Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

All these past takeoffs wasted... Never again! From now on, I'm doing
high speed "gentle" takeoffs.

Real world flying, tires have speed limits, extra speed
burns the tires up and the stop gets very expensive.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high
speed and very
| > gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most
cases for small
| > aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of
the normal
| > rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so
gently. Plus I
| > have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my
gentle climb.
| > Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?
| >
| > --
| > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|
| All these past takeoffs wasted... Never again! From now
on, I'm doing
| high speed "gentle" takeoffs.
|

you are in a SIM
the SIM does not care
airplanes may..
120knts on a Cessna and you'll be on the nosewheel only
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?

Most of us take off at a higher speed for a normal landing. The only
time you leave the ground at minimum speed is for "soft field"
technique. 120kts is insane for a span can but you may be flying the
737.

-Robert

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Real world flying, tires have speed limits, extra speed
> burns the tires up and the stop gets very expensive.

in addition, you would have to keep pushing quite a bit
to prevent the aircraft from taking off, thus forcing
the nose wheel down, and you don't really want the nose
wheel down at higher speed. Another detail that MS FS
gets wrong I reckon (it does a reasonable good job as long
as you keep things well within the envelop so to speak,
but as soon as you start doing something a bit odd, it is
unlikely to behave realistically).

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?

Of course!

A normal takeoff is very gentle and comfortable compared
to rumbling over a real-world bumpy runway at 120kts.
Your simulator is wrong if it says that a high speed takeoff
is more gentle. I suspect it's not accurately simulating
runway texture and bumps. Air under the wings makes
a far more comfortable shock absorber than the oleo strut.

Tire wear is greatly accelerated by going faster than the rated
speed. A blowout at faster than rated speed would not
be pretty.

Crosswind gusts are a potential safety issue while your wheels
are contacting the ground, but they're not a big problem once
you're airborne. The gear was not designed to take strong
side loads.

To maximize options if an engine goes out, you want to have
plenty of altitude under you, not over you. It's best to climb
to a reasonable altitude quickly.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Real world flying, tires have speed limits, extra speed
> burns the tires up and the stop gets very expensive.

You can say THAT again! Not in the GA venue of course, but the tire pressure
on a T38's mains is 250psi. When you blow these suckers, you'll think you've
been shot!
The T38 rotates at 160, max tire speed is 220, and gear speed is 240kts. In
this airplane, you are accelerating so fast on takeoff that rotation, and
gear retraction are practically one fluid motion....and indeed they HAVE to
be, to meet the Vle parameters.
Of course, GA airplanes are a bit tamer!! :-)
Dudley Henriques

Airplanes tires are small diameter [generally] and the
rotation speed creates high forces. Jets and a few light
twins sit on the ground at a negative angle of attack. A
positive rotation is needed to lift-off, but most light
aircraft want to lift-off just past stall speed.

There is no good reason to keep any airplane on the ground
at a speed higher than Vr or Vmc+5 and the nicest take-offs
are the ones where you rotated 4° up 10 knots below stall
speed and fly off the runway just above minimum stall speed.

The Beechjet 400 is flown to Vr and given a firm pull to 15°
nose up to hit the target V2 speed. It isn't very suave.


Dudley knows this, I just said it for the others out there.



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Real world flying, tires have speed limits, extra speed
| > burns the tires up and the stop gets very expensive.
|
| You can say THAT again! Not in the GA venue of course, but
the tire pressure
| on a T38's mains is 250psi. When you blow these suckers,
you'll think you've
| been shot!
| The T38 rotates at 160, max tire speed is 220, and gear
speed is 240kts. In
| this airplane, you are accelerating so fast on takeoff
that rotation, and
| gear retraction are practically one fluid motion....and
indeed they HAVE to
| be, to meet the Vle parameters.
| Of course, GA airplanes are a bit tamer!! :-)
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?
>

Wellll....from a groundpounding skydiving perspective...

you lift *off* per normal rotation speed but stay in ground effect to
build up airspeed and then swoop up several hundred feet or so at
1000fpm (Cessna, not a Twin Otter say). 'less you're a ground loving,
dirt kissing pussy. And I'm not saying you are...but some of your posts
make me wonder if perhaps you'd be best served by Microsofts "Bus"
Simulator.

Just my 2 cents.

Richard

Most of the posters have been flying for too long and they forgot
how takeoff feels for a non-pilot or a new pilot.

