29 Mar 2024, 10:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 09 Jul 2022, 14:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I grant you it was poor form not to deploy the boards, but how are you determining the touchdown speed was too high? Low attitude at touchdown. The goal is to be at 0.6 AOA or higher at touchdown. That attitude wasn't near those numbers. Also, he was in power reverse for a *long* time. You got to idle reverse at 60 KIAS, which for me, is a quite short time. Quote: Maybe he used little to no brakes. I suspect he was using the brakes quite heavily. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 10 Jul 2022, 10:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Thrust reversers make a HUGE difference on Citations. HUGE! They also cost practically nothing to maintain. Whatever they cost to maintain saves more than that for tires and brakes. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 09:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Another 501 landing at Mountain Air. Runway looks about the size of a postage stamp. [youtube]https://youtu.be/jLDhGdjL2gI[/youtube] And here he is taking off (fast forward to 6:25). Doesn't look like he's accelerating too well down the runway, though that could be an illusion. May or may not have dropped a bit off the end. [youtube]https://youtu.be/1Hq9k9Bl5lA[/youtube]
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 10:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1754 Post Likes: +2213
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 2900 ft runway, 4432 ft elevation, on a warm day, they probably did not meet takeoff runway distance. That distance assumes engine failure at V1 and crossing end of the runway at 35 ft AGL, so there's margin in the numbers, but one has to be careful when nibbling at those edges.
Mike C. Even considering runway slope?
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 10:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even considering runway slope?
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 10:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1754 Post Likes: +2213
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even considering runway slope? No correction for negative gradient? That doesn't make sense.
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 10:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No correction for negative gradient? That doesn't make sense. V1 is lowered for a negative runway gradient. So basically your go/no-go decision is sooner. Mike T, however, considers V1 to be at brake release for this runway! For me, once I hit about 50kts, I'm going (off the end if necessary)!
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 11:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/24/18 Posts: 727 Post Likes: +340 Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Another 501 landing at Mountain Air. Runway looks about the size of a postage stamp. [youtube]https://youtu.be/jLDhGdjL2gI[/youtube] And here he is taking off (fast forward to 6:25). Doesn't look like he's accelerating too well down the runway, though that could be an illusion. May or may not have dropped a bit off the end. [youtube]https://youtu.be/1Hq9k9Bl5lA[/youtube] That looks like a pretty aggressive push over in the left turn on departure. He may have gotten a bit slow but reacted quickly. Scary.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 14:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No correction for negative gradient? That doesn't make sense. The AFM is not physics, it is regulation. Anything that shortens your takeoff isn't taken at full value. Negative gradient provides no distance benefit. Headwind takeoffs only get a fraction of the wind counted. Tailwind takeoffs assume the tailwind is larger than specified. Markings are built into the number by regulation and testing procedures. The MU2 AFM takeoff distances are basically unusable since they are so far from the truth no one follows them. In some cases, the "penalty" is so blatant as to be clearly done artificially. Carlson's Solitaire at KSQL probably has never been operated conforming to the AFM runway numbers, for example. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 29 Aug 2022, 15:00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1754 Post Likes: +2213
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No correction for negative gradient? That doesn't make sense. Anything that shortens your takeoff isn't taken at full value. Negative gradient provides no distance benefit. Yet positive gradient lengthens the distance 10% for every 1% incline? I suspect that is overly conservative and not based on physics too...
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 30 Aug 2022, 09:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 2900 ft runway, 4432 ft elevation, on a warm day, they probably did not meet takeoff runway distance. That distance assumes engine failure at V1 and crossing end of the runway at 35 ft AGL, so there's margin in the numbers, but one has to be careful when nibbling at those edges.
Mike C. I don't think it was that hot. The nearest airport, Asheville (KAVL, more than 2,000 feet lower) didn't exceed 27 degrees C max during the entire Labor Day 2009 weekend. I doubt he took off at the hottest part of the day and therefore I don't think he was much over 20 degrees C if at all. So he was probably pretty close to takeoff runway distance assuming he was 10,000 pounds or less. But it's always possible they forgot about some gold bars stashed in the baggage compartment.
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501 Short Field Landing Posted: 30 Aug 2022, 22:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/13/20 Posts: 194 Post Likes: +111 Location: KLOU/KJVY
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Even considering runway slope? No correction for negative gradient? That doesn't make sense.
No correction even though this was 14 years ago?
_________________ -MU-2 -C501
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|