mike siggins
Airman
whats the least amount of feet u could get one off the ground in an a emergency and the time to start it and get moving
take off distance in emergency for allied and axis fighters
- Thread starter mike siggins
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Of course it would vary by aircraft - you also have to consider headwinds as well. Some flight manuals have that data in performance charts.
drgondog
Major
When my father was rescued from a French wheat field in the first Mustang Piggy Back rescue on August 18th, They (Royce Priest) got the Mustang up in about 400 yards according to the report..recently cut but not plowed..
davebender
1st Lieutenant
570 meters to take off.
750 meters to take off at max weight of 13.75 tons.
I assume these distances were without rocket assisted take off.
500 to 700 meters landing distance.
750 meters to take off at max weight of 13.75 tons.
I assume these distances were without rocket assisted take off.
500 to 700 meters landing distance.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
As Joe mentioned, it depends on a number of factors - the type (and TO weight) of the aircraft, runway surface, wind (and direction), air temperature, atmospheric pressure, and elevation (of the field).
The Pilot's Notes (Flight Manuals) for individual aircraft, will show this information for various configurations, based on average met conditions, and normally state temperature and pressure conditions.
The Pilot's Notes (Flight Manuals) for individual aircraft, will show this information for various configurations, based on average met conditions, and normally state temperature and pressure conditions.
GregP
Major
In the case of the Bf 109, they had the crank that had to be turned to get the flywheel spinning to get a start. I'd bet on cold mornings it wasn't a rapid affair. Of course, if the battery went down on an electric start fighter, then getting the cart to the plane probably also wasn't a rapid affair, either.
In an ideal situation, the electric start fighters would probably be running sooner, but also probably not significantly so.
The shortest takeoff distance I know of in a fighter is the F8F-2 Beaecat. The calm takeoff distance with a 150-gallon centerline tank was 605 feet, but if the aircraft was clean, it could get off in less than 400 feet. I've seen as little as 285 feet quoted, but it was SHORT.
Of course the Bearcat also came in at the tail end of WWII. The F4U-4 has a calm wind takeoff distance listed as 790 feet with one 150-gallon external tank and I can't seem to find one for a clean aircraft.
I'm betting we'll find most at around 1,100 - 1,200 feet, clean, on a decent surface, with a typical wartime loadout. To me, when I watch a Spitfire takeoff today, it seems to be pretty short. Unfortunately, I have never actually measured it or seen it measured, and they aren't flown today with a wartime loadout.
At the Planes of Fame Museum, we operate many fighters including an A6M5 Model 52 Zero with the original engine. For a properly-running radial, once the preflight is done and the pilot is in the cockpit and has called the tower, they'll wait 4 - 8 seconds for the starter to spin up, engage it, count 8 - 12 blades and start. That takes maybe 15 - 25 seconds total. The engine, even if recently run, usually takes 20 - 30 seconds to burn out the oil in the lower cylinders and settle into a consistent, smooth idle ... longer if it has been sitting awhile. Radials do NOT like to be throttle-jockied and the taxi out to the end of the runway at Chino usually takes several minutes, possibly 5 - 8 minutes for the temps be be in the green and ready for takeoff. Some of that might just be operation from a modern airport instead of from a WWII combat runway.
For an inline V-12, like a Merlin or an Allison, the engine usualy starts in the first several blades and settles into an idle in less than 10 seconds. They take about the same length of time to taxi out and takeoff with temps in the green.
In a pinch, they COULD get off sooner, but you really want the temps in the green arc before you aviate, at least in peacetime. It helps pilot longevity. I'm sure that if an airfield were being attacked, they'd takeoff without waiting for warmup and could probably get airborn in less than 2 minutes from engagement of the starter, depending on how far they had to taxi to takeoff. Many times the crews chiefs in cold weather would start the aircraft and get the engines warm before the scheduled flight time, so warmup wasn't an issue.
