I set this question and submitted it to the Dutch SET a few years ago.

The fairly accurate answer is 1.13, which was rounded down to 1.1. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

Why not ask your tutor how to calculate the answer??

Can anyone explain to me how does being tail heavy, bringing CG to aft of aircraft increase its range?

It reduces the tailplane downforce so the effective weight of the aeroplane is reduced.

This means that the wing may operate at a slightly reduced angle of attack, thus decreasing induced drag.

Question: At reference or see Loading Manual MRJT 1 Figure 4.14. The medium range twin jet transport is scheduled to operate from a departure airfield where conditions limit the take-off mass to 65050 kg. The destination airfield has a performance limited landing mass of 54500 kg. The Dry Operating Mass is 34900 kg. Loading data is as follows - Taxi fuel 350 kg Trip fuel 9250 kg Contingency and final reserve fuel 1100 kg Alternate fuel 1000 kg Traffic load 18600 kg Check the load and ensure that the flight may be operated without exceeding any of the aeroplane limits. Correct answer is:
The flight is 'landing mass' limited and the traffic load must be reduced to 17500 kg.

How is this worked out can some please help and secondly does block fuel include startup and taxi fuel.

clkorm3:you come across as a student who has not got a real grasp of your subject. I suggest you get a) a better text book b) or a new tutor rather than trying to get others to do the maths for you!!

None of these questions is difficult and is the sort of calculation that is regularly done on the line.

The author of your question has specified the MRJT1 aircraft and the loading manual, he/she has then failed to apply some of the limits that are specified in the manual for this aircraft. This error has caused him/her to reach the wrong solution.

The full process is detailed below.

First use the info in the question plus the limits in the CAP696 to determine which limits are the most restrictive to each stage of the flight.

PLTOM = 65050 From question
MSTOM = 62800 From CAP 696

Neither of the above limits may be exceeded, so the Regulated Take-Off Mass RLTOM = 62800

PLLM = 54500 From question
MSLM = 54900 From CAP696

Neither of the above limits may be exceeded, so the Regulated Landing Mass RLLM = 54500

Max Structural Taxi Mass MSTM = 63060 taken from CAP696

Maximum Structural Zero Mass MZFM = 51300 taken from CAP 696.

Then use the most restrictive limits and the load values provided in the question to calculate the mass at each stage of the flight. Compare these masses with the limits to determine whether or not the limits have been exceeded.

Start/Taxi Mass
DOM 34900
Plus Taxi fuel 350
Plus Trip fuel 9250
Plus Reserve fuel 1100
Plus Alternate fuel 1000
Plus Traffic Load 18600
Total = 65200 This figure is 2140 greater than the Maximum Structural Taxi mass of 63060 so the traffic load must be reduced by 2140 to 16460 to remain within the MMSTM.

Take-off Mass
DOM 34900
Plus Trip fuel 9250
Plus Reserve fuel 1100
Plus Alternate fuel 1000
Plus Traffic Load 18600
Total = 64850 This figure is 2050 greater than the RLTOM of 62800 so the traffic load must be reduced by 2050 to 16550 to remain within the RLTOM

Landing Mass
DOM 34900
Plus Reserve fuel 1100
Plus Alternate fuel 1000
Plus Traffic Load 18600
Total = 55600 This figure is 1100 greater than the RLLM of 54500, so the traffic load must be reduced by 1100 to 17500 to remain within the RLLM


Zero Fuel Mass
DOM 34900
Plus Traffic Load 18600
Total = 53500 This figure is 2200 greater than the Maximum Zero Fuel Mass of 51300, so the traffic load must be reduced by 2200 to 14600 to remain within the MZFM limit.

None of the above limits may be exceeded, so the most restrictive condition must be applied. This is the removal of 2200 kg of traffic load to remain within the MZFM.

Have a great Christmas Keith.:)

:DAnd you LM.

I see that you have your own thread in the Military forum. Now if that isn't fame I don't know what is! :D :D

Visibility: letter C instead of RVR
 

Hi!

