Instruments don’t fool anybody
Except for a couple of stories I heard about ASI misindications due to frost, dust, nests of wasps or other pests … 
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
… ASI misindications …
This is why one should abort the takeoff if one does not get a proper speed indication. And why one should apply pitot covers first thing after throwing chocks under the wheels. Always did that, never saw a false indication…
what_next wrote:
If one can fly his aeroplane by feel – good for him. But this is nothing I can teach anyone in the assigned number of flying lessons.
I can imagine that’s true. I have no idea how many lessons I flew when learning to fly, as many as it took to learn to fly is the best answer for that, and quite a lot of my times my instructor covered the instruments to make damned sure I knew how to fly the plane by feel, as a primary objective of training.
I was mentor flying with the owner in the 182 amphibian last week. I witnessed the nosewheels taking a heck of a pounding because he was not keeping them light on the runway. I trained him the nose light technique for takeoff. Start the takeoff with the controls held fully back, and continue to hold there until half of the [height of] runway visible ahead is occluded by the cowl. If all the runway is occluded, too nose high, but the point is to assure some rise of the nose. Then, hold that attitude precisely, until the plane flies itself off. Maintain direction throughout. Once airborne, allow to accelerate in ground effect as might be desired, and climb away as desired. There will be no need to look at any instrument during this takeoff, entirely eyes out. Indicated airspeed is of no consequence, it is what it is, it’s going to fly when it’s ready. The transition from rolling to flying will be nearly indistinguishable, as there will be no “rotate” whatever. Any single tricycle Cessna will do this perfectly well, right up to the Caravan. I encourage pilots to consider this technique for light GA tricycle aircraft, which are not T tailed Pipers.
In the converse, I did flight testing which required testing three point takeoffs and landings. This was to develop a technique so that pilots would not strike the towed survey bird installed under the aircraft. Ultimately, after dozens of trial takeoff and landings, I was able to demonstrate that a reasonably (normal) technique was okay too, though I did drag the bird’s tails once! This required very precise pitch control, so as to not wheelbarrow the aircraft – tricycles can be groundlooped like a taildragger, f you fight them to be nose heave too much! The Caravan has very rugged nose gear, but I still was uneasy flying the plane this way. It gust goes against my grain….
This photo is me adding power on a touch and go, while holding the nosewheel on. When I added the power, a mainwheel levitated off, without my raising the nose yet. Any control back pressure, and the plane would have leapt into that air!
there was recently an accident related to this topic. The video is out of youtube now but I managed to capture it anyway – http://www.orlita.net/neverejne/OKDRC_LKJH.mp4
data points – 2 POB, none of them tiny one, some baggage (behind the cockpit), 30+ deg C, up hill runway with a cross wind. not even 210 HP+ VP got this machine to the air – just due to trying to unstick too early. The last aircraft departing before the accident (OK-HLJ) has only 105 HP and fixed pitch wooden prop.
The PIC had 1150 hrs, 200 hrs on type, ACRO, instructor. So even a guy with experience can make the mistake. I guess his walk around at the end of video is clearly giving the message.
A lot of theory here, and I can’t digest many of them … still a novice student :)
More so because I recently changed from an ATO with a short asphalt runway to an ATO with a short grass runway. A huge difference in my opinion!!
On the first flight with the new ATO, I and my instructor were both surprised as I was trying to reach the Vr while he was asking me to hold back the control column. Completely befuddled I asked on PPRUNE and received some similar insights.
Now I completely hold back the control column while taxiing. For take-off, somewhat less back pressure till you ‘feel’ airbrone and release the pressure slightly. It seems to work.
I wonder if this emphasis on “feel” is more important on soft field where the runway condition as not expected to be as consistent (wet, uneven, longer/shorter grass, dry, etc.) as asphalt.
Definitely. On a hard runway, you can very much fly ‘by the book’, i.e. “ATO-style”.
On grass runways, one needs to feel what type of soil/grass it is and get some feeling for how much back pressure is best in the differernt parts of the takeoff run.
If “your” airfield is both soft and short, than that is definitely a challenging thing for a new student. Normally, as mh pointed out, we instructors try to give students easy and universal rules in the beginning, to make it easier for them. But when it is short and soft, the “art of flying” has to come in right from the beginning.
It’s not the elevator that’s causing the drag. If you pull the elevator too much, once there is enough speed, the pitch will go up and with it the angle of attack. This results in a bad lift : drag ratio, and together with the resistance from the field the speed won’t build up quick enough to overcome the ground effect. What you do, is essentially driving the plane while it’s in a stall.
The solution is to reduce the angle of attack to allow the wing to work as it is supposed to :)
EuroFlyer wrote:
It’s not the elevator that’s causing the drag.
Yes, it is. Full back elevator from the start of take-off roll can reduce your take-off performance. However on a soft field, it can increase your take-off performance, as it gives less drag compared to a nose wheel digging in. Again, follow the procedure in your AFM or your operator’s manuals.
Archie wrote:
Full back elevator from the start of take-off roll can reduce your take-off performance.
Of course, but is that caused by elevator drag or by drag from the wing at the high AoA?
