Could you tell me the difference between a short field takeoff and a minimum ground run takeoff?

Question

Also, could you explain to me the reasons for using these techniques. Thanking you in advance. Lizzie :o)

Re whether it's the same or not:
I'm asking these questions for my husband who is doing his license, I'm just copying down what he says .

So I plead ignorance on the content !
I can't even drive a manual car.. too complicated ! :o)

Answer 1

Research

Answer 2

Irv and Malibu are correct. In a short-field takeoff on a hard surfaced runway, the pilot may actually hold the airplane on the ground past the point at which it could have lifted off, to take advantage of the better acceleration on the paved runway as opposed to a turf strip. Then you "pop it off" and go for the best angle of climb to get over the trees, escape dinosaurs, or whatever.

Use partial flaps as recommended by the manufacturer, of course.

The "minimum ground roll" approach is used when the runway surface is rough, wet, or sticky. You start at full power with the stick or yoke all the way back. You don't set the brakes as you would on a paved runway, because it is generally not advised to come to a full stop on a sticky runway.

Flaps as recommended, and slowly let the stick/yoke ease forward. The airplane will almost automatically find the speed and angle of attack at which it will lift out of the muck at the lowest possible speed. At that point, let the nose down a little more and accelerate in "ground effect" until you reach your best angle of climb speed.

Answer 3

Well, a minimum ground run takeoff actually sounds more like a soft field takeoff. Hypothetically, let's say there is a long or not particularly short soft surface available. One would still want to become airborne with minimum ground run b/c acceleration while on the soft surface is less than on a hard runway and/or there could be surface irregularities, etc. The textbook soft field procedure is to accelerate in ground effect after a minimum ground run. On a short field takeoff, presumably on a hard surface but short runway, and with a standard 50 foot obstacle, one would not have the forward distance to accelerate in ground effect after rotation and lift-off and would instead prefer to be already at or close to best angle of climb speed, and climbing. I don't use any of these procedures now, but they hearken back to my early flight instructing days decades ago.

Answer 4

A short field takeoff is just that,
you optimize your actions to clear the fence or obstacle
in the shortest possible distance.

A minimum ground run take off is where you break
ground as soon as possible and accellerate in
ground effect before climbing out. It is used on
rough fields of greater length.

Answer 5

I believe that they are in fact the same thing. A short field take off is just what it sounds like, trying to get out of a short field. In many cases you will stand on the brakes and apply full power. Additionally you will use extra flaps in order to create lift at a lower airspeed allowing you to get off the ground sooner than normal. I've never heard the term "Minimum Ground Run Take-off" but it sounds like the same idea. A quick search of the internet shows the terms used interchangeably by the NTSB as well. (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010726X01529&key=1)

Answer 6

every aircraft has to have a certain amount of runway to take off and land,, there have been emergencies and just plane dummies that have landed at the wrong airports even commerical airliners,,,, Years ago a United 747 landed in a small runway in Colorado because of an emergency,, it landed safely, but they could not fly the plane out do to the weight,,, so they put a small amount of fuel in and stipped the entire aircraft out ,seats, galleys anything nailed down and was able to get it in the air,,,,

A twa dc-9 landed at the wrong airport in colorado, and of course ran off the runway because the runways was to short..
its based upon the weight and size of the plane versus the
length of the runway,,,, this is why most pland have the ablility to dump fuel to lighten the plane so it doesnt crack in half during and emergency

Answer 7

Lizzie, the difference is not much but the reasons are way different. a short field takeoff is used alot in practice runs or touch and goes except that touch and goes are moving take offs,......a short field take off is used alot in the bush or ourback when taking a load, be it human or frieght either from an icey field where there are alot of trees or obstacles that are in your way and also where your take off may not neccesssarlit be perfectly straight and you have to get into the air at a steeper angel than you would with a minimum ground take off.........in vietnam it was used a few times by low flying cessna craft who antagonized vietcong by flying at treetop level and dropping things such as phosphorous or even stink bombs but they also did a few rescue missions and those cessnas werew stripped down,.......some were old arronica's that were light and could haul up to 700 pounds and could take off in a head wind at extremely short lengths in slight headwinds,.....I know, I've re-skinned a few of them. Now normal minimum run take off is done from a dirt or paved runway and requires the basic craft's pre-requisite lewngth of runway which is considerably longer than your bush plane's short field take off requirements........Now, that doewsnt mean that a craft cant be made into a bush plane or that you cant get a newer craft to take off in a strong headwind cuz you can but you'd need to be a seasoned pilot to do so or,.......you'd need to be very, very lucky to be able to do so , Or you'd need God as your co-pilot,....having been involved with alot of aircraft, I've seen a dc-3 take off on a shorter runway that much smaller craft and land on smaller areas but then the dc-3 was built unwittingly for that very purpose and that's why if I were to buy a plane today, I'd buy a dc-3.......and maybe and old arronica..........Ok, maybe an old Piper cub...........But I Might also fly powerchopper, they can take off in about 300 feet and land in about 150 feet. I've flown alot of wierd stuff. IN Texas on the beach, the police fly powerchutes at altitudes of 6000 feet which is supposed to be illegal cuz that altitude is higher than a kite is supposed to fly and a powerchute is classified as a kite. and so is a hang glider.......but by all means since you're gonna learn to fly,....do those small craft first then graduate to a slightly larger one and then buy one you can use as a bsuh plane and then go outback with your cameras.....but before you do that?.....take a course on aircraft engine repair or air engine mechanics and a survival course.