![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Rind wrote:
Not answering your actual question about the clearance, but for what it's worth, I would not have tried to climb out at Vx. You have no hope of outclimbing a jet, It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here (also, the DC-9 is designed for short fields; other transport jets may have worse climb angles). More importantly, a Vx climb will probably put you a couple of hundred feet up and another 30 seconds behind by the time you arrive above the point where the DC-9 lifted off -- that gives you lots of room to make a turn before you intersect its path. If you took off at a higher speed, you'd have less space for your turn because your climb angle would be lower (even though the rate was higher). Even if you stay straight ahead, at VX you probably won't intersect the DC-9's climb path until the vortices are well-dissipated. A slow forward speed is your friend in this situation, either way. All the best, David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Megginson wrote:
David Rind wrote: Not answering your actual question about the clearance, but for what it's worth, I would not have tried to climb out at Vx. You have no hope of outclimbing a jet, It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here (also, the DC-9 is designed for short fields; other transport jets may have worse climb angles). More importantly, a Vx climb will probably put you a couple of hundred feet up and another 30 seconds behind by the time you arrive above the point where the DC-9 lifted off -- that gives you lots of room to make a turn before you intersect its path. If you took off at a higher speed, you'd have less space for your turn because your climb angle would be lower (even though the rate was higher). Even if you stay straight ahead, at VX you probably won't intersect the DC-9's climb path until the vortices are well-dissipated. A slow forward speed is your friend in this situation, either way. You are clearly right about this -- I was thinking in terms of rate of climb, not angle of climb. That said, I would still be more interested in making an early turn than in trying to climb quickly and would always ask for an early turnout in this situation.... -- David Rind |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Rind wrote:
You are clearly right about this Thank you for the gracious reply. -- I was thinking in terms of rate of climb, not angle of climb. That said, I would still be more interested in making an early turn than in trying to climb quickly and would always ask for an early turnout in this situation.... In this particular case (taking off right after a jet), at Vx you will reach turning altitude in less distance and more time, both of which work in your favour: - less distance means that you are at a safe turning altitude further away from the point where your climb path would intersect the jet's climb path - more time means that the the jet's wake vortices have had more opportunity to dissipate by the time you turn. Or, to put it the other way, if you climb at Vy you will arrive closer to the jet's climb path, sooner, before you reach a point when you can turn. On the other hand, if there were a jet waiting to take off behind me and I wanted to get out of the way as soon as possible (i.e. ATC says "right turn to heading XXX as soon as safely able"), then Vy is the better choice, since I want to get to turning altitude in the least time. All the best, David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Rind wrote in message ...
David Megginson wrote: David Rind wrote: Not answering your actual question about the clearance, but for what it's worth, I would not have tried to climb out at Vx. You have no hope of outclimbing a jet, It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here [...] I could be wrong, too, but I think even a loaded DC-9 can manage at least 1000-1500fpm... and might have to do so for noise abatement around the airport. I've heard that's why cloud clearances down around us VFR planes are 1000' above and 500' below. The extra space above is needed because an airliner is far more likely to be climbing out at high fpm... but descends at a slower rate for passenger comfort and ILS landings. Kev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kevin Darling wrote:
It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here [...] I could be wrong, too, but I think even a loaded DC-9 can manage at least 1000-1500fpm... and might have to do so for noise abatement around the airport. You need to know the forward speed as well. At 120 kt, 1500 fpm would be 750 ft/nm; at 180 kt, it would be only 500 ft/nm (but I think that the DC-9 can do better than that). In either case, the climb angle is not that much greater than that of a light single. All the best, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Don't confuse taking off at an intersection with taking off at the end.
