TBH, I Thk U R rolling the dice w. Your Life. Rwy Too Short, Obstacles too Close. Tarmac Condition may induce premature Pitch Oscillation which may affect AoA and Air Speed. Your plan should include finding a FBO with better Rwy Conditions. You might also Pony Up your Own Cash to Repair the Rwy, if you must stay there.
That normal takeoff was barely adequate, holy moly! Totally agree you need a longer runway and since you have a shitty home built. I’d find one without trees at the end. 😵💫
If you have to operate out of a field that's too short and too rough, then don't. Find another field, or different prop for climb performance and give up some top speed. I taught thousands of hours out of a 2k dirt strip and I can tell you that technique is a huge part of making it all work. And yes the density alt was a big deal.
I would find a different field to hangar the plane if the owner doesn't fix that asphalt. That runway is not suitable for canards. You need a better runway surface as well as more space especially with the obstacle at the end. Canards aren't designed to be shortfield planes and you are operating just within your safety envelope at this field. Good save though. When stuff starts to go sideways, you continue to fly the plane. Excellent debrief. Way to aviate, sir.
I have about 2000 hours in my cozy and would not operate off this runway. It’s too short and rough for your plane sorry to say. Go find a 4000 foot runway in good shape or get a different plane.
I am a 30,000 hour retired airline pilot with more than 57 years of flying experience and have been an active CFI in GA for the past 53 of those years. I was VERY impressed with your professionalism and how you saved your life through your superior airmanship and judgement. Well done!! You did all of the right things. My only suggestion is that in future situations like this, consider that aborting and running off the end of the runway is safer than colliding with the trees at nearly 100 mph. But since you survived, you made the correct PIC decision to continue. Lesser pilots would have hit the trees. Well done! I hope that someday you fly for the airlines as we need your skills and judgement on our flight decks.
I noticed the divider position on the windshield in the two takeoff were very different, as was your engine power (77% vs 83%), so I think your basic analysis is ok, however, the real issue is an improper takeoff plan. This is a short field on a summer day. You should hold the aircraft on the ground until to reach best angle speed and then climb to above treetop height by 100’ and then relaxed the climb to a more normal climb to pattern altitude. This is probably some like 83-85MPH. You are a lucky man with that large of a CG change only affecting you that much… it could have easily set you in the trees. You definitely need to calculate your numbers and practice that max takeoff climb a couple times before you take a passenger or more ballast. Cooler days ahead are great to test and adjust the process before the heat returns in earnest next summer. Document your results and do a followup on this video.
Personally, I would keep it in GE, due to reduction in drag, as long as possible due to getting to a higher airspeed, which would yield a better climb angle. Second, rather than trying to clear the trees with a huge margin, I would 'aim' for the tree tops, which would allow my airspeed to increase that much more, because I would rather have airspeed margin 'touching' the trees, than altitude margin with sketchy airspeed. This comes from years of hang gliding and motorcycling. If you have a vehicle that you are unsure of, it is better to 'pre-aim' at them slightly for two reasons, one to get their attention, and the second is if they DO pull out in front of you, you are already ready to go behind them. Varieze pilot here.
I have 35+ years riding motorcycles as well, so I know exactly of what you speak. :) I don't normally aim way over the treetops - I want as much airspeed as possible (it can get gusty once you're beyond the trees), so I generally aim to cross maybe 10-15 feet over them.
Smart use of ground effect...saved my butt one day when I had a student get too slow on landing and used ground effect to make the runway! Nice analysis and thank you for sharing.
Man, pucker time for sure. Good save to you sir. Hopefully this dude will fix the runway, totally unsat. Sure glad you pulled this off, love that airplane, I suspect it does not buff out dents very well.
Yeah. It might cost a quarter million dollars or more to do it, so it will be quite a task to convince someone to take on such a financial risk. Even if you have the gumption to risk the family finances like that, the airport has to be viable. Not just niw, but for like the next 20 years or so. It's a tough one for all parties involved is what I'm getting at. General aviation isent growing like it did in the past due to fuel costs, weaker and weaker dollar, etc. This means lot of small airports end up with no future viability. I do pray this isn't one of those airports, cause I like it
A GREAT video, so...that takeoff was experimental. You touched all the points, thanks bunches. Yeah...I found nose holding to the ground useful too, to control the instant of rotation because yes, runways can surprise.
Firstly. Great outcome. I agree the pogo-ing is a real issue. Each upward ‘bounce’ increases the AoA on the canard and main wing. This increases the lift-induced drag, slowing your acceleration. Further, as you note, the increased AoA puts your canard in a flying state, but you are close to the back of the drag-curve, and this also slows your acceleration. The runway clearly needs some work, particularly for your canard aircraft. They like long, smooth runways. I don’t know much about your undercarriage detail, but you might investigate changing the spring-rate and rebound rate/damping. Reducing the nose wheel tyre pressure might also do something - although the runway does seem to need attention. I think this video, like your others, is great. Interesting, informative, and thought provoking.
I agree, and I do just that. The margin I normally build into my calculations is what got me over the trees in this case. I have more than once gone out to the airport, seen the winds and DA, and said "nope, not flying today." You can't fool physics. :)
enjoying your videos more with the 'in cockpit/radio' transmissions and commentary. I am NOT a pilot, but that runway would not fill me with much confidence... hope there is no wear/damage being inflicted on your aircraft. keep the videos coming.
The airplane will accelerate faster level in low ground effect than rolling on the runway. Rough runway and canard will hurt you here, but allowing the airplane to climb through low ground effect when too slow to safely fly is dangerous also. Wolfgang also talked about the experienced pilot trying to hit the tree rather than climb will over. Energy management begs us to use ground effect energy as long as we have runway available. Energy management begs us to pitch up to fly, not stall, just over the obstruction. As a crop duster, I have heard the farmer say, "You hit the tree." No, that was wing tip vorticies and downwash. Yes, I accelerated to max airspeed with full throttle in six inch ground effect over the crop and pitched to just over the trees. I alway had zoom reserve airspeed, airspeed sufficient to climb and/or maneuver with or with power, coming out of both crop field and airport. Energy management wise, they are the same thing. Get up to three feet or so and fast, but practice dynamic proactive elevator (canard) control movement over a long runway. I teach it with tractor airplanes with the elevator in back and they are easier to maintain level in low ground effect with. Your airplane is even more dependent on dynamic proactive fore/aft stick movement to bracket level in low ground effect. At your airport, especially with high DA, the low ground effect takeoff is the only safe takeoff with low powered airplanes.
That is the way to stay cool under pressure. Cool heads prevail, panicking doesn't solve anything. Excellent analysis! I've survived 3 partial engine failures in my flying career and fortunately I had a very cool flight instructor in the right seat when I was a low time private pilot on my first engine failure. It's extremely hard to deny instinct and push the nose over and point at the trees. This is where a lot of folks make the big mistake. The Velocity nose gear isn't quite as springy but it will pop you up in the air on a bumpy runway. When I trim for takeoff I push the stick forward to make sure I have flying speed when I rotate.
A bit spooky, but great data backup for confirmation/analysis purposes! Hope you can affect the needed runway improvements, and look forward to you showing off a new, faster rpm prop!
this is a problem that normal non-canard aircraft can experience with aft center of gravity. Your analysis is very good and gives a good summary, how seemingly innocent conditions, which wouldn't cause any problem on their own, can add up quietly and cause a crash in some cases. suboptimal CoG --> warmer day --> slower acceleration --> longer distance for takeoff roll --> running into an unusual bumpy part --> early rotation --> more drag and even slower acceleration on the backside of the power curve (behind Vy). At this point, the pilot has no more than a fraction of a second to react. With obstacles being closer and higher than before, there is a very strong instint to pull up more --> create more drag --> slow down even more --> experience a power-on stall and spin --> crash vertically or inverted. It is good that your training kicked in.
