• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

How Not to Takeoff in a Cessna 185

Not a 185 driver but for any comparison to be valid the tailwheel has to be the same distance off the ground when the mains leave the ground. If you watch the tail in the two versions of lift the tail he really does not rotate back to a tailwheel low (few inches off the ground) position The tail tail has very little movement down so his timing is off. He is doing a tailwheel high takeoff (Decreased AOA). Timing is everything is a short take off, he has to go practice more then do another video. For simplicity a tailwheel low 20 flap takeoff is hard to beat but it can be done with proper timing.
DENNY
 
Thanks Dave for making the video. Good info. Hmmm, at 3W3 10' MSL only about 27" MP and not quite low yellow (2700) indicated on the RPM. Plus short noise compliant puny 3-blade prop. He unconsciously (?) holds left aileron down/left wing up as reflected most in one takeoff. Main gear doesn't move sideways much so the turf is level and smooth. Same for the tailwheel. Real off airport terrain or snow would require tailwheel control to prevent damage or add drag while planted on ground. Once the gear starts wagging it ups drag. Off airport keeping weight off the main gear/on the wing is critical while balancing protecting the tail. As Sky says loaded, and at altitude, may be different result especially on skis.

Gary
 
DENNY said:
Not a 185 driver but for any comparison to be valid the tailwheel has to be the same distance off the ground when the mains leave the ground. If you watch the tail in the two versions of lift the tail he really does not rotate back to a tailwheel low (few inches off the ground) position The tail tail has very little movement down so his timing is off. He is doing a tailwheel high takeoff (Decreased AOA). Timing is everything is a short take off, he has to go practice more then do another video. For simplicity a tailwheel low 20 flap takeoff is hard to beat but it can be done with proper timing.
DENNY
Click to expand...

You nailed it!

That take-off with pulling the flaps was held down well beyond required speed to lift off, as he is climbing immediately.

Simple is often easier, but as said by others, rough, slanted, soft and draggy surface really changes needs for technique. One of the keys is to learn energy needed for the load, and not pull it off before. If it is that short, roll to the end and then lift. If she climbs like a rocket that is fine. If you try early and don't get off- but drag the wheel in back you may not have enough to get out...
 
I didn't watch all the video but I doubt that one takeoff for each technique would produce a valid or useful data set.
 
"Pop the flaps" is more productive when on floats, because the amount of rotation which is available when on floats is very small. Increasing angle of attack with the flaps is useful instead of rotating the pitch attitude. That is because the optimum angle between the keel of the floats is about 8 degrees. Any more or less than 8* increases drag. So "popping" flaps is a useful substitute for changing the pitch attitude. On wheels, the extra drag of the flaps at and below take off speeds is negligible. Just set your choice of optimum flap angle and go. Get the tail wheel just clear of the ground to eliminate tail wheel drag. The rest is just a launch, 2-300 feet is plenty for a light 185 on a decent surface.
 
In that airplane I had two marks next to the trim position indicator. One for best pitch angle = lowest drag on floats when loaded (F); the other for conventional gear to just keep the tail off the ground (W). Adjustments to the elevator are then slight to none. Takes some testing but worth it to me.

Gary
 
mvivion said:
Watch the “pop the flaps” takeoff carefully.

MTV
Click to expand...

He slid sideways some - rudder. 30* not full flaps.

Edit: I think I'm turning into my Grandfather....brief and rough. The pilot Dave did a great job of sharing this video. Thank you. How it played out, or how it should look is immaterial. What's important is asking ourselves how to improve the takeoff by some changes. In that Dave has succeeded.

Gary
 
Last edited:
I’ve always maintained that the fastest way for the average Joe to get a super cub off the ground is full flaps and let it fly itself off from a three point. This is partly because you tend not to hold it down too long like in the flap popper example.

In the 180, and the 185s I’ve flown, I rarely do a three point takeoff because there is usually wind around. I will need to go out and experiment some myself.

While I appreciate the video and find it interesting, without an idea of the distances and differences, it would find it hard to say one is way better than the other.

I know for sure that holding the brakes is not real world. If you have some momentum from taxiing, keep rolling - at least according to that guy Newton…

sj
 
Thanks Mike, for starting this thread and for all that have commented. I watched the video 3 times and always willing to learn something new. Doubt I will ever own a 180/185 but also realize the info is great for lessons in all types. Keep the critiques coming!!
 
