The result is the altitude, in hundreds of feet add two zeros to your answer , of the base of convective activity above the ground. How cautious are you guys with turbulence? Posted by Steve Pomroy at 7: We never fly at speeds above this for fear of ripping the wings off—quite literally—and then flying much faster and in the manner of a lawn dart, followed by an unpleasant encounter with the ground. Karl's style of flying was repeatedly overloading the airframe beyond the design limit, but he never slowed down. If you're flying an aircraft with retractable landing gear, you might also consider extending it at the right speed so it can act somewhat like an additional vertical stabilizer.
Perhaps because we are at last getting most of the "fag smoke" out of the filters. Winglets — those upturned fins at the end of the wings — also are a factor. The pummeling came on with a vengeance until it felt like being stuck in an upside-down avalanche. Multiply this value by the maneuvering speed for maximum allowable gross weight.
Safety is unlikely to be compromised unless the houses are filling the windshield or the aircraft has undesirable stall characteristics. Convective turbulence thermals is caused by vertical currents of air rising from differential surface heating, producing updrafts and downdrafts. Ask a G pilot what configuration, weight, or altitude that knots applies to you will probably get this: None are even published for light-moderate. Where are you, John?
Technical Technical aspects of flying. Because this results in airspeed decay, more time than necessary is spent in the downdraft. While maintaining altitude is a cardinal rule of IFR aviation, this is one time to disregard this obsession. Transport-category aircraft have a turbulence penetration speed, VB—also known as rough air airspeed—which is slower than VA. Sorry they are gone Of course, an autopilot doesn't know about VA or turbulence.