When you set the takeoff trim to 60-65 kts on a c172 (you know the
elevator trim position by experience), the plane lifts off almost by
itself, so
smooth and effortless, and elegant. It feels beautiful. Then, you
smoothly add nose down trim a little bit at a time, as the plane
stablizes
at takeoff climb speed of 70 kts.

In the simulator, you have to move the yoke by its displacement instead
of light pressure. It is hard to give the sim yoke the right amount of
gentle
nudge, and I also found myself overcontroling the simulator yoke. The
finer
feel of the control is different and can not relate to the real plane.

The real thing is beautiful, and hard to explain in words unless you
experience
it. Like explaining the joys of sex. You get the feel when you can do
the takeoff with only two fingers on the yoke, in calm air.

As the other poster explained, the airplane wants to fly and it is
easier
to control in the air.



wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> > gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> > aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> > rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> > have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> > Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?
>
> Of course!
>
> A normal takeoff is very gentle and comfortable compared
> to rumbling over a real-world bumpy runway at 120kts.
> Your simulator is wrong if it says that a high speed takeoff
> is more gentle. I suspect it's not accurately simulating
> runway texture and bumps. Air under the wings makes
> a far more comfortable shock absorber than the oleo strut.
>
> Tire wear is greatly accelerated by going faster than the rated
> speed. A blowout at faster than rated speed would not
> be pretty.
>
> Crosswind gusts are a potential safety issue while your wheels
> are contacting the ground, but they're not a big problem once
> you're airborne. The gear was not designed to take strong
> side loads.
>
> To maximize options if an engine goes out, you want to have
> plenty of altitude under you, not over you. It's best to climb
> to a reasonable altitude quickly.

"P S" > wrote in news:1163209397.165388.182990
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Most of the posters have been flying for too long and they forgot
> how takeoff feels for a non-pilot or a new pilot.

Not this pilot. I call it magic EVERYTIME the wheels leave terra firma.

Especially when the air is calmer then calm and the plane pretty much does
what it was designed to do so effortlessy as the ground falls away from
me....

Allen

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:59:10 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
>gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
>aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
>rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
>have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
>Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?

Runway condition. Most have some unevenness, and you can be getting popped
around quite a bit as the speed picks up. Aircraft tires are fairly small
diameter, hence dips and bumps that wouldn't bother a car affect a plane quite a
bit more.

Also, holding the plane down at higher speeds offers its own problems. A
tailwheel airplane like mine can conceivably start ticking the ground with the
prop. For a nosewheel airplane, holding the plane down can cause directional
instability, a phenomenon called "wheelbarrowing."

If the sim doesn't give the opportunity for a "gentle" takeoff at lower speeds,
there's something wrong with the modeling.

Ron Wanttaja

Friction. Think to yourself, which is going to be less draggy..

a) speeding along the ground, tyres creating friction with the ground
b) speeding along in ground effect, tyres not creating friction with
the ground

get off the ground, accellerate in ground effect to desired climb
speed, climb away and enjoy. Especially when the surface is less than
perfect.

writes:

> Your simulator is wrong if it says that a high speed takeoff
> is more gentle.

My simulator is not a person and doesn't say anything to me.

> I suspect it's not accurately simulating runway texture and
> bumps.

It simulates both, but only with noise, since it's not a full-motion
simulator.

I had not considered the bumpiness, although to some extent a plane
that wants to fly is going to be pressing pretty lightly against the
runway (assuming it is balanced just right). I'm not holding the yoke
forward, I'm just not pulling it back.

> Tire wear is greatly accelerated by going faster than the rated
> speed. A blowout at faster than rated speed would not
> be pretty.

Another useful consideration. Blowouts are not simulated,
unfortunately.

> Crosswind gusts are a potential safety issue while your wheels
> are contacting the ground, but they're not a big problem once
> you're airborne. The gear was not designed to take strong
> side loads.

I haven't had too much trouble with crosswinds, although yesterday at
a few Colorado mountain airports was an exception.

> To maximize options if an engine goes out, you want to have
> plenty of altitude under you, not over you. It's best to climb
> to a reasonable altitude quickly.

But if you climb quickly you have less margin between your current
configuration and a stall, no? Whereas waiting longer to lift off
would have you moving much faster as you climb, so if you lose an
engine you have more inertia to keep you going while you deal with the
problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Richard writes:

> you lift *off* per normal rotation speed but stay in ground effect to
> build up airspeed and then swoop up several hundred feet or so at
> 1000fpm (Cessna, not a Twin Otter say).

