"Barnyard BOb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:28:10 GMT, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Stealth Pilot" wrote

maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
better way of flying them.
interesting.


You may have finally made a positive point for hot-dogging. Anyone
think of
a down side?

Not a one.

Richard
-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Yes, and I'm surprised there is no rebuttal.
If it was better, it wouldn't be called 'hot-dogging.' ;-)

For openers...
The FAA is not known to support 'hot-dogging'.
Neither do legit aircraft manufacturers, AFAIK.

Why?
Like has been said...
It's just hot-dogging.

hot-dogging;

1. to perform in a recklessly or flamboyantly skillful manner,
show off.

2. intended or done to draw attention; showy or sensational.


Although speed can be traded for altitude,
you won't get as much with this technique
or as much opportunity to pick a crash site.


Blast away.
Nomex union suit - ON.


- Barnyard BOb -



Ok, but this is not enough to require Nomex--much less a real, industrial
strength, asbestos suit over it. ;-)

My disagreement is only with calling it Hot Dogging. What Stealth Pilot
suggested, and called Hot Dogging, was really just a soft field take off
without the soft field. Accelerate in ground effect, retract the wheels as
appropriate, and begin climbing at the normal climb speed. I have read that
the proceedure was strongly advised for some low powered retractables, such
as the early Swifts, to reduce the risks during the early part of the
climb--although that had to do with maintaining a usefull climb angle over
obstacles, rather than a possible loss of power.

FWIW, there may be some additional lessons regarding regarding a formation
take off, especially using dissimilar aircraft--which I will leave to those
with the required experience.

Peter