744 Packs off Take Off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
744 Packs off Take Off
If a 744 can willingly haul itself off the ground in 30 degrees for a 14 hour sector, surely it can't be a performance requirement to do a packs off departure on a LHR - MIA on a chilly day??
Also a significantly less than full flap setting on landing with idle reverse.. Is that the norm these days??
Merely out of interest...
Anyone?
Also a significantly less than full flap setting on landing with idle reverse.. Is that the norm these days??
Merely out of interest...
Anyone?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each airline has their procedures and policies.
Generally, takeoffs are flown packs OFF.
Flaps 10 or 20...
If you really want a pack, use the APU bleed with nš 2 pack.
Provided that your APU is not placarded "GND USE ONLY".
For landing, some airlines use flaps 25, some 30.
Auto brakes to minimum, idle reverse works fine.
xxx
I am a "Classic" 747 guy - but above applies to 744 as well.
Happy contrails
Generally, takeoffs are flown packs OFF.
Flaps 10 or 20...
If you really want a pack, use the APU bleed with nš 2 pack.
Provided that your APU is not placarded "GND USE ONLY".
For landing, some airlines use flaps 25, some 30.
Auto brakes to minimum, idle reverse works fine.
xxx
I am a "Classic" 747 guy - but above applies to 744 as well.
Happy contrails
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWY might have been contaminted. therefore u need more juice to accelerate faster to have more distance to stop in case of reject.
idle reverse is norm due to pax comfort and fuel saving
or probably they were planning for an exit further down the landing runway for operational considerations.
idle reverse is norm due to pax comfort and fuel saving
or probably they were planning for an exit further down the landing runway for operational considerations.
There are other questions like who owns the engines, what is the contracted takeoff setting agreement with the owner of the engines, are you "power by the hour' or paying for overhaul, what thrust setting have you paid for etc?
There are many variables on how and why different operators fly and use different procedures as usual the devil is in the detail.
There are many variables on how and why different operators fly and use different procedures as usual the devil is in the detail.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All got to do with fuel conservation which now governs every flying technique, packs off means greater thrust reduction and fuel savings. Less flap and idle reverse on landing means the same..... All of the KGS start to add up
Mutt
Mutt
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends. Thrashing the engines to rated TO on a regular basis results in faster deterioration (EGT creep, SFC creep, less time on wing) which costs heavily in the spare parts dept. And although the book may show less trip fuel burn, you won't get as many trips out of the beast.
And if packs off gains you a few extra degrees EGT margin, that's money in the bank.
And if packs off gains you a few extra degrees EGT margin, that's money in the bank.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to depart Singapore regularly to Europe on the B744, temp. 30+ and never used packs off once. It wasn't company policy out of Singapore. (Don't think I ever did do a packs off take off in ten years, from anywhere, but the memory isn't so sharp now!).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
744 cannot use apu in the air so cannot use it to run pac's for take off ....look all the saving on fuel like shutting down engines on taxi only to spool up the remaining one,two or more so the aircraft can climb up the ramp to the stop mark...does it save any....i think not
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
744 can use APU in the air.APU to packs takeoff is available, APU is able to supply air to one pack up to 15,000ft. APU operates to 20,000ft but unable to supply any electrical power in flight.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 5 years (not a long time compared to some here!) I've only done a pack off takeoff once... longhaul out of JNB.
No other MTOW takeoff was performance limited with the packs on.
No other MTOW takeoff was performance limited with the packs on.
Packs off T/O is a very useful tool at hot/high or short runways as it allows integrated T/O performance to be used giving up to 5T approx increase in MTOW depending on MACTOW. As an alternative APU to centre pack can be used to enhance pax comfort with a MTOW decrease of 100 kgs for the drag of the APU door being open.
Integrated take off performance has some limitations though such as dry runway etc. but is extremely useful on the 400F at places like NBO allowing a greater payload.
Integrated take off performance has some limitations though such as dry runway etc. but is extremely useful on the 400F at places like NBO allowing a greater payload.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is rare that a packs off departure is REQUIRED for performance on the 747-400.
In those circumstances, an APU to Pack 2 procedure is available to provide maximum payload, while providing air conditioning until engine bleed air is restored.
