Va Maneuvering

[Lantirn]

Hi gents,

I am a student pilot, finished ATPL, building hours on DV20 Katana.

I have a question regarding Va.

Va on the Katana is 104kts according to the AFM.

As Va is SQRT(n) times clean stall power off speed at max weight, it is for katana SQRT(4,4) times 43kts (clean) which is....90 knots.

I can not understand where the 104kts came from, which is 5,8G loading.

The only thing that I found is that by law, VS√(n) ≤ VA ≤ VC.

According to an FAA circular:

VA should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed. Only if VA = VS √(n) will the airplane stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver at, or near, limit load factor. For airplanes where VA > VS√(n), the pilot would have to check the maneuver; otherwise the airplane would exceed the limit load factor.

This paragraph, confirms that statements on flight manual are not accurate about allowance of full or abrupt movements of control stick at Va. (OR I am missing something they accounted for, which I dont know)

Also, in CS23 there is a paragraph, saying same things.

Maybe this is something to do with ultimate and limit load factor, but again, it doesnt make sense.

If 4,4g is the limit load factor, so the ultimate load factor should be 4,4 times 1,5 which is 6,6g.

Maybe I am missing something.

Can anyone help?

[italia458]

Va is only to ensure that control surfaces don't get damaged. In the regulations the minimum Va speed is sqrt(n)(Vs) but that is only the minimum, and hence why you see the FAA circular saying that Va doesn't guarantee you won't break the airplane!

Read FAR 23.335(c), 23.423, and 23.441.

The first sentence in 23.423 says:

"Each horizontal surface and its supporting structure, and the main wing of a canard or tandem wing configuration, if that surface has pitch control, must be designed for the maneuvering loads imposed by the following conditions"

This is specifically for the control surfaces and supporting structure.

What you're thinking of is actually called Vo - maximum operating maneuvering speed. Reference FAR 23.1507.

[PantLoad]

It is a function of stall speed at your current weight (one G) and the design load capability of your aircraft. Therefore, Maneuver Speed varies....it is not one hard and fast number.

So, for example, if you're very light, the maneuver speed will be less than the one published. The published maneuver speed is for max gross weight.

One more caveat....maneuver speed does not protect you from abrupt full and opposite control input. So, while it may protect you from loads from extreme turbulence, it does not protect you from rapid, full, and opposite control inputs.

[italia458]

It is a function of stall speed at your current weight (one G) and the design load capability of your aircraft. Therefore, Maneuver Speed varies....it is not one hard and fast number.

PantLoad,

That isn't really correct. It is only correct when Va = Vo. Va ONLY refers to control surface's and their supporting structure's integrity.

One more caveat....maneuver speed does not protect you from abrupt full and opposite control input. So, while it may protect you from loads from extreme turbulence, it does not protect you from rapid, full, and opposite control inputs.

That is true that you can overstress the control surface or its supporting structure if you apply full control deflection of more than one control surface or if you oscillate the control surface. But Va isn't a turbulence speed. Vb, Vc and Vd are all related to turbulence. If Vb wasn't published for your airplane, you should fly at the Vo speed for your weight and configuration. If Vo isn't published you can easily calculate it by using the formula: Vo=Vs*sqrt(n), ensuring the correct stall speed for your weight is being used.

Steve Pomroy has taken the time to write a few good articles on these subjects:

The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 1) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood.html)
The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 2) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood_27.html)
The Flight Writer: Tubulence Penetration (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/10/tubulence-penetration.html)

[PantLoad]

To be honest, I had to look up Vo. I wasn't familiar with that. It is not in Part 1 of the FAA definitions. But, thanks to Google, I learned it's the maximum maneuvering speed.

Yes, italia458, you are correct, this refers to only control surfaces and the supporting structure.

However, the Va does vary with weight...the basic premise is that at or below this speed the control surface "unloads" (stalls) before deformation an'/or structural failure occurs.

