greater v1 or lower v1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: spain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
greater v1 or lower v1
Hi everbody. I have problems with this question and I would like to be clear with this V1 question. Thank you very much
The aircraft is not field length limited, with multiple V1
available. Some operators prefer to use a lower V1.State the benefits of using a high V1
?
(i) Requires less take-off distance for a confirmed take-off.
(ii) Better vertical clearance above an obstacle.
(iii) Greater stop margin in abandoned take-off.
a. 1 and 2.
b. 1 and 3.
c. 2 and 3.
d. All of the above.
The aircraft is not field length limited, with multiple V1
available. Some operators prefer to use a lower V1.State the benefits of using a high V1
?
(i) Requires less take-off distance for a confirmed take-off.
(ii) Better vertical clearance above an obstacle.
(iii) Greater stop margin in abandoned take-off.
a. 1 and 2.
b. 1 and 3.
c. 2 and 3.
d. All of the above.
Unless I've misunderstood something it wouldn't be a greater stop margin in a rejected take-off. The faster you go the more distance needed to stop which reduces stopping margin. That eliminates all options except one.
That being the case this is an example of a poorly written question. Or rather, the options are poorly written. You only need to know a single factor (go faster => more room needed to stop. Hardly rocket science) to eliminate all except one option. You don't even need to know the (correct) information that the question is supposedly testing you on.
That being the case this is an example of a poorly written question. Or rather, the options are poorly written. You only need to know a single factor (go faster => more room needed to stop. Hardly rocket science) to eliminate all except one option. You don't even need to know the (correct) information that the question is supposedly testing you on.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With same weight and same thrust, you obviously have a greater stopping margine using the smaller v1.
On the other hand, it will make you take an engine failure (or fire or any other fault) into the air. And in case of thrust loss, you will have to accelerate the portion from v1 small to v1 large with less thrust available and then to vr, therefore it will take longer and give you WORSE clearance height of any obstacle in your departure path.
So for long runways, I tend to opt for v1 large, giving me more opportunitiy to stop and stay on the ground, but on short runways or in unreliable conditions (contaminated) I'll take the v1 small to give me more margin for error of the calculation (I do take any calculation with contaminated RWY as a good, educated guess by the manufacturer, but for not more than that).
X-wind might make me opt for a higher v1 again, as the faster you go, the more stable you'll fly on one engine out...
Nic
PS: To answer your question after all my babbeling, answer (a) seems to be the correct one.
With larger v1 you will reach your screen height quicker and you will have therefore more vertical clearance towards any obstacle.
On the other hand, it will make you take an engine failure (or fire or any other fault) into the air. And in case of thrust loss, you will have to accelerate the portion from v1 small to v1 large with less thrust available and then to vr, therefore it will take longer and give you WORSE clearance height of any obstacle in your departure path.
So for long runways, I tend to opt for v1 large, giving me more opportunitiy to stop and stay on the ground, but on short runways or in unreliable conditions (contaminated) I'll take the v1 small to give me more margin for error of the calculation (I do take any calculation with contaminated RWY as a good, educated guess by the manufacturer, but for not more than that).
X-wind might make me opt for a higher v1 again, as the faster you go, the more stable you'll fly on one engine out...
Nic
PS: To answer your question after all my babbeling, answer (a) seems to be the correct one.
With larger v1 you will reach your screen height quicker and you will have therefore more vertical clearance towards any obstacle.
Last edited by Admiral346; 14th Feb 2012 at 14:06.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low V1 gives safer stops and more likelihood of a OEI go. Downside is your OEI go could be right on the limits.
High V1 gives less safe stops and more likelihood of a stop. On the plus side better OEI climb.
So Low gives safer stop case and high gives safer go case.
and as above A is correct.
High V1 gives less safe stops and more likelihood of a stop. On the plus side better OEI climb.
So Low gives safer stop case and high gives safer go case.
and as above A is correct.
