Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

Vmc question

Old 12-15-2006, 03:05 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
ConnectionPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: CA
Posts: 532
Default Vmc question

Why is that the certification factor for weight says most unfavorable and i see on some sheets it says max TO weight...others I see it has "light" weight?
ConnectionPilot is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 05:03 AM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by ConnectionPilot View Post
Why is that the certification factor for weight says most unfavorable and i see on some sheets it says max TO weight...others I see it has "light" weight?

Higher weight does two things which affect single engine ops...

Reduces climb performance. This is not really a Vmca issue, and light twin certification does not require SE climb capability anyway.


As far as Vmca certification, higher weight actually improves (lowers) Vmca. This is because in proper (banked) SE flight, all of the total lift generated by the wings is NOT directed vertically...some of it goes horizontally in the direction of bank (towards the good engine). This horizontal lift component helps to offset some of the yaw tendency caused by the good engine...therefore requiring less available rudder, since some of the rudder's work is already done by the horizontal lift component. Since the horizontal and vertical lift components are both part of the total lift, and a heavier airplane requires more total lift to generate the required vertical lift, the horizontal lift component will also be greater for a more haevily loaded airplane.

Note: Some airplane designs will stall prior to reaching Vmca at max gross...in these cases, Vmca is determined for a lower weight where a Vmc effect will be present (without stalling first).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 07:55 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
ConnectionPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: CA
Posts: 532
Default

hey thanks for explaining that...that helps alot
ConnectionPilot is offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 08:37 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: CRJ left
Posts: 248
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

As far as Vmca certification, higher weight actually improves (lowers) Vmca. This is because in proper (banked) SE flight, all of the total lift generated by the wings is NOT directed vertically...some of it goes horizontally in the direction of bank (towards the good engine). This horizontal lift component helps to offset some of the yaw tendency caused by the good engine...therefore requiring less available rudder, since some of the rudder's work is already done by the horizontal lift component. Since the horizontal and vertical lift components are both part of the total lift, and a heavier airplane requires more total lift to generate the required vertical lift, the horizontal lift component will also be greater for a more haevily loaded airplane.
Everything rickair wrote is correct. Since the manufacturers are always trying to get the lowest possible Vmc, FARs need to specify a weight and max bank angle to use.

HOWEVER, from an operational point of view, a better way to look at it is that a heavier aircraft will require LESS bank angle to achieve zero sideslip. Since you should aways shoot for zero sideslip when single engine, just consider that the required bank angle changes with weight, but Vmc does not.

The Vmc - Weight - bank angle relationship involves 3 variables. Therefore it just depends on which one you want to keep constant to analyze the relationship of the other two. For a given bank angle, a higher weight will lower your Vmc. However, we should not keep the same bank angle at different weights. Instead, we should REDUCE the bank angle at higher weight, keeping Vmc unchanged. This is the only way to keep flying in zero sideslip at different weights.

For example:

Heavy airplane - zero sideslip - 2 deg bank into live engine - Vmc=60kt
Light airplane - zero sideslip - 3 deg bank into live engine - Vmc=60kt

(obviously I made these numbers up)

I hope I didn't confuse you. I just thought I'd add my $.02 since I hear too many students saying that a higher weight is "good" for Vmc. Thats not exactly correct. Vmc should not change if flying in zero sideslip (constant heading, 2-3deg of bank into the live engine) at various weights. However, there would be a difference in Vmc only when executing a turn at a given bank angle. Note i said "turn", not "bank", because you are always banked when flying at a constant heading in zero sideslip.
palgia841 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 08:08 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Gucci Jet Left
Posts: 161
Default

Depending on the age of the airplane there were different rules for certification. Prior to 14 CFR Part 23 there was no specific weight used to determine Vmc. After Part 23 was in effect it is at most unfavorable weight and CG.

That is probably what you are wanting to know. There is also a difference between controllability and performance. More bank towards the operating engine equals better controllability but may not mean that you have the best performance. The zero sideslip condition is the best for performance which in a light twin is important because they don't always like to climb or maintain altitude.
desertdog71 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 10:04 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
HotMamaPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Default

Originally Posted by ConnectionPilot View Post
Why is that the certification factor for weight says most unfavorable and i see on some sheets it says max TO weight...others I see it has "light" weight?
What does visual meterological conditions have to do with weight?
HotMamaPilot is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 10:16 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Gucci Jet Left
Posts: 161
Default

Originally Posted by HotMamaPilot View Post
What does visual meterological conditions have to do with weight?
Considering your avatar says FO 767, I will assume that was sarcasm.
desertdog71 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 01:08 PM
  #8  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by desertdog71 View Post
Considering your avatar says FO 767, I will assume that was sarcasm.
Things that make you go hmmmm...
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 06:12 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
HotMamaPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Things that make you go hmmmm...
No, I'm just the typical chick who played with my hair on the interview and got the job. Oh, the power of the pu$$
HotMamaPilot is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 08:13 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
btwissel's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Q400 survivor
Posts: 537
Default

Originally Posted by HotMamaPilot View Post
No, I'm just the typical chick who played with my hair on the interview and got the job. Oh, the power of the pu$$
the boobs didn't hurt, either...
btwissel is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
surreal1221
Pilot Health
32
11-14-2006 01:19 PM
jln91320
Major
9
10-12-2006 03:43 AM
bigD
Flight Schools and Training
11
05-24-2006 11:17 AM
cargo hopeful
Cargo
21
03-05-2006 06:12 AM
Cjp21
Major
6
02-28-2006 06:44 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices