Short Takeoff techiques
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Takeoff techiques
Hi,
I was just wondering what short-takeoff techiques you guys use.
The techique that I was taught was brakes on, stick right back, full power, release the brakes and then with the nose-up to take the weight off the nose-wheel, the aircraft will fly away, there-fore shortining the actuall take-off distance. Some of the older guys would have been taught this way, I suposse.
So thanks for your comments,
I was just wondering what short-takeoff techiques you guys use.
The techique that I was taught was brakes on, stick right back, full power, release the brakes and then with the nose-up to take the weight off the nose-wheel, the aircraft will fly away, there-fore shortining the actuall take-off distance. Some of the older guys would have been taught this way, I suposse.
So thanks for your comments,
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: desert somewhere
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technique that you describe sounds similar to something that I might do on a soft field (except for the brakes), but may I suggest that raising the nosewheel before the published rotation speed will actually increase the distance required to 50ft. (more induced drag). Many aircraft also specify a flap setting for short field takeoffs. Your POH will tell you exactly what to do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes M.25 I agree with the optimum flap setting
The reason for the brakes is to check the static thrust
or can use the powering up in the turn method
getting the nose wheel out of the mud and other obstacles takes the pressure off it
my idea of a short take off is to leave the ground in the shortest possible time
The reason for the brakes is to check the static thrust
or can use the powering up in the turn method
getting the nose wheel out of the mud and other obstacles takes the pressure off it
my idea of a short take off is to leave the ground in the shortest possible time
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aus
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very strongly suggest you consult the aircraft's flight manual for short field take-off techniques. If you are planning to go into (and out of) a short field, get to know exactly what to expect from the aircraft. Are you limited by the length of the field or by obstacles after take-off? Do you really want to get off in the shortest possible time or is it a distance that is more important?
Grandpa Aerotart
3 Blader you are describing a soft field takeoff. It is essentially aimed, with judicious use of flap (various techniques depending on type of aircraft/flap), at getting the aircraft out of the gloop at the slowest possible speed..i.e. just above the stall...and then accelerating to a suitable climb speed without the retarding drag of the soft surface.
If you have a good read of your AFM you will see that the takeoff technique described therein is actually a short field takeoff technique.
Why would the manufacturer advocate a technique that used more runway than necesary?
In this technique you maximise acceleration rate by keeping everything neutral (crosswinds excepted), no excessive form drag caused by deflected control surfaces and no excessive induced drag from high AoA, until just before flying speed and apply gentle back pressure on the controls to raise the nosewheel a little off the runway and it flies off when it's ready. You then aim a few inches above the highest thing in front of you while accelerating. Some aeroplanes use flap some don't.
Granted the technique described in the AFM will not be as short as some non standard methods used by bushpilots...and they are perfectly valid in their own right..and fun
...but they may not be suitable for the average PPL...or even CPL.
I would strongly advise that you not attempt anything shorter than the figures indicated by the AFM + a 20% buffer unsupervised. Remember that the figures from the AFM are unfactored.
If you have a good read of your AFM you will see that the takeoff technique described therein is actually a short field takeoff technique.
Why would the manufacturer advocate a technique that used more runway than necesary?
In this technique you maximise acceleration rate by keeping everything neutral (crosswinds excepted), no excessive form drag caused by deflected control surfaces and no excessive induced drag from high AoA, until just before flying speed and apply gentle back pressure on the controls to raise the nosewheel a little off the runway and it flies off when it's ready. You then aim a few inches
above the highest thing in front of you while accelerating. Some aeroplanes use flap some don't.Granted the technique described in the AFM will not be as short as some non standard methods used by bushpilots...and they are perfectly valid in their own right..and fun
...but they may not be suitable for the average PPL...or even CPL.I would strongly advise that you not attempt anything shorter than the figures indicated by the AFM + a 20% buffer unsupervised. Remember that the figures from the AFM are unfactored.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 23rd Jul 2006 at 12:48.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chuck,
Glad you pointed out the general confusion that seems to lump SOFT field takeoffs with SHORT field takeoffs.
and for safety's sake I was hoping either a PNG or Torres Straits pilot picked up the thread.
As Chuck has indicated, a sound knowledge of aerodynamics including density height considerations, and how to optimise things, is critical.
Also the information in section 4 of good AFM's or POH's.
PNG and Torres Straits have a STOL C & T regime that incorporates what you need to know with what you must do, and must not do.
Do as Chuck says, work out the distance required and factor it by 20% and you may just reduce the pucker factor to 7 or 8.
p.s. There are things that can be done in a C206 or BN2 that should NOT be attempted in less role-specific aircraft.
Glad you pointed out the general confusion that seems to lump SOFT field takeoffs with SHORT field takeoffs.
and for safety's sake I was hoping either a PNG or Torres Straits pilot picked up the thread.
As Chuck has indicated, a sound knowledge of aerodynamics including density height considerations, and how to optimise things, is critical.
Also the information in section 4 of good AFM's or POH's.
PNG and Torres Straits have a STOL C & T regime that incorporates what you need to know with what you must do, and must not do.
