A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

V-n Diagrams



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 26th 04, 07:47 PM
Tony Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john smith" wrote in message
...
I have been playing around making V-n diagrams for the various airplanes
I rent from my flying club.
I made one for our P28T-201RT and was looking for the numbers on the
PA32-300.

The one item for the PA32-300 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  
Old August 26th 04, 07:48 PM
Tony Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"john smith" wrote in message
...

For other aircraft the formula and book values coincide, but for some
reason, the PA32-300 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 PA32-300 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  
Old August 28th 04, 04:08 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 28th 04, 01:44 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 1-2
knots. I thought it was true airspeed that mattered?

  #15  
Old August 28th 04, 04:17 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:44:06 GMT, john smith wrote:

The difference between calibrated and indicated are within only 1-2
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  
Old August 28th 04, 06:30 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg Esres wrote:
The difference between calibrated and indicated are within only 1-2
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  
Old August 29th 04, 04:10 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 29th 04, 04:38 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 30th 04, 05:58 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 30th 04, 02:48 PM
Jay Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.