Takeoff Technique vs Procedure

Which is your preferred takeoff techique?

  • Full Power with brakes

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Ease in the power while Rolling

    Votes: 77 97.5%
  • Total voters
    79
dmccormack said:
You gain 100 feet by rolling on at what speed and on what surface?
Click to expand...

It's probably closer to 75'. Someone here showed a 30' improvement. The question is, if you can use less runway even if you leave a little behind you, why wouldn't you? Now, I realize it is a bit harder to do it in a tailwheel, but I load up the side gear pretty good. As far as an exact speed, I dunno. The problem is, I am not looking at the GPS when I'm in the turn, and my ASI doesn't come alive right away.

Oh, and it always helps if the turn is to the left.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
It's probably closer to 75'. Someone here showed a 30' improvement. The question is, if you can use less runway even if you leave a little behind you, why wouldn't you? Now, I realize it is a bit harder to do it in a tailwheel, but I load up the side gear pretty good. As far as an exact speed, I dunno. The problem is, I am not looking at the GPS when I'm in the turn, and my ASI doesn't come alive right away.

Oh, and it always helps if the turn is to the left.
Click to expand...

I've done rolling starts in my Chief but only when I was feeling confident. I haven't flown it in three months (top overhaul and move) so I won't be doing that until I'm confident again.

I've also done them in other airplanes, but the speed is never so fast that I feel i get much improvement in actual t/o distance as the place I arrive on the runway at -- let's say 15 MPH -- is probably the same place I would be if I had taxied carefully to put the tail over the end of the runway.

:dunno:
 
denverpilot said:
I'll throw in here that none of the above is in the official CPA text I'm looking at hete, nor taught by my "volunteer" instructor.

They're pretty clear nowadays that you're not doing backcountry work here and that the book numbers (stopped not rolling) are the criteria for the go/no-go.

I think your instructor embellished their curriculum a bit. But I can call Walt and ask him if it's in there if you like.

Turning off the Alternator? I get the concept but that's a bit extreme unless you were flying a seriously underpowered aircraft for the mountain mission. Wow.
Click to expand...


Yes, my instructor did break from the CPA curriculum, especially on the alternator. I do not use that procedure, but that is how I was taught. I do use the rolling start however. I do monitor the gauges on roll out. I never had any problems with the Tiger (180 HP) during my years in Colorado or flying the western, mountain states. They were using 150 HP 172's to train at Leadville when I was there.

I have the entire CPA curriculum book, and I'll take a look at it. It has been a while since I reveiwed it so I don't recall offhand.
 
No problem. I just thought, "Wow, people are going to get the wrong idea about how extreme they will think the CPA course is!"

Normal to long-ish paved runways, and just calculating takeoff performance covers most mountain ops here, it's just that folks are out of the habit. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
No problem. I just thought, "Wow, people are going to get the wrong idea about how extreme they will think the CPA course is!"

Normal to long-ish paved runways, and just calculating takeoff performance covers most mountain ops here, it's just that folks are out of the habit. ;)
Click to expand...


No incentive for me to take a mountain flying course...C'Mon you gotta give me something cool to envy.
 
Hmmm.....wonder how the Doolittle Raiders would have done trying rolling takeoffs from HORNET....

:stirpot:
 
Jaybird180 said:
No incentive for me to take a mountain flying course...C'Mon you gotta give me something cool to envy.
Click to expand...

Like flying into a downdraft that outperformers the ability of your airplane?

I think Nate was being modest. There's a lot more to it than that as he knows. For me, much of it was thinking of your plane as a slightly powered glider, and using natural lift, thermals, updrafts etc, and avoiding/minimizing downdrafts. Oh yeah, and not flying into box canyons. :D
 
Anthony said:
Like flying into a downdraft that outperformers the ability of your airplane?

I think Nate was being modest. There's a lot more to it than that as he knows. For me, much of it was thinking of your plane as a slightly powered glider, and using natural lift, thermals, updrafts etc, and avoiding/minimizing downdrafts. Oh yeah, and not flying into box canyons. :D
Click to expand...

Do these classes cover finding out if a road goes through a tunnel before you decide to follow it?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Do these classes cover finding out if a road goes through a tunnel before you decide to follow it?
Click to expand...


No, they just insist that part of your pre-flight planning is determining if the width of the tunnel is big enough for your wingspan.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Hmmm.....wonder how the Doolittle Raiders would have done trying rolling takeoffs from HORNET....

:stirpot:
Click to expand...

I think they would have done great if they had a taxiway next to the aircraft carrier in which to start the rollout. The benefit of this is that you are already rolling at a very good pace by the time you hit the end of the runway.

They also had a MOVING carrier in which to provide a headwind. Now if the carrier were on a treadmill..........
 
Anthony said:
I think they would have done great if they had a taxiway next to the aircraft carrier in which to start the rollout. The benefit of this is that you are already rolling at a very good pace by the time you hit the end of the runway.

They also had a MOVING carrier in which to provide a headwind. Now if the carrier were on a treadmill..........
Click to expand...