I've read about this but I have a hard time keeping the aircraft in
ground effect once it lifts off. It really wants to climb once it is
in the air. I do routinely put the stick forward fairly quickly (I
don't trim for take-off--maybe I should practice with that), but even
then the aircraft still climbs.

> 'less you're a ground loving,
> dirt kissing pussy. And I'm not saying you are...but some of your posts
> make me wonder if perhaps you'd be best served by Microsofts "Bus"
> Simulator.

Flying is not an exercise in machismo for me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> If the sim doesn't give the opportunity for a "gentle" takeoff at lower speeds,
> there's something wrong with the modeling.

I'm sure it does; I'm probably just doing something wrong. I'm better
than I used to be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> Friction. Think to yourself, which is going to be less draggy..
>
> a) speeding along the ground, tyres creating friction with the ground
> b) speeding along in ground effect, tyres not creating friction with
> the ground
>
> get off the ground, accellerate in ground effect to desired climb
> speed, climb away and enjoy. Especially when the surface is less than
> perfect.

Staying in ground effect has been really tough for me thus far. Once
I'm in the air, the aircraft really wants to climb very badly, it
seems. If I try to hold it low enough to stay in ground effect, I
risk accidentally plowing it back down into the runway. However, I'll
try to practice this more.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently. Plus I
> have lots of airspeed if something goes wrong during my gentle climb.
> Are there drawbacks to this that I'm missing?

Yes.

m

A good technique to stay in ground effect in the Baron that I fly is to push
forward on the yoke as you accelerate to between 100-120 K, and then retract
the gear. This guarantees that you will remain in ground effect.

A brisk pull back on the yoke will then establish a climb attitude.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Friction. Think to yourself, which is going to be less draggy..
>
> a) speeding along the ground, tyres creating friction with the ground
> b) speeding along in ground effect, tyres not creating friction with
> the ground
>
> get off the ground, accellerate in ground effect to desired climb
> speed, climb away and enjoy. Especially when the surface is less than
> perfect.
>

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Staying in ground effect has been really tough for me thus far. Once
> I'm in the air, the aircraft really wants to climb very badly, it
> seems. If I try to hold it low enough to stay in ground effect, I
> risk accidentally plowing it back down into the runway. However, I'll
> try to practice this more.
>

Enjoy wasting your time. MSFS doesn't know ground effect. It
doesn't know the height of the wings above the ground. Couldn't
feel it anyway, nor see any screen indication it's happening.

F--

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:44:56 GMT, in rec.aviation.student, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>A good technique to stay in ground effect in the Baron that I fly is to push
>forward on the yoke as you accelerate to between 100-120 K, and then retract
>the gear. This guarantees that you will remain in ground effect.

Until the engine quits, anyway.

My gut tells me that I should't retract my gear until I have enough altitude
that, in the event of engine failure, there's enough time to extend the gear
again before landing. But I'm not a pilot yet, and I could be wrong.

-Scott

> Staying in ground effect has been really tough for me thus far. Once
> I'm in the air, the aircraft really wants to climb very badly, it
> seems. If I try to hold it low enough to stay in ground effect, I
> risk accidentally plowing it back down into the runway. However, I'll
> try to practice this more.


that's because the take off trim setting is for a climb at power

I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim Baron.
In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty years
ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60 mph.
That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did you.

Modern practice is to keep light twins on the runway until
Vmc and lift off at Vmc +5 knots. Climb at or above Vyse
[blue line] until at or above circling minimums.

Simulators are great things IF you treat them like the real
thing and follow "real world" procedures. Consider paint
ball gun battles. You can stand out in the open and hose
your "enemy down" all day and never get hurt. Try that with
real guns and you're dead in about 3 seconds.




"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
m...
|A good technique to stay in ground effect in the Baron that
I fly is to push
| forward on the yoke as you accelerate to between 100-120
K, and then retract
| the gear. This guarantees that you will remain in ground
effect.
|
| A brisk pull back on the yoke will then establish a climb
attitude.
|
|
| > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| > Friction. Think to yourself, which is going to be less
draggy..
| >
| > a) speeding along the ground, tyres creating friction
with the ground
| > b) speeding along in ground effect, tyres not creating
friction with
| > the ground
| >
| > get off the ground, accellerate in ground effect to
desired climb
| > speed, climb away and enjoy. Especially when the
surface is less than
| > perfect.
| >
|
|

(Scott) wrote:
> My gut tells me that I should't retract my gear until I have enough altitude
> that, in the event of engine failure, there's enough time to extend the gear
> again before landing. But I'm not a pilot yet, and I could be wrong.

