X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:51:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5326437 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:23:09 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.129]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pBQ0MW5c027483 for ; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:22:32 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.126] (24-107-65-42.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.65.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-da01.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id AF52EE0000F8; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:22:31 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-19-806884905 X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Performance specs X-Original-Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:22:27 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:393444832:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33814ef7be476415 X-AOL-IP: 24.107.65.42 --Apple-Mail-19-806884905 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Have you looked at the Cessna Covallis numbers? Sent from my iPad On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Jim Scales wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Guys, >=20 > I am trying to tweak my Super ES performance information and would like yo= ur input on a couple of things. >=20 > 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 t= o help me calculate performance at higher elevations and density altitudes. = I want to do some flying out west and feel my tools are lacking where perfo= rmance calculations for my plane are concerned. >=20 > I have been able to gather quite a bit of info over the years of flying my= ES concerning climb rate, cruise, percentage of HP, as they are affected by= density altitude. These seem pretty clear. >=20 > My gray area is take-off distance. I have never actually done my own test= s 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. >=20 > Consensus of information that I found on the internet and in Lancair publi= cations 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 >=20 > The standard procedure that I have seen in a couple of places seems to req= uire 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 indicate= s when this method causes the plane to break ground. (Might be the 700 feet t= hat is mentioned). This strikes me as an aggressive method (might not be, ju= st seems so to me given my experience in my plane). I am not a test pilot a= nd have no intention of flying at what might be the edge of the envelope. I= prefer a bit of a conservative number, whatever it might be. >=20 > I have tried this method on a few occasions and I find it somewhat uncomfo= rtable 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 prefe= r crisp performance and firm response to control inputs. The 55/85 process d= oesn't seem to fit these preferences. >=20 > My method involves 10 degrees of flaps, deliberate, but not speedy, applic= ation of power, slight back pressure on stick beginning about 65, holding th= at pressure until plane flies off. Usually flying occurs at about 85-90 wit= h no "sag" feeling and very positive control response. Climb out is at 100 t= ill 400 feet then 125-130 to altitude. =20 >=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 11= 00. Again I have done no actual measurements, just judging by the thousand f= oot marks on the runway. >=20 > 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. >=20 > So is it possible to put together a chart that can help me figure ground r= oll 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 rol= l and climb rate for performance calculations relative to density altitude. >=20 > 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 situati= ons. I prefer to know what to expect as far as airplane performance is conc= erned. >=20 > I am probably not able to adequately explain what it is that I am searchin= g 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 o= ff performance. Hopefully some of you can gather from what I have written w= hat else you think I need. >=20 > I appreciate any input you might have on this subject. I have not seen th= is subject on LML so maybe I am not the only one who could use this informat= ion. >=20 > Just trying to be safe. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Jim Scales (almost 1200 hours and very happy) >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-19-806884905 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Have you looked at the Cessna Covallis n= umbers?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:04 PM,= Jim Scales <joscales98@hotmail= .com> wrote:

<= div dir=3D"ltr">

<= br>
Guys,

I am trying to tweak my Super E= S performance information and would like your input on a couple of things.

I want to put together some charts/tables that let m= e calculate my plane's performance relative to density altitude. The pu= rpose of this information gathering exercise is to put together a chart that= can use realistic numbers to help me calculate performance at higher elevat= ions and density altitudes.  I want to do some flying out west and feel= my tools are lacking where performance calculations for my plane are concer= ned.

I have been able to gather quite a bit of info= over the years of flying my ES concerning climb rate, cruise, percentage of= HP, as they are affected by density altitude.  These seem pretty clear= .

My gray area is take-off distance.  I have n= ever actually done my own tests in this area other than paying attention at m= y home airport about where down the runway I start flying. If any of you hav= e 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 a= nd in Lancair publications seems to be about a 700 ft ground roll on a stand= ard day at sea level for 3400 pound gw.  This number appears unrealisti= c to me. 

The standard procedure that I have s= een in a couple of places seems to require lifting the nose wheel around 55 a= nd climbing at 85.  Doesn't mention holding brakes till full power. &nb= sp;Can't seem to find information that indicates when this method causes the= plane to break ground. (Might be the 700 feet that is mentioned). This= strikes me as an aggressive method (might not be, just seems so to me given= my experience in my plane).  I am not a test pilot and have no intenti= on of flying at what might be the edge of the envelope.  I prefer a bit= of a conservative number, whatever it might be.

I h= ave tried this method on a few occasions and I find it somewhat uncomfortabl= e because the plane tends to settle in a tail low attitude after becoming ai= rborne and seems quite lazy even while still in ground effect.  I prefe= r crisp performance and firm response to control inputs. The 55/85 process d= oesn't seem to fit these preferences.

My method inv= olves 10 degrees of flaps, deliberate, but not speedy, application of power,= slight back pressure on stick beginning about 65, holding that pressure unt= il plane flies off.  Usually flying occurs at about 85-90 with no "sag"= feeling and very positive control response. Climb out is at 100 till 400 fe= et then 125-130 to altitude.  

On an approxima= tely standard day this results in wheels off the runway at about 900 feet at= about 3200 pounds.  At gross of 3400 the number is about 1100.  A= gain I have done no actual measurements, just judging by the thousand foot m= arks on the runway.

I discovered the Koch Chart and= found it to be really useful but it is all based on a fairly accurate stand= ard day gross weight ground roll.

So is it possible= to put together a chart that can help me figure ground roll and climb rate f= or various gross weight situations?  Is one already available that I ju= st don't know about?  The Koch Chart only requires ground roll and clim= b rate for performance calculations relative to density altitude.
=
Being a flatlander I have not ever been that concerned about t= his subject.  Always had plenty of runway and lots of horsepower.  = ;I don't want to be that "loose" in my calculations when I encounter high de= nsity altitude situations.  I prefer to know what to expect as far as a= irplane performance is concerned.

I am probably not= able to adequately explain what it is that I am searching for.  I beli= eve my primary need is a realistic standard day gross weigh ground roll numb= er that can be safely used to calculate density altitude take off performanc= e.  Hopefully some of you can gather from what I have written what else= you think I need.

I appreciate any input you might= have on this subject.  I have not seen this subject on LML so maybe I a= m not the only one who could use this information.

= Just trying to be safe.

Thanks,

Jim Scales  (almost 1200 hours and very happy)



<= /div>
= --Apple-Mail-19-806884905--