Video...Short field/OBS takeoff with Art's VG.s and gap seals.

Hi Matt!

I think you are right, we worked it out to be about 65 ft AGL.

Assuming the wings were level, and estimating the angle formed to
horizontal from the extended left main gear axle to the wing /fuselage
joint, and knowing the camera was 50 ft off the edge of the 200 ft.
wide runway, and the plane was 15 ft to the left of the centerline of
the runway, the high school trig we could remember worked out to 65
ft AGL...

But , many estimations were made here, so the probable error could be
significant.

We are very confident the plane was well above 50 ft at this 600 ft
point.

Also very confident that we had too much time on our hands this
morning ...

Dave





On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:35:58 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Dave wrote:
OK, we got it today... for those who asked, and a couple of skeptics.


Amateur camera man, non test pilot..

This is at a busy airport, and Cory got to ride in the crash truck!
They don't like people out on an active rny with out that big yellow
truck!

The process is a rolling start, inside tank selected, flaps up,
throttle friction high, using the full width of the runway, full power
at 45 deg to rny heading. You will get a quick look at the pulsar
lights on the turn. Flaps are popped down (25 deg) at 40 Knts
indicated, count "1 thousand, 2 thousand ", and the yoke is pulled
back all the way. (note the stabilator deflection at rotation)

The runway marker under the plane at rotation is the 500 ft marker,
Cory is at the 600 ft point with the camera, and you can see we have
at least 50 ft obs clearance height at the 600 ft mark. On this
takeoff I stayed at max angle, as I was asked to keep from overflying
the cross runway 6000 ft away, and was going for 500 AGL for the
crosswind tun. (easy) Normally one would level once clear of obs and
increase speed to remove the flaps 1 knotch at a time.

It didn't look like 50' passing the camera, but it is hard to tell from
the angle shown. That looks almost as good as a stock C182! :-)

Matt

Dave wrote in
:

Hi Matt!

I think you are right, we worked it out to be about 65 ft AGL.

Assuming the wings were level, and estimating the angle formed to
horizontal from the extended left main gear axle to the wing /fuselage
joint, and knowing the camera was 50 ft off the edge of the 200 ft.
wide runway, and the plane was 15 ft to the left of the centerline of
the runway, the high school trig we could remember worked out to 65
ft AGL...

But , many estimations were made here, so the probable error could be
significant.

We are very confident the plane was well above 50 ft at this 600 ft
point.

Also very confident that we had too much time on our hands this
morning ...


Well, the performance is obviosouly great, but you haven't incuded your
turn into the takeoff roll in that, have you? You were going pretty
quick as you lined up... A good technique if you're tight, but not so
good if you're looking for hard figures. Also, if you are going to
operate out of tight spots, you should find that a slightly slower
rotation will give you a better height providing you keep the rotation
going fast enough to get to VX.

Bertie

Dave wrote:
Hi Matt!

I think you are right, we worked it out to be about 65 ft AGL.

Assuming the wings were level, and estimating the angle formed to
horizontal from the extended left main gear axle to the wing /fuselage
joint, and knowing the camera was 50 ft off the edge of the 200 ft.
wide runway, and the plane was 15 ft to the left of the centerline of
the runway, the high school trig we could remember worked out to 65
ft AGL...

But , many estimations were made here, so the probable error could be
significant.

We are very confident the plane was well above 50 ft at this 600 ft
point.

Also very confident that we had too much time on our hands this
morning ...

Well, if you have to waste time, I can't think of too many better ways
to waste it! :-)

Matt