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

A320neo Rotation

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

A320neo Rotation

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 2nd Jun 2019, 06:27
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,097
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
On the NEO, I don't notice any difference in the initial pitch up from the runway. However, approaching the initial climb pitch attitude, the required pull back on the stick is much less. This gives a tendency to overpitch if you don't anticipate it.
Totally agree with that. Also, I’ve been landing the sharklet equipped A320 NEO a lot recently onto 30 metre runways, judging the flare to touchdown smoothly is a lot more challenging than the non NEO imho.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2019, 16:32
  #42 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
@vilas you are describing the landing, and the opinions of my more experienced colleagues (albeit with PW) mirror your words. That is below 30 ft. If you cut the thrust on NEO to idle “IAE” style, the plane’d come to a standstill at around 10 feet.

Two different phases there.

The effect of decaying wind from which GS mini protects us is something that tends to happen below 150 ft, down to 25 I would say. Due to more lively thrust (whatever that is) the delta GS buffer needed reducing to 1/3 in order to prevent excessive energy at flare for the NEOs. That is my explanation of the article.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 3rd Jun 2019 at 01:34.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2019, 22:27
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL510
Posts: 910
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
vilas, I think the difference is airspeed.
High airspeed, high idle thrust.
Descend with 280 kt idle thrust will still be high.
Cut the thrust at 20 feet doing 125 kt, residual thrust is far less.
safelife is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 07:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
About CFM 56 ceo having higher thrust than IAE at higher altitude there is a graph published by Airbus. About the rest I am also seeking an answer.
vilas is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 06:18
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 1,913
Received 295 Likes on 124 Posts
Have any pilots been briefed by your carrier on this rotation difference when converting to the Neo?

Or just like MCAS, is it just a wait and find out?

We are 12 months out from the Neo and I’ve asked the question but nobody knows. We’ve had issues with cadets slamming 321 tails down the runway so this could essentially get ugly if not properly briefed.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 13:16
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
Have any pilots been briefed by your carrier on this rotation difference when converting to the Neo?

Or just like MCAS, is it just a wait and find out?

We are 12 months out from the Neo and I’ve asked the question but nobody knows. We’ve had issues with cadets slamming 321 tails down the runway so this could essentially get ugly if not properly briefed.
We got a paragraph saying that there are differences.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 00:28
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,097
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
Have any pilots been briefed by your carrier on this rotation difference when converting to the Neo?

Or just like MCAS, is it just a wait and find out?

We are 12 months out from the Neo and I’ve asked the question but nobody knows. We’ve had issues with cadets slamming 321 tails down the runway so this could essentially get ugly if not properly briefed.
​​​​​​

We didn’t get anything regarding rotation differences and having flown it a number of times I don’t see any need to spell out the differences. If you are in the habit of flying the result rather than the input then it should be no issue at all, ie, raise the nose to 15° at the appropriate rate and let you hand do whatever is required to make that happen.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 22:11
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
​​​​​​

We didn’t get anything regarding rotation differences and having flown it a number of times I don’t see any need to spell out the differences. If you are in the habit of flying the result rather than the input then it should be no issue at all, ie, raise the nose to 15° at the appropriate rate and let you hand do whatever is required to make that happen.
I agree completely. It is definitely different, however my technique is the same. Pull back a bit, see what happens and then adjust accordingly.
Field In Sight is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2019, 11:40
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,292
Received 139 Likes on 63 Posts
FCOM has been reworded “based on customer feedback” jun 19 changes.

but the rotation “mode” technique is unchanged from CEOs. Renamed from law to a mode.

havent flown it, just the FCOM messenger.
compressor stall 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.