trust performance calcs?

It is Beechcraft's fault for removing the short field takeoff procedure from the POH.

Approach flaps, old deleted short field technique, and he'd been 200 feet over the trees. And, Concrete, WA, (3W5, 267', record high temp about 80) is hardly ever "high density altitude."

Thank you, beech attorneys!!
 
Yeah, it's been posted a couple times. I had a takeoff nearly as bad leaving Angwin once.
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the rotation was started too early? Stall horn shouldn't be heard when rotating and there is still significant asphalt length in front of you.
 
That's only 267 elevation? According to AirNav, it's also a 2600 foot runway.

That really is a F-up.

I presumed this was a high mountain runway. It doesn't look any nastier than Booneville (D83).
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the rotation was started too early? Stall horn shouldn't be heard when rotating and there is still significant asphalt length in front of you.
Click to expand...

Unless you're doing a soft field takeoff, which isn't appropriate for the conditions.

Yes, he rotated too early and got himself behind the power curve out of ground effect. That was his primary error. Nothing to do with DA.

Winds can change the equation quite a lot, but with that runway at that altitude, a normal takeoff would have served him much better than that mess. Short field is not necessary. It's 3500 feet to the trees, and they are only 41 feet high.
 
Last edited:
It's the tendency of wanting to rotate early because the runway is short. As others have already posted, he would have been better off doing a normal takeoff, get that gear sucked up early to gain Vx set that pitch into homesick angel mode to hold it with approach flaps, and he would have cleared the tree height by the departure end of the runway. That was just poor technique, perhaps poor flap setting choice (and yes, the POH is sometimes culpable for that, read Grumman cheetah, tigers).

But hey, better lucky than good right? *knocks on wood* :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's the tendency of wanting to rotate early because the runway is short. As others have already posted, he would have been better off doing a normal takeoff, get that gear sucked up early to gain Vx
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. On some types, Bonanzas included (along with some Mooneys, Cessnas, and probably some others), short field technique is to leave the gear down until obstacles are cleared because retracting the gear increases drag during the retraction sequence. On the C-birds it's because the wheels are rotated sideways, on the Bos and Mooneys it's because the inner gear door opens up to allow retraction, thus exposing a big draggy hole on the bottom of the wing.
 
I guess I wouldn't consider 2600' to be a short runway, especially at a low elevation.

I'm not familiar with the 36 series Bonanzas, but I have a fair amount of time in a 35 and I wouldn't be worried about a runway that short, even up to MGW. One thing that I didn't see discussed in the video was how heavy they were. Might they have been heavy and/or overloaded causing poor climb performance?

flyingcheesehead said:
Not necessarily. On some types, Bonanzas included (along with some Mooneys, Cessnas, and probably some others), short field technique is to leave the gear down until obstacles are cleared because retracting the gear increases drag during the retraction sequence. On the C-birds it's because the wheels are rotated sideways, on the Bos and Mooneys it's because the inner gear door opens up to allow retraction, thus exposing a big draggy hole on the bottom of the wing.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've never left the gear down on a Beech or a Mooney during a short field takeoff. The gear operates fast enough I've never felt it would be an issue.

The Cessnas on the other hand are another story, I'd leave them down.
 
Only a few Mooneys have inner doors and slow gear. My gear moves in 3-4 seconds [I forget what the Owner's Manual says].

I periodically visit a 2000' grass strip and usually depart south to avoid the cement plant's gravel pile, never go in or out heavy and don't have a problem. On any short field, positive rate gear up and climb at Vx until clear of the trees, then climb at Vy. In a Cessna with 30-second, crippled-duck-style gear cycling time, leave it down . . . .
 
mondtster said:
I guess I wouldn't consider 2600' to be a short runway, especially at a low elevation.
Click to expand...

Nor would I...

I'm not familiar with the 36 series Bonanzas, but I have a fair amount of time in a 35 and I wouldn't be worried about a runway that short, even up to MGW. One thing that I didn't see discussed in the video was how heavy they were. Might they have been heavy and/or overloaded causing poor climb performance?
Click to expand...

Well, something was sure causing poor performance. I'd think that even a high DA day at a field that low would be ~2500 DA, and a G36 with a turbo on it should have zero problems with it.

Interesting. I've never left the gear down on a Beech or a Mooney during a short field takeoff. The gear operates fast enough I've never felt it would be an issue.
Click to expand...

Hank S said:
Only a few Mooneys have inner doors and slow gear. My gear moves in 3-4 seconds [I forget what the Owner's Manual says].
Click to expand...

Yeah, mine's in the 4-second range (see below). But if I was getting performance like that Bo, I'd be worried that pulling the gear up might be enough to cause the plane to sink back onto the runway. He was way behind the power curve.

On a normal takeoff, I'm pulling the gear up as I'm going through Vx (85), then accelerating through Vy (105) and up to a cruise climb speed (120). By the time I'm crossing the airport fence I'm above Vy and generally a good 500 AGL. I would think a G36 would have similar performance.

 
Last edited:
A few people mentioned approach flaps...do we know how much flap he was using? I had the volume down because I am at work. What exactly do you consider approach flaps. I usually take off with 10* flaps. Are you saying he should have used more or less flap (approach flaps) ?

thanks!
 
He should have been using approach flaps, but it is not allowed.

Beechcraft does not have an approach flaps takeoff procedure for most of their airplanes. They used to, but removed them from the POH in about 1979.

If you see a short field takeoff procedure in a Beech, it is probably because the owner never removed it per the 1979 service bulletin.


Although, since this is the internet, there are more than likely, exceptions.
 
MAKG1 said:
Unless you're doing a soft field takeoff, which isn't appropriate for the conditions.

Yes, he rotated too early and got himself behind the power curve out of ground effect. That was his primary error. Nothing to do with DA.

Winds can change the equation quite a lot, but with that runway at that altitude, a normal takeoff would have served him much better than that mess. Short field is not necessary. It's 3500 feet to the trees, and they are only 41 feet high.
Click to expand...

I concur. I've now had some modest practice at higher altitude (and moderately short) grass and dirt airports. The reason the pilot in the video didn't get anywhere near the book performance is because he wasn't following the book technique.

I've now seen several videos of pilots taking off with the stall horn chirping when they were well out of ground effect. I can see climbing near stall to get off a soft field into ground effect so you can pick up speed quicker, but as you point out, that wasn't needed here. But based on my limited experience, even that technique is rarely needed. Normal rotation and pitch that takes you to Vx is what you want. Climbing at below Vx must be a sign of some bad teaching going on. Plenty of bad, and no good, comes with takeoff climbs below Vx.
 
sferguson524 said:
I don't know if anyone has seen this, but WOW...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmEVwyMRYIY
Click to expand...

I trust performance calculations in the sense that I never expect the airplane to outperform those calculations. Often, the aircraft (or pilot) will perform significantly worse than what has been calculated. The calculations were made with a perfect airplane in mind and confirmed with a new airplane and a very good pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top