If they were in a European farmer's field, they didn't have to taxi and were probably dispersed pointing into the wind when parked, so they could just gun it and go. Most of us in here probably seen films of Bf 109's and Spirfires doing just that. If they were in a parking area on a coral runway on an atoll, they'd have to taxi quite a way to get to the active runway and there was no shortcut since the coral is very sharp and they'd likely get flat tires or worse if they didn't use the prepared surface all the way.
In an ideal situation, the electric start fighters would probably be running sooner, but also probably not significantly so.
The shortest takeoff distance I know of in a fighter is the F8F-2 Beaecat. The calm takeoff distance with a 150-gallon centerline tank was 605 feet, but if the aircraft was clean, it could get off in less than 400 feet. I've seen as little as 285 feet quoted, but it was SHORT.
Of course the Bearcat also came in at the tail end of WWII. The F4U-4 has a calm wind takeoff distance listed as 790 feet with one 150-gallon external tank and I can't seem to find one for a clean aircraft.
I'm betting we'll find most at around 1,100 - 1,200 feet, clean, on a decent surface, with a typical wartime loadout. To me, when I watch a Spitfire takeoff today, it seems to be pretty short. Unfortunately, I have never actually measured it or seen it measured, and they aren't flown today with a wartime loadout.
At the Planes of Fame Museum, we operate many fighters including an A6M5 Model 52 Zero with the original engine. For a properly-running radial, once the preflight is done and the pilot is in the cockpit and has called the tower, they'll wait 4 - 8 seconds for the starter to spin up, engage it, count 8 - 12 blades and start. That takes maybe 15 - 25 seconds total. The engine, even if recently run, usually takes 20 - 30 seconds to burn out the oil in the lower cylinders and settle into a consistent, smooth idle ... longer if it has been sitting awhile. Radials do NOT like to be throttle-jockied and the taxi out to the end of the runway at Chino usually takes several minutes, possibly 5 - 8 minutes for the temps be be in the green and ready for takeoff. Some of that might just be operation from a modern airport instead of from a WWII combat runway.
For an inline V-12, like a Merlin or an Allison, the engine usualy starts in the first several blades and settles into an idle in less than 10 seconds. They take about the same length of time to taxi out and takeoff with temps in the green.
In a pinch, they COULD get off sooner, but you really want the temps in the green arc before you aviate, at least in peacetime. It helps pilot longevity. I'm sure that if an airfield were being attacked, they'd takeoff without waiting for warmup and could probably get airborn in less than 2 minutes from engagement of the starter, depending on how far they had to taxi to takeoff. Many times the crews chiefs in cold weather would start the aircraft and get the engines warm before the scheduled flight time, so warmup wasn't an issue.
If they were in a European farmer's field, they didn't have to taxi and were probably dispersed pointing into the wind when parked, so they could just gun it and go. Most of us in here probably seen films of Bf 109's and Spirfires doing just that. If they were in a parking area on a coral runway on an atoll, they'd have to taxi quite a way to get to the active runway and there was no shortcut since the coral is very sharp and they'd likely get flat tires or worse if they didn't use the prepared surface all the way.
Last edited:
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
285 feet on the Bearcat? That's how it's done kids.
Theo Nau said it best about his BF 109G-14/AS, 'it all depends how fast you can get to 170km/h, obviously, faster with a 20km/h head wind'.
His most memorable experiences was taking off / landing from firebreaks in the middle of a pine forest. That ladies gentlemen, takes
serious 'Hodensack', on the same level as carrier landings no doubt.
His most memorable experiences was taking off / landing from firebreaks in the middle of a pine forest. That ladies gentlemen, takes
serious 'Hodensack', on the same level as carrier landings no doubt.
