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

Packs Off And/Or APU On For Takeoff

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

Packs Off And/Or APU On For Takeoff

Old 16th Sep 2010, 18:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 176
Packs Off And/Or APU On For Takeoff

Hi,

-Is it common to use packs off and/or APU for takeoff and initial climb?

-It will be nice if someone can give a number for the paylaod gain when using packs off and/or APU for takeoff

-Wondering which thrust reverser (petals or cascades) provides less stopping distance?

-During normal or high speed RTO, if one engine fails or dispatched inoperative can the crew use the thrust reverser of other operating engine(s)?


Feedback appreciated
Regards
AeroTech is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2010, 19:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,104
1. Becoming much more so

2. B747-400, + 2.0 tonnes with packs off, +1.9 tonnes packs APU to pack (lose 0.1 tonne due APU door drag)

3. pass

4. B747-400, yes but have to be prepared to cancel to control any swing then revert to symmetrical reverse thrust (ie if eng#1 failed, only use rev on #2 and #3)
TopBunk is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2010, 20:41
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
In the B742, we (the operator for whom I fly) performs all takeoffs with packs and APU off.

I have no idea about payload gain, but our practice is standard, even when empty.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2010, 21:44
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: h&h
Posts: 96
1. No, unless required for performance. It reduces passenger comfort (APU bleed air smells because it takes in engine exhaust air...)

2. In B738 gain is about 700-1300kg when taking off with engine bleeds off.

3. Don't know. Unless on wet runway, reverse thrust is not calculated in the accelerate stop distance.

4. Yes. Take care with crosswind and be prepared to reduce/cancel reverse thrust when directional control becomes difficult.
reivilo is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2010, 23:13
  #5 (permalink)  
TightYorksherMan
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Peak District
Age: 36
Posts: 1,562
1) Working at a small airfield, with underpowered a/c - so happens quite alot (B733)

2) 800 to 1200kg gain

3) Not sure

4) Absolutely can use it. Also Single engine landing, reverser maybe used.
Jinkster is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 06:07
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,292
I think petals are actually more effective, but are an engineering near-impossibility on a high-bypass turbo fan.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 06:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 238
For all our types out of a short, noise sensitive airport like SNA (orange county, CA USA) we do a Bleeds off T/O. I forget the exact numbers but it is worth several thousand lbs of payload.

Also, we have A 320s with IAE 2500 A1 power (A5 is now the standard). Out of PHX and LAS in the summer with temps above 45 C we will do APU on (our airbus term now for engine bleeds off) T/O for payload and also EGT consideration. Engine bleeds off - lower EGT.
cactusbusdrvr is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 10:24
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: PuB near U
Posts: 46
A320

for a320, is the performance gained the same for packs off or packs on apu bleed take off?
thanks.
ggofpac is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 11:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,433
This is another one of your questions that depends on the aircraft/payload/airport........

1: Yes its done, although some aircraft have automated systems whereas if an engine fails the pack on the other engine/s will automatically shut off.

2: I've seen around 150 kgs on our small jets up to 6,000 KGS on a 772. (Many years ago, APU takeoffs weren't permitted in the 772 so it was PACKS ON or nothing, but that has since changed)

3: No idea.

4: Yes and if the takeoff was on a contaminated runway, you might find that the stopping distance is based on them using that other thrust reverser/s.

Mutt
mutt is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 16:15
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 176
Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.

2: I've seen around 150 kgs on our small jets up to 6,000 KGS on a 772. (Many years ago, APU takeoffs weren't permitted in the 772 so it was PACKS ON or nothing, but that has since changed)
Mutt, do you know why 772 APU takeoffs were not permitted at that time?

Regards.
AeroTech is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 18:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,433
We were told that it was due to disrupted airflow over the rudder due to the opened APU inlet.

Mutt
mutt is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 19:05
  #12 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
In the Falcon 50 and 900 the packs* are automatically turned off on takeoff and the APU is shut down after third engine start. So all takeoffs are packs and APU off.

* Actually, the bleed valves from the engines are shut automatically, then slowly reopened after takeoff.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 22:05
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On a Wing!
Posts: 204
@SNS3Guppy....mate,u mean u did all take offs unpressurised? Wow,that must be unplesant for the pax no??
The petals or buckets positively provide lesser stopping distance by as much as 27% as against the cascades or sleeves,all other things remeining constant of course. Unfortunately I have not seen the buckets on any engines with a thrust rating greater than 20k....for obvious reasons. Noise emissions and enviormental emission standards(not even talking about economy) stipulate the use of higher and higher bypass ratios for bigger engines. Like someone rightly pointed out earlier,it would eventually be impossible to fit one of those larger diameter engines with the 'bucket type' reversers.So although they provide lesser stopping distance,they are unfortunately limited to smaller diameter engines with a low bypass ratio.
Hope that helped...the rest of your queries have been adequately adressed by the other forum members i presume.
Enjoy the gift of flight!
King on a Wing is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 22:14
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 391
1. Standard practice for us when departing home base London City Airport on our E170/190's. APU shutdown before leaving stand and packs are automatically commanded off when t/o thrust is set. Imput by MCDU.

2. Couple hunderd kilo's.

3. Reversers are pretty useless for our operation. Just lot's of noise and vibration. SOP for us is to always use idle reverse and let the carbon brakes do the braking. Even at MLAW into LCY. They need to be replaced every x months so better wear them down as you're paying for it anyway. Obviously can/will be used whenever conditions require so. (RTO etc)

4. SOP is to use full reverse on BOTH engines during RTO, even with one on fire. Wether or not you would want to do it personally is another question but assurance by manufacturer that it's the better option.
DutchBird-757 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2010, 22:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
For a "NO BLEEDS TAKEOFF" on the B737;

1. APU Bleed Valve open;
2. Engine Bleed Valves closed;
3. Isolation Valve Switch closed;
4. Pack Switches - Both On (The right pack receives no bleed air from engine number 2 as the bleed air valve is closed, nor air from the APU as the isolation valve is also closed.

Engine driven generators are powering their respective generator buses thus no issue there.

Company procedures vary as to reconfiguring the bleeds for normal operation after takeoff.

With the above said, every takeoff is a pressurized takeoff.
captjns is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2010, 22:47
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 176
Hi,

Yes and if the takeoff was on a contaminated runway, you might find that the stopping distance is based on them using that other thrust reverser/s.
Mutt, if aircraft swings you have to reduce/cancel the thrust reverser (as mentioned above). I am wondering if this is considered for the stopping distance calculation, or it will not affect the stopping distance.


King on a Wing, if I am not mistaken petals reverser and buckets reverser are different. Petals reverser reverse the bypass airflow but the buckets reverser reverse the bypass airflow and the core engine exhaust gas (I am talking here in general may be there are some engines fitted…???)

You can see the pic (EasyJet aircraft, you can zoom it out) of the petals reverser in the following link:
Thrust reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that they may provide less stopping distance because the petals provide also drag; if so why they are not used a lot as the cascades thrust reverser?

Con-pilot, you mentioned takeoff bleed off with APU off. I am wondering if Falcon 50 & 900 are not fitted with hydraulic tank(s) pressurization (I am not familiar with these aircraft).

Finally it seems that there is packs off takeoff and bleed off takeoff.

Feedback appreciated.
AeroTech 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.