V1 Cuts in the SIM. WHY?
Thanks, those numbers seem more like it.
Old King Air AFM chart shows clean stall 100 knots at MTOW, but assume Raisebeck tweaks that slightly?
Using old King Air Vr of 95 triggered stall warning on occasion with flap zero. Had an engine failed right there I imagine things would get interesting on the side where there was no longer any prop wash.
It was probably this that had many pilots prefer to take off with flaps approach, maybe not appreciating the degraded second segment performance with one engine out - or not really caring about it.
I have only flown a part-Raisbeck conversion once or twice, so was not aware of the enhanced speed schedule with the full Monty fit.
Back to the OP’s concern though, the two simulators here in Oz are (as far as I know) more representative of bog standard King Airs, so cutting an engine at 95 knots and expecting it to fly away could be what bothered him/her.
Old King Air AFM chart shows clean stall 100 knots at MTOW, but assume Raisebeck tweaks that slightly?
Using old King Air Vr of 95 triggered stall warning on occasion with flap zero. Had an engine failed right there I imagine things would get interesting on the side where there was no longer any prop wash.
It was probably this that had many pilots prefer to take off with flaps approach, maybe not appreciating the degraded second segment performance with one engine out - or not really caring about it.
I have only flown a part-Raisbeck conversion once or twice, so was not aware of the enhanced speed schedule with the full Monty fit.
Back to the OP’s concern though, the two simulators here in Oz are (as far as I know) more representative of bog standard King Airs, so cutting an engine at 95 knots and expecting it to fly away could be what bothered him/her.
Thanks for that, a good development to have that available.
Having asked around on the subject of Kingair 200 etc, it would seem that performance information is still around, from Australian "certification" of old, particularly takeoff data from the old Australian AFM. This includes a package supplied by the Beechcraft agents of the day, to meet "Australian" rules.
I would remind anybody still using such data, that the supporting legislation was repealed in 1998, and all such "Australian" certification rendered invalid, so beware, you must be using a valid AFM.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I concur about terrible OEM checklists,(also noted on the Essendon crash thread) but if you want to use something different, make certain you have gone through the processes to have it approved as a substitute for the OEM checklists. Insurance companies can get very stroppy about this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.
Groggy
FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.
Groggy
LeadSled,
FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.
Groggy
FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.
Groggy
I am not referring to the sim, sorry if I haven't been clear enough.
What I am referring to is "CASA Approved" data that came from the old Australian certification, which was all repealed in 1998, but is still being used to this day, in "CASA Accepted" FCOMs.
Indeed, I get the impression that at least two FOIs don't understand, or don't accept, that such "data" no longer has legal standing, and they do not have a legal head of power to make it otherwise. In fact, I think they believe they can do whatever they like, including demanding/directing "V1 cuts", in aircraft no so certified.
As to engineering data packages that pass muster for ICAO 5 thru' 7 (Cat D) there are several acceptable methods to develop such a package, what you describe is, in essence, one of them.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V1 Cuts
First, I remember one senior pilot who had "flipped" several twins doing engine failures on take off old timers
will know who I'm referring to.
I had my first real introduction to repeated V1 cuts in the Flight Safety King Air 200 simulator.
You learn that V2 is a minimum speed. If the engine goes bang at the exact speed at max weight
your V2 needs to be increased to get it to climb, retain directional control
to take it through those imaginary goal posts at the end of the runway.
You program the sim to fail exactly at V2. The sim is the only way it can be practiced
on the runway safely. It's probably the most important task you can practice in a sim.
will know who I'm referring to.
I had my first real introduction to repeated V1 cuts in the Flight Safety King Air 200 simulator.
You learn that V2 is a minimum speed. If the engine goes bang at the exact speed at max weight
your V2 needs to be increased to get it to climb, retain directional control
to take it through those imaginary goal posts at the end of the runway.
You program the sim to fail exactly at V2. The sim is the only way it can be practiced
on the runway safely. It's probably the most important task you can practice in a sim.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: At Home
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only been in the B350 Sim from FS and in a BE30 Sim in Pori Finland.
But as most of my KA experience is on the B200, i can tell you one Thing:
Mach A Velli is completly right with his Suggestions regarding the B200 and V1 Cuts.
I decided Long time ago, to take off only Flaps Appr. on Rwys shorter than 1500m and to decide case to case, when shorter than 2000m.
If you rotate even at a 100kts a bit to energeticly, you will have the Stall warning coming on. Imagine loosing one Engine at this Moment.....
It will cost you 1% of SE Climb Gradient to have flaps App, but the Stall Speed is lowered to 90Kts, so at least the ship will fly.
We never ever rotated below 100KTs. Then with Flaps app your V2 is 106KT, wich is a mere 6 kts to accelerate from VR. This will reduce your Go distance a lot.
Just to memorize: AGD is the longest T/O Distance in a B200: Isa SL@ 12500lb= 7000ft 0-flap or 4800ft App flaps ASD is around 3400ft.
Just once more "IF" you loose an engine at V1 clean, you Need over 2200m to get over an 11m obtstacle going 121kts. Good Fun eeh!
I know that a B200 is certified to FAR23, but that doesnt imply i have to try to kill myselve and my Pax, trying the impossible, We tried at least as often as possible to operate while using FAR25 T/O Performance as a base.
We were send to a few Airports where we knew, that far25 wouldnt work. But according to the rules we where legal....
But as most of my KA experience is on the B200, i can tell you one Thing:
Mach A Velli is completly right with his Suggestions regarding the B200 and V1 Cuts.
I decided Long time ago, to take off only Flaps Appr. on Rwys shorter than 1500m and to decide case to case, when shorter than 2000m.
If you rotate even at a 100kts a bit to energeticly, you will have the Stall warning coming on. Imagine loosing one Engine at this Moment.....
It will cost you 1% of SE Climb Gradient to have flaps App, but the Stall Speed is lowered to 90Kts, so at least the ship will fly.
We never ever rotated below 100KTs. Then with Flaps app your V2 is 106KT, wich is a mere 6 kts to accelerate from VR. This will reduce your Go distance a lot.
Just to memorize: AGD is the longest T/O Distance in a B200: Isa SL@ 12500lb= 7000ft 0-flap or 4800ft App flaps ASD is around 3400ft.
Just once more "IF" you loose an engine at V1 clean, you Need over 2200m to get over an 11m obtstacle going 121kts. Good Fun eeh!
I know that a B200 is certified to FAR23, but that doesnt imply i have to try to kill myselve and my Pax, trying the impossible, We tried at least as often as possible to operate while using FAR25 T/O Performance as a base.
We were send to a few Airports where we knew, that far25 wouldnt work. But according to the rules we where legal....
