Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:04:09 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-5325615@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.90.174; envelope-from=joscales98@hotmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_e62114c9-581e-4323-bb99-cf46222100c5_"
From: Jim Scales <joscales98@hotmail.com>
Subject: Performance specs
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <SNT135-W250312E75C48C4E0D872E6C0A70@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT135-W250312E75C48C4E0D872E6C0A70@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_e62114c9-581e-4323-bb99-cf46222100c5_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Guys=2C

I am trying to tweak my Super ES performance information and would like you=
r input on a couple of things.
I want to put together some charts/tables that let me calculate my plane's =
performance relative to density altitude. The purpose of this information g=
athering exercise is to put together a chart that can use realistic numbers=
 to help me calculate performance at higher elevations and density altitude=
s.  I want to do some flying out west and feel my tools are lacking where p=
erformance calculations for my plane are concerned.
I have been able to gather quite a bit of info over the years of flying my =
ES concerning climb rate=2C cruise=2C percentage of HP=2C as they are affec=
ted by density altitude.  These seem pretty clear.
My gray area is take-off distance.  I have never actually done my own tests=
 in this area other than paying attention at my home airport about where do=
wn the runway I start flying. If any of you have actual numbers for your ES=
 I would like to see them if you don't mind.
Consensus of information that I found on the internet and in Lancair public=
ations seems to be about a 700 ft ground roll on a standard day at sea leve=
l for 3400 pound gw.  This number appears unrealistic to me.=20
The standard procedure that I have seen in a couple of places seems to requ=
ire lifting the nose wheel around 55 and climbing at 85.  Doesn't mention h=
olding brakes till full power.  Can't seem to find information that indicat=
es when this method causes the plane to break ground. (Might be the 700 fee=
t that is mentioned). This strikes me as an aggressive method (might not be=
=2C just seems so to me given my experience in my plane).  I am not a test =
pilot and have no intention of flying at what might be the edge of the enve=
lope.  I prefer a bit of a conservative number=2C whatever it might be.
I have tried this method on a few occasions and I find it somewhat uncomfor=
table because the plane tends to settle in a tail low attitude after becomi=
ng airborne and seems quite lazy even while still in ground effect.  I pref=
er crisp performance and firm response to control inputs. The 55/85 process=
 doesn't seem to fit these preferences.
My method involves 10 degrees of flaps=2C deliberate=2C but not speedy=2C a=
pplication of power=2C slight back pressure on stick beginning about 65=2C =
holding that pressure until plane flies off.  Usually flying occurs at abou=
t 85-90 with no "sag" feeling and very positive control response. Climb out=
 is at 100 till 400 feet then 125-130 to altitude. =20
On an approximately standard day this results in wheels off the runway at a=
bout 900 feet at about 3200 pounds.  At gross of 3400 the number is about 1=
100.  Again I have done no actual measurements=2C just judging by the thous=
and foot marks on the runway.
I discovered the Koch Chart and found it to be really useful but it is all =
based on a fairly accurate standard day gross weight ground roll.
So is it possible to put together a chart that can help me figure ground ro=
ll and climb rate for various gross weight situations?  Is one already avai=
lable that I just don't know about?  The Koch Chart only requires ground ro=
ll and climb rate for performance calculations relative to density altitude=
.
Being a flatlander I have not ever been that concerned about this subject. =
 Always had plenty of runway and lots of horsepower.  I don't want to be th=
at "loose" in my calculations when I encounter high density altitude situat=
ions.  I prefer to know what to expect as far as airplane performance is co=
ncerned.
I am probably not able to adequately explain what it is that I am searching=
 for.  I believe my primary need is a realistic standard day gross weigh gr=
ound roll number that can be safely used to calculate density altitude take=
 off performance.  Hopefully some of you can gather from what I have writte=
n what else you think I need.
I appreciate any input you might have on this subject.  I have not seen thi=
s subject on LML so maybe I am not the only one who could use this informat=
ion.
Just trying to be safe.
Thanks=2C
Jim Scales  (almost 1200 hours and very happy)


 		 	   		   		 	   		  =

--_e62114c9-581e-4323-bb99-cf46222100c5_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt=3B
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>
<br><br><div><div id=3D"SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id=3D"stopSpelling">=
<br><br>

<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html=3B charset=3Dunicode=
">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft SafeHTML">
<style>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px=3B}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt=3Bfont-family:Tahoma=3B}

