Phenom Takeoff Perf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Phenom Takeoff Perf
iRaven
I was interested to see this quote in a different thread. We operated the Dominie from CWL for years when often we had to operate with reduced MTOW. Whenever in icing condition our fuel uplift was reduced by up to 2000lbs. Obviously, whenever the temperature rose above 21deg C we also suffered. Flights into Europe with greater extremes in temperature were often challenging.
The worst part was that we were using 1950s techniques to calculate ac performance. The ac was often on a knife edge after rotate and the numbers calculated may have been way in error.
We tried to purchase a modern software package, however, HQ22 Gp would not fund the few thousand required.
At least I assume that Phenom has been procured with full perf data and a software package to enable accurate perf calculations?
We also have the Phenom which I understand has an issue with Cranwell's runway length if it uses the anti-icing system and wants to fly close to MAUM
The worst part was that we were using 1950s techniques to calculate ac performance. The ac was often on a knife edge after rotate and the numbers calculated may have been way in error.
We tried to purchase a modern software package, however, HQ22 Gp would not fund the few thousand required.
At least I assume that Phenom has been procured with full perf data and a software package to enable accurate perf calculations?
Last edited by Dominator2; 10th Aug 2017 at 10:16. Reason: Edit
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Of course if you were really lucky, your retard PA would overfuel it by 600lbs. See how it climbed then!
Luckily, this was at a sea-level locale with a bit more concrete than at home-plate.
Luckily, this was at a sea-level locale with a bit more concrete than at home-plate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The last person that I knew who overfilled a Dom was a pilot plus 5 taking off from in island in the Med with the OAT at 27 deg C. And all to get home in one leg!!
With an aircraft that weighs 21,000lbs and 2 engines pushing out 3,000lbs of thrust each an engine failure at rotate would not be pretty. Even at MTOW the distance to get to 1500ft would be about 15nm on one engine.
Camelspyyder, If you as PIC allowed your PA to overfill your aircraft by 600lbs that was your responsibility!
With an aircraft that weighs 21,000lbs and 2 engines pushing out 3,000lbs of thrust each an engine failure at rotate would not be pretty. Even at MTOW the distance to get to 1500ft would be about 15nm on one engine.
Camelspyyder, If you as PIC allowed your PA to overfill your aircraft by 600lbs that was your responsibility!
The acute concern with the Phenom is its performance in role. The asthmatic and increasingly heavy Dominie only resorted to single engine for conversion & BTRs for experience pilots.
The Phenom will be our multi-engine training aircraft so will spend a good deal of its time on one engine with an ab-initio at the controls. Continuing the typical SID when simulating the loss of an engine will either be a challenge or an outright impossibility. Drawing out a typical single-engine climb from Cranwell is both depressing and airspace intensive.
I am sure the little Phenom is a delightful aircraft for the market it was designed for but it is hardly something you would choose if cranking out asymmetric handling day-in day-out is your game.
The Phenom will be our multi-engine training aircraft so will spend a good deal of its time on one engine with an ab-initio at the controls. Continuing the typical SID when simulating the loss of an engine will either be a challenge or an outright impossibility. Drawing out a typical single-engine climb from Cranwell is both depressing and airspace intensive.
I am sure the little Phenom is a delightful aircraft for the market it was designed for but it is hardly something you would choose if cranking out asymmetric handling day-in day-out is your game.
How does the Phenom compare with the USAF's T-1A multi-engine trainer?
I note that the latter 'differs from its commercial counterpart with structural enhancements that provide for a large number of landings per flight hour, increased bird strike resistance and an additional fuselage fuel tank.'
Were similar enhancements a part of the procurement requirement for the RAF's new multi-engine trainer?
Perhaps the most bizarre idea for ME training to replace the Pig was a BWoS proposal, using a deflector vane and 2 pretend throttles in a Jet Provost. Asymmetric flying was to have been achieved by closing one 'throttle', which would halve the available thrust and deflect the vane to create yaw.... But then the political Jetstream became available, so the idea never progressed further. EFATOs would have been...interesting!
I note that the latter 'differs from its commercial counterpart with structural enhancements that provide for a large number of landings per flight hour, increased bird strike resistance and an additional fuselage fuel tank.'
Were similar enhancements a part of the procurement requirement for the RAF's new multi-engine trainer?
Perhaps the most bizarre idea for ME training to replace the Pig was a BWoS proposal, using a deflector vane and 2 pretend throttles in a Jet Provost. Asymmetric flying was to have been achieved by closing one 'throttle', which would halve the available thrust and deflect the vane to create yaw.... But then the political Jetstream became available, so the idea never progressed further. EFATOs would have been...interesting!