Source: FAA-H-8083-25A "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge"
Pages 4-32 and 4-33.

Not only does it vary with weight, but with altitude, as well. (Above source) As the textbook states, there is one maneuverving speed for a given weight, altitude, and design load factor.

Further, you are correct regarding the turbulence issue. The "gust factor" provides no guarantee of safety.

And, again, italia458, you are correct regarding abrupt and oscillating control input. The American Airlines Airbus accident during departure from JFK brought that point to light.

Source: Airbus Flight Crew Bulletin FCB-FCB25 Use of Rudder on Transport Category Aircraft

And, once again, you are right....Turbulence is another issue. However, the point I was trying to make is that, in extreme conditions, speed reduction of speed to at or below Va affords additional protection against structural failure....with the admonition listed above in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. (i.e. even if slowed to at or below this speed, gusts can bring the aircraft to a point beyond its structural capabilities.)

Again, the basic premise is that, at or below this speed, the surface will stall before it breaks. With the caveats you list regarding this, you are correct.


p.s. I just read your references... My comment:

The writer suggests that, in extreme turbulence, the pilot may need to use
full and abrupt control inputs to control the aircraft. As with the author, I agree, I'd hate to think about doing that.

But, cconsider this: You're in extreme turbulence. You're below your Va. And, you hold the control wheel totally static. That is to say, you make no control inputs. In other words, you let the aircraft do what it is forced to do at the mercy of the turbulence. In this hypothetical circumstance, gusts not considered, the control surfaces will stall before they're allowed to exceed their designed load factor limit.

Remember, stall is a function of, among several things, load factor.

[stressmerchant]

However, the Va does vary with weight...the basic premise is that at or below this speed the control surface "unloads" (stalls) before deformation an'/or structural failure occurs.
I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Va is a single declared speed, used to ensure that the control surfaces are not subject to excessive loads. I am familar with the wording of the FAA "Pilot's handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge", but the intent of the FAR regulations and the associated advisory circulars is clear - it is assumed that even if the pilot imposes maximum control deflection at Va, he or she will check the manoeuvre before the aircraft G limit is reached.

Vo was added to the Standards to address introduce a speed closer to the classic understanding of Va.

With regards the Airbus rudder issue, IIRC the design case for the fin includes that of a sudden displacement to maximum, followed by a return to neutral. In the case of the AA accident, the rudder was (repeatedly?) moved from stop to stop.

[PantLoad]

Yes, Va is a single declared speed and is valid at the aircraft's maximum gross weight.

Similarly, Vx and Vy vary with weight and altitude.....even though, as published, they're a single declared weight.

Stall speed....same situation.

With regard to the American Airlines accident and the cited Airbus brief, you are correct.

[italia458]

PantLoad...

However, the Va does vary with weight...the basic premise is that at or below this speed the control surface "unloads" (stalls) before deformation an'/or structural failure occurs.

As stressmerchant says, that isn't correct. Va does not vary with weight, contrary to what the FAA pilot handbook says - it seems the engineers don't talk to the instructors at the FAA! It's the misinterpretation of Va that leads the FAA and others to incorrectly say that Va varies based on weight. As I pointed out, that would only be true if Va was at the minimum possible speed for certification, meaning it was equal to Vo=Vs*sqrt(n).

You now see that Va relates only to control surfaces and their structure. What 'breaks' a control surface or its structure - force or acceleration? The answer is force, in this case, aerodynamic force that's proportional to the velocity squared of the air and the coefficient of lift (angle of attack). It is the force created by the air as the plane moves through it that will break the control surfaces and their structures - changing the weight of the airplane does nothing to affect this.

Some aircraft will say that Va is the maximum speed at which you will not overstress "the aircraft" and will say that this speed decreases with less than maximum weight. In this case they're taking into account the limit maneuvering load factor.