All 100% correct except for the stall/spin - as a canard, it would have mushed into the trees, but not departed controlled flight/spun. You don't get a typical stall/spin with these planes, they just mush and come down fast. I'm sure that if you REALLY abused it, at aft (or especially beyond aft) C/G, at low speeds, you might be able to get the main wing to stall and subsequently spin - but I don't know that this has ever been attempted or tested. But yes, a good point (and also the point I was trying to make) about most incidents or crashes being a chain of events.
airport reminds me of catalina island… uphill with some potholes sprinkled in but even the most beaten up 20k aircraft hour flight school cessna did not bounce around like that ultimately you need to find an other runway… even with your great skillset you are setting yourself up for disaster if engine quits
I've been thoroughly enjoying all of your Cozy videos, and I'm beyond glad that this turned out to be just an incident. Once the TBO's up on this engine, would it be a good idea to sell it, and get a new one with more power, in order to increase the safety margin? I'll go watch your Gaia 2 video now, even though I definitely don't need another synth :)
Actually, I have a new Catto prop on order (currently being manufactured) that will give me a bit more static RPM, so I will make more power on takeoff from the engine that I already have. The GAIA is addictive! :)
Hi pretty new here, but was going to comment on runway improvement. I thought there must be county or federal funds to redo and extend the first few hundred feet where the excessive bouncing occurs. I'm curious how much the bouncing actually slows your TO roll. Also, that tree slot could be widened and lowered to make me more comfortable. Nice analysis!
Unfortunately, the airport is privately owned, so it does not qualify for county or federal funds. They did remove about 200 feet of trees from the north end of the runway, they are hoping to be able to remove more.
Awesome video. I had no idea that acceleration was greater (Less Drag) on the ground than in the air. I always thought the friction from the wheels would be greater and reduce once airborne. Makes sense though. Mushy, slow speed flight is not efficient.
as a youtube know it all, that runway and that airplane don’t match. Your risk margin seems smaller there than somewhere else. I’m not sure of your financial or airport availability situation but is it worth it? Ok back into my youtubian hole. I enjoy your channel.
Hey Scott, thanks for sharing the video. Great job salvaging what could have been a bad situation. I don't know what your moment/arms are exactly, but in my Cozy 25# at the front seat station is ~11# at the ballast station to maintain the same CG which would keep 14# off the nose gear and get you to a lighter overall weight (better performance).
I'm delighted to hear that you have a new safer airport. I'm confident that you and the lovely airplane will enjoy many hours of safe aviation without nightmare of a line of trees coming up to meet you with nowhere to go. Safe flights
Density altitude has killed a lot of people and planes. Moving the CG forward and moving it reward will dramatically effect the performance of the aircraft. The deciding factor as you point out was the dip in the runway causing the air frame to get airborne at critical airspeed. You did every thing right and lived to tell us not what to do in this situation.
Thanks for sharing this. One positive, you did use all of the available runway. It could have been worse if you had started at the white line. Glad all is well, other than the change of trousers
I make a point of doing that ALWAYS, on every runway. Try explaining to your insurance company after the fact the reason why you didn't feel the need to use all of the available runway.
So at about 2:10 - 2:15 while discussing a "normal" takeoff, you mention that you accelerate to "Vx", and the graph shows you at 90 - 95 KIAS. Assuming that IAS = CAS (which, if you haven't done an airspeed calibration, you don't know whether that's true or not) then Vx in a lightly loaded COZY MKIV will be closer to 75 KCAS - maybe 80 KCAS - NOT 90 - 95 KCAS. Vy will be around 80 - 85 KCAS - maybe 90 KCAS. So you're too fast. Also, a canard is NOT a conventional plane and you do not need to worry about stall - the airplane will climb at 500 - 700 fpm with the stick held full aft at . Having a 600 ft. difference in DA is not going to make anything resembling a measurable difference in takeoff roll (or anything else, for that matter - that was NOT a major contributor to the difference in takeoff behavior. Not engine power, not lift generation, not IAS/TAS. There's a difference in power output (not a large one, though) at around 5:10 - 5:20 - did you have a very different mixture setting? I do NOT recommend EVER holding forward pressure on takeoff - that's a good way to push the nose gear down and cause catastrophic nose gear shimmy. At most, hold just enough back pressure to keep the nose wheel JUST touching, or just above the ground until reaching rotations speed - 70 - 75 KCAS, unless heavy or very forward CG. I'm not convinced that this was anything other than an anomaly of hitting a larger bump on the runway than you normally do, possibly due to the additional forward inertia - having a higher canard AOA at 63 KCAS will cause the nose to rise - and then not reacting quickly enough to hold the aircraft attitude correctly. Had you started climbing when reaching 75 KCAS, rather than accelerating to 85 KIAS, you would have been a lot further away from the trees.
Thanks Marc, and I agree, had I reacted more quickly to that bump, it would have been much less of an issue. My POH has Vx at 93 and Vy at 110 - if what you're saying is correct (and I assume it is) I need to validate this, along with all of my V speeds. Basically a Phase 1 test series (also to validate CAS). As for the difference in power between the two takeoffs, both had the same power settings, mixture full rich, but the one on the right was at a higher density altitude (much hotter day) - so less power, slower acceleration - at least that's what I figured. Slower acceleration also meant slower rise in RPM, and equivalent slower rise in engine power. Once the airspeeds equalized in both takeoffs, the engine power was identical. I need to do some airwork and speed tests.
We had a spot similar on our 5000’ runway at KHHG before they resurfaced it. I would have to also keep canard pressure down past this or we would get early lift off. It happened in our Q-2, Long Ez & Velocity. Maybe trying getting the canard up but pick up some speed before lifting the mains off might help but if practice some different techniques at a longer runway. Did you retract your nose before climbing above the trees? And if your close to us (Ft. Wayne area), I have digital scales to do a W&B. I’m not sure the DA should be that much of a factor. We also operate out of 800’ here in northern Indiana and not uncommon to see DA close to 3,000DA and went to Put-in-Bay Island this past August.
I did retract the nose as soon as I decided to continue climbing. I have scales here as well, I have a new prop coming (should give me more static RPM) and when I've got it on, I'm going to defuel and re-do the W&B from scratch, just so I have hard numbers to work with.
Good job Scott, that is a nasty runway with no safe engine failure after take off options. Great analysis, firstly I thought the bouncing was due to PIO but your info about the ballast makes sense. Hope you don't have to make another video like this but it was very interesting, especially with the unique configuration of the Cozy MKIV.
VERY educational. I like your airplane, I can't see you being happy with a 182. I would vote for trying to find some outside money to fix the runway and cut down some trees. There must be some programs and money available somewhere, they just have to be uncovered. This airport is a resource to the local area, no different than good highways and good bridges. Good luck. Besides, all these pesky details like a short runway in poor shape does help make you a better pilot. You have to think through what you are doing each and every time instead of flying on automatic.
I'm a relatively low time pilot no longer flight 78 but I had a pitts special. I flew out of an airport with the river at one end and telephone poles at the other a grass strip about twenty-eight hundred feet in length and it seems to me that engines not putting out enough power I would check that out secondly the bouncing of your nose wheel is problematic for me it's may need additional a bungee cord or shock absorber whatever however that thing is supported to keep it from bouncing like that thirdly you're flying isn't like an airliner you said you didn't know if you had a tail when don't you have a windsock I mean you always take off into the wind generally but especially short Field airport you're not going to take off with the wind so that could have been a factor that's a canard John Denver airplane John Denver was a Lear jet pilot at Good pilot and I think you know the story there are reached for the fuel control to switch tanks so it's not a bad airplane it's a good airplane John Denver airplane had the control tank control as I understand it above his left shoulder so he had to reach and pushed with his right foot on the right rudder did a snap-roll right into the sea of 500 ft
The engine is at full power for this prop - I actually have a new prop coming that will give me a bit more static RPM, which will give me more power for takeoff. The prop on it now is a cruise prop. There is definitely a windsock at this airport, and I would NEVER attempt to take off out of this airport downwind!
