737 Vref Ice
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: NH
737 Vref Ice
Any ideas why VREF ICE correction is only applied to the Flaps 15 landing configuration? I can't see why a PLUS 10 knot additive would not be advisable for all landing flap configurations if icing was encounter or planned for...any thoughts.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
That's only for the NG models 600-900. The Classic 300-500 has a different criteria (what does one call the 100-200 now? Dinosaur?).
That is how Boeing determined it. As pilots, we follow the guidelines that come from the manufacturer. It has been decided we don't have to know the reason, just do it! I guess the reason is that it has been determined that the NG wing, which is markedly different to previous versions, is not significantly adversely affected by icing in normal landing configurations.
That is how Boeing determined it. As pilots, we follow the guidelines that come from the manufacturer. It has been decided we don't have to know the reason, just do it! I guess the reason is that it has been determined that the NG wing, which is markedly different to previous versions, is not significantly adversely affected by icing in normal landing configurations.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Or that it is affected, but the effect is already accounted for in the numbers used for all cases, ice and no ice, and therefore no "delta" for ice is required.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
So why would Boeing licence the aeroplane with tighter margins at Flap 15 than for greater settings? Is it an admission that icing affects a partially flapped wing more than a fully flapped wing?
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
This is speculation without seeing the actual design info, but ....
There are generally three sets of icing shapes considered in certifying an aircraft - the fully developed ice shapes (which exist only on unprotected parts of the airframe), the "failure" ice shapes, representing the worst case ice accumulation on the protected parts of the airframe following a failure, and the "encounter" or "delayed turn on" (DTO) shapes, representing the ice that will accumulated on an unexpected encounter with ice, before the system is turned on.
Since the conditions being discussed are not failure cases of the icing system, we only need be concerned with the unprotected ice (often called 3 inch ice, since that's the standard height assumed by most) and the DTO ice.
3 inch ice will be on all the unprotected surfaces when in icing conditions; DTO has to be assumed even for "no ice" conditions.
IF the location of the unprotected area is such that it affects the stall onset only at flaps 15 then that would explain the reason for an adder only for that case. It is possible that it actually affects all the configurations relative to a clean wing, but that landing flaps are sufficiently affected by DTO - which is considered for all conditions - that the 3 inch effect is masked.
Since flaps can cause the stall to initiate at different spanwise locations, this is a possible explanation.
There are generally three sets of icing shapes considered in certifying an aircraft - the fully developed ice shapes (which exist only on unprotected parts of the airframe), the "failure" ice shapes, representing the worst case ice accumulation on the protected parts of the airframe following a failure, and the "encounter" or "delayed turn on" (DTO) shapes, representing the ice that will accumulated on an unexpected encounter with ice, before the system is turned on.
Since the conditions being discussed are not failure cases of the icing system, we only need be concerned with the unprotected ice (often called 3 inch ice, since that's the standard height assumed by most) and the DTO ice.
3 inch ice will be on all the unprotected surfaces when in icing conditions; DTO has to be assumed even for "no ice" conditions.
IF the location of the unprotected area is such that it affects the stall onset only at flaps 15 then that would explain the reason for an adder only for that case. It is possible that it actually affects all the configurations relative to a clean wing, but that landing flaps are sufficiently affected by DTO - which is considered for all conditions - that the 3 inch effect is masked.
Since flaps can cause the stall to initiate at different spanwise locations, this is a possible explanation.
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
landing climb?
Could the answer be that in the no addition configurations the Vref is already well above Vsl and is in-fact increased to give correct landing climb gradient?
I ask because I think this is the case on the E-jets with flaps full.
I ask because I think this is the case on the E-jets with flaps full.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 434
From: In your head.
Hoppy the speeds used on the 190/195, and I think the 170/175, all ready include an icing increment for both landing flap configurations (5 and Full).
In effect we fly around using icing approach speeds whether we're in icing or not. Vref for both settings is the same as Vac (approach climb speed).
In effect we fly around using icing approach speeds whether we're in icing or not. Vref for both settings is the same as Vac (approach climb speed).
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
Not quite Chesty.
On your 195s they are all the same but on the 190s and 70/75s they're not. And FAA certified jets are different again. Plus you also have an option for Alternate go around flap on JAA certified jets which gives a whole different set of figures just as CAT ll/lll does.
It's often as not about the approach climb/landing climb requirements rather than the margin above Vsl on these jets.
On your 195s they are all the same but on the 190s and 70/75s they're not. And FAA certified jets are different again. Plus you also have an option for Alternate go around flap on JAA certified jets which gives a whole different set of figures just as CAT ll/lll does.
It's often as not about the approach climb/landing climb requirements rather than the margin above Vsl on these jets.
Joined: Aug 1998
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 847
From: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
That's my thought...is that margins at flaps 15 are tight, so 10 knots are added for icing conditions...but not necessary for 30/40 flap landings...
)The manoeuvring margins are shown in graphical form in the [edit: the flight crew training manual] - and it is here that you can see the flap 15 manoeuvring speed is a bit closer to the low end of the range than the other recommended flap speeds. On the chance that ice has formed on the parts of the airframe not protected by de-ice, increasing the weight (and thus stall speed) the flap 15 manoeuvring margin is the only one that is close enough to the bottom edge of the speed range to worry about increasing it.
Last edited by Checkboard; 30th June 2009 at 11:42.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 148
From: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea Australia
