i would love to get the steam gauge Caravan but fear the avionics. It seems to use the default Asobo G750?

35 minutes ago, wiggum said:

i would love to get the steam gauge Caravan but fear the avionics. It seems to use the default Asobo G750?

You can use this the 100% analogue way i.e. VOR and NDB, or with the fancy Garmin GTN 750 (PMS50 or TDS). Plenty of options. If the Caravan is the type of aircraft you might spend some time in, I highly recommend this. Remember the PMS50 is free. 

List of avionics (there's a switch on the panel which lets you choose between the different options):  

• Garmin GMA 340 Audio Panel
• Garmin GTN 750 (Com1) (PMS50 or TDS)
• Garmin GNS 530W (Com1)
• Garmin GNS 430W (Com2)
• Bendix/King KX-155B (Com1/Nav1)
• Bendix/King KX-155B (Com2/Nav2)
• Bendix/King KNS-80 RNAV Navigation System (incl. Nav3)
• Bendix/King KR 87 (ADF)
• Bendix/King KDI 572 (DME)
• Bendix/King KAP 140 Autopilot
• Bendix RDR1150XL Color Weather Radar
• Garmin GTX 327 Transponder

Can someone explain the differences between rotate and takeoff speeds? Is the 2nd one the speed at which the aircraft will actually become airborne? And I don’t get why the aircraft can take off nearly 15-20Kts lower on a short field vs a normal take off… what’s different about the config that enables that? Both are flaps 20 right?

From the Kodiak POH:

 

Edited August 30, 20223 yr by Virtual-Chris

22 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Can someone explain the differences between rotate and takeoff speeds? Is the 2nd one the speed at which the aircraft will actually become airborne? And I don’t get why the aircraft can take off nearly 15-20Kts lower on a short field vs a normal take off… what’s different about the config that enables that? Both are flaps 20 right?

From the Kodiak POH:

 

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Tried looking in the manual, but it seems a bit "basic". 

3 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Tried looking in the manual, but it seems a bit "basic". 

Looking deeper into the manual, it has essentially the same configuration for take-off for both normal and short field...

Although I find it a bit funny, they don't mention brake release for the normal take off... makes you wonder what other typos and omissions might exist in something as important as this 😄

The stall speed on Flaps 20 is noted as going from 44 KIAS to 51 KIAS for Zero Bank Angle (which I guess applies to take off) so a rotate speed at 50 is right on the cusp of a stall which I guess makes sense if you want to get the aircraft into the air as fast as possible.

Edit: Also found this... 

Quote

Minimum ground roll (soft field) takeoffs are accomplished by using 20° of flaps and lifting the nose wheel off the ground as soon as practical and lifting off of the ground in a slightly tail low attitude. Once the airplane is airborne, the nose should be lowered and the airplane accelerated in ground effect to a safe climb speed.

 

Edited August 31, 20223 yr by Virtual-Chris

4 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Can someone explain the differences between rotate and takeoff speeds?

4 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Tried looking in the manual, but it seems a bit "basic". 

I'll do my best!

The purpose of a short field takeoff is to get airborne ASAP, as you know. When performing a short field takeoff in the 208 (or Kodiak), everything pretty much remains the same (unless you're doing a bush short field, then you can use full flaps if needed). The difference is the point at which you reach 50' above the "obstacle." Basically, when you get airborne, you're accelerating in ground effect to reach 72 knots. Remember, the height of ground effect is about 90% the plane's wingspan. So in the case of the C208, having a wing span of just over 52 feet allows the positive effects of ground effect to reach a height of about 47' above the surface. The wing of the C208 wants to fly, but that isn't to say it won't drop on you. Due to prop and engine dynamics, you're going to need quite a bit of right rudder to maintain directional control on rotation and liftoff. You'd be surprised at just how quickly you'll reach 72 knots. As you accelerate and climb out of ground effect you'll be pitching to reach your desired climb speed.

This begs the question, "why wouldn't you want to do this every single takeoff?" Well, to put it simply, it's unnecessary...and it's uncomfortable (for passengers). You certainly could make every takeoff a short field for practice.

Edited August 31, 20223 yr by V1ROTA7E
Aircraft Clarification

I think I've been overlooking the difference between rotate and take-off speed. Basically, the rotate speed is the point at which you start to increase angle of attack to help the aircraft get airborne, and during that, it continues to accelerate until the wings create enough lift for take off, and then continues to accelerate further until the ideal climb speed.  So if you rotate at stall speed, the plane might get airborne at about 1.15 times that, and start to climb, but the ideal angle of attack isn't reached until about 1.3x stall speed.  That would explain all of these different numbers.  

