MERGED power curve / floats posts

[aeroncasuperchief]

You're in a power-off (idle) glide at minimum airspeed, just above stall. Apply power. What happens?

Are you holding a tight grip on the control wheel? If you are, your ASI thingamajiggi will point at bigger numbers!
If you forgot to hold onto those horse straps, She is gonna rear up on you and try to buck you off, but I suspect she will run a little faster in her attempt

[aeroncasuperchief]

If you want to discuss a topic concerning aerodynamics, then mentioning anything to do with ground speed is ridiculous.
Have you flown a backside approach and landing downwind before? If so, then clearly the procedure is not dependent on obtaining the lowest possible ground speed as you claim.

Perhaps we can use another term so as not to confuse you further.

Lets call it rolling velocity ( RV)

As you approach on the backside in a headwind, you , my friend take note of the asi as a trend instrument , your power level and seat of the pants are a little more important. Now, by George, all was done fine and you touch down on terra firma ! But that aint the end of it, You need to stop before the big sturdy trees .

Now answer me this : If your "rolling velocity " ( ground speed ) is twice of what the folks at Cessna figured you needed to stop before the tree, what do you think the outcome would be?


In the air, the A/C knows nothing of ground speed , On the ground, your plane and your beloved sphincter will surely know !

[aeroncasuperchief]

So, now that it has a few hours of very low power operation, and has most likely glazed all 6 cylinders,

Your assuming ! Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME

Out of 8 hrs. Approx 30 min was at high alt/ and lower power settings. Having flown approx. 80% at 70-75% ( the remainder was final approach to landing ) I would suspect that the engine is being broken in well. Lycoming operators manual revision 2009 does state 65-75 % power for break-in

[C.W.E.]

Lets call it rolling velocity ( RV)

This is getting more bizarre by the minute.

I keep trying to ignore these posts but it is like driving by a train wreck, one just can not help looking at it.

[rookiepilot]

https://goo.gl/images/ctZkMj

[shimmydampner]

Did pdw and Trump make a baby and then give it an AvCanada account?

[aeroncasuperchief]

Care to tell us about it?

For reputable folks like CWE and PilotDAR, I would provide pics and my brothers phone number ( he was sitting in the right seat )
and there was 11 other folks who were there AND saw the wind meter in the broken glass and ceiling tiles covered little terminal building. So ANYONE else who does not take my words as truth can go kindly fornicate with themselves

Many years ago, I received a call from a Mexican who spoke little English. After a couple of calls and minimal conversation, he was asking me for information to send his deposit to. I got the deposit and sent him the purchase agreement. So far so good I said!

The A/C in question was a little C-150 10500 TTSN and a time X engine ( but safe) The paint and interior was in poor shape but mechanically sound. I think the final sale price was around $13000 My mother called me about that time and indicated my brother Lee was suffering from a little depression due to relationship issues so I called him and we arranged to go together to Calexico ( Mexicali was on the other side of the border fence and the "ultimate" destination) The buyer paid for all the expenses including return airfare for me only through Los Angeles ( Wherever MGM is located) Our first important stop out of eastern Ontario was great lakes aero products to pick up a windshield and rear window, which fit in the back nicely, along with the 2-3 spare cylinders ( all part of the deal) We continued along the journey in fine weather and ran across a small shop with an A/P who would lend us a few tools so we got to work installing the windows! After that, we headed off through the mid-west of America. At one point, I looked down and mentioned to my brother, I said: look at that 45 gallon drum being blown across the field. He said NO, that is a 200 gallon plastic drum, at which point I turned into the wind, and added flap and power, and we were going backwards! . We continued our journey and I got on the horn looking for a place to land due to wind concerns. At this point I was looking partly out the side window to see the direction of flight! I located a AP with a fairly long runway into wind in the supplement and headed there. On approach the winds were too turbulent and too much of a downwash so I aborted that idea and continued to my planned destination airport. Just after this time , you would see the visibility lower and dust appear ( it is rare for me to see this from where I came from so no big alarms went off in my head, neither did the pre-flight forecast cause me any concern) As we were getting near our destination the ceiling and vis continued to drop in the ever increasing dust storm no doubt aided by the mountains to the west. We called the airport com freq but to no avail, then called FSS and had them phone the airport. I wanted help when we landed. The FSS finally got a hold of the terminal operator, he had been cut by the large glass window that blew into the terminal building and was mending himself when I tried to hail him on the com. the ceiling tiles were blown down as well what a mess ! They managed to get 11 locals together to meet us as we approached to land.