Looks like my first take off in my Varieze. I was not used to the sensitive controls and over rotated into the scariest take off of my life. This is a mistake you only make once.
What airport. Colombia where? How long is runway, how much room from end of runway to trees. Do you have a AFM / POH with data. The canards are efficient but short field soft field airplanes they are not... *YES Density Alt made a big difference.* At first you say it did not make a difference. Then you say it did make ground roll longer and by taking longer ground roll you hit the runway dip. That is a correct analysis. So it made a difference. *You should have pushed the nose down. You should have countered early lift off and kept aircraft in ground effect. Even if you did not hit the dip and get airborne too early (soft field takeoff technique) you were going to get closer to obstacles.* *Do NOT use short runways with obstacles at gross (you were solo) and high density alt.*
It was at the most power it could make at the time. His propeller is "fixed pitch" and is pitched for cruise flight. Think of propeller pitch as being equal to the gear ratio on a car or bike. A fixed pitch prop is like only having one gear. You can get going quickly with a high revving engine (or pedaling like mad) but not go fast (low gear/fine pitch), you can go fast but struggle to get going (high gear/course pitch), or you can pick something in between. There are propellers that can change pitch while being ran (equivalent to changing gears or even closer to the affect of a CVT) but they are heavier (bad for this airplane design, he already needs 50 pounds of counterbalance ballast) and they are way more expensive, and he doesn't have one. In other comments he has said he is getting a propeller with less pitch which will allow the engine to spin faster at slow speed = closer to reaching the engine's full potential power.
Friend. I’ve been noticing this each time you take off. Maybe you need a new home field. There’s really no margin for error there. Imagine if you had passengers and baggage. I’d sell that plane and buy a 182. You’ll travel slower but safer.
The thing is - there are no fields within any kind of driving distance (other than this one) with available hangar space. Most have waiting lists years long, and I am on those lists. That said I have come off of that runway with passengers, baggage and full fuel without issue. I just make sure that I pay very close attention to C/G, density altitude and performance charts. There's no "winging it" and hoping it will work. I want actual numbers that show that it WILL work before I will fly.
@@CanardBoulevard you have almost no margin for any type of error whether pilot error or mechanical. I’d park it outside before flying out of that field. You’ll have no options if that engine fails after takeoff.
Regarding your go/no-go decision you mentioned "stopping on the runway". Along that line you said something about being committed to go flying. Looking at the runway and the area beyond the runway just before the tree line I would submit that it might be preferable to go off the end of the runway at 20-30 miles an hour, dissipate more of that energy over the unimproved surface beyond the runway, before reaching the tree line rather than getting it airborne a few feet above the trees then stall/spinning directly into the ground or going straight into the trees at 65-75mph/knots. As far as survivability is concerned it is preferable to dissipate the energy involved in an aircraft incident/accident over a greater distance than coming to a sudden/abrupt stop. My point is that in your decision to stop/go you may want to consider more than "stopping on the runway". While your aircraft is a very nice, it is not a transport category aircraft with guaranteed performance; stopping on the available pavement, committed to go flying. It seems to me that you are thinking/talking in those T-Category Part 121 terms. No disrespect or cynical criticism intended, just something else to think about. Thank you for the well done and interesting video! -Respectfully
1. Frankly i didn’t see a significant difference between both takeoffs. They both had sluggish climbs. 2. If I’ve used 2/3 of the runway and not up to VR I’m aborting. 3. You’ve convinced me. A canard is not in my future 😊. My KITFOX would climb like a rocket, and my current ride, a RANS S-19, isn’t far behind.
Ahh.....Even the "Good, normal) take off looks really Sketchy, slow & too Close to tree tops & No safety factor....Seems very Wrong airplane for That runway.....Very high Risk combination for a pilot to practice.....Sooner or later, That pilot is Not going to Luck out...
Yeah that nose landing gear is quite flimsy. Also I think you could have done a better job at staying in ground effect. But hey it's always easier to say afterward.
I stayed in ground effect until I hit my normal rotation speed of 75 kts, at which point I thought, "ok, now I'll pull and rotate" - but as soon as I did, I felt the speed decay and I could tell I was headed for the wrong side of the power curve, so I pushed the nose over again to gain more airspeed.
@@CanardBoulevard Yes we can clearly see in the video the plane "mushing" after rotation. That's why I don't like climbing at Vx, any miscalculations and you find yourself on the wrong side of the power curve. I often surprise myself how easy it is to get out of ground effect and for it to really be effective, to keep the wheels near touching the ground after rotation. I am sure you understand all of this, execution is often more messy than theory^^
Two things here: Why did you want to move the ballast forward if you were already in the W&B envelope? A forward CofG always takes longer runway. You would do better adding 10lbs in the nose rather than 25lbs under the co-pilots seat as that achieves the same balance but reduces your aircraft weight by 15lbs. Second point: If you keep your stick forward, the canard will not try to lift you off the runway prematurely and cause high induced drag and that porpoising. Keep the stick neutral, or forward, until you reach flying speed and then ease it off the runway. This gives you the shortest take off distance and no porpoising. Trying to pull a canard off the runway prematurely just does not work.
Even the "good" performance take off is way too marginal. I would not fly that plane from that runway again. I prefer to be HUNDREDS of feet clear of the trees. If you fly something with good performance maybe you will understand what is reasonable.
That's the problem with canard airplanes.... COG has to be right! Mess up with it and the flying characteristics become unpredictable. Much more so than with an usually configured airplane...
I'm not a pilot but I saw that ground porpoising immediately and realized that was going bad places. If the runway is improved by the owner, is it safe to assume that an official has to come out to confirm and rate the new condition? And how long does it typically take to get that update info disseminated? I can see how delays there would be off putting towards investment.
This hard to say because, field conditions for GA airports are loose you can have everything from a perfectly smooth runway to a dirt strip and be with in regulation. Alot falls on the pilot to ensure his or her aircraft has the capabilities to perform safe take off and landings on any runway dirt or paved . Now let's say there's a giant pot hole or a hump in the middle of the strip it's the airport managers job to put a notam (notice to airman) out stating issues with that airports runway and then decide if the issue is unsafe and the runway needs to be closed or just an issue that pilots can over come with proper planning
this is going to go wrong! Honestly I don't know anything about flying - At least I like everything that has to do with airplanes - mainly model flying itself (very strange) I am afraid to fly! BUT everything I see here seems amateurish to me. runway is rubble, way too many bumps (you're bouncing around in that thing!) there is not enough excess length or you are in the tree? I think it's scary! Healthy and Friendly Greetings from the Netherlands! Rob
Just what I was asking me seeing the nose bumping, the balast. Canard is a pushing plane motor, so engaging trajectory. Solution is stand speed in pushing down the nose. But perhaps also to check the front wheel system. 👍🤔
The airplane wants to rotate because it wants to fly. You are forcing the airplane on the ground. You are Pinning the nose wheel on the runway. A. You are probably gonna damage the nose wheel. B. You are extending your takeoff distance. Let it fly. If you want to fly level in ground effect gaining speed before rotating fully that is an option. But keeping the wheels on the runway longer isn’t helping. Yes. Induced drag. You get that at 0 degrees AOA too. What are your Vx and Vy speeds anyway? And. What if you have an engine problem at that airport? Have you made a plan? If you haven’t thought about engine problems beforehand, you are screwed. Instead of complaining about the runway condition, think about your emergency options. If you don’t like the risks, fly from another airport. And BTW. Why does it show 80% engine? Please don’t tell me you’re not fully applying the throttle 100%.
