LeSving wrote:
In a tail wheel you want to get the tail up as fast as possible.
I bet the guy in your video could have done it without raising the tail first 
There is a small paragraph in the book “The Killing Zone” on this topic. The FAA has done tests on this and the result was that it makes no difference for a SEP. The main goal is to check the engine gages under full power before starting the take off roll on a short runway to be able to focus more on the takeoff itself and to catch engine malfunctions before actually starting to roll.
Long time ago I read an article about this question. The author explained that holding the brakes while running the engine at full power effectively increase the required runway as parts of the prop blades stall due to the lack of forward air movement on them.
This reminds me of the first time I took my 182 into a really short field – a pal’s farm strip previously used only for rotary and microlights. I was so paranoid about squeezing every last inch out of the available space I ended up doing the entire takeoff roll with the hand-operated parking brake permanently on. I made it off with room to spare. Whether this says most about (i) the ineffectiveness of those old Cessna parking brakes, (ii) the 182’s short-field ability or (iii) my crappy piloting, I am not sure.
(i) the ineffectiveness of those old Cessna parking brakes, (ii) the 182’s short-field ability or (iii) my crappy piloting, I am not sure.
how about all three? ;-))
We used to do full flap take-off experiments with a 172. While I would not recommend it, it certainly was fun to pull the plane away from the rwy after less than 100 m, and then accelerate 1 m above the ground … Actually the trick was shown to me by some bushpilot in Oregon first.
With our Warrior my father liked to pull the flap handle in the take-off roll. But I don’t like that one either, you can lose control very easily, and it’s simply not worth it …
pull the plane away from the rwy after less than 100 m, and then accelerate 1 m above the ground
which is standard technique for me
@David: great story! I too have once taken off with the “parking brake” active, I just hope the disks didn’t suffer too much. Take-off run was noticeable longer but not spectacular, perhaps 20 or 30% more.
As an aside, static take-offs are great for getting debris into you props and for that reason alone I try to avoid them.
It does make a bit of a difference in a turbocharged piston aircraft (unless you have a fully automatic wastegate). Not so much to allow the turbochargers to spool up, but to get the take-off power just right without overboosting the engine.
In my Maule when lightly loaded, spooling up the heavy Hartzell prop on the brakes reduces take off roll by about 10%. With a composite prop, I would expect less difference, but every little helps.
As for lifting the tail – and being able to control its position in 3D at all times, it’s part of every STOL pilot’s stock in trade. It is satisfying, not just because it scares the shit out of some instructors, but in the same way that holding less than half a dot on an ILS would be a source of great pride if I could do it.
As for the Valdez video, I’m persuaded that everything that Bobby Breedon jr. does is for the purpose of shaving a few inches off his combined landing and take off roll.
Even with 30+ inches of prop clearance the blades can pick up a few nicks, but every part of a bush plane is to some extent a consumable item. The sooner the prop gets bent or filed to a sliver, the sooner Mrs Jacko can’t possibly question our need for a longer, noisier one
