Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:51:18 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6667094@logan.com>
Received-SPF: neutral
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.109.115.198; envelope-from=browncc1@verizon.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Legacy Takeoff Performance at High Elevation Airports?
From: Charles Brown <browncc1@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <listdigest-6666821@logan.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <listdigest-6666821@logan.com>

Valin,  I noted (and share) Dennis Johnson's impression that Legacy =
landing distance is actually longer (typically) than takeoff so I ran =
the numbers for landing as well as takeoff at Taos.  Takeoff notes =
repeated for convenience:

KSKX (Taos) -- elevation 7100; field length 5800; slight down slope on =
Rwy 22.  Distance figures are integrated V dt from my Garmin data =
logger. =20

Takeoff with a full load:  Roll: 1960 ft.   Takeoff field length to 35' =
alt:   3200 ft.    Weight 2300 lb, temp 19C / 66F.  Wind was negligible; =
full power ramped in over 2-3 sec, flaps 10.

Landing with trip fuel expended:  Roll: 1810 feet.  Landing field length =
from 35' alt:   3270 feet.  Weight 2100 lb, temp 30C / 86F.  Headwind =
component 7kt.  IAS was 90kt at 35' altitude, flaps 40, braking was =
normal, not aggressive. =20

The lighter landing weight is pretty typical for a trip somewhere =
because you'll normally land with trip fuel expended and take off fully =
fueled.   So I'll wildly assert that for a normal out-and-back trip, =
takeoff and landing field lengths may be roughly equal.  That fits with =
my feeling that landing field length is longer (at the same weight) than =
takeoff.  The Legacy lands like most other airplanes but on takeoff it =
accelerates like a Bat Out Of Somewhere Very Hot.

Charley Brown
Legacy / IO-550=