That's what I face taking off from a grass strip. Speed building is slow and I have to rotate at 65mph and then I have to build speed in ground effect, then climb out at 70+mph. My Ercoupe won't even try to rotate below 65.
Just wondering ... cars use "shock absorbers" - dampening devices that turn movement/oscillation energy into heat. Would it be an option to equip your canard front wheel assembly with something like that? Thanks for your videos, learning a lot here!
I’m glad you’re OK thanks for sharing that with us so I Density Altitude of 1600 feet is nothing for us out here in Arizona even in Phoenix the field elevation at Scottsdale is 1500 feet but on a day that it’s 115° that could be 4500 feet Density Altitude then if you go up north to Sedona you’re talking eight 9000 feet Density Altitude could your plane not fly in that kind of Density Altitude?
First things first.... get a haircut! Just kidding. I fly a Long EZ and for slightly shorter takeoff runs as soon as the canard starts flying, I retract the nose gear (hand crank) while the plane is still running on the mains. If you have a Wilhelmson retract system, don't bother. I've installed a couple and I remember timing them at 22 seconds to retract. I think 22 seconds is correct, but not completely sure.
What you call pogo, in automotive I think the term is rebound. The start, compression is called jounce. So you have jounce and rebound. I worked as a machinist for Delta 22 years and flew out of ATL often. Not an A&P, but I pay attention to details. Atlanta's north inner runway used for taking off used to have the same problem almost center of the runway. You would go through a dip at a fairly high speed from the east end. If you watched you could see the wing tips going up and down a couple of cycles. And almost immediately after the plane settled down, we would rotate.
As air traffic controller asked the instructor in the plàne I wàs tràining in, "Ahem, would you like to transfer to a longer runway?" We'd just skimmed the fence, as you did. You have an underpowered plane there, so you need a longer take off run.
There is zero margin for error or any unforeseen circumstance on this runway (power loss, miscalculation of takeoff data...). This was a lucky one but even the "normal" takeoff looked scary...
I'm not a pilot, but I want to ask: It seems that the runway is not really horizontal in length. There is a concave at 2/3 of the distance? It is a small springboard with a half-foot height. The cave just arsons this premature jump.
It seems that you need a longer run way. I admire your effort to figure things out. You made a decision to place your life at risk to save your plane from damage. What if you retracted your nose gear as you aborted your take off. Only your plane would have this issue.
That additional forward moment would cause more friction on the front wheel which would slow down your ground-roll. I doubt that 1600ft density altitude would cause that much difference from 400ft. I'm thinking you need to treat that runway the same as a soft-field. Your nose is just bouncing too much and too much ground friction.
One hell of a dangerous runway... short, bumpy and full of trees all around with nowhere to go. I would move to a different field as this is near certain death wrapped around a tree.
Good video. Seen so many video where the pilot couldn't break the instinct to keep pulling back and it ended badly. You made the right move, and quickly. Just wondering about that 25lb weight you moved from the passenger seat to the nose. Not sure how much distance it is from the seat to the forward mount point, but seems like for weight and balance it might be correct to cut the mass in half. Of course I don't have the weight/balance sheet like you do.
RE 65 as your go-no go, sure you may run off the runway into trees if faster than 65, but it looks like lots of trees extending initially in flying too with no real straight ahead landing options. Thoughts to low speed tree impact versus high speed tree impact and having certain items to abort regardless? The whole idea of sacrifice the plane to save occupants notion?
What about checking performance data as part of your preflight to insure adequate clearance over obstacles with maybe a little fudge factor added for safety? (i.e. not enough runway)
Good information about CofG and discussing the moment arm (and yes of course, DA). Thank you for the self analysis. Sharing this well presented information makes the the aviation world safer. Also remain flexible with your abort speed. Sometimes a slow hit into trees on the ground is better than fast hit into trees from the air. A tough decision to make, yes. But one that depends on the situation, and can be life saving.
FASCINATING! Terrifying, but fascinating. Great analysis. I swear my heart is in my throat every time I see you take off on that runway. I’ll stop for gas at the other airport a few minutes away…
Being airborne does not create drag, the angle of attack does, caused by the plane's attitude. You could just stay in ground effect with the nose relatively low to minimize drag to gain enough airspeed.
I think that extra weight in the front had the bigger impact than the density altitude. At first I thought you were tail heavy when you started down the runway with how much the nose bounced. Five extra pounds up front would probably equate to the 25 pounds under the seat.
the difference of the two departures is huge ! If that little density altitude has that big of a affect then my first thought is: under powered engine. How much HP is under the hood ?
I fly a Long EZ and have the same springy nose strut issue. On my takeoffs I try to fly the nosewheel an inch or so off the runway during takeoff run to avoid the bouncy nose. It is somewhat of a compromise but the takeoff run is smoother.
So whats the deal? If you get that thing in a nose high attitude draggy mode too slow, there is no good way to recover other than luck? If you pulled back, it would have been all over. Maybe put a stronger spring or rubber band or whatever on the stick to increase the stick force.
You may want to consider microvortex generators to give you better stall margin and lower your take-off and landing speed (or shorten your ground roll)
I was going to buy an ultra-light with a canard and not take lessons. John Denver changed my mind. Did lessons in a Piper and never had a scary moment like you did.
Your go no go at 65 knots but if the engine failed at that point wouldn't be better to just roll off the runway try to aim between trees? I would think that is better than being over the trees and not have an engine. The comparison videos the incident video engine was below 80% the normal take off on the left was above 80% while it wasn't big of a difference it was a difference.
If you look at the altitude over time graphs, the aircraft is in a better energy state in the incident takeoff , just compare 6.5 seconds in both takeoffs
One thing to keep in mind, sometimes the best option is to kill the throttle and land on what's left. Yes you will overrun but that could be a better outcome compared to other options. Obviously not saying you should have done this here, but don't count out that option if at an airport with very little options if engine failure right at take off
TBH, I Thk U R rolling the dice w. Your Life. Rwy Too Short, Obstacles too Close. Tarmac Condition may induce premature Pitch Oscillation which may affect AoA and Air Speed. Your plan should include finding a FBO with better Rwy Conditions. You might also Pony Up your Own Cash to Repair the Rwy, if you must stay there.
I agree. That runway is shit. Stop patching up bullshit and replace it
The owner needs to be reprimanded. Spend the cash!
I agree. Even his good flight was too close for me. Buy a vans for that airport
That normal takeoff was barely adequate, holy moly! Totally agree you need a longer runway and since you have a shitty home built. I’d find one without trees at the end. 😵💫
All valid points here. I think I would buy a chainsaw and cut down those trees at the end to give a path if needed at a lower altitude.
If you have to operate out of a field that's too short and too rough, then don't. Find another field, or different prop for climb performance and give up some top speed. I taught thousands of hours out of a 2k dirt strip and I can tell you that technique is a huge part of making it all work. And yes the density alt was a big deal.
I would find a different field to hangar the plane if the owner doesn't fix that asphalt. That runway is not suitable for canards. You need a better runway surface as well as more space especially with the obstacle at the end. Canards aren't designed to be shortfield planes and you are operating just within your safety envelope at this field. Good save though. When stuff starts to go sideways, you continue to fly the plane. Excellent debrief. Way to aviate, sir.
I have about 2000 hours in my cozy and would not operate off this runway. It’s too short and rough for your plane sorry to say. Go find a 4000 foot runway in good shape or get a different plane.
Working on it.
