Matt Russell
Member
I want one of those! Isn't it for Experimentals only, though?
Takeoff and Landing Techniques
- Thread starter Scott Perdue
- Start date
Ak Kurt
Well-Known Member
Nope, its STC approved for the Husky. Call Josh 208-523-4283
Matt Russell
Member
Many thanks.
belloypilot
Active Member
I did a bunch more testing and practice with the two different techniques discussed here. Full flap, 3 point attitude take off versus one notch of flaps, raise the tail, and smoothly apply full flaps as the tail comes up so that full flaps are deployed before the deck angle is horizontal. I have a 1999 A1-B with VGs.
Pretty similar results as my previous posts. At about 1850 lbs or heavier, full flaps and 3 point takeoff gives at least as good and maybe better takeoff roll. The heavier I am, the more this technique has the advantage. However, at lighter weights (which also means more forward CG) of around 1700 lbs the other technique worked a bit better for me. In both cases the maximum difference was 20-30’, so its not a life changing difference. I prefer the simplicity of the full flap 3 point takeoff, especially when there’s other considerations like a rough or sloped field, obstacle clearance, or generally other stuff that should have your attention more so than the a few feet difference in the takeoff roll, but if I’m looking for a party trick to keep it as short as possible and if I’m light, the other technique is still working a bit better for me.
Pretty similar results as my previous posts. At about 1850 lbs or heavier, full flaps and 3 point takeoff gives at least as good and maybe better takeoff roll. The heavier I am, the more this technique has the advantage. However, at lighter weights (which also means more forward CG) of around 1700 lbs the other technique worked a bit better for me. In both cases the maximum difference was 20-30’, so its not a life changing difference. I prefer the simplicity of the full flap 3 point takeoff, especially when there’s other considerations like a rough or sloped field, obstacle clearance, or generally other stuff that should have your attention more so than the a few feet difference in the takeoff roll, but if I’m looking for a party trick to keep it as short as possible and if I’m light, the other technique is still working a bit better for me.
tbienz
Well-Known Member
I tried both today as well (but for the flap-pop technique, I use 0 not 1st notch), but I didn’t have anyone outside to mark the exact point of lift-off. They felt pretty similar, but I much preferred the visibility of the flap-pop technique over the 3-point takeoff. Mine is a ‘94 A-1 with extended SN gear. Don’t know about deck angle over a “normal“ plane and how that might change things. Also, it was a bit gusty and it seems with the three-point takeoff it acted like it was ready to lift off, then settled, then was off for real.
I think the 3-point is probably a bit shorter, not sure, but I can’t see anything ahead of me during the acceleration run and it seems to slowly lift away from the ground with the stall horn blaring and I felt a bit “exposed” to a drop (maybe I’m doing it wrong?). With the other technique, the tail comes up rapidly due to propwash, I have good visibility for roots and rocks, and when I pull from 0 to full flaps, it leaps into the air with a very positive transition into ground effect.
So I’m guessing for me, if a short ground roll due to very short space available is called for, I might use the full-flap 3-point takeoff as long as I have smooth grass ahead. But for more “actual” situations, I will probably continue with the flap-pop technique.
Two years ago, I was also in a situation where I had landed in moderately deep snow for hunting. I tried taking off several times with full flaps and could not accelerate to flying speed even with trying to run in my tire tracks. I then did a clean acceleration until it wouldn’t speed up anymore, then popped the flaps and the tires briefly lifted out of the snow and the plane picked up just enough speed to stay in the air and fly away. To make matters worse, later in the day, the local Game and Fish officer showed up at our campsite and accused me of “harassing cattle” (which happened to share the field with me when I was trying to get airborne). . In Wyoming, it seems they try to find anything they can to torment pilots who use their planes to access legal hunting areas.
I think the 3-point is probably a bit shorter, not sure, but I can’t see anything ahead of me during the acceleration run and it seems to slowly lift away from the ground with the stall horn blaring and I felt a bit “exposed” to a drop (maybe I’m doing it wrong?). With the other technique, the tail comes up rapidly due to propwash, I have good visibility for roots and rocks, and when I pull from 0 to full flaps, it leaps into the air with a very positive transition into ground effect.
So I’m guessing for me, if a short ground roll due to very short space available is called for, I might use the full-flap 3-point takeoff as long as I have smooth grass ahead. But for more “actual” situations, I will probably continue with the flap-pop technique.
Two years ago, I was also in a situation where I had landed in moderately deep snow for hunting. I tried taking off several times with full flaps and could not accelerate to flying speed even with trying to run in my tire tracks. I then did a clean acceleration until it wouldn’t speed up anymore, then popped the flaps and the tires briefly lifted out of the snow and the plane picked up just enough speed to stay in the air and fly away. To make matters worse, later in the day, the local Game and Fish officer showed up at our campsite and accused me of “harassing cattle” (which happened to share the field with me when I was trying to get airborne). . In Wyoming, it seems they try to find anything they can to torment pilots who use their planes to access legal hunting areas.
belloypilot
Active Member
That’s a really good point. Simplicity of operation is one thing, but improved visibility is often more important. I guess another reason it’s good to have a few different techniques practiced so you can fit for purpose on any given Sunday.
TheFlyingMouse
Active Member
I’m still very early in getting to know the plane, so the 3 point full flaps takeoff is how I make short field work consistent for now. Works well enough for anything I’ll ever need to do for the next year or two.
Still struggling a lot with timing the power when I have forward cg for 3 point landings with full flaps. Only got 2 smooth ones out of 5 today and had to abort two of the 3 fails for pretty bad bounces.
Do you guys prefer to just leave constant 100-200 rpm in over the fence and let the energy bleed off, or do you tend to pop the throttle a hair to push the tail down and establish the right attitude near the runway? I seemed to have more luck with the former.
I have the older 2 blade MT composite. Makes a great air brake, but is really not doing well for 3 points for me. The older A-1 I trained in with the metal hartzell was easier, although most of the time I had an instructor in the back, so maybe I just remember wrong. I guess it also had bush wheels.
With 2 notches flaps I can just get it to power off stall if I completely bury the stick into the squishy stuff, but I have to work at it. 3 pointers with this configuration work fine.
I’m curious what you all prefer. 2005 new wing A-1B, running about 1800lb gross. Pretty standard calm day.
Still struggling a lot with timing the power when I have forward cg for 3 point landings with full flaps. Only got 2 smooth ones out of 5 today and had to abort two of the 3 fails for pretty bad bounces.
Do you guys prefer to just leave constant 100-200 rpm in over the fence and let the energy bleed off, or do you tend to pop the throttle a hair to push the tail down and establish the right attitude near the runway? I seemed to have more luck with the former.
I have the older 2 blade MT composite. Makes a great air brake, but is really not doing well for 3 points for me. The older A-1 I trained in with the metal hartzell was easier, although most of the time I had an instructor in the back, so maybe I just remember wrong. I guess it also had bush wheels.
With 2 notches flaps I can just get it to power off stall if I completely bury the stick into the squishy stuff, but I have to work at it. 3 pointers with this configuration work fine.
I’m curious what you all prefer. 2005 new wing A-1B, running about 1800lb gross. Pretty standard calm day.
TheFlyingMouse
Active Member
Hmm. You’re saying that you have enough elevator authority to get the nose up to the 3 point attitude even at idle power? Mine runs out of authority once I lose enough airspeed. If I don’t add power it’s not going to go well (impossible to stall with flaps 30 without some power.)
What rpm do you get at idle? I see about 650 after the engine is warm.
What rpm do you get at idle? I see about 650 after the engine is warm.
Snowbirdxx
Well-Known Member
Ok guys, before we continue we should define some variables.
Idle Power, Prop flat pitch setting, up elevator travel, Cg, Type of elecator tube which controls the angle of incidence, etc.
It makes a big difference if I have idle power set to 500 or 850 RPM, and it makes a big difference where the flat pitch stop is. With a flat pitch I need more RPM to produce thrust while the braking action is better..
If the elevator UP screw on the rear stick is too far in, elevator authority goes down the drain,
What CG does is self explanatory and different Husky Models have different forward stab miounting tubes, having different angle of incidence.
My 2 c
Idle Power, Prop flat pitch setting, up elevator travel, Cg, Type of elecator tube which controls the angle of incidence, etc.
It makes a big difference if I have idle power set to 500 or 850 RPM, and it makes a big difference where the flat pitch stop is. With a flat pitch I need more RPM to produce thrust while the braking action is better..
If the elevator UP screw on the rear stick is too far in, elevator authority goes down the drain,
What CG does is self explanatory and different Husky Models have different forward stab miounting tubes, having different angle of incidence.
My 2 c
TheFlyingMouse
Active Member
I think what you’re saying is to get much further here we’re going to have to open a can of worms that I’m not equipped for
Probably the cheapest and easiest way to iron this out is to adjust pilot technique to suit the plane. I’ll do some more experimenting later this week.