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Aug 2017 at 13:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I would point out that on the Dominie we never practiced EFATOs at MTOW. For BTRs we were normally only 2 crew and 6000lbs of fuel i.e. 3000lbs below MTOW. Once a year on the IRT we were 2 crew and full fuel, but that was still 1000lbs below MTOW.
By operating to these procedures there was a small tolerance for slight mishandling. In the later years all pilots were experienced, at least 3000+ hours. We did, however, still have those who reverted to type and produced the EFATO procedure from a previous ac. Enough to cause uncertainty at a critical phase of flight!
I agree with BEagle, apart from the poor ac performance the Phenom does not look to be rugged enough to withstand the rigours for an RAF Multi Engine Trainer. In may satisfy the accountants but will it satisfy the requirement? One does assume that a requirement was set and agreed by the RAF, hopefully with input from 45(R) Sqn
By operating to these procedures there was a small tolerance for slight mishandling. In the later years all pilots were experienced, at least 3000+ hours. We did, however, still have those who reverted to type and produced the EFATO procedure from a previous ac. Enough to cause uncertainty at a critical phase of flight!
I agree with BEagle, apart from the poor ac performance the Phenom does not look to be rugged enough to withstand the rigours for an RAF Multi Engine Trainer. In may satisfy the accountants but will it satisfy the requirement? One does assume that a requirement was set and agreed by the RAF, hopefully with input from 45(R) Sqn
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuing the typical SID when simulating the loss of an engine will either be a challenge or an outright impossibility
Its usually 1600ft agl straight ahead (depends on the type and your accl alt) then a turn to a locator. If there is hard stuff inside your climb area then you get a none standard which may involve completing the first turn with TO flap and then accelerate.
The phenom 100 at MTOW needs less than 1000m ISA SL
And land at MLW less than 800m
The engines are flat rated at ISA +15 degs.
The fun one is going to be flapless icing increment on or hydraulic issues. I suspect you would be looking at a 3000meter+ runway for landing.
It all depends if you have the ice increment on for departure or not. Most don't and only turn it on after clean up.
Stick shaker gets triggered at 21 deg AoA with it off and 9.5 deg with it on.
Wing stab on has a huge effect as well apparently.
The only example I can find has a Vref landing for MLW using off as 92 knots with all the icing gear turned on it increases to 126knts.
I don't fly them I might add.
I suspect if someone posted in the Biz jet forum someone would be able to give you some proper numbers after doing a couple of runs through the ipad app.
Worth asking for a icing on flapless
might give a WTF sod that chuckle.
CAW operated Dominie T1 from RAF Manby for some years after Strubby was closed. Much shorter runway than that at Cranwell.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Strubby is at Sea Level and no obstructions. Makes quite a difference to Dominie perf. If operated correctly I would guess that there were times when the aircraft did not takeoff at 21,000 lbs?
Returning to the Phenom, I just hope that they will be able to carry out the flight profiles required at CWL and not be limited by the aircraft's performance.
On 55 Sqn we lost a number of sorties due to not being able to lift enough fuel to achieve the training aims.
Returning to the Phenom, I just hope that they will be able to carry out the flight profiles required at CWL and not be limited by the aircraft's performance.
On 55 Sqn we lost a number of sorties due to not being able to lift enough fuel to achieve the training aims.
EASA has dumbed down most twin jet training to the extent that asymmetric work is normally restricted to a FFS.
But the RAF does not have an intermediate ME trainer such as the Seneca or DA42 on which students learn asymmetric work, neither are RAF pilots taught to the minimum levels required for mere people-tube co-pilots or MPL applicants - so I sincerely hope that their training is to the higher standards required to operate Atlas / C-103J / C-17 / Poseidon / Sentinel / Sentry or Voyager in a tactical environment.
For the next generation of RAF ME pilots, it is crucial that 'live' asymmetric training is not restricted to a simulator for ab initio training.
But the RAF does not have an intermediate ME trainer such as the Seneca or DA42 on which students learn asymmetric work, neither are RAF pilots taught to the minimum levels required for mere people-tube co-pilots or MPL applicants - so I sincerely hope that their training is to the higher standards required to operate Atlas / C-103J / C-17 / Poseidon / Sentinel / Sentry or Voyager in a tactical environment.
For the next generation of RAF ME pilots, it is crucial that 'live' asymmetric training is not restricted to a simulator for ab initio training.
Just an observation that the performance of the aircraft in certain conditions may not be thought to be relevant if the intention is to teach those elements in simulated conditions.
Although I think Beagle has some very valid points, and it doesn't take into account what might happen if the situation occured for 'real' on another flight.
Although I think Beagle has some very valid points, and it doesn't take into account what might happen if the situation occured for 'real' on another flight.
