PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   Calculating ram rise? (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/243357-calculating-ram-rise.html)

Founder 11th September 2006 13:48

Calculating ram rise?
 
does anyone know how to calculate ram rise?

Kind Regards
Tim

captjns 11th September 2006 13:56

A quick calculation is to take ten percent of your indicated airspeed.

Re-entry 11th September 2006 16:03

TAT/SAT=1+(g-1)/2 *M^2

g= gamma= cp/cv. The ratio of specific heats at constant P,V. (1.4 for air at STP.)

M= mach number.

The temp as measured by a probe (eg rosemount) is slightly different to the true TAT, due to a number of factors.

Re-entry 11th September 2006 18:33

I suppose I should add that gamma varies with temp. For dry air g=1.401 @0 deg C. g=1.405 @ -80 deg C.
Also note TAT and SAT are expressed in deg K (ie deg C+273.16).

The value of gamma is an experimentally derived number. The theoretical value for a diatomic gas is 7/5 ie 1.4 . Air is of course only about 99% diatomic O2 and N2. The other 1% being other gases (mainly Ar).

DesiPilot 12th September 2006 18:49

Another rule of thumb that we used was
TAT= SAT + (TAS/100)^2.

It works pretty well for approximation.

411A 12th September 2006 23:34

Well, if you want the exact figure, there are graphs in most AFM's that are VERY accurate, and correct for any particular system/installation errors.

Old Smokey 13th September 2006 06:33


Originally Posted by DesiPilot (Post 2845168)
Another rule of thumb that we used was
TAT= SAT + (TAS/100)^2.
It works pretty well for approximation.

True enough, an approximation. If you want the exact figure with Knots TAS as the entry variable -

TAT= SAT + (TAS/87.1)^2, which is exact :ok:

Or, if your entry variable is Mach Number -

TAT= SAT + (1+.2*M^2), which is also exact :ok:

Prop operators may prefer the former, jet jockeys the latter.

Regards,

Old Smokey

Re-entry 13th September 2006 08:28

Old Smokey, I think for the second formula you meant

TAT= SAT*(1+ .2*M^2).

And the temps must be in deg K.

btw it is not exactly exact, due to the small variations in the value of gamma, as I mentioned before. But it is mighty close!

Old Smokey 14th September 2006 12:44

Thanks Re-entry, my speed typing skills leave a lot to be desired.

Agreed abiout the small variations in Gamma, but most ADCs / FMCs etc use the 'standard' 1.4, so unless you're actually converting test flying results into standard results, using the standard will keep the results in line with standard instrument calibrations. As you said earlier, the difference is very small in any case.

Just in case someone copied my mis-typing, I'd better say again

TAT= SAT X (1+.2*M^2),

The problem was a cut and paste from the formula derived for TAS, didn't edit it as fully as I should have:ugh: , Thanks again:ok: .

Regards,

Old Smokey

westhawk 14th September 2006 21:35


Originally Posted by Re-entry (Post 2846130)
Old Smokey, I think for the second formula you meant

TAT= SAT*(1+ .2*M^2).
And the temps must be in deg K.
btw it is not exactly exact, due to the small variations in the value of gamma, as I mentioned before. But it is mighty close!

Just noticed the reference to absolute temperature. Is that right?

Best regards,

Westhawk

Techman 14th September 2006 21:49

yes it is.

It is SAT(K)(1+0.2m^2)=TAT(K)

westhawk 14th September 2006 22:33

Thank you.

So since SAT is displayed in degrees C, my cheat sheet ( for quick reference)should read like this:

TAT = SAT + 273 X (1+.2*M^2) - 273?

So if:
mach = .74
SAT = -54 deg C

Then:

-54 + 273 X (1 + .2 X .74^2) - 273 = - 30.015 deg C, or about 23.085 deg C of ram rise. Is that correct?

Sorry to drag this out. I just want to make sure I get it right.

Thanks for the clarification.

Westhawk

barit1 14th September 2006 22:40

Without actually checking your math, the rise is remarkably close to my guess. :)

Techman 14th September 2006 22:42

It would be :

SAT(K)(1+0.2m^2)=TAT(K)

TAT(K)/(1+0.2m^2)=SAT(K)

As 411 says, the quickest way would be a AFM graph.

barit1 14th September 2006 23:49

Without actually checking your math, your rise is remarkably close to my guess. :)

captjns 15th September 2006 00:20

Too much work when you can take 10% of your indicated airspeed to get the same result.

westhawk 15th September 2006 08:51


Originally Posted by captjns (Post 2849993)
Too much work when you can take 10% of your indicated airspeed to get the same result.

That's probably right captjns. But it will be ever so much more fun to give the co-pilot the formula and the calculator and ask him to find the SAT from our mach number and our OAT/RAT reading, then explain about the 10% of IAS thing after!

Actually, I'll try both tomorrow. Then I'll compare the results to the SAT/TAS reading on the air data page. Gotta do something during cruise, and this seems both safer than, and preferable to, allowing any further discussions of religion or politics to commence!

Best regards,

Westhawk

captjns 15th September 2006 11:13


Originally Posted by westhawk (Post 2850461)
That's probably right captjns. But it will be ever so much more fun to give the co-pilot the formula and the calculator and ask him to find the SAT from our mach number and our OAT/RAT reading, then explain about the 10% of IAS thing after!

Actually, I'll try both tomorrow. Then I'll compare the results to the SAT/TAS reading on the air data page. Gotta do something during cruise, and this seems both safer than, and preferable to, allowing any further discussions of religion or politics to commence!

Best regards,

Westhawk

Amen Brother... er uh you betcha:ok:


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.