Moderator
As always the devil is in the detail ... and examination questions invariably have to dumb down the detail for the purpose at hand -
(a) is the intended answer. Although (a) is not quite correct, (b) and (c) are wrong so (a), by default, is the way to go in the exam.
There is a caveat which should be understood: if the question relates to
(a) a situation where there exists a range of V1 which may be utilised for the SAME V2, then (a) is correct
(b) an overspeed schedule takeoff (which we suspect is the purpose), the actual screen position may be a long way further down the runway to achieve the higher V2. It follows that the INITIAL takeoff flight path will be LOWER for the higher V1 schedule.
Thus, you might well see considerably reduced clearance margins above first and early second segment obstacles. Progressively, however, the better climb gradient at the higher V2 will close the gap between the two calculated flight paths and, eventually, the higher V2 path will be higher and the clearances better.
In the real world it's a case of horses for courses - where is the critical obstacle(s) ? It is this which determines the principal desirability for an increased speed schedule or not.
(a) is the intended answer. Although (a) is not quite correct, (b) and (c) are wrong so (a), by default, is the way to go in the exam.
There is a caveat which should be understood: if the question relates to
(a) a situation where there exists a range of V1 which may be utilised for the SAME V2, then (a) is correct
(b) an overspeed schedule takeoff (which we suspect is the purpose), the actual screen position may be a long way further down the runway to achieve the higher V2. It follows that the INITIAL takeoff flight path will be LOWER for the higher V1 schedule.
Thus, you might well see considerably reduced clearance margins above first and early second segment obstacles. Progressively, however, the better climb gradient at the higher V2 will close the gap between the two calculated flight paths and, eventually, the higher V2 path will be higher and the clearances better.
In the real world it's a case of horses for courses - where is the critical obstacle(s) ? It is this which determines the principal desirability for an increased speed schedule or not.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said John. Spot on. It is the higher V2 associated with higher V1 and Vr that improves the 2nd segment climb for obstacle concerns below your flight path on an engine failing at V1. Of course this will take a bit more runway.
It seems to me that ii is correct for a given weight because more of the acceleration on the runway has been on all engines therefore the take-off is earlier and the obstacle clearance greater. For the extreme case of V1 being equal to Vr the failure must occur at Vr at the earliest, so the ground roll in the engine failure case will be the same as the ground roll all engines operating. On the other hand if V1 was 20 knots slower than Vr you have a significant portion of the ground roll conducted with a failed engine which gives a longer ground roll and reduced obstacle clearance. Once again, assuming the same weight.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets consider a r/w like the old Kai Tak at Hong Kong. One way you climbed out over the sea, the other way you climbed out over the blocks of flats.
This is my thinking.
You definetely do not want to overrun on an abort and go into the sea. Therefore you would choose a low V1.
you definetely would not want to be climbing out with the loss of an engine over the blocks of flats. Therefore you would choose a high VI.
I think you can apply that logic worldwide and then consider other aspects as well such as narrow runways and fog. If foggy do you want to be trying to keep an ac straight after an engine failure with a low v1. Answer probably no.
Same with a narrow runway me thinks. With a high V1 your time assymmetric is reduced giving you less time to veer off the edge.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks
This is my thinking.
You definetely do not want to overrun on an abort and go into the sea. Therefore you would choose a low V1.
you definetely would not want to be climbing out with the loss of an engine over the blocks of flats. Therefore you would choose a high VI.
I think you can apply that logic worldwide and then consider other aspects as well such as narrow runways and fog. If foggy do you want to be trying to keep an ac straight after an engine failure with a low v1. Answer probably no.
Same with a narrow runway me thinks. With a high V1 your time assymmetric is reduced giving you less time to veer off the edge.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody refers to V1. V1 isn[t what gives climb performance, with obstacles on departure after initial climb V2 is. With improved climb performance you give up runway length to get a higher 2nd segment climb after initial obstacle clearance. It is easy to look up.
