MacCready in the Mountains

I still don't think you guys get it. Yesterday, while flying over the Rocky
Mountains in my Nimbus 2C I was seeing 5 M/S on the averager, yet if I set
the M number to 5, the speed command would ask for 200+ MPH. Given the level
of turbulence associated with 5 M/S lift and the fact that I was flying dry,
I stayed in the green arc.

The other thing that no one has mentioned is that, at the high altitudes
required over mountains, the True Airspeed calculation has a larger effect
on average XC speed than the McCready calculation so flying slow and staying
high gets you a higher real speed.

In the mountains, structural limits, safe landing areas and terrain
clearance set maximum speed. McCready numbers are academic.

Bill Daniels



"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
...
Todd Pattist wrote:

"Greg Arnold" wrote:

My final comment on this matter -- you are talking about exceptions to
the
general rule, not about the general rule. Exceptions to the general
rule
don't disprove the general rule.

OK, but the general rule is that the rate of climb in the
next thermal has to equal the rate of climb in the current
thermal for the current thermal to affect your cruise speed
to the next thermal. As soon as that's not true, the next
thermal and it's an "exception." Thus we agree on
what the pilot does, even if we don't agree on how to
describe it :-)


And anyway, even if both are equivalent, it is simpler to
state "the next thermal controls (with no exception)", than
"the climb rate at the top of the last thermal, which should
be the same at the bottom of the next one, controls, with
some exceptions"