However, most departures from airfields below, say, 3000ft amsl, will see packs re-instated before the cabin climbs above 5000ft, which should be of no discomfort to the passengers.
In these circumstances, it saves engine wear and tear and thus promotes engine life and saves costs, to perform a 'bleeds off' take off. This allows take off at a lower thrust level, with reduced EGT's. As a consequence, it helps to keep down ticket costs!
For me, in my company, the flexibility to use an APU to pack take off has been removed, I see this as an ill-thought out procedure that fails to recognise the few stations (eg NBO, JNB, MEX) where it would be beneficial in the event of an engine failure for the expedience of a single procedure that saves a bit of fuel.
It should be an available procedure for use at the Captains discretion.
In those circumstances, an APU to Pack 2 procedure is available to provide maximum payload, while providing air conditioning until engine bleed air is restored.
However, most departures from airfields below, say, 3000ft amsl, will see packs re-instated before the cabin climbs above 5000ft, which should be of no discomfort to the passengers.
In these circumstances, it saves engine wear and tear and thus promotes engine life and saves costs, to perform a 'bleeds off' take off. This allows take off at a lower thrust level, with reduced EGT's. As a consequence, it helps to keep down ticket costs!
For me, in my company, the flexibility to use an APU to pack take off has been removed, I see this as an ill-thought out procedure that fails to recognise the few stations (eg NBO, JNB, MEX) where it would be beneficial in the event of an engine failure for the expedience of a single procedure that saves a bit of fuel.
It should be an available procedure for use at the Captains discretion.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the diversion....
Sorry I am pure slf - and having been reading this thread with some interest. However, my problem is I cant seem to narrow down on the net what the pack (s) actually are. If one of you could please spare the time/give a brief explanation/enough info or direction as to where I can research what they are it would be much appreciated.
Back to lurking for me and happy flying
Regards
Back to lurking for me and happy flying
Regards
G'day Jofm5,
The 'packs' refered to are the airconditioning units usually called packs. The B747 has three of them situated in the belly of the aeroplane. They are aircycle machines and use bleed air from the engines for their operation thus draining some power from them.
Completing a 'packs off' takeoff allows the engines to develop full rated thrust which will give a performance benefit in a limiting situation such as at hot and high elevation airports or at high gross weights.
Sometimes the APU can be used to supply the bleed air and run a pack or packs for takeoff, in any case once the immediate performance requirements have been met normal pack operation is restored.
Regards,
BH.
The 'packs' refered to are the airconditioning units usually called packs. The B747 has three of them situated in the belly of the aeroplane. They are aircycle machines and use bleed air from the engines for their operation thus draining some power from them.
Completing a 'packs off' takeoff allows the engines to develop full rated thrust which will give a performance benefit in a limiting situation such as at hot and high elevation airports or at high gross weights.
Sometimes the APU can be used to supply the bleed air and run a pack or packs for takeoff, in any case once the immediate performance requirements have been met normal pack operation is restored.
Regards,
BH.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks.....However....
Thank you for the explanations -in laymans terms for me I translate this to a car aircon, having it running impairs performance due to load.
I did find when researching the following on the boeing site (Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Cabin Air Quality - Myths and Facts) it says that turning one of the packs off saves little fuel as the other(s) compensate which if I understand correctly the fuel save option was removed on the 744 - I am guessing for the performance all packs must be switched off.
A very interesting and enlightening discussion, as slf - I normally consider we just roll and take off at max thrust and have not paid appreciation to the calculations you guys must make up front to make us do so safely. The more I read - the more I appreciate how complex your jobs are..
cheers
I did find when researching the following on the boeing site (Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Cabin Air Quality - Myths and Facts) it says that turning one of the packs off saves little fuel as the other(s) compensate which if I understand correctly the fuel save option was removed on the 744 - I am guessing for the performance all packs must be switched off.
A very interesting and enlightening discussion, as slf - I normally consider we just roll and take off at max thrust and have not paid appreciation to the calculations you guys must make up front to make us do so safely. The more I read - the more I appreciate how complex your jobs are..
cheers
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with the performance of the B744, and it appears to stem from an IATA Fuel Conservation initative that stated flex thrust takeoff, improved climb, idle reverse, packs off, low takeoff/land flap etc etc etc would save fuel....
It all adds up
Mutt
It all adds up
Mutt
