Takeoff Technique For Cessna's
Sorry all - I didn't mean to be over-pedantic. Of course, with rough surface, long grass fields you get airborne with as short a take off roll as practicable. Hence the Cessna singles POH advice of "lifting off in a tail-low attitude". And that in turn means holding the nosewheel clear of the ground and letting the aircraft fly off. The flip side is that too much nosewheel high and induced drag on the wings cuts in and bang goes your reduced take off run and you might even have a wing tip stall if you stagger off at too low airspeed. The Cherokee Six accidents mentioned in the old Aviation safety Digets are worth studying in this regard.
Truth to tell then, is that for a normal take off on your typical Bankstown, Jandakot, Canberra, Archerfield, Moorabbin, Parafield and Essendon (and Point Cook) hard surfaced runways (and a thousand like them) where the majority of people learn to fly, there is no requirement to "take the weight" off the nosewheel until you reach the recommended published speed in the POH and you pull back on the stick to get airborne and in the process you are taking the weight off the nosewheel so beloved by so many.
If as does happen with poorly maintained nosewheel trainers, you experience nosewheel shimmy as you approach lift off, then it is a defect and it should be entered into the MR asap before the next pilot cops it and maybe damage engine mounts.
The danger of letting the aircraft fly off "when it is ready" is that with the slightest wind gradient or gust, the aircraft may waffle into the air prematurely and then you are stuck in ground-effect while you try and accelerate out of the slow speed state.
Years back there were a host of crashes in Vampire jets because pilots were taught (it was in the Pilot's Notes) to lift the nosewheel at 80 knots and run along on the main wheels until it got enough lift (read angle of attack) to fly off. Pilots Notes Vampire Mk F1 at page 20 stated: As soon as the aircraft reaches a speed of 60-70 knots IAS, lift the nosewheel just clear of the ground then at 82-87 knots ease the aircraft off the ground".
There were spectacular crashes when the pilots (especially on night take offs) lifted the nosewheel too much and the Vampire would scarp along in a high drag state with lack of acceleration until you either ran out of space or you dropped the nosewheel a bit to accelerate.
The Venom crash in New Zealand a few years ago wrote off a perfectly good aircraft when the pilot aborted late after failing to accelerate due too high nose attitude during the take off run. The early Comet airliners had similar problems because it was not possible to judge exactly how far to lift the nosewheel during the take off run. The British aircraft like the Vampire and Comet did not have a VR as such. The worry was slush build up in front of the nosewheel in winter and that is why the general rule was to lift the nosewheel clear of the ground on all take offs.
I don't really give a stuff how people fly Cessna's today, but it gets up my nose hairs a bit when the recommendations of the manufacturer are cast aside in favour of a "general" technique for all types. Simply put, the weight off the nosewheel teaching at flying schools is perpetuating a myth.
I wish I had it here, but years ago I wrote to Cessna in Wichita (?) about this Australian weight off the nosewheel theory, and the reply was that Cessna had never heard about it and that the method recommended in the POH was the only technique certified. The tail-low technique was, however, recommended for soft or rough field surfaces.
And by the way, I once asked a grade 3 instructor how he actually taught his students how much back pressure was needed to take the weight off the nosewheel. He said he that if you pulled back the control column early in the take off roll, until you could see the hole in the control column shaft where the gust lock pin fits in, that is the way to get the weight off the nosewheel. He actually taught his students to look down for the hole during the take off run. I thought he was having a lend - but that is what he had been taught on his instructors course. I leave that gem with you.
Truth to tell then, is that for a normal take off on your typical Bankstown, Jandakot, Canberra, Archerfield, Moorabbin, Parafield and Essendon (and Point Cook) hard surfaced runways (and a thousand like them) where the majority of people learn to fly, there is no requirement to "take the weight" off the nosewheel until you reach the recommended published speed in the POH and you pull back on the stick to get airborne and in the process you are taking the weight off the nosewheel so beloved by so many.
If as does happen with poorly maintained nosewheel trainers, you experience nosewheel shimmy as you approach lift off, then it is a defect and it should be entered into the MR asap before the next pilot cops it and maybe damage engine mounts.
The danger of letting the aircraft fly off "when it is ready" is that with the slightest wind gradient or gust, the aircraft may waffle into the air prematurely and then you are stuck in ground-effect while you try and accelerate out of the slow speed state.
