Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow?

[Flyingmonk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot

Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?

Monk

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>
> Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?

Hard to tell from that. I don't understand Spanish and wasn't sure I
understood the video. The first part looked to be from after the crash
when they were treating the people, yet the airplane looked to be in too
good of condition to have survived the crash that was show later in the
video, especially given the fire. The airplane looked to be right wing
heavy and then it appeared that a lot of left rudder was applied to try
to raise the wing.

The airplane seemed to get off the ground reasonably quickly and it
climbed well out of ground effect so I wouldn't immediately suspect it
being overweight. I couldn't make out the position of the elevator
given the poor video quality. If it was an aft CG problem, one would
expect to see full down elevator to try to lower the nose, but I
couldn't tell if that was the case at all.

Do you have any further information as to what the cause was?

Matt

[Jose]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>
> Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?

I do know Spanish but the site insists that I get the latest version of
Flash. I'm not about to get the latest version of something I consider
odious to begin with, so I'm not going to think anything.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jose > said:
>I do know Spanish but the site insists that I get the latest version of
>Flash. I'm not about to get the latest version of something I consider
>odious to begin with, so I'm not going to think anything.

That's the second time today you've posted to boast about your aversion to
Flash. Why do you think anybody cares?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"This also tells they understand our language. They are just not willing to
speak to us using it." "Who knew they were French?" - Babylon 5

[Jose]

> That's the second time today you've posted to boast about your aversion to
> Flash. Why do you think anybody cares?

I suppose I'm making too much noise, but if nobody makes noise, the
assault will continue. I'll be happy to tell you why flash is so bad if
you like, but as you note, it's probably OT here.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> That's the second time today you've posted to boast about your aversion to
> Flash. Why do you think anybody cares?

The same reason they "care" about your aversion to Windows and other
Microsoft software.

Maybe people do and maybe people don't, but it seems a little out of line
for you to bother commenting on his anti-Flash posts, given you are of the
same habit for software you don't like.

Pete

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:vFllg.119241$dW3.30429
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> I suppose I'm making too much noise, but if nobody makes noise, the
> assault will continue. I'll be happy to tell you why flash is so bad if
> you like, but as you note, it's probably OT here.

But so was your original rant... Why hold back now?

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Flyingmonk wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
> >
> > Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?

Overweight.

> Hard to tell from that. I don't understand Spanish and wasn't sure I
> understood the video. The first part looked to be from after the crash
> when they were treating the people,

No, it was some kind of medevac mission. The video is in chronological
order. They had the plane stuffed completely full of people and heavy
equipment, including a pretty large gas cylinder of some kind.

> yet the airplane looked to be in too
> good of condition to have survived the crash that was show later in the
> video, especially given the fire. The airplane looked to be right wing
> heavy and then it appeared that a lot of left rudder was applied to try
> to raise the wing.
>
> The airplane seemed to get off the ground reasonably quickly

Not to me. It looked like it was behind the power curve the whole time.

> and it climbed well out of ground effect

Only for a few seconds, which just proves it was overweight but not
stalled (yet). They were just barely flying, they traded the last bit
of extra airspeed they had for altitude when they ran out of runway, and
then they mushed it in.

rg

[Jose]

> But so was your original rant... Why hold back now?

It's ok to go off topic every now and then. It's even ok if an entire
conversation drifts off topic. However I don't think it's appropriate
to continue off topic just for the purpose of expressing frustration at
something that has nothing to do with the forum...unless enough people
ask for it (and the subject line is changed appropriately).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Flyingmonk wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>>>
>>>Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>
>
> Overweight.
>
>
>>Hard to tell from that. I don't understand Spanish and wasn't sure I
>>understood the video. The first part looked to be from after the crash
>>when they were treating the people,
>
>
> No, it was some kind of medevac mission. The video is in chronological
> order. They had the plane stuffed completely full of people and heavy
> equipment, including a pretty large gas cylinder of some kind.

