Pressure Height and Density Height
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here today, there tomorrow
Age: 41
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressure Height and Density Height
Hello all
Can I please have the formula for the mentioned topics?
A link would also do. I need to show someone how to derive it using more than one possible way.
Help would be appreciated.
Richie
Can I please have the formula for the mentioned topics?
A link would also do. I need to show someone how to derive it using more than one possible way.
Help would be appreciated.
Richie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sunshine Coast
Age: 47
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
formulas
PH = Elevation + [(1013-QNH)x30]
If QNH is 1030 & airfield elevation is 1500' then 1030-1013=17, 17x30=510, 1500 + 510= PH 2010'
Note: PH can be a negative value, however performance charts don't usually account for this so a zero PH is used.
DH = [(temperature - ISA)x120] + PH
ISA temp= 15 - twice the thousands of feet. i.e 1000' PH is 2, 2000' PH is 4, 4500' PH is 9 etc... (temp drops at a standard rate of 2deg per thousand feet, and ISA at MSL is 15deg.
If PH is 2010 and the temp is 22deg then ISA is 15-4=11, 22-11= 11, 11 x 120= 1320, 1320+1610=DH 2930'
If QNH is 1030 & airfield elevation is 1500' then 1030-1013=17, 17x30=510, 1500 + 510= PH 2010'
Note: PH can be a negative value, however performance charts don't usually account for this so a zero PH is used.
DH = [(temperature - ISA)x120] + PH
ISA temp= 15 - twice the thousands of feet. i.e 1000' PH is 2, 2000' PH is 4, 4500' PH is 9 etc... (temp drops at a standard rate of 2deg per thousand feet, and ISA at MSL is 15deg.
If PH is 2010 and the temp is 22deg then ISA is 15-4=11, 22-11= 11, 11 x 120= 1320, 1320+1610=DH 2930'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop-wash, what are you trying to teach this bloke?
Your formula was correct, but then you stuffed it up trying to justify yourself.
Using your QNH 1030 example...
PH = 1500 + [(1013-1030)x30]
= 1500 + [(-17)x30]
= 1500 + [-510]
= 1500 - 510
= 990'
If QNH is HIGH, performance in GOOD, PH is LOW
Your formula was correct, but then you stuffed it up trying to justify yourself.
PH = Elevation + [(1013-QNH)x30]
PH = 1500 + [(1013-1030)x30]
= 1500 + [(-17)x30]
= 1500 + [-510]
= 1500 - 510
= 990'
If QNH is HIGH, performance in GOOD, PH is LOW
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sunshine Coast
Age: 47
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops, thanks for that directanywhere. Going from memory is never a good thing when you don't use the formulas on a regular basis. Always good to continually go over things like this as it's easy to forget.
Cheers,
P-W
Cheers,
P-W
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richie,
When you say you need to 'derive', do you mean derive the formula or just calculate an answer using it?
Best way I can think to derive would be to draw some diagrams showing levels of QNH (MSL), 1013hPa and the airfield elevation above MSL. Is this what you needed help with?
j*1
When you say you need to 'derive', do you mean derive the formula or just calculate an answer using it?
Best way I can think to derive would be to draw some diagrams showing levels of QNH (MSL), 1013hPa and the airfield elevation above MSL. Is this what you needed help with?
j*1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here today, there tomorrow
Age: 41
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jetstar
what you have said earlier along with pro-wash and directanywhere would suffice at this stage. that is all i needed to know .
btw, once we calculate PH, is it a simple addition of elevation to the answer? I am afraid my theory was done back in 2002 and i seem to have forgotten quite a bit!
thanks again jet*
Richie
what you have said earlier along with pro-wash and directanywhere would suffice at this stage. that is all i needed to know .
btw, once we calculate PH, is it a simple addition of elevation to the answer? I am afraid my theory was done back in 2002 and i seem to have forgotten quite a bit!
thanks again jet*
Richie