which caused the fatal horse jockey crash off a grass horse racing circuit. The aircraft stalled with a wing drop just after the aircraft became airborne too early for the conditions


My theme is that held nose light, single tricycle Cessnas will not need to be "rotated", they will nicely fly off themselves when they reach a suitable flying speed. In doing it this way, there is no downside

There was a downside in the above accident sadly

Pace

[Flyingmac]

I've a fair bit of time in these aircraft. Ask me what speed I lift off at and I couldn't tell you. I suspect many of us are the same. A quick glance at the ASI to check it's alive then forget it 'til you're flying. At low speeds it's probably telling porkies anyway.


Pace. Is this the crash you're referring to?


On the runway itself, about


20 propeller slashes were clearly visible with an associated mainwheel tyre impression running through


the middle of them.

[Pace]

FlyingMac

In most nice conditions I agree with what said above but in 20 gusting 40 KTS with severe down draughts coming off hangers hills etc NO way will I let it fly at too low a speed. Its no different to adding half the gust factor onto your VREF speed for landing?

Pace

[Capot]

When converting from the Auster I learned in, to a tricycle config (Tripacer, then C172), I was taught to get the nose up as soon as possible in the takeoff run to save the nosewheel, especially on rough ground. This was achieved by feeling for the moment when the elevator took charge (I dunno, about 30Kt?) and then "flying" the aircraft with elevator for attitude, rudder for direction and ailerons into the X-wind if any, otherwise just keeping the wings level, until it lifted off of its own accord, then establishing trim for the initial climb, then thinking about flap retraction, trim for cruise climb, and a swig of coffee, all at a safe height.

The most important part of that was getting the nose up as early as possible to take the weight off the nosewheel, then holding that attitude until the aircraft decided to fly. On very rough ground not getting the nose up could mean a prop strike, after a big bump before flying speed was reached.

[Pilot DAR]

The ab-initio students would not be able to discriminate between two very different take-off techniques and are therefore taught to fly a Cessna as if it's a Boeing.

Oh dear... Well ab-initio students, you've read it here... If you are being taught to fly a tricycle Cessna as though it were a Boeing, your training is incomplete, verging on simply wrong. You're paying for your training, so ask for what you're paying for, the proper training! Your instructor should be able to demonstrate to you (then train you to) have the nosewheel noticeably light within the first 100 feet of ground roll, and then hold that attitude until the aircraft naturally leaves the ground.

If wind conditions suggest holding the nose lower, and allowing more speed before lift off, that fine - but still control the plane in pitch!

If you are being trained on a Boeing, then fly it like a Boeing, otherwise fly it as though you'd like to be flying, not driving!

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

I agree with what you are saying and will always take Weight off the nose wheel but that is different to letting the aircraft become airborne whenever it feels like it ?
Too much is made of conserving the nose wheel ! What happens landing feet planted firmly on the brakes all the weight on the nose?
Ok maybe I am trying to put a slight different perspective on things
95% of the time letting it fly off is fine and I totally agree there is no need for nose contact for steering after early on in the takeoff roll but I am just adding a warning to all hats fit all heads!
The Seneca had a high lift high drag slab wing and that aircraft would happily fly too soon for all conditions
Being a twin you also had to consider an abrupt engine failure at Or below VMCA
Normal rotate speed was 80kts but off a bumpy strip I have seen her flying at 62 kts stall warning blaring away till some speed built not a clever speed to be flying at
So my opinion is control the plane not the other way around sometimes let it have its head other times don't
Too much is made of conserving the nose wheel with elevator back in your chest till it flies off but then on a short strip happily landing feet hard on the brakes as many do

Pace

[Capot]

Pace, with due respect, talk about handling twins on take-off, and considerations of engine failure, VMCA etc etc, contribute little to a discussion of techniques for handling small single-engine propeller aircraft with a tricycle undercarriage.

