Accelerate stop distance required
Well, 2,500 hours in the original C I and C II, they have split V1 and Vr speeds, too. Fraser was PM, Carter was President and bell bottoms were leaving the scene.
While Cessna's explanation leads to the assumption that accel-stop and accel-go maybe different distances, they are almost certainly "balanced", hence the split between V1 and Vr. To the OP, remember, in the GO case, at V1 the take-off was continued on ONE engine, rotated and climbed on that ONE engine. In the STOP case, the first action to stop was taken by V1 and maximum braking applied until stopping. Easily the same distance, as I have seen once or twice. So few pilots ever use max braking that they do not believe how fast speed goes away.
While Cessna's explanation leads to the assumption that accel-stop and accel-go maybe different distances, they are almost certainly "balanced", hence the split between V1 and Vr. To the OP, remember, in the GO case, at V1 the take-off was continued on ONE engine, rotated and climbed on that ONE engine. In the STOP case, the first action to stop was taken by V1 and maximum braking applied until stopping. Easily the same distance, as I have seen once or twice. So few pilots ever use max braking that they do not believe how fast speed goes away.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 12th Jan 2012 at 14:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris, London and New York
Age: 29
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much you want to bet Brian and you galaxy-flyer that Cessna does have V1 and Vr equal?
Im always open for bets and better yet since you fly CJ3 I have those charts with me as well and will post those charts proving to be correct. Go ahead put your money where your mouth is and bet with me 100$ right now !
I will give you guys few hours to accept the bet and then will post charts anyway just for fun of embarrassing you and your 2500h of apparently wasted time.
Im always open for bets and better yet since you fly CJ3 I have those charts with me as well and will post those charts proving to be correct. Go ahead put your money where your mouth is and bet with me 100$ right now !
I will give you guys few hours to accept the bet and then will post charts anyway just for fun of embarrassing you and your 2500h of apparently wasted time.
Last edited by Dariuszw; 12th Jan 2012 at 14:47.
Loads of planes have dry conditions where V1 = Vr, the B727 and Global Express come to mind in my experience. Doesn't change the fact that a balanced field, one where the stop and go distances are equal, is what is charted because a balanced field is the SHORTEST possible distance. Any other selected V1 will result in one of the two distances being longer than the other.
Why would the manufacturer, with legal liability, fail to either use the balanced field or present the required charts for computing unbalanced fields? BTW, I have great familiarity with the manufacturer's side of this problem.
Suffice to say, those field lengths given will allow either a stop or go, if you follow the conditions that went into producing them.
Why would the manufacturer, with legal liability, fail to either use the balanced field or present the required charts for computing unbalanced fields? BTW, I have great familiarity with the manufacturer's side of this problem.
Suffice to say, those field lengths given will allow either a stop or go, if you follow the conditions that went into producing them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris, London and New York
Age: 29
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mutt, Darius just made an offer for a 100$ bet with your friends on tech forum. Suggest to observe it to see if they'r stupid enough to accept it. I have no doubt they are but not that stupid to actualy accept it. Either way this 16 year old will teach them and morons like you a lesson.
