Another useful idea from Bob Kromer at Summit

[FloridaMan]

4 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Bob Kromer and I have talked a number of times about the best[1] way to climb in a Mooney. As others have said so eloquently, Temps are a limiting, but not necessarily THE governing factor. Obstacles are primary with Temps secondary. Get out of the kill zone quickly (below 800'), then set up for cruise climb. 160 of you saw this slide last Saturday.

[1] Everyone has their idea of best way, this is the way I subscribe as does a number of Mooney CFI's and engineering test pilots. The POH should govern the operation of your aircraft.

Had I followed the green line when I had my engine failure, I suspect I might have been able to have landed on the remaining runway. I can't fault myself for taking the yellow though as winds were 9G16, direct crosswind +/- 45 degrees, it was over 90 degrees and I was at max gross. 

[jetdriven]

The green line is defiantly the safe bet.   When I hit 1000 AGL I basicaly almost level off and let the plane accelerate to Vz speed , then climb at that. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by jetdriven

[gsxrpilot]

When following the green line, it helps to have the gear stowed... early. Of course I rarely look at my ASI. I just let it fly when it's ready to fly, get the gear immediately, and climb as quickly as the CHT's allow me... 

[jetdriven]

15 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

When following the green line, it helps to have the gear stowed... early. Of course I rarely look at my ASI. I just let it fly when it's ready to fly, get the gear immediately, and climb as quickly as the CHT's allow me... 

You can climb to 1000 AGL at basically stall speed (AKA the “real” Vx). CHTs are a problem long term not the first segment of takeoff. 

[jlunseth]

45 minutes ago, Antares said:

Had I followed the green line when I had my engine failure, I suspect I might have been able to have landed on the remaining runway. I can't fault myself for taking the yellow though as winds were 9G16, direct crosswind +/- 45 degrees, it was over 90 degrees and I was at max gross. 

Good for you.  I had a loss of oil pressure incident on the way to a Mooney PPP and had to make an emergency descent to landing (which I have written about here).  When I got there they wanted to teach me to spiral down to a landing, and tried to convince me that is what I should have done.  I chose to dive rapidly from 19k.  I liked my choice better and still do.  75+ kt tailwinds at altitude were blowing us out over the next Great Lake (Huron) in a hurry, the airport was about 20 miles, and I had to get through some high IMC to see the airport.  I am glad I learned the spiral down, but my choice was way better under the circumstances, and that is the thing, we should not be so rigid as to think that exactly the same solution will solve every scenario.  

[jaylw314]

15 hours ago, tigers2007 said:

How do you guys account for airspeed indicator error while trying to maintain Vcc while climbing to high altitudes?

Nobody does.  Vx and Vy are list in the POH by KIAS, not KCAS.  Generally, as you get closer to cruise speed, KCAS = KIAS anyway

[Hank]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Bob Kromer and I have talked a number of times about the best[1] way to climb in a Mooney. As others have said so eloquently, Temps are a limiting, but not necessarily THE governing factor. Obstacles are primary with Temps secondary. Get out of the kill zone quickly (below 800'), then set up for cruise climb. 160 of you saw this slide last Saturday.

[1] Everyone has their idea of best way, this is the way I subscribe as does a number of Mooney CFI's and engineering test pilots. The POH should govern the operation of your aircraft.

This is what it looks like from the ground:

[Hank]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Bob Kromer and I have talked a number of times about the best[1] way to climb in a Mooney. As others have said so eloquently, Temps are a limiting, but not necessarily THE governing factor. Obstacles are primary with Temps secondary. Get out of the kill zone quickly (below 800'), then set up for cruise climb. 160 of you saw this slide last Saturday.

[1] Everyone has their idea of best way, this is the way I subscribe as does a number of Mooney CFI's and engineering test pilots. The POH should govern the operation of your aircraft.

This is what it looks like from the ground:

[skydvrboy]

9 minutes ago, Hank said:

This is what it looks like from the ground:

Hank,  the chart shows the green line as Vy, but at an airport like this (like the one I'm based at) I would climb at Vx to get above the trees, then Vy to 1000', then cruise climb.  Would your initial climb to clear the trees be at Vx or Vy?  I'm afraid by the time I accelerated to Vy I'd already be in the trees. 

[Hank]

My initial climb is always at Vx. This field is smooth, usually cut short and 3500' long. Field elevation is forty feet msl (40'). By the time I reach the trees, I'm a couple hundred feet agl or more . . . .

Vx to clear obstacles (not heavy, so no flaps), then Vy to cruise, which was ~1500 msl until over water along the beach.

[Bob - S50]

4 hours ago, jlunseth said:

Amazing.  Mass agreement in the forum. 

