Takeoff & initial climb best practices

[GeeBee]

It is directed at no one and every one. It is simply a statement of needed proficiency to operate in IFR conditions. The reality is on an M20R at Vx you are 21 knots above take off flap. stall speed, more than enough margin. If you get slow by 5 knots, you are still 16 knots more than needed to. fly,  Beyond 5 knots and you need to reconsider your abilities and seek remedial training.

The fact remains that at Vx while your climb rate is only about 25% higher, your climb in feet/nm is 48% greater. IOW almost 1 1/2 times. If you are departing terrain limiting airports,  climb angle and turning radius are everything.  Both require slower speeds. Or as I brief, "slow and tight". If you are regularly departing prairie airports may not matter, but get to where there is cumulus granite and you may want to be proficient in obstacle departures. Execute them regularly and it becomes a non event. 

On the engine failure not, would you not prefer to have 48% altitude and be closer to the airport? Or would you prefer to be further down range? Yeah, when the rubber band snaps, you got to be aggressive and push it over, hard, light in the seat hard but while the other guy is 1.5 miles from the departure end, I'm within the boundary.

At my airport on the normal favored runway, I can't make a turn until 1000' agl for reasons of terrain. Other airports around me are even more limiting.  Failure to climb at. Vx is going to put you way down range and a lot closer to the granite. Further, if your on course route is the opposite direction, you just wasted a lot of time and fuel.

 

 

[carusoam]

We should connect these details with the AngelFire discussion... 

It is very much a cumulo granite vs. climb rate discussion...

The existing data there is non-Mooney...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ibra]

I understand the discussions on Vx/Vy or any V-speeds mostly are academic for flying single engines, except on few types, flying a single at roughly 1.3-1.4×VS acheives acceptable non-cruise performance without any requirement for accurate flying: high stability and easy to re-config, easy recovery from 45deg pitch/bank, full yaw, low turn radius at 45deg, best glide, best climb will also be acheived about there to some extent with acceptable performance (one can plot graphs like in PT20J to get conclusions how much differentiating Vx/Vy actually makes to flying data, it makes small difference to M20J but maybe a lot to M20R)

On V-speeds, I am sure one can invent a blue line on the Mooney ASI, where aircraft stays controllable on full power climb when he kicks full left rudder and right ailerons while keeping heading, then decide how much it is wise to stay away from that line vs how much coordination skills they have including under low human performance from messy environment or distraction...

Surely there are load of cases for loss of control on VMC/IMC departures as well as hitting obstacles and terrain on takeoff and these cover all pilots experience & skill spectrum

Edited August 13, 2020 by Ibra

[kortopates]

I guess I am a disciple of the Deakin method as well, that Skip provided a link too a few posts back, and I have been for years. His treatise is the first, as far as I know or I became aware of, to underline the importance of airspeed being a fair tradeoff with altitude.  Its more clear when we consider it as energy management and that speed and altitude can be traded off. That may not be the best words to describe it, but if you only consider altitude you may miss the benefit of excess speed conserves altitude (Excess speed as speed above Vg for a maximum range glide)

Why its so important IMO, is for a few reasons, firstly the accident record shows me the Pilot community is really poor at surviving steep climb outs when the fan quits. Forget about getting back to the airport to land on the runway, the stats show us a great many pilots that climb out steeply at near Vx fail to respond to the loss of power in time, and don't push immediately to save themselves - and die before they can even start to turn back. Way too many pilots tested in this steep climb configuration, die in the stall/spin right off the departure end of the runway. A bit more than a year ago we had a local Cirrus pilot demonstrate this and he was a very smart, experienced and successful pilot that perished when the engine died in a steep Vx climb.  He liked to climb up steeply to get to altitude where he could use the chute if that happened but he neither pulled the chute nor pushed when the engine died and spun in vertically. 