It depends. If you're executing a maximum performance climb to clear
terrain, you need to get the gear up quickly. The gear being down adds a
huge amount of drag.

On a big runway, the usual mantra is to keep the gear down as long as
there's enough runway in front of you that you could land straight-ahead if
you had an engine failure. Even on the 6000 foot runway I fly from, that's
still only a few seconds after rotation.

I was incorrect in the previous post regarding the Baron. I generally keep
the plane on the ground with firm forward stick pressure until reaching
about 120 knots, and then light the RATO packs, followed by immediate gear
retraction, and then pitch up to around 45 degrees. This produces an ROC of
around 4000fpm until reaching the flight levels.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:25:01 GMT, "Viperdoc" >
wrote:

>I was incorrect in the previous post regarding the Baron. I generally keep
>the plane on the ground with firm forward stick pressure until reaching
>about 120 knots, and then light the RATO packs, followed by immediate gear
>retraction, and then pitch up to around 45 degrees. This produces an ROC of
>around 4000fpm until reaching the flight levels.

Strangely enough, this reminds me of an EAA meeting this week. Our speaker was a
chapter member who has led the construction of two full-scale ME262s. The
Stormbird was designed as a point-defense fighter so they have a high initial
ROC and a fairly restrictive fuel load (<2 hours). The replicas use GE J-85s
and weigh about 6,000 pounds less than the originals...they climb about 7,000
FPM but carry the same fuel.

They flew a 262 to a destination in company with a Cessna Citation. But the
Citation was limited to more prosaic climb rates. The 262's fuel consumption
was so greatly increased by the extra time at lower altitudes that they almost
had to land early....

Ron Wanttaja

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Your simulator is wrong if it says that a high speed takeoff
> > is more gentle.
>
> My simulator is not a person and doesn't say anything to me.
>
> > I suspect it's not accurately simulating runway texture and
> > bumps.
>
> It simulates both, but only with noise, since it's not a full-motion
> simulator.
>
> I had not considered the bumpiness, although to some extent a plane
> that wants to fly is going to be pressing pretty lightly against the
> runway (assuming it is balanced just right). I'm not holding the yoke
> forward, I'm just not pulling it back.

Asking for disaster. Your plane has the same inertial mass as it
always did, but a certain amount of weight is being carried by the
wings. So when you go over a short rise in the runway, there's
a huge force between the wheels and the pavement. When you
go over a slight dip, the wheels leave the pavement entirely.
You're bouncing down the runway. Not gentle at all!

> I haven't had too much trouble with crosswinds, although yesterday at
> a few Colorado mountain airports was an exception.

If you're bouncing down the runway, alternately leaving and
then hitting the ground, you will soon have trouble with
crosswinds.

> But if you climb quickly you have less margin between your current
> configuration and a stall, no?

You climb out at Vx or Vy, depending on conditions.
Well above stall. Depending on field conditions, you
might lift off the runway at something significantly
slower, and accelerate to climb speed while in or
near ground effect.

> Whereas waiting longer to lift off
> would have you moving much faster as you climb, so if you lose an
> engine you have more inertia to keep you going while you deal with the
> problem.

You can use your elevator to trade airspeed for altitude. It's
a game of managing the total energy (kinetic + potential) of
the system. Putting your whole energy budget into the
kinetic bucket isn't so good, because increasing airspeed
increases parasitic drag. You're best off to minimize
the amount of energy that drag steals from you.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim Baron.
> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
> on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty years
> ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60 mph.
> That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did you.

I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for our King Air A90. All
it did was remove the short field takeoff section. Just as you suggest for
the Baron.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

In article >,
says...

>
>Flying is not an exercise in machismo for me.
>

Indeed - it is nothing to you, because you do not fly.

If you were to take a few flying lessons you would not have to pollute this
group with nonsensical questions - but then this would defeat your purpose,
as you would no longer have the opportunity to challenge and insult the
well-meaning people who try to give you advice . . .

I used to think the advantage of simulators was that they allowed the pilot
to learn, without risk of putting him permanently out of commission . . . Now
I see the the first is not necessarly true, and the second is not necessarily
an advantage . . .

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
> on the ground at 100 knots.

