Cessna: Short take off

Crash Lander wrote:
> Not having seen the video because I'm currently at work, a strong head wind
> would shorten takeoff distance no matter what the surface construction would
> it not?
> Crash Lander
>

I agree with Crash in this case. There is quite a strong
headwind...you can see it in the water and hear it in the microphone.
I think that was the reason he could land and takeoff on a dime.

Nice bit of flying tho...

SnakeEyes
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

take a close look at the wing and the tires
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> A couple of other possible things not readily apparent in the video:
>
> 3) Possible STOL mods (Fowler Flaps, Slats, etc, couldn't tell by
> looking...)
> 4) Possible uprated engine (ie Hawk XP w/ 200-225HP engine)
>
> *Soft Field Technique in a 180 HP C172SP:
> - Yoke full back to keep weight off the nose gear
> - Flaps 10 Degrees
> - Rolling Start .. don't touch the brakes
> - Rotate and lift off into ground effect as soon as possible keeping
> forward pressure to accelerate.
> - Climb at 57kts for obstacle clearance ... pitch to 60kts and
> accelerate over obstacle
> - Retract flaps past 65kts
> - Continue climb at 74kts Vy
>
> Interesting video, thanks for the link.
>


Also if he was delivering supplies, he had less weight on t/o, who knows how
much fuel, and only one body on board......
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

"PPS" <pps.TakeThisOut@none.net> wrote in message
news:R6CdnZK2j8F8G43YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> take a close look at the wing and the tires

Upon further review:

- Looks like the flaps have been modified to a fowler style
- There are fences running cordwise just at the outboard edges of the flaps
- This may actually be a C182 which then might have an engine in the 230 -
250hp range which will definately "get 'er up" quicker.

The tires are what are called "tundra tires." They're large but aren't a
contributing factor to how well or early the plane gets up into ground
effect.

Jay B
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:DL%Pg.4$La2.1@fed1read08...
>
> "PPS" <pps RemoveThis @none.net> wrote in message
> news:R6CdnZK2j8F8G43YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> take a close look at the wing and the tires
>
> Upon further review:
>
> - Looks like the flaps have been modified to a fowler style
> - There are fences running cordwise just at the outboard edges of the
> flaps
> - This may actually be a C182 which then might have an engine in the 230 -
> 250hp range which will definately "get 'er up" quicker.
>
> The tires are what are called "tundra tires." They're large but aren't a
> contributing factor to how well or early the plane gets up into ground
> effect.
>
> Jay B
Purely speculation, as I have no knowledge of such things, but I would
surmise that the Tundra tyres would be advantageous in shortfield takeoffs
to the point that they minimise bogging in the ground due to the larger
surface area, and therefore allowing the aircraft to attain a higher speed
in a shorter amount of time.
Crash Lander
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

MikeW wrote:
> This does not seem right to me! Can a Cessna take off in such a short
> distance on gravel?

A link would be helpful, would it not!

http://media.putfile.com/Friday-Creek
--
MikeW
*The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on
fire*
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

Not having seen the video because I'm currently at work, a strong head wind
would shorten takeoff distance no matter what the surface construction would
it not?
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"MikeW" <MikeW.TakeThisOut@spammenot.con> wrote in message
news:b9-dnVuojL8C543YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com...
> MikeW wrote:
>> This does not seem right to me! Can a Cessna take off in such a short
>> distance on gravel?
>
> A link would be helpful, would it not!
>
> http://media.putfile.com/Friday-Creek
> --
> MikeW
> *The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on
> fire*
>
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off 

"MikeW" <MikeW DeleteThis @spammenot.con> wrote in message
news:b9-dnVuojL8C543YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com...
> MikeW wrote:
>> This does not seem right to me! Can a Cessna take off in such a short
>> distance on gravel?
>
> A link would be helpful, would it not!
>
> http://media.putfile.com/Friday-Creek
> --
> MikeW

IMO, that's one helluva experienced bush pilot. Outstanding short field
technique on the landing. I'd bet his GS wasn't more than maybe 40-45
kts...

Couple of things to consider:

1) Inability of the shooter to hold the camera steady + great amount of wind
noise across the microphone tells me that the wind was probably blowing at
better than 10kts and may have been gusting to 20-30kts.

2) You have to define what constitutes "taking off." Combine good soft
field technique* with a stiff headwind and yes, a Cessna can "get off the
ground" that quickly.

A couple of other possible things not readily apparent in the video:

3) Possible STOL mods (Fowler Flaps, Slats, etc, couldn't tell by
looking...)
4) Possible uprated engine (ie Hawk XP w/ 200-225HP engine)

*Soft Field Technique in a 180 HP C172SP:
- Yoke full back to keep weight off the nose gear
- Flaps 10 Degrees
- Rolling Start .. don't touch the brakes
- Rotate and lift off into ground effect as soon as possible keeping forward
pressure to accelerate.
- Climb at 57kts for obstacle clearance ... pitch to 60kts and accelerate
over obstacle
- Retract flaps past 65kts
- Continue climb at 74kts Vy

Interesting video, thanks for the link.

Jay B
 >> Stay informed about: Cessna: Short take off