The Advanced Pilot's Flight Manual

The Advanced Pilot’s Flight Manual

Ninth Edition

William K. Kershner

Illustrated by the Author

© 2006–2020 Kershner Flight Manuals, LLC. Previous editions © 1970–2006 William K. Kershner.

First Edition published 1970, Iowa State University Press. Eighth Edition published 2014 by Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except for brief passages quoted in a review.

Cover photo credits: shutterstock © R. Gino Santa Maria

Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc.

7005 132nd Place SE

Newcastle, WA 98059

Email: asa@asa2fly.com

Internet: www.asa2fly.com

ASA-FM-ADV-9-EB

ISBN 978-1-64425-011-2

Print Book ISBN 978-1-64425-010-5

About the Author

After doing his first spin at the age of 16 in an Aeronca TAC, William K. Kershner flew and taught aerobatics for 60 years. Bill put his degree in technical journalism and aerodynamics, along with his ability to make complex ideas seem simple, to work in writing The Student Pilot’s Flight Manual, The Instrument Flight Manual, The Advanced Pilot’s Flight Manual, The Flight Instructor’s Manual and The Basic Aerobatic Manual. He also wrote Logging Flight Time, a collection of aviation anecdotes and experiences collected over a lifetime in aviation. The Kershner Flight Manual Series has influenced hundreds of thousands of pilots, with over 1.3 million copies printed in at least 3 languages.

Bill received the General Aviation Flight Instructor of the Year and the Ninety-Nines Award of Merit, among many other honors. To date he is the only person to have been inducted into both the International Aerobatic Club Hall of Fame and the Flight Instructor’s Hall of Fame. He was among the first to be inducted into the Tennessee Aviation Hall of Fame.

Kershner operated an aerobatic school for many years at the Sewanee-Franklin County airport in Tennessee using a Cessna 152 Aerobat. His airplane, N7557L, is on display at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport. Bill Kershner died January 8th, 2007.

Editor William C. Kershner received his early flight training from his father, William K. Kershner. He holds Commercial, Flight Instructor and Airline Transport Pilot certificates and has flown 22 types of airplanes, ranging in size from Cessna 150s to Boeing 777s, in his 15,000+ flight hours. He retired from commercial aviation as a 737 check airman and lives near Sewanee, Tennessee, with his wife and younger son.

To Mac and Sarah Lisenbee

Introduction

W.K. Kershner’s Notes for The Advanced Pilot’s Flight Manual

It has long been the writer’s opinion that the average pilot could learn the basics of airplane performance very easily if the involved mathematics were bypassed. One of the purposes of The Advanced Pilot’s Flight Manual is to bridge the gap between theory and practical application. If pilots know the principles of performance they can readily understand the effects of altitude, temperature, and other variables of airplane operation.

GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturer’s Association) and the FAA together have established a Pilot’s Operating Handbook, which will include information now scattered among several different sources. It has a standardized format so that the pilot can quickly find information (for instance, emergency procedures), whether flying a Piper, Cessna, or other makes. The older planes will still have several sources for finding operating information. Pilot’s Operating Handbook will be used as a general term to cover all sources of information available to the pilot.

Thumb rules are used throughout as a means of presenting a clearer picture of the recommended speeds for various performance requirements such as maximum range, maximum endurance, or maximum angle of climb. Such rules of thumb are not intended in any way to replace the figures as given by the POH or comparable information sources, if available. However, the knowledge of even the approximate speed ranges for various maximum performance requirements will enable pilots to obtain better performance than if they had no idea at all of the required airspeeds. Naturally, this practice must be tempered with judgment. If a pilot flies a rich mixture and high power settings until only a couple of gallons of fuel are left, setting up either the rule of thumb or the manufacturer’s recommended airspeed for maximum range still won’t allow making an airport 75 miles farther on. The same applies to maximum endurance. Waiting to the last minutes of fuel to set up the maximum endurance speed will have no perceptible effect on increasing endurance.

Many of the rules of thumb are based on the use of calibrated stall airspeeds, which are in turn based on the max certificated weight of the airplane (unless otherwise noted). Airplane weight variation effects on recommended airspeeds are to be ignored unless specifically mentioned.

The material in this book includes what the writer believes is of the most interest to the pilot who wants to go into more detail about airplane performance. For instance, the chapters on checking out in advanced models and types are intended to cover the questions most often asked by pilots checking out in those airplanes.

It is hoped that the material whets the reader’s desire for more information. If so, then the mission of this book will have been accomplished. The books listed in the Bibliography are recommended for further study.

Introduction to the Ninth Edition

There have been two big changes to U.S. general aviation in the last few years: the implementation of the Airman Certification Standards (ACS), and the overhaul of 14 CFR Part 23 (now titled Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Airplanes).

The ACS is the new, more thorough guide for practical tests. It lays out the specific requirements and the general format of the checkride. See Chapter 21, The Practical Test for more on this.

The revamped Part 23 changes how light planes (19 or fewer passengers and not heavier than 19,000 pounds) are categorized and certified and was largely done to encourage innovation and to help revitalize general aviation. To this end the aircraft certification philosophy has changed from a prescriptive one to a performance-based process.

A very general analogy to this can be characterized as follows—

Prescriptive certification of garage roofs: The roof will be constructed of 2 × 8 rafters, no more than 16 apart, supporting roof decking no less than 5/8 thick, this structure able to support 10 inches of wet snow weighing 25 pounds/square foot and to withstand lateral wind gusts of 60 fps.

Performance-based certification of garage roofs: The garage roof will be constructed so as to be strong enough for the safety of any occupants or property.

The new Part 23 may appear to be written in a surprisingly vague manner, but there are industry standards and methods of compliance that will have to be addressed to prove that the new airplane meets the new requirements.

