When do you retract flaps after take-off?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, peevee said:

besides, the plane probably stops a lot faster with the gear up

That depends on the friction of aluminum versus rubber on asphalt.  Landing on the belly also makes it much harder to taxi to the hangar.

Clarence 

[Raptor05121]

tl;dr'ed the entire thread. I rarely use flaps when I'm solo. Doing pattern work, there is not a much-perceived difference in the point at which I leave the ground with them up or down. But if I am carrying anyone or are heavy, I'll use them.

Gear- ASAP (before 50AGL). By the time I reach for the J-bar, I'm doing 85+ and already halfway down the runway. If the engine quit, I'd rather land gear-up in the remaining distance/overrun and scrape to a stop versus roll off the end and into a ditch. 
flaps- 400' AGL. I picked this neat little trick up from Guido Warnecke.
fuel pump- 1,000ft

[peevee]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

That depends on the friction of aluminum versus rubber on asphalt.  Landing on the belly also makes it much harder to taxi to the hangar.

Clarence 

bah, just a little more power and she'll get there.

[MyNameIsNobody]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

That depends on the friction of aluminum versus rubber on asphalt.  Landing on the belly also makes it much harder to taxi to the hangar.

Clarence 

Let's not get hung up on details like taxi...

 

[MyNameIsNobody]

4 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

tl;dr'ed the entire thread. I rarely use flaps when I'm solo. Doing pattern work, there is not a much-perceived difference in the point at which I leave the ground with them up or down. But if I am carrying anyone or are heavy, I'll use them.

Gear- ASAP (before 50AGL). By the time I reach for the J-bar, I'm doing 85+ and already halfway down the runway. If the engine quit, I'd rather land gear-up in the remaining distance/overrun and scrape to a stop versus roll off the end and into a ditch. 
flaps- 400' AGL. I picked this neat little trick up from Guido Warnecke.
fuel pump- 1,000ft

I am all about a flow and doing it the same way.  THAT is why I always use Take-Off flaps "even" when I don't need them.  I retract at 1000AGL (Truth be told, I don't use the aux. fuel pump on take-off or landing).  First switch (with red cover) I flip if engine would go quiet.  I like my chances...

[LeeBurk]

1967 M20F Owners Manual says this:

As soon as the airplane is airborne and under good control, perform the following procedures:

1. Apply brakes to stop wheel rotation

2. Retract the gear

3. Reduce the propeller RPM to 2550-2600

4. Retract the flaps

5. Establish climb-out attitude

So pretty soon after liftoff I'd say. 

[jetdriven]

POH's published since then have eliminated many of those steps.  Probably because understanding and knowledge change over time. 

[Mooneymite]

52 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

POH's published since then have eliminated many of those steps.  Probably because understanding and knowledge change over time. 

And because the manufacturers have found that pilots disregard what's  written and do as they please.  

[Shiny moose]

This is just my opinion, upon positive rate get the gear(drag) up. I personally want altitude and airspeed, keeping the gear down just slows down getting either one of those, or both. The kiss rule applies here, if we teach students to retract upon positive rate each time, every time, then one less thing to think about when in a high density or short field situation.

I suspect we could use the theory of each knot over proper landing speed increases the landing distance by 100 feet.  So take off at 70  climbing out at 90 with gear down then an engine failure, may  cause a 2000 foot increase in landing distance, never mind distance eaten up by loosing the altitude to get back down to the runway, but that's going to happen fast at 90 unless we trim for different.  

Someone should try this on a real long runway( I don't want to do it in my airplane )   Normal take off, leave gear down, climb out at VX or VY, at 200 ft, engine to idle, land at normal landing speeds,  and see how much runway is used, I suspect it will be lots more than we thought 

[Cyril Gibb]

Unless you have a loooong runway, as @shiny moose says above, you're not going to get down to the runway and stop before running off the end. Engine failure almost guarantees you will make an off airport landing, just accept it.  I get my gear up as soon as possible and accelerate in ground effect.  Flaps up at at 400' and fuel pump off.  I use the climb profile as covered in https://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

For the reasons given in the article, I think it's safer and easier on the engine.

[EricJ]

9 hours ago, Shiny moose said:

Someone should try this on a real long runway( I don't want to do it in my airplane )   Normal take off, leave gear down, climb out at VX or VY, at 200 ft, engine to idle, land at normal landing speeds,  and see how much runway is used, I suspect it will be lots more than we thought 

Small confessional:   I did this of necessity a few weeks ago due to, we believe, water contamination.   I start the gear up at positive rate and climb between 80-90kts (basically Vy) until the gear is all the way up.   In this particular instance just as the gear completed the up cycle and I was pushing the nose over to accelerate it felt just like a check pilot reached over and pulled the throttle to idle.   There was zero power...I cycled the throttle to verify no response, noticed that I had a *little* bit of runway left, pulled it to idle, got the gear coming back down, got the flaps coming down the rest of the way and just barely got it slowed enough to run off the end of 25R onto the A4 taxiway at Deer Valley.  The tires were squealing a little as I turned that corner onto the taxiway.   I'd have been paying for some runway lights if I hadn't made the turn.   25R/7L is 4500 feet long.   If it was 20 feet shorter I'd have been off the pavement into the dirt, and that was using the taxiway for runoff.   It wasn't stopped until I was well off the runway on the taxiway.