Years back there were a host of crashes in Vampire jets because pilots were taught (it was in the Pilot's Notes) to lift the nosewheel at 80 knots and run along on the main wheels until it got enough lift (read angle of attack) to fly off. Pilots Notes Vampire Mk F1 at page 20 stated: As soon as the aircraft reaches a speed of 60-70 knots IAS, lift the nosewheel just clear of the ground then at 82-87 knots ease the aircraft off the ground".
There were spectacular crashes when the pilots (especially on night take offs) lifted the nosewheel too much and the Vampire would scarp along in a high drag state with lack of acceleration until you either ran out of space or you dropped the nosewheel a bit to accelerate.
The Venom crash in New Zealand a few years ago wrote off a perfectly good aircraft when the pilot aborted late after failing to accelerate due too high nose attitude during the take off run. The early Comet airliners had similar problems because it was not possible to judge exactly how far to lift the nosewheel during the take off run. The British aircraft like the Vampire and Comet did not have a VR as such. The worry was slush build up in front of the nosewheel in winter and that is why the general rule was to lift the nosewheel clear of the ground on all take offs.
I don't really give a stuff how people fly Cessna's today, but it gets up my nose hairs a bit when the recommendations of the manufacturer are cast aside in favour of a "general" technique for all types. Simply put, the weight off the nosewheel teaching at flying schools is perpetuating a myth.
I wish I had it here, but years ago I wrote to Cessna in Wichita (?) about this Australian weight off the nosewheel theory, and the reply was that Cessna had never heard about it and that the method recommended in the POH was the only technique certified. The tail-low technique was, however, recommended for soft or rough field surfaces.
And by the way, I once asked a grade 3 instructor how he actually taught his students how much back pressure was needed to take the weight off the nosewheel. He said he that if you pulled back the control column early in the take off roll, until you could see the hole in the control column shaft where the gust lock pin fits in, that is the way to get the weight off the nosewheel. He actually taught his students to look down for the hole during the take off run. I thought he was having a lend - but that is what he had been taught on his instructors course. I leave that gem with you.
Grandpa Aerotart
There was a crash at LAX many moons ago when a F86 being flown by an inexperienced (on type) pilot scorched off the end and smashed into a ice cream stand killing many innocent bystanders...it almost ended warbird operations and heralded the introduction of a formal endorsment process and standards...it was the same thing...over rotated on takeoff and not enough thrust at low speeds in early jets to overcome the induced drag.
But Cessnas are NOT 1950s technology fighters.
The correct technique, on long hard runways, is to begin the takeoff roll with VERY slight back pressure and as the nose wheel starts to fly just let it skim a few inches above the runway...as you approach flying speed (you can feel it in your seat) ease back a little further and let her fly off...and then let her accelerate and climb away at a reasonable speed.
As for using a hole in the pole
if that is not a classic example of the lack of 'feeling' in (way too many) young pilots I don't know what is.
Charging down the runway until some artifical Vr is reached and then 'rotating' to a high nose attitude and climbing away at Vy/Vx is just aping 'airline flying'. It is bad technique in the class of aeroplane we are discussing.
Light aircraft are not airliners and should never be flown as if they are.
But Cessnas are NOT 1950s technology fighters.
The correct technique, on long hard runways, is to begin the takeoff roll with VERY slight back pressure and as the nose wheel starts to fly just let it skim a few inches above the runway...as you approach flying speed (you can feel it in your seat) ease back a little further and let her fly off...and then let her accelerate and climb away at a reasonable speed.
As for using a hole in the pole
if that is not a classic example of the lack of 'feeling' in (way too many) young pilots I don't know what is.Charging down the runway until some artifical Vr is reached and then 'rotating' to a high nose attitude and climbing away at Vy/Vx is just aping 'airline flying'. It is bad technique in the class of aeroplane we are discussing.
Light aircraft are not airliners and should never be flown as if they are.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuckles me old 
Hmm yes and no.
Yes, if you delay rotation beyond the recommended, the centre of pressure keeps moving aft and increases the amount of elevator required therefore more drag even unto not having enough elevator authority to get the nose up, especially if you have a forward C of G, as you trundle off into the fence like unto a wheelbarrow.
and;
No, too early and you are by virtue of creating lift also creating that dreaded induced drag even unto off or close to the back of that cursed curve.
Either way you are using much more runway than you really need.
IMHO same old same old for airliners even as for them Cessnas or any lighty, different energy equations maybe but the lift/drag/power relativities remain the same.
Mr Cessna suggests in his recommendations O or min A of A for min drag/max acceleration up to the point where it's time to go then gently rotate.
I am sure you'll agree on limiting runways you gotta fly the numbers and technique is critical.