The new part also changes how airplanes are classified. The utility and aerobatic categories are gone and Normal category airplanes are put in Levels based on their passenger seats and low- or high-speed based on performance. For example, a newly certified 4-place airplane with a 150 KCAS VNO would be Level 2 (2 – 6 passengers) and Low speed (VNO ≤ 250 KCAS). Any maneuvers more extreme than what’s found on the Commercial practical test will require a Normal category airplane certified for aerobatics label.

At the time of this writing no airplanes have been certificated under the new part, and since all Part 23 airplanes flying now were certified under the old Part, I’ve kept the detailed excerpts and references to those regulations.

On a more general note, you’ll find that the commercial certificate opens up a lot of possibilities: from flying local charters to earning that CFI and instructing; from flying a high-performance airplane for a corporation or fractional to acquiring that ATP certificate and flying for the airlines. Performing a wider variety of flying gives opportunities to see and experience things few others can. As inspiring as it is to fly over the mountains of Alaska en route to Tokyo, it can be just as fulfilling (and entertaining) to watch someone make their first parachute jump.

A pilot’s everyday flying is filled with habits that seem as normal as walking, but abnormal situations may require actions that seem unnatural in comparison. Spin recovery (Chapter 21), pitching down to extend the glide when you are below best glide speed (Chapter 8), or chopping power on the good engine of a twin in order to maintain control (Chapter 15) are examples of what might be called counter-intuitive flying. These are situations that require both solid use of the POH procedures and an in-depth knowledge of how the airplane flies.

As is said many times in this book, the Pilot’s Operating Handbook/Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) has precedence on procedures for a particular airplane. Of course, the charts in the book are not to be used for navigation or flight planning.

I would like to thank Donna Webster, Designated Pilot Examiner from Bakersfield, California for helping me better understand how an experienced examiner runs a Commercial practical test, including how to better set the applicant at ease.

My thanks to James Johnson, Jennie Trerise and Rick Peterson at ASA for their help with this edition.

William C. Kershner

Sewanee, Tennessee

Photo by Dan Akins / Shreveport, Louisiana (KSHV) / February 1990 / Boeing 727-223

1

Part One

Airplane Performance and Stability for Pilots

1

Airplane Performance and Stability for Pilots

A Review of Mathematics for Pilots

A pilot doesn’t have to know calculus to fly an airplane well, and there have been a lot of outstanding pilots who could add, subtract, multiply, and divide—and that’s about it. But since you are going to be an advanced pilot, this book goes a little more deeply into the whys and hows of airplane performance, including a little math review.

Trigonometry

Trigonometry can turn into a complex subject if you let it, but the trigonometry discussed here is the simple kind you’ve been using all along in your flying and maybe never thinking of it as such.

Take a crosswind takeoff or landing: you’ve been using Tennessee windage in calculating how much correction will be needed for a wind of a certain strength at a certain angle from the runway centerline. You correct for the crosswind component and know that the headwind component will help (and a tailwind component will hurt).

You have been successfully using a practical approach to solving trigonometric functions. (If an instructor had mentioned this factor earlier, some of us might have considered quitting flying.)

What it boils down to is this—whenever you fly you’re unconsciously (or maybe consciously) dealing with problems that involve working with the two sides and hypotenuse of a right triangle. Flight factors involved include (1) takeoffs and landings in a crosswind, (2) max angle climbs, (3) making good that ground track on a VFR or IFR cross-country, (4) working a max range curve (if you are an engineer, too), and (5) calculating max distance glides. The following chapters will cover all these areas of performance in more detail.

Looking at a takeoff in a crosswind, you’re dealing with the sines and cosines of a right triangle, a triangle with a 90° angle in it (Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. Right triangle components.

Sine

The sine (normally written as sin, which perks it up a little) for an angle (α here) is the ratio of the nonadjacent side A to the hypotenuse (side C) (Figure 1-1). The Greek letters α (alpha) and β (beta) are used for the angles here because, well, it gives the book more class, and the Greek letters are used in aerodynamics equations. More Greek letters will be along shortly. The sides of a triangle are normally denoted by our alphabet (A, B, C).

Look at a 30°-60°-90° triangle (Figure 1-2). The internal angles always add up to 180°; thus the other two angles of the right triangle (which has a 90° angle) always add up to 90° (10° and 80°, 45° and 45°, etc.). Another interesting point about right triangles is that the sum of the squares of the two sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse, or A² + B² = C² (Figure 1-3). (This is what the Scarecrow recited after the Wizard of Oz gave him a diploma—and a brain.)

Figure 1-2. A right triangle with 30° and 60° acute (less than 90°) angles.

Figure 1-3. Classic example of the relationship of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. (Another is a triangle with 7 and 24 sides and a 25 hypotenuse: 7² + 24² = 49 + 576 = 625; 25² = 625).

Cosine

For a 30° angle (β in Figure 1-2), the relationship of sides A and C (the hypotenuse), side A is always 0.866 of the length of side C (the cosine of 30° is 0.866; A/C = 0.866). Engineers add a zero before the decimal point for a value less than 1 so that it is clear that there isn’t a missing number.

Looking at the angle α in Figure 1-2, note that the relationship of length of the adjacent side B at the 60° angle to the hypotenuse (side C) is the cosine of that angle, always 0.50 (B/C = 0.50).

Looking from the same angle of 60° (α), it is a fact that the sine (the nonadjacent side A divided by the hypotenuse, or A/C), is 0.866; that is, the length or value of side A is 0.866 the length of the hypotenuse. The sine of the 60° angle is the same as the cosine of a 30° angle—and why not? That’s the same side (A). For side B, 0.500 is the cosine of the 60° angle and the sine of the 30° angle. (Got that?)

