A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Three more newbie Qs, if you don't mind :)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 5th 04, 05:46 PM
Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Three more newbie Qs, if you don't mind :)

Hi all,

I'm encouraged by your non-disparaging response to my first posting
here yesterday. I have a few more Qs that will look utterly idiotic to
you guys -- but remember that I'm not a pilot

1. Is there a way of mathematically justifying the dictum that a
successful takeoff is guaranteed if you develop 70% of the desired
thrust in half the runway length? And is this dictum kind of set in
stone or are there riders?

2. I've heard that you can let an aircraft fly itself off, so to
speak, by lifting the nose early in the takeoff roll to the desired
takeoff attitude. To a non-pilot like me, it's intriguing how this can
be possible. I know that plane manufacturers prescribe takeoff flap
settings, which means that there's gotta be some predetermined angle
of the wing with reference to the horizontal that'll give the aircraft
an optimal kind of lift at some speed enough to make it afloat and
keep it afloat. How then would increasing this wing angle, which is
what would happen by an early nose-lift, help? If at all, I feel it'll
get the craft airborne without enough speed to sustain itself,
whereupon it should start descending before too long... I could be
completely wrong in the way I'm thinking here but would love to hear
how this principle works.

3. Is it possible for a cruising aircraft (say at 35000 feet) to
descend and land without the pilot having to pitch the nose downward
even once? I mean, is it possible to lose altitude by just a
combination of the throttle and flaps? I know it might take a lot
longer to do it this way but is it a theoretical possibility?


You may be stifling laughs by now at these but I hope to get better in
the days to come through such Qs... not wrong to hope, is it?

Cheers,

Ramapriya

  #2  
Old November 5th 04, 06:50 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ramapriya wrote:

2. I've heard that you can let an aircraft fly itself off, so to
speak, by lifting the nose early in the takeoff roll to the desired
takeoff attitude.


The aircraft will accelerate most rapidly by keeping the wings nearly level and
keeping the nose or tail wheel off the ground, however, the plane will still
accelerate if the nose is held higher. Consequently, the pilot can raise the nose to
takeoff attitude as soon as the plane is traveling fast enough for the elevators to
work. When the plane is moving fast enough, it will lift off the ground. *If* the
pilot has held the nose at the correct attitude, it will continue to climb.

There are two reasons why this is not usually done, even with light aircraft. The
first is that the aircraft will accelerate better with the nose fairly low. The plane
will use less runway if the nose is keep down until the normal "rotation" point (the
speed at which the nose should be raised). The second is a phenomena called "ground
effect". When very close to the ground (within about 1 wingspan) an aircraft will
climb at a lower speed than it will higher up. A careless pilot who gets the nose too
high may climb well for a couple of wingspans and then find that the plane isn't
going fast enough to keep climbing. In extreme cases, planes have been known to
descend back to the runway again. This is, at best, embarrassing.

Taking off this way is used by some pilots for taking of an aircraft which has a
tailwheel when the winds are strong and blowing from one side (as "crosswind"). This
keeps the tailwheel on the runway, which helps keep the plane straight until it
leaves the ground. I personally don't like doing this.

3. Is it possible for a cruising aircraft (say at 35000 feet) to
descend and land without the pilot having to pitch the nose downward
even once? I mean, is it possible to lose altitude by just a
combination of the throttle and flaps? I know it might take a lot
longer to do it this way but is it a theoretical possibility?


Pilots usually descend by using only the throttle. Putting flaps down, however,
changes the attitude of the nose even without further pilot input. You will also
probably have to raise the nose to slow down. This can be delayed until the last
minute, but it still must be done before touchdown.

For example, I will cruise at about 120 mph. I will adjust the attitude of the nose
(this is called "trimming" the plane) until the wings are level and set the throttle
at 2600 rpm and stay that way until I want to come down. If I slow the engine down to
2400 rpm, the plane will descend at about 500 feet per minute. The wings will still
be pretty level, and my speed will still be 120 mph. This is not like a car, where
slowing the engine slows the car.

Now, let's say there's a runway in front of me and I decide to fly straight in and
land. I can descend just by slowing the engine down, but I can't touch down in my
plane at 120 mph. Lowering flaps will slow me down and raise the nose a bit, but it
also increases lift, so I have to slow the engine down even more to descend, and it
won't slow me down enough or raise the nose enough. I know from experience that I
will have to raise the nose to slow the plane enough to land safely. If I want a
smooth landing, I will either raise the nose even more in the last few feet or add a
bit of power to slow the descent (or both).

