any a/c will take off without flaps ... while training we normally never used flaps, except maybe if we wanted to do a short/soft field t/o ...

Bad

Really?
So what would be Vr in say, a flapless Starfighter?

:ooh:

A few years ago, one of our FAs, who has been studying to be a pilot, noticed an aileron full up during taxi-out while looking out a cabin window (she was a ticketed passenger riding another airline, in an MD-80 series airplane), and mentioned it to the cabin crew. The aircraft stopped, one of the pilots came back and had a look for himself. They went back to the gate. Who knows what may have happened had they gone airborne with it?

All of these posts only serve to emphasis that flapless takeoffs are possible. It is the failure to select SLATS ( or equivalent), for takeoff, that is the killer.

Flapless F-104...?
 

Someone asked the speed for a F-104 flaps up approach/landing...?
Ref.: NATO Dash-1 Manual (F-104G - J79-GE-17)
High key is 280 KIAS, low key is 240 KIAS...
Flaps are up, and boundary layer control INOP...
xxx
By the way, ANY airplane could takeoff FLAPS UP...
Provided plenty of runway (shall we say 20,000 ft long, or about...)
And tyres capable of very high speeds, like 220+ knots...
xxx
Radials and white walls optional for the Michelins...
:8
Happy contrails

John, Which planes can you think of where it was preferable and made sense (safety) per AFM to do a no flap take off? If you could reference those, I would like to look them up...

Belargusa

It was me that asked about the 104.

But I asked what Vr would be flapless.

Obviously the thing will land flapless- any a/c could lose flap function airborne.

But could it take off like that- if you lengthened the Runway at Luke ,say.:ok:

Lookforshooter

The Fokker 100 and 70 routinely do flapless take offs and the HS125 does too I believe. You could start with them.

So will the Global Express, if fitted with the appropriate tires. With slats extended, that is. Will need approximately 1700 foot more runway, depending on conditions, obviously. Not approved yet in JAA-land, but coming, I'm told.

I am curious when I am going to be told which transport category aircraft takes off 0 Flaps, and it's considered the safest condition to do so..Oh...well...probably doesn't matter...if the airlines aren't burning up all available runway with zero flap takeoffs, then they are with Flex/reduced thrust...

any light aircraft will do no flap takeoff if the runway is long enough, the be55 is clean take off most of the time

Is this a trick question? They can't get airborne with it as during the takeoff run the airflow will allow the control tab to take effect....

d'oh!

Lookforshooter:
Although the Saab 340 manual doesn't say anything about it, a flap 0 departure is the preferred method. A slightly longer take off roll, but a significantly better second segment climb and also it is significantly easier to handle the plane single engine with the flaps up.

15 is used for short runways and tailwind departures. Otherwise allways 0 flap.

/LnS

I am curious when I am going to be told which transport category aircraft takes off 0 Flaps, and it's considered the safest condition to do so

Not a question of "safest condition". The AFM provides the boundary conditions and the operator/crew then determine which is the most appropriate configuration for takeoff on a given occasion. Considerations of safety will be a part of this determination.

Fokker 70 numbers for a STD day @ 88,000 lbs:

Zero Flap - V1/Vr/V2/take-off distance = 133/136/142/5568
8 Flap - V1/Vr/V2/take-off distance = 126/129/136/5214

Thanks for the posts...I was curious if it made sense on any of the bigger AC to actualy take off 0 flaps...given increased runway lengths...I certainly have selected LESS flaps to make second segment, always nice to have the choice...

Glad Yorky Towers (not surprisingly, from Coventry) finally mentioned the Gooney Bird, saving me the trouble.

But, just for the record, we used also to do it in the Dart-Herald on hot days, provided the runway was long enough; always with water-methanol injection for extra power. Like the F27 and others, it's to enable a decent RTOW when the second-segment climb gradient (WAT) would otherwise be a problem. It gave us a better payload out of Southampton, but not out of Guernsey or Jersey (too short).

Lookforshooter, perhaps you are not old enough to remember large piston aeroplanes that got airborne in half the runway length; then struggled to clear a 100-foot hill one mile beyond the airfield boundary?

The prototype piston (Leonides) Herald was lost at Khartoum, because it failed to climb through an inversion layer. Does anyone know whether it was using flap for take-off?