V1 doesn't give climb performance but it does change the position on the runway that you lift off. A high V1 means more of the takeoff is on all engines and therefore your takeoff is earlier. This means you have better obstacle clearance, not a better gradient, you have the same gradient clearing all obstacles by a bigger margin.
Moderator
One can't look at V1 in isolation from V2 and get a comprehensive result .. Your position is correct ONLY for constant V2 which may not be available for the particular Type.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is Boeing's explanation of improved climb performance.
http://www.captainpilot.com/files/BO...ed%20Climb.pdf
http://www.captainpilot.com/files/BO...ed%20Climb.pdf
Bubbers, I'm not talking about improved climb performance, I'm talking about the same climb performance commencing closer to the start of the takeoff run due to more of the takeoff being conducted with all engines running. It does not give you better climb performance but it will give you more obstacle clearance than a lower V1, all else being equal, as John notes. I think that's what the exam writers are going for, if you increase V1 only and leave the weight and other V speeds the same you will have better obstacle clearance for an engine failure at V1.
Moderator
if you increase V1 only and leave the weight and other V speeds the same you will have better obstacle clearance for an engine failure at V1.
And I can bring to mind several aircraft Types for which this is perfectly correct - albeit that the terrain clearance delta is minimal and the main reason for changing V1 in such a scenario is to gain a TODR/TORR advantage.
The consideration here is whether the AFM gives the data necessary to play with V1 in isolation.
The present problem is that we don't really know what the exam question is driving at. However, this sort of discussion is good to have from time to time to bring it up for the new chums around the sandpit.
And I can bring to mind several aircraft Types for which this is perfectly correct - albeit that the terrain clearance delta is minimal and the main reason for changing V1 in such a scenario is to gain a TODR/TORR advantage.
The consideration here is whether the AFM gives the data necessary to play with V1 in isolation.
The present problem is that we don't really know what the exam question is driving at. However, this sort of discussion is good to have from time to time to bring it up for the new chums around the sandpit.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers, I'm not talking about improved climb performance, I'm talking about the same climb performance commencing closer to the start of the takeoff run due to more of the takeoff being conducted with all engines running. It does not give you better climb performance but it will give you more obstacle clearance than a lower V1, all else being equal, as John notes. I think that's what the exam writers are going for, if you increase V1 only and leave the weight and other V speeds the same you will have better obstacle clearance for an engine failure at V1.
If two exactly same aircraft in terms of type, weight and loading, takeoff at exactly the same time from two parallel runways of the same length which have thresholds beside each other with the same obstacles, but one of them has a V1 20 knots lower than the other but both have the same V2 speed and both of them lose an engine at V1 , I should think that the one with the lower V1 will take a much longer length of runway prior to reaching VR, and will be much closer to any obstacle.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is good to discuss because we learn from each other. Using a higher V1 but the same V2 does give better, marginally, initial climb performance but doesn't help any on the rest of the second segment climb. Now it decreases because of the lower speed to the same climb as a normal V1. I guess in the US we went with improved climb higher V2 speeds if runway length allowed it with chart to prove we are safe. Are there any charts for your Australian procedures you use to increase V1 but use original V2? You would clear the 50 ft trees at the end of the runway but what about the hill you need to clear 2 miles past at your reduced climb rate after V2 is reached because you didn't use the higher V2 to get that performance? Yes, I know you may have lifted off a few hundred feet shorter if V1 was with both engines but do you have charts to calculate take off performance using that procedure? If you do fine, we don't have any of those charts.
Moderator
but do you have charts to calculate take off performance using that procedure
It will depend on the particular AFM - some give all the limits explicitly and provide significant flexibility. Others combine limits and make the processing a tad easier for a loss in user flexibility and choice.
Not something to fuss over too much - so long as the procedure adopted is consistent with the AFM, things should be reasonably OK.
It will depend on the particular AFM - some give all the limits explicitly and provide significant flexibility. Others combine limits and make the processing a tad easier for a loss in user flexibility and choice.
Not something to fuss over too much - so long as the procedure adopted is consistent with the AFM, things should be reasonably OK.