Was getting my fill of takeoff videos and ran across this https://youtu.be/GZm-wBPsgTM

Does this look like a safe takeoff or could rotating so fast and steep be considered uncalled for hot dogging?

Andre3K wrote:

Was getting my fill of takeoff videos and ran across this https://youtu.be/GZm-wBPsgTM

Does this look like a safe takeoff or could rotating so fast and steep be considered uncalled for hot dogging?

I don't know what you're looking at but it looks normal to me. I remember when NWA first got the 757 your video would pale in comparison to what they were doing. NW management made the pilots tone it down. Your video looks pretty tame to me.

A bit hard to tell from this view but I'll over-analyse based on scant data.

First, let's separate "rotation" from "initial climb". Rotation is the maneuver where, starting with all wheels on the runway, the nose is pitched up to an initial target pitch angle. This takes a few seconds. Once rotation is complete, the aircraft has left the ground and transitions to "initial climb". In the initial climb, thrust is constant and speed is held by varying pitch angle. This is either done with raw data, i.e. looking at the speed trend, or by following flight director guidance. Importantly, flight directors should not be followed during "dynamic maneuvers" such as rotation.

My impression is that rotation is neither too fast or nor too high. It's not a large aircraft, so pitch up at rotation can be pretty rapid.

After rotation, pitch angle is relatively high, but this is normal for a business jet since performance tends to better than for airliners. Lots of power and low weight leads to high pitch angle.

If pitch angle had been significantly too high, speed would have dropped, and the pilot would have had to decrease pitch angle. This doesn¨t seem to happen in the initial climb, indicating that the pitch attitude is correct.

Have to be completely honest here, I am aware of all the things you guys mentioned, I really just wanted to post this video and get some discussion going. And there is no better way to do that then adding some easy to answer questions.

That being said, according to the description (and the pilot talking in the background) the takeoff roll was 700m which I guess is far less than 3000ft which you have to admit is impressive for a jet that size.

Andre3K wrote:

Was getting my fill of takeoff videos and ran across this https://youtu.be/GZm-wBPsgTM

Does this look like a safe takeoff or could rotating so fast and steep be considered uncalled for hot dogging?

I have a few hours in the 7x.

Whilst everything looks within reason, we were advised to climb with a lower deck angle for the comfort of pax. Best aircraft I've flown to date.

Looks perfectly reasonable to me. FWIW, Space X is/was the first operational customer for the 8X in the US, Also operate a G650 out of KVNY.

Pretty normal for a lightweight twin-engine jet take-off. A CL 350 has about 18,000# of thrust and on a short trip can weight under 30,000#. F430 in less than 16 minutes easily. Deck angle on a light Global is 17*. Vr at light weighs is less than 100 knots, pretty short all engines operating roll.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Pretty normal for a lightweight twin-engine jet take-off. A CL 350 has about 18,000# of thrust and on a short trip can weight under 30,000#. F430 in less than 16 minutes easily. Deck angle on a light Global is 17*. Vr at light weighs is less than 100 knots, pretty short all engines operating roll.

GF

Have you ever done a takeoff that would get you fired if someone got it on film?

Why would anyone get fired for a max performance TO? To much drama.....

No, they’re all within the AFM limits. Lightweight twins have huge excess thrust due to the inherent requirements of FAR 25 take-off OEI, so it’s a feature, not a fireable offense to fly the plane. I’ve done some max performance take-offs for photos, in fact. A lot of it is in the camera angles rather than the deck angles.

GF

Looks steeper than most but not unsafe. Possibly a demo flight to prospective buyer where this type of maneuver would be part of the flight profile.

Possibly, I’ve been asked to demo a max performance take-off. A deck angle of about 25*, still maintaining some acceleration at V2 plus a bunch impressed the back without being remotely scary. The rotation rate at Vr was difficult to maintain V2+20 without being uncomfortably rapid.

GF

.....it's in the video description.

My only issue is filming in portrait.

If you look at any number of Boeing promo videos you will see maximum use of camera angles to create a dramatic visual excesses.

True enough the camera can play tricks (and purposely) on the apparent angle. This is even done at airshows where more than likely passes between 2 aircraft are made to look more dramatic than they really are.

This seems pretty standard for light private jets.

I've seen 5,6,7000 FPM climbs in jets like this before.

Ok i'm seeing a theme here of downplaying the takeoff and saying it looks standard, which accord to the pilot was a max performance takeoff IE not standard (you wouldn't do it if you didn't absolutely need to (other than showing off). If that is the case then what do you call this 727 takeoff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kid23ZZbd1A

Someone going to call that standard as well (from a Vspeed rotation perspective).