Take a practical situation: You are taking off in a jet fighter from a runway with a 40-K wind at a 30° angle to the centerline. What are the crosswind and headwind components? You’re working with a right triangle with 30° and 60° acute angles (Figure 1-4). Solving for the crosswind component for the wind at a 30° angle you find that the ratio of A to C is 0.50 to 1, or one-half. The component of wind working across the runway is 0.50 of the total wind speed of 40 K, or a 20-K crosswind component, which means the same side force as if the wind were at 20 K at a 90° angle to the runway.

Figure 1-4. Finding the headwind and crosswind components.

To make takeoff calculations in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), you need to know the headwind component (B/C), or the cosine of the 30° angle, which is always 0.866. So, 0.866 × 40 K is 34.64 K. (Just call it 35 K.) If, however, the wind was 60° to the runway at 40 K, the situation would be reversed and the crosswind component would be 0.866 × 40 = 34.64 (35) K (and the headwind component would be 0.50 × 40 = 20 K), as can be seen by checking the graph (Figure 1-5). What we’ve started here is a wind component chart like that found in a POH; here the engineers work out the sines and cosines for various angles the wind may make with the runway and all you have to do is read the values off the graph. Note that the triangle in Figure 1-4 and the shaded area of Figure 1-5 are the same. The wind speed in the graph is always the hypotenuse (side C) of the triangle.

Figure 1-5. The wind component chart is a prepared set of right triangles, with sines and cosines precalculated and drawn. Horace Endsdorfer, private pilot, assumes that Figure 1-5 can only be used for crosswinds from the right, since that’s the way it’s drawn, but Horace has other problems as well (see Chapter 7—Endurance).

Tangents

The tangent is the relationship between the far side (the nonadjacent side) and the near side (the side adjacent to the angle in question). Look back at Figure 1-2. The relationship A/B is the tangent of the angle α (60° shown there), and looking ahead at Figure 1-8 you can see that the tangent of 60° is 1.732. In a 60° angle, side A is 1.732 times as long as side B. The tangent is useful in such factors as finding the angle of climb, where the relationship of feet upward versus feet forward is essential.

To digress a little, Figure 1-6 shows the procedure probably first used in measuring the height of an object too high to be scaled easily. Although the example is better as a problem in geometry, it shows that for a given angle (the sun’s rays forming the shadow), the sides of a right triangle have the same ratio.

Figure 1-6. Using the relationship between similar triangles to find the height of a flagpole by measuring sides A and B of the small triangle and side B of the large triangle to find side A (the height of the flagpole). It is assumed that the flagpole is greased so that it cannot be climbed and measured with a tape. (There’s the old story of two physics students who were each given a very expensive barometer and told to find the height of a certain tall building. One dropped the barometer off the top and measured its fall with a stopwatch. The other went to the janitor and said, If you tell me exactly how high this building is, I’ll give you this fine barometer. Scientific research methods vary, it seems.)

If you were assigned the job of finding the height of the flagpole on a sunny day you could set up a vertical pole 4 feet tall and measure the shadow (3 feet here). You would then quickly measure the flagpole shadow to establish the ratio of the two poles (Figure 1-6). Your numbers would not likely work out as evenly as these, however, and there would be a problem on a cloudy day or at night.

If you had a device set on the ground for measuring the angle α (53° here) and knew the distance of that device from the flagpole (B), you would come up with tan α = A/30; A = 30 tan α; α = 53°, tan α = 1.33, A = 30 × 1.33 = 40 feet.

Okay, to review:

The sine of an angle is the ratio between, or relative value of, the far (nonadjacent) side of the right triangle and its hypotenuse and, like the cosine and tangent, is always the same for any given angle.

The cosine is the ratio between, or relative value of, the near (adjacent) side of the right triangle and its hypotenuse.

The tangent is the ratio of the far side to the near side of an angle of the right triangle.

The tangent shows the relationship in a climb between vertical and horizontal distances covered.

The sine (0.500) of a 30° angle is the same as the cosine of a 60° angle. The sine of 55° equals the cosine of 35°, sine 20° equals cosine 70°, etc. (The etc. is to cover the fact that the first time you encounter it this can be as confusing as an FAA directive.)

Figure 1-7. Max angle of climb (γ) is a tangent function and depends on the highest ratio of A (vertical height) to B (horizontal distance). Gamma (γ) is normally used to depict climb or descent angles.

Figure 1-8 is a table of sine, cosine, and tangent functions for angles from 0° to 90° in 5° increments, plus three other selected angles that will be discussed later. Using a trig table (or the right kind of calculator app) you could, for instance, find the sine of an angle of 6°36' (6 degrees 36 minutes) or 6.6°, which turns out to be 0.1149372. (That’s all you need—to be fumbling around with a trig table or calculator while you’re flying.) But again, what it says is that the ratio of the value of the far side of the triangle to its hypotenuse is 0.115 (rounded off in Figure 1-8); it’s about 11.5% as long as the hypotenuse.

At first glance in Figure 1-8, views A and B, our flagpole angle of 53° gives us problems. It’s tough to interpolate accurately between 50° and 55° (Figure 1-8A) and the tangent of 53° is off of the chart. But we can use the reciprocal of tangent 37° (90°-53° = 37°); Tan 37° = 0.75: 1/0.75 = 1.33 = Tan 53°.

sine (sin): the opposite side/the hypotenuse (sin 30° = 0.5)

cosine (cos): the adjacent side/the hypotenuse (cos 45° = 0.707)

memory aid: the angle and the side are co-located

tangent (tan): the far side/adjacent side (tan 45° = 1)

So that 20-knot wind 45° off of the runway has a 14-knot headwind component (nice), but a 14-knot crosswind component (20 × 0.707), too.

Figure 1-8. A. Sine, cosine, and tangent values. Notice how the tangent value increases rapidly as the angle approaches 90°; for instance, from 85° to 89.5° (4.5°) the value increases over 10 times and goes to infinity at 90°. B. A graphical representation of the sine, cosine, and tangent values. Note that the tangent goes off the scale at a value of 1.0 at 45°. The examples are for the sine, cosine, and tangent at 30°.