First of all I want you to refer to jeppesen approach plates for LKPR (pages 10-9) or UUEE (pages 20-9). There is some interesting change in cycle 1225 and 1226. In old cycle when you will refer to 10-9 table with visibility minumums for NDB approach you will find visibility given in meters. If in front of the value is letter R of course that means that it's RVR. In the cycle 1226 we can find letter C in front of the value. And the letter C is introduced only in the latest database. Can somebody explain me what letter C actually means? Why there is change like that? Any JAR paragraphs?

Looking forward for fast response,

Konrad

Flyer696, I am a little confused here.
Both chart numbers given, for Prague and Sheremetyeyo are Taxi Charts.

LKPR try charts 16-1 and 16-2
UUEE try charts 26-1, 26-2, 26-3 and 26-4.

I think you will find what your after there.

Cortina

I'm also confused, guessing he's assuming the 16-1/2's for Prague. I'm wondering whether he's got some kind of a training manual for the ATPL's as I can only see mention of RVR - as expected.

Thanks 500, I thought my iPad had gone loopy...:ok:

My mistake with LKPR. I ment only UUEE chart 20-9S1 where you can find letter C.

Thanks to "500 above" reply I'm now studying difference between CMV, VIS and RVR so thanks a lot for link.

Take a look at EGHG for example, 16-1. You will see both RVR and CMV posted.:ok:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44947...ch-plates.html

AOM for take-off and landing are either shown on Jeppesen instrument approach or aerodrome charts or on a separate minimums listing. Landing minimums will be shown as RVR, but values above 2000m will be designated as Converted Meteorological Visibility, prefixed “CMV”. Take-off minimums are shown without prefix because they are either RVR or VIS. Circling minimums are always visibilities which is indicated in the circling minimums box. For the separate minimums list- ings RVR, CMV and VIS are abbreviated as R, C and V. The following table is used to convert a reported VIS into RVR/CMV.


CONVERSION OF REPORTED MET VIS TO RVR/CMV

Lighting elements in operation
RVR/CMV = Reported MET VIS x
Day
Night
HIALS and HIRL
1.5
2.0
Any type of lighting installation other than above
1.0
1.5
No lighting
1.0
Not Applicable

From the Jepp EAWM General page 197

I see ;) So why sometimes they publish CMV instead of VIS? So far I assume that RVR is reported only up to RVR1500 and lets say 1600 will be reported as CMV1600.

So why in EGHG 16-1 in straight-in landing rwy 09 W/o DME we can see CMV 3000m but in circle to land there is VIS 1500 instead of CMV?

And another question according EGHG. What about minimums for airplanes not capable of CDFA (for example C172)? Is it legal to proceed through stepdown DME fixes or do they need to apply minumums only for W/o DME?

Pretty much, if above 2000m it's now a CMV.

I think (a while back...) during the ATPL met ground school anything below 1500m was reported as RVR if measured by transmisometers and anything above was a visibility.

I'd just use the non CDFA minimums for a steam gauge spamcan at Yeovil if I was to operate in there, but I just used it as an example.

Ok so below 2000 we have RVR and above there will be CMV. What about VIS? Only in circle to land and airfields with no RVR equipment and values below 2000?

This also has to be in mind:

DEPICTION OF EU-OPS AOM IN CASE OF EXISTING STATE MINIMUMS

If State minimums are officially published, the depiction of AOM may differ from the standard depiction where all values are expressed as RVR or CMV.
a. If RVR/CMV and VIS are charted together, the RVR value is compulsory. If no RVR is repor- ted, the VIS has to be used without conversion.
b. No prefix is charted if RVR/CMV and VIS is identical. The reported RVR is compulsory. If no RVR is reported, the VIS has to be used without conversion.
c. If only VIS is charted, the VIS has to be used without conversion.

Jepp page 206 EAWM, General.

Just to clarify, you will only be passed an RVR or Vis. You, the crew, calculate a CMV using the tables.

Thanks a lot for making me all that stuff clear ;)

Generator / Alternator
 

Could someone explain to me why do we use a Voltmeter to measure output for a generator but a ammeter / loadmeter to measure output for an Alternator?