I am a 30,000 hour retired airline pilot with more than 57 years of flying experience and have been an active CFI in GA for the past 53 of those years. I was VERY impressed with your professionalism and how you saved your life through your superior airmanship and judgement. Well done!! You did all of the right things. My only suggestion is that in future situations like this, consider that aborting and running off the end of the runway is safer than colliding with the trees at nearly 100 mph. But since you survived, you made the correct PIC decision to continue. Lesser pilots would have hit the trees. Well done! I hope that someday you fly for the airlines as we need your skills and judgement on our flight decks.
I noticed the divider position on the windshield in the two takeoff were very different, as was your engine power (77% vs 83%), so I think your basic analysis is ok, however, the real issue is an improper takeoff plan. This is a short field on a summer day. You should hold the aircraft on the ground until to reach best angle speed and then climb to above treetop height by 100’ and then relaxed the climb to a more normal climb to pattern altitude. This is probably some like 83-85MPH. You are a lucky man with that large of a CG change only affecting you that much… it could have easily set you in the trees. You definitely need to calculate your numbers and practice that max takeoff climb a couple times before you take a passenger or more ballast. Cooler days ahead are great to test and adjust the process before the heat returns in earnest next summer. Document your results and do a followup on this video.
Personally, I would keep it in GE, due to reduction in drag, as long as possible due to getting to a higher airspeed, which would yield a better climb angle.
Second, rather than trying to clear the trees with a huge margin, I would 'aim' for the tree tops, which would allow my airspeed to increase
that much more, because I would rather have airspeed margin 'touching' the trees, than altitude margin with sketchy airspeed. This comes from years of hang gliding and motorcycling. If you have a vehicle that you are unsure of, it is better to 'pre-aim' at them slightly for two reasons, one to get their attention,
and the second is if they DO pull out in front of you, you are already ready to go behind them.
Varieze pilot here.
I have 35+ years riding motorcycles as well, so I know exactly of what you speak. :)
I don't normally aim way over the treetops - I want as much airspeed as possible (it can get gusty once you're beyond the trees), so I generally aim to cross maybe 10-15 feet over them.
@@CanardBoulevard Subbed btw 🙂
Smart use of ground effect...saved my butt one day when I had a student get too slow on landing and used ground effect to make the runway! Nice analysis and thank you for sharing.
Man, pucker time for sure. Good save to you sir. Hopefully this dude will fix the runway, totally unsat. Sure glad you pulled this off, love that airplane, I suspect it does not buff out dents very well.
Yeah. It might cost a quarter million dollars or more to do it, so it will be quite a task to convince someone to take on such a financial risk.
Even if you have the gumption to risk the family finances like that, the airport has to be viable. Not just niw, but for like the next 20 years or so.
It's a tough one for all parties involved is what I'm getting at.
General aviation isent growing like it did in the past due to fuel costs, weaker and weaker dollar, etc. This means lot of small airports end up with no future viability.
I do pray this isn't one of those airports, cause I like it
A GREAT video, so...that takeoff was experimental. You touched all the points, thanks bunches. Yeah...I found nose holding to the ground useful too, to control the instant of rotation because yes, runways can surprise.
Firstly. Great outcome.
I agree the pogo-ing is a real issue. Each upward ‘bounce’ increases the AoA on the canard and main wing. This increases the lift-induced drag, slowing your acceleration. Further, as you note, the increased AoA puts your canard in a flying state, but you are close to the back of the drag-curve, and this also slows your acceleration.
The runway clearly needs some work, particularly for your canard aircraft. They like long, smooth runways. I don’t know much about your undercarriage detail, but you might investigate changing the spring-rate and rebound rate/damping. Reducing the nose wheel tyre pressure might also do something - although the runway does seem to need attention.
I think this video, like your others, is great. Interesting, informative, and thought provoking.
I agree, and I do just that. The margin I normally build into my calculations is what got me over the trees in this case.
I have more than once gone out to the airport, seen the winds and DA, and said "nope, not flying today." You can't fool physics. :)
enjoying your videos more with the 'in cockpit/radio' transmissions and commentary. I am NOT a pilot, but that runway would not fill me with much confidence... hope there is no wear/damage being inflicted on your aircraft. keep the videos coming.
Ty for sharing your analysts. I learned a lot
The airplane will accelerate faster level in low ground effect than rolling on the runway. Rough runway and canard will hurt you here, but allowing the airplane to climb through low ground effect when too slow to safely fly is dangerous also. Wolfgang also talked about the experienced pilot trying to hit the tree rather than climb will over. Energy management begs us to use ground effect energy as long as we have runway available. Energy management begs us to pitch up to fly, not stall, just over the obstruction. As a crop duster, I have heard the farmer say, "You hit the tree." No, that was wing tip vorticies and downwash. Yes, I accelerated to max airspeed with full throttle in six inch ground effect over the crop and pitched to just over the trees. I alway had zoom reserve airspeed, airspeed sufficient to climb and/or maneuver with or with power, coming out of both crop field and airport. Energy management wise, they are the same thing.
Get up to three feet or so and fast, but practice dynamic proactive elevator (canard) control movement over a long runway. I teach it with tractor airplanes with the elevator in back and they are easier to maintain level in low ground effect with. Your airplane is even more dependent on dynamic proactive fore/aft stick movement to bracket level in low ground effect. At your airport, especially with high DA, the low ground effect takeoff is the only safe takeoff with low powered airplanes.
That is the way to stay cool under pressure. Cool heads prevail, panicking doesn't solve anything. Excellent analysis! I've survived 3 partial engine failures in my flying career and fortunately I had a very cool flight instructor in the right seat when I was a low time private pilot on my first engine failure. It's extremely hard to deny instinct and push the nose over and point at the trees. This is where a lot of folks make the big mistake. The Velocity nose gear isn't quite as springy but it will pop you up in the air on a bumpy runway. When I trim for takeoff I push the stick forward to make sure I have flying speed when I rotate.
A bit spooky, but great data backup for confirmation/analysis purposes! Hope you can affect the needed runway improvements, and look forward to you showing off a new, faster rpm prop!
this is a problem that normal non-canard aircraft can experience with aft center of gravity. Your analysis is very good and gives a good summary, how seemingly innocent conditions, which wouldn't cause any problem on their own, can add up quietly and cause a crash in some cases. suboptimal CoG --> warmer day --> slower acceleration --> longer distance for takeoff roll --> running into an unusual bumpy part --> early rotation --> more drag and even slower acceleration on the backside of the power curve (behind Vy). At this point, the pilot has no more than a fraction of a second to react. With obstacles being closer and higher than before, there is a very strong instint to pull up more --> create more drag --> slow down even more --> experience a power-on stall and spin --> crash vertically or inverted. It is good that your training kicked in.
All 100% correct except for the stall/spin - as a canard, it would have mushed into the trees, but not departed controlled flight/spun. You don't get a typical stall/spin with these planes, they just mush and come down fast. I'm sure that if you REALLY abused it, at aft (or especially beyond aft) C/G, at low speeds, you might be able to get the main wing to stall and subsequently spin - but I don't know that this has ever been attempted or tested.
But yes, a good point (and also the point I was trying to make) about most incidents or crashes being a chain of events.
airport reminds me of catalina island… uphill with some potholes sprinkled in but even the most beaten up 20k aircraft hour flight school cessna did not bounce around like that
ultimately you need to find an other runway… even with your great skillset you are setting yourself up for disaster if engine quits
I've been thoroughly enjoying all of your Cozy videos, and I'm beyond glad that this turned out to be just an incident. Once the TBO's up on this engine, would it be a good idea to sell it, and get a new one with more power, in order to increase the safety margin?
I'll go watch your Gaia 2 video now, even though I definitely don't need another synth :)
Actually, I have a new Catto prop on order (currently being manufactured) that will give me a bit more static RPM, so I will make more power on takeoff from the engine that I already have.