Edited October 22, 2017 by EricJ

[Shiny moose]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Small confessional:   I did this of necessity a few weeks ago due to, we believe, water contamination.   I start the gear up at positive rate and climb between 80-90kts (basically Vy) until the gear is all the way up.   In this particular instance just as the gear completed the up cycle and I was pushing the nose over to accelerate it felt just like a check pilot reached over and pulled the throttle to idle.   There was zero power...I cycled the throttle to verify no response, noticed that I had a *little* bit of runway left, pulled it to idle, got the gear coming back down, got the flaps coming down the rest of the way and just barely got it slowed enough to run off the end of 25R onto the A4 taxiway at Deer Valley.  The tires were squealing a little as I turned that corner onto the taxiway.   I'd have been paying for some runway lights if I hadn't made the turn.   25R/7L is 4500 feet long.   If it was 20 feet shorter I'd have been off the pavement into the dirt, and that was using the taxiway for runoff.   It wasn't stopped until I was well off the runway on the taxiway.

You have to love this site and the experiences of its members.  I am very happy this turned out the way it did. What is your opinion, leave gear down longer on take off or continue positive rate gear up?

One of the reasons I do not change fuel tanks before take off is hopefully I get to the water or contamination ( I always sump tanks) on my taxi and run up before I give take-off power! 

Once upon a time  I once fueled a Belgian military helicopter  from a military fuel truck and put 15 gallons of water in his jet fuel tank, thankfully never even got it started. Seems fuel farm had left the top of the truck open overnight during heavy rains and no safety measures ( ie filters on the truck ) 

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 10/21/2017 at 6:58 PM, EricJ said:

Small confessional:   I did this of necessity a few weeks ago due to, we believe, water contamination.   I start the gear up at positive rate and climb between 80-90kts (basically Vy) until the gear is all the way up.   In this particular instance just as the gear completed the up cycle and I was pushing the nose over to accelerate it felt just like a check pilot reached over and pulled the throttle to idle.   There was zero power...I cycled the throttle to verify no response, noticed that I had a *little* bit of runway left, pulled it to idle, got the gear coming back down, got the flaps coming down the rest of the way and just barely got it slowed enough to run off the end of 25R onto the A4 taxiway at Deer Valley.  The tires were squealing a little as I turned that corner onto the taxiway.   I'd have been paying for some runway lights if I hadn't made the turn.   25R/7L is 4500 feet long.   If it was 20 feet shorter I'd have been off the pavement into the dirt, and that was using the taxiway for runoff.   It wasn't stopped until I was well off the runway on the taxiway.

How about a bigger confession...

1. Did you sump tanks before flight?

2. Did you sump tanks after flight?  What did you find?

3. Did you add fuel?

4. Did it rain?

5. Do you always make sure caps are not cocked when installing?

6. When was last time both cap o rings were changed?

7.  Had it rained?

 

Glad it worked out.

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

How about a bigger confession...

1. Did you sump tanks before flight?

2. Did you sump tanks after flight?  What did you find?

3. Did you add fuel?

4. Did it rain?

5. Do you always make sure caps are not cocked when installing?

6. When was last time both cap o rings were changed?

7.  Had it rained?

 

Glad it worked out.

I picked this airplane up barely two months ago, and it's been a bit of an adventure sorting through the latent issues.   One issue was that the fuel cap inner o-rings were crumbling, and the airplane had sat through a few storms in Nevada and collected a fair amount of water.   It had since flown here to AZ, then out to TX (to Maxwell's) where I picked it up in Sept.   I did transition training at Longview, and after that there were two, big blue streaks running down the tops of the wings (the caps weren't seated properly for that flight).   I think the FBO washed it afterward as the stains were gone the next morning.   That may have added some more water to the tanks.

I was draining a bit of water out every time I flew it after that, always draining until I could get a couple samples that were water-free.   I thought I was getting ahead of it, but apparently there was a pretty good slug that got ingested on that particular takeoff.   The cap O-rings have since been replaced with fluorosilicone and i haven't gotten any water out of the tank since right after that.   Given the history of the water issues with the airplane, though, we're pretty confident that the power loss was due to some residual water.   It hasn't done that particular trick since, although it has led me on some other adventures.