Now, are you climbing leaned out or full rich.....

We can't have that!

I believe that speed is life.  I only climb at Vx or Vy to avoid hitting obstacles at the end of the runway.  Otherwise, I accelerate to 100 KIAS below 200' AGL, climb at 100 KIAS to 1000' for noise abatement, then climb at Carson's number which is about 115 KIAS for my plane.  However, being under the Seattle Class B, if I'm heading east I'll climb at 120 - 125 KIAS until I'm out from under the 3000' shelf.  That keeps my climb rate down and clears the shelf more quickly so I can resume my normal climb.

Just had to be a troublemaker.

[Hector]

We can't have that!
I believe that speed is life.  I only climb at Vx or Vy to avoid hitting obstacles at the end of the runway.  Otherwise, I accelerate to 100 KIAS below 200' AGL, climb at 100 KIAS to 1000' for noise abatement, then climb at Carson's number which is about 115 KIAS for my plane.  However, being under the Seattle Class B, if I'm heading east I'll climb at 120 - 125 KIAS until I'm out from under the 3000' shelf.  That keeps my climb rate down and clears the shelf more quickly so I can resume my normal climb.
Just had to be a troublemaker.

Your procedure was tested by Mooney (Bob Kramer) and the excess speed bleeds off too rapidly after an engine failure to be of any significant use. His flight testing demonstrated that he could not convert the excess speed to altitude as well as climbing at Vx/Vy/Vcc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jaylw314]

9 minutes ago, Hector said:

Your procedure was tested by Mooney (Bob Kramer) and the excess speed bleeds off too rapidly after an engine failure to be of any significant use. His flight testing demonstrated that he could not convert the excess speed to altitude as well as climbing at Vx/Vy/Vcc.

 

 

+1 on that.  If you subscribe to the energy management philosophy, you lose energy at a rate proportional to your airspeed due to drag, but you gain energy from your engine at a constant rate at full power. A slow climb at Vy gains energy faster than accelerating to a higher speed, and I want to gain energy as fast as possible until I'm safely away from the ground.

Also, I think I worked out on the back of a napkin that going from 120 KIAS to 80 KIAS only gets you something like 300' of altitude (that might not be right, so feel free to double-check it), so a zoom climb after losing an engine isn't going to get you too much, aside from the fact that your losing energy from the higher speed at the get-go.

[gsxrpilot]

Speed is life but all speed between stall and maneuvering speed are equally beneficial to life. Altitude is also life and more is better up to a point as well.

Therefore once achieving enough speed to climb, I'd rather use the excess to gain altitude as quickly as possible. Altitude can always be cashed in for speed anyway.

That's why I ignore the OWT about leaving the gear down until out of useable runway.

Or at least something to that effect.

[jlunseth]

My home airport is under a Bravo shelf of 3000, and I fly instrument quite alot, clearance always instructs to climb to 2,500 MSL. The airport is 906, so 2500 is 1600 AGL.  Since I do that so much, just by force of habit I make the “best glide speed” climb to 2,500 whether I am IFR or VFR, and after that if I am going up further, I moderate the climb to 500 fpm, which is around 120 kts. true.  I will climb all the way to cruise altitude that way, whether its 8,000, or 18,000, or 21,000.  Need the airspeed to keep the CHTs cool.  After 2500 its academic, I am far enough from the airport that if the engine were to stop, I would need to find somewhere other than the airport to put it down.  

[FloridaMan]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

This is exactly what I have always done and believed, too, Bob. I further reasoned that doing so would minimize the control forces for the "big push" should it ever become necessary. 

But I'm willing and plan to change.  I never really viewed either technique as being right or wrong. Just balancing the equities differently. Perhaps that was incorrect. 

Jim

That was always my attitude -- that identifying the problem at Vx would cause too much airspeed deterioration and I would find myself immediately behind the airplane. I found that when I lost my engine that maintaining airspeed was natural and I had to consciously hold altitude and load the wing to bleed off airspeed prior to descending. I believe that in other airplanes that are less efficient that a Vx climb would be more likely to get you in trouble. Vx of 95mph in the M20F is just below best glide of 100mph. Vy is 113 - (1mph per thousand feet). You cross the numbers at around 80. I now try to get altitude first as it improves sight picture and shortens your distance covered and improves your odds of making the runway or the field at the end. 

[kmyfm20s]

My takeoff profiles depend on the airport I fly out of.  My home airport has many homes, businesses surrounding and busy freeways. I fly the recommended profile of Vy up to a gliding distance to the airport then Carson’s speed on a cruise climb. The airport I fly often to is in a hot agricultural community with many fields around it. Many very survivable off field landing possibilities after takeoff. With summer time temps well into the 100’s last summer up to 118. I do a very flat and fast climb to keep the CHT’s cool.