Now. In theory, a pilot could land some aircraft without touching the trim, but the
plane would touch down much faster than it is designed to do. This would abuse and
possibly blow the tires. It would also require much more runway than usual. With some
aircraft, it might also result in the nosewheel touching down first, with possibly
disastrous consequences.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.
  #3  
Old November 5th 04, 07:01 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ramapriya" wrote in message
om...
I'm encouraged by your non-disparaging response to my first posting
here yesterday. I have a few more Qs that will look utterly idiotic to
you guys -- but remember that I'm not a pilot


You need to go take a flying lesson. Anyone with this much interest in
airplanes ought to be thinking about being a pilot.

1. Is there a way of mathematically justifying the dictum that a
successful takeoff is guaranteed if you develop 70% of the desired
thrust in half the runway length? And is this dictum kind of set in
stone or are there riders?


First, thrust during takeoff is relatively constant, from the beginning of
the takeoff roll, to actually leaving the runway. This is more true for
jets, but is reasonably close to the truth even for propeller-driven
airplanes.

As far as "guaranteeing" a takeoff, sure...given a particular airplane,
engine power, runway characteristics, air temperature and density, etc. you
can calculate the distance required to takeoff. Compare that to the runway
length itself, and that will tell you whether you can take off.

Of course, mechanical failure, sudden change in wind, that sort of thing can
screw up the calculations. But theoretically, yes...it's easy to calculate
whether an airplane can take off or not.

2. I've heard that you can let an aircraft fly itself off, so to
speak, by lifting the nose early in the takeoff roll to the desired
takeoff attitude.


Most airplanes will "fly itself off" even without lifting the nose early.
Climb rate is a result of excess thrust, beyond that required to counteract
drag. For any given configuration of the airplane, there is a particular
airspeed that the airplane will "want" to fly (this can be adjusted by the
pilot using "elevator trim"). Once reaching this speed, the nose will pitch
up on its own, and any additional thrust not required to maintain that speed
will be used to climb.

Lifting the nose early may slow down the takeoff by increasing drag, but as
long as there's enough power (which would be true most of the time, provided
the nose isn't raised *too* much), the airplane will still eventually
accelerate to the given climb speed and take off.

Raising the nose during the takeoff roll is a common practice when using
unpaved runways, to help protect the nosewheel and even the propeller.
Usually the nose isn't really raised, so much as the weight is lifted from
the nosewheel. But it's basically the same idea.

3. Is it possible for a cruising aircraft (say at 35000 feet) to
descend and land without the pilot having to pitch the nose downward
even once?


Sure. Just as a climb is a result of excess thrust, a descent is a result
of insufficient thrust. If engine power is reduced below that required to
maintain the trimmed airspeed in level flight, the airplane will descend,
taking energy from gravity to make up for the difference.

In fact, there has been at least one accident I'm aware of in which the
pilot became incapacitated (from carbon monoxide poisoning), ran out of gas
and the airplane simply glided to a landing in the middle of a soy bean
field. Minor damage to the airplane, and if I recall correctly the pilot
did eventually recover from the CO poisoning (he wasn't injured in the
landing).

As far as it being "a lot longer to do it this way", that's not actually
true. Well, it is compared to not reducing power, but it's not compared to
normal descent practices. The *primary* way airplanes descend is by control
of engine power, because without a power reduction, an airplane will usually
wind up faster than is safe during the descent. Generally, we'll reduce the
power enough to keep the airspeed as high as possible while still being
safe, but for many airplanes (and especially when the air is not perfectly
smooth) that airspeed is not much higher than the basic cruise airspeed.

Hope that helps.

Pete


  #4  
Old November 5th 04, 07:15 PM
C Kingsbury
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ramapriya" wrote in message
om...

1. Is there a way of mathematically justifying the dictum that a
successful takeoff is guaranteed if you develop 70% of the desired
thrust in half the runway length? And is this dictum kind of set in
stone or are there riders?


I've never heard it but I don't fly jets. I doubt it can be mathematically
justified. Too many variables.

2. I've heard that you can let an aircraft fly itself off, so to
speak, by lifting the nose early in the takeoff roll to the desired
takeoff attitude.


You're barking up the right tree, at least partially. The Angle of Attack is
the critical element, though for most purposes you can use airspeed instead.
There are three numbers that apply he

Vx: Best angle-of-climb speed: This is the speed at which you gain the most
altitude per unit of distance traveled over the ground. If there's a tall
tree at the end of the runway you need to clear, this is what you want to
use.

Vy: Best rate-of-climb speed: The speed at which you gain the most altitude
per minute. This is both faster and more efficient than Vx, but because it's
shallower you may hit the tree at the end of the runway if you climb at this
speed.