I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well. If there were no
way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no Baron could ever
crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its intense desire to fly
would keep it from contacting the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TxSrv writes:

> Enjoy wasting your time. MSFS doesn't know ground effect.

Recent versions do simulate ground effect, as I recall. I'm not sure
of the details. I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
like ground effect.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty well on
take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is still a
handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King Air,
it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
performance to continue into the air and to a safe landing.
Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator really
helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is over
4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate is
pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south, had
only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL) and
did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.


It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the aisle.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
Baron.
| > In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
Baron
| > on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty
years
| > ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60
mph.
| > That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did
you.
|
| I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for our
King Air A90. All
| it did was remove the short field takeoff section. Just as
you suggest for
| the Baron.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|

I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise in a straight
KA200.

Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way I think of the
Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?

The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast majority are on King
Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel control unit
replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the failures. So much so
that the singles have manual fuel control units and great big emergency pull
handles.

The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is the nice big high
lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load, although I've seen our
350 at 305 Kts @ FL310

Karl
"Curator"


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty well on
> take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
> definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is still a
> handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King Air,
> it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
> before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
> performance to continue into the air and to a safe landing.
> Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator really
> helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is over
> 4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate is
> pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
> Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south, had
> only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL) and
> did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
> 9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.
>
>
> It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
> baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
> chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the aisle.
>
>
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | >I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
> Baron.
> | > In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
> Baron
> | > on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty
> years
> | > ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60
> mph.
> | > That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did
> you.
> |
> | I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for our
> King Air A90. All
> | it did was remove the short field takeoff section. Just as
> you suggest for
> | the Baron.
> |
> | Karl
> | "Curator" N185KG
> |
> |
>
>

So far, the only engine failure I've had on a King Air was
caused by a broken nacelle tank vent on an F90, discounting
a flameout due to no fuel on board even though the gauges
showed almost two hours fuel. But manual fuel control does
make sense and is a requirement on the singles, I think.

I do like the big tail surfaces, great control and VG range.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise
in a straight
| KA200.
|
| Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way
I think of the
| Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?
|
| The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast
majority are on King
| Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel
control unit
| replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the
failures. So much so
| that the singles have manual fuel control units and great
big emergency pull
| handles.
|
| The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is
the nice big high
| lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load,
although I've seen our
| 350 at 305 Kts @ FL310
|
| Karl
| "Curator"
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty
well on
| > take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
| > definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is
still a
| > handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King
Air,
| > it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
| > before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
| > performance to continue into the air and to a safe
landing.
| > Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator
really
| > helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is
over
| > 4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate
is
| > pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
| > Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south,
had
| > only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL)
and
| > did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
| > 9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.
| >
| >
| > It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
| > baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
| > chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the
aisle.
| >
| >
| >
| > "karl gruber" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | ...
| > | >I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
| > Baron.
| > | > In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
| > Baron
| > | > on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly.
Fifty
| > years
| > | > ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at
60
| > mph.
| > | > That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so
did
| > you.
| > |
| > | I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for
our
| > King Air A90. All
| > | it did was remove the short field takeoff section.
Just as
| > you suggest for
| > | the Baron.
| > |
| > | Karl
| > | "Curator" N185KG
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Recent versions do simulate ground effect, as I recall. I'm not sure
> of the details. I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
> unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
> like ground effect.

Airplanes don't hover, and "I recall" isn't proof of anything.
If ground effect is modeled, you can prove with flight testing
and reporting back the numbers. How would you know you're in
ground effect in MSFS? Why would the programmers waste valuable
CPU time doing something 99% of simmers don't understand?

F--

You believed the fuel gauges on a King Air? Ha Ha
Ha!...........What-a-Gotcha. They are so totally unreliable. Your engine
failure was weird, and written up in the airframe logs for the fix.