No, rotate was too early (likely) and positively too little deck angle. It didn’t lift off for 2,000’.

GF

How about this one?

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

Andre3K wrote:

If that is the case then what do you call this 727 takeoff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kid23ZZbd1A
.

I'd call it pure showboating (but well within a/c limits). Check the elevator position throughout.

nuke wrote:

How about this one?

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

Too much wasted runway . This is how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BY7-LgF7d4

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

Well, maybe not the whole internet, just the aviation portion!

GF

Well since were posting cool vids of planes taking off with the nose gear off the runway well before actual liftoff....here is one that I always thought to be awesome. TWA 747. Sadly this is N93119 which was TWA flight 800, but definitely giving us some eye candy with this takeoff in her better days.

https://youtu.be/nm-q9BEWMGU

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

What do you mean?

Elsewhere, the earning is, “friends don’t let friends read Airlners.net”

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

And let me guess, arguing about an airline's fleet choices is much more productive? Like any of you has any control over whether your favorite airline buys an airplane you love or despise. How high is the horse really?

Don't like this place since it became free? You know the rest...

nuke wrote:

How about this one?

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

Was 10R closed? That was sketchy.

Andre3K wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

And let me guess, arguing about an airline's fleet choices is much more productive? Like any of you has any control over whether your favorite airline buys an airplane you love or despise. How high is the horse really?

Don't like this place since it became free? You know the rest...

Well if you just joined 10 months ago it was free then as well.

BravoOne wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

And let me guess, arguing about an airline's fleet choices is much more productive? Like any of you has any control over whether your favorite airline buys an airplane you love or despise. How high is the horse really?

Don't like this place since it became free? You know the rest...

Well if you just joined 10 months ago it was free then as well.

What i'm saying is that posting on the forum used to require a paid membership, I don't know exactly how long it's been free nor does it matter in this case.

I doubt that paying would make any difference, Actually they should ask for say $25 per year IMO

Andre3K wrote:

What i'm saying is that posting on the forum used to require a paid membership, I don't know exactly how long it's been free nor does it matter in this case.

How long ago exactly are you talking about? I’ve been a member for 19 years now and payment has never been required for forum posting as long as I’ve been around.

CCGPV wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

What do you mean?

These kinds of arguments are both hilarious and frustrating at the same time because when a similar question is asked a pilot will more often than not come on and say that the incident in question is not a big deal. Then you will have a bunch of supposed experts chime in with an opinion, often saying how “pilots always down play everything” and then say how unsafe said operation was. To all the pilots it is clear that these persons only flying experience is looking sideways from the passenger cabin.

A Climb at the proper speed, regardless of deck angle, gets you away from the ground quicker...better in most situations. The reason most pilot comments on here are “down-playing” is because most things involving airplane operations on airliners.net is blown out of proportion.

trnswrld wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

What i'm saying is that posting on the forum used to require a paid membership, I don't know exactly how long it's been free nor does it matter in this case.

How long ago exactly are you talking about? I’ve been a member for 19 years now and payment has never been required for forum posting as long as I’ve been around.

Well what was the first class membership? I always thought that was required to post. You mean I’ve missed like 10+ years of posting?

double post

Passedv1 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

These kind of posts are the reason Airliners remains an internet joke.

What do you mean?

These kinds of arguments are both hilarious and frustrating at the same time because when a similar question is asked a pilot will more often than not come on and say that the incident in question is not a big deal. Then you will have a bunch of supposed experts chime in with an opinion, often saying how “pilots always down play everything” and then say how unsafe said operation was. To all the pilots it is clear that these persons only flying experience is looking sideways from the passenger cabin.

A Climb at the proper speed, regardless of deck angle, gets you away from the ground quicker...better in most situations. The reason most pilot comments on here are “down-playing” is because most things involving airplane operations on airliners.net is blown out of proportion.

That’s good to know. So one of you pilots do me a favor next time you go flying, without over speeding get up to the maximum maneuvering speed and pull up into a 90 degree climb until your speed is at the proper climb speed.

Andre3K wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

What i'm saying is that posting on the forum used to require a paid membership, I don't know exactly how long it's been free nor does it matter in this case.

How long ago exactly are you talking about? I’ve been a member for 19 years now and payment has never been required for forum posting as long as I’ve been around.

Well what was the first class membership? I always thought that was required to post. You mean I’ve missed like 10+ years of posting?

You profile shows you have been a member for 10 months?

Andre3K wrote:

That’s good to know. So one of you pilots do me a favor next time you go flying, without over speeding get up to the maximum maneuvering speed and pull up into a 90 degree climb until your speed is at the proper climb speed.

Here's a better suggestion: Why don't you stick to your area of expertise, and then us aviators won't query everything you do, and you don't have to query us for everything you deem unsafe.

