747 0-60mph/100kph
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: new zealand
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 0-60mph/100kph
Time for a silly question!!
Does anybody have any idea how fast a average loaded
747/777 etc could do the 0-60? Ive owned some pretty
fast cars in my time but a couple of take-off rolls seemed to
come fairly close to them!
Somebody must have an idea
Does anybody have any idea how fast a average loaded
747/777 etc could do the 0-60? Ive owned some pretty
fast cars in my time but a couple of take-off rolls seemed to
come fairly close to them!
Somebody must have an idea
I am sure this is somewhere close.....
It depends a lot on the weight of the plane and how much derate you use.
There's a HUGE difference between a max-weight take-off with full derate and a light take-off with no derate.
I once used a gadget called a G-Tec to measure the horsepower of a 747 on take-off - it's a thing you can use in a car to measure the 1/4 mile time or power of a car, but it'll work on any machine - and I came up with roughly 100,000hp odd.
Perhaps not very accurate, but it'll be roughly right.
There's a HUGE difference between a max-weight take-off with full derate and a light take-off with no derate.
I once used a gadget called a G-Tec to measure the horsepower of a 747 on take-off - it's a thing you can use in a car to measure the 1/4 mile time or power of a car, but it'll work on any machine - and I came up with roughly 100,000hp odd.
Perhaps not very accurate, but it'll be roughly right.
Paxing All Over The World
(non pilot speaking) When asking this question, you may wish to specify the altitude of the a/c, as well as the loading of the machine and the thrust rate that is to be used.
At LHR, a 744 is motoring for (typically) around 45/50 seconds before rotation whereas, at JNB with an elevation of some 5,000' the wheels are working for (sometimes) another 20/25 seconds. In this matter, everything depends upon other factors and there are many of them to be considered.
At LHR, a 744 is motoring for (typically) around 45/50 seconds before rotation whereas, at JNB with an elevation of some 5,000' the wheels are working for (sometimes) another 20/25 seconds. In this matter, everything depends upon other factors and there are many of them to be considered.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust/horsepower
While we're at it, can somebody please explain the formula for converting pounds of static thrust to horsepower. More specifically, if a big P&W or GE is rated at 50,000 lbs. static thrust
how much horsepower is the engine actually producing?
how much horsepower is the engine actually producing?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor: Thrust and horsepower are different things entirely, there is no direct conversion, a bit like torque and horsepower in a car. You can provide a rough conversion, as fruit has, but it makes some major assumptions.
I'd started posting a fuller explanation but then realised I'd probably mess it up. The great thing about Pprune is that there's always a real expert coming along soon.
I'd started posting a fuller explanation but then realised I'd probably mess it up. The great thing about Pprune is that there's always a real expert coming along soon.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did read somewhere once (might have been Airliner World or Aircraft Illustrated, something like that), a 777 is capable of accelerating to 60 from a standing start in around 6 seconds. I have absolutely no idea if that is true, but I can only see it being a theoretical figure at min weight, max t/o thrust.
Rather impressive if true. Imagine the fun you would have racing away from the lights in that!
Rather impressive if true. Imagine the fun you would have racing away from the lights in that!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sandwich, Kent, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off-topic, but Smoketoomuch : note that there is a direct conversion between torque and horsepower:
(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
(assuming Torque is in pound-feet)
See How Stuff Works for more...
cbl.
(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
(assuming Torque is in pound-feet)
See How Stuff Works for more...
cbl.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right off the line it is a lot slower, but once rolling the 747-400 is gaining about 3 kts of speed per second.
Standard day, sea level, O mph headwind, MTOW of 875k, Vrot is around 185 kts. 185 kts/3 = 61.67 seconds. Typically there is some headwind so PAXboy is correct, the takeoff roll will usually be around 50 seconds.
Standard day, sea level, O mph headwind, MTOW of 875k, Vrot is around 185 kts. 185 kts/3 = 61.67 seconds. Typically there is some headwind so PAXboy is correct, the takeoff roll will usually be around 50 seconds.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bris, QLD, Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread for us number crunchers !
747FOCAL - Your numbers look realistic to me. A bit of trivia, how does 95 sec to Vrot in a 747-400 at Singapore sound ?
witchdoctor - Based on 747FOCAL's logic, your 6 sec looks optimistic. I estimate 15 sec to 60 mph (52 kts)
anti-skid - I think your F1 car info looks OK, but I doubt the Concorde numbers. I've never had the privilege of seeing a Concorde take off. What's it's Vrot and how long to achieve it ? Then we could work out the numbers.
Work is the result of a force moving something by a distance over a time. 1 HP = 550 ft.lb/sec hence the direct conversion from torque to power, but thrust is only force. So, as mentioned earlier, more info is needed to calculate the power generated by a certain thrust.
Keep the info coming to exercise the grey matter.
