Originally Posted by
suninmyeyes
It is pointless to try to analyse the goaround performance of an aircraft that probably had less than 10 tonnes of fuel on board and two engines working. Basically it would be very good. That same aircraft could take off from R/W 12L at OMDB with 50C OAT at 300 tonnes and lose an engine at V1 and still drag itself safely into the air conforming with Perf A requirements. So its goaround performance on 2 engines at an estimated weight of 70 tonnes lighter would be pretty good. You can goaround in the flare, it may touch down and trundle along briefly but it lifts off pretty well.
I agree, my point in asking was (since I don't have access to -300 perf manual numbers) to find out why a GA with all engines operating at a lighter landing weight would be such a dicey performance struggle in terms of climb, as some were suggesting, when the same type of aircraft loaded to much higher weights were legally taking off at the same field.
Trundling along, as you say, waiting for spool-up I can certainly see but I'm just not seeing it not having the ability to climb away fairly easily once they're producing GA thrust (assuming the thing was legally dispatched). Bemoaning poorer performance at 50C compared to cooler days of 40C is akin to complaining water is wetter in a monsoon than in a downpour, but either they met the req'd Approach/Landing climb perf number weight at that current temp, or they didn't.