Vr: Rotation speed: This is the speed at which you want to lift the nose off
the runway. If you rotate too soon, you will create drag and actually
lengthen the takeoff roll. If you rotate too late, you lenghten takeoff roll
unnecessarily. This number becomes pretty important on big jets, not as much
on small planes unless you're trying to dig out of a short runway.

There's also the phenomenon of "ground effect." When a wing is within one
wingspan of the ground, it will generate more lift. The result is that you
can get a plane to lift off the ground and fly in ground effect at lower
airspeed than it will fly at. If you try to climb out of ground effect
without sufficient airspeed, the most likely result is that you'll bounce
back down onto the runway. If you wait too long to abort you'll meet that
tree at the end of the runway. However, you can use this to your advantage
in some situations. For instance, if you're taking off from a grass field
(which tends to slow you down more than asphalt) you take off and pop up
into ground effect and then stay there (not climbing) until you accelerate
to Vx and then climb. Because there is less drag up in the air you will take
off in less distance.

Regarding the core question of the airplane "flying itself off" I don't
think this would work in most larger planes, but it would definitely happen
in most light airplanes.

3. Is it possible for a cruising aircraft (say at 35000 feet) to
descend and land without the pilot having to pitch the nose downward
even once? I mean, is it possible to lose altitude by just a
combination of the throttle and flaps? I know it might take a lot
longer to do it this way but is it a theoretical possibility?


This is a pretty complicated question actually. There have been several
incidents where aircraft lost all primary controls and landed with some
success. United 232 (?) is one of the most famous, but the DHL plane shot by
a missile over Baghdad last year also suffered total hydraulic failure and
managed to land on its gear under control. UA232 might have also, but for a
puff of wind at the very end.

A full description of the challenges this situation poses would have to
start by teaching you basic aeronautics. If you are interested in that, I
suggest you read "Stick and Rudder" by Langewiesche, and is written for the
non-pilot. Suffice it here to say that it is a deadly serious challenge,
among the worst situations you can find yourself in short of plummeting
straight towards the ground. But as these crews demonstrated, it is not
hopeless.

-cwk.


  #5  
Old November 5th 04, 07:20 PM
Will Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take a demonstration flight at a flight school near you. An inexpensive way
to get a lot of your questions answered.

-0-

"Ramapriya" wrote in message
om...
Hi all,

I'm encouraged by your non-disparaging response to my first posting
here yesterday. I have a few more Qs that will look utterly idiotic to
you guys -- but remember that I'm not a pilot



  #6  
Old November 6th 04, 01:23 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote

Snip

The second is a phenomena called "ground
effect". When very close to the ground (within about 1 wingspan) an

aircraft will
climb at a lower speed than it will higher up. A careless pilot who gets

the nose too
high may climb well for a couple of wingspans and then find that the plane

isn't
going fast enough to keep climbing. In extreme cases, planes have been

known to
descend back to the runway again. This is, at best, embarrassing.

Snip

George Patterson



Anybody have a clue what would be happening, if an Airliner took off,
settled back to the runway, and took off again? Mis-calculated rotation
speed? Seems hard to understand, to me.

Recently happened to a niece of mine, but not a knowledgeable flyer, so no
more details to be had.

Any confessions out there? ;-)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004


  #7  
Old November 6th 04, 01:31 AM
Greg Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Anybody have a clue what would be happening, if an Airliner took off,
settled back to the runway, and took off again? Mis-calculated rotation
speed? Seems hard to understand, to me.

Recently happened to a niece of mine, but not a knowledgeable flyer, so no
more details to be had.

Any confessions out there? ;-)
--
Jim in NC


I have had one wing get picked up by strong cw, the wing lifted off the
ground then set back down. That would have to be a strong cw for that to
happen to an airliner.


  #8  
Old November 6th 04, 01:41 AM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
The aircraft will accelerate most rapidly by keeping the wings nearly level and
keeping the nose or tail wheel off the ground, however, the plane will still
accelerate if the nose is held higher.


There are some jets that will rotate into a high drag configuration and
never gain enough speed to fly. I remember reading about an accident where
an inexperienced pilot (maybe a new owner of ex-Soviet equipment?) ran off
the end of the runway like that.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #9  
Old November 6th 04, 04:31 AM
Judah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Ramapriya) wrote in
om:

Hi all,

I'm encouraged by your non-disparaging response to my first posting
here yesterday. I have a few more Qs that will look utterly idiotic to
you guys -- but remember that I'm not a pilot

1. Is there a way of mathematically justifying the dictum that a
successful takeoff is guaranteed if you develop 70% of the desired
thrust in half the runway length? And is this dictum kind of set in
stone or are there riders?


Successful takeoff is never guaranteed... But specifically to your dictum,
if your throttle setting is not high enough to create adequate lift, you
may get 100% of the selected thrust and never get off the ground.

