Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC

Kevin Darling wrote:

It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a
fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a
small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx
depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better
climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here [...]

I could be wrong, too, but I think even a loaded DC-9 can manage at
least 1000-1500fpm... and might have to do so for noise abatement
around the airport.

You need to know the forward speed as well. At 120 kt, 1500 fpm would be
750 ft/nm; at 180 kt, it would be only 500 ft/nm (but I think that the DC-9
can do better than that). In either case, the climb angle is not that much
greater than that of a light single.


All the best,


David

John Galban ) wrote:

The one thing I would caution you about would be the
jet-wash from the departing jet. Although the wake turbulence from
the wings doesn't start until the jet lifts off, those jet engines can
really churn up the air as it rolls down the runway. For this reason
I usually stuck to a Vy climb to give me a better margin over the
stall speed should I encounter some really churned up air.

Good to know. Thanks.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Megginson wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...
Kevin Darling wrote:
It's not that far off -- I think (but am not certain) that a
fully-loaded DC-9 has a best climb angle of around 650 ft/nm, while a
small single-engine plane will manage something like 400-600 ft/nm at Vx
depending on horsepower and load. Of course, the DC-9 has a much better
climb *rate*, but that's not the concern here [...]

I could be wrong, too, but I think even a loaded DC-9 can manage at
least 1000-1500fpm... and might have to do so for noise abatement
around the airport.

You need to know the forward speed as well. At 120 kt, 1500 fpm would be
750 ft/nm; at 180 kt, it would be only 500 ft/nm (but I think that the DC-9
can do better than that). In either case, the climb angle is not that much
greater than that of a light single.

Yes, thanks. I goofed and posted just before I read that you were
talking about ft/nm versus ft/min. And yep, the DC-9 can climb at up
to 2900 fpm.

Sorry 'bout the confusion.

Best regards,
Kevin

Peter R. wrote in message ...
It was VMC but the tall control tower was close to my turnout heading
and it was night time. We were departing 22 Right with a turnout to the
west.

When you get a legitimate opportunity to buzz the tower, take it!

In article ,
Peter R. wrote:

David Rind wrote:

Were you in IMC such that the DP altitude mattered to you?
I was picturing this happening in visual conditions where you
could start maneuvering (as long as Logan permitted) much
sooner.

It was VMC but the tall control tower was close to my turnout heading
and it was night time. We were departing 22 Right with a turnout to the
west.

It would be in character with Logan for them to assume that you had
waved the wake caution unless you objected.

Noting the 9's rotation point and positioning yourself above the wake
until the turn is actually much better than delaying the 3 minutes.

Any crosswind at all would clear your takeoff run of his jet blast.

As we used to say, "You did good."

--
Ron