Derate vs ATM
Hi Guys,
There is something I don't get right with TakeOff performance. I fly boeings but I guess it's same for every type. When we use Onboard Performance Tool, it gives us a longer ENGINE INOP GO DISTANCE, with FULL DERATE than DERATE AND ASSUMED TEMPERATURE Here are some figures from OPT to illustrate: Airport is RAK, RWY10, DRY, 0 WIND, 15°C, Q1015, Flaps 5, A/C AUTO, A/I OFF FULL 24K 94.6% V1 138 VR 139 V2 146 R24K 31°C 93.4% V1 140 VR 140 V2 146 Here is the thing I don't get: 24K MAX TAKE OFF POWER Engine inop go distance 3051M ASDR 2069M all engine go distance 2027M 24K Assumed Engine inop go distance 2165M ASDR 2238M all engine go distance 2210M How come we need a longer distance engine inop go with FULL than ATM ? thx for your help ANSWER: "With full 24K there is a range of V1 options between v1min and v1max that will satisfy minimum regulatory margins (obstacle clearance, 2nd and 4th segment climb, screen height etc.) The driver for the engine inop go distance is the v1min, in this case 94kts. This means that aircraft will accelerate to 94kts (relatively quickly) and can continue with a longer engine out ground roll to Vr. On the other hand the driver for the ASD is the V1max. The V1 selection is impacted by the weight and the thrust. With a lower thrust set we are no longer presented with a range of V1 speeds but with V1 speed that will just satisfy both the go case and stop case. (balanced field). So in answer to your question the OEIGD 24K is greater than the OEIGD R24K due to lower V1min. Ryanair’s policy on V1 selection is OPTIMUM. Optimum gives the return on weight when factoring in available clearways and stopway. For OPT to choose the optimum V1 there needs to be a range of V1 speeds possible " 
This is a mistake, sorry. A lower V1 gives a longer, not shorter, acceleratego distance. 
I wrote V speeds in my first message, 24K V1 is 138, with 24K 31°C V1 is 140.
For me, the Engine inop GO distance is between brake released and V2 at 35ft (dry runway), I don't think V1as an importance 
Derate and assumed temperature are not the same thing of course. Derate is like having smaller engines, whereas assumed temperature is like having the original sized engines but not at full throttle. Therefore, depending on the figures; your assumed temperature example might result in more power than your derate example. You quote 24k for each case, but the derate case should use a lower power, so I am slightly confused by your starting figures  possibly my glass of wine is clouding the issue! 
Take off run is assumed to be with all engines operating until V1, from V1 to V2 with one engine inoperative and as such reduced acceleration.
If you have an engine failure before V1 you abort. 
so the all engine go distance in the second case is longer than the engine inop distance.
this makes me assume you misread 3165 for 2165, which would make much more sense. 
I guess your full rated is 26K and now you are using derate 1 (TO1) which is 24K.
Then full N1 at 15°C is 94.6% and reduced N1 with assume temperature of 31°C is 93.4%. Some people are confused because of the way you stated things. Without deep study at first sight, I think the 3051m distance is wrong (maybe mistaken)...2051m is more logical. Can you please check those distances with full rating (26K) and TO2 (22K) with the same figures (OAT, Flaps, ...etc) 
Hi Guys,
http://i67.tinypic.com/2z7rb10.png I'm afraid my figures are right, I have my Ipad next to me as I answer your suggestions. Uplinker, I agree for derate but disagree for ATM as it reduces power from the derate, so derate is the smaller engine (24K => 94.6%) and then you ATM from 24k, (R24K 31°C => 93.4%), if ATM was from full power it would be a higher %. wiedehopf, I confirm what I said, R24K Engine inop go distance = 2165M All engine go distance = 2210M New_era Full 26K is 98.9% Engine inop go 2625M asdr 1931M All engine go 1829M Full 22K is not allowed with current conditions 
PAG try to update the OPT first and then try again. Might change something. 900m difference between the 2 figures is quite interesting. edit : what’s the TODA ? 