More seriously, though, since takeoff distance is affected by other factors
besides thrust, such as wind speed and direction, angle of attack of the
control surfaces, runway terrain and condition, trim position, etc. I can't
imagine that your dictum, which by the way I never heard before, is set in
stone.

2. I've heard that you can let an aircraft fly itself off, so to
speak, by lifting the nose early in the takeoff roll to the desired
takeoff attitude. To a non-pilot like me, it's intriguing how this can
be possible. I know that plane manufacturers prescribe takeoff flap
settings, which means that there's gotta be some predetermined angle
of the wing with reference to the horizontal that'll give the aircraft
an optimal kind of lift at some speed enough to make it afloat and
keep it afloat. How then would increasing this wing angle, which is
what would happen by an early nose-lift, help? If at all, I feel it'll
get the craft airborne without enough speed to sustain itself,
whereupon it should start descending before too long... I could be
completely wrong in the way I'm thinking here but would love to hear
how this principle works.


Your intrigue comes, IMHO, from a lack of understanding of the power curve
and of the relationship between pitch and power how they are controled.
This is even more pronounced in your third question.

For the answer to this question, though, look to the Elevator Trim tab,
which attaches to the elevator and essentially stabilizes the elevator at a
certain attitude, which produces a specifc speed based on the power
setting. Basically, the Elevator Trim tab is like a cruise control. The
plane will constantly seek out the set speed - if the plane is flying more
slowly than that speed, the nose will start to fall and the plane will go
faster. If the plane is flying faster than that speed, the nose will start
to pitch up and the plane will start to slow down. If left on its own, the
plane will sort of bobble up and down until it finally levels off at the
set speed...

On the ground, part of the pre-takeoff checklist includes setting the trim
tab to the takeoff position, which is marked on the trim control, and
generally sets the trim tab to about climbout speed at full power. If the
plane were in the air already flying at that trim setting and full power,
the plane would be climbing in a climb attitude at climbout speed. As the
plane speeds up on the runway, then, and the airspeed increases past
climbout speed, the nose of the plane will pitch up to slow the plane back
down to climbout speed. This will essentially start to lift the plane off
the groud all by itself. In fact, no pulling back on the yoke is necessary
to take the plane off the ground if the trim tab is set properly. It will
do it all by itself if you can keep the plane on the runway.

3. Is it possible for a cruising aircraft (say at 35000 feet) to
descend and land without the pilot having to pitch the nose downward
even once? I mean, is it possible to lose altitude by just a
combination of the throttle and flaps? I know it might take a lot
longer to do it this way but is it a theoretical possibility?


A plane can cut power completely, pitch the nose up, descend in a stall all
the way to the ground, and do this at a very aggressive rate. In fact, a
plane can have full power, pitch way up, and be descending in a stall.
Without the proper angle of attack on the wing, the wing doesn't produce
enough lift to carry the weight of the plane, and the plane falls. Even
with thrust,though, the airspeed relative to the angle of attack of the
wing is what really impacts lift.

You may be stifling laughs by now at these but I hope to get better in
the days to come through such Qs... not wrong to hope, is it?


If you want to get better, I have a better idea - just go to your local
airport Fixed Based Operator and make an appointment for a discovery
flight. If you're not sure where to start to look, try
www.beapilot.com .
They will give you a certificate for a $50 intro flight, and help you find
the nearest flight school...

It's great to talk about it in a newsgroup, it doesn't compare to the
first-hand experience...
  #10  
Old November 6th 04, 08:46 AM
Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Er... actually I'm from India, where flying is affordable to a very
small section of the populace, and I've never been in that category.
Poverty hasn't helped keep my interest for flying down, although it
hasn't helped in making that actually happen :\

Also, I'm 37 and 64 inches tall, both prohibitive minuses to even
think of flying lessons, from what I've heard. One guy (a pilot) had
said I wouldn't be able to reach the rudder pedal with my short
stature, making me wonder if planes don't have adjustable seats like
cars do

Ramapriya



"Will Robinson" wrote in message news:awPid.25$mL1.15@trnddc08...
Take a demonstration flight at a flight school near you. An inexpensive way
to get a lot of your questions answered.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Introduction to a newbie Shane O Aerobatics 9 December 31st 04 07:13 AM
Newbie Question, really: That first flight Cecil Chapman Home Built 25 September 20th 04 05:52 AM
Newbie questions Rail / Ejector launchers AL Military Aviation 19 November 14th 03 08:47 PM
Basic Stupid Newbie Questions... John Penta Military Aviation 5 September 19th 03 05:23 PM
Newbie question Cessna or Beechcraft? rbboydston Piloting 4 August 13th 03 01:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.