SJ said:
I’ve always maintained that the fastest way for the average Joe to get a super cub off the ground is full flaps and let it fly itself off from a three point. This is partly because you tend not to hold it down too long like in the flap popper example.

In the 180, and the 185s I’ve flown, I rarely do a three point takeoff because there is usually wind around. I will need to go out and experiment some myself.

While I appreciate the video and find it interesting, without an idea of the distances and differences, it would find it hard to say one is way better than the other.

I know for sure that holding the brakes is not real world. If you have some momentum from taxiing, keep rolling - at least according to that guy Newton…

sj
Click to expand...

Agreed. One thing I found a long time ago is that us short guys can’t see any part of the “runway” ahead in the three point attitude. Now, I’ve flown Pitts, which arguably have some of the worst forward visibility, but not from “unimproved sites”. Like places with doglegs. For that reason, squirrelly winds, and ten or twelve other reasons, I almost always get the tail up in the 185 ASAP.

But, what Dave did here is trying to compare apples to apples, which I understand. Really, my only beef was in the last example, he increased flaps to 30, then just sat there, waiting for the airplane to fly. In my experience, pulling on flaps with tail up and simultaneously lowering the tail, while reducing flaps back to 20 SHOULD result in a takeoff run at least comparable to the other two “styles”. Not necessarily shorter, but…..

The problem, of course, is that if you don’t do all that very precisely, at just the right time, you will indeed extend the takeoff run. But, I’d never just pull 30 flaps and just wait for something to happen, and expect improvement.

MTV
 
I'm not the greatest STOL operator, but....
my normal takeoff in my C180 is to start off with 20 degrees of flaps,
and trim set forward (nose down) of neutral.
Line up, gradually add full power, neutralize elevator,
wait for the tail to come up on it's own, then add gentle up-elevator to lift off.
That seems to yield the best results.
I can do better if I start with flaps 20, jerk full flaps,
then after lift-off quickly level off in ground effect & flaps back to 20.
But, as pointed out, timing is everything with this technique--
if it's off, it doesn't help & in fact sometimes lengthens the takeoff roll.
 
During a check ride when I reached for the flaps on floats (set at 20 going to 10) in a climb, the instructor Ron pulled the throttle off at about 100' and kept his hand on it. Nose down - altitude for airspeed - then I pulled full 40 flaps just above the water and flared. His point was leave well enough alone (throttle/prop/configuration) and just climb to a safer altitude. Same for rolling the floats and reaching for some more flaps to escape the water's drag. Don't get fancy and create something new was his point. And glance at the fuel pressure gauge if the mechanical pump and engine quit.

Gary
 
Ok. Gotta contribute here. In my 28 years of flying my 185 , a very light plane, to many off airport places, I found keeping the tail up was best. Mainly to see obstacles ahead. My check out instructor thought nothing but wheel landings (1989) which turned out invaluable. As MTV said, I always raised the tail for visibility and then rotated as soon I felt it would fly. When you fly the same plane for years, you wear it rather than fly it. 20° was flaps was all I ever used for takeoff.
Mike
 
I had a 180 and now have a 185 and have flown around Alaska in the bush. Guiding was usually heavy take off and landing. I found setting flaps 20 and going lifting the tail out of the rocks and sand would help on distance and never liked playing with the flaps, too much to pay attention to on a short strip and winds in Alaska. I know guys that swore by pulling flaps and staying in ground effect , but that would be on short ruff stuff without obstacles on the end .
 
I’m just glad there was no internet when I was working 180’s and 185’s… Would have been too confused to go fly.
 
algonquin said:
...but that would be on short ruff stuff without obstacles on the end .
Click to expand...

You have a great point: differences in surface, obstacles, wind and every other factor should be considered when you want to discuss techniques.

If you want to play, sit at the end of the runway and set full flaps, add power and push the yoke in, your tail will fly with almost no speed. Now lower back to 20 degrees of flaps as you accelerate, then you can pull them back on to get off and in ground effect. Pretty short, but takes a great feel to get it right, and lots of right rudder.

Will it be the shortest? Maybe not, but you will prevent abuse on that tail wheel. If rough and soft you can actually get out pretty darn quick. Full flaps puts lots of wind on your tail.

I often taxi with full flaps for that reason.