The GAIA is addictive! :)
Hi pretty new here, but was going to comment on runway improvement. I thought there must be county or federal funds to redo and extend the first few hundred feet where the excessive bouncing occurs. I'm curious how much the bouncing actually slows your TO roll.
Also, that tree slot could be widened and lowered to make me more comfortable.
Nice analysis!
Unfortunately, the airport is privately owned, so it does not qualify for county or federal funds. They did remove about 200 feet of trees from the north end of the runway, they are hoping to be able to remove more.
Wow glad you got a new airport. I figure 15 mph over stall for rotation maybe more when hot but I’m going to think about more now. 👍🇺🇸
Great video, great analysis, thank you for posting and sharing your experience with us.
Awesome video. I had no idea that acceleration was greater (Less Drag) on the ground than in the air. I always thought the friction from the wheels would be greater and reduce once airborne. Makes sense though. Mushy, slow speed flight is not efficient.
as a youtube know it all, that runway and that airplane don’t match. Your risk margin seems smaller there than somewhere else. I’m not sure of your financial or airport availability situation but is it worth it? Ok back into my youtubian hole. I enjoy your channel.
Hate to say this but I don’t like the margin that you have on your “good” take off. Stay safe
Hey Scott, thanks for sharing the video. Great job salvaging what could have been a bad situation. I don't know what your moment/arms are exactly, but in my Cozy 25# at the front seat station is ~11# at the ballast station to maintain the same CG which would keep 14# off the nose gear and get you to a lighter overall weight (better performance).
I'm delighted to hear that you have a new safer airport. I'm confident that you and the lovely airplane will enjoy many hours of safe aviation without nightmare of a line of trees coming up to meet you with nowhere to go. Safe flights
Density altitude has killed a lot of people and planes. Moving the CG forward and moving it reward will dramatically effect the performance of the aircraft. The deciding factor as you point out was the dip in the runway causing the air frame to get airborne at critical airspeed. You did every thing right and lived to tell us not what to do in this situation.
Thanks for sharing this. One positive, you did use all of the available runway. It could have been worse if you had started at the white line. Glad all is well, other than the change of trousers
I make a point of doing that ALWAYS, on every runway. Try explaining to your insurance company after the fact the reason why you didn't feel the need to use all of the available runway.
@@CanardBoulevardUseless things in aviation:
Sky above
Runway behind
Fuel in the tanker
Yesterday's weather
Fly safe
So at about 2:10 - 2:15 while discussing a "normal" takeoff, you mention that you accelerate to "Vx", and the graph shows you at 90 - 95 KIAS. Assuming that IAS = CAS (which, if you haven't done an airspeed calibration, you don't know whether that's true or not) then Vx in a lightly loaded COZY MKIV will be closer to 75 KCAS - maybe 80 KCAS - NOT 90 - 95 KCAS. Vy will be around 80 - 85 KCAS - maybe 90 KCAS. So you're too fast.
Also, a canard is NOT a conventional plane and you do not need to worry about stall - the airplane will climb at 500 - 700 fpm with the stick held full aft at .
Having a 600 ft. difference in DA is not going to make anything resembling a measurable difference in takeoff roll (or anything else, for that matter - that was NOT a major contributor to the difference in takeoff behavior. Not engine power, not lift generation, not IAS/TAS.
There's a difference in power output (not a large one, though) at around 5:10 - 5:20 - did you have a very different mixture setting?
I do NOT recommend EVER holding forward pressure on takeoff - that's a good way to push the nose gear down and cause catastrophic nose gear shimmy. At most, hold just enough back pressure to keep the nose wheel JUST touching, or just above the ground until reaching rotations speed - 70 - 75 KCAS, unless heavy or very forward CG.
I'm not convinced that this was anything other than an anomaly of hitting a larger bump on the runway than you normally do, possibly due to the additional forward inertia - having a higher canard AOA at 63 KCAS will cause the nose to rise - and then not reacting quickly enough to hold the aircraft attitude correctly. Had you started climbing when reaching 75 KCAS, rather than accelerating to 85 KIAS, you would have been a lot further away from the trees.
Thanks Marc, and I agree, had I reacted more quickly to that bump, it would have been much less of an issue. My POH has Vx at 93 and Vy at 110 - if what you're saying is correct (and I assume it is) I need to validate this, along with all of my V speeds. Basically a Phase 1 test series (also to validate CAS).
As for the difference in power between the two takeoffs, both had the same power settings, mixture full rich, but the one on the right was at a higher density altitude (much hotter day) - so less power, slower acceleration - at least that's what I figured. Slower acceleration also meant slower rise in RPM, and equivalent slower rise in engine power. Once the airspeeds equalized in both takeoffs, the engine power was identical.
I need to do some airwork and speed tests.
We had a spot similar on our 5000’ runway at KHHG before they resurfaced it. I would have to also keep canard pressure down past this or we would get early lift off. It happened in our Q-2, Long Ez & Velocity.
Maybe trying getting the canard up but pick up some speed before lifting the mains off might help but if practice some different techniques at a longer runway. Did you retract your nose before climbing above the trees? And if your close to us (Ft. Wayne area), I have digital scales to do a W&B.
I’m not sure the DA should be that much of a factor. We also operate out of 800’ here in northern Indiana and not uncommon to see DA close to 3,000DA and went to Put-in-Bay Island this past August.
I did retract the nose as soon as I decided to continue climbing. I have scales here as well, I have a new prop coming (should give me more static RPM) and when I've got it on, I'm going to defuel and re-do the W&B from scratch, just so I have hard numbers to work with.
I always thought that springy arm on the nose gear was a bit of a design mistake for similar reasons.
2 things. 1) im so glad you are ok. 2) I actually understood everything you covered. Magic.
This video helps me build knowledge, thank you for sharing
Exactly the reason I posted it. :)
A different airport or different airplane I would say.
Good job Scott, that is a nasty runway with no safe engine failure after take off options. Great analysis, firstly I thought the bouncing was due to PIO but your info about the ballast makes sense. Hope you don't have to make another video like this but it was very interesting, especially with the unique configuration of the Cozy MKIV.
VERY educational. I like your airplane, I can't see you being happy with a 182. I would vote for trying to find some outside money to fix the runway and cut down some trees. There must be some programs and money available somewhere, they just have to be uncovered. This airport is a resource to the local area, no different than good highways and good bridges. Good luck. Besides, all these pesky details like a short runway in poor shape does help make you a better pilot. You have to think through what you are doing each and every time instead of flying on automatic.
Very true. Every takeoff and landing. I have gone to that airport, seen the crosswind and density altitude, and said, "nope, not flying today."
I'm a relatively low time pilot no longer flight 78 but I had a pitts special. I flew out of an airport with the river at one end and telephone poles at the other a grass strip about twenty-eight hundred feet in length and it seems to me that engines not putting out enough power I would check that out secondly the bouncing of your nose wheel is problematic for me it's may need additional a bungee cord or shock absorber whatever however that thing is supported to keep it from bouncing like that thirdly you're flying isn't like an airliner you said you didn't know if you had a tail when don't you have a windsock I mean you always take off into the wind generally but especially short Field airport you're not going to take off with the wind so that could have been a factor that's a canard John Denver airplane John Denver was a Lear jet pilot at Good pilot and I think you know the story there are reached for the fuel control to switch tanks so it's not a bad airplane it's a good airplane John Denver airplane had the control tank control as I understand it above his left shoulder so he had to reach and pushed with his right foot on the right rudder did a snap-roll right into the sea of 500 ft
The engine is at full power for this prop - I actually have a new prop coming that will give me a bit more static RPM, which will give me more power for takeoff. The prop on it now is a cruise prop.
There is definitely a windsock at this airport, and I would NEVER attempt to take off out of this airport downwind!
