You know better than make a silly statement like that! He lost speed during his climb then it rolled. He was not climbing in a VMC roll?



It’s not the gear twisting that causes the majority of the drag it’s the of the gear doors.

I will video my gear coming up next time so you can see the Commander retraction sequence. You can feel the drag decreasing almost immediately upon selection of gear up.



Let’s dont forget they actually flew a Commander from Oklahoma to DC with an engine removed and placed in the cabin. That’s a single engine take off!

My opinion even this pilot could have flown a Commander out of it. It’s a very forgiving airplane.



Replace boneheaded with conservative and I would agree.

I just don’t believe I will be on my A game when something happens.

Steve, a minor correction. They removed the prop , not the engine and placed the prop in the cabin.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Interesting, we have five absolute abort items we brief before taking the runway (before V1 in the jet, but in the King Air, prior to lift off at 98 knots):
Engine failure.
Engine or other fire.
Runway encroachment.
Lack of directional control.
TR deployment (in the Citation).

Then, if an annunciator lights that is critical. Fuel Pressure or Oil pressure would be one of those.

Sounds like this gentlemen departed with an engine malfunctioning. Wonder if he did a pre-departure brief or was just overwhelmed.

I'm scratching my head about engine failures on takeoff occurring more often. How does the engine know? I usually have power set pretty early on the runway and don't change that power until 400 AGL. I don't see why a failure would be more likely to occur here, but I'm always leaning.

And it was a much lighter piston version.

It was noted as being "unprecedented". There's no question the Commander emphasized engine out performance over other parameters. There are always negatives to any optimization and structural margins was one of them.

Mike C.

Years ago piper also removed a prop on an Apache and flew it cross country.

And it was a much lighter piston version.

It was noted as being "unprecedented". There's no question the Commander emphasized engine out performance over other parameters. There are always negatives to any optimization and structural margins was one of them.

Mike C.

Steve,

There is this thing called "math", we engineers use it all the time.

You simply can't get to 200 AGL if the plane doesn't have POSITIVE climb capability at STEADY (non slowing) speed. There simply isn't enough energy stored in the forward speed to trade it for 200 ft AGL altitude from liftoff.

10,000 lbs plane at 200 ft AGL is 2,000,000 ft lbs of potential energy.

10,000 lbs plane at 105 knots Vr is 4,864,000 fl lbs of energy.

10,000 lbs plane at 93 knots Vmc is 3,827,000 fl lbs of energy.

Trading speed to get energy only yields about 1,000,000 fl lbs of energy you can use.

The speed loss is thus only about half the energy you need to get to 200 ft AGL, and that does not count the drag which is eating energy all the time. It would be safe to assume he needed 4 times the energy he got from speed loss to make it to 200 ft AGL.

The fact he got to 200 ft AGL means the plane had positive climb gradient even if he held speed. He could not have reach 200 ft AGL based solely on trading speed to altitude. It was after he reached 200 ft AGL and pulled up that Vmc started.

[If you are in cruise, you have a LOT more energy in airspeed and can trade that for quite a lot of altitude, but that isn't the case just after takeoff.]

One can develop even more detailed models using performance data from the AFM, effectively measuring the drag so we know how much total energy was really required.


The MU2 gear doors do not appreciable increase drag during retraction. The 10 ft altitude loss comes almost entirely from the main wheels turning sideways similarly to the Commander.


You are feeling the release of force on the gear down locks which provides a momentary short burst of forward acceleration. The gear drag does increase slightly as it comes up, however, but it isn't so sharp that you can sense it so easily.

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvHNavJNjTs

If you stop the gear half way, it would be some drag increase.


Absolutely. Any pilot COULD have flown out of this.

This pilot didn't. I don't think the choice of airplane was meaningfully influential to the outcome.


Then you should not fly if you can't be ready.

The VAST majority of fatal accidents have nothing to do with the engines. Thus you are at a serious disadvantage if you only bring your B game to an A game situation.

There is nothing more dangerous in aviation than believing an airplane is safe enough to fly not at your best.

Mike C.

I'm sure I could do that with an MU2 as well. The book says I have positive gradient in takeoff configuration (gear down, flaps 20) at gross weight. Find a nice long runway, accelerate to well above Vmc, liftoff, gear up in ground effect, fly away. I've demonstrated positive climb in takeoff configuration in the air.

I'm not going to do it, of course, but the data says it will work.

The Commander would do it more easily. Large light wing loading helps.

Mike C.

I my experienced, your A game can disappeared quickly!

Even when things get handled satisfactory I have thought about what I did not do properly for weeks following the event.

It’s never like a scripted simulator scenario.

Never did like math!