Single engine complex operations.

[Jimmy cooper]

From decades of watching light single engine airplanes like your Mooney lift off (i.e., achieve a positive rate of climb) and then settle back on the runway due to any number of reasons. If that happens in your Mooney and you started the gear up at the first positive rate of climb indication, you are going to have a very short and unhappy flight, probably followed by an equally unhappy but much longer meeting with the FAA and a significant rate increase on your next insurance renewal.
No.

From decades of watching including my many hours in a mooney, I've never seen it happen and have seen many takeoffs, including my own, with the gear starting up as soon as the pilot knows it's flying well, often very soon after leaving the runway. Never have seen one settle back onto the runway, but have witnessed 2 land with gear up, MU2 and a Bonanza , both were high time pilots.

 

[Ghery]

My complex experience is limited to a 1969 Arrow. I was taught to raise the gear when there was no usable runway left. Now, where that occurs can be a good discussion, but it sure isn't "positive rate, gear up", at least not at the home drome with 5500+ feet of runway.

 

[poadeleted21]

I try to get my gear up as soon as possible. That way the folks on the ground see the "coolness" of the gear coming up. Plus I can build up more speed in ground effect and pull up into the traffic pattern faster using a zoom climb, therefore safer.

 

[denverpilot]

In the 172RG on a hot day, sucking the gear "up" will create that sinking feeling at this altitude until the damn things get all the way back there. It takes a while. We left them alone until we had about 100' AGL to play with. On a nice hot day you'd lose 25' with all the drag they induced and two dudes on board.

 

[RhinoDrvr]

Here's another tidbit to think about. If you are going to go off-roading it's often better to do it with the gear up. I don't care if you could get it on the ground on the runway available of you're going to dribble off the end.

Obviously this is dependant on the terrain at the end of your runway, but I sure as hell am not going to risk hitting the mud at the end of my home airport with the wheels out.

 

[RhinoDrvr]

For a Piper Arrow:

Takeoff over 50 FT: 1600FT
Reaction Time (6sec @ 85 kts): 708FT
Landing over 50 FT: 1520 FT

Total: 3828' by a test pilot on a nice day.

To me, this means that on 4000' or less the gear is coming up when a positive rate is ESTABLISHED (meaning it is set and I can maintain it) and I have about 50 feet of altitude. 5000' I may keep it down a touch longer, but nowhere near being over the end of the runway.

The 6 seconds is a Navy number we had in Primary for time to recognize an engine problem, analyze what it is, and make a decision as to course of action, then begin to move the airplane.

 

[Jaybird180]

Until the day your engine hiccups or a gust hits you, and you leave prop gouges in the runway (or worse). But it's your plane and your insurance rates that go up and your ticket being reexamined if that happens, so do as you please.

If he ensure positive rate after leaving ground effect, whats the harm - especially considering the type?

 

[poadeleted20]

If he ensure positive rate after leaving ground effect, whats the harm - especially considering the type?

There's a big difference between just "positive rate of climb" and "positive rate after leaving ground effect", so I'll go with the Rhino Driver's technique.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There's a big difference between just "positive rate of climb" and "positive rate after leaving ground effect", so I'll go with the Rhino Driver's technique.

And just how long is one in ground effect on a takeoff in a single? Is there any point in lifting off and then accelerating beyond Vy or Vx in ground effect?

 

[Hank S]

Ron--

Maybe that's why Mooney wrote "Retract the landing gear only when safely airborne and in good control" so many years ago. It's been working for me for the last seven years.

 

[poadeleted20]

And just how long is one in ground effect on a takeoff in a single?

Depends on performance, weight, weather (especially gusty wind), density altitude, and a few other factors.

Is there any point in lifting off and then accelerating beyond Vy or Vx in ground effect?

Not in most cases. But there is definitely a point in making sure you won't be settling back before pulling the gear handle up, while there is little to be gained by retraction at the first indication of positive rate of climb (unless you have unwisely chosen to attempt a takeoff where your aircraft's performance is inadequate for safety).