Such aircraft don't "Rotate", except in the mind of a pilot imagining he's in a B747; they fly off the ground when they are ready, and the pilot's job is to enable that to happen at the right airspeed by controlling attitude. You might argue that this is another way of saying "rotate at V1" but it isn't; the difference is that in a multi-you do not raise the nose during the take-off run, which would slow the aircraft, the rotation bit is raising the nose and stating the climb in the same movement. The SEP should lift off gently in the attitude it has been in all along the run, then raise the nose smoothly into a climb when the danger of sinking back has passed. That applies to tail-wheel and tricycle aircraft.

That said, there are emergency short field take-off techniques that work with certain aircraft and not others, which include heaving it off the ground quite violently, but that's for the experienced after they have learned to fly normally. I was taught to do it (as part of our normal Club post-PPL training, unlikely these days) in aircraft that had a manual flap lever (Auster, Tripacer) because the method was to set full power, no flap set, tighten the friction hard, check Ps and Ts, let the brakes go, and at full flap stall speed +5 KT heave the nose up sharply, while setting full flap simultaneously, whereupon the aircraft leaps off the ground like a startled rabbit. In a tail-dragger the tail is up by the time you do this (in the Auster you could get the tail up, carefully, before releasing the brakes, especially if there was a bit of headwind.). At 30 - 60ft you get the nose down smartly before the stall gets you, gain climb speed in level flight then climb away, then start milking in the flap. I forget the take off runs we achieved practising this, but they were very short. Electric flaps might be too slow, and if so you would have to set full flap before starting which I imagine would lengthen the run a bit.

[Pace]

Capot

We are not that far apart on this I purely added a caveat to let the plane fly when you decide you want it to fly not when it decides
Yes you may decide when it decides but it's not a thinking pilot to let the aircraft decide
Apart from the other engine the 182 and Seneca are not that far apart
Both have high lift high drag wings both trycle and while I agree there are different considerations with a twin I also consider it not to clever to let a 182 fly when it decides in certain especially weather conditions anymore than I would want a Seneca flying at 62kts just because it decided to do so
A Seneca is hardly a 747 ))
So forget the two engines on the PA34 lets look at the earlier slab wing single engine PA32 rotate is 80 KTS they will also go airborne at 62 KTS with the torque of a 300 HP lump is that advisable ?

Pace

[phiggsbroadband]

Instead of dabbling with the occult, it is probably better to look at the basic principles...


The wing will be providing lift from 0 kts upwards. So even when holding at the piano keys, if you are pointing into a wind of say 15 kts, the weight on the wheels is less than the weight of the airplane.
Then as you accelerate the WoW gets proportionally less, and all the oleo struts extend. At Vs the WoW can become zero.

I doubt that holding the cowling in line with the end of the runway will have lifted the nosewheel completely off the ground. It may have just fully extended the suspension. The wheel may still have 100lbs of weight on the ground, dependant upon the engineered pre-load of the suspension strut, plus the weight of the wheel.


Some grass airstrips have the added enjoyment of several ski-ramps along the length of their runway, Barton, Derby, Skegness and Sandown spring to mind. As you hit the first slope it will send you airborne at less than Vs, so you will rapidly drop onto the next slope 60 yards away. This unplanned 'landing' needs to be treated just the same as a normal landing from Vs+30%, i.e: Main U/C first, with the nosewheel high.

[9 lives]

I doubt that holding the cowling in line with the end of the runway will have lifted the nosewheel completely off the ground. It may have just fully extended the suspension. The wheel may still have 100lbs of weight on the ground, dependant upon the engineered pre-load of the suspension strut, plus the weight of the wheel.

You'll know that you have the nosewheel right off the ground, as once you're rolling, you'll not feel the ground vibrations through the rudder pedals. Both of the 182's I recently flew (a 182M, and 182T) could have the nosewheel lifted clear of the ground, and the runway still visible over the cowl - just. That said, I'm 6'3", so that improves the view a little.