After the flight when it gagged, I shook the wingtips on the ground for a minute or two to try to get any remaining water to migrate to the sumps.   I drained a number of samples from each tank, then turned the airplane around in front of my hangar so it would tilt the other way and did it again.   I got a little bit of water, but not much.   Haven't seen any since, either.   Been draining the gascolator before each flight, too.   Stuff happens.

[Marauder]

8 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I picked this airplane up barely two months ago, and it's been a bit of an adventure sorting through the latent issues.   One issue was that the fuel cap inner o-rings were crumbling, and the airplane had sat through a few storms in Nevada and collected a fair amount of water.   It had since flown here to AZ, then out to TX (to Maxwell's) where I picked it up in Sept.   I did transition training at Longview, and after that there were two, big blue streaks running down the tops of the wings (the caps weren't seated properly for that flight).   I think the FBO washed it afterward as the stains were gone the next morning.   That may have added some more water to the tanks.

I was draining a bit of water out every time I flew it after that, always draining until I could get a couple samples that were water-free.   I thought I was getting ahead of it, but apparently there was a pretty good slug that got ingested on that particular takeoff.   The cap O-rings have since been replaced with fluorosilicone and i haven't gotten any water out of the tank since right after that.   Given the history of the water issues with the airplane, though, we're pretty confident that the power loss was due to some residual water.   It hasn't done that particular trick since, although it has led me on some other adventures.

After the flight when it gagged, I shook the wingtips on the ground for a minute or two to try to get any remaining water to migrate to the sumps.   I drained a number of samples from each tank, then turned the airplane around in front of my hangar so it would tilt the other way and did it again.   I got a little bit of water, but not much.   Haven't seen any since, either.   Been draining the gascolator before each flight, too.   Stuff happens.

If I had any appreciable amount of water contamination, I probably would opt to drain the tanks completely by removing the sumps. I think if you polled Mooney owners, most of us would say we don't see water in the tanks and if we did, something isn't right. In the 26 years of ownership, I have yet to find water in the tanks.  

[gsxrpilot]

@EricJ Wow, just wow. I'm sure coming from Arizona you never thought water would cause so much trouble. 

I have the opposite issue of forcing myself to sump the tanks every time. In four years and two different Mooneys, I've never seen any water in the sample.  I've given up on gascolator completely. Of course the airplane rarely spends a night outside. And the O rings get changed every hundred hours (couple of times a year) religiously. 

I think I'd be afraid to fly if I was draining water regularly out of my tanks.

[N9201A]

If I had any appreciable amount of water contamination, I probably would opt to drain the tanks completely by removing the sumps. I think if you polled Mooney owners, most of us would say we don't see water in the tanks and if we did, something isn't right. In the 26 years of ownership, I have yet to find water in the tanks.  

+1.

I'm betting there is a correlation between that and changing the cap O-rings annually.

[EricJ]

20 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

@EricJ Wow, just wow. I'm sure coming from Arizona you never thought water would cause so much trouble. 

I have the opposite issue of forcing myself to sump the tanks every time. In four years and two different Mooneys, I've never seen any water in the sample.  I've given up on gascolator completely. Of course the airplane rarely spends a night outside. And the O rings get changed every hundred hours (couple of times a year) religiously. 

I think I'd be afraid to fly if I was draining water regularly out of my tanks.

Water can also get pumped in during refueling from a contaminated system, so it's definitely worth keeping the habit to check it.

The tanks had been drained in NV before it came to AZ, but before it flew to TX we checked the gascolator and drained some more water out.   I think what I learned was that sometimes once it gets in it can be hard to get it all out.   Draining through the sumps may not even get it if some is hiding behind a rib or a clogged rib drain.    I haven't run the tanks down very low on this airplane yet, so I don't how how well the tanks drain through the ribs internally.

When I was learning to fly in Germany in the 70s it wasn't all that unusual to see water in the fuel samples once in a while in our club Cessnas.   It rained a lot, and the habit was to just take samples until there's no more water.   A CFI friend at another American club wound up making an impossible turn after a water contamination power failure in a C150.   That was due to water being pumped in from a truck that had a LOT of water in it.  Afterward they realized they hadn't seen any water bubbles in the sample because the entire sample was water.  

[MyNameIsNobody]

52 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I picked this airplane up barely two months ago, and it's been a bit of an adventure sorting through the latent issues.   One issue was that the fuel cap inner o-rings were crumbling, and the airplane had sat through a few storms in Nevada and collected a fair amount of water.   It had since flown here to AZ, then out to TX (to Maxwell's) where I picked it up in Sept.   I did transition training at Longview, and after that there were two, big blue streaks running down the tops of the wings (the caps weren't seated properly for that flight).   I think the FBO washed it afterward as the stains were gone the next morning.   That may have added some more water to the tanks.