 

[JHW]

And just how long is one in ground effect on a takeoff in a single? Is there any point in lifting off and then accelerating beyond Vy or Vx in ground effect?

that's how I limp the anemic pawnee off the ground loaded. It won't fly away until I accelerate a little in ground effect. Even then the "fly away" part is a little subjective.

 

[N3368K]

Some aircraft (Swift) have a low gear retraction speed. That plane has been STC'd with a bigger engine and a full power climb at the gear speed of 80mph feels like you're hanging it off the prop.

My Swift with O-300 and climb prop and Merlyn STC hydraulic motor takes ten seconds or more to retract if kept 80mph or less. It does not climb well with gear down/in transit. I'm based on a 3100' grass strip with 80+' trees 1000' off the north end. I typically look for positive rate and airspeed to pull the gear. If I'm above 75mph, the odds of settling are much less. Considering I take about 1200' ground roll to break ground, more than a few seconds and I'm out of runway.

Granted, at longer runways, I tend to gain a bit more altitude before picking up my feet.

I don't have to worry about anyone watching the coolness of the gear retracting. I'm usually at the other end before it is fully tucked into the wheel wells.



Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift

 

[flyingcheesehead]

First off: "No usable runway remaining" does NOT mean the end of the runway. Halfway down the runway is a better approximation. Past that, there is no reason to leave the gear down.

Second: Positive rate doesn't mean "weight off the wheels" in a piston single - I think most of us understand that. Yes, if you pull the gear up the instant you break ground, you may well bend some metal, and I think all of us understand that too. No need to argue over semantics here.

Third: I read some research lately that showed that it's generally better to pull the gear up prior to being out of usable runway. Wish I remembered where I saw that!

For me, in the Ovation, I add back pressure to the yoke at 65 KIAS. When the plane decides to fly, I slowly release that pressure until I'm climbing with no back pressure at the takeoff trim setting (about 85 KIAS) and pull the gear up. Prior to pulling the gear handle up, I'm in no-go mode and can abort to the runway quite easily.

From breaking ground at 65-70 KIAS to climbing at 85 KIAS pressure-free only takes a couple of seconds. By the time the gear is up I'm at 95-100 KIAS. This is probably the worst part of the takeoff sequence from an engine failure perspective - Too high to land, too low to make it back around the pattern, but my gear is up and that gives me the most options.

Next, I pull the flaps up and accelerate to Vy (105) until 500-1000 AGL. I usually don't spend much time at Vy, since my initial climb will be done in well under a minute, so I'll quickly accelerate to 120 KIAS for cruise climb. By this point, there are lots of options.

Every plane is different, but I think more planes will do better pulling the gear up early than waiting until all available runway is exhausted because you'll be higher by that point if you bring the gear up. IMO, any time spent with the gear down after you're climbing steadily at the correct airspeed and have reached an altitude where you could get it back down in the event of an engine failure is a waste of altitude and options.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Much of it depends on how well you know the aircraft your flying. I never flew twins due to economic pressures but have a lot of super 21-201 mooney time. After around 200 hours in each , I knew pretty well their limitations and how they "felt" on landing and take off. Very docile aircraft but real hogs with the gear down. I liken them to a porsche ( I've owned two) and respect the former and the latter, a lot. Both will kill you quick if not respected. I had a great deal of taildragger time before I flew Mooneys so it was a very easy transition. When I break ground I'm looking for altitude as soon as possible.

 

[JHW]

Much of it depends on how well you know the aircraft your flying. I never flew twins due to economic pressures but have a lot of super 21-201 mooney time. After around 200 hours in each , I knew pretty well their limitations and how they "felt" on landing and take off. Very docile aircraft but real hogs with the gear down. I liken them to a porsche ( I've owned two) and respect the former and the latter, a lot. Both will kill you quick if not respected.

very apt comparison. Every porsche I've driven was cramped and had a loose tail

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Both, to me, are wonderful but porsche highly overpriced.

 

[Bill]

was cramped and had a loose tail

sounds like a girlfriend I once had...