Is there an easy way to check the flat pitch stop with run of the mill tools? I don’t own any prop pitch gauges.
Snowbirdxx
Well-Known Member
You could use your phone with an APP to measure angles. Then it depends on your prop where to measure....Easier is if you tell me what the RPM is with full power just after releasing the brakes.
And whats your idle RPM static?
And whats your idle RPM static?
Snowbirdxx
Well-Known Member
The later Huskys with the shorter spacer tubes on the elevator mount have less elevator authority, since the stap is producing more lift. To compensate that, adjustting the stop screw for UP elevator may help.
The stab and elevator are aerodynamicly speaking " Flat " plates. Very ineficcent at AOAs above 5 °
The stab and elevator are aerodynamicly speaking " Flat " plates. Very ineficcent at AOAs above 5 °
Ak Kurt
Well-Known Member
Guys,
With all the technique discussions and practicing going on concerning landings and power settings, I have to ask, how are you going to land your airplanes on a given spot when the engine quits? I would highly recommend all of you become very proficient on power off spot landings in your Husky’s and other airplanes you fly. Just sayin…..
Kurt
With all the technique discussions and practicing going on concerning landings and power settings, I have to ask, how are you going to land your airplanes on a given spot when the engine quits? I would highly recommend all of you become very proficient on power off spot landings in your Husky’s and other airplanes you fly. Just sayin…..
Kurt
David
Active Member
Very valid point. I went from a Hartzell stock metal prop to the 3 bladed MT. My glide ratio went from pretty decent to a brick. If the engine quits and I cannot get the prop to coarse pitch, I fall like a rock. I have found, in the best case scenario, no matter my AGL altitude, if I look out the side window at the ground through the jury strut, that is the furthest I am going to be able to glide. It is a stunningly short distance. Not a lot of options, especially as most of my flying is over and through the mountains. I'll just have to do like Bob Hoover says "Fly it as far as you can thru the crash".
Because of the type of flying that a lot of us here on the forum do, we are accepting a little more (OK!, maybe a lot more) risk than other pilots are willing to accept in order to get into the places we want to be. However, our sport (even when landing behind the power curve) is a lot less risky than lots of other sports such as boxing, football, dirt bike riding, farming, street motorcycle riding, etc. Even when wearing all the best protective gear and being super cautious, my worse injuries have all come from motorcycle riding (going on 54 years). We all accept risk in everything we do; how much risk is strictly up to the individual. Statistically, engine failure is rare. The ATSB’s 2014 investigation into failure rates in piston engine power plants showed that the traditional Continental and Textron/Lycoming engines had a failure rate of about 13 failures per 100,000 flight hours, with Rotax coming in at a slightly higher 15 per 100,000 flight hours. Fatal accident rates also support single engine aircraft being safe and reliable. Reviewing general aviation in the US fleet between 1984 and 2006 (from NTSB annual reviews), the average fatal accident rate of single piston engine aircraft sits at 1.63 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with 1.88 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours in their multi piston engine cousins. According to Google : Safety statistics suggest that less than one in every one million flightswill have an engine failure or forced engine shutdown in the air or on the ground. This works out at approximately 25 such failures a year across commercial aviation.
All of this being taken into account, it is smart and prudent to do as Kurt says and insure your aircraft is in the best condition possible.
Just my thoughts!
“WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”
“WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”
I am one year, 120 hours and 230 landings into my Husky ownership. In other words I am also very new.
My plane behaves very much as Mouse describes, same prop, 2007.
First of all, I agree with Kurt and have made power off landings a regular part of my practice.
Second, I think the factor that I feel has caused the most trickiness for me is the very narrow band between lots of prop braking and lots of thrust. (Overall this is a huge positive, but doesn’t make the plane easier to land softly). I alternated days where I would make longer more stable approaches to long runways so able to concentrate fully on decent rate and make a soft landing with other days making power off to a point “arrivals”. Those two aren’t married yet for me, but have a pretty committed relationship, maybe even thinking about buying rings, haha. Slow flight and stalls at altitude practice is always helpful also. Tom is right about lots of variables, even if we limit discussion to technique.
As far as I know you are making correct observations and with practice it is going to come together for you. I mostly do well now even in weird winds and backcountry runways with abnormal approaches.
My plane behaves very much as Mouse describes, same prop, 2007.
First of all, I agree with Kurt and have made power off landings a regular part of my practice.