It's still not clear to me if Ryan's TO numbers on his card are rotate speeds or take off speeds.  I guess these are probably rotate speeds but it's not clear why they increase with weight... The plane should get airborne at the same speed regardless of weight, the only thing is that more weight will affect the distance required to achieve that take off speed.  For example, in the Kodiak manual, the recommended take off speeds are independent of weight. Runway length depends on weight. Not sure why he's got take-off speeds depending on weight.

 

Edited August 31, 20223 yr by Virtual-Chris

19 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

So if you rotate at stall speed, the plane might get airborne at about 1.15 times that...

In ground effect, the plane will get airborne whenever it can. That's why premature rotatulation is so dangerous 😄 However, once out of ground effect, if you're 1.15 above stall speed, you'll fly without issues.

 

22 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

but it's not clear why they increase with weight

Lift, Weight, Thrust, Drag - As weight increases so must lift. You're absolutely correct in that it'll take longer to achieve the speed you need to actually get in the air, but once at that speed (let's just use 60 knots as an arbitrary number), you need to be able to create enough lift (through thrust) to get airborne. You're really on the back side of the power curve when you first get in the air. As lift increases, so too does drag, so in the screenshot above, at 7200lbs, you're leveling the playing field. You need to go faster to generate enough lift to power through the weight and drag you are and are producing respectively.

3 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

In ground effect, the plane will get airborne whenever it can. That's why premature rotatulation is so dangerous 😄 However, once out of ground effect, if you're 1.15 above stall speed, you'll fly without issues.

 

Lift, Weight, Thrust, Drag - As weight increases so must lift. You're absolutely correct in that it'll take longer to achieve the speed you need to actually get in the air, but once at that speed (let's just use 60 knots as an arbitrary number), you need to be able to create enough lift (through thrust) to get airborne. You're really on the back side of the power curve when you first get in the air. As lift increases, so too does drag, so in the screenshot above, at 7200lbs, you're leveling the playing field. You need to go faster to generate enough lift to power through the weight and drag you are and are producing respectively.

What you say makes sense, but what doesn't make sense to me, is that there is no indication in the Kodiak POH that you should increase take-off speed based on weight (that I can find).  Why would that be?

3 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

What you say makes sense, but what doesn't make sense to me, is that there is no indication in the Kodiak POH that you should increase take-off speed based on weight (that I can find).  Why would that be?

Interesting question, there are of course 2 ways to increase lift..more speed or increased AoA, both need more power of course.

Light aircraft manuals tend to give performance figures stated as distances to clear something like a 50ft obstacle and the distances change with weight

I suspect (no experience) an airliner POH will have speed references for various weights

7 hours ago, Sceadu said:

Interesting question, there are of course 2 ways to increase lift..more speed or increased AoA, both need more power of course.

Light aircraft manuals tend to give performance figures stated as distances to clear something like a 50ft obstacle and the distances change with weight

I suspect (no experience) an airliner POH will have speed references for various weights

Yeah, right. The POH for the Kodiak has runway length requirements as a function of weight.  Somehow Ryan's company has converted that into speeds.

Have they announced any plans to bring the steam gauge Caravan to the MS marketplace?

13 hours ago, V1ROTA7E said:

I

This begs the question, "why wouldn't you want to do this every single takeoff?" Well, to put it simply, it's unnecessary...and it's uncomfortable (for passengers). You certainly could make every takeoff a short field for practice.

The dicey thing about short takeoffs especially ( any takeoff for that matter) is if you have an engine failure right after rotation, and you don't aggressively push the nose down immediately, you will have a great visual of what a departure stall, and spin into the ground looks like.   The bad thing about immediately, is the first reaction to a power failure, is usually denial, and it takes the brain some time to realize what is happening. This delay could make the difference between remaining flying or crashing into the ground. 

Been flying the analog Caravan a lot lately, but today I decided to take the Kodiak. And I’m not sure if it’s meant to be realistic or not, but it’s way more twitchy in the vertical axis than the Caravan. It’s hard not to over-rotate and risk a stall. 

There’s supposed to be an update I think (perhaps they’re waiting for SU10 to release). Hopefully they can address this. Anyone else got the same experience?

At the moment I really prefer the Caravan.

8 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Been flying the analog Caravan a lot lately, but today I decided to take the Kodiak. And I’m not sure if it’s meant to be realistic or not, but it’s way more twitchy in the vertical axis than the Caravan. It’s hard not to over-rotate and risk a stall. 

There’s supposed to be an update I think (perhaps they’re waiting for SU10 to release). Hopefully they can address this. Anyone else got the same experience?

At the moment I really prefer the Caravan.

Adjust your controls so that they feel like a real aircraft....