You might want to look into changing props I've watched a lot of videos on the subject and I'm amazed what a change that can make.
Already underway, I've had a new prop on order for months now, it should be coming in a few weeks.
Awesome analysis
-- Wow. Glad you are OK. Thanks for letting us know what happened. 🛩️
Looks like my first take off in my Varieze. I was not used to the sensitive controls and over rotated into the scariest take off of my life. This is a mistake you only make once.
What you said was save a lot of lives if they listen
I’d rather overrun the runway than crash and die in those trees. Those v1 speeds make more sense for multi engine planes.
Agreed. Hitting the trees at just above stopping speed is better than plowing into them at just below flying speed.
What airport. Colombia where? How long is runway, how much room from end of runway to trees. Do you have a AFM / POH with data. The canards are efficient but short field soft field airplanes they are not... *YES Density Alt made a big difference.* At first you say it did not make a difference. Then you say it did make ground roll longer and by taking longer ground roll you hit the runway dip. That is a correct analysis. So it made a difference. *You should have pushed the nose down. You should have countered early lift off and kept aircraft in ground effect. Even if you did not hit the dip and get airborne too early (soft field takeoff technique) you were going to get closer to obstacles.* *Do NOT use short runways with obstacles at gross (you were solo) and high density alt.*
Just a quick question, why didn't you push the engine to 100%?
It was at the most power it could make at the time. His propeller is "fixed pitch" and is pitched for cruise flight. Think of propeller pitch as being equal to the gear ratio on a car or bike. A fixed pitch prop is like only having one gear. You can get going quickly with a high revving engine (or pedaling like mad) but not go fast (low gear/fine pitch), you can go fast but struggle to get going (high gear/course pitch), or you can pick something in between. There are propellers that can change pitch while being ran (equivalent to changing gears or even closer to the affect of a CVT) but they are heavier (bad for this airplane design, he already needs 50 pounds of counterbalance ballast) and they are way more expensive, and he doesn't have one. In other comments he has said he is getting a propeller with less pitch which will allow the engine to spin faster at slow speed = closer to reaching the engine's full potential power.
Friend. I’ve been noticing this each time you take off. Maybe you need a new home field. There’s really no margin for error there. Imagine if you had passengers and baggage. I’d sell that plane and buy a 182. You’ll travel slower but safer.
The thing is - there are no fields within any kind of driving distance (other than this one) with available hangar space. Most have waiting lists years long, and I am on those lists.
That said I have come off of that runway with passengers, baggage and full fuel without issue. I just make sure that I pay very close attention to C/G, density altitude and performance charts. There's no "winging it" and hoping it will work. I want actual numbers that show that it WILL work before I will fly.
@@CanardBoulevard you have almost no margin for any type of error whether pilot error or mechanical. I’d park it outside before flying out of that field. You’ll have no options if that engine fails after takeoff.
Regarding your go/no-go decision you mentioned "stopping on the runway". Along that line you said something about being committed to go flying. Looking at the runway and the area beyond the runway just before the tree line I would submit that it might be preferable to go off the end of the runway at 20-30 miles an hour, dissipate more of that energy over the unimproved surface beyond the runway, before reaching the tree line rather than getting it airborne a few feet above the trees then stall/spinning directly into the ground or going straight into the trees at 65-75mph/knots. As far as survivability is concerned it is preferable to dissipate the energy involved in an aircraft incident/accident over a greater distance than coming to a sudden/abrupt stop. My point is that in your decision to stop/go you may want to consider more than "stopping on the runway". While your aircraft is a very nice, it is not a transport category aircraft with guaranteed performance; stopping on the available pavement, committed to go flying. It seems to me that you are thinking/talking in those T-Category Part 121 terms. No disrespect or cynical criticism intended, just something else to think about. Thank you for the well done and interesting video!
-Respectfully
That runway looks like a New Jersey highway 😮
1. Frankly i didn’t see a significant difference between both takeoffs.
They both had sluggish climbs.
2. If I’ve used 2/3 of the runway and not up to VR I’m aborting.
3. You’ve convinced me. A canard is not in my future 😊. My KITFOX would climb like a rocket, and my current ride, a RANS S-19, isn’t far behind.
Ahh.....Even the "Good, normal) take off looks really Sketchy, slow & too Close to tree tops & No safety factor....Seems very Wrong airplane for That runway.....Very high Risk combination for a pilot to practice.....Sooner or later, That pilot is Not going to Luck out...
Yeah that nose landing gear is quite flimsy. Also I think you could have done a better job at staying in ground effect.
But hey it's always easier to say afterward.
I stayed in ground effect until I hit my normal rotation speed of 75 kts, at which point I thought, "ok, now I'll pull and rotate" - but as soon as I did, I felt the speed decay and I could tell I was headed for the wrong side of the power curve, so I pushed the nose over again to gain more airspeed.
@@CanardBoulevard Yes we can clearly see in the video the plane "mushing" after rotation. That's why I don't like climbing at Vx, any miscalculations and you find yourself on the wrong side of the power curve. I often surprise myself how easy it is to get out of ground effect and for it to really be effective, to keep the wheels near touching the ground after rotation. I am sure you understand all of this, execution is often more messy than theory^^
Two things here:
Why did you want to move the ballast forward if you were already in the W&B envelope? A forward CofG always takes longer runway. You would do better adding 10lbs in the nose rather than 25lbs under the co-pilots seat as that achieves the same balance but reduces your aircraft weight by 15lbs.
Second point: If you keep your stick forward, the canard will not try to lift you off the runway prematurely and cause high induced drag and that porpoising. Keep the stick neutral, or forward, until you reach flying speed and then ease it off the runway. This gives you the shortest take off distance and no porpoising. Trying to pull a canard off the runway prematurely just does not work.
Even the "good" performance take off is way too marginal. I would not fly that plane from that runway again. I prefer to be HUNDREDS of feet clear of the trees. If you fly something with good performance maybe you will understand what is reasonable.
That's the problem with canard airplanes.... COG has to be right! Mess up with it and the flying characteristics become unpredictable. Much more so than with an usually configured airplane...
You have virtually zero margin in both of those examples. If you see a great difference in those examples, you should rethink your assessment.
I'm not a pilot but I saw that ground porpoising immediately and realized that was going bad places. If the runway is improved by the owner, is it safe to assume that an official has to come out to confirm and rate the new condition? And how long does it typically take to get that update info disseminated? I can see how delays there would be off putting towards investment.
This hard to say because, field conditions for GA airports are loose you can have everything from a perfectly smooth runway to a dirt strip and be with in regulation. Alot falls on the pilot to ensure his or her aircraft has the capabilities to perform safe take off and landings on any runway dirt or paved . Now let's say there's a giant pot hole or a hump in the middle of the strip it's the airport managers job to put a notam (notice to airman) out stating issues with that airports runway and then decide if the issue is unsafe and the runway needs to be closed or just an issue that pilots can over come with proper planning
@@DocbritoFMF Thank you.
this is going to go wrong!
Honestly I don't know anything about flying -
At least I like everything that has to do with airplanes -
mainly model flying itself (very strange) I am afraid to fly!
BUT everything I see here seems amateurish to me.
runway is rubble, way too many bumps (you're bouncing around in that thing!)
there is not enough excess length or you are in the tree?
I think it's scary!
Healthy and Friendly Greetings from the Netherlands!
