Gaston's Flightops

[gprellwitz]

I have pics of my old club's 210 gear retract cycle coming out of OSH several years ago. I knew they were departing, and I stood at the edge of the runway and used the 'burst' shutter on my camera. I'll try to dig them up and SCAN THEM IN

IIRC, the 210 is much like the 177RG (if not identical) in that the wheels actually pivot perpendicular to the direction of travel during retraction. This causes some MAJOR drag in the few seconds that it moves through that section of the retraction process. I got to the point with the 177RG of waiting until I was a couple hundred ft AGL before retracting when loaded, simply because the extra drag made things too interesting that low to the ground. YMMV.

That would be cool. I've seen the video of Richard Collins' old 210 (that he's scrapped) doing the retraction. Do all 210's do it that way? (Ours is a 1968 T210H).

 

[sba55]

Grant,

It looked from the other end like you retracted the gear maybe 50 feet in the air, and sank some while it was going up! Isn't the 210 one of the planes where you're supposed to leave it down until you're clear? (Like the Bo)

I don't know about the 210, but there's no point in leaving the gear down in the Bo, at least not in the ones I've flown. The gear reduction adds almost no noticeable drag. With the gear down, speeding up to a comfortable speed (about 120 or so) is very difficult. You also don't get enough airflow at those low speeds and the engine gets very hot if you don't get the gear up.

My short field technique: 10 degrees flaps, gear up at positive rate, flaps up when clear, and nose down as soon as possible. Vx is impossible and useless in my plane, and there is almost no difference in climb performance between Vy and 120 KIAS, but the engine can't take Vy for more than a minute or two. Gaston's isn't really a short field, so my semi short field technique works well there. I wouldn't subject my plane to a true short field takeoff with airspeeds around Vx because I'd have serious engine issues not long after.

Edit: And like Dave, I'm all about airspeed. Bonanzas are much happier above 120 knots. That's when they really start to accelerate. If I wait to establish a nice airspeed, I end up behind the power (airspeed) curve for quite a few minutes. If, on the other hand, I get 120 before really starting the climb, everything works out much more easily and quickly....

-Felix

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Saturday morning on your first takeoff, It looked close to the end and the trees and I remember Steve Dill and I in unison saying, "oooohhhh ****". That is when I looked at him and said, "now that is a "true hillbilly grass flogger". I know you had room.

There have been some very animated discussions on the Beechboard and in other places like SIMCOM about airspeed v. altitude. I'm an airspeed guy

In the Twin, we have VMC concerns if we lose and engine and the inability to climb below Vyse (blue line). I lift off and accelerate to blue line in ground effect if possible. Some, lift off and climb at Vx or Vy at lower airspeed. I've compared them at SIMCOM and have flown another plane that did much better in ground effect than climbing at Vy (also for cylinder hear temperature control).

I could have climbed sooner at a lower airspeed; I preferred the method you saw. The guy in my right seat is over a 20,000 hour fella and he agrees with me. We briefed it and both understood what was going to happen. It is different than what some folks do. I had no problem staying low because there weren't any obstacles I had to clear until the power lines Dave mentioned and we were well above those.

Best,

Dave

 

[Steve]

I actually checked this phenomena out in a 1974 C210 non-turbo after a friend of mine bellied her 1985 T210 (fuel exhaustion event). We were discussing the relative merits of landing w or w/o gear extended dead stick off airport. My experience was a 10kt reduction in a power-off glide when the main gear dropped out of the downlocks until they were stowed in the wheel wells when flying just below max gear operating speed. Some models the nose gear door also opens during gear retraction (the one I was flying did) and that adds some additional drag, particularly when you have a nose up attitude. If you're close to the stall speed the mains and the nose door can make a difference.

I have pics of my old club's 210 gear retract cycle coming out of OSH several years ago. I knew they were departing, and I stood at the edge of the runway and used the 'burst' shutter on my camera. I'll try to dig them up and SCAN THEM IN

IIRC, the 210 is much like the 177RG (if not identical) in that the wheels actually pivot perpendicular to the direction of travel during retraction. This causes some MAJOR drag in the few seconds that it moves through that section of the retraction process. I got to the point with the 177RG of waiting until I was a couple hundred ft AGL before retracting when loaded, simply because the extra drag made things too interesting that low to the ground. YMMV.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Per the POH,
But I know what you're talking about. I had intended to do a runway inspection pass where I cycled the gear so someone could record the process, but we never did.