Another thing to consider is that the wings don't break off because of acceleration, they break off because of force. The speed at which the wings create enough lift to break off will always remain the same. The reason that Vo is related to acceleration (load factor) is because other items such as the floor in the airplane or engine mounts are at a known mass and, therefore, limiting the acceleration will ensure that the force applied to the structure won't exceed its limits - F=ma. If you were near empty weight, you could pull significantly more G than what your limit maneuvering load factor is before your wings snapped off. You probably would break other components that weren't designed for the higher load factor, but your wings won't break until they reach the aerodynamic force required to break them.

[Lantirn]

Guys...

I can not emphasize how important this conversation was to me...

Va is a TOTAL misundestood speed, even in ATPL todays books...

This is unacceptable...

Thank you very much.

[Oktas8]

Lantirn,

In addition to the wealth of information provided above, I'd like to point out a common error in do-it-yourself aerodynamic calculations. You have forgotten to account for various airspeed instrument and pressure error. The calculation for Va (actually, Vo according to information above) is Vs times sq rt of limit load, but where Vs and Va are both expressed in knots EAS. EAS is very similar to CAS for light aircraft.

The stall speed of a Katana at max weight at sea level with cruise flap is 54kts CAS. Do the maths on that, and you can see why the published Va of 104 is actually quite a conservative number.

My own experience with the DV20 leads me to conclude that the published Va is limited by rudder movement rather than elevator movement. It is a very large rudder supported by a long and slender aft fuselage. But I really don't know for sure, any more than anyone else outside of Diamond's design team...

[Lantirn]

Hi Oktas8,

Yes, EAS is considered after 300 knots.

Yes, indeed I missed that. According to AFM 43 kias is 50 cas, which makes sense now for 104 knots Vo, or Va(min).

However at limitations chapter, in definition of Va which is Vo as you stated, says "Do not make full or abrupt control movement above this speed, because under certain conditions the airplane may be overstressed by full control movement".

According to Steve Pomroy's article, ( The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 2) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood_27.html) ) , you could overstress the airframe even before Vo with very fast increase of stick deflection.

I am not talking about Va which guarantees flight control structure limits, but talking as a Vo, because finaly that is, Vo.

So, according to the manual, you can make full or abrupt movements before Vo.

As far as I can understand, no, you can not!!!

[italia458]

According to Steve Pomroy's article, ( The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 2) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood_27.html) ) , you could overstress the airframe even before Vo with very fast increase of stick deflection.

Are you talking about the 30% increase in lift due to rapid pitch rate? That has to do with dynamic stall - where a leading edge vortex (LEV) "provides additional suction over the upper airfoil surface as it convects downstream. This increased suction leads to performance gains in lift and stall delay, but the LEV quickly becomes unstable and detaches from the airfoil. The LEV detachment is accompanied by a dramatic decrease in lift and sudden increase in pitching moment."

This mostly has to do with helicopters and flapping wings, it would be hard to duplicate this with an airplane unless it was an aerobatic plane or military fighter jet. You can read more about dynamic stall here: Dynamic Stall | Aerodynamic Flow Control and Advanced Diagnostics Research Group (http://mae.osu.edu/labs/afcad/research/dynamic-stall)

I wouldn't worry about it - but what you really should know is:


At Va or below, you can make one full abrupt control movement and return to neutral and be sure your control surfaces won't break.
Even below Va, if you apply abrupt control inputs in multiple axis or multiple oscillations, you are not guaranteed to not overstress the control surface or its supporting structure.
Va does not vary based on weight.
At all times you are required to ensure that the limit maneuvering load factor is not exceeded. It can be exceeded at speeds below Va.

If you keep those in mind, you'll have no problem operating an airplane safely - in this regard! :ok:

[Oktas8]

So, according to the manual, you can make full or abrupt movements before Vo. As far as I can understand, no, you can not!!!

The definitions of Va and other terms do change slightly from time to time, which may be why current AFMs don't seem to mention Vo. Also, I would never obey an article on the internet in preference to the manufacturer's instructions. I'm sure you feel the same way!