 

[Ghery]

that's how I limp the anemic pawnee off the ground loaded. It won't fly away until I accelerate a little in ground effect. Even then the "fly away" part is a little subjective.

Curvature of the earth?

 

[JHW]

Curvature of the earth?

i like that it certainly feels that way on a hot day

 

[Witmo]

Depends entirely on your policy and carrier. If you have Avemco, chances are they will fix the engine if you land on the wheels. If you land on the belly, with most piston singles, chances are they'll write the airplane off.

Why would any insurance policy cover an engine failure after a successful dead stick landing on a runway?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why would any insurance policy cover an engine failure after a successful dead stick landing on a runway?

Because the policy covers damage to the engine due to failure of a required component of said engine.

A lot of policies don't cover it. I know from experience that Avemco does.

 

[Witmo]

Because the policy covers damage to the engine due to failure of a required component of said engine.

A lot of policies don't cover it. I know from experience that Avemco does.

Sounds like expensive coverage. If a cylinder sheds a valve, and the engine gets trashed, Avemco will pay for a new engine? What does that kind of coverage cost?

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I've been with Avemco for 45 years. Excellent. If you study the policy and go over it with their phone rep. You'll find they May charge a little more but the coverage is more thorough. When a hangar collapsed on my airplane, they paid off immed. Worth a call anyway.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Sounds like expensive coverage. If a cylinder sheds a valve, and the engine gets trashed, Avemco will pay for a new engine? What does that kind of coverage cost?

Depends on the airplane. IMO, Avemco is reasonable/competitive for small single engine airplanes. At the time, my 170 was like $1300/year ($40k hull ) with less than 100 hrs TW. It is usually the higher performance airplanes that they get ridiculous on. They quoted me $6k for my Baron where I was able to get other quotes for $3k.

 

[Mike5250]

Because the policy covers damage to the engine due to failure of a required component of said engine.

A lot of policies don't cover it. I know from experience that Avemco does.

I don't doubt you one bit, but I'm going to look fro that in writing.

Anyone know if AOPA insurance has the same type of coverage?

 

[DavidWhite]

"Pull the gear up before you reach takeoff speed and let the props do all the work"

- Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo

It's always worked well for me.

 

[JHW]

Depends on the airplane. IMO, Avemco is reasonable/competitive for small single engine airplanes. At the time, my 170 was like $1300/year ($40k hull ) with less than 100 hrs TW. It is usually the higher performance airplanes that they get ridiculous on. They quoted me $6k for my Baron where I was able to get other quotes for $3k.

Avemco was by far the cheapest option and best coverage on my travel air. It's odd, they seem to like travel airs and falcon doesn't, just the opposite of what you would expect.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've been with Avemco for 45 years. Excellent. If you study the policy and go over it with their phone rep. You'll find they May charge a little more but the coverage is more thorough. When a hangar collapsed on my airplane, they paid off immed. Worth a call anyway.

Our club has been with Avemco for a long time. We've had two major claims with them since I've been in the club (9 years) - One prop strike and one complete hull loss. Both times, we got a fast payout with a minimum of paperwork.

Avemco has also been very easy to work with. When we've started the process to buy new airplanes, I've gotten quotes for the club for multiple aircraft types right on the phone, no waiting. When I asked about retrieving a plane after it had been fixed after an incident, they wouldn't pay those costs, but instead they retroactively knocked our coverage level down for the time the plane was down, which more than paid for retrieval (and back up when we had the plane back).

Yes, they often cost somewhat more. I'm of the opinion that it's probably worth it.

 

[bluerooster]

And just how long is one in ground effect on a takeoff in a single? Is there any point in lifting off and then accelerating beyond Vy or Vx in ground effect?

In a Yankee (I know, not complex) You'll be in ground effect for quite a while. With two aboard and full fuel.

 

[Hank S]

Depends on the plane and conditions, Greg. I rotate at 70 MPH, raise gear and accelerate to Vy rapidly. Except in the summer, I hold that to cruise altitude. By 100 yards past the 3000' runway end (a guess to the road), I'm generally 200+ AGL and climbing well. With the trees, I don't want to stay in ground effect . . .