Take off roll

[matblack]

As a frequent flyer I'm used to the initiation of the take off roll which usually starts with a reduced thrust and then take off thrust after a few seconds once moving. Is this to reduce engine wear or to save fuel ? On the same subject, I was observing this from the airport hotel beer garden (man) a couple of weeks ago whilst waiting for a colleague's flight and it was intersting to note the PIA 747 take off. He must of held the brakes on for a good 5 seconds with the engines roaring away! Are these guy's really that short of runway or is it just the way they do it. I've seen these things flying low on more than one occasion and I live 20 miles away from the airport.

[Speedbird48]

Matblack,

What you hear while riding in the back is not reduced power, followed by max power. It is normal to 'stand up' the power levers, pause, check for stable power and the rest of the parameters, then advance to either reduced/flex power or to max power.

As for the Karachi special out of Manchester I too have seen that one and would like to see the thing run over some scales prior to take-off?? They are using MAX POWER all the way. They stand at the end to get all engines up to max power and then release the brakes. It is a max effort take off for them at the weights they are using.
It is surprising that the CAA have not shown an interest in that operation a long time ago, but then it is usually in the evening when the CAA are in bed/pub!!

[ZK-NSJ]

what about the rolling takeoffs, on a few occasions on both 767's and 747's we have taxied onto the runway without stopping obviously lined up and shot off

[mutt]

Boeing procedures permit static takeoff rolls and rolling takeoffs.... so whats the big deal?


Mutt. :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Worth also mentioning that unlike the piston engine you'll be used to on cars and light aeroplanes, jet engines have a fairly large "spool up time".

I'm not sure what it is on the big jets, but I remember it becoming very important once on some work I did on the Hawk where the time from idle to take-off power was about 8 seconds. That could at-least contribute to a perception of a delay in applying power.

G

[Longhauler]

SpeedBird48 is correct. The procedure is to set an intermediate power setting (in our case 1.10 EPR) and check for equal and symmetrical thrust before applying take off thrust.

LH

[OverRun]

There was a good discussion on takeoff roll and spooling up some time ago. You´ll find it at:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=9370&perpage=15&highlight=stabalise%20brakes&pagenumber=1

The actual timing of brake release in the whole process of spool up, stabilise, then full/flex power is quite important from a jet blast design process. Many runway and jet blast clearance designs assume that there is about 100m between the end of the runway and the achievement of full take-off power. I´ve agonised over this a couple of times where clearances were tight. It can make quite a difference in the design blast velocity.

It is not quite as haphazard as it seems, because there is some statistical element of probability included in this. If a runway end is close to the fence with a public area of road beyond, then if only 1 in 10 aircraft winds up while standing on the brakes, then the risk of a person/vehicle passing behind during start of takeoff run is reduced by one order of magnitude.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

matblack, I have also seen this at MAN. They spooled the engines to full take off power with the brakes on and wait about 20 seconds. :eek:

BAe 146-100

[Notso Fantastic]

You wouldn't want to hold max power on a Classic for 20 seconds- it is a very good 'hoover-upper' and that is not a recommended procedure with 747s for surge reasons. If you are desperate, just clock max power and let go the brakes as soon as poss otherwise it is unnecessarily alaming for the occupants. Because of slow thrust lever response, 747s now wind up to 1.20 EPR before advancing to T/O power (which is most likely to be reduced thrust). Unless the runway is limiting or weight almost maximum, there is no need to hold on the brakes at any time- rolling takeoffs are recommended and use much less runway time for ATC reasons.

[matblack]

BAe 146-100 is right. They do put max power on and hold it for what seems an awfully long time. On that particular day it was the 5th 747 to t/o in the 1 hour or so that I was there. The other 4 took off with an initial roll before hitting t/o power. The PIA gave it a real smoker before letting off the brakes and inching away. By the way, BAe 146-100, i've flown on numerous occasions on your type and find it a nice safe plane to fly on. The only problem is the cabin air. It always seems less clean somehow. Is that a design limitation?

[Ozgrade3]

One night at Sydney, I was sitting next to the runway watching an Antanov AN-124 depart, it sat, lined up on the runway with takeoff power set for 6 mins, as timed on my watch. Why would they have so much power on for sooo long??

[CrashDive]

Wr.t. what 'overRun' wrote: If a runway end is close to the fence with a public area of road beyond, then if only 1 in 10 aircraft winds up while standing on the brakes, then the risk of a person/vehicle passing behind during start of takeoff run is reduced by one order of magnitude.

If you want a good laugh ( either that or if you're simply mad ) go to Skiathos and stand the southern end when northerly departures are in operation.

From experience there always seems to be crowds of folks, litterally just spitting distance from the aircraft ( assuming one could spit into the take off thrust of a B737 ) when it's lined-up for T/O, with the barrier between the two seemingly no more than a rusty bit of broken down wire fence.

