]
Originally Posted by
stilton
Does it though ?
Stopping on the runway, holding the brakes on while you increase power to take off thrust then releasing brakes means you’re accelerating all that mass from zero speed
A careful turn on to the runway, maximizing the use of all available distance with engines spooled as your line up is completed, then is and immediately selected take off thrust has the advantage of ten knots or so ‘in the bag’ at the same location as your static technique
I’d rather have the momentum
I asked the question to Airbus Customer Services and they consider that the rolling take off technique is equivalent in terms of performance to the static take off. Also the computation logic in Flysmart considers a take off with initial thrust at minimum idle rating computed at 0 kt and brakes released form the beginning. They have no particular recommendation to perform static or a rolling take off; It's up to the flight crew decision. I personally most of the times do rolling take off. It decreases the risk of FOD ingestion. It's actually recommended by the engines manufacturer to do rolling take off on A320 equipped with PW1100 for this reason.
Originally Posted by
Vessbot
Here's an example of "rolling too fast before you're aligned:"
This is crazy. I don't see the point: Trying to save few meters? It's not bush flying. And adding so much stress on the nose gear on top of that. I never add power until the aircraft is fully aligned. Performance calculation assumes the worst case scenario brakes released at 0 kt and idle power on Airbus at least so you well covered.