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 |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:51:07 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote: wrote in message news On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:45:44 -0700, "Matt Barrow" wrote: An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start. Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on skin or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the shade -- the heat transfer is much different. That is the reason for my question. Surely standard lapse rate does not apply? SLR is only a _standard_ rate. It can be effected by pressure, inversions, wind, even the terrain. In this latter point, it's probably nullified in the first hundred or so feet. I'm wondering if the ground temperature will reduce quickly as you climb. That would depend on several factors including those mentioned above. A wind shear would probably have a great effect. In other words will the air temperature drop quickly as you leave ground effect or will it continue for many tens of feet? Ground effect can be ten feet, or a few hundred. It would be different if the runway surface was asphalt as opposed to concrete (different albedo). I presume if there's any cross wind the hotter air above the runway will drift sideways so maybe the effect will be less.. Possibly, but it would depend on the wind SPEED. I am not pre-judging the cause of the accident but there has been mention of high temperature above the runway causing a higher density altitued than perhaps calculated. Since I usaully fly in a low level and colder climate (UK) where density altitude is mostly of little importance I was interested in the effects. My only experience is from a long runways in Palm Springs (100°F) and Minden (near Tahoe) with runway around 5000ft and maybe 80°F. From comments it would appear that at take-off density altitude may be higher than expected but soon after take-off your density altitude would reduce quite quickly. Re. Ground Effect, I thought that was normally within about one wingspan? Thanks for the input. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:51:07 -0700, "Matt Barrow" wrote: Possibly, but it would depend on the wind SPEED. I am not pre-judging the cause of the accident but there has been mention of high temperature above the runway causing a higher density altitued than perhaps calculated. Since I usaully fly in a low level and colder climate (UK) where density altitude is mostly of little importance I was interested in the effects. My only experience is from a long runways in Palm Springs (100°F) and Minden (near Tahoe) with runway around 5000ft and maybe 80°F. From comments it would appear that at take-off density altitude may be higher than expected but soon after take-off your density altitude would reduce quite quickly. Re. Ground Effect, I thought that was normally within about one wingspan? Thanks for the input. Correct - one wingspan; my brain did a fart and I was thinking of the thermals you can start picking up within a couple hundred feet when the sun shines onto the ground at higher altitudes. It's not ground effect, and it dissipates quickly at altitude. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:24:39 -0600, Newps wrote:
wrote: And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a runway in the shade? The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade? An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start. Even with a light breeze you should be out of the rising, high temperature air in 30 to 50 feet unless the breeze is right down the runway. (or if it's calm) Roger (K8RI) |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:23:08 -0400, john smith
wrote: Following the Palm 90 crash in Washington DC, I heard someone in aviation say something to the effect that if you are not airborne within 30-seconds of brake release following throttle up, abort and determine why you had not reached flying speed. 30 Seconds? I'd be in the shopping center IF I could make it through the brush and airport fence...and jump the ditch...and through traffic on a 5-lane road. Even in my 48 year old plane it would have become blatantly obvious well before 30 seconds. Roger (K8RI) |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:58:42 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:24:39 -0600, Newps wrote: wrote: And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a runway in the shade? The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade? An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start. Even with a light breeze you should be out of the rising, high temperature air in 30 to 50 feet unless the breeze is right down the runway. (or if it's calm) Roger (K8RI) That's the direction of my thinking so this incident it may not be a simple density altitude problem. I hope I never have a problem like this guy. The worst experience I had was a 500m grass runway in a Warrior with 3 people (not too heavy) and half fuel. I was used to grass but this was about 8" and the fence looked quite close on take-off :-( After that I was over water. Made me think more about soft-field take-off which I now practice frequently even with a 6000ft runway! |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Bonanza crash caught on video
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:39:27 -0600, Newps wrote:
wrote: That's the direction of my thinking so this incident it may not be a simple density altitude problem. I hope I never have a problem like this guy. The worst experience I had was a 500m grass runway in a Warrior with 3 people (not too heavy) and half fuel. I was used to grass but this was about 8" and the fence looked quite close on take-off :-( After that I was over water. Made me think more about soft-field take-off which I now practice frequently even with a 6000ft runway! A soft field may not be the best takeoff strategy there. Was it soft or was it short or both? Also it's very common that when launching over water you better have a healthy margin above the stall as downdrafts are common. Short and long grass (500m = 1640ft). I realised on the take-off run I was not gaining speed as fast as I expected, due to the long grass. At that time I hadn't initially appreciated the drag with very long grass and should have pulled the nose up much more agressively sooner. Training on hard runways is quite different to real life situations! It was over ten years ago but a lesson remembered :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oshkosh P-51 crash video | Frank from Deeetroit | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 30th 07 06:06 PM |
S-3 Crash Video | Sanderson | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 13th 05 10:22 PM |
Orlando Crash Video | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 35 | January 21st 05 03:30 AM |
VIDEO: Helicopter crash | Micbloo | Rotorcraft | 0 | November 3rd 04 03:28 AM |
Video of crash 206 | gaylon9 | Rotorcraft | 9 | December 2nd 03 04:53 PM |