Most people I see TO and Land way too fast as if a bit of extra speed gives em a bit of extra buffer and then crz at 60% (or some other guru or aero club setting
) to "save the engine" and wonder why they dont get book TAS, wallowing along on the back of the curve using more fuel than they should and actually labouring the engine something chronic. Sorta like fifth gear up a steep hill
Centaurus mentions "shimmy". Might I suggest that he's right and the reason there's a lot of this nose wheel lifting about taught, is for no other reason but to stop the shimmies brought about by lack of or poor maintenance. If you've never seen a ship shimmy itself to bits you haven't lived, i.e. if you dont die laughing.
As for his Grade 3 friend, sound like the Prince of Wales routine lives still.
Hmm yes and no.
Yes, if you delay rotation beyond the recommended, the centre of pressure keeps moving aft and increases the amount of elevator required therefore more drag even unto not having enough elevator authority to get the nose up, especially if you have a forward C of G, as you trundle off into the fence like unto a wheelbarrow.
and;
No, too early and you are by virtue of creating lift also creating that dreaded induced drag even unto off or close to the back of that cursed curve.
Either way you are using much more runway than you really need.
IMHO same old same old for airliners even as for them Cessnas or any lighty, different energy equations maybe but the lift/drag/power relativities remain the same.
Mr Cessna suggests in his recommendations O or min A of A for min drag/max acceleration up to the point where it's time to go then gently rotate.
I am sure you'll agree on limiting runways you gotta fly the numbers and technique is critical.
Most people I see TO and Land way too fast as if a bit of extra speed gives em a bit of extra buffer and then crz at 60% (or some other guru or aero club setting
) to "save the engine" and wonder why they dont get book TAS, wallowing along on the back of the curve using more fuel than they should and actually labouring the engine something chronic. Sorta like fifth gear up a steep hill Centaurus mentions "shimmy". Might I suggest that he's right and the reason there's a lot of this nose wheel lifting about taught, is for no other reason but to stop the shimmies brought about by lack of or poor maintenance. If you've never seen a ship shimmy itself to bits you haven't lived, i.e. if you dont die laughing.
As for his Grade 3 friend, sound like the Prince of Wales routine lives still.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some time ago, I read an article in a GASIL, UK safety publication, by a CAA Gent who recommended that if the ASI was not alive, then the T/O should be discontinued Even if this means overunning the strip !! I was (And still am) aghast at this advice, and checked around opinions in the Dero Club one evening. (Including Chimbu) who repeated his Crock of ****e that stinketh opinion) I tracked the said CAA gent down and had a fairly long discussion with him as to the Wisdom of his advice. I agree with the discontinue T/O bit, but surely never if it meant an overun. In PNG particularly, where the overun surface could be rocks, or even a steep cliff, it would most likely take off the gear legs and puncture the tanks. Good recipe for fire that, not to mention puncturing the crew/passenger compartment. . Any low hour pilot has been taught to handle the aircraft on limited panel (It is in the syllabus) and should be able to operate the aircraft back to a safe landing by feel...maybe a bit fast though.
I have done it on two occasions on departute from and had no significant problems. I repeat....I don't recommend it, but it is far far better than an overun and possible breakup.
The said CAA Gent and I parted company agreeing to differ at the end of the day, at least I did....he was convinved of the rightness of his advice. Any opinions.
I have done it on two occasions on departute from and had no significant problems. I repeat....I don't recommend it, but it is far far better than an overun and possible breakup.
The said CAA Gent and I parted company agreeing to differ at the end of the day, at least I did....he was convinved of the rightness of his advice. Any opinions.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you 100%. Flying a light aircraft without an ASI (or other flight instrument) in VMC should cause minimal drama. Certainly not worth a late abort.
The airspeed active check I was refering to is for a short field takeoff and is to ensure expected acceleration (with reference to the airmass) is achieved by a very early abort point - aborting from this point should cause no problems.
The airspeed active check I was refering to is for a short field takeoff and is to ensure expected acceleration (with reference to the airmass) is achieved by a very early abort point - aborting from this point should cause no problems.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lara, VIC.
Age: 67
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Cessnas I have found light back pressure on elevator results in the nose wheel easing off slightly before the AC wants to fly.
I was taught this was the accepted method of take off for this type.
Flying Pipers, they seem to just sit on the strip solidly throughout the take off roll with little chance of the nose wheel lifting. In fact they seem to need a hefty deliberate yank to rotate after the required speed has been reached.
I was taught this was the accepted method of take off for this type.
