[jhb_airlines] Re: Another Diversion

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:53:31 +0100

Those figures aren't linear at all so I suspect there are additional factors
added that make then hard to run into a calculation. For example why does
the V2 figure actually DROP between 13K and 14K flaps down?

For the flap up V1 value the closest I can get is (Actual Weight) /286+56
but even that throws up a 2kt error.

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 14 August 2005 19:27
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Another Diversion


I've been trying to find a way of reconciling the B1900D numbers, listed
with the PDMG version, with some variation on Mike's formulae. I've not
managed it. PMDG quoted figures are

WEIGHT       FLAPS      V1        Vr      V2
17120         UP       115      116     123
16000         UP       110      111     120
15000         UP       107      107     117
14000         UP       104      104     114
13000 &<      UP       103      103     113

              17        103      106     112
              17        100      102     109
              17        100      100     107
              17        100      100     107
              17        100      100     108


Do they fit in with your spreadsheet?

Gerry Winskill




Bones wrote:

>Not only are the figures aircraft specific they are also configuration
>specific too - different values for each flap setting.
>
>I've been playing around with this and you can almost do away with
>squares and square roots. A basic play with Excel showed that if I tap
>in an AUW and stall speed my readout for stalling at various actual
>weights can be very closely approximated using Mike's /x +y formula.
>
>Take an aircraft with an AUW of 6000 and stall of 88. If I use (actual
>weight)/92 +45 it gives me fairly accurate results between a weight of
>3000 and 6000. Only a 1.6kt error to real stall over the whole range.
>
>For a 2400lb aircraft at 60kt stall my trial and error gives me (Actual
>Weight)/55 +31 to give only a 1kt error between 1200lb and 2400lb.
>
>For a 2400lb aircraft at 45kt stall (say with flaps down) the figures
>change quite a bit to (Actual Weight)/91 +19 - giving only a 0.5kt
>error.
>
>The values obviously change for each flap setting and also the speed
>you are after. Actual stall speed for a given weight and the approach
>speed for that weight require differing values. For the above 2400/60
>example the approach speed determination works if you change the values
>to (Actual Weight)/68
>+25.
>
>To make these figures work you must have actual known aircraft values
>for Max AUW and the stalling speed for every aircraft flap
>configuration. Only then can you start working out the simpler formulae
>for the figures. It's possible Mike has an easier way of working these
>out but it's not obvious to me yet.
>
>bones
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 14 August 2005 17:35
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Another Diversion
>
>
>I think the most obvious comment on Mike's formula is that it must be
>specific to the F100; though it has also to be said that it doesn't
>agree with the V numbers produced by the other gauge. When used in the
>B1900D it produces V numbers almost 30 kias below the real figures,
>despite picking up the correct gross weight.
>
>Gerry Winskill
>
>
>Bones wrote:
>
>
>
>>For light aircraft pilots are taught just the two stalling speeds for
>>the aircraft - flaps up and flaps down - which are based on the max
>>AUW of the aircraft. The thinking here is that most light aircraft
>>don't have a great speed or weight range and so it isn't necessary to
>>over complicate the issue with deeper explanations. The ASI is also
>>marked with these two speeds - the bottom of the green and white arcs
>>- and this should be the end of the matter.
>>
>>In truth though we all know that stalling speed is relative to several
>>variables - especially weight. Higher weight means higher stall speed
>>which means higher V1, V2, Vr and approach speeds. For airliners the
>>difference between almost empty and full weights is considerable and
>>therefore the stall range is too great to have one fixed value. Pilots
>>therefore have to work out the speeds based on actual aircraft weight.
>>
>>Once I was taught this I actually worked out the figures for the light
>>aircraft I flew and found that even a PA28 had a 10kt stall variation.
>>It doesn't sound a lot but on the Archer it means the difference
>>between landing on the numbers and floating halfway down the runway as
>>speed decays. Approach speed is nominally 1.25 x Stall so the
>>variation compounds. In the case of an aircraft with a Max AUW
>>approach speed of 75kts it could easily, when almost empty, fly the
>>approach at 62.5kts and still have the same safety margin over the
>>stall.
>>
>>The formula I use isn't as simple as that below as it involved square
>>roots. I'll have to see if Mike has found an alternative calculation
>>that avoids them.
>>
>>bones
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>>Sent: 14 August 2005 13:45
>>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Another Diversion
>>
>>
>>Another gauge, also within the PF100 Panel package, is CRJ_REF.cab, by
>>Mike Worley. This looks more attractive and has pages for Pre Takeoff,
>>Cruise and Landing. Looking into its .xml file, the approach to the V
>>number calcs seems less sophisticated, as follows
>>
>>V1 at Flaps  8    (Tot Wt / 500) + 42
>>V1 at Flaps 20   (Tot Wt / 556) + 41
>>
>>Vr at Flaps   8   (Tot Wt / 500) + 47
>>Vr at Flaps 20   (Tot Wt / 556) + 46
>>
>>V2 at Flaps   8   (Tot Wt / 625) + 78
>>V2 at Flaps 20   (Tot Wt / 556) + 55
>>
>>Landing
>>Vref at Flaps  0    (Tot Wt / 610) + 96
>>Vref at Flaps  8    (Tot Wt / 610) + 84
>>Vref at Flaps  20  (Tot Wt / 641) + 83
>>Vref at Flaps  30  (Tot Wt / 610) + 74
>>Vref at Flaps  45  (Tot Wt / 610) + 66
>>
>>I can't find a logical thread here, particularly since the max gross
>>wt of the CRJ600 is about 45,000 lbs.
>>
>>Any shafts of insight?
>>
>>
>>Gerry Winskill
>>gwinsk@xxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Gerry Winskill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>For UK FPI flights I often use the Project Fokker F100. One of the
>>>gauges accessible gives the V1, Vr and V2 values. It also links them
>>>to unacceptible flap postitons, etc. Better yet, it offers the option
>>>of call outs. A quick check shows it to be a CAB file gauge. Looking
>>>at the .xml file reveals it's designer is Doug Dawson and that he has
>>>inserted instructions on how to make bespoke versions, specific to
>>>other aircraft types. Quite a small gauge but a complex .xml file.
>>>I may be gone for some considerable time. Who was it started off this
>>>need to look into .xml gauges................
>>>
>>>Gerry Winskill
>>>gwinsk@xxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: