Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
ACRP Web-Only Document 54: Development of a Small Aircraft Runway Length Analysis Tool Virginia Tech Air Transportation Systems Laboratory Blacksburg, VA In Association with Delta Airport Consultants Midlothian, VA Conduct of Research Report for ACRP Project 03-54 Submitted April 2022 © 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It was conducted through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or APTA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR ACRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 54 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program Joseph D. Navarrete, Senior Program Officer Stephanie L. Campbell, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer J. Weeks, Publishing Projects Manager ACRP PROJECT 03-54 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Robert Hom, Eagle River Union Airport, Eagle River, WI (Chair) Amanda J. Hill, MaesAwyr, LLC, Atlanta, GA Rylan Juran, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN Vivek Khanna, Woolpert, Inc., Frisco, TX Jennifer Diane Martin, Parrish & Partners, LLC, Raleigh, NC Melissa Underwood, Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), St. Paul, MN Kent Duffy, FAA Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study was performed under ACRP Project 03-54 by Virginia Tech as the prime contractor with the Delta Airport Consultants as a subcontractor. The SARLAT development team included: Dr. Antonio Trani, Nick Hinze, Zhou Wang, and Howard Swingle at Virginia Tech; and Courtney Beamon and David Leech at Delta Airport Consultants. The authors are very grateful for the guidance and suggestions provided by the ACRP 03-54 project panel. The research team would also like to acknowledge the contribution of aircraft performance information provided by many aircraft manufacturer companies. Finally, the authors are grateful for the time and dedication of several Delta Airport Consultants staff and twenty-five Virginia Tech undergraduate students enrolled in the Airport Planning and Design class who participated in testing and evaluation of the SARLAT.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 COORDINATION WITH OTHER RESEARCH PROJECTS .................................................................................................................... 5 2 REVIEW OF SMALL AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE LITERATURE ......................................................................... 7 2.1 JOURNAL PAPERS ON THE RUNWAY LENGTH PERFORMANCE OF SMALL AIRCRAFT ............................................................... 7 2.2 GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND FAA ADVISORY DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................ 8 2.3 OTHER DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 10 3 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................. 16 3.1 DATA WORKFLOW ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................ 16 3.2 TABULAR AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE DATA WITH CLIMB WEIGHT TEMPERATURE LIMITS ................................................ 17 3.3 TABULAR AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE DATA .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 NOMOGRAPH RUNWAY PERFORMANCE DATA ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.5 SARLAT RUNWAY LENGTH OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................................................... 21 3.6 RUNWAY LENGTH CORRECTION FACTORS ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.6.1 Runway Grade Correction ............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.6.2 Runway Surface Corrections ........................................................................................................................................ 29 4 SMALL AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS TOOL ................................................................................... 32 4.1 RUNWAY EVALUATION MODE .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 RUNWAY DESIGN MODE ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 4.3 RUNWAY EVALUATION VALIDATION MODE ................................................................................................................................. 42 4.4 RUNWAY DESIGN VALIDATION MODE ........................................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 SARLAT INPUT PARAMETER LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44 5 RUNWAY DESIGN CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................ 46 5.1 CASE STUDY #1: NEW AIRPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 46 5.2 CASE STUDY #2: CONSTRAINED RUNWAY ................................................................................................................................... 49 5.3 CASE STUDY #3: RUNWAY EXTENSION ........................................................................................................................................ 53 5.4 CASE STUDY #4: PERMANENT RUNWAY SHORTENING (DUE TO OBSTRUCTIONS) .............................................................. 57 5.5 CASE STUDY #5: TEMPORARY RUNWAY SHORTENING (DUE TO CONSTRUCTION) .............................................................. 