744 Packs off Take Off
the lunatic fringe
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 621
Likes: 5
From: Everywhere
BA have a SOP that all takeoffs above 300 tons are packs off. It is not often a performance issue, more as has been alluded to, fuel and engine conservation. But they do operate hot and high where, on some days, packs off are required for performance.
eg. Jo'burg, Nairobi, Mexico.
And to muddy the waters, they also in addition load the aircraft with an aft C of G to squeeze the last kilo out of the performance.
eg. Jo'burg, Nairobi, Mexico.
And to muddy the waters, they also in addition load the aircraft with an aft C of G to squeeze the last kilo out of the performance.
Last edited by L337; 5th February 2009 at 04:52. Reason: spelling
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 105
From: The Winchester
And to add grist to the mill even an individual airline's SOP can change with time...in BA's case with the 744 from always having the packs on if performance allowed, then to APU to Ctr pack and then finally (perhaps) to all packs off above 300 tonnes...seems to depend on the latest enviromental priority /engineering demand / New Training Manager's previous fleet
.....
.....
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
Capt "mutt" . . . "All got to do with fuel conservation which now governs every flying technique, packs off means greater thrust reduction and fuel savings."
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
On an individual basis, flex / reduced power take off's do not save fuel.
Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.
This will allow the Aircraft to get to cruise Altitude as soon as possible where it burns the least fuel.
This is my technique when operating at the very limits of my Aircraft's performance on long range operations and has made a noticable difference.
Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.
This will allow the Aircraft to get to cruise Altitude as soon as possible where it burns the least fuel.
This is my technique when operating at the very limits of my Aircraft's performance on long range operations and has made a noticable difference.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
stilton:
You have stated this quite correctly, given your condition of min fuel for max range. I believe this is true for most turbofan aircraft.
Just don't overlook the " taking into account all other factors " for more mundane ops. Those "all other factors" are far from trivial.
On an individual basis, flex / reduced power take off's do not save fuel.
Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.
Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.
Just don't overlook the " taking into account all other factors " for more mundane ops. Those "all other factors" are far from trivial.
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 25
From: ME
Actually, at some carriers it has more to do with pax comfort rather than rabid fuel conservation, sir.
Mutt
