Sim Flight Training: PPL: Part 3 of 7

[Brett_Henderson]

SimV Private Pilot:

1-Plan a flight of 50nm or more, accounting for winds aloft and their affect on heading and ground-speed. Calculate the minimum fuel needed (including reserves) and the maximum payload at that fuel level.

2-Fly the planned flight holding heading (+/- 10 degrees) and altitude (+/- 100 feet); enter the traffic pattern safely; execute a touch-and-go and fly one complete lap around the pattern and then execute a full-stop, short-field landing.

3-Execute a short-field takeoff.

4-Execute a constant-airspeed, climbing turn.

5-Track a VOR radial and fly to an NDB.

6-Execute a 360 degree, steep turn (greater than 45 degrees bank) holding altitude +/- 100 feet and rolling out on heading +/- 10 degrees.

7-Execute a no-flap landing.

Part 3 will be short and sweet.. and get us that much closer to the first, shared cockpit, checkrides

[beaky]

Hmmm... I understand the purpose of getting the nosewheel unstuck ASAP, but this technique is more the way I was taught to do a soft-field takeoff, if anybody cares... for a short-field takeoff, I was taught to use a notch of flaps of course and if necessary hold the brakes until full power, but "rotation" would occur at about the same speed as usual, with immediate establishment of pitch for Vx. The key difference with flaps is that the plane will be more stable and climb better at Vx than without flaps, right?

This is the first I've heard of holding full up elevator during the roll on a  "short"... wouldn't that put a beginner at risk of getting airborne at a speed more conducive to a "soft" takeoff?

I was taught to approach the short-field roll the same way as a no-flap takeoff: takeoff trim, neutral elevator, then back pressure as the trim setting gets the nose to come up, immediately looking for Vx (which should yield "positive rate" right away).
Generally, I think climbing sooner is more important than getting airborne sooner when there isn't a lot of room ahead, so I'll use a few more feet of runway to let the plane fly when it's good and ready to climb.

Not saying this other way is wrong- the difference between the two, in most trainers, is almost negligible in terms of how much runway or airport property you'll use, IMHO. My soft-field takeoffs generally wind up being short-field departures anyway... I like to climb when I can, with Vx being the minimum.

[Brett_Henderson]

Yes.. I was expecting these questions

[Brett_Henderson]

The key difference with flaps is that the plane will be more stable and climb better at Vx than without flaps, right?

Not true...

[Brett_Henderson]

I've been reading the C172 POH..

Oddly (contrary to any instruction I've ever received) (weren't you taught 10 degrees for a short-filed take-off?), it calls for no flaps at all, for sort-field take-offs. That would confirm the stability/efficiency deal, but I'd bet it's a liability thing. They'd just as soon not publish advising flaps down, short-field take-offs.

I can promise you two times twice.. that I would use(and have used) 10 degrees of flaps when obstacle clearance is a concern.

[beaky]

Hmmmm... seems that perhaps I learned it wrong but have been doing it right... maybe.
Never had a problem getting airborne soon enough or clearing obstacles doing it "my way", although the shortest runway I've used is probably Aeroflex-Andover (12N), which has a "generous" 1980 feet to work with and near-sea-level elevation.

I think I need to re-examine my method next time I'm in a 172 or similar... I've never taken pains to see just how much runway I used getting up and out of ground effect, and nobody's ever commented on it. I guess I probably do lift off sooner with flaps, just never noticed it. I've gotten out of the habit of observing the airspeed indicator much when taking off, other than a couple of glances during the roll to make sure it's working and that I'm approaching the book takeoff speed with plenty of runway remaining. At that moment I'm usually focused on looking out for anything that might require an abort: obstacles or engine anomalies. I pull back when it seems ready or I don't have enough room to abort and stay on the ground, whichever comes sooner. Not the best way for flying twins or jets, I guess,but OK with most light singles.
As for stability with the flaps: looks like I should also pay more attention to what's going on when practicing no-flap approaches; your comment makes perfect sense now that I think about it.

And regarding the POH note on flaps: the only Cessna POH I own is one for a K model, and sure enough, it says no flaps for a "maximum performance takeoff." But I agree with you... the runway may not really be so short that you need flaps, but when in doubt...

Interestingly, though, it also says "lift nosewheel at 60 mph" and climb at 85 mph for a normal takeoff, but does not specify a "lift nosewheel" speed for a short-field, although it does recommend a "climb speed" of 68 mph, presumably for obstacle clearance.

[Brett_Henderson]

This is great discussion.. kinda like what you get at the hangar (what I've been hoping for).. even like the discussion instructors get into, after dismissing the students

[Brett_Henderson]

Summary....

[beaky]

Summary....  

If I'm spending time trying to calculate whether a tree-line is clear-able, and decide to give it a try.......

I'm starting the take-off roll with a notch of flaps and the yoke on my chest. If I can't get the plane into a "soft-field", wheels off the ground, ground-effect, Vx climb, with enough runway left to abort.. I'm aborting...

Sure... if I were ever in serious doubt, that technique would be best, pavement or no pavement.

[Brett_Henderson]

** Bump  ( see thread:  "Putting it all together" ) **