Actually, If you have understood what a rotation speed actually is, you would agree that it makes plenty sense. If you use it or not is the same question in a tricycle aircraft.
Basically in a tailwheel aircraft you (with some notable exceptions) need to get the tail up to accelerate to a speed which allows you to lift off with an angle of attack less than the three-point angle of attack with the takeoff configuration (Because geometry prevents a bigger AOA). Unless you have this speed, any rotation for an increased angle of attack would not result in the lift off and so a defined speed exists, where to rotate the aircraft for liftoff. Of couse, this is the second rotation in a tailwheel aircraft and many aircraft – regardless of gear configuration – can be flown without quantifying this speed. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or couldn’t be helpful in some circumstances.
Well, the only time you need “rotation speed” of some sort in a light aircraft, is for short field. But you don’t look at the ASI, it’s a timing/feeling thing.
Taking off from a car is one thing, landing is an entire different business. At Osh this year (and I guess several years before that), I guy had a show landing on a small truck. He tried two times before he got it right the third. It is said it is a thing that looks fairly easy, but it is the most difficult thing you can do with an aircraft.
LeSving wrote:
It is said it is a thing that looks fairly easy, but it is the most difficult thing you can do with an aircraft.
The guys who land fighter jets on aircraft carriers at night in real bad weather will probably have a different opinion about this one… 
(Or ditching an Airbus into the Hudson river without killing anybody.)
I think the floatplane pilot was revving the engine up gradually, as the vehicle under him accelerated.
Otherwise, he would have needed to be somehow attached to it, until the moment of rotation.
If you watch his propeller, you can see this gradual change in rpm.
mh wrote:
Actually, If you have understood what a rotation speed actually is, you would agree that it makes plenty sense. If you use it or not is the same question in a tricycle aircraft.
OK, then I’ve been taught wrong by my tailwheel instructors. I rotate once, then keep it rolling on the main wheels until it wants to fly. I don’t even have time to look at the ASI as I’m usually too busy keeping the plane on the runway. And I think if I tried to “pull off” the plane at some given speed, I would have been shouted at.
what_next wrote:
The guys who land fighter jets on aircraft carriers at night in real bad weather will probably have a different opinion about this one… (Or ditching an Airbus into the Hudson river without killing anybody.)
As I said, it’s something that looks 1000 times easier than it actually is, and it doesn’t look all that easy to start with. The car has to stop at some point, and with a tail dragger on top it has to be done gradually, or it will nose over. Few people have done both (carrier and truck), if any at all, so we will never actually know. 
LeSving wrote:
As I said, it’s something that looks 1000 times easier than it actually is,
I believe that it is very difficult. Most people (me included sometimes) are not even able to land within 5 metres of the runway centreline – and this whole moving landing pad is less than 5 metres wide. And most people again (me included sometimes) are not even able to touch down at the correct spot and with the correct speed – on a non-moving runway…
The aircraft for this stunt needs to have very fine speed control, a lot of drag on one hand so that it can easily slow down quickly, and a very powerful and responsive engine to speed-up in the shortest possible time. Not something for the usual flying club C172.
Rwy20 wrote:
I rotate once, then keep it rolling on the main wheels until it wants to fly.
Well in that case you just float off at “some” speed with “some” aoa and do not control the takeoff. If, for instance, you have set up an aoa that delivers about a cruise C_L, you need cruise speed to get airborne. In fact, you can “fasttaxy” along the whole runway by controlling a low AOA. Imperssive versions can be watched here! or here! :-)
The procedure becomes more important, the lesser power you have for higher loads. If you fly a 180HP Super Cub or an Extra 300 they might very well jump into the air out of three point attitude (Or a lightly loaded AN-2 or a Bearcat or stuff like that). If you fly a 90hp Sperling loadet at MTOM in high density alt, or a J-3 or similar low powered aircraft the concept of a timed rotation becomes more important. Now: That doesn’t mean you yank the aircraft into the air at minimum speed, but you won’t achieve book performance if you just let it float off. Off course, you should develop a feeling of what your aircraft is doing and how it feels in what state of flight. And if you always fly one type, this feeling dominates any figures, but if you do fly many different aircraft the ASI can give you good guidance on what the aircraft will and won’t do.
….and of course all aircraft are different. While happily landing the C303 short, it took me quite some time to get comfortable taking off, and while (GPS-derived) measurement of landing roll was easily at book values, I really struggled to take off in less than book-TOR + 50%, or worse initially. That aircraft handles nicely, but is a bit heavy on the elevator and feels like it sticks to the ground, and needs a quite positive yank back with 7 knots lead to target lift-off speed. 7. Not 5, not 10. A slightly aft trim position also helps.
It never ceases to amaze me, with literally hundreds and hundreds of aircraft types, and hugely different airport conditions, that people still make general statements on technique. The way I used to land in Aachen Merzbruck (onto the zebra crossing, out at mid-point) was great for a 520m field, it is completely inappropriate at Biggin. The approach speed control on a Mooney is much more important, and different, compared to a draggy beast like a Saratoga. So is touchdown technique. Some aircraft like a trickle of power, others don’t need it. Some pilots prefer an “aggravated flare” technique over “trickle of power” in a heavier aircraft… so what?
I think there is only ONE reasonable general handling advice – if you want book performance, follow the book technique. Other valid techniques exist.
Hear, hear Cobalt!
