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
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
The January 2006 issue of AOPA Pilot has an article about a Pilatus PC-12
single engine turboprop. Beautiful airplane. In the article is the following comment: "It's a great glider. ... the PC-12 has a 2.7-1 power off glide ratio at maximum gross weight - not bad at all for a 9,920 pound airplane". Just for reference, I calculated the glide ratio of the Schweizer 300C helicopter I was flying and it is not far off from that, engine out. I never could attain the calculated glide ratio with the helicopter, though. I would never call anything with a 2.7-1 glide ratio as being great, although it probably is better than the space shuttle. Colin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
COLIN LAMB wrote:
The January 2006 issue of AOPA Pilot has an article about a Pilatus PC-12 single engine turboprop. Beautiful airplane. In the article is the following comment: "It's a great glider. ... the PC-12 has a 2.7-1 power off glide ratio at maximum gross weight - not bad at all for a 9,920 pound airplane". Just for reference, I calculated the glide ratio of the Schweizer 300C helicopter I was flying and it is not far off from that, engine out. I never could attain the calculated glide ratio with the helicopter, though. I would never call anything with a 2.7-1 glide ratio as being great, although it probably is better than the space shuttle. I saw that too and figured it's gotta be a typo. Shawn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
I would guess that the glide ratio would be about 8 to 1?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
Shawn wrote: COLIN LAMB wrote: The January 2006 issue of AOPA Pilot has an article about a Pilatus PC-12 single engine turboprop. Beautiful airplane. In the article is the following comment: "It's a great glider. ... the PC-12 has a 2.7-1 power off glide ratio at maximum gross weight - not bad at all for a 9,920 pound airplane". Just for reference, I calculated the glide ratio of the Schweizer 300C helicopter I was flying and it is not far off from that, engine out. I never could attain the calculated glide ratio with the helicopter, though. I would never call anything with a 2.7-1 glide ratio as being great, although it probably is better than the space shuttle. I saw that too and figured it's gotta be a typo. Shawn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
I think that just has to be a typo... most training Cezzna's are about 7 to
1. But it would be hard to believe the Pc-12 could get 27/1... I'd believe maybe 10 or 12 to 1. 3/1 is not much better than a brick. (1/1) BT "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message ink.net... The January 2006 issue of AOPA Pilot has an article about a Pilatus PC-12 single engine turboprop. Beautiful airplane. In the article is the following comment: "It's a great glider. ... the PC-12 has a 2.7-1 power off glide ratio at maximum gross weight - not bad at all for a 9,920 pound airplane". Just for reference, I calculated the glide ratio of the Schweizer 300C helicopter I was flying and it is not far off from that, engine out. I never could attain the calculated glide ratio with the helicopter, though. I would never call anything with a 2.7-1 glide ratio as being great, although it probably is better than the space shuttle. Colin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
In article cR_vf.8501$V.4724@fed1read04,
"BTIZ" wrote: I think that just has to be a typo... most training Cezzna's are about 7 to 1. But it would be hard to believe the Pc-12 could get 27/1... I'd believe maybe 10 or 12 to 1. 3/1 is not much better than a brick. (1/1) Thatlooks like a sin == tan error. Lift is the component of aerodynamic force that is perpendicular to the relative airflow, not the component that is vertically upward. The L/D of a brick is not 1:1 -- which would imply it could fly at an angle of descent of 45 degrees -- but very close to zero. Well, ok, a canonball has an L/D of zero, if it is not spinning. A brick would have a slightly better L/D, if you could stabilize it, perhaps by spinning it, as with a ruler or business card which appear to have L/Ds of about 1 in stabilized backward-tumbling flight. Maybe a brick could do that too, at sufficiently high speed? -- Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
true bruce.. I miss spoke.. a one to one would be 1ft down for every 1 ft
forward.. or about 45degree glide.. I don't think even a tumbling brick could do that.. maybe 0/1 BT "Bruce Hoult" wrote in message ... In article cR_vf.8501$V.4724@fed1read04, "BTIZ" wrote: I think that just has to be a typo... most training Cezzna's are about 7 to 1. But it would be hard to believe the Pc-12 could get 27/1... I'd believe maybe 10 or 12 to 1. 3/1 is not much better than a brick. (1/1) Thatlooks like a sin == tan error. Lift is the component of aerodynamic force that is perpendicular to the relative airflow, not the component that is vertically upward. The L/D of a brick is not 1:1 -- which would imply it could fly at an angle of descent of 45 degrees -- but very close to zero. Well, ok, a canonball has an L/D of zero, if it is not spinning. A brick would have a slightly better L/D, if you could stabilize it, perhaps by spinning it, as with a ruler or business card which appear to have L/Ds of about 1 in stabilized backward-tumbling flight. Maybe a brick could do that too, at sufficiently high speed? -- Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
My Mooney has 12 to 1 with prop stopped (not windmilling). The PC-12 has
less cooling drag plus the prop feathers too. So I would expect it to be better than 12/1. I have a friend who has a PC-12 . . . I could ask. bumper "BTIZ" wrote in message news:cR_vf.8501$V.4724@fed1read04... I think that just has to be a typo... most training Cezzna's are about 7 to 1. But it would be hard to believe the Pc-12 could get 27/1... I'd believe maybe 10 or 12 to 1. 3/1 is not much better than a brick. (1/1) BT "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message ink.net... The January 2006 issue of AOPA Pilot has an article about a Pilatus PC-12 single engine turboprop. Beautiful airplane. In the article is the following comment: "It's a great glider. ... the PC-12 has a 2.7-1 power off glide ratio at maximum gross weight - not bad at all for a 9,920 pound airplane". Just for reference, I calculated the glide ratio of the Schweizer 300C helicopter I was flying and it is not far off from that, engine out. I never could attain the calculated glide ratio with the helicopter, though. I would never call anything with a 2.7-1 glide ratio as being great, although it probably is better than the space shuttle. Colin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
Pilatus' web site states that the glide ratio of a PC-12 is 16:1.
It is a very clean aircraft (as turboprops go), but the wing loading is 35 lb./ft2. 16:1 seems optimistic, but I since it is on the internet, I am sure that it is true. Bob Zahradnik |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So you think you have a low glide ratio!
Just got an answer from my friend who owns a 2 year old PC-12. Glide ratio
is 12:1 or approx. 2 nm per 1000 ft. My Mooney 201 is the same, but lots cheaper! All else being equal, the probability that I might "test" the Mooney's glide ratio some day is much more than the chance of that PT-6 going quiet. bumper wrote in message oups.com... Pilatus' web site states that the glide ratio of a PC-12 is 16:1. It is a very clean aircraft (as turboprops go), but the wing loading is 35 lb./ft2. 16:1 seems optimistic, but I since it is on the internet, I am sure that it is true. Bob Zahradnik |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS glide ratio calculations | james | Soaring | 0 | May 4th 04 09:00 PM |
Garmin gpsmap 76s, glide ratio, airspace zone | Gilles_Sauvagnat | Soaring | 11 | April 15th 04 12:39 AM |
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 29th 03 10:01 PM |
GPS glide ratio calculations | Jason Armistead | Soaring | 16 | September 12th 03 04:50 AM |
A Waikerie slip up? | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 4 | July 28th 03 11:34 PM |