Every scenario is different. In the military we'd routinely practice max effort departures where you climb out at 100KIAS to clear an obstacle, which is below Vmca2 and just above Vmca3. We'd know the risk, and are trained for it.

In civilian life, with the same aircraft, there is not a need to practice it in training nor day-to-day flying unless you have to do a threat-evasion departure, and you would brief for it.

What happens sometimes is that you fly an empty aircraft, and if you pitch to maintain V2+10 or flap retraction speed after a full power take-off, is that it looks spectacular from outside as the plane is designed for short-field work. Armchair FAA law enforcers like yourself would like to call us unsafe though.

Andre3K wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

What i'm saying is that posting on the forum used to require a paid membership, I don't know exactly how long it's been free nor does it matter in this case.

How long ago exactly are you talking about? I’ve been a member for 19 years now and payment has never been required for forum posting as long as I’ve been around.

Well what was the first class membership? I always thought that was required to post. You mean I’ve missed like 10+ years of posting?

Hehe, I’m thinking so.

SAAFNAV wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

That’s good to know. So one of you pilots do me a favor next time you go flying, without over speeding get up to the maximum maneuvering speed and pull up into a 90 degree climb until your speed is at the proper climb speed.

Here's a better suggestion: Why don't you stick to your area of expertise, and then us aviators won't query everything you do, and you don't have to query us for everything you deem unsafe.

Every scenario is different. In the military we'd routinely practice max effort departures where you climb out at 100KIAS to clear an obstacle, which is below Vmca2 and just above Vmca3. We'd know the risk, and are trained for it.

In civilian life, with the same aircraft, there is not a need to practice it in training nor day-to-day flying unless you have to do a threat-evasion departure, and you would brief for it.

What happens sometimes is that you fly an empty aircraft, and if you pitch to maintain V2+10 or flap retraction speed after a full power take-off, is that it looks spectacular from outside as the plane is designed for short-field work. Armchair FAA law enforcers like yourself would like to call us unsafe though.

I just realized something, you are making all these assumptions because you can't for some reason read a few posts down and see that #1 I never said the takeoff was unsafe and #2 I started this to get a discussion going, really just to get some video posts going.

As far as "sticking to my area of expertise", last time I checked there was nobody on earth who knows everything about everything, not even the engineers. Sometimes pilots know more than engineers, sometimes its the other way around.

If what you are saying is in essence "Don't ask any questions here at all" then why don't you refrain from answering if in your mind every question or topic is a stupid one. Or are you one of those high and mighty people that think the only thing worth discussing here is the fleet choices of an airline you have no control over.

Lastly EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ASKED HERE ALREADY. There are going to be repeat questions and discussion's, There are going to be questions and discussions you don't like, and in those instances you should show your professionalism and keep your mouth shut.

BravoOne wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

How long ago exactly are you talking about? I’ve been a member for 19 years now and payment has never been required for forum posting as long as I’ve been around.

Well what was the first class membership? I always thought that was required to post. You mean I’ve missed like 10+ years of posting?

You profile shows you have been a member for 10 months?

What I'm saying is I've been lurking since like 2004.

Does this look like a safe takeoff or could rotating so fast and steep be considered uncalled for hot dogging?

Between that quote from your post #1 and the title you choose, it dies appear that you’re thinking it’s unsafe and you don’t have the expertise to actually determine that as fact. GMAFB.

GF

[threeid][/threeid]

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Does this look like a safe takeoff or could rotating so fast and steep be considered uncalled for hot dogging?

Between that quote from your post #1 and the title you choose, it dies appear that you’re thinking it’s unsafe and you don’t have the expertise to actually determine that as fact. GMAFB.

GF

Sometimes the message gets misconstrued by the messenger. And if it makes you feel better, this is without a doubt an unsafe takeoff, no “expertise” required https://youtu.be/Kle80KB_s3I

Waiting patiently for some expert to call it by the book.

True, it’s even titled as near tailstrike and stall. The plane touched down after initial lift-off. The video and your use of it implies some sort of pilot error, intentional or not. The facts are not presented in the video. Was it a loading error? Was it pilot error entering correct load information resulting in wrong speeds used, YMML EK tailstrike, for example? Was it wind shear, however unlikely. Was it pilot error in rotating to early? Was it a willful attempt to show off? Before any determination oft being “unsafe”; we need a boat load of facts.