I was draining a bit of water out every time I flew it after that, always draining until I could get a couple samples that were water-free.   I thought I was getting ahead of it, but apparently there was a pretty good slug that got ingested on that particular takeoff.   The cap O-rings have since been replaced with fluorosilicone and i haven't gotten any water out of the tank since right after that.   Given the history of the water issues with the airplane, though, we're pretty confident that the power loss was due to some residual water.   It hasn't done that particular trick since, although it has led me on some other adventures.

After the flight when it gagged, I shook the wingtips on the ground for a minute or two to try to get any remaining water to migrate to the sumps.   I drained a number of samples from each tank, then turned the airplane around in front of my hangar so it would tilt the other way and did it again.   I got a little bit of water, but not much.   Haven't seen any since, either.   Been draining the gascolator before each flight, too.   Stuff happens.

It sounds like you have done right follow-up. I think I would of drained tanks after changing o rings in caps. I replaced t he fuel sump valves in mine. Done again with reseal a few years ago. They are an adventure aren't they. Redundant   Glad it worked out. My plane has never gone silent in the air. That would be a partnership tester....

[kortopates]

6 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Water can also get pumped in during refueling from a contaminated system, so it's definitely worth keeping the habit to check it.

The tanks had been drained in NV before it came to AZ, but before it flew to TX we checked the gascolator and drained some more water out.   I think what I learned was that sometimes once it gets in it can be hard to get it all out.   Draining through the sumps may not even get it if some is hiding behind a rib or a clogged rib drain.    I haven't run the tanks down very low on this airplane yet, so I don't how how well the tanks drain through the ribs internally.

When I was learning to fly in Germany in the 70s it wasn't all that unusual to see water in the fuel samples once in a while in our club Cessnas.   It rained a lot, and the habit was to just take samples until there's no more water.   A CFI friend at another American club wound up making an impossible turn after a water contamination power failure in a C150.   That was due to water being pumped in from a truck that had a LOT of water in it.  Afterward they realized they hadn't seen any water bubbles in the sample because the entire sample was water.  

You are absolutely right about water getting trapped behind ribs even if you drain all the fuel or run the tank dry. Which is why I would be adding some isopropyl alcohol to the fuel tank at this point to make sure any remaining water gets dissolved and passes through harmlessly. Mooney allows us to add as much as 3%, but that is way more than you'll need to get any remaining trapped water out. Probably a pint would be enough. Make sure its 99.9% though. The only worse thing than water in the fuel is ice!

And excellent job getting it down and safely off the runway!!

Edited October 23, 2017 by kortopates

[pinerunner]

On 10/17/2017 at 6:04 PM, MyNameIsNobody said:

Hi-Larious where this thread direction went....

Wowza.

It's a spin-off of the original thread

[Raptor05121]

On 10/21/2017 at 7:58 PM, EricJ said:

Small confessional:   I did this of necessity a few weeks ago due to, we believe, water contamination.   I start the gear up at positive rate and climb between 80-90kts (basically Vy) until the gear is all the way up.   In this particular instance just as the gear completed the up cycle and I was pushing the nose over to accelerate it felt just like a check pilot reached over and pulled the throttle to idle.   There was zero power...I cycled the throttle to verify no response, noticed that I had a *little* bit of runway left, pulled it to idle, got the gear coming back down, got the flaps coming down the rest of the way and just barely got it slowed enough to run off the end of 25R onto the A4 taxiway at Deer Valley.  The tires were squealing a little as I turned that corner onto the taxiway.   I'd have been paying for some runway lights if I hadn't made the turn.   25R/7L is 4500 feet long.   If it was 20 feet shorter I'd have been off the pavement into the dirt, and that was using the taxiway for runoff.   It wasn't stopped until I was well off the runway on the taxiway.

2

Yup. Confirms my thought. My home airport at 4,000 feet- I'd be in a 20 foot ditch at the end of the runway.

[Bob_Belville]

5 hours ago, Marauder said:

If I had any appreciable amount of water contamination, I probably would opt to drain the tanks completely by removing the sumps. I think if you polled Mooney owners, most of us would say we don't see water in the tanks and if we did, something isn't right. In the 26 years of ownership, I have yet to find water in the tanks.  

Ditto, I've never seen water in the fuel. But I check for it on every flight without fail whether I've added fuel or even if the plane has not left her cozy hangar. Some anal behavior when we're talking check lists might just save your bacon. 

[steingar]

I only saw water in the fuel once. And it was the oddest thing, as the aircraft was hangared and hadn’t even been fueled.

[EricJ]

Just now, steingar said:

I only saw water in the fuel once. And it was the oddest thing, as the aircraft was hangared and hadn’t even been fueled.

Condensation if the tanks weren't full, possibly.