Simviation Forums

For all that sort of information, I read the Aircraft Owners Manual, (as one should, before pressing the starter button!... ...).
All the operating parameters to be complied with are contained there for each individual aircraft.

Some of this information is often available on the Knee-board for quick reference...

http://www.cessna150.net/information/perspec.html

Paul...Climb rate = max 670 FPM at sea level for my little Cessna 150.

For all that sort of information, I read the Aircraft Owners Manual, (as one should, before pressing the starter button!... ...).
All the operating parameters to be complied with are contained there for each individual aircraft.

Some of this information is often available on the Knee-board for quick reference...

http://www.cessna150.net/information/perspec.html

Paul...Climb rate = max 670 FPM at sea level for my little Cessna 150.

Yeah...but they are talking about the UNMODIFIED Cessna 150 Fozzer,not your rocket-propelled gunship.

For all that sort of information, I read the Aircraft Owners Manual, (as one should, before pressing the starter button!... ...).
All the operating parameters to be complied with are contained there for each individual aircraft.

Some of this information is often available on the Knee-board for quick reference...

http://www.cessna150.net/information/perspec.html

Paul...Climb rate = max 670 FPM at sea level for my little Cessna 150.

Yeah...but they are talking about the UNMODIFIED Cessna 150 Fozzer, not your rocket-propelled gunship.

.... ... ... ...!

My little rocket-propelled gunship; Cessna 150 Aerobat, fits in the category of; "Experimental", Jet... ... ...!

...(...bordering on; "Experimental Jet"!...)... ...!

Paul...light the fuse, and retire!... ...!

From another forum (professional pilots) ROC/ROD - is a minimum of 500ft/m and a max of 2500ft/m

Indeed, you ought to inform ATC if you can't maintain 500fpm, as they will be assuming this in their forward planning. I've never heard of having too great a rate of climb, as the airspace should be clear for you to attain your cleared level as soon as you are cleared to it. Lowering the ROC/ROD as you approach your cleared level, partly for passenger comfort, partly so you don't end up with an uncomfortable TCAS alert on any traffic cruising directly above, is fairly normal in my experience.

[quote]OK...seems like y'all are talking small prop craft.I'm talking 747,777,737,Lear 45...Lear being the smallest.I seldom fly props.I DO like them,but I want to get from KCLE to KEDW in a few hours.Not all day flying.I noticed AI AC (big jets) will have a ROC of 3200fpm and greater.Cant figure what is the acceptable average.As far as G forces of impact to rwy in a 747,etc...none of the data sheets speak of G forces.They give ROD.Sometimes I land a little heavy..., 3.2 Gs or so.Seems a bit much. // stephan/ 'Altitude With Attitude!'

OK...seems like y'all are talking small prop craft.

I wasn't. I was talking fairly heavy jet stuff... Heavily loaded, and in the right temperatures, 500fpm will be an aspiration!

On to Matt's point on landing, you mention the max G loading on landing, but does the 737 documentation specify a max RoD on touchdown? I know the VC10 certainly does (can't remember it!).

I did a 4G landing once. I won't mention the type, other than that we taxied clear of the runway, re-secured the canopy, and took off again!

OK...seems like y'all are talking small prop craft.

I wasn't. I was talking fairly heavy jet stuff... Heavily loaded, and in the right temperatures, 500fpm will be an aspiration!

On to Matt's point on landing, you mention the max G loading on landing, but does the 737 documentation specify a max RoD on touchdown? I know the VC10 certainly does (can't remember it!).

I did a 4G landing once. I won't mention the type, other than that we taxied clear of the runway, re-secured the canopy, and took off again!

Sorry Charlie, in the words of "Goose", that is pilot shit. I just wait for the ACARS printer to spit out a heavy landing report and then act upon it (also take the piss a little). The 737 does not actually have a max landing weight. It has a recommended max of 65550 kg's which to all intents an purposes is treated as a max. If it was all up with full tanks, it can land with only take off and circuit fuel missing. The deciding factor then is the touchdown G loading the aircraft experiences, thought the 9 out of 10 pilots need a very long runway to pull it off. This year we had three medical diversions to Brest on the way to Mallorca, all over weight and all landings well below 2.1G Mind you Brest is just under 2 miles long............

Matt

Yeah, fair enough. The poor old '10 has about 38,000-45,000kg difference between MTOW and MLW! Occasionally it operates at or around MLW, but not often!

[quote]Holy beJesus!..those are wolf pelts on that prop!!! Cool! At any rate...you gents are talking WAY above my head here,but it makes for interesting reading.What I AM getting from what I THINK I understand is what G would be acceptable in one condition (quarter load of fuel) would not be acceptable for a landing with a nearly full load of fuel.So,my best bet would be to 'skim' the runway to a stop.Guess I'll use my ILS till I get a visual,then do my own flying.Means I'll be running a longer distance at a lower altitude till I tag the rwy,but it should make for a smoother landing.Some airports make that idea tough to practice when they're located near the mountains because my flairing technique has a lot to be desired.OK...Thanks a bunch guys.Love hearing y'all talk all that tech stuff even though most of it goes way over my head. Have a good'n! //stephan