[C.W.E.]

Please continue, that is interesting.

These things happen and we have to deal with them the best we can.

I remember one time when I got caught in a very scary wind situation ferrying a Piper Pawnee and the wind was so strong when I landed I had to stay on the runway and keep it pointed into the wind with the tail off the ground pinning it to the runway until some people came out and helped me get it parked in a safe place.

[rookiepilot]

CWE --- you might have serious competition in story telling.

[aeroncasuperchief]

About 5 miles from the airport and about 1/2 mile and 150 ft vis. we looked down to find a work crew fixing lights that were blown off at an intersection in the storm! Sheesh, I later learned that they had not experienced such a sand storm since just after the last war !
Approaching about 2 miles from the airport, the GPS would point 30 degrees to the left and right when a small correction was made. We missed the runway on what was basically a handheld GPS 89 approach. In the ensuing 360 degree tour around the airport environs and low vis and low altitude, the illusions created by drift in this wind were horrible and forced me to look at the instruments only, a very disconcerting experience indeed. Finally getting the 1-filthy aligned to the runway, I said to my brother : If you believe in God, now is the time to say a prayer or maybe kiss your ass goodbye ! One short final, the winds abated and we landed in what was likely about 40-45 mph down the runway. There were now many folks there on the runway to catch us and tie the plane down right there where we stopped with 3 trucks 1 on each wing and 1 on the tail. Someone put a large truck in front of the plane, but that was removed due to the turbulence.

We all made out way back to the barely noticeable and damaged terminal building where we took shelter. I bought the 24 of beer in appreciation ( we both didn't drink any ) to the help and thanked them profusely. We looked at the wind meter and could hardly believe that it was gusting to 95 MPH! At this time, I was worried about what the pounding sand would do to my new windshield and rear window ! Later that evening, we took off when the winds subsided to gusts of 40-45 mph .

Continuing the journey, we stopped for fuel in the mountains and on take-off the long runway was quite helpful at our elevation ( over 6000 I believe) but the climb rate at our weight was terrible . Another disconcerting time looking at the ASI and trying to push the nose lower to maintain VX all the while, the mountains are right there and little lights on the sides of the mountains reminding us of the fact there was little room for error. We finally made destination and met our buyer, he seemed a little odd and so I rushed out to open an American bank account after receiving the remainder of the payment in cash. At this point, we were on a high, and the buyer asked me if I would part with the GPS and 2 headsets ( all used) and he would send me the money later. I agreed. After taking in the attractions MGM etc in the big smog, we departed home. Sometime after arriving home, I got a call from a Mexican lawyer asking some details about the plane I just sold. I found out that the buyer flipped the plane to a "customer" of his for a Substantial amount of $$$ and then went incognito. No one could find him and I was out a couple hundred dollars due to never receiving money for the headsets and GPS that he promised. All in all, this was not my only "interesting" A/C delivery but it sure was the MOST interesting !

[aeroncasuperchief]

Then there was the delivery flight of a J-3 on floats to Gander NFLD

[C.W.E.]

CWE --- you might have serious competition in story telling.

A few.

One thing for sure I'll take a snow storm over a Sahara Harmatten dust storm any day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClebT2IISjk


Then there was the time I was getting radar information from the US military just coming up to the coast of Columbia and they were painting thunderstorm tops at seventy two thousand feet ahead of me. ( 1974 ).

[Meatservo]

Why isn't taking off one wheel first a "regular" technique for taking off in a small land plane in a strong crosswind? At first glance that would be the obvious way to do it, that is, just the opposite of a crosswind landing.

