Performance capabilities of older generation SEP's

[tonyhalsall]

This post has been brought about by the sad accident recently at Barton and observations of the performance oif modern microlights and LSA's compared to older generation C150'/152's PA28 140's Tomahawks etc.

The newer Rotax powered aircraft seem to be able to get up to 300-400 feet before they even get to the end of the runway at Barton and yet you watch the older generation aircraft lumbering along and almost clawing their way into the sky.

There is going to be some inevitable questions at Barton and irrespective of whether the airfield or houses were there first the issue remains that an EFATO from 09 in an older generation aircraft is going to be significantly more perilous than in a modern aircraft. Is it time to retire some of these older aircraft and put minimum performance requirements in place to ensure that a safety margin exists - not just at Barton - but all similar airfields that have hazardous area at the end of the runway?

Just a thought.

[maxred]

Well, I would love to review the stats on engine failure after take off, and relate them to age/condition of aeroplane.

The older fleet, if properly maintained, is just as able, and capable of performance, as any 'newer' aircraft.

I fly a number of 'aged' aircraft, whose performance would embaress some of the newer stuff on the market. Age is not a performance indicator, nor is watching the climb rate of an ''aeroplane''.

Sorry, but I would not concur.

[IO540]

According to Navbox, the longest runway at "Barton" is 621m grass.

That is really short.

I have a 250HP 1400kg plane and would not go to 621m grass, unless it was really smooth, and conditions were ISA, etc.

Obviously there are many planes which can operate safely from 621m grass (mostly high wing and other low-wing-loading types) but to think you could fly a PA28-140 with four Brit-sizes blokes out of there... no way.

Is it time to retire some of these older aircraft

What is needed (if this is indeed an issue) is teaching pilots about aircraft performance :)

[tonyhalsall]

I am not talking about engine failures according to type.

I am taking about the difference between being 4-500 foot above the hazardous area and 200 foot above it - irrespective of age/type.

[mad_jock]

And also to get folk to fly them properly with out adding knts on for mum and other airliner additions.

[maxred]

This is all about ''performance'' as per the POH. What differenece does a couple of hundred feet make, if, you have not calculated your t/o run, your 50' clearance etc etc, then it just makes a BIGGER HOLE IF IT GOES PEAR SHAPED.

I do not understand your reference to 'older' aircraft. What you are talking about is height over a perceived risk/danger????

Most airfields have an issue like this:sad:

[thing]

But surely if you thought the performance was iffy from a grass strip/proximity to houses/anything else point of view then you wouldn't take off. I'm at about 5-700 ft depending on wind by the end of my runway in aged spam cans, but then it's not 600 odd metres of grass and I have large flat fields galore at both ends. All take off circumstances are different and it's your judgement call as PIC.

[Duckeggblue]

What is needed (if this is indeed an issue) is teaching pilots about aircraft performance http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Spot on IO540

Then perhaps an aircraft flight performance check (for the aircraft rather than the pilot) against the aircraft book values - say every three years or so - then maybe a certificate of airworthiness granted if it performs as expected or the book values changed if it doesn't? :)

Sound familiar??

[tonyhalsall]

I guess I am relating this to what happened at Barton at the respective heights that certain aircraft manage to achieve by the time they get to the end of 09.

Some of the older types stuggle to get to a safe height AND have brick like glide potential in the event of something going wrong.

It was said on the other thread that 09 departures have always been a risk and yet if you can get up to 400' or so before you get over the threshold as opposed to labouring up to 150' then you kind of have a better insurance policy.

['India-Mike]

I agree with IO540 and mad_jock. In my limited FI experience the two principal observations I have are (i) less than full appreciation of aeroplane performance, both as a concept and with reference to what your individual type can achieve; (ii) poor technique. This latter point applies to both students and qualified pilots. I see people nail the nosewheel to the deck and use other techniques at variance with the published technique in the FM/POH. But what really gets my goat (even with my own students, because I think I do a better job than this) is the acceptance of up to a balls-width of sideslip in the full climb. Boy does that erode rate of climb, and putting the ball in the middle soon points out how much more one'll get performance-wise.

As an aeronautical engineer I can't see the sexy modern types, being of the same basic configuration as the older types, having significantly better glide performance than the older ones. 10:1 is as good as you're going to get and even if you could get 12:1 it'd improve your range by only 20%, or about 1/3 of a nm from typical circuit heights. Again, poor technique would soon erode that. On the other hand maybe 1/3 of a nm might be the difference between a crash and a successful forced landing....