OK, I wasn't clear on that. I saw what appeared to be someone holding a
bloody piece of bandage and the cylinder, so I thought maybe that was
the rescue part of the incident, but the condition of the fuselage
certainly wasn't consistent with a crash at that speed!


>>yet the airplane looked to be in too
>>good of condition to have survived the crash that was show later in the
>>video, especially given the fire. The airplane looked to be right wing
>>heavy and then it appeared that a lot of left rudder was applied to try
>>to raise the wing.
>>
>>The airplane seemed to get off the ground reasonably quickly
>
>
> Not to me. It looked like it was behind the power curve the whole time.

I guess that is a matter of opinion. I flew a C172 over gross (not a
lot) on a hot day before and it took off worse than what is on the video
and the initial climb was more sluggish than shown there. However, I
kept the nose down until I had 80 knots and then was able to climb like
a 150. :-) It did look like he was behind the power curve, but what
seemed strange to me was the large skid the airplane appeared to be in.
Maybe it was just the camera angle though.


>>and it climbed well out of ground effect
>
>
> Only for a few seconds, which just proves it was overweight but not
> stalled (yet). They were just barely flying, they traded the last bit
> of extra airspeed they had for altitude when they ran out of runway, and
> then they mushed it in.

I'm not as certain as you. Ground effect begins to be detectable at one
wing span of altitude above the grond, but just barely (see reference).
I was always taught that it really is only signficant at 1/2 the wing
span. However, I agree with you that the airplane appeared to get 50 -
75 feet high which is well out of ground effect. He should have been
able to fly away once getting to that height. I wonder if something got
into the controls or something like that. I just am not sure that what
we saw is completely explained by either overloading or out of balance.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I'm not as certain as you. Ground effect begins to be detectable at one
> wing span of altitude above the grond, but just barely (see reference).
> I was always taught that it really is only signficant at 1/2 the wing
> span. However, I agree with you that the airplane appeared to get 50 -
> 75 feet high which is well out of ground effect. He should have been
> able to fly away once getting to that height. I wonder if something got
> into the controls or something like that. I just am not sure that what
> we saw is completely explained by either overloading or out of balance.
>
> Matt

Sorry, forgot the reference.

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/GroundEffect.html

Matt

[tony roberts]

Looks to me overloaded and out of CG.
The Oxy cylinder would be very heavy, does not appear to be strapped in
and possibly moved back on rotation. My best bet is shifting load in
overloaded aircraft. I also wonder about the position of the flaps. It
looked like a lot of flap to me. Put all of that into a high density
altitude situation and you are in a world of hurt.

Tony


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article . com>,
"Flyingmonk" > wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot




--

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
>Flyingmonk wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>>
>> Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>
>Hard to tell from that. I don't understand Spanish and wasn't sure I
>understood the video.


It was a medical flight. There were 4 people on the plane. Pilot, mother,
child and doctor. It took off and crushed. Narrator is telling that 'like
pushed by a gigantic force, the plane was brought down into a nearby school'

Only pilot survived, baddly burned. The other three died on impact.

There is audio from the pilot giving briefing to the mother, who was
very, very nervous, about not touching anything. All footage is secuential.



--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

[Matt Whiting]

Eduardo K. wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Flyingmonk wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>>>
>>>Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>>
>>Hard to tell from that. I don't understand Spanish and wasn't sure I
>>understood the video.
>
>
>
> It was a medical flight. There were 4 people on the plane. Pilot, mother,
> child and doctor. It took off and crushed. Narrator is telling that 'like
> pushed by a gigantic force, the plane was brought down into a nearby school'
>
> Only pilot survived, baddly burned. The other three died on impact.
>
> There is audio from the pilot giving briefing to the mother, who was
> very, very nervous, about not touching anything. All footage is secuential.

Thanks for the translation information. Was this a recent accident? If
not, has an official investigation report been issued with probably cause?

