Q2 of Quirrels post only mentioned maintaining a constant attitude. Therefore the increase in CL and AoA from hi-lift devices deployment will also result in a decrease in IAS/EAS due to inducement drag (CD) increase, assuming present thrust remains constant throughout. Graces question didnt say anything about wether the attitude is in a climb or cruise or descent right-side up or upside-down.
John Tulla while I got you just 2 questions:
How much faith would you put in the latest Boeing TO and LDG performance tables (now a part of the QRH) as against the TO and LDG performance graphs that were part of the old manuals? For 737-300 I extract diferent data for the same conditions from each of these performance referances even though each respective datum in the end-calculation should be the same. (I retained the old graphs and didnt chuck them out).
As most Boeing drivers know, the QRH-referanced LDG dist data tables only gives you expected runway length to be used, and is the total of:
* 50 ft height to 1000 ft markers (touchdown) in 5 secs.
* 1000 ft touchdown to point of maximum manual braking fully applyed - 800 ft/3 secs
* From max braking to full stop.
There is no 1.67 factoring, nor a 1.15 additive for wet runway on data derived from these tables.
In terms of LEGALITY would these performance data tables in the QRH satisfy a court, or would the figures derived from the more accurate graphs found in the aircraft's AFM be over-riding? [a good example would be the restricted MLW for ANTISKID INOP, WET RUNWAY with limiting LDA. 100 ft can make all the diference.] Thanks mate.