![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ups.com... [...] Tony, in "Mountain Flying Bible" the author Sparky Imeson was once discussing this and a physics professor handed him a formula which is published in that book. It is the beakeven wind speed for taking off uphill into wind and downhill with a tailwind. Hopefully it formats correctly here. If wind is less, takeoff downhill and if more take off uphill. Vbe = (s * d) / 5 * V [...] Vbe = (2*900)/5 * 60 = 21600 Seems a bit high to me. Perhaps Sparky meant Vbe = (2*900)/(5*60) = 6 knots. Well, I suppose its possible, but I'd have thought the figure a little on the low side. I'd be suspicious of a formula given without any explanation of its derivation. This formula in particular seems odd, as the break-even wind speed as interpreted by you decreases as takeoff speed goes up. This is opposite what I'd have intuitively thought (that is, an airplane with a higher takeoff speed is less-affected by wind, requiring higher wind speed before it matters which way one takes off). That suggests that maybe the formula as given in the previous post is correct (that is, you really do multiply the (s * d) / 5 by V) and that the units are what are missing. Though, why a formula would be given that requires a unit conversion rather than just including the conversion factor in the formula, I can't say. The other thing I'd point out is that even if the formula is correct, it's obviously an approximation, as the term taking into account runway slope is stated to be in degrees, but is used in a linear fashion (rather than using some trigonometric function). Since you have a copy of Imeson's book, perhaps you'll be able to find the same formula and see whether the previous post left out some important information given in the book. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see how to apply the formula. You make a reasonable attempt to get the result into some sensible magnitude, but it changes the formula in a way so as to make it counter-intuitive as to how it applies to different airplanes of different capabilities. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why not to land downwind | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | September 6th 06 03:01 PM |
Cuban Missle Crisis - Ron Knott | Greasy Rider© @invalid.com | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 2nd 05 09:14 PM |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Piloting | 125 | October 15th 04 07:42 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |