Another plane down

"Milen Lazarov" wrote in message
ink.net...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
I should have said "with our newly displaced threshold and the hundreds
of feet they've cut off the northern end of the runway."

Actually, neither factor should have reduced their altitude at any given
distance to the north of the airport.

What if they had to climb slower than Vy because of the cut off part at
the northern end?

You mean Vx, right? We're talking about maximizing altitude as a function
of distance rather than time, so Vx would be the optimal velocity. For the
particular aircraft and airport elevation under discussion, a 2500' ground
roll is well more than what is needed to reach Vx, even at 90F and with a 10
knot tailwind.

--Gary