Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Can a Lear....?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

100-1/2

OVER-N-DUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Posts
436
20/30 series legally take-off under 135 from a 5300' runway with 2% downslope?

Standard ISA
Wet runway

Thanks,
100-1/2

Accelerate-Stop, Accelereate-Go distances?
 
100-1/2 said:
20/30 series legally take-off under 135 from a 5300' runway with 2% downslope?

Standard ISA
Wet runway

Thanks,
100-1/2

Accelerate-Stop, Accelereate-Go distances?
Can you takeoff legally under those conditions? The answer is most likey yes, but you need to give us three more tidbits of information - aircraft model, field elevation and aircraft weight. There's a big difference between a grossed out Lear 35 and a lightly loaded Lear 24.

'Sled
 
I'm too lazy to get up and look, but generically, a Lear 35, at sea level, yes. Not at max t.o. weight, probably.

Incidentally, 135 and 91 are the same as far as takeoff runway performance is concerned.

100-1/2 said:
20/30 series legally take-off under 135 from a 5300' runway with 2% downslope?

Standard ISA
Wet runway

Thanks,
100-1/2

Accelerate-Stop, Accelereate-Go distances?
 
LR35/36 18300. 16c, flaps 20, PA 1000' = 5305

From the tab data.. to lazy to look at spagetti charts ;)

I always thought it was wierd that landing wet 91 is dry X 1.4 but t/o wet is the same. I'm sure there is a logical reason why... but I can't think of it.

sb
 
That is not totally correct. Lear publishes contaminated and wet runway data in an addendum, which is specifically not FAA approved and NOT mandatory. So legally, I guess you are right, but from a practical perspective, using the wet runway data would be a good idea.

At weights above 14,000 pounds, the wet runway factor is 1.2.

So, I'd WAG that you would need to be around 17,000 pounds or less to comply with the Learjet wet runway guidance.

scubabri said:
I always thought it was wierd that landing wet 91 is dry X 1.4 but t/o wet is the same. I'm sure there is a logical reason why... but I can't think of it.

sb
 
Using ULTRANAV calculations for a Lear 35 (no reversers), you are pretty close at 17,000; Wet Runway, 15 degree C, sea level, 2% downslope, wet runway, 8 degrees flap:

Balanced field length = 5,049' close enough for me.

18,000 - same conditions but flaps 20 = 5,120.


Not 25 numbers, but thought it might help.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top