Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Takeoff speeds and field length

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Takeoff speeds and field length

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th May 2006, 10:43
  #1 (permalink)  
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow Takeoff speeds and field length

Hello all,
I believe that if runway field length is limiting then as aircraft weight increases, then the V1 Reduces. This can be seen from company takeoff performance charts.

This means this is for a balance field length correct?

I thought QRH speeds assume balanced field length so how come as weight increases when looking at the QRH, the V1 Increases?

Finally, if a balanced field is say 13000ft and charts take TODA and ASDA/EMDA to equal 13000ft then this would mean the V1 is the lowest V1 correct?

So if we were not a field length limited weight, then V1 could be increased so if we increase takeoff weight isn't this the opposite of the first paragraph?

I'm getting a bit confused
For a 737 on a long international airport runway you could feel a bit more confident of stopping on the runway after an abort at V1 but at another airfield with a shorter runway this is not the case even though both performance charts for the airfields are assuming balanced field lengths. How do we know how much margin of V1 do we have?

Thanks and sorry for the confusing post! I'm on study overload right now
QNH1013 is offline  
Old 29th May 2006, 12:21
  #2 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,203
Received 111 Likes on 71 Posts
Perhaps a thought or two to start the discussion off ..

if runway field length is limiting then as aircraft weight increases .. the V1 Reduces

Keep in mind that there are several field length limits, any one of which can be the critical case .. takeoff distance AEO/OEI, takeoff run AEO/OEI, ASD .. one could even see BEL coming into your consideration. In general, though, increasing weight leading to reducing V1 suggests an ASD limitation. The downside is that the continued takeoff numbers rapidly get interesting ..

This means this is for a balance field length correct?

.. probably not

I thought QRH speeds assume balanced field length

.. usually the case

.. so how come as weight increases when looking at the QRH, the V1 Increases?

... because that's what normally happens .. but one needs to look at the whole picture, not just the typical QRH table where the data probably relates to distance in proportion to that needed to accommodate the weight.

Finally, if a balanced field is say 13000ft and charts take TODA and ASDA/EMDA to equal 13000ft then this would mean the V1 is the lowest V1 correct?[

.. or the highest .. one can't say without the full story. For a 737 one probably could take one's choice according to one's preferred philosophy .. providing that the continued takeoff obstacle profile were not to be unduly limiting

So if we were not a field length limited weight, then V1 could be increased so if we increase takeoff weight isn't this the opposite of the first paragraph?

.. not totally sure that I understand your point .. but this probably would be the normal case for an obstacle limiting situation where an overspeed takeoff schedule might buy you a bit more payload

For a 737 on a long international airport runway you could feel a bit more confident of stopping on the runway after an abort at V1 but at another airfield with a shorter runway this is not the case even though both performance charts for the airfields are assuming balanced field lengths.

.. all BFL indicates is that TODR=ASDR .. until one matches the required lengths to the available, it is not possible to draw any useful conclusions

How do we know how much margin of V1 do we have?

.. (I presume that your interest is in spare runway rather than V1) .. only by comparing required to available distances
john_tullamarine is online now  
Old 29th May 2006, 20:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,503
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe that if runway field length is limiting then as aircraft weight increases, then the V1 Reduces. This can be seen from company takeoff performance charts.
This means this is for a balance field length correct?
Nope its not balanced.

I thought QRH speeds assume balanced field length so how come as weight increases when looking at the QRH, the V1 Increases?
QRH charts are balanced. Higher weight requires greater runway length and higher V1.

Finally, if a balanced field is say 13000ft and charts take TODA and ASDA/EMDA to equal 13000ft then this would mean the V1 is the lowest V1 correct?
On a 13000 ft runway, i doubt that its the lowest V1.

So if we were not a field length limited weight, then V1 could be increased so if we increase takeoff weight isn't this the opposite of the first paragraph?
Boeing call this IMPROVED CLIMB....

How do we know how much margin of V1 do we have?
Quite frankly.... you dont!

Mutt
mutt is offline  
Old 30th May 2006, 03:26
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
V1 is a factor of stall speed and minimum unstick speed, so as weight increases then V1 also increases.

If the runway is limiting then then take-off weight is capped at that limit.
privateer is offline  
Old 30th May 2006, 05:50
  #5 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,203
Received 111 Likes on 71 Posts
... would you like to expand on your comments ?
john_tullamarine is online now  
Old 30th May 2006, 15:46
  #6 (permalink)  
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the comments. john and mutt especially, your pearls of wisdom are always appreciated!
QNH1013 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.