Static - Standing take off
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cleared for take off while lined up. Release the parking brake and open the thrust levers (without holding on the brakes) to take off power. This was the standard Boeing 737 procedure in my day but a long time ago so treat this personal advice with caution. It was called a rolling start.
Or: Roll on to the runway with idle or very low power and when nose-wheel straight open to take off power - again feet off the brakes. Sometimes termed a roll-on start as against a rolling start as in first example. In other words never "drag" the brakes in the process of manoevering to line up. It is poor technique and brakes may get hot.
Or: Roll on to the runway with idle or very low power and when nose-wheel straight open to take off power - again feet off the brakes. Sometimes termed a roll-on start as against a rolling start as in first example. In other words never "drag" the brakes in the process of manoevering to line up. It is poor technique and brakes may get hot.
Last edited by A37575; 10th Oct 2012 at 13:46.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 737:
Standing - let N1 stabilize at 40% before releasing brakes. A rolling takeoff is the preferred method.
Static - let the N1 stabilize at 70% before releasing the brakes. Used as part cold-weather ops.
Standing - let N1 stabilize at 40% before releasing brakes. A rolling takeoff is the preferred method.
Static - let the N1 stabilize at 70% before releasing the brakes. Used as part cold-weather ops.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be you are thinking of a static takeoff as the one where the engines go to full power against the brakes, shake the a/c half to death, and then released to try and copy an F1 start. Often used on a short rwy in the (mistaken) belief it will shorten the takeoff roll. It might, by a gnat's cock, but in a Perf A a/c hardly worth it. The rolling takeoff where the engines are at 40% when the nose wheel is straight as soon as possible and close to the near end, works fine. Those of the turbo-prop brigade will be able to tell us if rattling the cage really helps them.
RAT 5,
it is a while ago, so I do not have the exact numbers present. But on the DH8-300, a standing takeoff with all the implications You describe was required in my company when close to the MATOW of the day. Whether it helped a lot or not, I have not verified, but still initial acceleration was noticeably higher. As was cabin noise; it only started to subside a bit to the normal rather high level when above letīs say 30kIAS.
On the -400, a standing takeoff just requires the aircraft to come to a standstill on the runway before setting T/O power (which is to be reached before 50kIAS); no running up the engines against the brakes required any more and still is the basis of the performance tables, although only explicitly required in low visibility operations any longer.
it is a while ago, so I do not have the exact numbers present. But on the DH8-300, a standing takeoff with all the implications You describe was required in my company when close to the MATOW of the day. Whether it helped a lot or not, I have not verified, but still initial acceleration was noticeably higher. As was cabin noise; it only started to subside a bit to the normal rather high level when above letīs say 30kIAS.
On the -400, a standing takeoff just requires the aircraft to come to a standstill on the runway before setting T/O power (which is to be reached before 50kIAS); no running up the engines against the brakes required any more and still is the basis of the performance tables, although only explicitly required in low visibility operations any longer.
