L-1011-500 RNWY performance querry
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L-1011-500 RNWY performance querry
I know she's an old design now, but I am curious to find out the runway performance of an L-1011-500 from a 6,450ft runway. Rather, the gross take off weight possible from sea level, on a standard day. Are there any PDF graphs available online anywhere ?
Failing that, are there any greybeards out there who could help me please ?
Failing that, are there any greybeards out there who could help me please ?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well before the 767-400 became the largest gal outta LGA TORA = ASDA=7000'
Ive seen L-1011's [not sure which model] DC-10's and maybe IIRC an MD11 depart and have a little to spare
Ive seen L-1011's [not sure which model] DC-10's and maybe IIRC an MD11 depart and have a little to spare
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, lets see...
6,450 feet, std day, sea level, no wind, full thrust, flaps 22...
461,000 pounds (approximately).
This presumes no obstacles present, so using flaps 22 is possible, to shorten the take off distance required, to fit the shorter runway.
The -500 model is a VERY good performer, both going and if need be, stopping.
Greatly improved brakes.
6,450 feet, std day, sea level, no wind, full thrust, flaps 22...
461,000 pounds (approximately).
This presumes no obstacles present, so using flaps 22 is possible, to shorten the take off distance required, to fit the shorter runway.
The -500 model is a VERY good performer, both going and if need be, stopping.
Greatly improved brakes.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but only with the FAA or JAA certification. A UK CAA certified L1011-500 wouldn't get airborne from 6450ft at any useable mass, it would be Vmcg limited.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
Seems strange to me.
At light weights, Vmcg is down around 131 knots or so, IIRC.
The speed comes up mightly quickly in the -500.
Now, having said this, I haven't operated the aeroplane to CAA performance limitations, so you could be right.
Cambridge (Marshals) is about this length, as I recall, and I've operated from there direct to North America, flap 22, with a 10 knot headwind for departure, no pax of course.
Now, if we look at the takeoff weight limitation, and the runway required...
Runway 11,000 feet, sea level, 25C.
No obstacles
Flap 14
Max weight, 510,000 pounds, which is also the max structural allowed.
Takeoff distance required, 10,700 feet.
Using flap 22 (which was not commonly used), the distance required is less, of course
Seems strange to me.
At light weights, Vmcg is down around 131 knots or so, IIRC.
The speed comes up mightly quickly in the -500.
Now, having said this, I haven't operated the aeroplane to CAA performance limitations, so you could be right.
Cambridge (Marshals) is about this length, as I recall, and I've operated from there direct to North America, flap 22, with a 10 knot headwind for departure, no pax of course.
Now, if we look at the takeoff weight limitation, and the runway required...
Runway 11,000 feet, sea level, 25C.
No obstacles
Flap 14
Max weight, 510,000 pounds, which is also the max structural allowed.
Takeoff distance required, 10,700 feet.
Using flap 22 (which was not commonly used), the distance required is less, of course
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I never learn. I was shooting from the hip, remembering the RAF TriStars couldn't really get out of anything much less than 8500ft with a useful load, even when using a Vmcg derived from the 22B thrust figures. I'll try and find some graphs to check it properly.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex I think you're absolutely right! The -500 was awfully Vmcg limited especially when operating to CAA limits (ie 7 knots x-wind used for calculating Vmcg). By reducing thrust to -22B values on short runways we were able to lift something like 20T more cos we weren't eating up runway trying to get to a V1 that was higher than Vmcg!!
I suspect that even using FAA figures there would not be much payload available at all on 6500' with meaningful fuel.
Happy to be proved wrong tho!
I suspect that even using FAA figures there would not be much payload available at all on 6500' with meaningful fuel.
Happy to be proved wrong tho!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A UK CAA certified L1011-500 wouldn't get airborne from 6450ft at any useable mass, it would be Vmcg limited.
...So how did all the UK CAA certified former BA L10s [and today's BA 74s] get into and out of Cambridge [CBG/EGSC, 1965m, 6447']...?
...So how did all the UK CAA certified former BA L10s [and today's BA 74s] get into and out of Cambridge [CBG/EGSC, 1965m, 6447']...?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting in is not a problem but the L1011 at least didn't get out at any useable mass. We didn't need much mass because we only went into Cambridge to ferry the aircraft to and from Brize. I suspect the 747 doesn't have the same VMCG issue as the -500.
Unfortunately the only UK L1011 performance data I have left is for the -1 so I can't back up my memory with an RTOT, maybe someone still on 216 could check it out?
Unfortunately the only UK L1011 performance data I have left is for the -1 so I can't back up my memory with an RTOT, maybe someone still on 216 could check it out?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlueBall
So how did all the UK CAA certified former BA L10s [and today's BA 74s] get into and out of Cambridge [CBG/EGSC, 1965m, 6447']...?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a several old L-1011 sales brochures with takeoff charts, while these charts may or may not be correct I would think they are close.
For the -500 the chart shows a MTOW for a 6450 foot runway to be 428,500 lbs.
For a -1 the chart shows a MTOW of 380,000 lbs.
As I said these charts may be way off or spot on I don't know.