So I much prefer Deakin's method, which for me is Vy+15-20 kts. Although his method may not guarantee getting the plane back to the runway as good as the Vx climb does but I do believe its increases my survivability in an engine out significantly. It greatly reduces by chance of stall spinning, when the fan stops, which to me is a greater killer than an off field landing,  Its provides important benefits since the whole time in climb I have a much better view of landing spot options and I have some time to recognize the issue and react as well as be in a position to exchange some speed to hold altitude slowing to Vg and steer to a my preferred off field landing spot I can see or turn back to the airport property if I do have the altitude I briefed before departure.   And of no small importance it allows me to climb out with much cooler temps than a steep climb.

I know I am not going to change anybody's mind - we all have our reasons perhaps that's what's most important here that we have a well thought out plan and we brief it on every departure to help avoiding being a deer in the headlights, when it quits. But I'll leave the Vx climb out to when near obstacles demand it and take my chances in a controlled off field landing if it really comes down to that. I'll leave the standard practice  of lengthy Vx climbs to professional pilots that train regularly and maintain a much higher level of proficiency.

Before I went to all glass, years ago, I had a piece of tape on the IAS right at Vy which was my minimum speed when things got real rough - such as bad turbulence in IMC. I decided that was my min airspeed if I was very challenged to control the airplane. Now I simply use the marked Vy on the tape.

Edited August 13, 2020 by kortopates

[Bob - S50]

5 hours ago, Pilot boy said:

I'm a very new owner of a 64 M20E.  I raise gear almost right away, 50 ft or so, positive rate as it's much easier to use the Johnson bar below 85 mph.  Then I raise flaps at 400 AGL as I don't care to lose lift too low to the ground.  After reading this thread I may shoot for 300 AGL as it feels like I'm waiting too long for 400 and the 64 E has a Vfe of only 100 mph which actually gets hard to stay under if I'm by myself and the gear is raised.  

You might consider retracting the flaps based on speed rather than altitude.  I use 80 KIAS in our J.  At that speed in a very shallow climb, the lift from increasing speed just about perfectly offsets the loss of lift from flap retraction.  Your results may vary.

[kortopates]

Just now, Bob - S50 said:

You might consider retracting the flaps based on speed rather than altitude.  I use 80 KIAS in our J.  At that speed in a very shallow climb, the lift from increasing speed just about perfectly offsets the loss of lift from flap retraction.  Your results may vary.

Same speed, 80 kts, works really well in the K too - same airframe but a little heavier perhaps.

[GeeBee]

There is no question when the rubber band snaps you have to get the nose down. Fact is thanks to poor training, 80% of pilots will pull back anyway. Once you learn that when fan meets the excrement, you need to be "light in your seat", RIGHT NOW, climbing at Vx is no big deal, just a little more push, but you have a lot more potential energy to dole at at your pace. Lower altitudes your energy management pace is dictated by quickly rising drag, not by you.

[Bob - S50]

43 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I guess I am a disciple of the Deakin method as well, that Skip provided a link too a few posts back, and I have been for years. His treatise is the first, as far as I know or I became aware of, to underline the importance of airspeed being a fair tradeoff with altitude.  Its more clear when we consider it as energy management and that speed and altitude can be traded off. That may not be the best words to describe it, but if you only consider altitude you may miss the benefit of excess speed conserves altitude (Excess speed as speed above Vg for a maximum range glide)

....

 

 

Since you are talking about speed, while it may not strictly apply to our Mooney aircraft, in the F15 (and other fighters) we had two sayings about speed:

1.  Speed is life.

Speed gives you options, and in the fighter it also reduces exposure time to someone trying to shoot you.

2.  The faster you go, the faster you go faster.

At any speed below Vy we are in a part of the drag curve where an increase in speed actually reduces drag.  Also, as speed increases (to a point) the prop becomes more efficient and helps offset the increase in drag.  At a speed just above the speed that takes 100% power, acceleration to climb speed will be very slow.  As the speed increases, the drag decreases and the acceleration increases.  That high speed reduces drag even more meaning you can accelerate even quicker, etc., up to some reasonable speed above Vy.  I'd like to think (but can't prove) that that speed is around 100 to 120 KIAS in my J.