Flying Pipers, they seem to just sit on the strip solidly throughout the take off roll with little chance of the nose wheel lifting. In fact they seem to need a hefty deliberate yank to rotate after the required speed has been reached.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right on, taildragger. First job I ever had was flying a 182 which had one of those home made, airsped activated metal tabs that save you the trouble of having to take the pitot cover off at the start of the day and put it back on at the end of the day (convenience!). Don't know exactly what it was but got a wierd airflow happening just as I rotated and the ASI started jumping round all over the place. Never got trained on how to deal with this one, freaked me out a bit when I first saw it - but for the life of me I can't think what the big deal is? Fly your standard power settings and attitudes, keep the speeds up if it makes you nervous, land flapless if you're worried about busting flap limits and bring her round for a normal circuit..... Might get your heart rate up if you're a little green when it happens and you haven't been trained to deal with it, but risking gear damage or worse? Reckon boys like that might do well to stay on the ground if they're so attached to it.....
Grandpa Aerotart
Gaunty me old
As pall suggests...a Cessna flys off with little or no effort and a Piper takes a little more...particularly the ones with the dumbass T tails.
I flew taildragger's taildragger (C180) last week in the UK...raise the tailwheel a little and let her fly off. 99.9% of Cessna pilots WILL NEVER SEE an airstrip where the above does not work perfectly....as for induced drag and moving centers of pressure? 
We are talking Cessnas not F86/Vampire/Meteors.
As pall suggests...a Cessna flys off with little or no effort and a Piper takes a little more...particularly the ones with the dumbass T tails.
I flew taildragger's taildragger (C180) last week in the UK...raise the tailwheel a little and let her fly off. 99.9% of Cessna pilots WILL NEVER SEE an airstrip where the above does not work perfectly....as for induced drag and moving centers of pressure?
We are talking Cessnas not F86/Vampire/Meteors.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while we're on the subject of being pedantic,
I thought stalling was a AoA problem........now, if a wing was held at a constant AoA and excelerated from a standstill, wouldn't it already be stalled, and then unstall further along the takeoff roll?. why would it then stall again if the AoA is still the same as it was when the take off roll started?. why would we then have a wingtip stall?. isnt that why wings have washout designed into them?, to stall the wingroot first?. so the ailerons are still effective right up until the whole wing is stalled?.
Just being the devils advocate here.
you might even have a wing tip stall if you stagger off at too low airspeed.
Just being the devils advocate here.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuckles said:
It was Sacramento, late 60s/early 70s, and it was a Canadair Sabre. Otherwise - as you said.
My father instructed in AT-6 Texans during WWII - and he said the ASI in the front panel was blocked off below 100 mph to get the student used to flying by feel and attitude. I'm not so sure that was the wisest part of their curriculum, but it did have some advantages. Twenty years later he had a blocked pitot in a similar category airplane and had no difficulty flying or landing it.
By contrast, I have heard of a PPL waiting. waiting, waiting for Vr to appear on his PA-28 - and ran right off the end into a fence.
There was a crash at LAX many moons ago
My father instructed in AT-6 Texans during WWII - and he said the ASI in the front panel was blocked off below 100 mph to get the student used to flying by feel and attitude. I'm not so sure that was the wisest part of their curriculum, but it did have some advantages. Twenty years later he had a blocked pitot in a similar category airplane and had no difficulty flying or landing it.
By contrast, I have heard of a PPL waiting. waiting, waiting for Vr to appear on his PA-28 - and ran right off the end into a fence.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 45 south
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessna takeoff
try applying full aileron into wind- as soon as that wing lifts the aircraft will fly...I use this method all the time in 185s and 206s for remote strip work...try it and see...
Cessna on Soft Field
I've been taught that to take off on a soft field you keep the nose up for all of the take-off (yoke in lap from start, letting go gradually as airspeed increases), until you get to 40 KIAS and then pull the aeroplane off the ground - level it out so that you experience ground effect then wait until it accelarates to 67 KIAS until you commence a normal climb. Ahhh yes... and 10deg of flap which you get rid of once you're at 67KIAS.
Pretty funny screwing it up the first time with sparks flying with the grinding of the empanage tie down. Also kind-of weird to use peripheral vision only to stay on the runway.
Pretty funny screwing it up the first time with sparks flying with the grinding of the empanage tie down. Also kind-of weird to use peripheral vision only to stay on the runway.
Practice on hard
No the first time I practiced was on hard surface. The school wouldn't allow the aeroplanes to be used on soft. Wasn't covered by the insurance.