Bonanza crash caught on video

wrote:

And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a
runway in the shade?


The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above
will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to
reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But
if you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


wrote:

And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a runway
in the shade?


The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above
will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to
reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if
you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher
than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on skin
or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the
shade -- the heat transfer is much different.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
john smith wrote:
Following the Palm 90 crash in Washington DC, I heard someone in aviation
say something to the effect that if you are not airborne within
30-seconds of brake release following throttle up, abort and determine
why you had not reached flying speed.

I wouldn't be a fan for such a rule.

Yep, way too general.

You need to have specific standards for the plane and the airport, and
follow those considerations when faced with a need to abort a takeoff.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
john smith wrote:
Following the Palm 90 crash in Washington DC, I heard someone in aviation
say something to the effect that if you are not airborne within
30-seconds of brake release following throttle up, abort and determine
why you had not reached flying speed.
I wouldn't be a fan for such a rule.

Yep, way too general.

You need to have specific standards for the plane and the airport, and
follow those considerations when faced with a need to abort a takeoff.

For a T38, going into max AB from a standing start, at 30 seconds I'm
busting 10 thou at .9 mach :-))
30 seconds is a LOT of time in high performance airplanes. Time
generally is a bad data point for an abort...WAY too many variables as
you have correctly noted.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Sep 13, 8:39 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

I wouldn't be a fan for such a rule.

Yep, way too general.

You need to have specific standards for the plane and the airport, and
follow those considerations when faced with a need to abort a takeoff.

I can just imagine the pilot sitting there on the take off roll "one
thousand one, one thousand two....".

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:39 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

I wouldn't be a fan for such a rule.
Yep, way too general.

You need to have specific standards for the plane and the airport, and
follow those considerations when faced with a need to abort a takeoff.

I can just imagine the pilot sitting there on the take off roll "one
thousand one, one thousand two....".

-Robert

......and put this guy in a Lear at 30 seconds and see if he can still
see the runway behind and under him :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:45:44 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Newps" wrote in message
...


wrote:

And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a runway
in the shade?


The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above
will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to
reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But if
you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher
than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on skin
or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the
shade -- the heat transfer is much different.


That is the reason for my question.

Surely standard lapse rate does not apply?

I'm wondering if the ground temperature will reduce quickly as you
climb. In other words will the air temperature drop quickly as you
leave ground effect or will it continue for many tens of feet?
I presume if there's any cross wind the hotter air above the runway
will drift sideways so maybe the effect will be less..

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:45:44 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Newps" wrote in message
...


wrote:

And several Mountain Flying books mention that specifically. The
official temperature anywhere is always in the shade. Ever seen a
runway
in the shade?


The runway will no doubt have a higher temperature and the air above
will be warmer than reported but how high would you need to fly to
reach the reported air temperature as measured in the shade?



An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But
if
you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher
than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on
skin
or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the
shade -- the heat transfer is much different.


That is the reason for my question.

Surely standard lapse rate does not apply?

I'm wondering if the ground temperature will reduce quickly as you
climb. In other words will the air temperature drop quickly as you
leave ground effect or will it continue for many tens of feet?
I presume if there's any cross wind the hotter air above the runway
will drift sideways so maybe the effect will be less..

IIRC, there is a large difference within the first few feet, and the first
few tens of feet; but I don't recall what stardard there might be, nor the
effects of wind and ground clutter. Logically, everything would have some
influence...

Peter

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:45:44 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
An irrelevant question if you can't get there in the first place. But
if
you want an answer just look at the standard lapse rate as a start.

Remember, too, that a thermometer held in the sun is going to read higher
than a thermometer in the shade. What it's reading is the sunlight on skin
or a thermometer, not the air temp. That's why they takes temps in the
shade -- the heat transfer is much different.


That is the reason for my question.

Surely standard lapse rate does not apply?

SLR is only a _standard_ rate. It can be effected by pressure, inversions,
wind, even the terrain. In this latter point, it's probably nullified in
the first hundred or so feet.


I'm wondering if the ground temperature will reduce quickly as you
climb.
That would depend on several factors including those mentioned above. A wind
shear would probably have a great effect.

In other words will the air temperature drop quickly as you
leave ground effect or will it continue for many tens of feet?

Ground effect can be ten feet, or a few hundred. It would be different if
the runway surface was asphalt as opposed to concrete (different albedo).

I presume if there's any cross wind the hotter air above the runway
will drift sideways so maybe the effect will be less..

Possibly, but it would depend on the wind SPEED.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

My guess, from watching the video and hearing about the number of people
aboard, was that the aircraft was overloaded. And the only reason anyone died
was probably that the plane flipped over, otherwise they might have all walked
away from it.

Why guess when you can fire up your simulator and tell us exactly what
happens at 107 F and 230 lbs overweight at Cameron park with a
tailwind?