In the 727 I once flew (wrenched) with a captain who always wanted to climb at a slow speed to maximize altitude gain.  We tried to convince him to fly a bit faster.  No use.  His answer was, "if an engine quits you'll need the altitude to get the airspeed you need."  He just didn't get that if he climbed out just a bit faster he would already have that speed and wouldn't have to put the plane in a nose low attitude to get the speed back.

[kortopates]

47 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Since you are talking about speed, while it may not strictly apply to our Mooney aircraft, in the F15 (and other fighters) we had two sayings about speed:

1.  Speed is life.

Speed gives you options, and in the fighter it also reduces exposure time to someone trying to shoot you.

2.  The faster you go, the faster you go faster.

At any speed below Vy we are in a part of the drag curve where an increase in speed actually reduces drag.  Also, as speed increases (to a point) the prop becomes more efficient and helps offset the increase in drag.  At a speed just above the speed that takes 100% power, acceleration to climb speed will be very slow.  As the speed increases, the drag decreases and the acceleration increases.  That high speed reduces drag even more meaning you can accelerate even quicker, etc., up to some reasonable speed above Vy.  I'd like to think (but can't prove) that that speed is around 100 to 120 KIAS in my J.

In the 727 I once flew (wrenched) with a captain who always wanted to climb at a slow speed to maximize altitude gain.  We tried to convince him to fly a bit faster.  No use.  His answer was, "if an engine quits you'll need the altitude to get the airspeed you need."  He just didn't get that if he climbed out just a bit faster he would already have that speed and wouldn't have to put the plane in a nose low attitude to get the speed back.

Well said!!!

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

Since you are talking about speed, while it may not strictly apply to our Mooney aircraft, in the F15 (and other fighters) we had two sayings about speed:

1.  Speed is life.

Speed gives you options, and in the fighter it also reduces exposure time to someone trying to shoot you.

2.  The faster you go, the faster you go faster.

At any speed below Vy we are in a part of the drag curve where an increase in speed actually reduces drag.  Also, as speed increases (to a point) the prop becomes more efficient and helps offset the increase in drag.  At a speed just above the speed that takes 100% power, acceleration to climb speed will be very slow.  As the speed increases, the drag decreases and the acceleration increases.  That high speed reduces drag even more meaning you can accelerate even quicker, etc., up to some reasonable speed above Vy.  I'd like to think (but can't prove) that that speed is around 100 to 120 KIAS in my J.

In the 727 I once flew (wrenched) with a captain who always wanted to climb at a slow speed to maximize altitude gain.  We tried to convince him to fly a bit faster.  No use.  His answer was, "if an engine quits you'll need the altitude to get the airspeed you need."  He just didn't get that if he climbed out just a bit faster he would already have that speed and wouldn't have to put the plane in a nose low attitude to get the speed back.

1. Speed is life.
2. Altitude is life insurance. 

The one time my engine went silent (airborn mag check due to weird EGT; the left mag had crapped out), the prop kept spinning at 2500 but the nose pitched down on its own to maintain my trimmed cruise speed. At 9500, that was likely ~145KTAS. Got my wife's full attention, too!   Guess I should have said something first . . . .

Yes, I realize behavior in level flight will be different from that in climb. But I still make the initial 200-300 agl at Vx before transitioning to Vy. Hey, I have several kinds of life insurance, this is just one of them.

I've also listened attentively to Bob Kromer's discussions on takeoff and climb, where he lost the engine in his K at several hundred feet a couple of miles from KERV and barely managed to limp back. He advocates climbing first, speed second. Vy + 20 may put you at 400 agl, but the engine doesn't crap out from altitude, it's often something mechanical that goes out based on time at high power from when you pushed the throttle in. Make two takeoffs, on your way and one my way--check your altitude and location at 60 seconds and 120 seconds from throttle forward and see which one you want to make an engine out landing from . . . . Then look at your positions when you finally reach 400 agl.

[GeeBee]

If you don't climb a 727 at V2+5 to 15 until  clean up altitude you will find yourself paying a lot of noise fines, because the line is going to get tired of paying them for you. Second, the F/D bars are going to. command V2 5 to 15 upon engine failure. Finally not climbing at V2 5-15 to clean up altitude obliterates all take off performance data including engine out performance. Take off from Guatemala City. for instance and fail to be on the numbers will result in a terrain trap if an engine is. lost.

 

 

 

[Hank]

Just now, GeeBee said:

If you don't climb a 727 at V2+5 to 15 until  clean up altitude you will find yourself paying a lot of noise fines, because the line is going to get tired of paying them for you. Second, the F/D bars are going to. command V2 5 to 15 upon engine failure. Finally not climbing at V2 5-15 to clean up altitude obliterates all take off performance data including engine out performance. Take off from Guatemala City. for instance and fail to be on the numbers will result in a terrain trap if an engine is. lost.

Maybe so. But I don't have a 727, I have a Mooney. Look to the left for a picture in a takeoff roll.

Edited August 14, 2020 by Hank

[gsxrpilot]

4 hours ago, kortopates said:

I guess I am a disciple of the Deakin method as well, that Skip provided a link too a few posts back, and I have been for years. His treatise is the first, as far as I know or I became aware of, to underline the importance of airspeed being a fair tradeoff with altitude.  Its more clear when we consider it as energy management and that speed and altitude can be traded off. That may not be the best words to describe it, but if you only consider altitude you may miss the benefit of excess speed conserves altitude (Excess speed as speed above Vg for a maximum range glide)

Why its so important IMO, is for a few reasons, firstly the accident record shows me the Pilot community is really poor at surviving steep climb outs when the fan quits. Forget about getting back to the airport to land on the runway, the stats show us a great many pilots that climb out steeply at near Vx fail to respond to the loss of power in time, and don't push immediately to save themselves - and die before they can even start to turn back. Way too many pilots tested in this steep climb configuration, die in the stall/spin right off the departure end of the runway. A bit more than a year ago we had a local Cirrus pilot demonstrate this and he was a very smart, experienced and successful pilot that perished when the engine died in a steep Vx climb.  He liked to climb up steeply to get to altitude where he could use the chute if that happened but he neither pulled the chute nor pushed when the engine died and spun in vertically. 

So I much prefer Deakin's method, which for me is Vy+15-20 kts. Although his method may not guarantee getting the plane back to the runway as good as the Vx climb does but I do believe its increases my survivability in an engine out significantly. It greatly reduces by chance of stall spinning, when the fan stops, which to me is a greater killer than an off field landing,  Its provides important benefits since the whole time in climb I have a much better view of landing spot options and I have some time to recognize the issue and react as well as be in a position to exchange some speed to hold altitude slowing to Vg and steer to a my preferred off field landing spot I can see or turn back to the airport property if I do have the altitude I briefed before departure.   And of no small importance it allows me to climb out with much cooler temps than a steep climb.

I know I am not going to change anybody's mind - we all have our reasons perhaps that's what's most important here that we have a well thought out plan and we brief it on every departure to help avoiding being a deer in the headlights, when it quits. But I'll leave the Vx climb out to when near obstacles demand it and take my chances in a controlled off field landing if it really comes down to that. I'll leave the standard practice  of lengthy Vx climbs to professional pilots that train regularly and maintain a much higher level of proficiency.

Before I went to all glass, years ago, I had a piece of tape on the IAS right at Vy which was my minimum speed when things got real rough - such as bad turbulence in IMC. I decided that was my min airspeed if I was very challenged to control the airplane. Now I simply use the marked Vy on the tape.

Thanks for this explanation. I've been following this method and didn't know it was the Deakin method. I like everything with just a little more speed in my K. Climbing out at Vy+20 is where I'm most comfortable.

 

[Bob - S50]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

 

1. Speed is life.
2. Altitude is life insurance. 

The one time my engine went silent (airborn mag check due to weird EGT; the left mag had crapped out), the prop kept spinning at 2500 but the nose pitched down on its own to maintain my trimmed cruise speed. At 9500, that was likely ~145KTAS. Got my wife's full attention, too!   Guess I should have said something first . . . .