Does it say anything different for short fields? (Maybe not, weren't those the days before standardized POH's?)

Also, I'm wondering how it felt in the cockpit - Sure looked like you were sinking from our perspective, but I'm sure looking at the ridge at an angle as we were, you may have still been climbing slightly or at least level.

 

[gprellwitz]

Does it say anything different for short fields? (Maybe not, weren't those the days before standardized POH's?)

Also, I'm wondering how it felt in the cockpit - Sure looked like you were sinking from our perspective, but I'm sure looking at the ridge at an angle as we were, you may have still been climbing slightly or at least level.

Nothing regarding rear retraction.

Using 20* wing flaps reduces the ground run and total distance over the obstacle by approximately 10 per cent. Soft-field take-offs are performed with 20* flaps by lifting the nosewheel off the ground as soon as practical and leaving the ground in a slightly tail-low attitude. However, the airplane should be leveled off immediately to accelerate to a safe climb speed.

I felt like it was wallowing a little, and I should have lowered the nose more to gain airspeed, even though it wasn't a soft-field takeoff. I was thinking about whether I should abort the takeoff at about the time when I passed the last of the parked planes, but the airspeed was coming up. Just not as quickly as I'd have liked!

I think Jesse's advice is spot on. Go down the right side. Keep a nose-high attitude to keep pressure off the nose-wheel, but don't try to pull it off too soon. It certainly wasn't a soft-field situation. I also think I should have stuck with 10* flaps; they seem to get it to pull off more positively.

My main source of "anxiety" was the "goalposts." I knew that I wouldn't be above them, and didn't want the shifting winds to blow me into them.

 

[jason]

Nothing regarding rear retraction. I felt like it was wallowing a little, and I should have lowered the nose more to gain airspeed, even though it wasn't a soft-field takeoff. I was thinking about whether I should abort the takeoff at about the time when I passed the last of the parked planes, but the airspeed was coming up. Just not as quickly as I'd have liked!

I think Jesse's advice is spot on. Go down the right side. Keep a nose-high attitude to keep pressure off the nose-wheel, but don't try to pull it off too soon. It certainly wasn't a soft-field situation. I also think I should have stuck with 10* flaps; they seem to get it to pull off more positively.

My main source of "anxiety" was the "goalposts." I knew that I wouldn't be above them, and didn't want the shifting winds to blow me into them.

I didn't feel like the goalposts were an issue as long as I was aggressive in my response to the wind. I was very mindful of not allowing the wind to get the best of me. I was always very quick and aggressive in my response...the comfort of the passengers always came second to making sure that I was on target with my path and airspeed.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I also think I should have stuck with 10* flaps; they seem to get it to pull off more positively.

Try 15 degrees (roughly) - More specifically, turn the yoke all the way to one side and match the flap angle to the angle of the down aileron. Ask Tony why - We did this at 6Y9 last year, and while it only performed marginally better in terms of the length of the takeoff roll, it had a much better feel!

 

[CJones]

I also think I should have stuck with 10* flaps; they seem to get it to pull off more positively.

I dealt with this issue a few years ago when I had my first experience of flying the 177RG in loaded & hot conditions. I was using the book value of 10* flaps, but it felt like the t/o roll took FOREVER. I posed the question here about whether I should have used more flaps to help nudge into ground effect more quickly. I think the consensus, and mentality that I have adopted now, is to use the minimum amount of flaps as possible: While increased flaps do provide more lift at lower speeds, at some point the increase in drag overcomes any increased lift potential. I haven't tried Kent/Tony's idea of setting flaps to whatever full aileron deflection works out to be - but I plan on experimenting with it this coming week in the RV in preparation for 6Y9 this fall. The only problem is that, in the RV, you're off the ground in a few hundred feet regardless of flap setting. I'll have to try it at less-than-takeoff power settings.

 

[Steve]

The instructor that signed me off in the IAR showed me the aileron trick. He said its the optimum angle for lift vs. drag for the wing as the aileron is designed that way by mfg and works for the flaps, too. It just so happens 15 degrees is what mine is.

 

[tonycondon]

thats the same thing that I heard steve. mine was second hand through Sparky Imeson for whatever that's worth. I dont know about the aerodynamics argument, but like Kent, the second takeoff using that technique definitely FELT better.