"Rotate" a C 182?

[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]

Originally Posted by Bob Upanddown

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 , 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 .

[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