![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
... "Tony Cox" wrote in message ups.com... [...] Rule of thumb responses are interesting, but better would be a full mathematical treatment. Presumably, a proper treatment would need to include touch-down speed too, and perhaps gross weight as well. I have occasionally thought about trying to treat the problem mathematically, but so far haven't had enough motivation to do so. It's a very complicated problem, mathematically speaking (assuming you're not someone who does this sort of math on a daily basis, and I'm not). I suspect that in addition to looking at touch-down speed and gross-weight, along with runway slope and wind velocity, you would also have to include some measure of braking performance (maybe this is somehow derivable from the POH roll-out distances). Me too (on motivation), and I'm supposedly qualified to work it out for myself, but was wondering if anyone had done it before! Thinking about it after posting, in practice I think it might get even more complicated. Ever worked out how accurately you can "spot" a landing? I think of myself as a pretty average sort of private pilot, and I'd guess I can pick a touchdown point to around +- 200 feet or so on a good day. But I know I can do much better (calm wind) on an upslope runway than a downslope one -- I suppose it is because with an approximate 6 degree descent path, after factoring in the runway slope (lets say 2 degrees) any deviation in approach angle gets magnified by 2 (6+2=8 degree intercept vs. 6-2=4 degrees). So, the actual "rollout" distance isn't really the thing to look at -- one ought to factor in your own personal "uncertainty" in touchdown point too and look for the minimum runway length (rollout + anticipated touchdown point uncertainty) that you'll use for landing. This would bias in favour of the uphill approach, regardless of other factors. (Probably. Air speed affects approach angle too!) A 3 degree slope sounds pretty steep to me. Are you sure it's not 3%? I'd like to be definitive, but my airport guide is in the plane, and I don't seem to be able to find the info through google. I *thought* it was 3 degrees (and I really ought to know, having been based there 6 years), but I may be wrong. Anyway, 3% works out as 2 degrees. It's our crosswind runway at 61B (Boulder City, Nevada) if you have a book to hand. Another local airport is 3.5 units (degrees or grade) at Temple Bar (U30) which is a wonderful destination if you're in the area. Wish I had my damn book!! Regardless, these grades make a substantial difference to one's decision. The runways, at 3500' or so, leave little room to be sloppy if you're in a Mooney and landing when the DA is over 5000'. As far as general rules of thumb go, the one I've heard is that 1% of slope is worth about 10 knots of headwind *for a takeoff*. This is not necessarily applicable to the landing case, which is what you're asking about, but it's at least related. In this rule of thumb, take the runway slope in percent, multiply that by 10, and if you've got a headwind less than that, operating downslope is better for a takeoff (upslope for a landing, if you apply the same rule of thumb). I've heard that too, and Sedona airport (KSEZ) goes as far as to mandate which runway to use depending on wind (I think they have a slope of 1.5 *units*, but their runway is so long it hardly makes a difference to us little guys). I think the takeoff calculation ought to be more straightforward. You can use the whole runway, for a start, and all one needs to do is to work out how much acceleration you sacrifice by running up the grade. Clearly, braking effects are irrelevant. Still, it'd take a bit to figure the math. Personally, that rule of thumb seems optimistic to me, but I don't have any good justification for doubting it. Still, it's worth considering the fact that a headwind or tailwind affects the takeoff or landing differently than slope. That is, the wind speed affects the total velocity change required, while the slope affects the acceleration available. Even if you take off uphill but upwind, while the acceleration will be less, so may the runway used since you need a lower total velocity change to reach takeoff speed. Likewise, landing downhill but upwind, yes your deceleration is less but you also need less reduction in speed to come to a stop. More importantly, the change in acceleration or deceleration is linear, while the difference in total speed change is exponential. To me, that suggests that if you're going to err, it's better to choose the headwind over slope when in doubt, since a good headwind is beneficial to the exponentially related parameter, while the slope is only beneficial to the linearly related parameter. I just feel more comfortable landing uphill. Perhaps its because on approach you have a bigger target to hit! That said, like I said I haven't taken the time to look at any of this in a rigorous mathematical way, so I might have made a mistake in some assumptions. Still, I have to say that the one time I ever took off downwind but downslope, I sure used a lot more runway than I thought I was going to. ![]() Me too, with my mother on board as well. Quite a wake-up call. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why not to land downwind | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | September 6th 06 03:01 PM |
Cuban Missle Crisis - Ron Knott | Greasy Rider© @invalid.com | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 2nd 05 09:14 PM |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Piloting | 125 | October 15th 04 07:42 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |