2338 lbs:
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 328975.htm

2312 lbs:
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 312779.htm

Mike C.

Lack of civility doesn't make your argument more compelling.


I specifically said I don't know how to get GA data. It is data that means something, namely that engines fail all the time and twins land all the time without making the news.


You can always find a scenario where the chute helps. The question is if it helps more than it hurts.

Mike C.

My preference is always in the rear with the gear in a twin turbine flown according to required climb gradients and AS/AG tables. I don't actually have a multi certificate. I do have a pilot and a single IFR ticket. My flying is limited mostly to day time VFR or playing SIC. I know my limits. And my single doesn't have a chute...

I'm sorry, but wasn't it you who told me to go back to math school?

I cannot imagine how it could hurt more than it helps? From a purely technical point of view, it does not. From a psychological point of view? Who cares? Anyone willing to strap themselves into a small airplane is already missing a few brain cells;-)

You can fly from KTEX to KGJT (Grand Junction) and never climb over KTEX airport elevation.


Well, I didn't buy a 421, so I can't disagree, but the 421 makes this flight very nicely, IMO.


421C at 6800 lbs (1000 lbs fuel, 600 lbs people and bags) at KTEX on an ISA day (-3C), accel-go is 4,400 ft to 50 ft obstacle.

What is wrong with that?

Mike C.

VGs improve climb capability by making the airplane low speed aerodynamics better.

A plane without VGs at gross and a plane with VGs at the new higher gross climb about the same rate on one engine. A plane with VGs operating at the old gross will climb better.

Mike C.

VGs improve climb capability by making the airplane low speed aerodynamics better.

A plane without VGs at gross and a plane with VGs at the new higher gross climb about the same rate on one engine. A plane with VGs operating at the old gross will climb better.

Mike C.

There is a weight penalty.


Everyone. In general, none of us benefit from dead pilots who got that way by over reliance on the chute.

Mike C.

So you flew slower with VGs?

Mike C.

So 173NM miles one way. Rounding to 180 to make math easy.
KAPA 6000 MSL
KTEX 9000 MSL
600lbs of people and bags.

Short flight. I would flight plan on 220 KTAS. So, lets round up being conservative and say one hour each way and 1 hour 15 minutes of reserve time. Three hours and 15 minutes of total flying time.

In go fast mode (Cruise ~240 KTAS): 157 Gallons.
BEW: 4399.9
Total: 5907.6

Using the 5900 (about as accurate as I can on these charts) I get the following:
-- KTEX .3200ft to take off over a 50ft. Single engine rate: ~275 FPM
-- KAPA. 2900ft to take of over a 50ft. Single engine rate: ~380 FPM

Is that what you wanted to know?

Tim

Edit, reversed single engine climb

VGs improve climb capability by making the airplane low speed aerodynamics better.

A plane without VGs at gross and a plane with VGs at the new higher gross climb about the same rate on one engine. A plane with VGs operating at the old gross will climb better.

Mike C.

My preference is always in the rear with the gear in a twin turbine flown according to required climb gradients and AS/AG tables. I don't actually have a multi certificate. I do have a pilot and a single IFR ticket. My flying is limited mostly to day time VFR or playing SIC. I know my limits. And my single doesn't have a chute...

William,

No multi?

Why dog a plane you have no experience flying? This flight is easy for a 421.

Best,

From the BLR web site:

Generally speaking, vortex generators are small, upright vanes that are attached to aircraft surfaces to inhibit boundary layer separation and thereby reduce drag.

Mike C.