Erm, hey guys. I really debated participating in this idiotic thread, but I saw this post and subsequent ones on the subject and I am sort of confused now.

This actually is how I take off in a crosswind. I thought I was doing it right. Controls into wind, the tail comes up, or the nose lifts, as the case may be, rotate, first one wheel then the other, and then neutralize the rudder when all wheels and/or floats and/or skis are in the air. This has worked for me on all classes and categories of aeroplane. Even helicopters, with the obvious exception of the "ground roll" part.

Have I been fucking this up for the last 25 years? Boy am I glad this thread came along before I killed someone.

[photofly]

I didn't say it was wrong. I just said it's not what people are taught, in TC-land. There are many ways to fly an airplane. I'm wondering why this one isn't taught.

And there's really no need for the 'tude, ok?

[aeroncasuperchief]

Whatever works to keep the A/C down the centreline and able to land at any time would be IMO the best practice. If the wind is quite strong, holding down on the mains till above regular speed and "popping it into the air generally results in an undesirable immediate crab. But taking off ( as with landing) with on 1 mainwheel tracking the runway centreline already has the pilot and plane tracking the centreline, and lifting off upwind wing low with opposite rudder allows the conditions to plomp you back down on the runway, tracking and with 1 wheel without any adverse results. Just my opinion, since I usually don't take off in these conditions and use the pop off technique without disastrous results

[Meatservo]

I didn't say it was wrong. I just said it's not what people are taught, in TC-land. There are many ways to fly an airplane. I'm wondering why this one isn't taught.

And there's really no need for the 'tude, ok?

I didn't phrase that well. I was just a bit confused that none of the responses to your comment mentioned that you actually did describe the correct way to conduct a crosswind takeoff. I was actually taught to do it that way. Presumably with the full knowledge of TC. I don't know why it isn't taught, either, since it used to be. Something must have changed... but the wind and the planes didn't get the memo.

[photofly]

"Correct" can be a loaded term. What I described - and what you do - isn't the technique described in the Flight Training Manual, or for that matter the POH of the various training aircraft I've flown. That doesn't automatically mean it's a bad idea, of course. And I'm glad you said you think it *is* a good idea, and that you were taught it. Thanks.

[Meatservo]

It's not? - I'm actually astonished by that. I have, until now, literally never actually encountered or heard about any other way of taking off in a crosswind. Not being (a primary) instructor I haven't read the flight training manual. I can think of more than one plane I've flown however, on which you would be in pretty serious trouble if you tried to "pop" it into the air without the correct crosswind control inputs. People are seriously being taught that? Actually that would explain some of my newer co-pilots' most determined murder/suicide attempts.

[photofly]

The FTM says the following:

Image-1.png (514.69 KiB) Viewed 1222 times

I have always interpreted the instruction to "counteract the tendency to roll" to mean the aircraft should leave the ground in a wings-level attitude. And that has always worked well for me. Definitely no murder/suicide attempts.

Now I look around on the internet, I see different advice given (matching the one-wheel-first technique that I was asking about and that you say you do). I also see some videos of transport jets taking off with the pop-it-off technique, which doesn't surprise me, since one-wheel-first in a 737 will scrape something.

[tbayav8er]

Yeah, the higher power setting is not the direct cause of lower ground speed. Flying at low speed, you are at a high angle of attack, thrust is not acting straight horizontally, but instead, also giving you a vertical component of thrust, which helps the total lift vector. You would have the same ground speed if your power setting was reduced, and your pitch attitude reduced to maintain the same angle of attack....you would just be in a descent at that point. Having said that, a lower approach speed, and being below the power curve will result in a lower touchdown speed, but I don't think it's an awesome idea to operate like that, unless that's the specific method outlined in the airplane's AFM. Depending on the type of aircraft, this would put you at risk of a tail strike. Also depending on the type of aircraft, if you had to do a missed approach, the flight controls could be very sluggish, and the aircraft could be very slow to accelerate. If you're talking about an airliner where it's acceptable to approach below the power curve (given that the calculated target approach speed puts you there), it's a whole different ball game, since some of these engines produce an insane amount of thrust at TOGA power if a missed approach is required, and they have complex flight control systems, where the computer deflects the flight controls surfaces more for a given control input the slower you go.

