3 ms·
Maximum power takeoff seems reasonable, and unexpected 10% power loss would be a very good reason to abort, but I don't see why you couldn't trade (stable and s
by labawi 6y ago
Maximum power takeoff seems reasonable, and unexpected 10% power loss would be a very good reason to abort, but I don't see why you couldn't trade (stable and safe) 10% power for 10% runway and clearance, maybe some weight, altitude ..
You would need to reassess and update your tables, so regulations and certification are a big issue, but I don't understand why would it be technically unrealisable. Half a century after we know it's harmful seems a long time to stop spewing lead all over the place.
- sokoloff 6y agoLegally, you would have to do certification tests on every airplane type again. A 10% loss of power would require much more than 10% increase in runway for a given weight. Further, a 10% loss of energy density would require heavier takeoff weights for any given trip, meaning the penalty is further increased. I’m already weight-limited (either by certification limits or runway performance) on some flights. I carry about equal mass of fuel and people on trips with the whole family aboard. I’m not crying about it and I hope to see a viable 100UL emerge, but a 10% loss on two variables in the fuel would result in a lot more than “just use an extra 300 feet of takeoff roll and she’ll be a’ight”.