Thanks Mutt...I had a feeling this would come up..
I wonder how many guys in here reduce power to extend balanced field numbers to fit long runways, then come in here and try to say that every take off is a nail biter 'because that's how it's done in the airlines"
Well yeah...I could take off with 50% power too, burn up 12000 feet of runway, rotate a thousand feet off the end and say...'I had the numbers", then wipe my brow...look back at the passenger, 'whew...just made it by the skin of our teeth'...
In corporate if you crash the plane at the end of the runway..then tell the boss you were trying to save engine overhaul costs, ... won't quite do it.
The engine saving argument is a tough sell. Having put a few engines through hot sections and overhauls, personaly going through the bid process, inspections ect, test cells....having run them easy, then harder, then right to the edge,...I didn't see a cost diff.
Here's what I want to know...does a 737 at Sea level, max weight, burn up 7000 feet of runway using max power?