That said, I have taught in the past that Va protects from full or abrupt control movements. At Va you may do full or you may do abrupt, but not both together. This is often overly conservative advice, but it takes into account the reality that Va is not a bullet-proof panacea.

Edit: this idea that Va relates only to control surface strength is a new one to me. There seems no point at all in measuring and publishing a number that protects against elevator surface failure, but oh dear, so sorry your engine broke off, we didn't measure that. Vo, the varies-with-weight one, varies with weight in order to protect non-aerodynamic parts such as engine mounts.

[italia458]

Oktas,

That said, I have taught in the past that Va protects from full or abrupt control movements. At Va you may do full or you may do abrupt, but not both together. This is often overly conservative advice, but it takes into account the reality that Va is not a bullet-proof panacea.

I think that's how misconceptions about these sorts of things start! You should be teaching what Va actually is and not what you determine to be a conservative estimate of it. Testing (FAR 23.423) dictates a "sudden movement... to the maximum aft movement". The definition of Va and the requirements for testing at Va of control surfaces and their supporting structure hasn't changed since at least 1965. There have only been slight wording changes. You can look that up under the historical FARs.

Va is bullet-proof for what it is. It gets the misconception that it isn't bullet-proof when people break airplanes while flying at or below Va but the problem isn't Va, the problem is the pilot's understanding of Va. Example: AA 587.

Most American Airlines pilots believed that the tail fin could withstand any rudder movement at maneuvering speed.

[stressmerchant]

The definitions of Va and other terms do change slightly from time to time, which may be why current AFMs don't seem to mention Vo
Vo is a "recent" change - introduced in the late 90s IIRC. The change was due to the difference between the "pilot" and "engineer" understanding of Va - Vo is closer to the (incorrect) concept of Va that I was taught as a pilot.

[Lantirn]

It is crystal clear to me now.

But I see that even academic books such as oxford aviation ATPL books, are wrong about Va...this is a BIG misconception that leads more and more ATPL pilots to learn Va in the wrong way.

For example (Principles Of Flight, Oxford aviation, 2008)

DESIGN MANOEUVRING SPEED, VA
The highest speed at which sudden, full elevator deflection (nose up) can be made without exceeding the design limit load factor.

Then it explains where it is on a V-n diagram, and then states:

For example an aircraft with a 1g stalling speed of 60kt and limit load factor of 2.5 would have a VA of:
60 √ 2.5 = 95 kt

This is, Vo that is explained by Oxford, not Va.

Anyway, same approach is taken by Bristol Groundschool, Jeppesen and many more manuals, even engineering manuals.

This is a BIG misconception!!!

[Brian Abraham]

This is, Vo that is explained by Oxford, not Va.I think there be a little confusion.

§ 23.1507 Operating maneuvering speed.

The maximum operating maneuvering speed, VO , must be established as an operating limitation. VO is a selected speed that is not greater than VS √n established in § 23.335(c).

§ 23.335 Design airspeeds.

(c) Design maneuvering speed VA. For VA, the following applies:
(1) VA may not be less than VS √ n where—
(i) VS is a computed stalling speed with flaps retracted at the design weight, normally based on the maximum airplane normal force coefficients, CNA ; and
(ii) n is the limit maneuvering load factor used in design
(2) The value of VA need not exceed the value of VC used in design.

To summarise,

VA must be equal to or greater than VS √ n
VO must be equal to or less than VS √ n
You now see that Va relates only to control surfaces and their structureNot so I'm afraid, I think you are misreading the intent behind § 23.423. VA relates to the entire airframe.