The point is, there are well-experienced investigatory bodies, governmental and company, that make these determinations, not forums of passengers, fanboys and an occasional pilot. I’ve done internal investigations and they involve orders of magnitude more work than watching a YouTube video. There are data collection experts, trained investigators analyzing the information, interviews, etc.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The point is, there are well-experienced investigatory bodies, governmental and company, that make these determinations, not forums of passengers, fanboys and an occasional pilot. I’ve done internal investigations and they involve orders of magnitude more work than watching a YouTube video. There are data collection experts, trained investigators analyzing the information, interviews, etc.

GF

Sounds like a perfect answer. So the next engine explosion, crash landing, runway overrun, or whatever else happens outside the normal what you are saying is there should be NO discussion or Monday morning quarterbacking, or guessing (even if it's an educated one). If that actually happened here, how many topics would you kill off just because nobody here as far as I know is an NTSB investigator.

I hope to see you in the next incident topic nipping it in the bud. It should just be a one topic post followed by "let's just wait for the NTSB" then lock the topic.

Yes, there’ll be the usual Monday quarterbacking of an actual accident. You’re trying to question a thoroughly normal take-off based on no expertise other than it looking unusual to you on a YouTube video. Not quite the same.

And, uninformed guessing by passengers and fanboys isn’t the same as pilots experienced in type relating their experience. Just read comments here or in the mass media to prove my case.

GF

I was specifically quoting this part of your reply:

Andre3K wrote:

That’s good to know. So one of you pilots do me a favor next time you go flying, without over speeding get up to the maximum maneuvering speed and pull up into a 90 degree climb until your speed is at the proper climb speed.

That reply is an argument in reductio ad absurdum, and not to mention challenging to any pilot who denies that your first video is unsafe or show-boating.
It read that 'if you don't send me a video of you doing that, then it must be unsafe and you won't risk your career'.

Andre3K wrote:

I just realized something, you are making all these assumptions because you can't for some reason read a few posts down and see that #1 I never said the takeoff was unsafe and #2 I started this to get a discussion going, really just to get some video posts going.

Up until post #8, the post was factual, but after your question was so succinctly answered by Starlionblue, and at reply #18 you started accusing the pilots on A.net downplaying every incident.

For the record, I do not ever think that I know it all. I learn something new everyday (both on this forum and flying at work) and have asked questions before that was answered very well. However, once someone answered my question, I do not generally go further to argue about what the more informed person told me.

Your initial question was good and appreciated by a lot of people and stirred conversation, until your accusation in post #18.

It seems like you keep on picking fights just so that someone will say you are right.

SAAFNAV wrote:

I was specifically quoting this part of your reply:

Andre3K wrote:

That’s good to know. So one of you pilots do me a favor next time you go flying, without over speeding get up to the maximum maneuvering speed and pull up into a 90 degree climb until your speed is at the proper climb speed.

That reply is an argument in reductio ad absurdum, and not to mention challenging to any pilot who denies that your first video is unsafe or show-boating.
It read that 'if you don't send me a video of you doing that, then it must be unsafe and you won't risk your career'.

Andre3K wrote:

I just realized something, you are making all these assumptions because you can't for some reason read a few posts down and see that #1 I never said the takeoff was unsafe and #2 I started this to get a discussion going, really just to get some video posts going.

Up until post #8, the post was factual, but after your question was so succinctly answered by Starlionblue, and at reply #18 you started accusing the pilots on A.net downplaying every incident.

For the record, I do not ever think that I know it all. I learn something new everyday (both on this forum and flying at work) and have asked questions before that was answered very well. However, once someone answered my question, I do not generally go further to argue about what the more informed person told me.

Your initial question was good and appreciated by a lot of people and stirred conversation, until your accusation in post #18.

It seems like you keep on picking fights just so that someone will say you are right.

I'm not picking fights, I just hate it when people just step on anyone who isn't in their shoes, which there is a ton of on this site. If you don't like questions from people who might not have the "expertise" that you have, then wouldn't PPrune be a better place to hang out?

I'm tired of going back and forth about this really, it's so far off topic i'm surprised a mod hasn't said something yet.

Yes the takeoff was safe, but it was no doubt a steep one, yes business jets are overpowered by design, but because of that most of the takeoffs i have seen looked docile by comparison save for airshow demo's (unless the passengers want to feel like they are going thru the floor). I'll admit I didn't really think out the way I posted in the original post. I have that issue all the time where I just blurt(type) something out without really thinking it thru. Nobody is perfect.

The problem is questions are asked then, when answered, the questioner doesn’t believe the answer from a technical “expert” and argues about it. There are lots of threads where this happens or patently silly questions are asked. “underserved” routes are unprofitable, but the threads keep coming. One thread offered an after burning B727 with F-18 power. One thread blasted me to perdition because I suggested the really rich fly on their own planes, not first class.

If I don’t know something and get an expert’s answer, I shut up and go forth smarter.


GF