Best,
Karl Curator

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> So far, the only engine failure I've had on a King Air was
> caused by a broken nacelle tank vent on an F90, discounting
> a flameout due to no fuel on board even though the gauges
> showed almost two hours fuel. But manual fuel control does
> make sense and is a requirement on the singles, I think.
>
> I do like the big tail surfaces, great control and VG range.
>
>
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise
> in a straight
> | KA200.
> |
> | Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way
> I think of the
> | Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?
> |
> | The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast
> majority are on King
> | Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel
> control unit
> | replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the
> failures. So much so
> | that the singles have manual fuel control units and great
> big emergency pull
> | handles.
> |
> | The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is
> the nice big high
> | lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load,
> although I've seen our
> | 350 at 305 Kts @ FL310
> |
> | Karl
> | "Curator"
> |
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty
> well on
> | > take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
> | > definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is
> still a
> | > handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King
> Air,
> | > it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
> | > before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
> | > performance to continue into the air and to a safe
> landing.
> | > Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator
> really
> | > helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is
> over
> | > 4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate
> is
> | > pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
> | > Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south,
> had
> | > only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL)
> and
> | > did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
> | > 9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.
> | >
> | >
> | > It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
> | > baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
> | > chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the
> aisle.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > "karl gruber" > wrote in
> message
> | > ...
> | > |
> | > | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote
> | > in message
> | > | ...
> | > | >I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
> | > Baron.
> | > | > In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
> | > Baron
> | > | > on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly.
> Fifty
> | > years
> | > | > ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at
> 60
> | > mph.
> | > | > That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so
> did
> | > you.
> | > |
> | > | I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for
> our
> | > King Air A90. All
> | > | it did was remove the short field takeoff section.
> Just as
> | > you suggest for
> | > | the Baron.
> | > |
> | > | Karl
> | > | "Curator" N185KG
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

TxSrv writes:

> If ground effect is modeled, you can prove with flight testing
> and reporting back the numbers. How would you know you're in
> ground effect in MSFS?

If you don't know the numbers, and you don't know how to determine
that you're in ground effect in the simulator, then you cannot know
whether it simulates ground effect or not, unless you've read the
code.

> Why would the programmers waste valuable CPU time doing
> something 99% of simmers don't understand?

Most of the simulation aspect of the product covers areas with which
many of the product's users are unfamiliar. That is the nature of
simulation. You don't leave something out just because a user might
not be aware of it--on the contrary, the idea is to simulate it,
anyway, so that he can discover it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I always thought I was the only one who sweated takeoffs more than landings.
I consider a perfect takeoff (at least from smooth pavement) one in which
you don't know you've left the ground until you look down.

mike
"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "P S" > wrote in news:1163209397.165388.182990
> @k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Most of the posters have been flying for too long and they forgot
>> how takeoff feels for a non-pilot or a new pilot.
>
> Not this pilot. I call it magic EVERYTIME the wheels leave terra firma.
>
> Especially when the air is calmer then calm and the plane pretty much does
> what it was designed to do so effortlessy as the ground falls away from
> me....
>
> Allen

Hover? What kind of wind? What kind of craft? Alien?

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
> unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
> like ground effect.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If you don't know the numbers, and you don't know how to determine
> that you're in ground effect in the simulator, then you cannot know
> whether it simulates ground effect or not, unless you've read the
> code.

That tends to prove it's not in MSFS, because there is a way,
using indications in the panel vs. height, to see if there. I
failed last night to see it. Maybe just be a lousy simmer. Dumb
MSFS doesn't even know air density. Why simulate density's
cousin near the ground?

> You don't leave something out just because a user might
> not be aware of it--on the contrary, the idea is to simulate it,
> anyway, so that he can discover it.

Why tie up the CPU at a time (landing) you least want that? And
the clueless simmer can't see it anyway. It's several complex
formulae, to be calculated a couple times/second at least, and a
function of whole bunch of things, some MSFS don't even know about.

F--

mike regish writes:

> I always thought I was the only one who sweated takeoffs more than landings.
> I consider a perfect takeoff (at least from smooth pavement) one in which
> you don't know you've left the ground until you look down.

Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing, so
it's logical to be more worried about landings. Take-offs are more
fun, so perhaps that also distracts pilots from the potential risks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TxSrv writes:

> That tends to prove it's not in MSFS, because there is a way,
> using indications in the panel vs. height, to see if there. I
> failed last night to see it.

What indications were you looking for?

> Why tie up the CPU at a time (landing) you least want that?

Most of the CPU power used in simulation is used to generate visuals.
The amount required for all of the rest of the simulation is trivial
in comparison. Simulating ground effect is insignificantly trivial
from the standpoint of CPU power required.

> And the clueless simmer can't see it anyway.

Perhaps, but many simmers are not clueless, and expect a simulation of
real life.

> It's several complex formulae, to be calculated a couple times/second
> at least ...

Modern CPUs can do that half a million times faster without breaking a
sweat.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> Hover? What kind of wind? What kind of craft? Alien?

