Reduced Versus Full Takeoff Thrust
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced Versus Full Takeoff Thrust
Hi,
How often (approximate percentage if possible) do you use assumed or derated takeoff thrust versus full takeoff thrust?
Feedback appreciated.
How often (approximate percentage if possible) do you use assumed or derated takeoff thrust versus full takeoff thrust?
Feedback appreciated.
A guess, but 85-90 percent of all takeoffs (EK 777).
Sometimes it's not much (say a 52 deg ASS TEMP on a 38 deg day), but TOGA thrust is usually only used on very heavy takeoffs (say DXB-LAX with a limiting load) or if there is a contaminated runway, or suspected windshear.
Sometimes it's not much (say a 52 deg ASS TEMP on a 38 deg day), but TOGA thrust is usually only used on very heavy takeoffs (say DXB-LAX with a limiting load) or if there is a contaminated runway, or suspected windshear.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well... on the current turboprops reduced takeoffs are not approved, but on my previous bae146 time we used reduced takeoffs whenever possible, lets say 90% of the flights.
we had to perform one full thrust take off every 7 days on each aircraft for a performance check .
we had to perform one full thrust take off every 7 days on each aircraft for a performance check .
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA B747-400,
Note: retired 2 years ago
Reduced thrust almost every time.
The exceptions being places like Mexico City and Jo'berg, where fuel requirements and payload combined with the density altitude often required virtually full thrust (JNB maybe 1.72 EPR vs 1.74 max, but near as the same thing).
Some places (like MEX, JNB, GRU) also use an Aft C of G optimisation technique to maximise RTOW and gain payload.
Sometimes using a short runway eg Chicago, Cape Town or to avoid a delay also, but even on a long flight ex Singapore, you would normally derate somewhat to reduce from full thrust allowing 20,000+ hours on wing commonly for the engines.
Note: retired 2 years ago
Reduced thrust almost every time.
The exceptions being places like Mexico City and Jo'berg, where fuel requirements and payload combined with the density altitude often required virtually full thrust (JNB maybe 1.72 EPR vs 1.74 max, but near as the same thing).
Some places (like MEX, JNB, GRU) also use an Aft C of G optimisation technique to maximise RTOW and gain payload.
Sometimes using a short runway eg Chicago, Cape Town or to avoid a delay also, but even on a long flight ex Singapore, you would normally derate somewhat to reduce from full thrust allowing 20,000+ hours on wing commonly for the engines.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying A319/20/21, every take-off done in rwys in excess of 7000' are done in Flex Temperature (reduced thrust). Except if windshear reported/expected.
Regards.
Regards.
Last edited by C212-100; 27th Oct 2011 at 23:07.
Dash 8: in summer about 80%. The few times a non-reduced T/O is needed are usually due to limiting runways, which are not uncommon in my conpany.
In winter on the other hand, approx. 60-70% of takeoffs will likely be full power: icing conditions or deicing fluid present on the aircraft are among the items excluding a reduction in T/O power.
In winter on the other hand, approx. 60-70% of takeoffs will likely be full power: icing conditions or deicing fluid present on the aircraft are among the items excluding a reduction in T/O power.
USAF: heavy airlift, probably 70% of the take-offs were reduced, but the C-5 would require full thrust at many weights.
Corporate: about 50% or so in the Global, could be more if we put emphasis on using reduced power.
Reduced is the way to go probably 90'% or more: better margins, less wear, less likely to have a failure.
GF
Corporate: about 50% or so in the Global, could be more if we put emphasis on using reduced power.
Reduced is the way to go probably 90'% or more: better margins, less wear, less likely to have a failure.
GF
We do it nearly all the time and since the advent of laptop performance calculations it can look pretty strange. I remember the tower asking us if we had had an engine failure the first time we used the laptop assumed temperature on a 4000 meter runway. Low visibility is another time we do not use it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assumed temp. is used in most cases. Even in outside 36-40 Degrees Cent. we can still use 44 or 46 Degrees to cut the peak.
With the monitoring ability of Engine datas and maintenance from today the "standing time" of engines is increased significant the last 20 Years.
Whenever needed due to RWY, equipment failure or anything else: Full Thrust is used. Also once in 30 days was a proceedure I remember from a prevoius Employer.
Fly safe and land happy
NG
With the monitoring ability of Engine datas and maintenance from today the "standing time" of engines is increased significant the last 20 Years.
Whenever needed due to RWY, equipment failure or anything else: Full Thrust is used. Also once in 30 days was a proceedure I remember from a prevoius Employer.
Fly safe and land happy
NG
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Oregon
Age: 78
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Engine Guarantees'....gotta love that term. Was that coined by the blind mechanic with the blurry boroscope who's job it is to keep the engines up in the air? Tell me Mutt...how does he check if a there is bearing wear? Is there a special radar machine for that?