Formula for Radius of Turn
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been slowing down. Let me know when to roll in when you guys agree.
The variable that challenges the whole process in the flight levels when doing science is the changing groundspeed during the turn. The often dramatically changing radius of turn frequently calls for proper tongue placement and eye squint in order to rollout on the desired track. Automation? No workee. Be a pilot and use the turn knob, with an eye on the MFD wind vectors (if available).
I'm sure there is a formula, but I don't lug around an enormous brain. Keep it light; keep it simple (thank you old-school bush pilot Oren Hudson) works for me. Having a headwind on the base leg for the turn on helps, too.
The variable that challenges the whole process in the flight levels when doing science is the changing groundspeed during the turn. The often dramatically changing radius of turn frequently calls for proper tongue placement and eye squint in order to rollout on the desired track. Automation? No workee. Be a pilot and use the turn knob, with an eye on the MFD wind vectors (if available).
I'm sure there is a formula, but I don't lug around an enormous brain. Keep it light; keep it simple (thank you old-school bush pilot Oren Hudson) works for me. Having a headwind on the base leg for the turn on helps, too.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The variable that challenges the whole process in the flight levels when doing science is the changing groundspeed during the turn.
Accounting for wind is most easily done, not by changing groundspeed, but by simple calculations of constant TAS in a turn, and (separately) the time that the aircraft is affected by a constant wind.
So, if an aircraft does a 180° turn in a 60kt wind at rate 1, forget changing groundspeed. Instead, calculate radius in nil wind, then move the aircraft 1nm downwind at the end of the turn.
PANS-Ops Doc 8168 (instrument procedure design) has many beautiful diagrams illustrating this principle.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Finland
Age: 74
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basics
Answer to the original question: D is about 1,06/100 of your speed, of course same amounts, knts, kms, meters/day, what ever... when the turn is basic = 3 dec/1 sec.
r is half of the D = 0,56/100
All this is very basic maths you must know before you can get PL, at least in Finland. Travelling speed X your turn takes 2 mins, so you travel during the turn X/30, the D is then X/30x3,14 and r is half of that.
So, using 1 % of your speed you get the diameter of your turn. If you like to be more accurate, you can add to the result 6 % and you are quite near of the absolute truth.
r is half of the D = 0,56/100
All this is very basic maths you must know before you can get PL, at least in Finland. Travelling speed X your turn takes 2 mins, so you travel during the turn X/30, the D is then X/30x3,14 and r is half of that.
So, using 1 % of your speed you get the diameter of your turn. If you like to be more accurate, you can add to the result 6 % and you are quite near of the absolute truth.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I was told in training as a general rule of thumb, 1% of G/S for 25-30 degree AOB for a 90 degree turn.
For example joining a DME arc at 90 deg with a G/S of 200kt, you need to initiate the turn 2nm before the arc so as not to overshoot the arc.
Of course we don't always join the DME arc at 90deg. Say if you join at 45deg, you need only 1nm in the above example.
Same applies for QDR intercepts if you are told to fly over a VOR to intercept a radial outbound.
I was told in training as a general rule of thumb, 1% of G/S for 25-30 degree AOB for a 90 degree turn.
For example joining a DME arc at 90 deg with a G/S of 200kt, you need to initiate the turn 2nm before the arc so as not to overshoot the arc.
Of course we don't always join the DME arc at 90deg. Say if you join at 45deg, you need only 1nm in the above example.
Same applies for QDR intercepts if you are told to fly over a VOR to intercept a radial outbound.
That's a good way of estimating the lead for intercepting an arc, but it's not a very good way of estimating turning radius in an established turn. The rule of thumb allows for rolling in and out of the bank. The radius of an established turn with the same bank will be somewhat smaller than that. IOW, if you calculated precisely what your radius of turn would be ay X airspeed and y bank, and began your 90 degree turn to an arc at precisely that distance, you'd fly thru the arc by a fair amount.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aviationluver, are you only looking for a formula to be used with a calculator, or a method to quickly get a result in flight?
Formulas and calculators will obviously give near-perfect figures, the question may be, on the practical side: can you use them in flight in a dynamic environment?
As previously posted, 1% TAS (or GS depending on your needs) is a good rule of thumb, provided the aircraft maintains a rate-one turn.
Beyond 180KTAS, maintaining a rate-one turn is not an option for commercial (carrying pax) aircraft. Most flight directors limit the bank angle to 25 or 30 degrees. In these higher speeds situations, the 1% calc will not fit.
But you can find the turn radius for higher speeds based on the Mach number, or the speed in miles-per-minute:
Say M0.7 or 7 miles-per-minute (MPM), just subtract 2 and you get the radius in NM. This is really close to a formula used with a calculator, and you can use it instantly while in flight without losing focus on what you're doing (flying I guess?).
This is described in "M3: the Mile, the Mach, the Minute", mental math for aviators, with the correponding formulas.
Note that it does not take into account the time (and thus distance) travelled during the intiation of the turn, from level flight to 25 or 30 degree bank.
Formulas and calculators will obviously give near-perfect figures, the question may be, on the practical side: can you use them in flight in a dynamic environment?
As previously posted, 1% TAS (or GS depending on your needs) is a good rule of thumb, provided the aircraft maintains a rate-one turn.
Beyond 180KTAS, maintaining a rate-one turn is not an option for commercial (carrying pax) aircraft. Most flight directors limit the bank angle to 25 or 30 degrees. In these higher speeds situations, the 1% calc will not fit.
