POH Takeoff Performance- altitude not listed

rene86mx

rene86mx

Pre-takeoff checklist
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Messages
203
Display Name
Display name:
rene86mx
Hi

My homefield sits at 8200 ft

I'm doubling my efforts for analyzing potential aircrafts for ownership and saw that some of my candidate aircraft do not go all the way up to 8000 performance. I read that if the POH does not list my altitude am not legal. Is this right?

I know that the obvious answer is get a turbo but I'm concerned on incremental maintenance.

Happy thanksgiving!
 
Where is this? And are there ZERO airplanes on the field? Seems like a lot of talking to locals would solve the issue.
 
rene86mx said:
I read that if the POH does not list my altitude am not legal. Is this right?!
Click to expand...
No. The legal requirement is to obey the restrictions in the "Limitations" section of the POH. Performance information is usually listed elsewhere in the POH.
 
rene86mx said:
I read that if the POH does not list my altitude am not legal. Is this right?
Click to expand...
If that were true, there would be a limitation so specifying, and I haven’t seen that short of jets.

where did you read it?
 
If it is not a limitation then it is not illegal, so is my understanding, however, without the performance data and calculations for it you are in test pilot territory effectively

Should you bend metal the FAA would likely cite you for careless and reckless operation..
 
rene86mx said:
Hi

My homefield sits at 8200 ft

I'm doubling my efforts for analyzing potential aircrafts for ownership and saw that some of my candidate aircraft do not go all the way up to 8000 performance. I read that if the POH does not list my altitude am not legal. Is this right?

I know that the obvious answer is get a turbo but I'm concerned on incremental maintenance.

Happy thanksgiving!
Click to expand...
If this were true, lots of airplanes wouldn't be flying. The AFM for my cherokee has no details regarding performance, or much of anything else, for that matter.
 
Yeah, the POH of my Mooney from 1962 is this tiny little pamphlet. I haven't got anything like that. Criminy, the weight and balance just says not to put the big guys in back.
 
Palmpilot said:
No. The legal requirement is to obey the restrictions in the "Limitations" section of the POH. Performance information is usually listed elsewhere in the POH.
Click to expand...
After thinking about this, I'm not so sure.

The limitations section of my POH gives a max cruising ceiling. Without looking, I think it is 18,000. But I don't think I could take off from an 18,000 ft altitude field, if such existed. I don't recall seeing a limitation on take-off altitude.
 
rene86mx said:
Hi

My homefield sits at 8200 ft

I'm doubling my efforts for analyzing potential aircrafts for ownership and saw that some of my candidate aircraft do not go all the way up to 8000 performance. I read that if the POH does not list my altitude am not legal. Is this right?

I know that the obvious answer is get a turbo but I'm concerned on incremental maintenance.

Happy thanksgiving!
Click to expand...

Don’t remember which plane, but I have read POH’s that explicitly say ‘extrapolation above published performance data’ is not authorized.
 
JOhnH said:
After thinking about this, I'm not so sure.

The limitations section of my POH gives a max cruising ceiling. Without looking, I think it is 18,000. But I don't think I could take off from an 18,000 ft altitude field, if such existed. I don't recall seeing a limitation on take-off altitude.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could take off from an airport at 18,000 MSL if it were on a mountain top that had no obstructions, because then there would be no need to climb above field elevation.

91.9 says that you have to comply with published or placarded limitations. My understanding is that these limitations have to be explicitly identified as such.
 
Palmpilot said:
I suppose you could take off from an airport at 18,000 MSL if it were on a mountain top that had no obstructions, because then there would be no need to climb above field elevation.

91.9 says that you have to comply with published or placarded limitations. My understanding is that these limitations have to be explicitly identified as such.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Thanks all for the comments. The Jabiru 230C doesn't have any limitation on the limitation section but on the performance data it says: "Extrapolation outside the boundaries of the Take-Off Distance Table is not permitted."

So is it takeoff at your own risk?
 
Why don't you let us know what planes you are considering then we can tell you if it will work! How long is the runway? In the summer the density altitude is going to be much higher.
 
rene86mx said:
Thanks all for the comments. The Jabiru 230C doesn't have any limitation on the limitation section but on the performance data it says: "Extrapolation outside the boundaries of the Take-Off Distance Table is not permitted."

So is it takeoff at your own risk?
Click to expand...

Takeoff is always at your own risk. But to give a more helpful answer than some have provided, yes, you'll have to perform some extrapolation of the numbers to arrive at a reasonable expectation of what the aircraft will do.
 
Thanks all for the comments! @pilotrick, my shortlist is:
M20C
M20E
M20F
J230C
J250
CTLS

Field elevation 8120, Runway 4200
Summer here is not that bad, highest is 25C at noon. At would always plan morning flights
 
steingar said:
Yeah, the POH of my Mooney from 1962 is this tiny little pamphlet.
Click to expand...

Yep. How far we’ve come?

8952196629_cca38cbe4d.jpg


And that was just one of the several manuals for my 2003 SR22.
 
rene86mx said:
Thanks all for the comments. The Jabiru 230C doesn't have any limitation on the limitation section but on the performance data it says: "Extrapolation outside the boundaries of the Take-Off Distance Table is not permitted."

So is it takeoff at your own risk?
Click to expand...
I have no legal expertise, but my guess is that it means, "If you extrapolate and get in an accident, please don't sue us."
 
So the density altitude will almost be 12,000 feet in the summer. None of the planes you listed will really be suitable. I have never flown the Jabiru but I have flown all of the mooneys you mentioned and the CTLS. Speaking of the CTLS the book says the service ceiling is 12150 feet! Likely lower than the airport on a hot day. Of all the planes listed the best bet is the Mooney E model. This has the larger engine and shorter body. It will still be marginal even with half tanks and one passenger. Hate to say it but your best bet is a 182 of almost any vintage. You really should be looking at a plane with 230+ horsepower, it does not need to be a turbo. If you want to go the experimental route any of the RVs would be just fine except the 12. If you absolutely must be in an LSA there is always the LSA carbon cub.
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
Tell me about your perception of turbo maintenance costs.

You’re passing up the #1 thing to make high DA flyable.
Click to expand...

Turbo charged planes require more engine management to operate. IF operated correctly the maintenance costs usually aren't too different than non turbo charged planes. However problems can be expensive! Guess how much it cost when a partner over boosted our T182 on a go around..... it was a lot. Also many people think turbos are the simple solution to high density altitude airports. I don't think this is true. The high density altitude still affects the wings, props etc. etc. Turbos are great and they can be a piece of the puzzle but are not the end all be all!
 
pilotrick said:
Turbo charged planes require more engine management to operate. IF operated correctly the maintenance costs usually aren't too different than non turbo charged planes. However problems can be expensive! Guess how much it cost when a partner over boosted our T182 on a go around..... it was a lot. Also many people think turbos are the simple solution to high density altitude airports. I don't think this is true. The high density altitude still affects the wings, props etc. etc. Turbos are great and they can be a piece of the puzzle but are not the end all be all!
Click to expand...

To recount:

Learn how to properly fly a turbo. Check.
Maintenance costs don't need to differ much from N/A. Check.
Lousy plane for a partnership or rental fleet. Check.

I fly in/out of Flagstaff, AZ often, and sure enjoy being able to climb out on a warm day without as much worry.
 
Rusty, Judging by your photo with the fancy helmet and goggles you seem like a very experienced pilot and can probably handle a turbo charged airplane! The original poster was talking about flying an LSA out of an airport half your size and 1000 feet higher. I got the sense that he might be a newer pilot so I would recommend a non turbo plane for him. What planes would you recommend to him?
 
I can and do handle a turbocharged aircraft.

Doesn’t have much to do with the image I chose for my avatar.

What keyed me into this was the OP’s perception that turbos require significant additional expense. Your post helped support a position that it’s not necessarily true.

It also supports the idea that you need to know your plane.

You’re right, the OP’s airport is higher and shorter. Seems a good turbo could help.
 
Thanks for all the inputs!

My turbo perception is that is more expensive just don't have the detail on how much.

I think the worst density altitude I've seen on field is around 10,200

Locals keep saying 182 is the only way but for those prices and condition I think I can look somewhere else and get better bang for the buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top