Aircraft Performance
Module 11
Where are we?
1 : Introduction to aircraft performance, atmosphere
2 : Aerodynamics, air data measurements
3 : Weights / CG, engine performance, level flight
4 : Turning flight, flight envelope
5 : Climb and descent performance
6 : Cruise and endurance
7 : Payload-range, cost index
8 : Take-off performance
9 : Take-off performance
10 : Enroute and landing performance
11 : Wet and contaminated runways
12 : Impact of performance requirements on aircraft design
2
Wet and contaminated runways
Agenda – Module 11
Wet runways
Contaminated
runways
3
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance
Take-off performance on wet runways is based on the same
considerations as take-off performance on dry runways with the
following exceptions
Screen height is reduced from 35 to 15 ft for TODOEI
• Screen height remains at 35 ft for TODAEO
TOR OEI = TOD OEI
• No clearway credit for engine out distance on a wet runway
Reverse thrust can be used for ASD calculation
• Subject to demonstration that aircraft the can be controlled on
the ground during a stop with one engine at maximum reverse
thrust and one engine at forward idle thrust
• Demonstration is carried out on a dry runway with nosewheel
steering inoperative and with 50 % of normal braking (to
simulate a wet runway)
4
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced
• Data for wet smooth runway must be provided in the AFM
• Data for wet grooved runway or for runway covered with porous
friction course material may be presented in the AFM at the option of
the applicant (better braking performance)
• Braking force FB is calculated as follows
FB = η AS µ B WBR
Where η AS = anti-skid system efficiency
µ B = wheel-braking coefficient defined in 25.109
WBR = Vertical load on braked wheels
• Anti-skid efficiency can be determined by flight test or a default value
of 0.8 can be used
5
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
• Anti-skid efficiency will be lower if the brake system cannot maintain
the optimum slip ratio during the stop
6
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
• Variation of wheel braking coefficient as a function of tire pressure
(psi) and ground speed (knots) for a smooth wet runway :
• Deceleration on a smooth wet runway is typically about 50 % of the
deceleration on a dry runway
7
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
• Wheel braking coefficient as a function of tire pressure (psi) and
ground speed (knots) for a wet runway that is grooved or covered
with porous friction course material (FAR 25.109)
• Deceleration on a wet grooved runway is typically about 80-90 % of
the deceleration on a dry runway
8
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Overall, the field length-limited take-off weight on a wet runway is normally
slightly lower than on a dry runway
• Reduction of approximately 0-2 % in weight limit is typical
In some cases, distances may be shorter on wet runways because of the
alleviations (screen height and reverse thrust)
• In this case, the dry runway weight limit must be used when operating on
a wet runway (i.e. it is not acceptable to have a higher field length-limited
take-off weight when operating on a wet runway)
For given operating conditions (weight, altitude, temperature, …), the dry
runway V1 must be reduced when operating on a wet runway
• Mainly due to the fact that ASD increases significantly on a wet runway
(will be discussed in more detail later)
• VR and V2 are unchanged when operating on a wet runway
9
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Landing performance
Landing performance on wet runways has already been
addressed in the last module
Covered by an operational factor rather than by an actual
calculation based on reduced braking friction
LFLWET = 1.15 * LFLDRY
10
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance
Take-off performance is significantly degraded when operating on
contaminated runways
• The presence of precipitation such as standing water, slush or loose
snow on the runway will increase drag during take-off roll
• Braking coefficients will be even lower than on a wet smooth runway
• Aquaplaning may take place above a certain speed
• Calculation methods are detailed in JAR 25 AMJ25X1591 (main points
are summarized in this presentation)
• Field length-limited take-off weight can be reduced by as much as 25 %
relative to dry runway conditions!
Take-off performance on contaminated runways is calculated based on
the same alleviations as take-off performance on wet runways but :
• Additional precipitation drag must be considered
• Reduced braking coefficients must be considered
11
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Additional precipitation drag is due to two effects
• Landing gear displacement drag : drag caused by the fact that
contamination is displaced by the tires
• Impingement drag : drag due to airframe impingement of contamination
spray from tires
• Landing gear displacement drag and impingement drag are proportional
to contamination Water Equivalent Depth (WED = depth * SG) and
increase as function of VG2 until the aquaplaning speed is reached and
then they reduce gradually as speed in increased
12
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Aquaplaning speed
• An airplane will aquaplane at high speed due to the
incompressibility of water on a surface contaminated by
standing water, slush or wet snow
• The aquaplaning speed (VP) in knots (ground speed) can be
estimated as
where P is tire pressure in lb/in2
Vp = 9 P
13
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Current certification requirements define braking coefficients for
different contaminated runway conditions
14
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Runway friction measurement devices are used in many airports
• Airport personnel measure friction
• Friction measurements are reported to the crews
• Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI) has been defined
15
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Landing performance
JAR 25 AMJ25X1591 also provides details for calculation of
landing distance on contaminated runways
Main points are summarized below
• Air time of 7.0 seconds
• Touchdown speed = 93 % of speed at 50 ft
• Delay distance must consider additional time delay for
selection of reverse thrust
• Braking coefficient is as defined before for take-off on
contaminated runways
16
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Other considerations
Rutting of snow/slush may cause directional control difficulties
Reduced tire to ground cornering friction adversely affects aircraft
controllability, particularly in crosswind and/or with reverse thrust
17
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Other considerations (Cont’d)
Potential for wing leading edge contamination due to slush/snow
impingement and freezing, leading to loss of lift/angle of attack margin
during takeoff
Water/slush/snow ingestion into engine inlets leading to
powerplant operating anomalies
Water/slush/snow impingement and subsequent freezing leading
to system operating anomalies (e.g. flight control restrictions,
freezing brakes)
18
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1
Three cases are compared
• Dry runway
• Shallow contamination
- Low mu
- No precipitation drag
- Examples : wet runway, icy runway, …
• Deep contamination
- Low mu
- Precipitation drag
- Examples: Slush, standing water, …
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1 (Cont’d)
Dry runway
DISTANCE
ASD (AEO)
ASD (OEI)
Minimum
Distance
(BFL)
TOD (AEO)
TOD (OEI)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1 (Cont’d)
Shallow contamination – Low mu
Contaminated ASD
Field Length (low Mu)
(Dry V1/VR)
Contaminated
BFL(Optimum
V1/VR) ASD (dry)
Dry BFL
TOD (dry)
TOD (15 ft)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1 (Cont’d)
Deep contamination – low mu and precipitation drag
Contaminated ASD
Field Length (low Mu)
(Dry V1/VR)
Contaminated
BFL(Optimum
V1/VR)
ASD (dry)
TOD (15 ft
Dry BFL and DCONTAM)
TOD (dry)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR 22
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance
Shallow Contamination (Low Mu)
2 engine commuter jet
• Maximum structural takeoff weight
• Sea level, ISA - 15 (0o C) temperature
• Zero wind, zero runway slope
• No clearway, no stopway
Runway Conditions
• Dry
• Shallow Contamination, CRFI = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
• CRFI / Mu relationship established by JWRFP
For contaminated runway, full reverse thrust to stop
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance (continued)
Shallow Contamination (Low Mu)
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR
(0.98)
V1/VR BFL (ft) Field Length (ft)
Dry Runway 0.98 6340 6340
CRFI = 0.5 0.94 6570 7020
(+3.6%) (+10.7%)
CRFI = 0.4 0.93 6710 7420
(+5.8%) (+17.0%)
CRFI = 0.3 0.91 6980 7970
(+10.1%) (+25.7%)
CRFI = 0.2 0.88 7350 8760
(+15.9%) (+38.1%)
CRFI = 0.1 0.84 7810 10050
(+23.2%) (+58.5%)
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance (continued)
Shallow Contamination (Low Mu)
Example of Takeoff Performance on a runway with shallow
contamination shows:
• The optimum V1/VR ratio reduces with decreasing CRFI and is
much lower than the dry runway balanced V1/VR
• BFL increases with decreasing CRFI
• If dry runway balanced V1/VR is maintained, takeoff field length is
higher than BFL and increases significantly with decreasing CRFI
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance
Deep Contamination (DCONTAM and Low Mu)
2 engine commuter jet
• Maximum structural takeoff weight
• Sea level, ISA - 15 (0o C) temperature
• Zero wind, zero runway slope
• No clearway, no stopway
Runway Conditions
• Dry
• Snow (SG = 0.2), Depth = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 inch
• DCONTAM/EWD = 2000 lbf/inch (from JWRFP)
• Mu = 0.15 (from JWRFP)
For contaminated runway, full reverse thrust to stop
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance (continued)
Deep Contamination (DCONTAM and Low Mu)
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR
(0.98)
V1/VR BFL (ft) Field Length (ft)
Dry Runway 0.98 6340 6340
Depth = 0.5 inch 0.91 7320 8400
(+15.4%) (+32.5%)
Depth = 1.0 inch 0.91 7410 8410
(+16.8%) (+32.6%)
Depth = 1.5 inch 0.92 7500 8410
(+18.3%) (+32.6%)
Depth = 2.0 inch 0.93 7600 8430
(+19.8%) (+32.9%)
Depth = 2.5 inch 0.94 7760 8440
(+22.3%) (+33.1%)
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance (continued)
Deep Contamination (DCONTAM and Low Mu)
Example of Takeoff Performance on a runway with deep
contamination (snow) shows:
• The optimum V1/VR ratio increases with increasing depth of snow
(but is lower than the dry runway balanced V1/VR)
• BFL increases with increasing depth of snow
• If dry runway balanced V1/VR is maintained, takeoff field length is
higher than BFL value but does not significantly increase with
increasing depth of snow
Wet and contaminated runways
For more information about aircraft performance on
contaminated runways
See article titled “Slush on the Runway and What it Does to Aircraft
Performance”
• By Gerard van Es, Senior Research Engineer, Flight Testing & Safety
Department, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, The Netherlands.
See Powerpoint presentation titled “Aircraft Take-Off Performance
on Contaminated Runways”
• By J.C.T. Martin, Flight Test Engineer, Transport Canada Aircraft
Certification
www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/operationalstandards/crfi/CRFI.pdf
Wet and contaminated runways