I do know we took an Air Transat -150 out of Lemwerder, Germany and the runway there is only 6234 feet (20 ft elevation). I don't know how much fuel we had on board, probably not much, but we made it to Stansted.
For the -500 the chart shows a MTOW for a 6450 foot runway to be 428,500 lbs.
For a -1 the chart shows a MTOW of 380,000 lbs.
As I said these charts may be way off or spot on I don't know.
I do know we took an Air Transat -150 out of Lemwerder, Germany and the runway there is only 6234 feet (20 ft elevation). I don't know how much fuel we had on board, probably not much, but we made it to Stansted.
Caution: Thread Creep
BTW, in the USAF (C-5) we calculated Vmcg and accounted for crosswind, about 1kt increase per knot of crosswind. Why does it seem to me that the FAA does not do so? And the CAA uses a nominal 7 knot crosswind! Crosswind has a significant effect on Vmcg
On the Global Express, Vmcg is 88 knots and no correction for crosswind. At light weights, V1 is based on Vmcg and with a strong crosswind might, in fact, have a V1 less than Vmcg--NOT GOOD!
GF
BTW, in the USAF (C-5) we calculated Vmcg and accounted for crosswind, about 1kt increase per knot of crosswind. Why does it seem to me that the FAA does not do so? And the CAA uses a nominal 7 knot crosswind! Crosswind has a significant effect on Vmcg
On the Global Express, Vmcg is 88 knots and no correction for crosswind. At light weights, V1 is based on Vmcg and with a strong crosswind might, in fact, have a V1 less than Vmcg--NOT GOOD!
GF
Moderator
Galaxy Flyer,
.. which is why you see Mutt and me regularly revisiting Vmcg considerations in this forum for the benefit of the newer folk coming along.
Concur with your observations...
For civil certification, Vmcg is a "line in the sand" issue rather than just another tactical calculation to be done as in your operation ... your observation about lightweight departures in strong crosswinds is our particular concern .. quite common in the airline short distance positioning game.
As a sideline observation, the variation itself varies with Type but 0.5kt/kt for twins increasing to something in excess of 1kt/kt for four motored beasties is reasonably typical ..
Numerous old threads have things to say on the topic ..
.. which is why you see Mutt and me regularly revisiting Vmcg considerations in this forum for the benefit of the newer folk coming along.
Concur with your observations...
For civil certification, Vmcg is a "line in the sand" issue rather than just another tactical calculation to be done as in your operation ... your observation about lightweight departures in strong crosswinds is our particular concern .. quite common in the airline short distance positioning game.
As a sideline observation, the variation itself varies with Type but 0.5kt/kt for twins increasing to something in excess of 1kt/kt for four motored beasties is reasonably typical ..
Numerous old threads have things to say on the topic ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAL2728, minimum control speed on the ground = VMCG, but I am kind of at a loss how that relates ?
Still thank you very much all of you... Didn't mean to stirr a hornet's nest. Seems like one does have to go to a museum, or likewise to find these charts nowadays.
Still thank you very much all of you... Didn't mean to stirr a hornet's nest. Seems like one does have to go to a museum, or likewise to find these charts nowadays.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiwi,
Just tried to post a long reply only to find that the system dumped it!
Here goes in quick time.
Because the -500 has a shortened rear fuselage the rudder is less effective. On a short runway we have to accelerate the a/c to V1 before we get it airborne. However because of high Vmcg, V1 also has to be high and therefore we have to severely limit the weight to enable a very quick acceleration to V1/Vmcg.
By reducing the thrust we dramatically reduce the Vmcg and thus lower V1 as well.
Lower V1 means an increased ability to stop from higher weights and so with less thrust we can lift higher weight off a short runway.
Easy huh?
Lockheed themselves realised the problem and developed a fix for airlines who regularly operated out of short strips. BWIA used this mod in the Carribbean which was a fibreglass rudder extension that restored the effectiveness of the rudder.
The short rear fuselage brought with it many other problems that Lockheed had to address. Some were dynamic high speed gust alleviation (the first of it's kind I believe), over pitching with go-around thrust application and others.
Great machine though!
Just tried to post a long reply only to find that the system dumped it!
Here goes in quick time.
Because the -500 has a shortened rear fuselage the rudder is less effective. On a short runway we have to accelerate the a/c to V1 before we get it airborne. However because of high Vmcg, V1 also has to be high and therefore we have to severely limit the weight to enable a very quick acceleration to V1/Vmcg.
By reducing the thrust we dramatically reduce the Vmcg and thus lower V1 as well.
Lower V1 means an increased ability to stop from higher weights and so with less thrust we can lift higher weight off a short runway.
Easy huh?
Lockheed themselves realised the problem and developed a fix for airlines who regularly operated out of short strips. BWIA used this mod in the Carribbean which was a fibreglass rudder extension that restored the effectiveness of the rudder.
The short rear fuselage brought with it many other problems that Lockheed had to address. Some were dynamic high speed gust alleviation (the first of it's kind I believe), over pitching with go-around thrust application and others.
Great machine though!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like one does have to go to a museum, or likewise to find these charts nowadays.
Mutt