60 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................................. 66 7 APPENDIX A â SELECTION OF AIRCRAFT INCLUDED IN SARLAT ................................................................ 73 8 APPENDIX B â AIRCRAFT DATA USED IN SARLAT ............................................................................................ 79 9 APPENDIX C â REPRESENTATIVE RUNWAY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR OTHER SMALL AIRCRAFT NOT INCLUDED IN SARLAT .................................................................................................................................. 85 10 APPENDIX D âDIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AND TAKEOFF DISTANCE TO CLEAR CRITICAL OBSTACLE FOR TWIN-ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT .................................................... 95 11 APPENDIX E â MISSION RANGE AND USEFUL LOAD DATA INCLUDED IN SARLAT FOR LARGE AIRCRAFT .................................................................................................................................................................. 98
vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED FOR SMALL AIRCRAFT IN THE FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 150/5325-4B PUBLISHED ON JULY 1, 2005. LEFT PANEL IS THE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIRED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH FEWER THAN 10 PASSENGER SEATS. THE RIGHT PANEL IS THE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIRED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH 10 OR MORE PASSENGER SEATS. ....................... 4 FIGURE 2: RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED FOR SMALL AIRCRAFT IN THE FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 150/5325-4A PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 29, 1990. LEFT PANEL IS THE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIRED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH FEWER THAN 10 PASSENGER SEATS. THE RIGHT PANEL IS THE RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIRED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH 10 OR MORE PASSENGER SEATS. ....................... 5 FIGURE 3: SAMPLE TAKEOFF DISTANCE TO CLEAR A 35-FOOT OBSTACLE FOR THE CESSNA CITATION 560 XLS AIRCRAFT. DRY RUNWAY CONDITION. FLAPS 7 DEGREES, 2000 FEET PRESSURE ALTITUDE, ANTI-ICE OFF, ZERO RUNWAY GRADIENT. SOURCE: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY........................ 12 FIGURE 4: SAMPLE UNCORRECTED LANDING DISTANCE TABLE FOR THE CESSNA CITATION 560 XLS AIRCRAFT. DRY RUNWAY CONDITION. FLAPS 35 DEGREES, 2000 FEET PRESSURE ALTITUDE, ANTI- ICE OFF, ZERO RUNWAY GRADIENT. SOURCE: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY. ................................ 13 FIGURE 5: TAKEOFF DISTANCE NOMOGRAPH FOR THE COLUMBIA 400 AIRCRAFT. DRY AND PAVED RUNWAY. FLAPS 12 DEGREES. GROUND ROLL AND 50-FOOT OBSTACLE DISTANCES. SOURCE: COLUMBIA AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. ................................................................. 14 FIGURE 6: LANDING DISTANCE NOMOGRAPH FOR THE COLUMBIA 400 AIRCRAFT. DRY AND PAVED RUNWAY. FLAPS 40 DEGREES. GROUND ROLL AND 50-FOOT OBSTACLE DISTANCES. SOURCE: COLUMBIA AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. ................................................................. 14 FIGURE 7: SAMPLE TAKEOFF FIELD LENGTH TABLE IN THE CESSNA CITATION JET 3FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE. DRY RUNWAY, 2,000-FOOT ELEVATION, FLAPS 15 DEGREES, 35-FOOT SCREEN HEIGHT, ZERO WIND, ANTI-ICE OFF, AND CABIN BLEED AIR ON. SOURCE: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY. ........... 15 FIGURE 8: SAMPLE LANDING FIELD LENGTH TABLE IN CESSNA CITATION JET 3 FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE. DRY RUNWAY, FLAPS 35 DEGREES, 50-FOOT SCREEN HEIGHT, ZERO WIND, ANTI-ICE OFF, AND CABIN BLEED AIR ON. SOURCE: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY. ...................................................... 15 FIGURE 9: AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE DATA (TOP PANELS), SPREADSHEET DATA CONSOLIDATION (MIDDLE PANEL), AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS OF TAKEOFF FIELD LENGTH TO CLEAR 50-FOOT OBSTACLE DATA (LOWER PANELS) FOR THE CESSNA CITATION CJ3 (C525B) WITH 60% AND 90% USEFUL LOADS. .......................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 10: TABULAR AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE DATA (LEFT) AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS (RIGHT) FOR THE DAHER-SOCATA TBM 850 TURBOPROP AIRCRAFT. ................................................................... 19 FIGURE 11: DATA COLLECTION POINTS FOR TAKEOFF DISTANCE OVER 50-FOOT OBSTACLE FOR THE MOONEY M20V ACCLAIM. (SCREENSHOT FROM SCANIT SOFTWARE). ............................................ 20 FIGURE 12: TAKEOFF DISTANCE OVER 50-FOOT OBSTACLE VALIDATION PLOTS FOR THE MOONEY M20V ACCLAIM (AT 100% USEFUL LOAD). ................................................................................................. 20 FIGURE 13: LANDING PERFORMANCE CHART FOR THE FLIGHT DESIGN CTLS LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT. (SOURCE OF DATA: FLIGHT DESIGN, SCREENSHOT FROM SCANIT). .................................................. 21 FIGURE 14: SARLAT GENERAL RUNWAY GRADE CORRECTION MODEL FOR PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 FIGURE 15: AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER RUNWAY GRADE CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THREE POPULAR TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT...................................................................................................... 27