Yes, I realize behavior in level flight will be different from that in climb. But I still make the initial 200-300 agl at Vx before transitioning to Vy. Hey, I have several kinds of life insurance, this is just one of them.

I've also listened attentively to Bob Kromer's discussions on takeoff and climb, where he lost the engine in his K at several hundred feet a couple of miles from KERV and barely managed to limp back. He advocates climbing first, speed second. Vy + 20 may put you at 400 agl, but the engine doesn't crap out from altitude, it's often something mechanical that goes out based on time at high power from when you pushed the throttle in. Make two takeoffs, on your way and one my way--check your altitude and location at 60 seconds and 120 seconds from throttle forward and see which one you want to make an engine out landing from . . . . Then look at your positions when you finally reach 400 agl.

Speed vs Altitude

LOP vs ROP

Trottle or Elevator for speed control

Throttle or Elevator for altitude control

All debates that will never be settled.

[Ibra]

6 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Speed vs Altitude

LOP vs ROP

Trottle or Elevator for speed control

Throttle or Elevator for altitude control

All debates that will never be settled.

Usually there is two fold to any thechnique how 1/ if it gets max performance and how much? 2/ how you check it is actually working?
As long as one has good reasons for 1/ & 2/ any technique should be fine, talking just about 1/ will kill the show one day

OK here is one, takeoff with A/ upslope & headwind vs B/ downhill & tailwind, you do roll distance calcs you get roughly same number, or maybe B/ is 50ft shorter? which one you pick?
- If you believe in your calculations & skills & aircraft, you go for B/ but you need to be bloody right and dead committed for takeoff, it's outgoing only
- If you doubt your calculations & skills & aircraft, you go for A/ rejecting takeoff even with 100ft remaining should be non-event and you can cancel 

If I want max 16% gradient in M20J, I need VX climb but for start it's not necessarily VX published in POH for about 10 good reasons, so how do I know I got that wrong? if I can do with 14% gradient and extra 20kts absolutely and less chances of getting it wrong (or at least I will see I am not making it early), surely flying nose down with extra speed kills some of best angle but gives you more options when it goes wrong, flying nose high you need lot of elements have to line up correctly, some beyond my control or understanding 

The debate on impossible turn, it's not about if it's doable or not? it's how much margins one has getting that wrong (besides it's sub-optimal for quick 180 back to the runway, strictly speaking, the quickest to recover from high nose attitude in EFATO and do 180 with smallest lateral offset & energy loss is 0G wingovers not even the impossible turn with 0G wing lever pushover followed by pulling 1.5G-2G turns 280 deg & 60deg to each side, again while one only need 200ft to do a 0G wingover at 3000ft agl, the chances of getting it wrong near the ground is 99.99% due to lack of horizon and human factors at 300ft agl )

[GeeBee]

10 hours ago, Hank said:

Maybe so. But I don't have a 727, I have a Mooney. Look to the left for a picture in a takeoff roll.

My response was to the assertion by others that climbing a jet aircraft above book speeds would be an "improvement" in control because "speed is life". It is in fact a recipe for disaster.

Speed is life up to a point.

Speed is life when you enter wind shear. It is not life when you are trying to land, in fact excess speed could end your life when you go off the end.

Speed is life, except when you are trying to turn to avoid the mountain. Then. you need radius.

Speed is life except when you need real climb performance, then the correct speed on the drag curve is where you need to be.

Speed is life when you are gliding, except you need to be at the correct speed on the drag curve.

In short, the CORRECT speed is life.

 

 

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Speed is life up to a point.

Speed is life when you enter wind shear. It is not life when you are trying to land, in fact excess speed could end your life when you go off the end.

Speed is life, except when you are trying to turn to avoid the mountain. Then. you need radius.

Speed is life except when you need real climb performance, then the correct speed on the drag curve is where you need to be.

Speed is life when you are gliding, except you need to be at the correct speed on the drag curve.

In short, the CORRECT speed is life.

Not enough speed in the pattern is not life.

Pulling up sharply and losing too much speed is not life.

Making a sharp turn with not enough speed is not life. 

Landing with excess altitude is not life insurance. All landings end with zero altitude and zero speed.