Do as Chuck says, work out the distance required and factor it by 20% and you may just reduce the pucker factor to 7 or 8.
p.s. There are things that can be done in a C206 or BN2 that should NOT be attempted in less role-specific aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a tricycle undercarriage aircraft where the main wheels are behind the longitudinal pivot point, you will increase the TO distance if you haul back before the wing is ready to fly because you are placing downward pressure on the mainwheels.
Similarly, with a taildragger, you will increase TO distance by pushing the nose over to wings level for the same reason.
Good airmanship incorporates good techniques and you will only learn this by reading what the manufacturer reckons is right and then using sensible moderate control inputs.
Similarly, with a taildragger, you will increase TO distance by pushing the nose over to wings level for the same reason.
Good airmanship incorporates good techniques and you will only learn this by reading what the manufacturer reckons is right and then using sensible moderate control inputs.
Pulling back too early and raising the nose-wheel in a tricycle will greatly increase the takeoff distance required by creating masses of drag on the wing due to the high angle of attack.
I know someone who replaced their bungees in their tricycle undercarriage and as a result reduced takeoff distance by near 30% because the aircraft accelerated so much faster on takeoff because the rear was slightly higher and there was therefore less angle of attack and drag on the wings.
On a bitumen runway if I want to take off short I don't pull back on the nose until rotation time which gets me greater acceleration. When I do try to "show off" and do a good short fielder (say an intersection departure) I find myself taking forever to get off because the nose is too high and the aircraft won't accelerate - a common mistake.
Only raise the nose for a soft field takeoff, however that being said, you can of course take some of the pressure off the nose to reduce wear and tear.
I know someone who replaced their bungees in their tricycle undercarriage and as a result reduced takeoff distance by near 30% because the aircraft accelerated so much faster on takeoff because the rear was slightly higher and there was therefore less angle of attack and drag on the wings.
On a bitumen runway if I want to take off short I don't pull back on the nose until rotation time which gets me greater acceleration. When I do try to "show off" and do a good short fielder (say an intersection departure) I find myself taking forever to get off because the nose is too high and the aircraft won't accelerate - a common mistake.
Only raise the nose for a soft field takeoff, however that being said, you can of course take some of the pressure off the nose to reduce wear and tear.
Similarly, with a taildragger, you will increase TO distance by pushing the nose over to wings level for the same reason.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Lift the tail at the same time as you "jack" it off the ground with flap. Not in the text book but works.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you push the stick forward and hold it there after the wing is level, you will put downward pressure on the mainwheels and thus increase the friction of the wheels to the ground and thus increase the T/O distance.
I owned a Maule and couldn't figure out how others more experienced got off quicker than me.
It's a bit like milking a mouse, you have to have an understanding of the outcome of the forces you can put to any particular aircraft.
The late Kerry Endacott told me when teaching me aerobatics, you should "seduce it, not rape it"
I treat all aspects of flying the same.
I owned a Maule and couldn't figure out how others more experienced got off quicker than me.
It's a bit like milking a mouse, you have to have an understanding of the outcome of the forces you can put to any particular aircraft.
The late Kerry Endacott told me when teaching me aerobatics, you should "seduce it, not rape it"
I treat all aspects of flying the same.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alpacenturi
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was beaten to the 185 tecneque although i was taught to just put out 40 and fly it of in the three point and then accelerate while reducing flap (Chuck is probably the expert on this and may have a comment) however ifmy understanding of this is if you were flying somthing with a laminar flow wing say like a comanchie is if you pull back and hold it there before flying speed you will run through the fence because the air flow will allways be stalled.
Grandpa Aerotart
Yup
Full power in a C185...a little forward pressure to help the tailwheel up if loaded...unloaded it comes up on it's own...and then grab the 'johnson bar' and 'levitate'...what a mighty machine
If you just hang 40 out you are creating lots of drag and potentially reducing airflow over the elevator and possibly the rudder to some extent at slower speeds... Empty it would make little difference because the aeroplane is so powerful...but fully loaded it would be a less than clever technique. Flaps 20 was optimum and the aircraft accelerated faster with 0 and then apply 20 instantly and away you went.
As tinny also alludes to...at many PNG strips you just charged off the end, polled forward to minimise the chance of bashing the tail on the ground, and built up 'flying' speed in a dive...worked good....lifted lots more bags of coffee
Full power in a C185...a little forward pressure to help the tailwheel up if loaded...unloaded it comes up on it's own...and then grab the 'johnson bar' and 'levitate'...what a mighty machine
If you just hang 40 out you are creating lots of drag and potentially reducing airflow over the elevator and possibly the rudder to some extent at slower speeds... Empty it would make little difference because the aeroplane is so powerful...but fully loaded it would be a less than clever technique. Flaps 20 was optimum and the aircraft accelerated faster with 0 and then apply 20 instantly and away you went.
As tinny also alludes to...at many PNG strips you just charged off the end, polled forward to minimise the chance of bashing the tail on the ground, and built up 'flying' speed in a dive...worked good....lifted lots more bags of coffee
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alpacenturi
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chuck. I was taught as a low time tail drager pilot in the flats of the top end so I thought I'd throw that into your lap. If I ever fly a 185 again I'll remember that.