</style>
<div dir=3D"ltr">Guys=2C<br><div><br></div><div>I am trying to tweak my Sup=
er ES performance information and would like your input on a couple of thin=
gs.</div><div><br></div><div>I want to put together some charts/tables that=
 let me calculate my plane's performance relative to density altitude.&nbsp=
=3BThe purpose of this information gathering exercise is to put together a =
chart that can use realistic numbers to help me calculate performance at hi=
gher elevations and density altitudes. &nbsp=3BI want to do some flying out=
 west and feel my tools are lacking where performance calculations for my p=
lane are concerned.</div><div><br></div><div>I have been able to gather qui=
te a bit of info over the years of flying my ES concerning climb rate=2C cr=
uise=2C percentage of HP=2C as they are affected by density altitude. &nbsp=
=3BThese seem pretty clear.</div><div><br></div><div>My gray area is take-o=
ff distance. &nbsp=3BI have never actually done my own tests in this area o=
ther than paying attention at my home airport about where down the runway I=
 start flying. If any of you have actual numbers for your ES I would like t=
o see them if you don't mind.</div><div><br></div><div>Consensus of informa=
tion that I found on the internet and in Lancair publications seems to be a=
bout a 700 ft ground roll on a standard day at sea level for 3400 pound gw.=
 &nbsp=3BThis number appears unrealistic to me.&nbsp=3B</div><div><br></div=
><div>The standard procedure that I have seen in a couple of places seems t=
o require lifting the nose wheel around 55 and climbing at 85. &nbsp=3BDoes=
n't mention holding brakes till full power. &nbsp=3BCan't seem to find info=
rmation that indicates when this method causes the plane to break ground. (=
Might be the 700 feet that is mentioned).&nbsp=3BThis strikes me as an aggr=
essive method (might not be=2C just seems so to me given my experience in m=
y plane). &nbsp=3BI am not a test pilot and have no intention of flying at =
what might be the edge of the envelope. &nbsp=3BI prefer a bit of a conserv=
ative number=2C whatever it might be.</div><div><br></div><div>I have tried=
 this method on a few occasions and I find it somewhat uncomfortable becaus=
e the plane tends to settle in a tail low attitude after becoming airborne =
and seems quite lazy even while still in ground effect. &nbsp=3BI prefer cr=
isp performance and firm response to control inputs. The 55/85 process does=
n't seem to fit these preferences.</div><div><br></div><div>My method invol=
ves 10 degrees of flaps=2C deliberate=2C but not speedy=2C application of p=
ower=2C slight back pressure on stick beginning about 65=2C holding that pr=
essure until plane flies off. &nbsp=3BUsually flying occurs at about 85-90 =
with no "sag" feeling and very positive control response. Climb out is at 1=
00 till 400 feet then 125-130 to altitude. &nbsp=3B</div><div><br></div><di=
v>On an approximately standard day this results in wheels off the runway at=
 about 900 feet at about 3200 pounds. &nbsp=3BAt gross of 3400 the number i=
s about 1100. &nbsp=3BAgain I have done no actual measurements=2C just judg=
ing by the thousand foot marks on the runway.</div><div><br></div><div>I di=
scovered the Koch Chart and found it to be really useful but it is all base=
d on a fairly accurate standard day gross weight ground roll.</div><div><br=
></div><div>So is it possible to put together a chart that can help me figu=
re ground roll and climb rate for various gross weight situations? &nbsp=3B=
Is one already available that I just don't know about? &nbsp=3BThe Koch Cha=
rt only requires ground roll and climb rate for performance calculations re=
lative to density altitude.</div><div><br></div><div>Being a flatlander I h=
ave not ever been that concerned about this subject. &nbsp=3BAlways had ple=
nty of runway and lots of horsepower. &nbsp=3BI don't want to be that "loos=
e" in my calculations when I encounter high density altitude situations. &n=
bsp=3BI prefer to know what to expect as far as airplane performance is con=
cerned.</div><div><br></div><div>I am probably not able to adequately expla=
in what it is that I am searching for. &nbsp=3BI believe my primary need is=
 a realistic standard day gross weigh ground roll number that can be safely=
 used to calculate density altitude take off performance. &nbsp=3BHopefully=
 some of you can gather from what I have written what else you think I need=
.</div><div><br></div><div>I appreciate any input you might have on this su=
bject. &nbsp=3BI have not seen this subject on LML so maybe I am not the on=
ly one who could use this information.</div><div><br></div><div>Just trying=
 to be safe.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks=2C</div><div><br></div><div>Ji=
m Scales &nbsp=3B(almost 1200 hours and very happy)</div><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div> 		 	   		  </div></div> 		 	   		  </div></body=
>
</html>=

--_e62114c9-581e-4323-bb99-cf46222100c5_--