Operating Manoeuvring Speed, VO, is the maximum speed at which an aircraft in symmetrical flight at the specified flight weight and configuration will stall (unload) before exceeding limit load and sustaining possible structural damage. Aircraft are therefore aerodynamically g-limited by the lift line up to manoeuvring speed, and structurally g-limited by the load line above it. Manoeuvring speed is also the maximum speed for turbulent air penetration, although a speed somewhat less—fast enough to avoid stall yet slow enough to diminish the loads experienced—is usually recommended. (In an aircraft subjected to a sharp vertical gust of given intensity, the increase in structural load—and thus the acceleration the pilot feels—varies directly with airspeed.)

An example is the Cirrus SR20 which has the following Operating Manoeuvring Speeds (VO).

2900 lbs 135kts
2600 lbs 126kts
2200 lbs 116kts

[Lantirn]

Yes Brian.

Vo definition makes sense.

Again, Oxford talks about Vo, not Va.

I also see that Va and limit load factor are not connected.

Do I miss something behind the lines?

[italia458]

Brian,

Not so I'm afraid, I think you are misreading the intent behind § 23.423. VA relates to the entire airframe.

I agree with everything you said, except that sentence. Why do you think that Va relates to the entire airframe?

You go on to explain Vo and how it's related to the entire airframe (by ensuring that the limit maneuvering load factor isn't exceeded), but Va does not do that.

Reading the FAA AC 23-19A will confirm that Va does not "permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits".

[Lantirn]

Maybe by saying "relates to the entire airframe", he means for example the tail empenage.

[keith williams]

The material below outlines some of the FAA discussions on this subject.

Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 23.1507Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

Subpart G--Operating Limitations and Information
Sec. 23.1507[Operating] maneuvering speed.[The maximum operating maneuvering speed, VO, must be established as an operating limitation. VO is a selected speed that is not greater than established in Sec. 23.335(c).]Amdt. 23-45, Eff. 09/07/93 Comments Document HistoryNotice of
Proposed Rulemaking Actions:Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Notice No. 90-18; Issued on 06/15/90.Final Rule Actions:Final Rule. Docket No. 26269; Issued on 07/28/93.



The following text is extracted from the above document.

Reference: Conference proposals 119 and 120.
No action is being taken to amend Section 23.335 Design airspeeds.

Explanation: Conference proposal 187 recommends revision of Section 23.335(c) to increase the design load factor to account for possible overloads resulting from maximum airplane maneuvers at speeds greater than VS√n for cases where the applicant chooses a design maneuvering speed greater than V=VS√n as allowed by Section 23.335(c). In support of conference proposal 187, the submitter states that the purpose of maneuvering speed (in addition to supplying a speed for design of control surfaces in accordance with Sections 23.423, 23.441 and 23.445) is to provide an operating speed where a pilot can be assured of not exceeding the design limits during maneuvers. If a design maneuvering speed in excess of VS√n is chosen (as currently allowed by Section 23.335(c)), and if the airplane is operated at that speed during maneuver, the potential exists for a pilot to exceed the design limit load factor unless that load factor is increased accordingly.

Post conference review indicates that the design maneuvering speed criteria provided in Section 23.335 is necessary and sufficient for control surface design. As such, design maneuvering speed selections greater than VS√n are appropriate, and requiring increases in load factor above those specified in Section 23.337 are unjustified.

However, the FAA recognizes that maneuvering speed is also used by the pilot as that airspeed below which full control surface inputs can be accomplished without structural damage. Maneuvering speed may also be used as a gust penetration speed to minimize the possibility of airframe damage. If the airplane is maneuvered at its maximum weight at airspeeds less than VS√n the airplane will stall prior to exceeding the maximum design load factor. If the airplane is operated at speeds greater than VS√n in the same conditions, the maximum design load factor can be exceeded.

The FAA recognizes the dual meaning given maneuvering speed and agrees that the maneuvering speed used to design the control surfaces and the maneuvering speed used by the pilot have different purposes, yet Sections 23.335, 23.1507, and 23.1563 use the same term, "design maneuvering speed, VA".

The FAA proposes to leave Section 23.335 unchanged but would establish an "operating maneuvering speed: VO" in Section 23.1507, and alter Section 23.1563 to require an airspeed placard listing a maximum operating maneuvering speed, instead of the design maneuvering speed VA. Since the operating maneuvering speed (that speed where the CNA max curve intersects the design load factor line) will reduce for weights less than maximum weight, the applicant may choose to placard operational maneuvering speeds for more weights than the maximum.

In the above text the term VSün means (Vs Square root n), depending on your font selection

[Lantirn]

Very nice input, thank you

[Brian Abraham]

My error, I see now what you're getting at. It didn't hit me even though I wroteVA must be equal to or greater than VS√n

The design maneuvering speed is a value chosen by the applicant. It may not be less than Vs√n and need not be greater than Vc, but it could be greater if the applicant chose the higher value. The loads resulting from full control surface deflections at VA are used to design the empennage and ailerons in part 23, §§ 23.423, 23.441, and 23.455.

VA should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed. Only if VA= Vs√n will the airplane stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver at, or near, limit load factor. For airplanes where VA>VS√n, the pilot would have to check the maneuver; otherwise the airplane would exceed the limit load factor.

Amendment 23-45 added the operating maneuvering speed, VO, in § 23.1507. VO is established not greater than VS√n, and it is a speed where the airplane will stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver before exceeding the airplane structural limits.

But I think confusion may remain. As a result of the American Flt 587 the FAA put out a "Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement" addressing a FAR 25 amendment.The NTSB’s investigation revealed that many pilots might have a general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed (VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA. VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining the strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces. The structural design requirements do not cover multiple control inputs in one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at any speed, even below VA.

The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane’s speed is below VA, they can make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to the airplane. As a result, the NTSB recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same time.

This final rule adopts the proposed rule with minor changes that will resolve a longstanding inconsistency in the current requirements that would have been left in place by the proposed rule. This inconsistency, which goes back to at least the 1953 Civil Air Regulations Part 4b, concerns the reference to ‘‘maneuvering speed VA’’ in the existing § 25.1583(a)(3). Sections 1.2 and 25.335(c) define ‘‘VA’’ as the ‘‘design maneuvering speed,’’ not the ‘‘maneuvering speed.’’ Section 25.1507 defines the ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ as an operating limitation that must not exceed the design maneuvering speed, VA. Since the ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ can be less than VA, the reference to ‘‘maneuvering speed VA’’ in the existing § 25.1583(a)(3) is incorrect.

An applicant may wish to establish a maneuvering speed different from the design maneuvering speed, in order to make it easier for pilots to use. For example, the design maneuvering speed, VA, is an equivalent airspeed. Applicants might find it desirable to provide a maneuvering speed as a calibrated airspeed equal to or below the corresponding equivalent design maneuvering airspeed at all altitudes, in order to provide the information in a format that is consistent with that used on the flight deck airspeed indicator. In practice, the maneuvering speed has been identified as VA in AFMs even when it is not always exactly the same as the design maneuvering speed defined in § 25.335(c). We have no evidence of this being unsafe and see no reason to prohibit it in the future. However, in order to address the inconsistency in the regulations, for § 25.1583(a)(3), we have changed the reference to ‘‘the maneuvering speed VA’’ proposed in the NPRM to ‘‘the maneuvering speed established under § 25.1507’’ in this final rule. For new § 25.1583(a)(3)(i) and (ii), we have also changed the references to ‘‘VA’’ proposed in the NPRM to ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ in this final rule. We will continue to allow applicants to refer to this maneuvering speed as VA in AFMs.