Matt

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>Thanks for the translation information. Was this a recent accident? If
>not, has an official investigation report been issued with probably cause?
>
>Matt

No idea. I only know what I saw in the video.


--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

[Dale]

In article <nospam-FE6576.19093818062006@shawnews>,
tony roberts > wrote:

> Looks to me overloaded and out of CG.
> The Oxy cylinder would be very heavy, does not appear to be strapped in
> and possibly moved back on rotation. My best bet is shifting load in
> overloaded aircraft. I also wonder about the position of the flaps. It
> looked like a lot of flap to me. Put all of that into a high density
> altitude situation and you are in a world of hurt.
>


Looks like 20 degrees of flaps which is normal for short-field work in a
182.

It looked to me like he lost directional control, or couldn't see well
enough to track the runway. Looks as if he comes off the right side of
the runway.

The skid looked like maybe he wasn't using any right rudder to counter
p-factor, but it's odd that he came off the right side of the
runway..you'd think he would have gone left in that case. Crosswind
perhaps?

I think it's very possible that they were under max takeoff weight, but
without knowing how high or hot they were...

Looked like the gurney and O2 tank was jammed pretty hard against his
seat back. I wonder if maybe his seat wasn't locked in and slid back if
the gurney moved aft on rotation. The time I witnessed someone do that
they were flying pretty crappy...might explain the lack of corrective
action.

Sad.

[[email protected]]

It looks to me like there might be a lot of right rudder
applied, possibly by a frightened passenger, and the pilot is using
left aileron to counteract it. The overall drag gets too high and
brings the airplane down in a marginal DA and gross weight situation,
maybe aggravated by a distracted pilot trying to get the passenger off
the pedals.
Just a guess, but there's a frame or two where the rudder
looks cocked right.

Dan

[Dale]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> It looks to me like there might be a lot of right rudder
> applied, possibly by a frightened passenger, and the pilot is using
> left aileron to counteract it. The overall drag gets too high and
> brings the airplane down in a marginal DA and gross weight situation,
> maybe aggravated by a distracted pilot trying to get the passenger off
> the pedals.
> Just a guess, but there's a frame or two where the rudder
> looks cocked right.
>
> Dan
>

The nose is cocked off to the left and the airplane is slipping to the
right...wouldn't be right rudder.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dale wrote:
> In article . com>,
> The nose is cocked off to the left and the airplane is slipping to the
> right...wouldn't be right rudder.


You know, I almost wonder if the pilot's seat didn't slip back on him. That
might explain the cocked attitude going down the runway. If his load was
marginal (and it sure looked like it was) it would have been easy to lose it
while trying to reach the rudder pedals without pulling back the yoke at the
same time as he tried to scoot forward. Plausible?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[B A R R Y]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Plausible?
>

As ugly as it looked, it certainly is plausible to me.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > Plausible?
> >
>
> As ugly as it looked, it certainly is plausible to me.

I doubt it. If the seat slid back then P-factor should have made the
plane veer left, but it didn't.

rg

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> You know, I almost wonder if the pilot's seat didn't slip back on him. That
> might explain the cocked attitude going down the runway. If his load was
> marginal (and it sure looked like it was) it would have been easy to lose it
> while trying to reach the rudder pedals without pulling back the yoke at the
> same time as he tried to scoot forward. Plausible

Didn't you see the O2 canister in the back of the pilot seat in the video?
Assuming it wasn't moved prior to taxi and takeoff, the canister looked to
me like it was uncomfortably wedged up against the pilot's seat and
certainly would have prevented the seat from moving backwards.



--
Peter

[Dale]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:


>
> Didn't you see the O2 canister in the back of the pilot seat in the video?
> Assuming it wasn't moved prior to taxi and takeoff, the canister looked to
> me like it was uncomfortably wedged up against the pilot's seat and
> certainly would have prevented the seat from moving backwards.