Yes, it truly has to be seen to be believed, i.e just how close are men, women and children to the fence, and hence the aircrafts jet wash, when we're applying typically almost max t/o thrust from a standing start ( it's not a place to ****** about is Skiathos ) ! :eek:

That said, there's a lovely little bay right behind them so maybe many of'em get to take an early and maybe somewhat unexpected dip ?! ;)

[tcr2]

On the subject of take off rolls, I have seen numerous 744's of BA take a much longer take off roll when departing LHR-SIN as compared to the corresponding SIA flight that departs around the same time. Any reason why this happens, is it just the alleged SIA fuel policy, or are there other reasons??
PS - Is the CAA going to wait till one of these PIA 747's runs out of runway before anything is done?? Seems to be a regular occurence to me!!

[Notso Fantastic]

Maybe BA is carrying more cargo as the policy is to maximise cargo in bellyholds as opposed to SIA's dedicated freighter fleet. Maybe we carry higher loads as I think we op fewer services to SIN. As for fuel reserves, doubt if there is a great deal of difference. We also always maximise thrust reduced take-offs. Other than that I can't comment on SIA's operating practices.

This thread shows there are many ways to skin a cat. Always assuming one wants to in the first place.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

Ozgrade3, the Antonov 124 does a engine test before every take-off. That would explain why you saw it set take-off power for six minutes before the actual take-off roll.

http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/3/8/1/290183.jpg

BAe 146-100

[expedite_climb]

Guys, when you saw the aircraft holding power for '20 seconds', was this perhaps in cool weather ? Certain types require a 'run-up ' at (e.g. 60% N1 - 1.2 epr) for 10 seconds if the aircraft has been deiced, or in severe icing.

[matblack]

Expedite climb.

The PIA t/o I'm referring to was in 30 degC conditions. I assumed it was because of the less dense air and minimal wind conditions that such a tactic was needed (albeit not by other 747's). As I stated earlier you don't have to visit an airport to witness their t/offs. You do occasionally see them some 20 miles from the airport still under full power and very low. It's clearly not right even for a non pilot. They must be overloaded or something. Surely ATC must have observed these t/offs and reported them to somebody?

[Sheep Guts]

Hey maybe these guys are burning off fuel. How many lbs/hr does 4- JT9Ds or 4- CF6s or 4-RB211s or for that matter 4 Russian equivalent Engines burn in 20 Seconds or 6 MINUTES AT MAX POWER AT SEA LEVEL?:O ;) :) :p

:uhoh: :{

ONLY TO FLY A jET:rolleyes:

SHEEP

[mutt]

They must be overloaded or something

And you are qualified to make such a statement???????


Mutt.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

The 747's will not be overloaded, but on most days they will be operating at full load.

BAe 146-100

[Notso Fantastic]

<You do occasionally see them some 20 miles from the airport still under full power and very low.>
We're talking about something different- climbout now! PIA will be heavily loaded in an older 747. Being low is not dangerous! The performance will all have been calculated, and if evidently dangerous, you can be assured ATC will pick up on it. But we're seeing an innocent airline accused of something serious here and such unfounded accusations should not continue. I've taken off from Dharan in a fully loaded old 747 with original early model engines (-3A) in high desert temperatures (the much 'loved' G-PZ). Nosing down at 1500' in a temperature inversion to accelerate for flap retraction (and drag reduction), it wouldn't speed up. We blasted across a large part of eastern Saudi trying to get going with incredibly gradual acceleration. Not a problem. Should you lose an engine, there is an on-the-ball F/E and fuel jettison system. Over the English countryside, even in such a low powered early model, it is all allowed for in the performance. But 'very low 20 miles out'? I don't think so. More ATC than anything else.

[*Lancer*]

Lots of factors can affect the takeoff roll and climbout... but just because it is performance limiting, doesn't mean it's dangerous.

It's simply not possible to takeoff at max weight out of jo'burg... and even with a reduced weight, and no thrust derate, the takeoff roll can be 4000m!!

Lancer

[mutt]

I took the liberty calculating classic B747 takeoff weights for Manchester, also ran a couple of Jeppesen CFPs to Pakistan. @30C the -300 is performance limited below the structural weight. If these flights are full they will be right on the limits.


Notso Fantastic, i guess that you were lucky that the VSI was on the positive side.... we have had flights out of that part of the desert recording a descent after takeoff, with 4 engines running! :):)


Mutt.

[Noise Unit]

tcr2

There could be a number of reasons for the apparent difference between BA & SIA744 take-off rolls at LHR.

Some have been stated in previous posts. Others include:

i) different routes
ii) different levels of take-off derate/reduced thrust
iii) optimum vs fixed flaps. I believe that some airlines operate optimum flaps where others tend to use a single flap setting (for simplicity) at the expense of a longer take-off roll (or less derate)
iv) Possibly improved climb or not

On the PIA subject you may fancy a look at the attached link (remembering there are also many pictures on this website showing many other PIA take-offs from MAN that look fine)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=267220&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc0Ny0zNjc%3D&WdsYXMg=UGFraXN0YW4gSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBBaXJsaW5lcyAoUElBKQ%3 D%3D&QtODMg=TWFuY2hlc3RlciAtIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgKFJpbmd3YXkpIChNQ U4gLyBFR0NDKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=VUsgLSBFbmdsYW5k&ktODMp=QXVndXN0IDE4LCAyMDAy&BP=1&WNEb25u=U1RVQVJUIFBSSU5DRQ%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=QVAtQkZW&MgTUQtODMgKE=SSBoYXZlIG5ldmVyIHNlZW4gYW4gYWlyY3JhZnQgYXMgbG9 3IGFzIHRoaXMgUElBIDc0Ny5FdmVuIGFmdGVyIGxpZnRpbmcgb2ZmIHRoZSB ydW53YXkgaXQgZ2FpbmVkIHZlcnkgbGl0dGxlIGhlaWdodCBhbmQgZm9yIGE gc3BsaXQgc2Vjb25kIGkgdGhvdWdodCBpIHdhcyBnb2luZyB0byBiZSBoaXQ gYnkgdGhlIHVuZGVyY2FycmlhZ2UhIQ%3D%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=NTM2Nw%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wOC0yNg%3D%3D&static=yes&size=L

[PANDAMATENGA]

Noise

Looking at that photo I cannot believe that if he had lost a donk after V1 he would have been able to fly. It looks marginal on FOUR!!!

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

*Lancer*, I know exactly what you mean. I have experienced the take-off from JNB. I was on a KLM 747-400 at JNB, the take-off was 1 minute 30 seconds :eek:, I was timing it :p. The climb was very shallow until we got to around 10.000 feet.

BAe 146-100

[Notso Fantastic]

That photo.... telephoto lens......looking down the runway.......the runway end could be 1/2mile from the aeroplane but it looks right over it! On a limiting runway, you may only be able to cross the runway end at about 30'. With engine fail at V1, it comes down a bit. Can't remember the figures. After over 2 miles of thundering down Nairobi at full power in a Classic, we only used to cross the end of the concrete at about 50' on the radio altimeter. It's all there in the performance calculations, and they are right as opposed to human judgement. Calling V1 at Bombay on a really heavy/hot T/O, I was amazed how little runway was left, and reported that I didn't believe the performance was correct. The BA Performance Section wrote to me showing it was right and we could have stopped in the space available. I didn't believe it. The week after I got their response, another 747 of ours, with one reverser locked out, same circumstances, lost another engine and abandoned at V1. Heavy/hot/2 reversers only, and stopped with 100 yards to spare.

[PAXboy]

146 - You are correct about JNB! More than once, I have heard the flight deck warn of the length of take off roll. Then pax do not get so concerned when they have been trundling for one minute ... the terminal buildings have all passed by ... the outer apron has gone by ... and (Yawn) the cargo terminal has gone by ... and then you can see the main Pretoria Highway ... :uhoh:

The climb out over Pretoria and away to the North is usually very slow on any of the carriers. This is also why the European flights all leave before 10:00 or after 18:00, in the middle of the day, they would have to run on from 03L and use the Pretoria highway as well.

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

Thanks PAXboy, I didn't know that about European flights leaving before 10:00 or after 18:00. :D

BAe 146-100 :)

[TopBunk]

Paxboy

I think you'll find the departure times ex-JNB are more to do with arrival times at destination rather than anything else. The typical flight time is 10hours to N Europe, so leaving at 1000 gives arrival at 2000 and at 2000 gives 0600, much in between is not verypopular. Yes, JNB is high, sometimes hot, but usually you derate thrust quite a bit - midday 35deg C take-offs would be feasible.

[PAXboy]

TopBunk: Thanks for correcting other information that I had received.

I am aware that the main carriers run overnight largely because of the Biz pax that are paying for the flight. Other carriers arrive overnight, turn and go or vice versa.

The problem this gives BA + VS is that their machines are on the ground for 12 hours. SA have the same problem in London. Happily, they can pass on the cost of this lousy utilisation to us. :*

With CPT, VS consider it a tourist run only and arrive in the early morning and turn immediately. BA stays until the evening.

[timzsta]

I am ATPL student and dispatcher at a London airport. During the scorching hot period we had recently I was lucky enough to be working when the 37 deg record was broken.

I was dispatching a 737-400 with full load of pax (167Y) to Greece. I think weight of baggage was about 2000kg, fuel about 14,000kg. At the time OAT was 34 deg. When I collected flight docs and loadsheet from Flight Deck they were setting up the FMC. Noticed in the FMC the OAT was inserted as 34 deg celcius, assumed temp 38 deg celcius. So I guess they must have been pretty close to being performance limited, despite us having a 10,000ft runway.

Any 737-400 drivers able to comment?