[whiskytango]

There is a YouTube video put out by the AOPA Air Safety Institute called Real Pilot Story: The Impossible Turn.  A pilot named Dave Keller had an engine failure on takeoff at 500 feet AGL in his C model, and made the "impossible turn" safely, landing on the departure runway.  I am guessing, based on the video, that he was following the "Green Line" on departure, and was close to the airport at the time of the engine failure.  He makes the point that what he did was not the best decision, and others should not attempt to make the "impossible turn".

[gsxrpilot]

At my little airport, I mitigate the risk by not flying the runway centerline beyond take off. As soon as I'm off the runway I'm drifting either left or right towards better landing options. It's also a much shorter turn back to the runway if I am approaching the altitude to do it.

[Bob - S50]

Sweet! I created a controversy.

I believe either technique is a matter of personal preference.  My preference is 100 KIAS before I climb rather than Vy (85-90 KIAS).  I do it for speed, forward visibility, and engine cooling.  I also fly my plane for the 99.99% of the time when nothing bad happens, not for the one time it does.  When the stuff hits the fan, I'll do my best to deal with it.  And within reason, since prop efficiency improves with speed, I don't really give up much climb rate by being at a higher speed; especially since I put my cowl flaps to the trailing position (and reduce drag) once I get to 100 KIAS.

Vy is essentially the same as best glide.  The slower your climb speed, the higher your nose.  If you are already at best glide when you lose an engine, you will be below best glide speed by the time you get your nose down.  You will then need to increase your sink rate in order to get back to best glide.  If you are faster than best glide, while you may not be able to convert kinetic energy into potential energy, you will at least have a chance to transition smoothly to best glide speed.  So while I may be overdoing it, I believe it is prudent to climb at some speed slightly above best glide during the initial climb.  Once I'm at 1000', I'm not flying for the potential engine failure, I'm flying to get to my destination.

Just my preference.

[mike_elliott]

18 hours ago, whiskytango said:

There is a YouTube video put out by the AOPA Air Safety Institute called Real Pilot Story: The Impossible Turn.  A pilot named Dave Keller had an engine failure on takeoff at 500 feet AGL in his C model, and made the "impossible turn" safely, landing on the departure runway.  I am guessing, based on the video, that he was following the "Green Line" on departure, and was close to the airport at the time of the engine failure.  He makes the point that what he did was not the best decision, and others should not attempt to make the "impossible turn".

this happened to Dave Keller about Feb 2009 or so in Anderson, In. Later, we went up and practiced the "impossible turn" to see the altitude loss. In my F it was about 800' to safely make a 270 deg turn, 45 deg bank. Lesson? If you dont know, find out how much altitude you will need. Then always use this as a critical altitude out of the "kill zone" Pick a spot prior to engine start where you will go if under this altitude.

Notice in the video Dave wasnt banked at the optimal 45 Deg and he did have some altitude. Being a cold feb day helps those C models climb for sure.

 

 

[jetdriven]

16 hours ago, whiskytango said:

There is a YouTube video put out by the AOPA Air Safety Institute called Real Pilot Story: The Impossible Turn.  A pilot named Dave Keller had an engine failure on takeoff at 500 feet AGL in his C model, and made the "impossible turn" safely, landing on the departure runway.  I am guessing, based on the video, that he was following the "Green Line" on departure, and was close to the airport at the time of the engine failure.  He makes the point that what he did was not the best decision, and others should not attempt to make the "impossible turn".

I remember that video. The stall warning was going off several times in a fairly steep bank turn, very close to the ground. The only reason he’s alive is because everything and I mean everything lined up in his favor

[Hank]

16 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

 So while I may be overdoing it, I believe it is prudent to climb at some speed slightly above best glide during the initial climb.  Once I'm at 1000', I'm not flying for the potential engine failure, I'm flying to get to my destination.

Just my preference.

The whole point of this discussion is how to reach 1000 gal. After that, climb however you wish. But climbing from the runway to 1000' at cruise climb can have poor results if you have engine trouble. Climb at Vy there . . .

[Bob - S50]

15 minutes ago, Hank said:

The whole point of this discussion is how to reach 1000 gal. After that, climb however you wish. But climbing from the runway to 1000' at cruise climb can have poor results if you have engine trouble. Climb at Vy there . . .

I almost do that.  I climb at Vy+12 (100 vs 88).  I don't accelerate to 115 until I'm above 1000'.

[Mooneymite]

22 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Sweet! I created a controversy.

I believe either technique is a matter of personal preference. 

Nope.