It also may have prevented the seat from being locked in place OR
dislodged it. Then if that gurney and O2 bottle moved away goes the
seat.

It can happen, I've had jumpers move my seat for me...quite exciting.

I was thinking a seat slip also.

[Dale]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:


>
> I doubt it. If the seat slid back then P-factor should have made the
> plane veer left, but it didn't.
>

Well, the nose was cocked left so p-factor was doing it's thing. The
airplane might of gone right because of a x-wind...but then a wind from
the left would weathervane you to the left on the takeoff.

Would like to know.

[Robert M. Gary]

Didn't we go over this about 6 months ago?

-Robert


Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>
> Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>
> Monk

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Dale wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
>>The nose is cocked off to the left and the airplane is slipping to the
>>right...wouldn't be right rudder.
>
>
>
> You know, I almost wonder if the pilot's seat didn't slip back on him. That
> might explain the cocked attitude going down the runway. If his load was
> marginal (and it sure looked like it was) it would have been easy to lose it
> while trying to reach the rudder pedals without pulling back the yoke at the
> same time as he tried to scoot forward. Plausible?

I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
remember now the details.

Matt

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Dale > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I doubt it. If the seat slid back then P-factor should have made the
> > plane veer left, but it didn't.
> >
>
> Well, the nose was cocked left so p-factor was doing it's thing. The
> airplane might of gone right because of a x-wind...but then a wind from
> the left would weathervane you to the left on the takeoff.
>
> Would like to know.

The wind was very light. Look at the plants and the dust.

rg

[Flyingmonk]

I don't know, did we? I must have missed it. You got a link?

Monk


Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Didn't we go over this about 6 months ago?
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Flyingmonk wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
> >
> > Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
> >
> > Monk

[Dave Doe]

In article . com>,
says...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>
> Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?

Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
notch) until climb was achieved.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article . com>,
says...
>
> It looks to me like there might be a lot of right rudder
> applied, possibly by a frightened passenger, and the pilot is using
> left aileron to counteract it. The overall drag gets too high and
> brings the airplane down in a marginal DA and gross weight situation,
> maybe aggravated by a distracted pilot trying to get the passenger off
> the pedals.
> Just a guess, but there's a frame or two where the rudder
> looks cocked right.

Nice to see someone else noticed he continued cross-flying the plane
once airborne. Jeez! - uncross the thing, and fly into the wind!

--
Duncan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>> You know, I almost wonder if the pilot's seat didn't slip back on him. That
>> might explain the cocked attitude going down the runway. If his load was
>> marginal (and it sure looked like it was) it would have been easy to lose it
>> while trying to reach the rudder pedals without pulling back the yoke at the
>> same time as he tried to scoot forward. Plausible?
>
> I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
> worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
> remember now the details.


I had it happen to me one day years ago when I was atempting to fly a Turbo
C-206 off a short grass strip on a hillside. The runway lead directly to Lake
Norman but there was a small shed right at the water's edge (and right in the
middle of the slot between the trees). I'd never flown one before and I was by
myself. When I poured the coal to it, the seat slid back. I definitely had my
hands full until shortly after liftoff when I got it sorted out.

I'm pretty sure my takeoff looked much like the video for the first 30 seconds
or so. Of course, I didn't crash and had plenty of excess power. The memory of
that is what prompted my original comments.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Didn't we go over this about 6 months ago?

Yep, I had deja vu. I had to check and double-check the dates of this
thread to be sure my news provider hadn't sent me old content.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Flyingmonk > wrote:

> I don't know, did we? I must have missed it. You got a link?

http://tinyurl.com/l7avs


--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
> worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
> remember now the details.
>
> Matt

It's an AD:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/F9645B32611A4A04862569BA004BC930?OpenDocument

The biggest settlement in general aviation history arose, as
I remember, out of the crash of a 185 on floats in which the pilot lost
control when his seat slid back at liftoff. Something like US$450
million awarded. I can't understand that, as the AD is a mandatory
thing and if those seats and tracks are properly maintained they don't
let go like that. It's the owner's responibility to see that ADs are
complied with.

