Certainly not, only the rotation, not the lift off is done at a deliberate speed. Does it produce unsafe pilots?
Well, if you consider that lifting the aircraft out of contact is not getting airborne, what is?
And for the rest of your post, did I say I didn’t do performance calculations? No, thought not.
So, not intending to be rude, because if I want to be rude you would notice……
Take off the boxing gloves before flight.
And I did say thread drift 
K 6 is a decent glider, but doesn’t compare in handling. I have flown the CR and the E, nice enough but no cigar. Though as for takeoff speed, the same logic applies, you know. Just because the powerplant is remote doesn’t change the aerodynamics.
Well, the 182 amphibian is most safely flown by applying full nose up control at the very beginning of the takeoff roll, and only reducing the elevator angle as the nose wheels lift off. That, however, is not the lift off speed, about another 25 knots must be gained to fly. However, once the nosewheels are up, the pitch attitude is maintained as precisely as possible the same as that achieved by first lifting the nose, right through to about 50 feet up. The entire takeoff is a steady reduction in nose up elevator position, until a desired Vy climb speed is achieved. So I suppose there is a plane where either Vr is zero KIAS, or it simply does not exist.
Hmm. Unfortunately, you don’t mention what “your operation” is about. But unless you regularly have to deal with obstacles, flying any slower than Vy does not make any sense. Not performance-wise, not safety-wise and not cooling-wise.
“Our operation” is a bush operation with GA aircraft. But don’t tell me you never go to shorter unpaved strips, mountanous terrain, slopes, flying in weather? Otherwise you should get out more, finances permitting of course.
During my training I was taught to think of obstacles in a broad sense. Clouds are obstacles as well. When climbing before a cloud flying Vx gives you best performance to get over the cloud before you hit it. Makes good sense safety wise (VFR into IMC is very unsafe). Cooling wise there is no issue as long as the climb is not prolonged. Further I regularly take-off from strips at the water front. Flying Vx makes perfect sense from performance point of view (less distance from land in case of engine failure), safety point of view (same). Cooling is never really an issue, even though it is a big six. Yes the engine gets hotter, but no alarms sound, or red zones are entered.
On the other hand, Vy for this configuration is actually 70 Kts and the airplane will climb quite nicely.
Where did you get this info about the Bonanza? I’m guessing it’s not in the POH. That is a huge difference.
@Archie, the Bonanza is not a bad bush airplane. Robust undercarriage, not too high wing loading, some excess power and capable of reasonable short t/o & ldg. According to F. E. Pott’s Guide on Bush Flying it is actually used in that role, from time to time. But apart from that, I agree with you that a Bonanza is not a completely fair reference aircraft for a general discussion on climb speeds. A Bonanza will usually climb at a wide range of airspeeds, while a typical trainer with two people and full fuel will not climb well at a speed that is far above Vy.
I guess there are bush operations and there are bush operations. But point taken. On bush operations with access to longer strips, light payloads with a relatively good e.g. grass surface it may work. For real bush work it chews up too much runway. And think about how close the prop is to the ground and the nosewheel, and then think of operation it on a gravel strip! Yikes.
It would be interesting to see John Deakin’s measurements done in a proper bush aircraft. But I guess that would never happen, because it wouldn’t stir up much discussion. It would agree with the books and status quo that Vx does actually matter.
The Bonanza information used to be in older AFMs. Eckalbar in his book derived similar numbers (proportionally) for the later Bonanzas.
Given the cost of Beech parts I have to believe it is a bush aircraft only by careful appointment.
achimha wrote:
The airplane just starts to fly at some point without the need to “rotate” and Vx and Vy fry the engine in most airplanes anyway
Just before my exam, I requested one of the old timers in our club (who also happens to be a CFI, though not mine) to do a exam simulation. This person did make me unlearn a few bad habbits albeit a bit too late. In fact the takeaway from this ride was
- not to try slip and do a go around if I ever find myself in a situation needing it. We tried it few times and after a terrific demonstration of California slip, I decided to uncheck it from my lessons learned!
- No need to rotate! I could not believe my ears since it was how I had practiced in last years and its what is written in manual. However after experiencing it myself and practicing it few times, I think I have learnt it. I did use the same in my exam and have been doing it since then. The technique as I understood is to keep the nose light and wait for the speed to do its magic. From what I understood, having increased speed allows some more wriggle room when faced with engine out scenarios during take off. Its also mighty impressive for the pax.
- No need to rotate!
That usually works quite nicely on some types like the C172 but as a general rule it is wrong. In many airplanes the desire to “self rotate” depends completely on the trim. Easy to trim it wrong so it will never fly or lift off and stall. Also all performance numbers are off when operating that way. Just two days ago I did take off from the short runway of LOWZ with the PA46. Waiting for it to lift off itself would certainly have resulted in a big mess at the end of the runway. And if you manage to trim it so it would rotate properly itself it would be a beast to handle once airborne and be very unstable during the ground roll…
Sebastian_G wrote:
That usually works quite nicely on some types like the C172 but as a general rule it is wrong.
Yes, the C172 usually “wants to fly”, but e.g. the PA28 does not. And as Sebastian wrote, on a maximum performance takeoff you have to make a positive rotation.
Yeah, the Aerostar sat on the ground with negative inclination of wing and would drive itself to China on the ground on takeoff unless you pulled her off.
Ha. And the C340 will keep on accelerating on the ground, well past 100 KIAS although I don’t know how far and I haven’t been to China yet, until you give it a good tug on the yoke (technical for rotate).
In the Grumman AA5B with neutral trim, you just “lighten the nose wheel” (which is already light to protect the poor thing) and it flies off. Probably the kindest technique for most SEPs.
However slipping is a key technique to have in the bag of tricks, assuming approved in the AFM, although maybe not with pax. Despite all the airline stuff about stabilised approaches, if you are hot and high in a busy circuit in a light aircraft, it can be a useful way to recover. It’s fun too, and absolutely safe if practiced (see Piper Cub etc.).
No need to rotate!
I would avoid any advice from the person who gave such crap as general advice.
