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

B 737 setting thrust

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

B 737 setting thrust

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Nov 2009, 22:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B 737 setting thrust

Hi guys! Which is the reason for heaving the target N1 set by 60 knots? Why not by 50 or by 70 knots?
Thanks!
Visionman is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2009, 03:04
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 479 Likes on 129 Posts
I'll take a guess.....something to do with keeping the performance data valid.
ie the data assumes a certain thrust, it obviously can't come on instantaneously, but at the same time if you brought it up so slow that you only reached planned thrust at Vr then you would use more runway. My guess is that they calculate the a/c accelerating according to reaching planned thrust at 60kts.
As an aside, sometimes when there is a heap of wind on the nose the auto throttle goes into 'thrust hold' before it gets to the desired thrust setting so you have to keep pushing it up manually. Happpy to be corrected by the 'performance gods'
framer is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2009, 05:10
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks a lot! I was thinking of something like that too and you just confirmed me. Thanks!
Visionman is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2009, 22:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought that performance calculations considered takeoff thrust at Brakes release and not at any particular speed.

i think the reason is more to do with RTO's comment
InSoMnIaC is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2009, 04:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 479 Likes on 129 Posts
I would be interested to hear from someone who knows how the performance/thrust setting is calculated. If it is as Insomniac says then most F limited take-off V1's would be invalid.
framer is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2009, 15:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"i think the reason is more to do with RTO's comment"

It's ALL to do with RTO's comment!

Regards,

Old Smokey
Old Smokey is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2009, 17:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 479 Likes on 129 Posts
It's ALL to do with RTO's comment!
Cheers Smokey. If that is the case though, then why do Boeing still say you have to have thrust set by 60kts when the thrust hold kicks in at 84kts? I think there has to be some performance issue in here somewhere....wouldn't be the first time if I was wrong though
framer is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2009, 17:57
  #8 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
framer - I suspect it came under the heading of 'not important' and there is really no need to change it?
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2009, 07:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Nightrider
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
framer, according to Mr. Boeing the thrust required is set when inside 1% of the calculated thrust. Due to acceleration and the associated ram effect a "fine tuning" is required. The system gets a chance to do so up to about 84 kn.....
 
Old 18th Nov 2009, 11:24
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,188
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 5 Posts
I thought that performance calculations considered takeoff thrust at Brakes release and not at any particular speed
From a 737 FCTM: "A rolling take off procedure is recommended for setting take off thrust. It expedites the take off and reduces the risk of foreign object damage or engine surge/stall due to a tailwind or crosswind. Flight test and analysis prove that the change in take off roll distance due to the rolling take off procedure is negligable when ccompared to a standing take off. Brakes are not normally held with thrust above idle unless a static run-up in icing concditions is required".

Full power on the brakes is not used to calculate take off performance in most jet airliners except on some piston engine aircraft.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 09:46
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure if they were all like this but the engines on our old classics were very slow to spool up. On a strong headwind day you would be up to 64 knots CAS in several seconds - well before the automatics could set takeoff thrust.
300-600 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2009, 11:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A throw back to the days of youre before the miracle of the EEC. Primarily for engines that used EPR as the primary thrust setting (ala P&W and Rolls) versus N1 as ala GE engines.
captjns 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.