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




"john smith" wrote in message
... I have been playing around making Vn diagrams for the various airplanes I rent from my flying club. I made one for our P28T201RT and was looking for the numbers on the PA32300. The one item for the PA32300 that would not follow the formula for calculating the lift line was Va. The book shows it as 132 kias, but the formula generates a speed of 103 kias for the intercept of the 3.8 load limit line. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? Va is defined by what control surfaces can handle, not the 3.8g load limit line. See FAR 23.423 and 23.335. It doesn't have to be on the lift line; it can be above it, but not below. 
#12




"john smith" wrote in message
... For other aircraft the formula and book values coincide, but for some reason, the PA32300 numbers do not. Perhaps for those that work, Va matches the equality condition in FAR 23.335. This would imply that the control surfaces in the PA32300 are beefier than those in the other planes (or perhaps their certification tests were more rigourous). Va doesn't guarantee you protection against exceeding the load factor, I'm afraid. 
#13




The book shows it as 132 kias, but the formula generates a speed of
103 kias for the intercept of the 3.8 load limit line. Are you using calibrated airspeeds and then converting to IAS, as you should? 
#14




Greg Esres wrote:
The book shows it as 132 kias, but the formula generates a speed of 103 kias for the intercept of the 3.8 load limit line. Are you using calibrated airspeeds and then converting to IAS, as you should? The difference between calibrated and indicated are within only 12 knots. I thought it was true airspeed that mattered? 
#15




On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:44:06 GMT, john smith wrote:
The difference between calibrated and indicated are within only 12 knots. Around the stall speed, the error is normally much higher. When you take sqrt(3.8) * Vs1 to get the hypothetical Va, you will normally get a very different number if you use IAS vs. CAS. I thought it was true airspeed that mattered? No. Aerodynamic forces depend on CAS, rather than TAS. As others have pointed out, it is permissible for a manufacturer to set Va at a higher speed than what you will calculate using this method. Most do not do so, however, but it's unclear what is guiding Piper. Some of their POH's show stall speed as linear with weight, which is blatantly untrue. If you start with this premise, Va is likely to be off too. 
#16




Greg Esres wrote:
The difference between calibrated and indicated are within only 12 knots. Around the stall speed, the error is normally much higher. When you take sqrt(3.8) * Vs1 to get the hypothetical Va, you will normally get a very different number if you use IAS vs. CAS. I am using Vs (stall, clean) since the configuration is the same as at Va. I thought it was true airspeed that mattered? No. Aerodynamic forces depend on CAS, rather than TAS. As others have pointed out, it is permissible for a manufacturer to set Va at a higher speed than what you will calculate using this method. Most do not do so, however, but it's unclear what is guiding Piper. Some of their POH's show stall speed as linear with weight, which is blatantly untrue. If you start with this premise, Va is likely to be off too. How does CAS account for density altitude? 
#17




I am using Vs (stall, clean) since the configuration is the same as
at Va. Vs1 is normally taken to be the clean stall speed. The meaning of Vs seems a bit more ambiguous. But we're talking the same thing here. How does CAS account for density altitude? With a given CAS, the density altitude is irrelevant. That's the beauty of it. ;) For a given DA, you could use TAS and get the same results, as long as you're consistent in using TAS for each figure. However, Vs1 is only published as CAS. And there's no point in doing that anyway. 
#18




Greg Esres wrote:
I am using Vs (stall, clean) since the configuration is the same as at Va. Vs1 is normally taken to be the clean stall speed. The meaning of Vs seems a bit more ambiguous. But we're talking the same thing here. How does CAS account for density altitude? With a given CAS, the density altitude is irrelevant. That's the beauty of it. ;) For a given DA, you could use TAS and get the same results, as long as you're consistent in using TAS for each figure. However, Vs1 is only published as CAS. And there's no point in doing that anyway. Thanks, Greg. The whole purpose of my exercise is to determine the minimum turn radius and maximum rate of turn for a given weight. This is dependent upon air density (hence, density altitude) and true airspeed. What is really interesting to me is, I learned all this stuff 25 years ago, but didn't have the experience to fully understand it as I do now. 
#19




The whole purpose of my exercise is to determine the minimum turn
radius and maximum rate of turn for a given weight. This is dependent upon air density (hence, density altitude) and true airspeed. Hmmm. Air density doesn't appear in the formulas that I have. Load factor and true airspeed are the only variables. And load factor should be independent of density altitude. What are you doing with air density? 
#20




Greg Esres wrote:
The whole purpose of my exercise is to determine the minimum turn radius and maximum rate of turn for a given weight. This is dependent upon air density (hence, density altitude) and true airspeed. Hmmm. Air density doesn't appear in the formulas that I have. Load factor and true airspeed are the only variables. And load factor should be independent of density altitude. What are you doing with air density? Trying to figure minimum safe altitudes for recovery from vertical dives at different times of the year under different temperature/humidity conditions. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Maximum Sustained Turn Rate?  Emilio  Military Aviation  5  May 11th 04 03:12 AM 
Piper Cheyenne wiring diagrams.  Steve  Piloting  1  April 7th 04 03:50 AM 
FS: Aviation History Books  Neil Cournoyer  Military Aviation  0  August 26th 03 08:32 PM 