Register Forms FAQ Wikiposts Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) A forum for those on the steep path to that coveted professional licence. Whether studying for the written exams, training for the flight tests or building experience here's where you can hang out.

 3rd Feb 2012, 09:29 #61 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chester Posts: 137 ChriSat - thanks for your reply! I have no idea how I arrived at that either. I blame the calculator! I now see that I was working it out correctly, but I must have put in the wrong values or copied down the answer incorrectly. pilotmike - thank you for your reply also. I see what you're saying, I meant to say 39 200kgs
 13th Feb 2012, 19:19 #62 (permalink) Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Aviation Street 72 Age: 37 Posts: 140 PoF theory questions Hi, please help me to solve the following problems(providing an explanation): 1.If an airplane glides at an angle of attack of 10°, how much altitude will it lose in 1 mile? A:240 feet. B: 480 feet. C: 960 feet. 2.How much altitude will this airplane lose in 3 miles of gliding at an angle of attack of 8°? A:440 feet. B: 880 feet. C: 1,320 feet. The figure to use: 3_2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Thanks! Mxms Last edited by maximus610; 13th Feb 2012 at 19:42.
 14th Feb 2012, 10:30 #63 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 The questions are based n the equation: Glide Range = Height x L/D ratio Rearranging this gives Height = Glide Range / L/D ratio. The diagram shows that L/D ratio at 10 degrees angle of attack = approximately 11.2 L/D ratio at 8 degress angle of attack = approximately 12.2 If we assume that the 1 mile and 3 mile in the question are nautical miles and assuming 1 nm = 1680 feet we get For 10 degrees height = 6080 / 11.2 = 542 ft For 8 degrees height = 6080 x 3 / 12.2 = 1495 feet These answers are not very close to the options given But if we assume that the 1 mile and 3 mile in the question are statute miles (5280 feet) we get For 10 degrees height = 5280 / 11.2 = 471 ft For 8 degrees height = 5280 x 3 / 12.2 = 1298 feet These are closer to the options of 480 feet and 1320 feet. These are very unusual questions and are clearly not from the JAR ATPL system. Where did they come from?
 14th Feb 2012, 13:31 #64 (permalink) Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lima, Peru Posts: 10 Hello everybody They are from the Peruvian CPL question bank. I asked Max for help with the question because I am here doing a license conversion I don't have any books with me. Great answer, thanks a lot! Cheers
 14th Feb 2012, 15:10 #65 (permalink) Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol Posts: 460 Ola peruano While you are here could you pse say how QNH is calculated at high altitude airfields like Cuzco and La Paz Dick
 14th Feb 2012, 15:45 #66 (permalink) Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lima, Peru Posts: 10 ola gringo I guess it's calculated just like at any airfield in the world, that is adjusted to sea level. S
 14th Feb 2012, 16:13 #67 (permalink) Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol Posts: 460 Gracias S I had an idea that for high altitude fields a different datum was used. No soy gringo, soy ingles - as I have had to say many times in Ecuador Cheers, Dick
 14th Feb 2012, 16:27 #68 (permalink) Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lima, Peru Posts: 10 Don't mention it I know you are ingles but I noticed that here they don't make the difference... it was meant as a joke, sorry about that. Cheers S
 16th Feb 2012, 17:32 #70 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 Rearranging your equation True Altitude = Altitude on QNH + [(ISA Deviation x 4) x (Pressure Altitude/1000)] Gives Alt on QNH = True Altitude - [(ISA Dev x 4) x (Pressure Alt/1000)] Inserting the data provided gives Alt on QNH = 15000  ((-15 x 4 x 15) = 15900 But we are going to use 1013 which is 10 HPA higher than QNH. Using 27 ft / Hpa this means that the 1013 level is 270 feet below msl So adding 270 to 15900 gives an indicated altitude of 16170 feet. At that altitude the estimated lapse rate of of 27 feet per Hpa is a bit too low. It looks as if the examiner has used 33 ft per HPa (30 HPa per 1000 ft) which is probably more realistic.