Second, I think the factor that I feel has caused the most trickiness for me is the very narrow band between lots of prop braking and lots of thrust. (Overall this is a huge positive, but doesn’t make the plane easier to land softly). I alternated days where I would make longer more stable approaches to long runways so able to concentrate fully on decent rate and make a soft landing with other days making power off to a point “arrivals”. Those two aren’t married yet for me, but have a pretty committed relationship, maybe even thinking about buying rings, haha. Slow flight and stalls at altitude practice is always helpful also. Tom is right about lots of variables, even if we limit discussion to technique.
As far as I know you are making correct observations and with practice it is going to come together for you. I mostly do well now even in weird winds and backcountry runways with abnormal approaches.
TheFlyingMouse
Active Member
Well, glad I’m not the only one to have early difficulties. It seems that there is a significant difference in behavior between the A-1 and the newer planes.
tbienz: it was in my original post, but I have an early new wing A-1B, 2005. The A-1C on your field, Jeb’s plane, and mine are all new wing. I’m not sure if that should make a difference. Too many variables like everyone says.
@Kurt: power off landings are precisely what has me worried and the reason I think there’s so much discussion about 3 point landing techniques on this forum. For me to hit a spot without power right now, it’s basically point the nose down and execute a tail low wheel landing. With the air braking effect and flaps 30 she doesn’t actually float down the runway. As David mentioned earlier for his 3 blade, there’s no glide distance to speak of. I’ve since adjusted my patterns to be much tighter.
I was practicing yesterday at the same time as a C172 who was flying turbine distances from the field. It was actually making me worried that an engine failure might force me down off airport with the extended down-wind legs.
David: Love your signature. How’s Idaho treating you?
Snowbird: RPM just after brake release fluctuates between 2650 and 2680 but never quite reaches 2700, and this is also true in a Vy climb. Idle somewhere from 600-650. I’ll get a more precise read on both next time I’m out at the airport.
In terms of the elevator stop screw… I suspect that the prior owner may have done that already. The trim is incapable of holding the elevator up against the stop when parked in the hangar. In any case, the last inch or two of stick travel doesn’t actually do anything at low airspeed.
Up at altitude, the wing cannot be made to stall at idle power and flaps 30 unless you yank the stick back and try to let momentum increase the AOA beyond what is normally achievable. The stall horn doesn’t go off without doing this either. Flaps 20 can just barely be made to stall with stick held against the stop.
For reference, CG was around 75.3 inches for practice yesterday.
tbienz: it was in my original post, but I have an early new wing A-1B, 2005. The A-1C on your field, Jeb’s plane, and mine are all new wing. I’m not sure if that should make a difference. Too many variables like everyone says.
@Kurt: power off landings are precisely what has me worried and the reason I think there’s so much discussion about 3 point landing techniques on this forum. For me to hit a spot without power right now, it’s basically point the nose down and execute a tail low wheel landing. With the air braking effect and flaps 30 she doesn’t actually float down the runway. As David mentioned earlier for his 3 blade, there’s no glide distance to speak of. I’ve since adjusted my patterns to be much tighter.
I was practicing yesterday at the same time as a C172 who was flying turbine distances from the field. It was actually making me worried that an engine failure might force me down off airport with the extended down-wind legs.
David: Love your signature. How’s Idaho treating you?
Snowbird: RPM just after brake release fluctuates between 2650 and 2680 but never quite reaches 2700, and this is also true in a Vy climb. Idle somewhere from 600-650. I’ll get a more precise read on both next time I’m out at the airport.
In terms of the elevator stop screw… I suspect that the prior owner may have done that already. The trim is incapable of holding the elevator up against the stop when parked in the hangar. In any case, the last inch or two of stick travel doesn’t actually do anything at low airspeed.
Up at altitude, the wing cannot be made to stall at idle power and flaps 30 unless you yank the stick back and try to let momentum increase the AOA beyond what is normally achievable. The stall horn doesn’t go off without doing this either. Flaps 20 can just barely be made to stall with stick held against the stop.
For reference, CG was around 75.3 inches for practice yesterday.
Snowbirdxx
Well-Known Member
For these amoung you having a MTV15 and looking for an easy approach, leave the RPMs set to 2200 and do not go to fine pitch. Braking action is much less and in case of a go around, just push the prop forward.
In case of an engine fail, pull the prop to low RPM asasp. Your glide distance will be trippeled. in case of an engine seizure, the glige is similar, but by far not as bad as with a spinning MT at flat pitch.
In case of an engine fail, pull the prop to low RPM asasp. Your glide distance will be trippeled. in case of an engine seizure, the glige is similar, but by far not as bad as with a spinning MT at flat pitch.