vii FIGURE 16: SARLAT GENERAL RUNWAY CORRECTION MODEL FOR TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 17: CESSNA 560 XL AIRCRAFT RUNWAY GRADE CORRECTION FACTORS. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS ISA + 30 DEG. FAHRENHEIT. SOURCE OF DATA: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY. DATA POINTS SHOWN ARE THE SARLAT GENERAL GRADE CORRECTION FACTORS USED. ...................... 29 FIGURE 18: ACTUAL WET RUNWAY CORRECTION FACTOR FOR KING AIR 350ER AT 90% USEFUL LOAD. THE HORIZONTAL RED LINE IS THE 15% CORRECTION FACTOR ASSUMED BY MANY AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS. ............................................................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 19: FLOWCHART OF THE SMALL AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS TOOL (SARLAT). ..... 33 FIGURE 20: INTRODUCTORY PAGE OF THE SMALL AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS TOOL (SARLAT). THE RED AREA SHOWS THE OPERATIONAL MODES IN SARLAT. ................................. 34 FIGURE 21: RUNWAY EVALUATION MODE INPUT WINDOW IN THE SARLAT. .......................................... 35 FIGURE 22: RUNWAY EVALUATION MODE AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX TABLE IN SARLAT. AIRCRAFT ARE GROUPED BY ENGINE TYPE IN SARLAT. SELECT THE AIRCRAFT GROUP HEADER TO ACCESS A LIST OF AVAILABLE AIRCRAFT. ................................................................................................................. 36 FIGURE 23: RUNWAY EVALUATION MODE OUTPUT IN THE SARLAT. ...................................................... 37 FIGURE 24: RUNWAY DESIGN MODE INPUT WINDOW IN THE SARLAT. ................................................... 38 FIGURE 25: RUNWAY DESIGN MODE AIRCRAFT FLEET SELECTION TABLE IN SARLAT. AIRCRAFT ARE GROUPED BY ENGINE TYPE IN SARLAT. SELECT THE AIRCRAFT GROUP HEADER TO ACCESS A LIST OF AVAILABLE AIRCRAFT. ................................................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 26: RUNWAY DESIGN MODE OUTPUT IN THE SARLAT. TOP PANEL SHOWS GRAPHICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING DISTANCES. LOWER PANEL SHOWS THE NUMERICAL VALUES OF TAKEOFF AND LANDING DISTANCES. ........................................................................................................................ 40 FIGURE 27: RUNWAY DESIGN MODE OUTPUT IN THE SARLAT. TABLE SHOWS RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS FOR AIRCRAFT SELECTED IN THE RUNWAY DESIGN ANALYSIS. ........................ 41 FIGURE 28: RUNWAY DESIGN MODE OUTPUT IN THE SARLAT. UNFEASIBLE CESSNA CITATION JET 1 OPERATIONS DUE TO WEIGHT AND TEMPERATURE LIMITATIONS. .................................................... 42 FIGURE 29: RUNWAY EVALUATION VALIDATION MODE IN THE SARLAT. MOONEY M20J RUNWAY DATA FOR DRY AND WET RUNWAY PAVED CONDITIONS. .......................................................................... 43 FIGURE 30: RUNWAY EVALUATION VALIDATION MODE IN THE SARLAT. MOONEY M20J RUNWAY DATA FOR GRASS RUNWAY. ......................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 31: RUNWAY DESIGN VALIDATION MODE IN THE SARLAT. CESSNA CITATION JET 3 RUNWAY DESIGN PLOTS. ................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 32: CASE STUDY #1 RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS. .............................................................. 49 FIGURE 33: CASE STUDY #2 RUNWAY EVALUATION. ................................................................................ 52 FIGURE 34: CASE STUDY #2 RUNWAY EVALUATION AT LOWER TEMPERATURE. ..................................... 53 FIGURE 35: CASE STUDY #3 EXISTING RUNWAY. ....................................................................................... 55 FIGURE 36: CASE STUDY #3 RUNWAY DESIGN. .......................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 37: CASE STUDY #3 PROPOSED RUNWAY. ..................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 38: CASE STUDY #4 EXISTING RUNWAY EVALUATION. ................................................................ 59
viii FIGURE 39: CASE STUDY #4 ALTERED RUNWAY EVALUATION. ................................................................ 60 FIGURE 40: CASE STUDY #5 EXISTING RUNWAY EVALUATION. ................................................................ 63 FIGURE 41: CASE STUDY #5 RELOCATED RUNWAY EVALUATION. ............................................................ 64 FIGURE 42: CASE STUDY #5 RUNWAY LENGTH â TURBOFAN AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS. ................................ 65 FIGURE 43: TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT......................... 86 FIGURE 44: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR TURBOCHARGED SINGLE ENGINE PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ... 