 16th Feb 2012, 18:23 #71 (permalink) Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: UK Posts: 53 That's brilliant Keith, I think I've pretty much got it now! Am I right in thinking that you're effectively working out what the Altitude on the QNH would be (1003 set) and so therefore Pressure Altitude is the same as True Altitude in the initial calculation? And then you're taking in to account the variation between sea level QNH and 1013?
 16th Feb 2012, 20:48 #72 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 Your equation isn't quite correct. It should be TA = IA + (4 x IA/1000 x ISA Dev) + (27 x (QNH  Subscale)) Where TA = true altitude, IA = indicated altitude, Subscale = altimeter subscale setting, ISA Dev = ISA temperature deviation Strictly speaking the term "Pressure Altitude" means the altimeter reading when 1013 is set on the subscale. So if we were to use Pressure Altitude instead of indicated altitude in the above equation we would be applying the temperature error from the 1013 level upwards. My use of TA in ,y previous post was an error. Using the above equation we can solve the problem as follows. TA = IA + (4 x IA/1000 x ISA Dev) + (27 x (QNH  Subscale)) ISA Deviation = -15 True Altitude = 15000 ft QNH = 1003 TA  (27 x (QNH-Subscale setting) = IA + ( (4 x IA x ISA Dev)/1000 ) Inserting the data provided in the question gives 15000  ( 27 x (1003  1013) = IA + (4 x IA x (15) ) / 1000 ) 15000 + 270 = IA  0.06 IA 15270 = 0.94 IA 15270 / 0.94 = IA 16244 = IA So Indicated Altitude = 16244 feet This is not quite the correct answer of 16230, but it is pretty close to it. Last edited by keith williams; 19th Feb 2012 at 16:25.
 26th Mar 2012, 18:06 #73 (permalink) Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 24 AC Electrics Hey guys, I could use some input on this one. If an alternator is run at below normal frequency, then: A) Electric motors will stop. B) Inductive devices will overheat. C) Lights will become dim. D) Lights will become brighter. The correct(?) answer is B. I agree that if the frequency is below normal, that would mean that the inductive reactance is lower and thus the current will be higher, but conversely, a lower frequency would also mean that capacative reactance would be higher, thus giving a lower current, which should balance the lower inductive reactance, as there is no mention of one reactance being more dominant than the other, or any one kind of reactance at all for that matter, other than what might possibly be deducted when the answer alternatives are examined. Am I to assume that the other alternatives, being placed in a purely capacative reactant circuit couldn't occur in the case of decreased frequency? -Anders
 27th Mar 2012, 13:59 #74 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 This is a case (just one of many) where the examiners have made some simplfiying assumptons, but have not stated what these assumptions were. All they really want you to do is to note that reducing frequency reduces inductive reactance so for a given applied voltage the current through inductors will increase. As you have said the situation is much more complicated in real circuits where different types of component are connected in various ways. But if you look at the other options, the voltage regulator should prevent these effects unless the RPM is very much lower than standard.
 30th Mar 2012, 14:41 #75 (permalink) Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: down south Age: 70 Posts: 13,232 Blimey Keith! You must be bored.
 11th Apr 2012, 13:19 #76 (permalink) Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Land of Hope Posts: 47 What is a suction peak in terms of principles of flight.