One of my clients (the 182M) have just installed a brand new prop, after damaging the tips of the previous one. He told me that he flew gravel runways on occasion, so I was demonstrating the technique for best prop preservation: Full nose up control held, slowly open the throttle, allowing the aircraft to accelerate, and only releasing back pressure when the nosewheel could be felt to be off the runway, while maintaining a view of the runway ahead.

I agree that this is an extreme technique in terms of nose up, but the plane will do it if you command it, and it is your best chance of preserving a prop. I've only damaged a prop once, and that was in 1979, in a 182M, departing from gravel. I paid the Re n Re, and repair cost for the prop, which back in the day was hard on my finances - I learned. Since then, I've never damaged a prop in 4000+ more hours in single Cessnas. I meet owners who seem to think that props are a consumable. Well, if you can afford it, McCauley, or Hartzell would be happy to sell you a new one, but why not just save the money and down time, and fly the plane so as to not damage the prop in the first place?

The "Boeing" Cessna instructors perhaps don't think of this, as the Boeings they want to fly (excepting a properly kitted 737) are not gravel runway approved anyway. But Cessna do operate from non hard surfaced runways, and pilots should be applying techniques to preserve propellers.

[Pace]

Step Turn

But that is your choice and nothing wrong with that? you will have identified the runway threat and the weather conditions and made a balanced choice at the best way of dealing with that.
My concern in the thread is allowing the aircraft to fly when its ready too regardless no more no less. Different hats fit different heads Not one hat for all

Pace

[phiggsbroadband]

Following on from the above, I decided to refer to the C182 Service Manual.
Where I found that the Front Oleo is pre-loaded with 55-60 psi of air pressure.
This acts on about 3 square inches of strut, so the load at full extension is 3x60 = 180 lbs. Add about another 30 lbs for the weight of the wheel, and it means that, even at full extension, the wheel still puts 210lbs onto the tarmac ( or grass.)
So to go from full extension, to wheel off the ground, requires a step change in the force required on the yoke.

[9 lives]

My concern in the thread is allowing the aircraft to fly when its ready too regardless no more no less.

Any single Cessna whose tail is not dragging on the ground will not fly before it is ready to. It might fly before the pilot is ready for it, but if this happens, it is entirely a pilot failing, not a characteristic of the plane. Bear in mind that a Cessna 180 (taildragger 182) can be very happily flown off at a three point attitude. It is possible to fly a 182 at full power, with full flaps, in steady flight so nose high that the tail will strike before the mainwheels do. I've done it in my 150, and a tailwheel first landing in a 180 is the same thing. That is too high a pitch attitude near the ground. Being airborne at a lesser pitch angle, with the stall horn not blaring, is "the aircraft is ready to fly". The pilot should be ahead of that.

It is exactly this thinking which is the concern I am expressing; pilots thinking that they define when an aircraft is ready to fly, and holding it on the runway until then - generally with nose down trim, and no back pressure to lighten the nosewheel. The plane knows full well when it is ready to fly, and there is no excuse for the pilot not being aware of that. If, with that awareness, the pilot chooses to delay liftoff, to allow a but of extra speed for control is gusty winds, that's fine and wise. But that is an aware pilot, who is ahead of the plane, commanding the condition of flight they choose as appropriate.

The obverse is a pilot hurtling down the runway, with the nosewheel enduring needless load and wear, the prop vacuuming up runway grit, and eyes in watching the the ASI for a mystical number to be indicated, so they can suddenly apply some back pressure. If there is a good reason to do this, fine, but it should not be trained as a norm.

In all my years of flying, I have never found a good reason to hold a single engined plane on the surface during takeoff! Twins are a separate discussion, but even some of them will have exceeded Vmcg and nearly achieved Vmca before they naturally lift off - great!

So to go from full extension, to wheel off the ground, requires a step change in the force required on the yoke.