Powered fixed-wing aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing,

The Nall Report indicates 30% of all accidents occur during landing, not
50%.

It also indicates that only 3% of all fatal accidents occur during landing.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:40:15 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
> The Nall Report indicates 30% of all accidents occur during landing, not
> 50%.
>
> It also indicates that only 3% of all fatal accidents occur during
> landing.

One could argue that nearly every fatal accident is related to the
landing... Unless the person died during a mid-air collision and it was
obvious that they were dead before they hit the ground, they died upon
coming in contact with the ground (i.e. 'landing')... <sick-grin>

There are 3 ways to die:
1. During ground operations (i.e. before the aircraft has left the ground)
2. During flight (i.e. mid-air collision)
3. Upon impact with the ground (i.e. 'landing')

The recent accident up in KT where the airliner departed from the wrong
(i.e. too short) runway was a landing accident since they hit the berm or
whatever at the end of the runway and became airborn... It's rather
unlikely that *this* killed anyone, but the subsequent 'landing'
definitely did...

Y'All,
To learn something that is basically incorrect presents TWO problems. If
this is the first way you learned to perform it will be your first selection
of options when under stress.

Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing something that has
fundamental faults is that
unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of you knowledge to
remove.

Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most important part of all
performance.
Think on it,
Gene Whitt


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
>> on the ground at 100 knots.
>
> I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well. If there were no
> way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no Baron could ever
> crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its intense desire to fly
> would keep it from contacting the ground.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

MX -

One of the things I think your theory is fundamentally neglecting is
the fact that most light GA aircraft cruise at a substantially lower
deck-angle than they sit on their wheels - this means if you try to do
anything near cruise speed while still on the ground, you'll be driving
your nosewheel into the ground whether or not your actively holding the
bird on the ground with elevator down pressure.

Vr exists for a reason... I was trained with the general consensus on
this board - begin pullback at VR, get the plane off the ground in
ground effect (you can clearly 'feel' the wheels leave the ground), and
then release the back-pressure until the aircraft accellerates to Vy
(or Vx, as the case may be) in ground effect, before setting up in a Vy
attitude climb.

Its interesting though - While most pilot's I talk too (including my
instructor) swear by this technique, I haven't seen much 'formal'
mention of it in the literature... It strikes me as being a cross
between a traditional and 'soft-field' takeoff. The FAA pilot's manual
warns that "premature rotation" can lead to settling back down on the
runway, and suggests a 'proper' takeoff is simply to set the Aircraft
in Vy attitude initially and let it fly off the runway, but my
instructor has warned me against becoming dependent on that technique,
especially if I ever hope to fly out of high DA airports...

I guess this is one of those areas where I'm still actively learning a
great deal.

-Scott

On Nov 12, 8:04 pm, > wrote:
> Y'All,
> To learn something that is basically incorrect presents TWO problems. If
> this is the first way you learned to perform it will be your first selection
> of options when under stress.
>
> Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing something that has
> fundamental faults is that
> unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of you knowledge to
> remove.
>
> Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most important part of all
> performance.
> Think on it,
> Gene Whitt
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in messagenews:93fcl21iie0d6cs8s2hir1euv9edosdfek@4ax .com...
>
> > "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
> >> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
> >> on the ground at 100 knots.
>
> > I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well. If there were no
> > way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no Baron could ever
> > crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its intense desire to fly
> > would keep it from contacting the ground.
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I'm not thinking in terms of risk, but of finesse.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> I always thought I was the only one who sweated takeoffs more than
>> landings.
>> I consider a perfect takeoff (at least from smooth pavement) one in which
>> you don't know you've left the ground until you look down.
>
> Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing, so
> it's logical to be more worried about landings. Take-offs are more
> fun, so perhaps that also distracts pilots from the potential risks.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Well, son, those don't hover without a significant headwind.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Hover? What kind of wind? What kind of craft? Alien?
>
> Powered fixed-wing aircraft.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"mike regish" > wrote in
:

> I'm not thinking in terms of risk, but of finesse.

Yep, agree 110 percent with that. Something no simulator will ever even
get close to reproducing!

Just got my plane back from it's yearly annual, and wow, what a difference
a well tuned engine makes! Well before me reaching the 1000 foot runway
markers, the plane gracefully lifts off.

