 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: terryterry Date: Dec 28, 2007 13:02
I have asked this question on rec.aviation.student and
rec.aviation.piloting without getting an answer that really made
sense. On the Cessna 172 landing performance chart it has a climb wt
limit section with pressure altitude on the y axis. Now I understand
that in the event of a go around being required you need to be able to
climb away at a sufficient gradient which I recall is supposed to be
3.2%%. What I dont get is why it is a function of presssure altitude
and not density altitude. Surely the ability of the aircraft to climb
away would only be a function of the air density not the pressure.
Now the left hand side of the chart has a temperature correction which
is used to move up the graph for determining landing distance
requried, but this is not applied to the climb wt section...
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| | 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Dec 29, 2007 02:43
>I have asked this question on rec.aviation.student and
> rec.aviation.piloting without getting an answer that really made
> sense. On the Cessna 172 landing performance chart it has a climb wt
> limit section with pressure altitude on the y axis. Now I understand
> that in the event of a go around being required you need to be able to
> climb away at a sufficient gradient which I recall is supposed to be
> 3.2%%. What I dont get is why it is a function of presssure altitude
> and not density altitude. Surely the ability of the aircraft to climb
> away would only be a function of the air density not the pressure.
> Now the left hand side of the chart has a temperature...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: djpacrodjpacro Date: Dec 29, 2007 03:00
Its only a function of pressure altitude because that's the rule: CAO
20.7.4 Section 9 http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/200704.pdf
only requires that 3.2%% gradient in standard conditions. i.e. CASA
accepts that the gradient will be lower when its hotter and they don't
seem to care how much lower. However there has been nothing to stop
anyone providing additional information such as climb gradient in
terms of density height.
Regards,
DJP
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: terryterry Date: Dec 29, 2007 03:28
On Dec 29, 9:43 pm, "RT" nowhere.com.au> wrote:>>I have asked this question on rec.aviation.student and
>> rec.aviation.piloting without getting an answer that really made
>> sense. On the Cessna 172 landing performance chart it has a climb wt
>> limit section with pressure altitude on the y axis. Now I understand
>> that in the event of a go around being required you need to be able to
>> climb away at a sufficient gradient which I recall is supposed to be
>> 3.2%%. What I dont get is why it is a function of presssure altitude
>> and not density altitude. Surely the ability of the aircraft to climb
>> away would only be a function of the air density not the pressure.
>> Now the left hand side of the chart has a temperature correction which
>> is used to move up the graph for determining landing distance
>> requried, but this is not applied to the climb wt section. Can
>> anyone make any sense of this? ( and just for RT , yes I am
>> another product of the bloody labour education system, and thank
>> bloody Gough for that too!) ...
|
| Show full article (3.64Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: terryterry Date: Dec 29, 2007 03:41
On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, djpacro gmail.com> wrote:> Its only a function of pressure altitude because that's the rule: CAO
> 20.7.4 Section 9http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/200704.pdf
> only requires that 3.2%% gradient in standard conditions. i.e. CASA
> accepts that the gradient will be lower when its hotter and they don't
> seem to care how much lower. However there has been nothing to stop
> anyone providing additional information such as climb gradient in
> terms of density height.
> Thanks for that DJ. I should have guessed it would have nothing to do
with logic.
terry
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Dec 29, 2007 04:26
"terry" iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:08747f40-8df7-415f-a71b-62112a8f4049@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, djpacro gmail.com> wrote:> Its only a function of pressure altitude because that's the rule: CAO
> 20.7.4 Section 9http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/200704.pdf
> only requires that 3.2%% gradient in standard conditions. i.e. CASA
> accepts that the gradient will be lower when its hotter and they don't
> seem to care how much lower. However there has been nothing to stop
> anyone providing additional information such as climb gradient in
> terms of density height.
> Thanks for that DJ. I should have guessed it would have nothing to do
with logic.
Perzackery right.
So fly the a/c and forget the air-conditioned desk-bound bureaucrats and
their timorous nonsensical self-serving arse-covering rules.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: veritasveritas Date: Dec 29, 2007 16:47
Come on Terry; this thread had devolped into an infomative/healthy (on
topic) discussion. .....you should know that it has no place here in
:)
terry wrote:> On Dec 29, 9:43 pm, "RT" nowhere.com.au> wrote:>> "terry" iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b5ae1b92-fc23-40d4-b4c6-01e20f0342bc@b40g2000prf.googlegroups...
|
| Show full article (3.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Stealth PilotStealth Pilot Date: Dec 30, 2007 01:02
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:02:31 -0800 (PST), terry
iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>I have asked this question on rec.aviation.student and
>rec.aviation.piloting without getting an answer that really made
>sense. On the Cessna 172 landing performance chart it has a climb wt
>limit...
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: terryterry Date: Dec 30, 2007 02:42
On Dec 30, 8:02 pm, Stealth Pilot aeroplanes.com.au>
wrote:> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:02:31 -0800 (PST), terry
>
>
>
>
>
> iprimus.com.au> wrote:>>I have asked this question on rec.aviation.student and
>>rec.aviation.piloting without getting an answer that really made
>>sense. On the Cessna 172 landing performance chart it has a climb wt
>>limit section with pressure altitude on the y axis. Now I understand
>>that in the event of a go around being required you need to be able to
>>climb away at a sufficient gradient which I recall is supposed to be
>>3.2%%. What I dont get is why it is a function of presssure altitude
>>and not density altitude. Surely the ability of the aircraft to climb
>>away would only be a function of the air density not the pressure.
>>Now the left hand side of the chart has a temperature correction which
>>is used to move up the graph for determining landing distance ...
|
| Show full article (3.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Dec 30, 2007 23:55
"terry" iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:6295ee14-d2e6-4887-abe7-out a C172 has >about a 6%% climb gradient at
full wt and 5000 ft>density altitude. Now if I needed to execute a go around, why the
>hell would I want to climb out in the landing configuration, ie
>40degrees of flap!
>Obviously I would do what all of us are trained to do and that is put
>full power on and start bringing the flaps up ( in stages of
>course).
I've mentioned this before and make no apologies whatever for mentioning it
again.
In any of the Cessna singles, make sure there is a FIXED seat stop on the
pilot seat rails set far enough forward so that you can still reach the
pedals when the seat is back against it.
Yes, that makes it inconvenient to get into the pilot seat. Yes, it
potentially will save your miserable skin - particularly as a/c and seat
rails get older.
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