Max Angle Climb

A good example of finding the max angle of climb of an airplane at a particular density-altitude is shown in Figure 1-9, which is a variation of Figure 6-7. (You might take a look ahead at Figure 6-7 now.)

Figure 1-9. Rate of climb versus airspeed, finding the angle of climb at sea level (no wind).

As noted in Chapter 6, the max angle climb speed is found by running a line from the origin of the graph (zero climb and zero knots) tangent to or touching (and passing) the curve.

The angle of climb (γ, or gamma) is the tangent, or the ratio of A to B (A/B); tan γ = rate of climb/velocity—or is it?

The rate of climb is 1,200 feet per minute (fpm) and the velocity is 75 K, so tan γ = 1,200/75 = 16, which would give a climb angle (after referring to your trig table or using a calculator) of 86.4°, Now that’s a climbing airplane! (Figure 1-10).

Figure 1-10. Using the dimensions cited in the example gives the airplane extraordinary climb performance.

Of course, 86.4° is not the answer because we’re dealing in apples and oranges, knots and feet per minute. One of the values must be converted to the other; for simplicity, convert the 75 K to feet per minute. The conversion factor for knots to feet per second is 1.69; multiply that by 60 to get the distance covered in a minute: 1.69 × 75 × 60 = 7,605 (call it 7,600).

So the tangent of the angle is 1,200/7,600 = 0.158, or, looking at Figure 1-8, the angle of climb is 8.98° (call it 9°). Wait a minute. It’s easy to fall into a trap using the graph shown in Figure 1-9, although at shallow angles of climb the error is not too great. At first glance, it seems a simple matter of solving the tangent: you just plot climb distance versus airspeed and look up the tangent. The kicker is that the airplane is traveling up along its climb path flight angle at the airspeed given for max climb.

Look at the problem again after setting up equal values: sin γ = 1,200/7,600 = 0.158; γ = 9.09° (call it 9.1°). The point is that at shallow angles (usually considered as less than 15°) the sine and tangent are quite close together and in this case would create an error of 0.11°, or a little over 0.1° (9.09°–8.98° = 0.110).

A problem might be set up as follows: Through earlier flight testing it was found that the max angle of climb for our new Rocket Six is 10.0° at sea level density. Find the horizontal distance required from lift-off to clear a 50-foot obstacle under the condition given. Assume that the airplane has the max angle climb speed at lift-off.

The tangent of the angle of climb is important here because you’re finding the distance to clear a 50-foot obstacle as part of the takeoff and climb distance for insertion in the POH. The vertical part of the triangle is known (A = 50 feet), as is the angle of climb (10.0°), so you would need to find B, or the horizontal distance required (Figure 1-11). Tan γ = tangent of 10.0° (checking Figure 1-8, you’ll find the answer is 0.176). Note again in Figure 1-8 that the tangent of the angle is very close to the sine value. So A (the height of 50 feet) is 0.176, or about 17.6% of B, the ground distance. You can see that the distance required after lift-off to clear the obstacle is 50/0.176 = 284 feet. Solving algebraically and doing some reshuffling, tan γ = A/B; B tan γ= A; B = A/tan γ, or 50/0.176, or 284 feet. (That’s why it’s called the Rocket.)

Figure 1-11. Finding the climb angle of an airplane at a particular climb speed (TAS) and rate of climb.

The ground run would be added to this to get total distance to clear a 50-foot obstacle at sea level density-altitude. The same idea would be used for different pressure altitudes and temperatures (and different weights) until the takeoff distance chart or graph is complete.

Look at a general problem of finding the climb angle at the maximum rate of climb for an airplane at a particular altitude and temperature. You are the test pilot and set up a climb at 5,000 feet density-altitude. You (and the airplane) will be flying the hypotenuse (side C); the rate of climb will be side A. (See Figure 1-11 again.) So...

1. If two sides of a right triangle are known, or

2. If one side and one of the acute angles of a right triangle are known, all other factors may be found.

Two items are known:

1. The IAS is read off the airspeed indicator, converted to CAS (or EAS, as needed) and then to TAS (knots).

2. The rate of climb is either timed or read off the extra-accurate vertical speed indicator especially built for this problem.

The TAS up the climb path is in knots and the rate of climb is in feet per minute (fpm). Again it’s apples and oranges, so you convert one of the values to the other. For this problem, the TAS along the climb path is to be 89 K and the rate of climb is found to be 900 fpm. One solution is to convert both to feet per second (although you could convert the TAS to feet per minute to match the rate of climb usage). To convert 89 K to feet per second, use the conversion multiplier 1.69. The airplane is traveling at 150 feet per second (fps) along the hypotenuse.

The rate of climb is 900 fpm, or 60 seconds × 15 (fps).

The sine of the angle of climb, then, is side A/hypotenuse or rate of climb (fps)/TAS (fps) = 15/150 = 0.10. See Figure 1-8B to get the angle.

You could use fathoms per fortnight for both TAS and rate of climb, just as long as both factors are given in the same terms.

Fixed Angle of Attack Performance Factors

There are several factors in calculating airplane performance based on a fixed angle of attack; in order to fly at that angle of attack (without an angle of attack indicator), the airspeed must be varied as the square root of the weight change. The following performance parameters for reciprocating engine airplanes depend aerodynamically on a constant coefficient of lift (or constant angle of attack).

Stall Speed

The stall occurs at the maximum coefficient of lift (CLmax) for the configuration chosen (clean or a chosen flap setting). The CLmax with flaps extended will be higher than unflapped, naturally, which means that the stall speed (Vstall) will be lower. (See Figure 2-11, right side.)

Following are the steps used in finding the stall speed:

(The 2 is moved to the top of the equation to simplify things a little.)

To solve for Vstall, square roots are taken of each side of the equation:

You can see that the greater the CLmax, the lower the stall speed. (Vstall is TAS here.)

Double = 1.732. Spend your time memorizing them instead of watching TV news; it’s less depressing.

Max Range Airspeed

Max range distance depends on maintaining the maximum ratio of CL to CD (CL/CD) or maintaining a constant angle of attack throughout the trip. As fuel is burned off, the weight decreases and the dynamic pressure must be reduced to reduce lift so as to maintain straight and level flight at this constant angle of attack. If you don’t reduce power as weight decreases, the airplane will climb. (This is one technique of long-range cruise control, that is, letting the airplane gain altitude as weight decreases; but the usual procedure for max range is to maintain a constant altitude and reduce airspeed as fuel is burned.)

Looking at the lift equation again, assuming straight and level flight:

where CLR = coefficient of lift at the max range angle of attack and (ρ/2)V² = dynamic pressure (pounds per square foot, or psf).

Taking a fictitious airplane weighing 3,600 pounds at the start of a max range exercise at a constant 5,000-ft density-altitude and a wing area of 180 ft², find the speeds for max range at weights of 3,600 pounds and 2,700 pounds near the end of the trip. The CL for max range (CLR, or max CL/CD), is 0.500 for this airplane. The density at 5,000 feet is 0.002049 slugs per ft³ (see Figure 4-4). Of course, you aren’t going to carry a standard atmosphere chart around in the airplane, but do the problem anyway.

The true airspeed (VT) to be carried at 5,000 feet at a weight 3,600 pounds is

To convert from feet per second to knots, the factor is 1.69; 198/1.69 = 117 K (rounded off). The true airspeed to be carried for max range at 5,000 feet density-altitude at 3,600 pounds is 117 K. Using an E-6B computer or calculator app, the calibrated airspeed is found to be 109 K at 5,000 feet.

At a weight of 2,700 pounds near the end of the trip, the only variable is weight. Going through the process again to find TAS:

You would again use a calculator to find the CAS at 5,000 feet (94 K) at 2,700 pounds at destination.

The question comes up as to the variation of max range indicated (or calibrated) airspeed with respect to different density-altitudes. Take still another look at the lift equation (lift = weight): L = W = CLRS(ρ/2)V².

Assume that the weight is the same at the different density-altitudes so that L (or W) is constant but ρ varies. Since (ρ/2)V² is dynamic pressure (CAS), if the other factors (L, CLR, and S) are constant, then dynamic pressure must remain so.

The combination of one-half the density of the air molecules moving past the airplane times the velocity (TAS) squared gives the dynamic pressure required to support it.

Suppose that an airplane at a certain weight and CL requires a minimum calibrated airspeed of 100 K, or a dynamic pressure of 33.9 psf, to maintain level flight. The 33.9 psf may be obtained by flying at sea level at a calibrated and true airspeed of 100 K (169 fps), or at 10,000 feet with a true airspeed of 116 K. In both cases the calibrated airspeed is 100 K. The point is this: Once the CLR is found, you would fly the airplane at the same calibrated (or indicated) airspeed at any of the lower operating altitudes to get max range.

Max Endurance

Maximum endurance for propeller airplanes is also a function of a constant coefficient of lift (CLE, or max endurance coefficient of lift) as far as aerodynamics is concerned. Max endurance is found at a higher angle of attack than max range and, in aerodynamic theory at least, is the lowest point on the power-required curve.

As in the cases of maximum range and the stall speed, the airspeed required to maintain the CLE is decreased with the decrease of the square root of the weight (and for the same reasons). More about this in Chapter 7.

Max Distance and Minimum Sink Glides

These are fixed angle of attack performance factors that also vary with the square root of the weight change. More about this in Chapter 8.

Maneuvering Speed

The maneuvering speed (VA) also depends on a constant CL (CLmax, or the stall angle of attack); therefore VA must be reduced with the decrease of the square root of the weight:

where n = limit load factor (discussed in Chapter 11).

A thumb rule for finding the effects of weight change on airspeed for any parameter requiring a constant CL is to reduce the airspeed (VA here) by one-half of the percentage of the weight reduction.

Suppose at 3,000 pounds an airplane has a maneuvering speed of 100 K (chosen for simplifying the arithmetic). At 2,400 pounds, or at 20% weight reduction, this rule says to reduce the 3,000-lb maneuvering speed by 10% to 90 K. At 1,800 pounds, a weight reduction of 40%, the original 3,000-lb (100-K) maneuvering speed should drop by 20%, to 80 K.

To check it out, actually solve for the square roots (the technical way of doing it) and compare. Instead of the thumb rule of 90 K at the lower weight of 2,400 pounds, the computer gives an answer of 89.44 K. At the weight drop of 40%, the real answer is 77.45 K, as compared with the estimate of 80 K.

Figure 1-12 is a graph used to see the relationship between weight change and required airspeeds for the performance parameters that result from, or require, a fixed angle of attack, or more accurately, a constant CL. The graph is a quick and easy way to get the numbers; you can still work it out yourself if you like.

Following are operating speeds (CAS):

Stalls = VS0, VS1 (landing configuration and clean, respectively).

Maneuvering speed = VA

Maximum range speed = VMR

Maximum endurance speed = VME

Each of these operating speeds decreases as a function of the square root of the decrease in weight. VS1, as noted in Chapter 4, is the stall speed for a particular configuration; in this book it will be the clean stall speed at a particular weight.

To use Figure 1-12, assume a fictitious airplane with a maximum certificated weight of 3,600 pounds. The airspeeds (CAS or EAS) at that weight for this problem are VS1 = 62 K, VA = 120 K, VMR = 106 K, VME = 80 K. To find the required airspeeds at a weight of 2,990 pounds, divide: 2,990/3,600 = 0.83. The new weight is 0.83 of the max certificated weight (rounded off).

Figure 1-12. CAS or EAS multipliers to correct for weight change with the fixed angle of attack performance factors (stall speeds, maneuvering, max range, and max endurance speeds). It’s assumed for the graph that the lowest weight will not be less than 50% (0.50) of that of the maximum weight. You could use the graph to find weights much lower than the 2,990 pounds used as an example by having it as the new max weight. For instance, to find the maneuvering speed at 1,555 pounds for that same (originally 3,600-lb) airplane you could set up the ratio 1,555/2,990 = 0.52. Looking at 0.52 on the ratio of weights scale in this figure and moving over to the line and down—as was done eariler—you’d get an answer of about 0.72. The V, at 1,555 pounds, is 0.72 that of 2,990 pounds. V, at 2,990 pounds, was 109 K, as was found earlier. V, at 1,555 pounds, would be 0.72 x 109 = 78 KCAS (rounded off).

Selecting 0.83 on the ratio of weights scale, move across to intercept the reference line and then down to find the CAS (or EAS) multiplier of 0.91 for this problem. Solving for the new airspeeds (rounded off) at the lower weight of 2,990 pounds: VS1 = 0.91 × 62 = 56 K; VA = 0.91 × 120 = 109 K; VMR = 0.91 × 106 = 96 K; VME = 0.91 × 80 = 73 K. Figure 1-12 works for any weight ratio you may use; 3,600 and 2,990 pounds were just examples.

Turns

Looking at a 2,000-lb airplane in a steady state, coordinated, constant-altitude turn in a bank of 60° (Figure 1-13): The up and down forces must be in balance if the airplane is to maintain a constant altitude. The items known are the airplane’s weight, which is acting directly downward, and the 60° angle of bank. It is also known that lift acts perpendicular to the wingspan (the hypotenuse, or side C), and for now it can be given a value of 1.

Figure 1-13. The cosine of 60° is 0.500; the weight is 2,000 pounds. Cosine φ (phi or phee, the Greek letter used to denote bank) = cosine 60° = 0.500. The lift required = 1/cos φ = 1/0.500 = 2. Lift required = 2 x 2,000 = 4,000 pounds.

Side B (the vertical component of lift) must be 2,000 pounds in order to balance the weight of 2,000 pounds, and here it is 0.500 of the value of the total lift (the hypotenuse, or side C) required to maintain a constant altitude. The lift (C) acting perpendicular (as always) to the wingspan must be 4,000 pounds. Lift required = 1/cos φ = 1/0.500 = 2, or C = 2B’s (B = 2,000 pounds).

The g’s being pulled here are lift/weight = 4,000/2,000 = 2 g’s. In any constant-altitude balanced turn, the load factor being exerted is the lift-to-weight ratio, or load factor (LF) = 1/cos φ.

Look back at Figure 1-8, or use your calculator, and find the load factor for a 25° banked turn; cos φ = 8/C, or cos φ = 0.906, or LF = 1/0.906 = 1.104 g’s. You could make up your own curve as shown in various textbooks or POHs by picking bank angles from 0 to 90°, plotting the points, and joining them. You can use Figure 1-8 to find the cosine of a particular bank and divide 1 by that.

This brings up the point about the stall speed increase with increased bank angle in the balanced, constant-altitude turn; the stall is affected by the load factor, which is an indication of how much the airplane weighs. The stall speed increases as the square root of the load factor increases (or weight increases, as was discussed earlier and is shown in Figure 1-12).

Suppose that the airplane is in a bank of 35° (φ = 35°). What is the load factor and increase in stall speed? Referring to Figure 1-8 you’d see that the cosine of 35° is 0.819 (call it 0.82). The load factor in the 35°-banked constant-altitude turn is 1/cos φ = 1/0.82 = 1.22. The pilot (and airplane) is feeling 1.22 g’s flying the 35°-banked turn. The stall speed increase is the square root , or 1.10. The stall speed has increased by 10% in the turn (more about this in Chapter 2).

Radius of Turn

Many times you’d like to have a good idea of what radius of turn would be expected at a given angle of bank and airspeed (TAS, knots).

For example, what is the turn radius of an airplane at a 30° bank at 150 K?

The radius at 300 K (which is twice as fast as the 150 K just used) and 30° bank will be four times as large because the radius is a function of the square of the velocity.

Since you know that the radius for a given bank goes up as V², you could multiply the radius found at 150 K by 4, rather than go through all the arithmetic again.

The new radius, if you know the old one, is proportional to (V2/V1)² times the old radius. For example, the radius at 150 K was 3,463 feet. What would be the new radius of turn at 190 K?

(190/150)² = (1.267)² = 1.604, or

1.604 × 3,463 = 5,554 feet

Don’t forget that you’ll need twice the radius to do the 180° turn needed to escape the box canyon. This might be the time to pitch up and turn (even if you can’t climb out of the canyon). The airspeed loss in the climbing turn will reduce the radius of turn (cutting the airspeed by a quarter, which reduces the turn radius by 44%), at the same bank angle.

Turn Rate

For those interested in instrument flying, the rate of turn is an important factor; the rule of thumb of dividing the TAS (K) by 10 and adding one-half of that answer works very well for the standard rate of turn of 3° per second. As an example, the rule of thumb indicates that at an airspeed of 130 K, a standard rate of turn would require a bank of 19.5° (call it 20°).

where φ is the bank angle and V is TAS in knots (130 K here). The turn rate is 3° per second, so turning the equation around a little:

3 = 1,091 tan φ/V

3V = 1,091 tan φ; 3V/1,091 = tan φ

tan φ = (3 × 130)/1,091 = 390/1,091 = 0.3575.

Using a calculator or trig table (or Figure 1-8), you’d find that the angle of bank (φ) is 19.67°, a value easily flown on the attitude indicator (sure it is). You could look at Figure 1-8 and see that the tangent of 20° is 0.3640 and that the tangent of the angle sought here would be slightly less than that. Or you could interpolate between 0.3640 (for 20°) and 0.2680 (for 15°).

There is a certain amount of error involved in interpolating between tangent values because as the angle increases the tangent value increases at a much higher rate. For instance, the tangent of 60° is not just 3 times the value of the tangent of 20°. Looking back at Figure 1-8 you’d note that the tangent of 60° is 1.732; the tangent of 20° is 0.364, for a ratio of 4.76 to 1 (1.732 divided by 0.364), not 3 to 1. It gets even more out of hand as the angle approaches 90°.

Summary

This chapter is an introduction or review of trigonometry, as well as briefly covering certain aspects of airplane performance. The following chapters will cover climbs, turns, glides, and cruise performance in much greater detail. After you’ve read each chapter on performance, you might want to check back to this one for a quick review of the basic factors involved.

2

The Four Forces

Background

Lift, Drag, Thrust, and Weight are the Four Forces acting on an airplane in flight (Figure 2-1). The actions of the airplane are affected by the balance (or imbalance) of these forces, and while each will be discussed separately in this chapter, don’t get the idea that each works completely separately.

Figure 2-1. The Four Forces.

Sure, you can fly an airplane without knowing how Lift or the other of the Four Forces work, but a good understanding of the factors affecting each of them can lead to analyzing and predicting the performance of your airplane under different conditions of Weight, altitude, etc. This chapter takes a look at how each Force is developed, and Chapter 3 shows how it acts in flight.

Lift

Lift is the force exerted primarily by the wings (although the fuselage contributes, and even the tail helps under certain special conditions) and is created by the action of the air moving past the airfoil (cross-section of the wing). Lift is considered to act perpendicularly to the relative wind and to the wingspan (Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-2. Lift acts perpendicular to the relative wind and to the wingspan.

The airfoil produces effective lift because of its shape, which is such that the pressure, velocity, and downwash distribution results in effective lift, meaning that the lift required for the airplane’s various performance actions does not result in excessive drag and high power requirements. In other words, the airfoil gives a high lift-to-drag ratio (more about that later). You might use a flat plate of sufficient size to lift a 2,000-lb (or 200,000-lb) airplane, but the power required to fly it would be prohibitive.

As the airfoil moves through the air, either in powered or gliding flight—or as the air moves past it as in a wind tunnel—pressure distributions around it result in a downwash action (Figure 2-3). This action creates the reaction of the airplane being supported in flight. (Figure 3-5 shows some pressure distribution patterns around an airfoil at two different low angles of attack.) The air, moving past the airfoil, has different velocities at different positions.

Figure 2-3. Relative velocities and down wash around a nonsymmetrical airfoil.

Figure 2-4 gives some airfoil nomenclature. Note that the mean camber (average curve) line is equidistant from each surface. Figure 2-5 shows a symmetrical airfoil (no camber) at zero angle of attack. The pressure distributions on each side of the airfoil are lower but equal, there is no downwash, and lift doesn’t exist. In Figure 2-6 downwash is present and the pressure distribution is such that lift is being produced.

Figure 2-4. Airfoil nomenclature. The chord line is the shortest distance between the leading edge to the trailing edge of the airfoil.

Figure 2-5. Pressure patterns around a symmetrical airfoil moving at a zero angle of attack.

Figure 2-6. Pressure patterns around a symmetrical airfoil at a positive angle of attack. By comparing Figures 2-5 and 2-6 you can see that lift isn’t produced by a symmetrical airfoil until an angle of attack occurs. Most aeroabatic airplanes have symmetrical or near-symmetrical airfoils for better inverted flight characteristics. (The airfoil in Figure 2-3 would be inefficient in inverted flight.)

If you are interested in the mathematics of lift, take another look at the following equation, which was introduced in Chapter 1.

where L = lift, in pounds.

CL = coefficient of lift (It varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack.)

S = wing area, in square feet (Figure 2-7 shows how it is usually measured.)

ρ/2 = air density (ρ divided by 2). (Rho, or ρ, is air density, which for standard sea level conditions is 0.002378 slugs per cubic foot. If you want to know the mass of an object in slugs, divide the weight, in pounds, by the acceleration of gravity, or 32.16. The acceleration caused by gravity is 32.16 feet per second per second at the earth’s average surface.)

V² = true velocity (true airspeed) of the air particles in feet per second (fps) squared.

Figure 2-7.

Coefficient of lift is a relative measure of an airfoil’s lifting capabilities. Comparatively high-lift airfoils, such as the Clark Y type with its curved or cambered upper surface and flat lower surface, may have a maximum CL of 1.8. A thin airfoil, such as might be used on a jet, may have a maximum CL of only 0.9. The airplane having the higher maximum coefficient of lift, or CLmax, will use less runway on landing (assuming two airplanes of equal wing loading operating in the same air density). Having available the CL versus angle of attack curves of various airfoils, the engineer can decide which airfoil would be better to use for a particular airplane. Your contact with the term is only through control of the angle of attack while flying.

A plot of CL versus angle of attack for a typical general aviation airplane type of airfoil shows that the CL increases in a straight line with an increase in angle of attack until the stalling angle is reached, at which point the CL drops off rapidly (Figure 2-8).

Figure 2-8. Coefficient of lift versus angle of attack, NACA 23012 airfoil.

Figure 2-9 shows the CL versus angle of attack for a high-speed symmetrical airfoil such as may be used on jets. Its maximum CL is only 0.9, which means that the airplane would have a high landing speed.

Figure 2-9. Coefficient of lift versus angle of attack, NACA 0006 airfoil.

These airfoil designations describe the airfoil properties and shape. The 23012 is an unsymmetrical airfoil. The 12 indicates that the airfoil maximum thickness is 12% of its chord. The 0006 airfoil is a symmetrical airfoil (the first two zeros tell this) with a thickness ratio of 0.06 or 6%.

Take the 3,000-lb plane with the 150-ft² wing area in the earlier example. Assume that there are two airplanes exactly alike with this weight and wing area; one has a 23012 airfoil, and the other a 0006. The plane with the 0006 high-speed airfoil will cruise faster because of less drag but will also land faster. In fact, it may land so fast as to be useless for many smaller airports.

It has been found that a birdlike airfoil (Figure 2-10) has a comparatively high CLmax. Earlier planes used this type and had low landing speeds—but also had low cruise speeds because of the higher drag at all angles of attack. A good setup would be to have a 0006 airfoil for cruising and a birdlike airfoil for landing. Flaps accomplish just that; when you lower the flaps you raise the CLmax (for that section of wing) and have a lower landing speed.

Figure 2-10.

Figure 2-11 shows plots of the CL versus angle of attack for two airfoils. Notice the similarity of the curves of the 0006 with flaps and the 23012. It can be readily seen that although the flaps installation adds weight, flaps make it possible for fast airplanes to land at low speeds. The two airplanes of the same weight and configuration in the example would probably use the same amount of runway for landing, assuming the plane with the 0006 airfoil used 60° of flaps and the one with the 23012 airfoil did not have flaps and, of course, the air density (density-altitude) was the same for both airplanes.

Figure 2-11. Comparison of plain NACA 23012 airfoil and NACA 0006 airfoil with and without flaps.

By using the lift equation L = CLS(ρ/2)V², and solving for velocity, an actual comparison of the landing speeds of the two airplanes can be found. For convenience, assume that the two airplanes are landing at sea level, that lift just equals weight at the touchdown, and that the CL in the equation is CLmax (both will touch down at the maximum angle of attack or minimum speed). The assumption is also made that the 0006 airfoil has full-span flaps so that the entire wing area is at the CLmax.

First solve for the landing speed of the airplane with the 23012 airfoil and do a little algebraic shuffling of the lift equation:

Everything inside the square root enclosure is known: L (weight) = 3,000 pounds, CLmax (for this airfoil) = 1.8, S = 150 square feet, and ρ = 0.002378 slugs per cubic foot.

Thinking in terms of miles per hour, V = 66 mph or 57 K (true airspeed, or TAS).

Do the same thing for the airplane with the 0006 airfoil (no flaps); CLmax is 0.9 instead of 1.8 (everything else is the same):

(At sea level the indicated and true airspeeds will be the same, assuming no airspeed instrument or position error.) A pretty hot airplane—but it could be cooled down by adding the flaps mentioned earlier.

Getting back to lift in general, the funny thing about it is that you really don’t worry about how much lift you have in normal flying—you fly by the airplane and lift takes care of itself. Sure, you can be flying along at cruise and increase lift by pulling back on the wheel, but you can feel that lift is greater than it should be by the way you are being pressed down in the seat. As drag is increased by the increase of lift, you’ll find that the airplane slows—and lift will tend to regain its old value again.

One time when you are interested in watching lift increase is on takeoff. If your 3,000-lb airplane with the 23012 airfoil (or any airfoil) is taking off at a high elevation (where the density is low), it must have a higher V² (TAS, squared) in order to make up for the lower density to get the required lift for lift-off. This is one of the reasons why a longer takeoff run is required at airports at higher elevations. (The big reason is that the engine is producing less power in the less dense air, but this will be covered in later chapters.)

High-Lift Devices

The effects of flaps, as noted, can increase the maximum CL compared with the wing without flaps. While the term high-lift device is commonly used, actually the purpose of flaps, slots, or slats is to provide the same lift as before (say 3,000 pounds) at a lower airspeed, not to increase the lift over that required. If you are flying at a high speed and suddenly put the flaps down, it is true that lift will be increased suddenly and the airplane will accelerate upward—and you will again be pressed down sharply in the seat. You could find that increasing the lift in such a fashion could cause certain problems (such as leaving a trail of flaps and other parts of the airplane fluttering behind). So the high-lift devices are used at low speeds. More about this in Chapter 11.

Flaps

Flaps are the most widely used high-lift device. Many types are in use, a few of which will be covered here.

1. Plain flap—A simple means of changing the camber of the airfoil for use at low speeds (Figure 2-12).

Figure 2-12.

2. Split flap—You can see in Figure 2-13 that there is a low-pressure region between the flap and the wing so that for equal flap areas and settings, the split flap tends to cause greater drag than the plain flap, particularly at lesser angles of deflection.

Figure 2-13.

3. Fowler flap—This flap combines a camber change with an increase in wing area—a good combination to lower the stall speed for landing, but the system may be too complex and heavy for some lighter planes (Figure 2-14).

Figure 2-14.

4. Zap flap—This split-type flap increases wing area in the same way as the Fowler type (Figure 2-15).

Figure 2-15.

5. Double-slotted flap—By putting slots in the flaps, a combination of camber change and smoother flow is obtained (Figure 2-16).

Figure 2-16.

Slots

The leading-edge slot is a means of keeping a smooth flow at higher angles of attack than would be possible with an unslotted wing. Slots usually are placed near the wingtip to aid in lateral (aileron) control at the stall and to ensure that the tips don’t stall first, but they may be used along the entire span.

You are familiar by now with the idea of a wing dropping during the stall and, like most pilots, probably prefer an airplane that has a good, straight-ahead stall break (Figure 2-17).

Figure 2-17. Comparison of plain and slotted wings at higher angles of attack.

Slats

Slats are leading edge flaps that extend forward, droop, and may move away from the wing surface to