Not if the control is already being held full nose up! ;)

From the Part 23 design requirements: (my bold)

(b) For airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight--
(1) The takeoff may not require exceptional piloting skill;
(2) With takeoff power, there must be enough elevator control--
(i) For a tail-wheel type airplane, to maintain, at 0.8 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/cf2b46b0f927217a85256687006b9044/SectionRule/0.E0E%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif, an attitude that will allow holding the airplane on the runway until a safe takeoff speed is reached; and
(ii) For a nose-wheel type airplane to raise the nose-wheel clear of the takeoff surface at 0.85 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/cf2b46b0f927217a85256687006b9044/SectionRule/0.14F2%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif.

[Pace]

I have no argument with letting the aircraft especially a 182 fly off when it wants too if the conditions are right
I am not so sure of the advisability of doing that with the old slab winged PA32
Big powerful engine with torque up front.

The book value is 80 KTS but like the Seneca sporting the same high lift high drag wing it will left to its own devices go airborne at 62 KTS

A case of the pilot intervening and using POH figures to rotate not the aircraft deciding to fly

So much is made of the nose wheel and loading on that wheel in takeoff
It's far higher a loading on heavy breaking onto a short strip on landing
On a rough strip far worse than takeoff forces

Anyone know the comparative landing forces on hard braking on the nose compared to takeoff loading on the nose ?

Pace

[India Four Two]

Both of the 182's I recently flew (a 182M, and 182T) could have the nosewheel lifted clear of the ground, and the runway still visible over the cowl - just.

I've been flying my gliding club's "new" 182 towplane. We start the takeoff with the yoke fully back to lift the nosewheel as soon as possible, due to a rough grass runway.

I rapidly learned that it pays to wind the seat as high as possible, not only for a better view but also to avoid looking through the lower part of the windshield. The perspex has become distorted over time, due to its proximity to the defroster vents.

Our 182 has a 260 hp engine, reinforced firewall, 206 nosewheel and strut, bigger mainwheels and vortex generators. Great fun to fly and it gets off the ground at rediculously low speeds. However, not very suitable as a towplane in my opinion, but that's another story.

[mikehallam]

First of all this thread is now more like watching a ping pong game, each 'side' getting points.

Let's face it one rule does not fit all. At least care is required whatever one attempts. For a lighter example of flying off too early look at how the Rans S4 behaves.
(I'm told the Aeronca Champ has similar characteristics)

It will fly off too soon if not held down & become almost unsteerable in the air, especially in any cross wind component. Best i.e safe way was always to hold it on the deck till a reasonable healthy speed was judged, then the usual ground effect to consider before climbing out. I realise it's not a mighty 182, but neither were the twins someone mentioned in for much the same reason - just to show you guys not to be so didactic.

mike hallam, England

[DaveUnwin]

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.

[9 lives]

Best i.e safe way was always to hold it on the deck till a reasonable healthy speed was judged

It is the action of that judgement which has caught my eye. Two owners with whom I flew their 182s in one day, were both apparently surprised that the aircraft would fly itself off very gracefully if the nose was held light. That tells me that the judgement they would apply to "holding it on" might not be entirely appropriate to the aircraft. Hence my thread.

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?

[Pilot DAR]

A few years back, while visiting a client, I spotted a lonely Viking in the back of his hangar:

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b617/jim246/qt_zpsqfvm8n5n.jpg

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! :uhoh:

As said, horses for courses, just know your plane!

[Silvaire1]

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.


Sounds very much like another low wing plane I know, and will be flying tomorrow ;) 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...

[Pace]

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

[9 lives]

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!

Yes but...

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....

[India Four Two]

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. :)

[Pace]

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

[Above The Clouds]

Pace
Ok explain what you are trying to achieve by letting the aircraft go when it wants to ?


For the type being discussed I would say to achieve the shortest ground roll, a technique commonly used on a short soft or short rough runway.


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

That is also the procedure for the Seneca that you have mentioned when using a short field and obstacle clearance is required.

[Pace]

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

[Above The Clouds]

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.