But you can find the turn radius for higher speeds based on the Mach number, or the speed in miles-per-minute:
Say M0.7 or 7 miles-per-minute (MPM), just subtract 2 and you get the radius in NM. This is really close to a formula used with a calculator, and you can use it instantly while in flight without losing focus on what you're doing (flying I guess?).
This is described in "M3: the Mile, the Mach, the Minute", mental math for aviators, with the correponding formulas.
Note that it does not take into account the time (and thus distance) travelled during the intiation of the turn, from level flight to 25 or 30 degree bank.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: outside the box
Age: 40
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw some serious computations a few posts behind.. If you are trying to be so accurate with the turning Radius I guess you should include the change of the gravity force (g) with altitude..
g=g’[r/(r+h)]² and then put it in the R=V²/g tanφ
g: gravity at height
g’: standard gravity 9.81m/sec
r: earth mean radius
h: height in meters
which should be somewhat negligible at lower altitudes but hey, you guys started it just kidding! I won't mention the wind factor...
The 1%*GS*½ is the best rule of thumb ever for RATE 1 turns up to 250kts so thats what I m keeping from this thread.
g=g’[r/(r+h)]² and then put it in the R=V²/g tanφ
g: gravity at height
g’: standard gravity 9.81m/sec
r: earth mean radius
h: height in meters
which should be somewhat negligible at lower altitudes but hey, you guys started it just kidding! I won't mention the wind factor...
The 1%*GS*½ is the best rule of thumb ever for RATE 1 turns up to 250kts so thats what I m keeping from this thread.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In light aircraft if you cared about radius of turn in a blind canyon and had to do a 180 either do a split S to get out or a wingover or hammerhead stall and there is no radius. Airliners never fly up canyons so why do we care what the radius of turn is unless we are just bored? Are we bored?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44,
The glacier pilot Henri Giraud+ used the hammerhead facing the cliff : No problem with 180° turns, and so beautiful ! Good exemple of what I'm calling basic gestural process (BGP) *. (You did it since 50 years).
Landing climbing the slope and taking off descending the slope (both eventually downwind) were others BGP Giraud taught to his best friends, that Air Force refused to do during a long time, crashing some aircrafts in "Les Deux Alpes" (altitude 2000m) and jalous of Giraud flying like birds without "butterfly" *
French Civil Aviation autorised the two last to allow Ziegler's family to build their Air Alpes airline, but never the safe 180°! Many pilots died like idiots spining in turn trying to keep short radius in altitude or hitting the mountain having no more enough room. No Sop , no reckoning could help, only BGP
*definition of BGP and butterfly in thread NTSB update on Asiana 214 #121,123
The glacier pilot Henri Giraud+ used the hammerhead facing the cliff : No problem with 180° turns, and so beautiful ! Good exemple of what I'm calling basic gestural process (BGP) *. (You did it since 50 years).
Landing climbing the slope and taking off descending the slope (both eventually downwind) were others BGP Giraud taught to his best friends, that Air Force refused to do during a long time, crashing some aircrafts in "Les Deux Alpes" (altitude 2000m) and jalous of Giraud flying like birds without "butterfly" *
French Civil Aviation autorised the two last to allow Ziegler's family to build their Air Alpes airline, but never the safe 180°! Many pilots died like idiots spining in turn trying to keep short radius in altitude or hitting the mountain having no more enough room. No Sop , no reckoning could help, only BGP
*definition of BGP and butterfly in thread NTSB update on Asiana 214 #121,123
Last edited by roulishollandais; 11th Nov 2013 at 14:37.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers
I live and fly in the mountains, and have flown and taught search and rescue. We never advocate any course reversal other than a steep turn, slow and with flaps. Its the most survivable reversal.
A good hammerhead requires energy. When flying in the canyons, it is common to fly slower than cruise speed to reduce turn radius, which limits hammerhead capability.
A good hammerhead requires energy. When flying in the canyons, it is common to fly slower than cruise speed to reduce turn radius, which limits hammerhead capability.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live and fly in the mountains, and have flown and taught search and rescue. We never advocate any course reversal other than a steep turn, slow and with flaps. Its the most survivable reversal.
A good hammerhead requires energy. When flying in the canyons, it is common to fly slower than cruise speed to reduce turn radius, which limits hammerhead capability.
A good hammerhead requires energy. When flying in the canyons, it is common to fly slower than cruise speed to reduce turn radius, which limits hammerhead capability.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is common to fly slower than cruise speed
But hammerhead must be masterized and well trained. Bubbers44 who is aerobatics instructor is better than I to developp.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree if you are flying low and slow my two options would not work but having no time to calculate radius of turn or estimate radius required before your escape I would hug the downwind side of the canyon and make sure speed would not put me into the other side using flaps if necessary to make the turn as tight as required and banking to what ever was required without stalling.
Of course you first climb to use the altitude to use lift to turn,not maintain altitude and get to what ever speed is required to do your 180.
Of course you first climb to use the altitude to use lift to turn,not maintain altitude and get to what ever speed is required to do your 180.
Last edited by bubbers44; 11th Nov 2013 at 21:26. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few formulae here which help greatly in providing accurate and smooth flight under the IFR.
Does "accurate & smooth" count towards "safety of flight" Bubbers? I hope so, or a lot of my time has been wasted over the past dozen years...
Does "accurate & smooth" count towards "safety of flight" Bubbers? I hope so, or a lot of my time has been wasted over the past dozen years...