Last edited by Davef68; 14th Aug 2017 at 16:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The bizarre thing about Dominie training was that although the RAF does not train for double failures, we did. The Dominie had a very simple device that when a thrust loss was detected from one engine it applied an appropriate amount of rudder to counter the yaw. Consequently, if the pilot forgot to apply any rudder during and engine failure the aircraft would remain in trim
The RAF in its wisdom, when conducting EFATO practice switched OFF the protection device. Consequently, we trained for a double failure, something that never happened in the aircrafts 45 years’ service. If we were teaching ab initio multi engine pilots I could understand but we were NOT.
Does the Phenom have a similar device to prevent yaw in even of an engine failure or does it rely on the pilot’s large boot?
The RAF in its wisdom, when conducting EFATO practice switched OFF the protection device. Consequently, we trained for a double failure, something that never happened in the aircrafts 45 years’ service. If we were teaching ab initio multi engine pilots I could understand but we were NOT.
Does the Phenom have a similar device to prevent yaw in even of an engine failure or does it rely on the pilot’s large boot?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA has dumbed down most twin jet training to the extent that asymmetric work is normally restricted to a FFS.
But the RAF does not have an intermediate ME trainer such as the Seneca or DA42 on which students learn asymmetric work, neither are RAF pilots taught to the minimum levels required for mere people-tube co-pilots or MPL applicants - so I sincerely hope that their training is to the higher standards required to operate Atlas / C-103J / C-17 / Poseidon / Sentinel / Sentry or Voyager in a tactical environment.
For the next generation of RAF ME pilots, it is crucial that 'live' asymmetric training is not restricted to a simulator for ab initio training.
But the RAF does not have an intermediate ME trainer such as the Seneca or DA42 on which students learn asymmetric work, neither are RAF pilots taught to the minimum levels required for mere people-tube co-pilots or MPL applicants - so I sincerely hope that their training is to the higher standards required to operate Atlas / C-103J / C-17 / Poseidon / Sentinel / Sentry or Voyager in a tactical environment.
For the next generation of RAF ME pilots, it is crucial that 'live' asymmetric training is not restricted to a simulator for ab initio training.
Of course, the RAF do some different things with their aircraft, but the principles of V1 cut, OEI approaches and landings are the same as in commercial aviation. If you can deal with an OEI go-around in a 737-800, you can deal with an engine failure at low level in a P8. If a Level D sim is available, I cannot see a valid argument that justifies the additional risk of conducting live "tactical" training scenarios involving asymmetric flight.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no relevant knowledge of turboprops but, from what I remember, some sort of residual thrust would usually have to be applied to "simulate" the feathered propeller. The efficacy of such an approxination is less likely to be accurate than manufacturer-approved, certified data that drives the simulator response.
They used to try and give you V1 cuts just after the wheels left the deck but after several Vmca rollovers in the UK at least the stopped that practise and it was only after the gear was up that they "failed" the engine.
Some of the latest EASA pushed training scenarios would be down right lethal in real life. Noise abatement profile V2 +10 climb followed by an inside engine failure in the first turn if they let that wing go more than 15 deg bank you better be quick bringing the power back on the dead engine or reducing the live one. Sim no worry's reset and lets try that again. real aircraft its a new pair of pants at the very least.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Just seen the East Jet "Inside the Cockpit" documentary.
https://youtu.be/2qVE4NtW86I
Interesting that no matter how good the Simulator is, it is different for real. Please to see that easy gives ab initios at least one flight prior to being let loose on passengers.
Simulated Single Engine training can be conducted safely with the right instructor in charge. Like many things, the basics should be taught and tested in the sim and then validated in live flight conditions.
One thing that I thought that was good when in the USA was that the same IP did the sims and then the flight with his/her student. At least it meant that in flight you nearly always knew what to expect!!!
https://youtu.be/2qVE4NtW86I
Interesting that no matter how good the Simulator is, it is different for real. Please to see that easy gives ab initios at least one flight prior to being let loose on passengers.
Simulated Single Engine training can be conducted safely with the right instructor in charge. Like many things, the basics should be taught and tested in the sim and then validated in live flight conditions.
One thing that I thought that was good when in the USA was that the same IP did the sims and then the flight with his/her student. At least it meant that in flight you nearly always knew what to expect!!!
I agree that the place for practicing your V1 cut is in the sim, but flying sim assy (one throttle at idle) for real should most certainly be encouraged in the instrument pattern on a regular albeit controlled basis.
Yes, its safer to practice it it all in the sim, but flying it for real is most certainly different than in the box, however good the sim!
Yes, its safer to practice it it all in the sim, but flying it for real is most certainly different than in the box, however good the sim!
Last edited by H Peacock; 16th Aug 2017 at 18:39.