Dan

[Flyingmonk]

Peter R. wrote:
> Flyingmonk > wrote:
>
> > I don't know, did we? I must have missed it. You got a link?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l7avs
>
>
> --
> Peter

So I did miss it... Thanks Pete!

Monk

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Doe wrote:

> In article . com>,
> says...
>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>>
>>Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>
>
> Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
> drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
> uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
> shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
> notch) until climb was achieved.

I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
for a short-field take-off.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>I'd say it is plausible as this has been know to happen on Cessna's with
>>worn seat rails and was the course of an SB or maybe even an AD, I can't
>>remember now the details.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> It's an AD:
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/F9645B32611A4A04862569BA004BC930?OpenDocument
>
> The biggest settlement in general aviation history arose, as
> I remember, out of the crash of a 185 on floats in which the pilot lost
> control when his seat slid back at liftoff. Something like US$450
> million awarded. I can't understand that, as the AD is a mandatory
> thing and if those seats and tracks are properly maintained they don't
> let go like that. It's the owner's responibility to see that ADs are
> complied with.

I concluded many years ago that "jury award" and "logic" shouldn't
appear in the same sentence, or paragraph or story.

Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
> else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
> for a short-field take-off.


It was a C-182. You could see the cowl flaps as it went by. I don't recall
seeing the wing flaps down at all.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
>>else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
>>for a short-field take-off.
>
>
>
> It was a C-182. You could see the cowl flaps as it went by. I don't recall
> seeing the wing flaps down at all.

I noticed the flaps. Looked like flaps 20 to me, but hard to be sure.
However, up to 20 would certainly have been appropriate. My 182 took
off a lot shorter with flaps 20 and would climb at a pretty impressive
deck angle as well after lift-off.


Matt

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> >
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
> >>
> >>Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
> >
> >
> > Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
> > drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
> > uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
> > shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
> > notch) until climb was achieved.
>
> I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
> else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
> for a short-field take-off.

Sure - and indeed, upon looking at it a couple more times, I'd say
that's his setting. Possibly still not the wisest if he wanted a short
field t/o (which in *my* training on a 172, is no flaps).

--
Duncan

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Doe wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>Dave Doe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . com>,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWC2XJYgcJU&search=airplane%20pilot
>>>>
>>>>Overweight? Out of CG? Stalled? Too slow? What do you all think?
>>>
>>>
>>>Looked overweight to me - rotated a bit early too (inducing unecessary
>>>drag) - and *chit* - he never uncrossed the thing once airborne! (more
>>>uneeded drag). Couldn't tell what he was doing w' the flaps - but he
>>>shoulda been 1 notch (maybe none?) - and left it that way (or gone to 1
>>>notch) until climb was achieved.
>>
>>I didn't look closely to see if it was a 172 or 182, but I think someone
>>else said it was a 182. If that were the case, then flaps 20 is fine
>>for a short-field take-off.
>
>
> Sure - and indeed, upon looking at it a couple more times, I'd say
> that's his setting. Possibly still not the wisest if he wanted a short
> field t/o (which in *my* training on a 172, is no flaps).

I don't have my 182 anymore so don't have a manual handy, but I'm about
95% certain that flaps 20 was specified for a short-field TO in my 67
model. I haven't flown a 172 in years and don't remember the
configuration for it. The 182 has enough power that using the flaps
makes a huge difference in both take-off roll and initial angle of climb.

Matt

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> I suppose I'm making too much noise, but if nobody makes noise, the
> assault will continue. I'll be happy to tell you why flash is so bad if
> you like, but as you note, it's probably OT here.

If you google, you can find "flash substitutes" that have none of flash's
tendencies to take over your machine.
--
Jim in NC