Rob
Just what I was asking me seeing the nose bumping, the balast. Canard is a pushing plane motor, so engaging trajectory. Solution is stand speed in pushing down the nose. But perhaps also to check the front wheel system. 👍🤔
The airplane wants to rotate because it wants to fly. You are forcing the airplane on the ground. You are Pinning the nose wheel on the runway. A. You are probably gonna damage the nose wheel. B. You are extending your takeoff distance. Let it fly. If you want to fly level in ground effect gaining speed before rotating fully that is an option. But keeping the wheels on the runway longer isn’t helping. Yes. Induced drag. You get that at 0 degrees AOA too. What are your Vx and Vy speeds anyway? And. What if you have an engine problem at that airport? Have you made a plan? If you haven’t thought about engine problems beforehand, you are screwed. Instead of complaining about the runway condition, think about your emergency options. If you don’t like the risks, fly from another airport. And BTW. Why does it show 80% engine? Please don’t tell me you’re not fully applying the throttle 100%.
That's what I face taking off from a grass strip. Speed building is slow and I have to rotate at 65mph and then I have to build speed in ground effect, then climb out at 70+mph. My Ercoupe won't even try to rotate below 65.
Fascinating! I really enjoyed your pogo analysis. Clear & easily undetood explanations!
Just wondering ... cars use "shock absorbers" - dampening devices that turn movement/oscillation energy into heat.
Would it be an option to equip your canard front wheel assembly with something like that?
Thanks for your videos, learning a lot here!
I’m glad you’re OK thanks for sharing that with us so I Density Altitude of 1600 feet is nothing for us out here in Arizona even in Phoenix the field elevation at Scottsdale is 1500 feet but on a day that it’s 115° that could be 4500 feet Density Altitude then if you go up north to Sedona you’re talking eight 9000 feet Density Altitude could your plane not fly in that kind of Density Altitude?
First things first.... get a haircut! Just kidding. I fly a Long EZ and for slightly shorter takeoff runs as soon as the canard starts flying, I retract the nose gear (hand crank) while the plane is still running on the mains. If you have a Wilhelmson retract system, don't bother. I've installed a couple and I remember timing them at 22 seconds to retract. I think 22 seconds is correct, but not completely sure.
What you call pogo, in automotive I think the term is rebound. The start, compression is called jounce. So you have jounce and rebound.
I worked as a machinist for Delta 22 years and flew out of ATL often. Not an A&P, but I pay attention to details. Atlanta's north inner runway used for taking off used to have the same problem almost center of the runway. You would go through a dip at a fairly high speed from the east end. If you watched you could see the wing tips going up and down a couple of cycles. And almost immediately after the plane settled down, we would rotate.
When I saw the nose pogoing I was screaming "abort! abort!" Fortunately you managed to keep calm and think fast.
This is why I have fear of canards. They need a lot of speed and runway Accidents at 40mph are a lot more survivable than 70mph.
Even on a good day thats a sketchy place to fly out of.
As air traffic controller asked the instructor in the plàne I wàs tràining in, "Ahem, would you like to transfer to a longer runway?" We'd just skimmed the fence, as you did. You have an underpowered plane there, so you need a longer take off run.
Great analysis
There is zero margin for error or any unforeseen circumstance on this runway (power loss, miscalculation of takeoff data...). This was a lucky one but even the "normal" takeoff looked scary...
Omg. Scary runway conditions and tree line. Thank God you are safe and moving to a new location. What would have happened if two souls on board?
I'm not a pilot, but I want to ask: It seems that the runway is not really horizontal in length. There is a concave at 2/3 of the distance? It is a small springboard with a half-foot height. The cave just arsons this premature jump.
It seems that you need a longer run way. I admire your effort to figure things out. You made a decision to place your life at risk to save your plane from damage. What if you retracted your nose gear as you aborted your take off. Only your plane would have this issue.
That additional forward moment would cause more friction on the front wheel which would slow down your ground-roll. I doubt that 1600ft density altitude would cause that much difference from 400ft.
I'm thinking you need to treat that runway the same as a soft-field. Your nose is just bouncing too much and too much ground friction.
Thank you for sharing your experience. Until the runway is fixed, it will be very wise to do SOFT field takeoffs and landings.
One hell of a dangerous runway... short, bumpy and full of trees all around with nowhere to go. I would move to a different field as this is near certain death wrapped around a tree.
Good video. Seen so many video where the pilot couldn't break the instinct to keep pulling back and it ended badly. You made the right move, and quickly. Just wondering about that 25lb weight you moved from the passenger seat to the nose. Not sure how much distance it is from the seat to the forward mount point, but seems like for weight and balance it might be correct to cut the mass in half. Of course I don't have the weight/balance sheet like you do.
RE 65 as your go-no go, sure you may run off the runway into trees if faster than 65, but it looks like lots of trees extending initially in flying too with no real straight ahead landing options. Thoughts to low speed tree impact versus high speed tree impact and having certain items to abort regardless? The whole idea of sacrifice the plane to save occupants notion?
What about checking performance data as part of your preflight to insure adequate clearance over obstacles with maybe a little fudge factor added for safety? (i.e. not enough runway)
Good information about CofG and discussing the moment arm (and yes of course, DA). Thank you for the self analysis. Sharing this well presented information makes the the aviation world safer. Also remain flexible with your abort speed. Sometimes a slow hit into trees on the ground is better than fast hit into trees from the air. A tough decision to make, yes. But one that depends on the situation, and can be life saving.
FASCINATING! Terrifying, but fascinating. Great analysis. I swear my heart is in my throat every time I see you take off on that runway. I’ll stop for gas at the other airport a few minutes away…
Watched 1st and 2nd takeoff several times… Both look perfectly normal to me 🙈
Being airborne does not create drag, the angle of attack does, caused by the plane's attitude. You could just stay in ground effect with the nose relatively low to minimize drag to gain enough airspeed.
Thank you for the detail. I'm not a pilot, as much as I wish I was. I didn't understand why you did not just abort till you explained it.
Why not just reduce weight in front vs adding back to pass seat? You only need 1/2 the weight at twice the moment arm from CG
The second "normal" take of was also not exactly confidence inspiring...
Knowing how things work is better than prayer.......saved ur butt.
I think that extra weight in the front had the bigger impact than the density altitude. At first I thought you were tail heavy when you started down the runway with how much the nose bounced. Five extra pounds up front would probably equate to the 25 pounds under the seat.
the difference of the two departures is huge !
If that little density altitude has that big of a affect then my first thought is: under powered engine.
How much HP is under the hood ?
I fly a Long EZ and have the same springy nose strut issue. On my takeoffs I try to fly the nosewheel an inch or so off the runway during takeoff run to avoid the bouncy nose. It is somewhat of a compromise but the takeoff run is smoother.
So whats the deal? If you get that thing in a nose high attitude draggy mode too slow, there is no good way to recover other than luck? If you pulled back, it would have been all over.
Maybe put a stronger spring or rubber band or whatever on the stick to increase the stick force.
You may want to consider microvortex generators to give you better stall margin and lower your take-off and landing speed (or shorten your ground roll)
I was going to buy an ultra-light with a canard and not take lessons. John Denver changed my mind. Did lessons in a Piper and never had a scary moment like you did.
I used to hope that someone would design a canard ultralight aircraft. Now I think I see why only one person ever attempted it...
Your go no go at 65 knots but if the engine failed at that point wouldn't be better to just roll off the runway try to aim between trees? I would think that is better than being over the trees and not have an engine. The comparison videos the incident video engine was below 80% the normal take off on the left was above 80% while it wasn't big of a difference it was a difference.
If you look at the altitude over time graphs, the aircraft is in a better energy state in the incident takeoff , just compare 6.5 seconds in both takeoffs
Your nose bouncing was considerably more and it appeared to prevent enough acceleration compared to the good take off.
Consult a simple Koch chart to see what the performance penalty is going to be, if any, for every take off.
One thing to keep in mind, sometimes the best option is to kill the throttle and land on what's left. Yes you will overrun but that could be a better outcome compared to other options. Obviously not saying you should have done this here, but don't count out that option if at an airport with very little options if engine failure right at take off