Usually, if you can land on a strip you don't need to do much with flaps to get yourself out, however, I am much more comfortable with my ground roll holding 10 degrees then bringing in more to lift off to prevent gusts sending me into the air all the time. When I want to be on the ground, I want to be on the ground. Allowing the airspeed to build a tad over flying speed then brining on the flaps eats a bit more ground, but once I am in the air I am not worried about settling back if I lose speed in a gust.

Like airplanes, techniques are not 'one size fits all'.
 
I waiting for Dave to repeat the demo that includes landings in various configurations with distance. Maybe he's done that for AOPA. That grass runway would be nice.

Gary
 
aktango58 said:
If you want to play, sit at the end of the runway and set full flaps, add power and push the yoke in, your tail will fly with almost no speed. Now lower back to 20 degrees of flaps as you accelerate, then you can pull them back on to get off and in ground effect. Pretty short, but takes a great feel to get it right, and lots of right rudder.
Click to expand...
Good point to remember. 40 degrees of flaps blocks a lot of air over the rudder and in some extreme circumstances can mean the difference between a controlled take off and an hat from sj. I routinely use 40 degrees of flaps taking off in high wind and high waves on the water. This procedure reduces the high impact water loads on the entire airframe. Once clear of the water the flaps are slowly reduced to 20 while still in ground effect. My 185 had wing extensions and drooping ailerons which produced very low stall speeds. One time just as the floats left the surface support of the tops of the waves, the 185 rolled hard left with full right aileron and full right rudder. The wing appeared to be below the tops of the waves. The only thing which prevented a disaster was a quick reduction of the flaps. The rudder was useless. I suspect this would be true on wheels in a tight spot too. If the flaps had been electrically powered, I don't believe they would have retracted quickly enough to prevent a disaster.
 
Different conditions call for different techniques. Dave made the video to test different configurations for a short takeoff from a beautiful grass runway, with a lightly loaded airplane. He might have been thinking about all the STOL competitions.
 
skywagon8a said:
Good point to remember. 40 degrees of flaps blocks a lot of air over the rudder and in some extreme circumstances can mean the difference between a controlled take off and an hat from sj. I routinely use 40 degrees of flaps taking off in high wind and high waves on the water. This procedure reduces the high impact water loads on the entire airframe. Once clear of the water the flaps are slowly reduced to 20 while still in ground effect. My 185 had wing extensions and drooping ailerons which produced very low stall speeds. One time just as the floats left the surface support of the tops of the waves, the 185 rolled hard left with full right aileron and full right rudder. The wing appeared to be below the tops of the waves. The only thing which prevented a disaster was a quick reduction of the flaps. The rudder was useless. I suspect this would be true on wheels in a tight spot too. If the flaps had been electrically powered, I don't believe they would have retracted quickly enough to prevent a disaster.
Click to expand...

Pete,
Agreed, the RSTOL kit can bite occasionally, which can be interesting, with a hard roll off. We installed a Sportsman cuff on ours and it made all the difference in that regime…..significantly moderated the roll off. Made it a LOT more comfortable to work that wing slow.

MTV
 
aktango58 said:
Usually, if you can land on a strip you don't need to do much with flaps to get yourself out, however, I am much more comfortable with my ground roll holding 10 degrees then bringing in more to lift off to prevent gusts sending me into the air all the time. When I want to be on the ground, I want to be on the ground. Allowing the airspeed to build a tad over flying speed then brining on the flaps eats a bit more ground, but once I am in the air I am not worried about settling back if I lose speed in a gust.

Like airplanes, techniques are not 'one size fits all'.
Click to expand...

This….. with the caveat that floats and skis may at times require more, as referenced by Pete. My adventures with needing flaps were mainly precipitated by being someplace I shouldn’t have gone or miscalculating my load. I’m only referring to working the airplane which isn’t just commercial flying, but excludes contests and demonstrations. I’d much rather be on the ground than in the air wishing I were on the ground. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hotrod180
180/182/185 trim wheel options
Replies
20
Views
6K
hotrod180
hotrod180
B
King Cub at Greenville
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
JP
JP
frequent_flyer
Failed takeoff video
Replies
16
Views
3K
BC12D-4-85
BC12D-4-85
mvivion
Warbird "How To" P-38
Replies
2
Views
2K
aviationinfo
aviationinfo
js170b
Sandbar flying
Replies
19
Views
10K
js170b
js170b
Back
Top