![]() |
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
oups.com... OK, if anyone is still following this thread with interest, I've just done the calculation myself and come up with Vbe = (s * d) / (7*V) You didn't post the derivation, so it's impossible for anyone to know whether you did it correctly or not. which is pretty much the same. For Vbe = V/2 it underestimates by around 25%, being only truely accurate when Vbe V. No idea what Sparky's assumptions were, but for mine, I assumed that the acceleration during take-off is constant, which seems reasonable with a constant speed prop and ignoring the deceleration caused by the increase in parasitic drag with velocity (which is assumed to be much less that the acceleration the engine is giving). They seem like reasonable assumptions. Parasitic drag only starts to get really dramatic at L/D max speed, as induced drag falls off, so drag during the takeoff run (when both induced and parasitic are minimal) seems ignorable for the purpose of a rule of thumb. Note that this isn't really what I was expecting -- I'd have thought that wind would be more important. For my 182 on a 2degree grade on a hot summer day, I should take off downhill only if the tailwind is less than 4 knots. Otherwise, its best to take off uphill and into the wind. I'd really thought the break-even point ought to be higher! I don't understand what you mean. The lower the break-even point based on wind speed, the more important wind is. Expecting the break-even point to be higher implies that you expected wind to be less important, not more. Now for *landing*, the calculation is likely to be more involved. For a start, the deceleration profile is more complex. One has the parasitic drag (proportional to square of airspeed), and the deceleration due to brakes (which, when maximally applied, are proportional to the weight of the plane as it is transferred from the wings to the wheels). The former isn't by any means negligible. The latter depends highly upon pilot technique (how fast you can get the nose down) and runway surface. IMHO, the former is just as negligible during landing as it is during takeoff, assuming you are landing at a typical near-stall airspeed, and for the same reasons. I agree that braking depends on pilot technique, but assuming you get the nosewheel down, the AoA is too low for the wings to be making a lot of lift. If you don't get the nosewheel down, then you've got induced drag helping to slow the airplane, offsetting the reduced brake performance. For most of the rollout, the weight on the ground is less than total weight, I agree...but again, for the purpose of a rule of thumb I think it's ignorable. 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 |