Which civil aircraft for best takeoff?
Probably one of the modern microlights with ludicrously powerful engines.
I'd put my money on the Mainair Blade 912s, which at 390kg MTOW and 100 hp was described to me by an ex-lightning pilot who flew it for the CAA as "exhilarating". The book claims 1700 fpm at MTOW. I've not flown one, but having watched one take-off, 50 yards seemed about right on a normal day from a grass strip.
G
I'd put my money on the Mainair Blade 912s, which at 390kg MTOW and 100 hp was described to me by an ex-lightning pilot who flew it for the CAA as "exhilarating". The book claims 1700 fpm at MTOW. I've not flown one, but having watched one take-off, 50 yards seemed about right on a normal day from a grass strip.
G
Controversial, moi?
Was the co-pilot on a 747-400 CWL-LHR using full power for take-off at a gross weight of just over 200 tonnes. That was impressive.
Your question is a little like asking how long is a piece of string.
Your question is a little like asking how long is a piece of string.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see you are studying physics. Rather more likely to feed you in the future than other subjects I could name.
Your question is easy to answer up to a point. The airliners you mention have one thing in common - they have to achieve a certain minimum safe climb out performance following the loss of an engine at the worst possible time. Clearly when this happens on a twin you have to continue on 50% of the thrust you started with. That is a big hit compared with losing 33% on a tri-jet or 25% on a four holler. Therefore when all engines are operating the twins will have a more sparkling performance than the 3 or 4s – assuming all aircraft are compared under similar conditions ie when at their max allowable takeoff weight.
Taking things to the next stage, the max takeoff weight of the aircraft you mentioned is of the order of twice their empty weight (I am talking roughly here – some older and less efficient short range designs might have an empty weight closer to 60% of their gross)
So it is reasonable to generalise that if you take the worlds biggest and heaviest twin and fly that nearly empty you are going to get an excellent ride!
Yes the 757 has the reputation you mention. I timed one that was taking me from Glasgow to Heathrow and we were 13 seconds from brakes off to unstuck – and yes it climbed well! Since the 757 is not anywhere near the largest and heaviest twin we have to ask ourselves why it has such rocket like reputation on ordinary sorties. I would suggest this is because the type is used extensively for multi sector short-range operations and on the last sector of a series could well be at quite light weight.
Sadly we seldom have a chance to ride say a 777 or 330 with only a handful of pax and fuel for 250miles. They just are not used that way. If they were I suspect they would leave a 757 fairly well behind…………its just physics.
Your question is easy to answer up to a point. The airliners you mention have one thing in common - they have to achieve a certain minimum safe climb out performance following the loss of an engine at the worst possible time. Clearly when this happens on a twin you have to continue on 50% of the thrust you started with. That is a big hit compared with losing 33% on a tri-jet or 25% on a four holler. Therefore when all engines are operating the twins will have a more sparkling performance than the 3 or 4s – assuming all aircraft are compared under similar conditions ie when at their max allowable takeoff weight.
Taking things to the next stage, the max takeoff weight of the aircraft you mentioned is of the order of twice their empty weight (I am talking roughly here – some older and less efficient short range designs might have an empty weight closer to 60% of their gross)
So it is reasonable to generalise that if you take the worlds biggest and heaviest twin and fly that nearly empty you are going to get an excellent ride!
Yes the 757 has the reputation you mention. I timed one that was taking me from Glasgow to Heathrow and we were 13 seconds from brakes off to unstuck – and yes it climbed well! Since the 757 is not anywhere near the largest and heaviest twin we have to ask ourselves why it has such rocket like reputation on ordinary sorties. I would suggest this is because the type is used extensively for multi sector short-range operations and on the last sector of a series could well be at quite light weight.
Sadly we seldom have a chance to ride say a 777 or 330 with only a handful of pax and fuel for 250miles. They just are not used that way. If they were I suspect they would leave a 757 fairly well behind…………its just physics.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse,
I don't suppose you were on the crew of a 744 Cardiff-Heathrow last week that landed on 27R and vacated at block 16, left us in the tower speechless for 5 miutes!!!!!!!!
Gonzo.
I don't suppose you were on the crew of a 744 Cardiff-Heathrow last week that landed on 27R and vacated at block 16, left us in the tower speechless for 5 miutes!!!!!!!!
Gonzo.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago a Lear took off from Manchester's 24 and was at 10,000 feet over Tatton Park - a couple of miles from the airport.
I understand the 767 is quite a performer at low weights, for the reasons JF gave. But Concorde (as far as initial climb goes) isn't. Something to do with that wing not being particularly good at low speeds. It comes into its own faster and higher, though ;~)
But what's the ultimate, no holds barred, fastest climbing wing-bourne aeroplane of all time? The Lightning?
SSD
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]
I understand the 767 is quite a performer at low weights, for the reasons JF gave. But Concorde (as far as initial climb goes) isn't. Something to do with that wing not being particularly good at low speeds. It comes into its own faster and higher, though ;~)
But what's the ultimate, no holds barred, fastest climbing wing-bourne aeroplane of all time? The Lightning?
SSD
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the answer to that question!
Must be the lear23/24 no other civillian airplane climbs like that!!
I've seen 10.000' (tenthousand) feet per minute climbrate after takeoff multiple times, and i must admit it is a thrill!! talk about adrenalinerush!!
We had a take off out of KSJC (san Jose,CA) and the SID prescribes an early turn around the VOR, we did that climbing at 250 IAS and 60+ bank, (for the turn radius) and by completion of the turn, all the while right infront of the tower controllers, we were passing 15.000 and the approach controller even relayd from the tower that we put on a good show.
Just funny when you climb so fast after take off that radar can't even pick up your ROc anymore, they tend to get a little nervous when they don't see that!!
fun too, having a bunch of nose-up and still accelerating!
This is as close to a fighterplane as you'll get in civillian aviation
Must be the lear23/24 no other civillian airplane climbs like that!!
I've seen 10.000' (tenthousand) feet per minute climbrate after takeoff multiple times, and i must admit it is a thrill!! talk about adrenalinerush!!
We had a take off out of KSJC (san Jose,CA) and the SID prescribes an early turn around the VOR, we did that climbing at 250 IAS and 60+ bank, (for the turn radius) and by completion of the turn, all the while right infront of the tower controllers, we were passing 15.000 and the approach controller even relayd from the tower that we put on a good show.
Just funny when you climb so fast after take off that radar can't even pick up your ROc anymore, they tend to get a little nervous when they don't see that!!
fun too, having a bunch of nose-up and still accelerating!
This is as close to a fighterplane as you'll get in civillian aviation
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI, USA (but a true Brit!)
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a frequent flyer on most Boeings and Buses, in my (admittedly personal) opinion, you can't beat a half full 757 on take off. This is especially true if the pilot 'put's his foot down'! The feeling of power on the take off roll is fantastic.
Also noticed a similar feeling on those small Canadair jet thingy's that Comair use from Chicago. (sorry can't remember the model)
Just my opinion based on my own experience though - not saying that it's scientifically acurate
Also noticed a similar feeling on those small Canadair jet thingy's that Comair use from Chicago. (sorry can't remember the model)
Just my opinion based on my own experience though - not saying that it's scientifically acurate
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What goes UP,
MUST come down
I remember a Dan Air Comet4B taking off 06 at Manch, and levelling at FLO330 25nm E of Millbrook [just about Denby]
Conversly A [yet again] Dan Air Bac111 left LIC NDB at FL350 and made FL50 at CONGLETON inbound to Manch.
I beleive that a Trident [HS121] was tracked at M1.03 ground speed, airspeed was about M0.93
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
MUST come down
I remember a Dan Air Comet4B taking off 06 at Manch, and levelling at FLO330 25nm E of Millbrook [just about Denby]
Conversly A [yet again] Dan Air Bac111 left LIC NDB at FL350 and made FL50 at CONGLETON inbound to Manch.
I beleive that a Trident [HS121] was tracked at M1.03 ground speed, airspeed was about M0.93
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Controversial, moi?
Gonzo
Sadly I wasn't! I am banished to the life of shorthaul at the moment but I will return. As Genghis so rightly pointed out it is really basic physics and at light weight the '400 is much fun!
Are your initials MH by any chance? if so drop me a line at [email protected] if you would please.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
Never flew the T****** but do believe it had a very high cruise mach number. The only other thing it was good at was descending!
Do you know how many pilots it takes to change a light bulb? Six. One to actually do it and five to tell you how it was done on T******s.
Sadly I wasn't! I am banished to the life of shorthaul at the moment but I will return. As Genghis so rightly pointed out it is really basic physics and at light weight the '400 is much fun!
Are your initials MH by any chance? if so drop me a line at [email protected] if you would please.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
Never flew the T****** but do believe it had a very high cruise mach number. The only other thing it was good at was descending!
Do you know how many pilots it takes to change a light bulb? Six. One to actually do it and five to tell you how it was done on T******s.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear the Lear 24 is a real pocket rocket. Thirsty turbojets though.
A G5 or a Citation X also have an incredible climb rate (under the right circumstances).
Someone mentioned twin widebodies as having more oomph, and losing 50% when an engine goes; but doesn't the drag make it similar to a piston twin (roughly 80%) when 1 goes south? Does the same go for jets?
I'm a PPL, so please be gentle
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: willbav8r ]
A G5 or a Citation X also have an incredible climb rate (under the right circumstances).
Someone mentioned twin widebodies as having more oomph, and losing 50% when an engine goes; but doesn't the drag make it similar to a piston twin (roughly 80%) when 1 goes south? Does the same go for jets?
I'm a PPL, so please be gentle
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: willbav8r ]
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gauteng, sa
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have flown many many commercial airliners but nothing beats a Lear 24. Did a hop from Nacala, Mozambique to Nampula, about 20 minute flight, to refuel for the hop to Lanseria. That take-off from Nacala, cool day, sea level, and little fuel was awesome. The "G force" was amazing. Would love to repeat that one day. 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a pretty good take-off the other day in an empty 737-300 (22k engines). We did it static, unreduced with flaps 15. After 400m in the air and i had to pull about 25° of pitch up to keep the speed down, VSI above maximum (6000fpm). The landing was nice as well, flaps 40 with a vref of 112kts and autobrake max (okay, i overpressed the autobrake 5 secs after touch-down). We did get off the runway 25 in CGN at A, but we had to put some power in to reach the taxiway after slowing down
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Denti ]
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Denti ]