Spec
747FOCAL - Your numbers look realistic to me. A bit of trivia, how does 95 sec to Vrot in a 747-400 at Singapore sound ?
witchdoctor - Based on 747FOCAL's logic, your 6 sec looks optimistic. I estimate 15 sec to 60 mph (52 kts)
anti-skid - I think your F1 car info looks OK, but I doubt the Concorde numbers. I've never had the privilege of seeing a Concorde take off. What's it's Vrot and how long to achieve it ? Then we could work out the numbers.
Work is the result of a force moving something by a distance over a time. 1 HP = 550 ft.lb/sec hence the direct conversion from torque to power, but thrust is only force. So, as mentioned earlier, more info is needed to calculate the power generated by a certain thrust.
Keep the info coming to exercise the grey matter.
Spec
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBLong, that's not a direct conversion as such because it also involves a third variable, ie speed upon which it is also proportional. I think what Fruitloop meant is that for a given shaft horsepower within the turbine the output thrust it can provide is in the range (note the wide range) he/she said.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bris, QLD, Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust/Horsepower
I've found some info in my P&W Aeronautical Vestpocket Handbook.
For turbojet or turbofans, Thrust Horsepower = Pounds Thrust x MPH / 375
For piston or turboprop, Pounds Thrust = 300 x Shaft Horsepower / MPH (assuming 80% prop efficiency). For static conditions the equation doesn't work, so rule of thumb is 2.5 pounds per SHP.
For turboprops I've heard the term ESHP (equivalent shaft horsepower) used. I understand that there's energy in the exhaust after the turbine, which provides thrust. Adding this to the SHP gives a better indication of the engines output. On some engines this thrust must be significant. I spend a bit of time in Dash 8's (as SLF) and am always impressed by the exhaust size on the PW 123's.
Spec
For turbojet or turbofans, Thrust Horsepower = Pounds Thrust x MPH / 375
For piston or turboprop, Pounds Thrust = 300 x Shaft Horsepower / MPH (assuming 80% prop efficiency). For static conditions the equation doesn't work, so rule of thumb is 2.5 pounds per SHP.
For turboprops I've heard the term ESHP (equivalent shaft horsepower) used. I understand that there's energy in the exhaust after the turbine, which provides thrust. Adding this to the SHP gives a better indication of the engines output. On some engines this thrust must be significant. I spend a bit of time in Dash 8's (as SLF) and am always impressed by the exhaust size on the PW 123's.
Spec
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of trivia, how does 95 sec to Vrot in a 747-400 at Singapore sound ?
Having read this thread I kept an eye on the clock out of Hong Kong yesterday.
Wind L/V
OAT 24
QNH 1020
No derate
394.6T (868k lb)
60 sec from thrust set to V2 (180kt) which is about when the wheels leave the ground
I reckon we used about 10,500ft to get to that point.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jtr,
Thats kinda what I was thinking. After 160 kts you are doing about 260 ft per second increasing to 301 fps at 180 kts. Your going to need a lot of runway to stay on the ground for 30 more seconds. Even if you stayed at 180 kts after 10,500 and kept it on the ground for another 30 seconds you would burn up +9000 ft of runway. I am speculating that the answer to specnut727's trivia question is that you end up in the water.
Thats kinda what I was thinking. After 160 kts you are doing about 260 ft per second increasing to 301 fps at 180 kts. Your going to need a lot of runway to stay on the ground for 30 more seconds. Even if you stayed at 180 kts after 10,500 and kept it on the ground for another 30 seconds you would burn up +9000 ft of runway. I am speculating that the answer to specnut727's trivia question is that you end up in the water.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bris, QLD, Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comments jtr and 747FOCAL.
Early 90's I was SLF on a QF 747 Singapore/London. Captain announced to the PAX that the take off would be longer than usual, so I reached for my stop watch. Yes, 95 seconds until rotation.
Spec
Early 90's I was SLF on a QF 747 Singapore/London. Captain announced to the PAX that the take off would be longer than usual, so I reached for my stop watch. Yes, 95 seconds until rotation.
Spec
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specnut727,
With Singapore Changi Airport being:
ELEVATION: 22 ft.
RUNWAY INFORMATION Orientation Length (m) Displaced
Threshold (m) Glide Slope(deg) Width (m)
02L 4000 - 3 60
20R 4000 740 3 60
02R 4000 - 3 60
20L 4000 - 3 60
It must have been REAL hot and muggy to accelerate that slow. That could have been a bit scary.
With Singapore Changi Airport being:
ELEVATION: 22 ft.
RUNWAY INFORMATION Orientation Length (m) Displaced
Threshold (m) Glide Slope(deg) Width (m)
02L 4000 - 3 60
20R 4000 740 3 60
02R 4000 - 3 60
20L 4000 - 3 60
It must have been REAL hot and muggy to accelerate that slow. That could have been a bit scary.