For small airplanes, part 23 defines an operating maneuver speed (VO) to serve the same purpose as the maneuvering speed established under § 25.1507. The part 23 approach has one advantage in that there is a unique V-speed abbreviation for pilots to use that differentiates the maneuvering speed used operationally from the design maneuvering speed used to show compliance with the structural type certification requirements. We chose not to introduce a new V-speed term in part 25 because the VA term has historically been used for transport category airplanes for both the speed to be used operationally and for design purposes. Using a new V-speed term could also potentially lead to confusion if different speed terms and definitions are used for new airplane designs compared to current designs.You go on to explain Vo and how it's related to the entire airframe (by ensuring that the limit maneuvering load factor isn't exceeded), but Va does not do that.Seems to me that we have to be very specific as to what we're referring to now when mentioning "maneuvering speed". Is it FAR 23 (old), FAR 23 (new), FAR 25, or "corner speed" as referred to by fighter types.

And a question. Why would you have a VA (or whatever you want call it) where you have to check the control input to avoid exceeding "g" limit? All the old flight manuals that I have define VA as (direct quote out of a Cessna manual) "maximum speed at which full or abrupt control movements may be used" and lists the weight/speeds,
3800 lbs 130 kts
3050 lbs 117 kts
2300 lbs 101 kts
They are also the maximum recommended turbulence penetration speeds.

Piper manual quotes, "VA - Maneuvering speed is the maximum speed at which application of full available aerodynamic control will not overstress the airplane".

Convention wisdom has always been to reduce VA proportionally with reduced weight. Is anyone aware of an aircraft certified where VA>VS√n?

[Lantirn]

And a question. Why would you have a VA (or whatever you want call it) where you have to check the control input to avoid exceeding "g" limit?

From what I ve learned the last 2 days here, absolutelly nothing.
The only thing that I find helpfull, is that pilots have to be reminded by the presence of Va, that they can only do single full abrupt application of flight controls, below Va

Is anyone aware of an aircraft certified where VA>VS√n?

Yes. The AT3.
Stall speed in CAS (EAS anyway) is 50 knots. In manual, stated Va is 112kts, if you assume standard 4.4G limit. Calculated Vo=104 knots CAS, about 106 IAS

Even worse, AT3 has 3.8G positive load factor limit.
Calculated Vo=97 CAS, about 100 IAS

12 Knots margin!

[Brian Abraham]

Is anyone aware of an aircraft certified where VA>VS√n?No wish to slight the VLA market, but was more interested in the mainstream GA aircraft, such as Cessna, Piper, Tobago etc

[italia458]

Brian,

Is anyone aware of an aircraft certified where VA>VS√n?

A Piper PA-28-140.

The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 2) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood_27.html)

[westhawk]

Is anyone aware of an aircraft certified where VA>VS√n?

Not exactly, though it may appear so if one only considers the published Va for the normal category when the airplane was originally certified in both the normal and utility categories.

From the above linked The Flight Writer: Va: Not a Bad Speed, Just Misunderstood (Part 2) (http://www.flightwriter.com/2010/09/va-not-bad-speed-just-misunderstood_27.html):

At maximum gross weight, the Piper Cherokee (PA-28-140) has a stall speed (Vs) of 64 MPH, a limit load factor of 3.8 g’s, and a Va of 129 MPH.

The PA28-140, like several other production SEL piston airplanes, is FAA certified in both the normal (3.8g) and utility (4.4g) categories. The MGW is lower and the aft CG limit is further forward in the utility category. The aircraft may be operated in either category provided that the appropriate limitations for the applicable category are respected.

So, doing the math:

Vs = 64
Normal category load limit factor
sq rt 3.8 = 1.949
1.949 x 64 = 124

Utility category load limit factor
sq rt 4.4 = 2.0976
2.0976 x 64 = 134.247

134 + 124 = 258.
258 / 2 = 129 mph

See what it looks as though they did? Right, simply average the utility and normal category calculated maneuvering speeds to arrive a a single published Va applicable to BOTH categories.

Try this for the dual category certified C-172 and see if you don't find a similar result!

[Steve Pomroy]

Vs = 64
Normal category load limit factor
sq rt 3.8 = 1.949
1.949 x 64 = 124

Utility category load limit factor
sq rt 4.4 = 2.0976
2.0976 x 64 = 134.247

134 + 124 = 258.
258 / 2 = 129 mph

See what it looks as though they did? Right, simply average the utility and normal category calculated maneuvering speeds to arrive a a single published Va applicable to BOTH categories.
Interesting trick. I've never noticed this. But I think the numbers working out this way is just a coincidence. Or perhaps the manufacturer chose to do this for some reason, but it still leaves Va exceeding the regulatory requirement.

Remember that the stall speed changes with weight. So your calculated utility Va should be adjusted accordingly. Correcting for weight, the utility stall speed is 61 MPH, and the utility Va should be 128 MPH (rounded off). I think a more likely explanation is that the manufacturer identified the correct utility category Va and used it as the design speed (128 MPH v. 129 MPH could be simply a result of rounding error somewhere).

Try this for the dual category certified C-172 and see if you don't find a similar result!Not in the models I've flown. The Va for the normal category that I've seen is the correct minimum-required Va. However, if you correct the Va for both new stall speed and new limit load factor at the max utility weight, you get an unchanged value for Va. Although if I recall correctly, the published Va is adjusted downward for weight (probably because you can still be in the normal category if the CG is outside utility limits, but that's just an educated guess).

In the Grob G-120A, the numbers are as follows:

Utility:
- Vs = 67 KCAS;
- LLF = 4.4 g;
- Minimum Va = 141 KCAS;
- Published Va = 145 KCAS.
Aerobatic:
- Vs = 66 KCAS;
- LLF = 6 g;
- Minimum Va = 162 KCAS;
- Published Va = 165 KCAS.

Interestingly, if you use the utility stall speed and the aerobatic LLF, you get to within rounding error limits of the aerobatic Va.

[westhawk]

I think a more likely explanation is that the manufacturer identified the correct utility category Va and used it as the design speed

I think you're right Steve. I see now that I neglected to use the lower utility category stall speed in my calculation and that skewed the resultant Va calculation upward. And yes it's probably fair to say a 1 knot difference is negligible.

[hvogt]

Brushing up on my knowledge from flight school, I came across this thread. I was at the point where I thought I had fully understood the difference between VA and VO, but now I'm not sure anymore. There is one aspect I don't yet understand.

Since VS sqrt(n), respectively VS1 sqrt(n) in CS-25, is the upper limit for VO and the lower limit for VA, I would have assumed to find VA drawn at the point of the V-n diagram where the +CNmax curve intersects the limit load factor line (at the 'corner speed') or to the right of it. Looking at the V-n diagrams in CS/FAR 25.333(c), I see VA is drawn to the left of the corner speed.

I could find references where VA is coincident with the corner speed [1,2], but only the Oxford POF textbook [3] provides an explanation for VA being left of 'the corner'. They say 'VA is slower than the speed at the intersection of the CLMAX line and the positive limit load factor line (point A) to safeguard the tail structure because of the higher load on the tailplane during the pitch manoeuvre'. Isn't this a direct contradiction of the design requirements in CS 23.335(c)(1) and CS 25.335(c)(1)? Lantirn has quoted the same source and mentioned their confusion of VA and VO. Still, I can't see why the flight envelopes in CS/FAR 25.333(c) put VA to the left of the corner. Is it possible the diagram in the certification specifications is from a time before the introduction of VO, and VA is meant to be an operational VA rather than a design VA? I gather from Keith's post this might be an explanation.

Am I missing something?

[1] Torenbeek E, Wittenberg H (2009) Flight Physics. Springer, Dordrecht, p 321

[2] Gallagher G et al. (1992) Fixed Wing Performance. In: U.S. Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual. Veda Incorporated. http://www.vmihosting.com/MWS/Documents/USNTPS_FTM_108.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2013

[3] Oxford Aviation Academy (UK) Limited (2008) Principles of Flight. OATmedia, Oxford, p 463

[hvogt]

Still thinking about it and hoping somebody might point me in the right direction.