Allen

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> MX -
>
snip
> Its interesting though - While most pilot's I talk too (including my
> instructor) swear by this technique, I haven't seen much 'formal'
> mention of it in the literature... It strikes me as being a cross
> between a traditional and 'soft-field' takeoff. The FAA pilot's manual
> warns that "premature rotation" can lead to settling back down on the
> runway, and suggests a 'proper' takeoff is simply to set the Aircraft
> in Vy attitude initially and let it fly off the runway, but my
> instructor has warned me against becoming dependent on that technique,
> especially if I ever hope to fly out of high DA airports...
>

My high density technique is to accelerate with nose wheel on the ground to
my desired final climb speed. Wheels create less drag than wings. If the
end of the runway is met before the airspeed is met, take off anyway.

Danny Dot
NASA culture is workplace bullying
See www.mobbinggonemad.org


> I guess this is one of those areas where I'm still actively learning a
> great deal.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Nov 12, 8:04 pm, > wrote:
>> Y'All,
>> To learn something that is basically incorrect presents TWO problems.
>> If
>> this is the first way you learned to perform it will be your first
>> selection
>> of options when under stress.
>>
>> Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing something that has
>> fundamental faults is that
>> unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of you knowledge to
>> remove.
>>
>> Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most important part of
>> all
>> performance.
>> Think on it,
>> Gene Whitt
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in
>> messagenews:93fcl21iie0d6cs8s2hir1euv9edosdfek@4ax .com...
>>
>> > "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>> >> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
>> >> on the ground at 100 knots.
>>
>> > I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well. If there were no
>> > way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no Baron could ever
>> > crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its intense desire to fly
>> > would keep it from contacting the ground.
>>
>> > --
>> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>

The force required to keep many airplanes on the ground
increases drag and extends the take-off roll. Also, moving
the concentration of weight onto the nose wheel and off the
mainwheels will cause the airplane to wheelbarrow and
directional control will be lost.

The early and over rotation on the ground will get the plane
airborne but the high inducted drag will prevent
acceleration. Use the elevator to balance the airplane on
its wheels and rotate into a shallow climb attitude to have
the least total drag.



"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
|
| "EridanMan" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > MX -
| >
| snip
| > Its interesting though - While most pilot's I talk too
(including my
| > instructor) swear by this technique, I haven't seen much
'formal'
| > mention of it in the literature... It strikes me as
being a cross
| > between a traditional and 'soft-field' takeoff. The FAA
pilot's manual
| > warns that "premature rotation" can lead to settling
back down on the
| > runway, and suggests a 'proper' takeoff is simply to set
the Aircraft
| > in Vy attitude initially and let it fly off the runway,
but my
| > instructor has warned me against becoming dependent on
that technique,
| > especially if I ever hope to fly out of high DA
airports...
| >
|
| My high density technique is to accelerate with nose wheel
on the ground to
| my desired final climb speed. Wheels create less drag
than wings. If the
| end of the runway is met before the airspeed is met, take
off anyway.
|
| Danny Dot
| NASA culture is workplace bullying
| See www.mobbinggonemad.org
|
|
| > I guess this is one of those areas where I'm still
actively learning a
| > great deal.
| >
| > -Scott
| >
| > On Nov 12, 8:04 pm, > wrote:
| >> Y'All,
| >> To learn something that is basically incorrect
presents TWO problems.
| >> If
| >> this is the first way you learned to perform it will be
your first
| >> selection
| >> of options when under stress.
| >>
| >> Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing
something that has
| >> fundamental faults is that
| >> unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of
you knowledge to
| >> remove.
| >>
| >> Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most
important part of
| >> all
| >> performance.
| >> Think on it,
| >> Gene Whitt
| >>
| >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in
| >>
messagenews:93fcl21iie0d6cs8s2hir1euv9edosdfek@4ax .com...
| >>
| >> > "Jim Macklin" >
writes:
| >>
| >> >> In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
Baron
| >> >> on the ground at 100 knots.
| >>
| >> > I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well.
If there were no
| >> > way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no
Baron could ever
| >> > crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its
intense desire to fly
| >> > would keep it from contacting the ground.
| >>
| >> > --
| >> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
| >
|
|

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is there any harm in taking off at a relatively high speed and very
>> gently? There seems to be plenty of runway in most cases for small
>> aircraft. If I leave the ground at 120 kts instead of the normal
>> rotation speed, I find that I can lift off ever so gently.

Realistically, airplane tires aren't designed for that kind of speed and
associated heat buildup. It would probably cut down on your tire life (not
to mention wheel bearings) dramatically.

-c
PP-ASEL-IA