Somewhere on the roll I lift the nose to a position slightly below where it needs to be for takeoff, regardless of stick forces. That gets the bouncy nose wheel off the ground. Then when the plane starts to feel light on its feet (definitely something you can feel) I increase pitch attitude and wait for the plane to fly off. Typically that gives a couple of beeps on the stall warner because it’s factory set to come on quite early.
Pitch trim forces are not high on this particular plane, and in fact takeoff trim position is not marked. Once airborne and with climb airspeed established, a small motion of the very sensitive trim wheel takes out the stick force.
I didn’t say the aeroplane should lift off by itself. I did say that most light aircraft have enough feel in the controls, feedback if you like, that the pilot should be able to tell when it is ready to fly. I would point out that aileron and rudder feel is every bit as important as elevator feel, and that obviously an appropriate trim setting should be used on those flying surfaces fitted with a trimmer. It is unkind to the aircraft to hammer along with the little wheel on the ground during all of the takeoff run and then yank the poor beast into the air.
Taking the weight off the nosewheel will result in less mechanical stress on the gear. This doesn’t mean pointing the nose up at the sky! It will often need a fair amount of back pressure initially, reducing as you gain speed and control responsiveness. Then go fly…..with encouragement by means of more back pressure if needed.
Conventional gear pilots please ignore the second paragraph 
Yeah but you need experience to feel this and you have to have some procedure to be able to train this feeling. So a defined rotation speed makes much sense in (primary) flight training – a field of flying, Mr. Deakin does not relate to.
Plus, I think it is very important to teach that there is one deliberate speed, where you get the most vertical performance out of your plane, and that the student experiences that, if you just pull more, the performance does not get better. If you always climb out faster than Vy, one might get the impression that pulling back on the stick helps in that matter. And since there have been a couple of accidents, where pilots tried to climb way slower than Vx and ended the flight in the bushes, I think it is utmost important to implement these basic principles of aircraft performance in new pilots. In my opinion, this is flight training, not just pure education.
Cheers,
flying any slower than Vy does not make any sense. Not performance-wise, not safety-wise and not cooling-wise. Quote
I don’t agree. Vx is slower that Vy. If you have to clear an obstacle at the end of the runway, you might clear it at Vx where you might not clear it at Vy. That’s performance and safety. Yes, you’re going to run it hot, but not for long, just long enough to clear the obstacle. Vx simply gets you a steeper climb angle than Vy, and that’s the whole idea. The whole concept is that you’re flying more slowly across the ground, so even a lesser climb rate equates to a steeper climb angle. This, I have done for real, climbing out of short runways and lakes, over obstacles.
As for the aircraft “being ready to fly”, that should not be confused with its flying itself off. Flying off without control input in pitch IS a factor of trim setting and balance. Being ready to fly is the aircraft being in harmony with the air, and not fighting with it. No mushing, or flying behind the power curve, but no wasted energy either. It’s the airplane equivalent of getting up in the morning: There’s dragging your butt, ‘cause it’s just too early (NOT ready yet), just right, and being ancy, ‘cause you’re stuck in the house on a nice morning.
A plane which is ready to fly will respond crisply to control inputs, without stalling, or mushing, and the pilot will feel confident that the plane will fly as commanded. If it is on the ground, it will fly when pitch up i applied. Premature would be mushing off the runway early, and likely settling back on, waiting too long after a plane is ready to fly will likely result in wheelbarrowing, as you force the nose down to keep the plane on the runway, and the tail begins to lift. Tail draggers do this better, though are twitchy, with increasing speed. Ever try to land a tricycle much too fast? Really twitchy.
The aircraft reacts to the air, and that reaction is proportionate to airspeed. There are many different airspeeds, one is right for flying.
Please don’t quote me partially if that tears apart the message!
I said:
But unless you regularly have to deal with obstacles, flying any slower than Vy does not make any sense.
Thank you Pilot DAR, for saying what I was trying to say but more clearly.
Mh, have a defined speed for getting airborne by all means, but can we call it something other than rotation speed please?
Mh, have a defined speed for getting airborne by all means, but can we call it something other than rotation speed please?
Why?
While I agree that Vr is a big-jet term that should not be applied directly to small GA-airplanes, I also find that a reference speed for when to start flying is necessary. Because if you do not use it, most pilots will start raising the nose after accelerating for what they percieve as an appropriate amount of time. And that will not work when the wind, weight or type of aircraft changes. Or when doing touch and go’s. Not all airplanes will “tell the pilot when they are ready to fly”. A mistrimmed PA-32 certainly not – I saw that last week when giving a type conversion and doing t&g’s. (I usually prefer stop-and-go’s, but traffic did not allow for that.)
I very much agree that it wrong to introduce Vx as “just another V-speed”. It is not – its hazards should be well understood by all pilots, and I teach is as a non-standard procedure.
@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.
John Deakin is one of my absolute favorite aviation writers. What he does best is stirring up the dust in the minds of experienced pilots, in an entertaining, clever and educating way. But I would not like to feed him to student pilots without the filter of an instructor.
Well said.
Please don’t quote me partially if that tears apart the message!Quote
Fair enough. However, you could say about anything in flying that unless you need to do it, doing it does not make sense. It’s a construct of message which could lead newer pilots to think that they should not bother with this skill and discipline, or give it lesser importance – that’s the overall meaning I took away from the statement. All of these different aircraft capabilities, and design requirements are designed in and certified for a reason. It is vitally important to highlight that these capabilities are there in the aircraft, and the skill must be developed and maintained to employ them as appropriate – which includes practice. In my opinion, too many pilots just fly a “normal” flight all the time, and disregard the peripheral skills, to the point where they are lost. Sure, they can get from A to B okay, but if they have to divert to C, and it’s a totally different operating environment, everything comes apart.