GregP
Major
The Bf 109 is quite a handful in pavement, but seems to have been rather mild mannered on grass. Still, from a firebreak? You are right ... on a par with a carrier takeoff and landing except for the rollout. Not many firebreaks had arrester cables ... unless that was a very special pine forrest. "-)
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
getting off the ground is only part of your problem. density altitude is going to dictate a lot of that, but more importantly getting over the nearest obstacle in your way....is going to determine your success. if you were on a flat plain with no trees, buildings. electric lines, etc. you can get it off the ground pretty quick and nurse it to alt. if you have something you need to get over....when i was looking to buy a plane a guy had a Rans Coyote advertised with a "little gear" damage. i went to look at the craft. he recently bought it and went literally by the average take off distance. he measured the field behind his house and it was just that about that length..actually a little longer. so the boy tools down the field fat, dumb, and happy to fly his new crate only to find he can get only half as high as the 60 foot wall of trees in front of him. he pulled up, stalled, mushed in....little gear damage, prop strike engine, busted motor mount, and a host of other crap. he now had an $8,000. paperweight as far as i was concerned. he's lucky to be alive.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gotta throw in density altitude as well, good point!
P-38 take off data;
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...-tech/p-38-flight-manual-4878.html#post185904
P-38 take off data;
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...-tech/p-38-flight-manual-4878.html#post185904
At that time in 1945, EVERYTHING was a air strip. Imagine 60 foot pines 50 feet off your Port/Starboard sides, and a thin strip 400 meters long ahead of you, and you have to land there. This was done mainly because as he said, 'to hide from allied aircraft'. They had a main base, and various satellite strips in the general area. Kinda of like 'don't have all your eggs in one basket' kind of thing. You are correct that the 109 was much more tame on 'natural earth' then concrete/asphalt runways.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
they do...
Shortround6
Major General
Slightly variable????? 
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
Slightly variable?????
the hotter the air...the thinner it is....the longer its going to take to get your butt off the ground...slightly variable. most manuals give you both a take off distance and distance to clear a 50' object.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
All CV based fighter aircraft had short take off runs. I'll hazard a guess A6M2 and Me-109T could also take off in a very short distance.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The quality of this youtube video isnt great but it shows an A6M taking off in quite a short run. Beautiful bird I bet it could take off almost vertically into a strong wind.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAOEh4uY5Y
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAOEh4uY5Y
GregP
Major
That's Steve Hinton in the Planes of Fame A6M5 Model 52 Zero. We love to see it fly occasionally.
Right now it is in Japan for a visit, but should be back in a couple of months. At that time, we MAY just leave it packaged and ship it to Duxford for the show. The Museum staff will make that call. It was over in Japan for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the first flight in Japan. Their first flight site is soirt of like ours. There is a museum there, but no runway. So we couldn't actually go fly it for them without an airplort or at least a smooth field to fly from. But we were able to start it and run it until warm for the patrons a few times.
The only concession made to authenticity in the restoration was some modern radios, moving the pilot's seat back a few inches for our taller pilots, and making the rudder pedals adjustable. Of course we used new control cables, etc. But that's to be expected anyway. Otherwise, it was done per the manual. It has some rather ingenious foding steps, but most of the pilots (we have three) just take a short run and jump up onto the wing for entry.
Right now it is in Japan for a visit, but should be back in a couple of months. At that time, we MAY just leave it packaged and ship it to Duxford for the show. The Museum staff will make that call. It was over in Japan for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the first flight in Japan. Their first flight site is soirt of like ours. There is a museum there, but no runway. So we couldn't actually go fly it for them without an airplort or at least a smooth field to fly from. But we were able to start it and run it until warm for the patrons a few times.
The only concession made to authenticity in the restoration was some modern radios, moving the pilot's seat back a few inches for our taller pilots, and making the rudder pedals adjustable. Of course we used new control cables, etc. But that's to be expected anyway. Otherwise, it was done per the manual. It has some rather ingenious foding steps, but most of the pilots (we have three) just take a short run and jump up onto the wing for entry.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I was being 'slightly' sarcastic.
Going to 92 degrees F could add 30% to the take-off to 50 ft, Taking off a 3000ft altitude runway could add 14%-22% (depending on weight) to the distance to clear 50% over and above the temperature adjustment.
Seems like a LOT of 'slightly variable'