[photofly]

I see the New Zealand CAA flight training syllabus says the ailerons should be neutral at the point of rotation, which suggests the pop-it-off technique is taught there:

Image-1 copy.jpg (49.33 KiB) Viewed 1166 times

The FAA Airplane flying handbook is somewhat ambivalent; it says it's ok to leave the ground downwind wheel first, and it's better than skipping (for sure) but it doesn't exactly recommend it as a deliberate technique, either:

Image-1.png (61.82 KiB) Viewed 1163 times

[CpnCrunch]

I don't think the ailerons should be centred if there is a strong crosswind. I think this is a better description:

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly ... very-time/

[photofly]

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority seems to prefer the pop-it-off technique:

[Meatservo]

The FTM says the following:
Image-1.png
I have always interpreted the instruction to "counteract the tendency to roll" to mean the aircraft should leave the ground in a wings-level attitude. And that has always worked well for me. Definitely no murder/suicide attempts.

Now I look around on the internet, I see different advice given (matching the one-wheel-first technique that I was asking about and that you say you do). I also see some videos of transport jets taking off with the pop-it-off technique, which doesn't surprise me, since one-wheel-first in a 737 will scrape something.

Yeah but doesn't that exerpt you posted say the same thing I just did? Whether or not you actually spend a perceptible amount of time on the runway with just one wheel in the air probably depends on what kind of plane it is.If it lifts off, as the texts says, with "some aileron" into the wind, it's gonna roll.

On a small, light plane, the crosswind is going to represent a higher percentage of the plane's liftoff speed, and the technique will be more obvious. On a larger, heavier plane with a higher speed, it represents a smaller effect. If you rotate at 120 knots, a fifteen-knot crosswind isn't going to require a lot of aileron to counteract, and the main wheels will pretty much lift off simultaneously. On a DeHavilland beaver, a fifteen-knot crosswind represents 30% of the thing's takeoff speed, and you're going to see a lot of aileron and opposite rudder if you watch it take off.

This is the exact equivalent of the many "crosswind landing" debates we see here. I contend that there is only one way to properly land in a crosswind, and that the "kick out the crab" method used on large aircraft is simply the sideslip technique, applied at the very last possible moment in order to mitigate the wing-down attitude that would be undesireable on something with low engine pods. Like the crosswind takeoff, you're going to see some opposite aileron. The control inputs are there. It's the size and speed of the aircraft that make it look different.

The worst fright I ever got was on a Twin Otter on floats. I was training a new F.O., and they tried to take off with in a crosswind with neutral ailerons. Floats do not skid sideways at seventy knots, and the aircraft rolled downwind and damn-near hooked the downwind wing. Me stamping on the upwind rudder pedal caused it to pop into the air. I'm pretty sure it's the closest I have ever come to ending up in a ball. I never considered that it would be necessary to explain proper crosswind technique to a commercial pilot, but I was wrong. Now I know why.

[photofly]

This is the exact equivalent of the many "crosswind landing" debates we see here.

Yes, it is. Everyone has their favourite way of doing that too, and anyone who does it some other way must be crazy, or suicidal, or incompetent, or all three.

I contend that there is only one way to properly land in a crosswind...

Yeah but doesn't that exerpt you posted say the same thing I just did? Whether or not you actually spend a perceptible amount of time on the runway with just one wheel in the air probably depends on what kind of plane it is.If it lifts off, as the texts says, with "some aileron" into the wind, it's gonna roll.

My interpretation of the TC FTM is that any aileron remaining into the wind at the point of takeoff is to prevent roll in the opposite direction, not to deliberately roll into the wind.

Splitting hairs on a mouse's testicle, here, perhaps, but I was asking about deliberately lifting off with the upwind wheel significantly ahead of the downwind wheel. Yes, I appreciate that we're talking about two ends of a continuum, just like the two "different" crosswind landing techniques differ by (as you say) when you apply the relevant controls.

It is certainly interesting to hear and read what other people think about this.