Look at the second example: the allengine go distance is longer than the inop go distance. Does that make sense to you? Doesn't to me.
With that in mind I'd suspect the calculations. Can you set the system up to produce calculations for the same takeoff n1 but achieved differently? i.e. calculate for doublederate (22k) n1, calculate for that same n1 achieved through singlederate (24k)+ATM, calculate for that same n1 achieved through ATM alone (i.e. ATM from 26k) If you can't produce figures for double derate at this location/weight please adjust until you can, for the purpose of this experiment. 
Hi Pag,
Max TO PWR min V1 is 94 kts. Assumed Temp min V1 is 140 kts. Does the software compute the Eng inop go distance assuming you've used min V1? 
We know that a lower V1 gives a higher acceleratego distance. (Contrary to what I first wrote in this thread  oops!)
This program puts out min and max V1's, since apparently a range is allowed. Can you explain what "policy V1" is? It seems to me that it's the actual single V1 chosen (from the range) to use for this particular take off. Well, it would naturally make sense to me that the acceleratego and acceleratestop distances would be based on the single V1 chosen. (In that case, the policy V1's are almost the same, which should yield a longer acceleratego that we expect to see for the reduced thrust, but we don't actually see.) But instead, what seems to be happening is that the distances are based off the worstcase V1's for each thrust situation, and not the policy V1's. This allows a different V1 to be chosen from the range without having to rerun the calculation. To me, this explains it: for the reduced thrust, min and max are both 140 so there's no range. But the full thrust the min (I.e., worst case for distance) is waay down there at 94, thus jacking the distance up. 
Thousands of flight are operated every day using this certified app, so I think it's reliable.
Can you please explain again your calculations, what do you mean by double derate ? Initial conditions for the experiment: R24K 31°C 93.4% Airport is RAK, RWY10, DRY, 0 WIND, 15°C, Q1015, Flaps 5, A/C AUTO, A/I OFF Engine inop go distance 2165M ASDR 2238M all engine go distance 2210M 1 Change R26K 45°C 93.4% Airport is RAK, RWY10, DRY, 0 WIND, 14°C, Q1015, Flaps 5, A/C AUTO, A/I OFF Engine inop go distance 2288M ASDR 2366M all engine go distance 2343M 2Change Airport is RAK, RWY10, DRY, 0 WIND, 16°C, Q1030, Flaps 5, A/C AUTO, A/I OFF R26K 46°C 93.4% Engine inop go distance 2254M ASDR 2331M all engine go distance 2306M 
Vessbot and goldenrivett, that's interesting, I am not sure at a 100% but, in the FTCM, Boeing says FMC gives speed for a balanced field performance, so I guess for the OPT Policy V1 is this speed too, (99% of the time OPT V1 and FMC V1 agree, if not it's not more than 2kt difference)
So what you're saying is that in the OPT, with FULL THRUST, Engine inop go distance is based on minimum V1, giving the longest accelerate distance ? this makes sense, i think that answer my question :D 
Originally Posted by PAG
(Post 10145038)
Thousands of flight are operated every day using this certified app, so I think it's reliable.
Can you please explain again your calculations, what do you mean by double derate ? 1. 22k derate but no assumed temp (n1 let's say 94%) 2. 24k derate and assumed temp (n1 also 94%) 3. No derate, assumed temp (n1 also 94%) With the same n1 the distances should be fairly similar unless different assumptions are being made for one particular condition. This would better show the odd one out. I still don't really see how the all engine go distance can sensibly be longer than the inop go distance unless a different v1 was used for each calcuation, which seems quite misleading as the results are going to be for one takeoff with one v1 speed. 
Lascaille, V1 and VR are the same with ATM, so the only difference I can see is that with 2 engines you still accelerate quite a lot, rotate and climb to reach V2, with one engine you accelerate a little bit less, so you fly over a shorter distance

Originally Posted by PAG
(Post 10145124)
Lascaille, V1 and VR are the same with ATM, so the only difference I can see is that with 2 engines you still accelerate quite a lot, rotate and climb to reach V2, with one engine you accelerate a little bit less, so you fly over a shorter distance

Not a Boeing guy, but the AEO go distances, the ASDA distances at 24K loom reasonable on their deltas; but the rated power OEI go distance is the outlier—900ish meters is huge. Their must be discrepancy in the V1 that was used versus the “policy” V1 i.e, it used V1min rather than policy V1. That would explain it—long time accelerating on one to Vr. The 46 knot delta between rated and reduced power min V1 is suspicious, too. GF 
Originally Posted by Vessbot
(Post 10145126)
I'm not following.
Below v1/vr increased thrust = decreased go distance. Because the slower you accelerate the more time will pass and the more distance will be covered before you reach your target speed. Above v1/vr, increased thrust = increased go distance. Because having reached your target speed you have to rotate, which takes the same amount of time in both OEI and AEO situations  same target angle, same pitch rate  so more speed at this point increases the distance covered. So technically the shortest go distance would be achieved by TOGA until vr then chop thrust to give zero acceleration, rotate and climb to 35ft at vr. Then accelerate. Pointless information! 
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04. 
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.