What if the flight deck was a treadmill???
 
Unless taking off from a short runway or practicing short-field procedures, I always do a rolling start and smooth power application. At my busy Southern California airport, its always best to spend as little time as possible on the runway. In fact, the controllers at the airports around me usually like to hear a verbal request from pilots who intend to hold brakes while running up the engine on the runway

:goofy:
 
OK, I'm going to pile on another question.

Who accelerates in ground effect before climbing?

I usually accelerate to Vx in the ground effect (~10 feet AGL) before I let it start climbing. This means that at most of the airports I frequent that I begin the climb at about the departure end. Then I let the speed ease up to Vy.

For my plane liftoff is at 60MPH, Vx is 95MPH, and Vy is 105MPH.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, I'm going to pile on another question.

Who accelerates in ground effect before climbing?

I usually accelerate to Vx in the ground effect (~10 feet AGL) before I let it start climbing. This means that at most of the airports I frequent that I begin the climb at about the departure end. Then I let the speed ease up to Vy.

For my plane liftoff is at 60MPH, Vx is 95MPH, and Vy is 105MPH.
Click to expand...

My students get an earfull if they try to leave groundeffect before Vx. At lower airspeeds you may only be able to climb in ground effect and then begin to settle back down and that can be dangerous. If they go all the way to Vy even that's fine with me providing there is plenty of room. Higher speeds than that are a lazy climb and I prefer altitude to airspeed although both = life.

<---<^>--->
 
COFlyBoy said:
Who accelerates in ground effect before climbing?
Click to expand...

Aye. Maybe lazy about it on a long runway with no obstacles, but if you need to clear something... you aren't giving yourself the best chance at that slower than Vx.

Lately I'm just letting it come up to Vy on long runways. Easier on the cylinders, heat-wise. Cruise climb if not shooting for max climb once above 1000' AGL.
 
denverpilot said:
Aye. Maybe lazy about it on a long runway with no obstacles, but if you need to clear something... you aren't giving yourself the best chance at that slower than Vx.
Click to expand...

My takeoff performance graph has a little note that says "Speed at 50 ft, 3400 lbs - 82 MPH" This is much less than Vx (95MPH). I assume that the test pilot rotated as described in the takeoff procedure and then tried to get as much altitude as possible in the shortest distance.

By staying low you are dumping chemical energy into speed instead of altitude. Obviously you can't climb at your rotation speed, but waiting for Vx doesn't get you the most height either. There is a sweet spot somewhere between Vr and Vx that gets the most altitude before the end of the runway. Could be a fun exercise to go find it for your plane.
 
Good point. Ironically my original POH has no such thing, but the R/STOL addendum to the POH which takes priority over the original, does.

Maybe I should be trying harder to hit their "profiles". Certainly if I want to attain "book" numbers I'll have to.
 
COFlyBoy said:
OK, I'm going to pile on another question.

Who accelerates in ground effect before climbing?

I usually accelerate to Vx in the ground effect (~10 feet AGL) before I let it start climbing. This means that at most of the airports I frequent that I begin the climb at about the departure end. Then I let the speed ease up to Vy.

For my plane liftoff is at 60MPH, Vx is 95MPH, and Vy is 105MPH.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about...I rotate at Vx:rofl:
 
I was always told to push the throttle in like you had to pay for everything in front of ya sneakers, makes me treat it all nice and gentle, I let it roll depending on the runway length and even at the moment there's only about 350 metres of usable strip (of about 1300m of grass, it's been a wet winter here) I don't have to get to excited in the Super Dec . Actually one of the gravel strips here you don't even slow down ,just keep a reasonable taxi speed and turn onto the runway while slowly feeding in the power, I've been told guys have written off a prop in one badly executed takeoff there, not sure I want to be the one to ring an owner with that story!
 
For my plane, it depends. Runway length and weight factor in. But the biggest reason that I tend to hold brakes at the end of the runway is the nature of my turbocharged engine. Way too easy to overboost if one's not watching carefully, and it's simply safer & easier to watch it spool up while holding brakes.
 
Normally I smoothly accelerate as I curve gently to the center-line, letting the plane lift off on it's own, with gentle back pressure applied @40 Knts/mph. but at one grass strip I use, half the runway is lined with tall trees on both sides. Starting at the open end and headed to the trees I use 5% flaps & hold the plane just barely on the main's, the nose just skimming the grass until it reachs Vx, then firmly lift off and hold Vx till it is 100' above the trees & fields,then relax to Vy. This pops me up before I reach the trees, very quickly, no chance to drift in a x-wind in ground affect. going the other way I start in the trees & use ground effect , since the trees block all x-wind it is calm in the 'tunnel', then climb at Vx till I am 200' above the tree's & homes. I strongly suspect we all use varied techneques, based on the constantly changing current conditions. One small airport I do not use flaps if it is cool & I am light for T/O, but they are required if hot or heavy. I will not fly out if it is both Hot & the plane is heavy (or in). Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top