The three minutes applies to an intersection takeoff only. The rule for taking off behind a heavy is two minutes after he starts his takeoff roll, it has nothing to do with where or when he gets airborne. There is no delay for you taking off behind a DC9. A controller may also use radar separation instead of time. Peter R. wrote: A couple of days ago I flew into Logan Airport (Boston, MA, USA) in a C172 for an Angel Flight. Taxing to the departing runway, we were behind a B767 and a DC9 (in that order), with several other large airliners behind us. I noticed that there seemed to be no wake turbulence delay for the DC9 behind the B767, as he was cleared for TO less than a minute after the B767 departed. Tower then positioned me on the runway, and again, less than a minute later (after awaiting a crossing runway landing), gave me a 90 degree right turn after takeoff heading, cautioned wake turbulence, then cleared me to go. My question has to do with the ATC's wake turbulence procedures. At the class C airport where I am based, I constantly hear about the 3 minute rule from ATC. In other words, if I am departing from an intersection mid- field, tower will say that they are required to make me wait three minutes for wake turbulence avoidance (unless I wave it, which I normally do not). In the case of Boston's tower, did her "wake turbulence caution" and/or right turn heading allow her to clear me sooner than the three minutes? BTW, the DC9 ahead of me took at least three quarters of the runway to lift off, then turned left. When I departed, I dropped a notch of flaps to lift off very quickly, climbed a few hundred at Vx as per the obstacle DP, then turned the 90 degrees right as per the instruction to be well away from the previous two aircrafts' wake turbulence. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Newps wrote:
Don't confuse taking off at an intersection with taking off at the end. The three minutes applies to an intersection takeoff only. OK, very good. That answers my question. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:01:37 -0500, Peter R.
wrote: A couple of days ago I flew into Logan Airport (Boston, MA, USA) in a C172 for an Angel Flight. Taxing to the departing runway, we were behind a B767 and a DC9 (in that order), with several other large airliners behind us. I noticed that there seemed to be no wake turbulence delay for the DC9 behind the B767, as he was cleared for TO less than a minute after the B767 departed. Tower then positioned me on the runway, and again, less than a minute later (after awaiting a crossing runway landing), gave me a 90 degree right turn after takeoff heading, cautioned wake turbulence, then cleared me to go. My question has to do with the ATC's wake turbulence procedures. At the class C airport where I am based, I constantly hear about the 3 minute rule from ATC. In other words, if I am departing from an intersection mid- field, tower will say that they are required to make me wait three minutes for wake turbulence avoidance (unless I wave it, which I normally do not). In the case of Boston's tower, did her "wake turbulence caution" and/or right turn heading allow her to clear me sooner than the three minutes? BTW, the DC9 ahead of me took at least three quarters of the runway to lift off, then turned left. When I departed, I dropped a notch of flaps to lift off very quickly, climbed a few hundred at Vx as per the obstacle DP, then turned the 90 degrees right as per the instruction to be well away from the previous two aircrafts' wake turbulence. On the times I've been to BOS, it seems routine for tower to vector small a/c on a different heading than the large a/c. When I've been in that position, and visualizing the wake, I've never had a question that I would be able to avoid the preceding a/c's wake by making my turn out as directed. If I had, I would have requested to delay my departure. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter R. wrote in message ...
snip My question has to do with the ATC's wake turbulence procedures. At the class C airport where I am based, I constantly hear about the 3 minute rule from ATC. In other words, if I am departing from an intersection mid- field, tower will say that they are required to make me wait three minutes for wake turbulence avoidance (unless I wave it, which I normally do not). In the case of Boston's tower, did her "wake turbulence caution" and/or right turn heading allow her to clear me sooner than the three minutes? It's been a few years since I was based at a Class B airport, but I seem to recall that the 3 minute rule applied only if you were making an intersection takeoff behind a departing big boy. If you're departing from the end of the runway, ATC doesn't have to wait 3 minutes. At that point, it's up to you to decide when to go. A small single taking off right behind a big jet was routine at PHX. The procedure was the same as you described. Climb hard and turn 90 degrees ASAP. The one thing I would caution you about would be the jet-wash from the departing jet. Although the wake turbulence from the wings doesn't start until the jet lifts off, those jet engines can really churn up the air as it rolls down the runway. For this reason I usually stuck to a Vy climb to give me a better margin over the stall speed should I encounter some really churned up air. The turbulence from the airliners was worse from those with high, fuselage mounted engines (i.e. DC-9, 727). It was also worse when the wind was dead calm. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Galban ) wrote:
The one thing I would caution you about would be the jet-wash from the departing jet. Although the wake turbulence from the wings doesn't start until the jet lifts off, those jet engines can really churn up the air as it rolls down the runway. For this reason I usually stuck to a Vy climb to give me a better margin over the stall speed should I encounter some really churned up air. Good to know. Thanks. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|