There are exceptions to every rule, but they don't disprove the rules.

[Bob - S50]

Many years ago when I was flying the DC9, I decided that I never wanted to climb at the 'book' speed which was essentially Vy in order to get best rate of climb.  Here was my reasoning.

Vy occurs at a specific speed that is at the top of the excess thrust curve.  That would be great IF I can stay exactly at that point.  I can't because I'm not perfect and winds change as I change altitude.

If I happen to be at the exact point and either due to inattention or a change in wind causes me to get below Vy, I now have more drag and I'm in that region where decreasing speed increases drag and increasing speed decreases drag.  I have to lower my nose to accelerate back up to Vy.  My climb rate suffers.

If I plan to climb at a speed just a little bit faster than Vy (I used 10 knots in the DC9), since the curve is pretty flat at that point, my rate of climb will be almost as good as it would be at Vy.  Now if I have a moment of inattention or there is a wind change that causes me to lose a few knots, I have actually reduced my drag (rather than increased it) and the plane will accelerate back up to speed on it's own (assuming I had it trimmed properly).  My rate of climb will not suffer due to the speed loss.

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

Vy occurs at a specific speed that is at the top of the excess thrust curve.  That would be great IF I can stay exactly at that point.  I can't because I'm not perfect and winds change as I change altitude.

If I happen to be at the exact point and either due to inattention or a change in wind causes me to get below Vy, I now have more drag and I'm in that region where decreasing speed increases drag and increasing speed decreases drag.  I have to lower my nose to accelerate back up to Vy.  My climb rate suffers.

I completely agree, I always had to explain this with graphs, max ROC is achieved at Vy it only works if speed stays dead at Vy all time
If speed wiggles around Vy+/-deltaV, average max ROC around Vy is really bad you will rather be at about Vy+deltaV as the drag curve is convex but assymetric flatfish on high speeds and steep on low speed 

Now the exact value Vy and amount of deltaV can change due to altitude, wind, guts, weight, mixture...but one will find that climbing slightly 5kts above Vy may averages better ROC in the long run, the same can be said on average Angle of Climb (AoC), in M20J with takeoff flaps, VX = 66kts and VS1 = 57kts, I only need 10kts gust and some lack of rudder coordination to show students (or myself) that when aircraft "struggles to climb at book VX" it averages about 5% gradient not 20% gradient... 

This "uncertainty/convexity" aspects do become highly relevant when pilots are "not perfect" or round on all sides, e.g. doing 200lbs above MTOW departure with a new 70kts VS1 value (or 80kts stall at MTOW in turbulent air or iced wings) but they keep sticking to book 66kts VX values... 

More problematic on C172 school fleet as the seats slide backward on takeoff at 15% climb gradient 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Ibra

[jlunseth]

On Vx, my home base, FCM, is on a south facing bluff over a river and we have a Rwy18. On a couple of occasions taking lessons years ago, I experienced instantaneous airspeed drops of more than ten knots on takeoff at the edge of the bluff. Gets your attention, if you happen to be watching the ASI. Normal sunny day, a little windy but within student flying conditions. Now add in just a little bit of bank and some reaction time and you have lost the approximately 20 kt. buffer that Vx gives you. Vx is good for certain operations but not for day-in-day-out use in everyday conditions.

Also, doing practice for my commercial several years ago, steep spiral, I found the stall horn in a normal bank at about 81 kts. My stall is 56. Now, that is not a stall, it is the horn. But stop the fan from running and the windstream it creates and you have a different Vs than you thought you had. Add some bank without unloading the wing and your Vs margin is gone on the inside wing, you are a statistic. 

The article I referenced earlier was in AOPA April 2011 by Barry Schiff entitled “Unconventional Wisdom.” He advocated taking your aircraft up to a safe altitude, simulate a nose high climb, cut the power, wait three seconds before dropping the nose, and see how your aircraft does. Then, if it happens to you, you will know, not hypothecate, what will happen next at a given AGL.

Edited August 14, 2020 by jlunseth

[GeeBee]

So you are sitting in your Mooney, at Bert Mooney (KBTM) departing IFR departing runway 15. 570 ft/nm required: or

You are sitting at KTRK departing runway 29 on the TRUCKK 4, 500 ft/nm required:or

You are departing KEGE after a day of skiing. Runway 7 GYPSUM 6. 580 ft/nm

So what speed are you going to fly? Vy, Vy+20, or Vx ? 

Is this the time to find out your skill level?

 

[steingar]

This is a really good discussion.  I always climb out fast, 110-120 mph (cruise climb in my C).  I think I'll keep doing that.  I'm far less likely to die crashing under control into something than I am to stall/spin if I'm climbing steeply.  Never thought about it that way before.  Where I am emergency options anywhere near the field are just not there, if the mill quits and I can't make it to the airport my airplane may become a yard decoration.  One good thing about my home drome, we've parallel runways.  All I have to do is a 180 and I'm lined up for one of them.

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

So you are sitting in your Mooney, at Bert Mooney (KBTM) departing IFR departing runway 15. 570 ft/nm required: or

You are sitting at KTRK departing runway 29 on the TRUCKK 4, 500 ft/nm required:or

You are departing KEGE after a day of skiing. Runway 7 GYPSUM 6. 580 ft/nm

So what speed are you going to fly? Vy, Vy+20, or Vx ? 

Not familiar with the airport but looked at the data, all these are steep 8%-9% gradient departures at high 6kft-7kft elevations, in M20J, VX = 66kts goes up 0.5kts and VY = 85kts goes down 1kts per 1kft, they will likely meet up at 15kft at MTOW, so about VX =70kts and VY = 80kts at 6kft
1) If nil wind, I will depart on 70kts and reject if ROC is bellow 700fpm
2) If 10kts headwind, I will depart on 80kts and reject if ROC is bellow 700fpm 
3) If 20kts headwind, I will depart on 80kts and reject if ROC is bellow 600fpm
4) If +30kts headwind, I don't plan to over climb mountains from their downwind side at any speed (maybe with no engines in the lee side 20nm behind)

Ideally between 2) or 3) as high unlikely my aircraft will show 1200fpm at that altitude at MTOW, most likely it will be in the 600fpm-800fpm and this assuming proper climb technique not 25/25 & full rich for noise and engine cooling  surely not M20J territory maybe upgrade to M20K or downgrade to US Cubs or French Jodels 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Ibra

[Bob - S50]

36 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

So you are sitting in your Mooney, at Bert Mooney (KBTM) departing IFR departing runway 15. 570 ft/nm required: or

You are sitting at KTRK departing runway 29 on the TRUCKK 4, 500 ft/nm required:or

You are departing KEGE after a day of skiing. Runway 7 GYPSUM 6. 580 ft/nm

So what speed are you going to fly? Vy, Vy+20, or Vx ? 

Is this the time to find out your skill level?

 

Before going to an airport with a high density altitude and steep IFR climb gradient I would see if I could meet the requirement at Vy but plan on 10% lower climb rate than book. If I could not meet the requirement I would do one of two things:

1. Look at the terrain and see if I could get out of there VFR with see and avoid. If so I would only depart VFR.

2. Drive.

[Fred as in Flintstone]

19 hours ago, kortopates said:

Why its so important IMO, is for a few reasons, firstly the accident record shows me the Pilot community is really poor at surviving steep climb outs when the fan quits. Forget about getting back to the airport to land on the runway, the stats show us a great many pilots that climb out steeply at near Vx fail to respond to the loss of power in time, and don't push immediately to save themselves - and die before they can even start to turn back. Way too many pilots tested in this steep climb configuration, die in the stall/spin right off the departure end of the runway. A bit more than a year ago we had a local Cirrus pilot demonstrate this and he was a very smart, experienced and successful pilot that perished when the engine died in a steep Vx climb.  He liked to climb up steeply to get to altitude where he could use the chute if that happened but he neither pulled the chute nor pushed when the engine died and spun in vertically. 

 

There has been a push online at least to rectify this. Here are a couple of videos that I think point out what you are saying and how to fix it...