[Rod1]

I think there are two separate issues. If you are flying an aircraft which is only just adequate for a given field (I too think this has little to do with age) then you are taking a bigger risk then an aircraft which can get to 1000 ft by the end of the runway. That risk is made up of several elements;

A problem costing you 10% power on takeoff will put you through the hedge; the other guy will only be at 600ft.

The length of time you are too low to manoeuvre will be much shorter for the high performance machine.

I sudden change in weather (sudden 5kn tail wind etc) will put you through the hedge, other guy probably will not notice.

Secondly, a fully loaded 150 will be low, slow and have a much bigger noise footprint than an AT3 which has several times the R of C. The 150 will also be much closer to any nearby housing and make the locals feel less safe.

On glide ratio, my VLA is 13.8 : 1 if that helps, R of C at MAUW is 1700fpm and she is airborne in around 170m so 600m gives plenty of margin if something goes wrong. What are the numbers for a 150?

Rod1

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You have to consider how long the older types have been operating quite safely out of Barton before Friday's tragedy, and we don't yet know if Friday's tragedy was simple engine failure, loss of control after engine failure, or even fire before take off.... or something else entirely.

I have operated from Barton since 1978 and in most of those years the aeroplanes using the airfield have been the usual nosewheel Cessna and Piper types. Nothing like Friday's tragedy has happened before except many years ago a Ralley took off on 20 before the airfield was open and crashed by the ship canal, and also many years ago an Issacs Fury took off on 33 and suffered an engine failure, leading to a stall and crash off the airfield.

The Fury was a lightweight type and was being flown by a very experienced pilot. One characteristic of a lightweight type with a good climb performance that suffer an engine failure is that there is very little inertia to maintain speed, and the pilot needs to be very smart in getting the nose down quickly before the aeroplane stalls. I wasn't there when the Fury went in, but I'm told it was being climbed at max performance and stalled almost immediately the engine failed.

This makes the lighter modern types more critical, not less so, than the 'old iron' which will be more forgiving in this respect.

[Whopity]

What is needed (if this is indeed an issue) is teaching pilots about aircraft performanceIts in the PPL syllabus and evaluated in Section 1 of the PPL Skill Test!

[Pilot DAR]

Is it time to retire some of these older aircraft and put minimum performance requirements in place to ensure that a safety margin exists

What is "older"? The PA-38 is a FAR 23 aircraft, not the "older" CAR 3 certification basis. Interestingly, the CAR 3 climb requirement from 1949, is more rigourous than the FAR23 to which the PA-38 is certified!

So you're asking for more regulation to cover climb performance?

How about the existing regulation to which the PA-38 was certified:

Sec. 23.65

Climb: all engines operating.

.........

(b) Each airplane of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight must have a steady rate of climb at sea level of at least 300 feet per minute, or [11.5 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/abf8a7263a95d61185256687006b9960/SectionRule/0.820!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif ] (that is, the number of feet per minute is obtained by multiplying the number of [knots by 11.5),] whichever is greater, with--]
(1) Takeoff power;
(2) The landing gear extended;
(3) The wing flaps in the takeoff position; and
(4) The cowl flaps in the position used in the cooling tests required by Secs. 23.1041 through 23.1047.


Amdt. 23-7, Eff. 09/14/69

The climb performance standard is a major factor in the selection of gross weight for some aircraft, so it is possible that an aircraft being operated within it's weight and balance limits might have performance not much better than this. Add the affect of altitude, and it is even less. The pilot is resonsible for refering to the data contained in the approved flight manual to determine takeoff and climb performance, in the prevailing conditions, for the aircraft they are about to fly.

I have less than 100 hours flying Tomahawks, but recall that they were not star performers in short takeoff and climb. I did fly two from a 1600' turf runway for a year, with no problems though - I just always kept an eye on the wires.

If you're suggesting that airports should regulate the operation of aircraft by type, I will certainly not agree. It is the pilot's reponsibility to operate the aircraft safely, and within it's limitations and capacity - not the airport authority's responsibility. Airports should be responsible for providing a suitable environment for the operation of aircraft, which conforms to the information available to pilots for plannning, and is safe. Nothing more!