Gentle take-offs at high speed

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 . . .