![]() |
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I was trying to explain to a non-pilot why increased power is required
with altitude. She said "isn't the air thinner up there so there isn't as much resistance?" I said "yes, but the plane needs to fly fast enough for the air over the wings to feel like it does down low. So the speed required goes up you get higher. More speed need more power." This didn't really do the trick. Can someone think of a better way of putting it without resorting to mathematics and an explanation of IAS and TAS? TAS increases with altitude for a given power setting due to less aerodynamic drag at higher altitudes. It does not take more power to go the same speed at higher altitudes - at least, not in any of the airplanes I've ever flown. Take a look at the speed/power charts for a turbo and you'll see what I mean - if you maintain 75% power the higher you go the faster you go. If you're talking about altitude effects on the power output of a normally-aspirated engine, that's a different story. At about 8,000 feet a normally-aspirated engine will probably be putting out around 75% power at full throttle, and it will continue to decrease as you go higher. BDS First, I stand by my remarks as mathematically accurate. Second, you are technically correct that a given power (typically 75%) will give a greater speed with increasing altitude. However, the increase in speed will not be as much as many people seem to expect, but instead will be very close to the square root of the optomists expectation. The good news is that the graphs in the POH seem to be a good guide. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |
Change in TAS with constant Power and increasing altitude. | Big John | Home Built | 6 | July 13th 03 03:29 PM |