87 FIGURE 45: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR NON-TURBOCHARGED SINGLE ENGINE PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................................................................................ 87 FIGURE 46: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR TURBOCHARGED TWIN-ENGINE PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ...... 88 FIGURE 47: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR NON-TURBOCHARGED TWIN-ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT. ............... 88 FIGURE 48: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT WITH LESS THAN 10 SEATS. ...... 89 FIGURE 49: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT WITH 10 SEATS OR MORE. ........ 89 FIGURE 50: CLUSTER ANALYSIS FOR TURBOFAN-POWERED AIRCRAFT. .................................................... 90 FIGURE 51: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AND TAKEOFF DISTANCE TO CLEAR THE CRITICAL OBSTACLE. ......................................................................................................................... 96 FIGURE 52: TAKEOFF DISTANCE TO CLEAR CRITICAL OBSTACLE FOR TWIN-ENGINE PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT IN SARLAT....................................................................................................................... 97
ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: AIRCRAFT CATEGORIES CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SMALL AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS TOOL (SOURCE: FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 150/5325-4B, 2005). ...................... 3 TABLE 2: SARLAT RUNWAY LENGTH OUTPUTS. ...................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3: CORRECTION FACTORS APPLIED TO 14 CFR PART 135.385 LANDING OPERATIONS. ................ 25 TABLE 4: AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER RUNWAY GRADE TAKEOFF DISTANCE CORRECTION FACTORS FOR PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................................ 26 TABLE 5: AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER RUNWAY GRADE TAKEOFF FIELD LENGTH CORRECTION FACTORS FOR TURBOFAN-POWERED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................................................... 29 TABLE 6: GRASS RUNWAY CORRECTION INFORMATION FOR AIRCRAFT IN SARLAT. ............................. 31 TABLE 7: SARLAT INPUT PARAMETER LIMITS.......................................................................................... 45 TABLE 8: CASE STUDY #1 FLEET MIX. ....................................................................................................... 47 TABLE 9: CASE STUDY #1 INPUTS. .............................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 10: CASE STUDY #2 FLEET MIX. ..................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 11: CASE STUDY #2 INPUTS. ............................................................................................................ 51 TABLE 12: CASE STUDY #3 FLEET MIX. ..................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 13: CASE STUDY #3 INPUTS. ............................................................................................................ 54 TABLE 14: CASE STUDY #4 FLEET MIX. ..................................................................................................... 58 TABLE 15: CASE STUDY #4 INPUTS. ............................................................................................................ 58 TABLE 16: CASE STUDY #5 FLEET MIX. ..................................................................................................... 61 TABLE 17: CASE STUDY #5 INPUTS. ............................................................................................................ 62 TABLE 18: REPRESENTATIVE LIGHT SPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT (FAA US REGISTRY). ........................ 73 TABLE 19: REPRESENTATIVE SMALL SINGLE-ENGINE AIRCRAFT (FAA US REGISTRY). ........................... 73 TABLE 20: REPRESENTATIVE SMALL MULTI-ENGINE AIRCRAFT (FAA US REGISTRY). ........................... 76 TABLE 21: REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATE AIRCRAFT (FAA US REGISTRY) WITH MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT AT OR BELOW 20,200 LBS (9,163 KG.). ................................................................................ 77 TABLE 22: PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT INCLUDED IN THE SARLAT....................................................... 79 TABLE 23: TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT INCLUDED IN THE SARLAT. .............................................. 83 TABLE 24: TURBOFAN-POWERED AIRCRAFT INCLUDED IN THE SARLAT. ............................................... 84 TABLE 25: PERFORMANCE OF PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT NOT INCLUDED IN SARLAT (CALLED SYNONYM AIRCRAFT) AND SARLAT MODELED AIRCRAFT. ............................................................ 91 TABLE 26: PERFORMANCE OF PISTON-POWERED AIRCRAFT NOT INCLUDED IN SARLAT (CALLED SYNONYM AIRCRAFT) IN THE LIGHT SPORT CATEGORY. .................................................................. 93 TABLE 27: PERFORMANCE OF TURBOPROP-POWERED AIRCRAFT NOT INCLUDED IN SARLAT. ............... 93 TABLE 28: OTHER POPULAR TURBOFAN-POWERED AIRCRAFT.................................................................. 94