 11th Apr 2012, 22:23 #77 (permalink) Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 24 Obviously I'm missing something, but hopefully some one here can help me out. Question 1: Given that the characteristics of a three engine turbojet aeroplane are as follows: Trust = 50000 N per engine g= 10 m/sē Drag = 72569 N Minimum gross gradient (2nd segment) = 2.7% The maximum take-off mass under segment 2 conditions in the net take-off flight path conditions is: a. 101596 kg b. 286781 kg c. 74064 kg d. 209064 kg Question 2: The determination of the maximum mass on brake release, of a certified turbojet aeroplane with 5°, 15° and 25° flaps angles on take-off, leads to the following values, with wind: Flap angle: 5° 15° 25° Runway limitation: 66000 69500 71500 2nd segment slope limitation: 72200 69000 61800 Wind correction: Head wind: + 120 kg per kt OR tail wind: -360 kg per kt Given that the tail wind component is equal to 5 kt, the maximum mass on brake release and corresponding flap angle will be: a. 67700/15° b. 69000/15° c. 72200/5° d. 69700/25° Question 3: On a segment of the take-off flight path an obstacle requires a minimum gradient of climb of 2.6% in order to provide an adequate margin of safe clearance. At a mass of 110000 kg the gradient of climb is 2.8%. For the same power and assuming that the angle of climb varies inversely with, at what maximum mass will the aeroplane be able to to achieve the minimum gradient? a. 121310 kg b. 106425 kg c. 118455 kg d. 102142 kg It's too late for me to write in my calculations, and for the same reason, please excuse any typos. -Anders
 11th Apr 2012, 22:40 #78 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 Question 1. The first point to note in addressing this question is that calculation of the maximum take-off mass assumes that a single engine failure has occurred. This means that this three engine aircraft effectively has only two engines. So total thrust available 2 x 50000N = 100000N. For small angles of climb, the % climb = 100% x Sin angle of climb This can be rearranged to give: Sin angle of climb = % climb /100 And Sin angle of climb = (Thrust  drag) / Weight Combing the two equations above gives:% climb / 100 = (Thrust  Drag) / weight This can be rearranged to give: Max weight = 100 x (Thrust-Drag) / % climb Inserting the data provided in the question gives: Max take-off weight = 100 x (100000  72569) / 2.7 = 1015962.963N This can be converted into Kg by dividing by g = 10 m/s2 to give 101596.2963 Kg or approximately 101596 Kg. Question 2. To solve this type of problem it must first be noted that winds do not affect the climb limited take-off mass. The wind correction need therefore be applied only to the runway limit (field limited take-off mass). The next stage of the solution is to calculate and apply the corrections. the question specifies a correction factor of -360 kg/kt tailwind and an actual tailwind of 5 kts. this gives a correction of -360 Kg/kt x 5kt = - 1800 Kg. Adding this to the figures provided in the question gives: Flap angle: 5° 15° 25 ° Runway limitation (kg): 64 200 67 700 69 700 2nd segment slope limitation: 72 200 69 000 61 800 Finally select the flap setting for which the lower of the two limits is greatest. This is 15degree flap which gives a limit of 67 700 Kg. Question 3. The maximum climb gradient that an aircraft can achieve is inversely proportional to its mass. This can be stated in the form of an equation: %climb at new mass x new mass = % climb at old mass x old mass This can be rearranged to give: New mass = % climb at old mass x old mass % climb at new mass Inserting the data provided in the question gives: New mass = 2.8% x 110000 Kg = 118461.54 Kg 2.6%
 12th Apr 2012, 07:31 #79 (permalink) Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 24 Yes, but of course. Where I went wrong in question 1 was that I was counting with the thrust from all 3 engines. And in question 2, I was making the wind correction to the climb limit also. Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, when it comes to question 3, you have come to the same solution as I, but the book states that the correct answer should be d. 102142 kg. Cheers Anders
 12th Apr 2012, 08:24 #80 (permalink) Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: England Posts: 657 Which book? If the aircraft can achieve 2.8% at 110000 kg why should its best climb DECREASE to 2.6% when its weight DECREASE to 102142 kg? Best climb must INCREASE if weight DECREASES. Last edited by keith williams; 12th Apr 2012 at 09:09.

 Tags atpl, atpl exams, atpl nav, atpl question bank, atpl school, battery, bgs, cats, distance learning, groundschool, interview, life, power, question