Tell that to Mr Boeing... we lose 8-10,000 kgs due to packs on!

Mutt

The reason most companies do "bleeds off" take offs is very simple...money!
By going bleeds off you get a slightly better flex temp & therefore less engine wear.
(Well thats the bean counters view, before you go down the road of pack valve failures etc...... ):hmm:
Seem to remember on the 73 it gives you about another ton on the MTOW for conditions on the day.

8 to 10t sounds a little high for a bleeds off take-off. Are you sure that's the number?

Our a/c you gain 1000kg TOW with bleeds off and that's on an a/c around 100t MTOW.

I'm with mutt on this. I ran the numbers on the A343 laptop one dayfor fun. Made about an 8 ton difference to a sea level airfield. This is no big deal since, more often than not, we seem to be limited by landing weight, but it does translate into roughly 6 deg of flex for reduced thrust take off.

What's the point? Passenger comfort! Make the ride nice for the people that are paying the company it's revenue. Give htem a nice, cool, no-ear-bump ride and they might come back.

In the little Boeing Mad Dog, there is only an advantage going packs off on short runways (about 4% RTOW advantage). There is no advantage on a long runway because the packs shut down automatically if an engine fails when airborne.

Remember the reduction in engine wear from flex is not a linear function. So I would agree that if doing a packs off takeoff resulted in FLEX vs. full thrust it is beneficial, but if we are already achieving significant FLEX without packs off then selecting them off may provide very little benefit at all.

Hi people B737 lover again,
Passengers' comfort includes their baggage (luggage) as well, so bleeds off take off wins when it comes to both of them!

Passenger comfort is one thing, but the ability to get sufficient fuel to get to the destination is a more important factor :):)

Mutt

A 'Packs Off' Take-Off actually puts the engine in a MORE critical bleed configuration than a 'Packs On' T/O. The engine in a Packs Off take- off has a reduced compressor stall margin due to the absence of 'bleed offload' via the packs. Various 'power by the hour' engine contracts call for periodic High-Power engine runs (usually 'ground runs') for performance retention guarantee. Generally, you can show compliance by a similarly limiting take-off configuration if you wish to avoid the maintenance costs / down-time of the high-power ground run.

Obviously.:cool:

excessive
 

Not sure what you are flying MUTT... could be. Mr Boeing calls for a Penalty from 1700 to 2700 dependant on temp and alt for the 76. Really not much of a hit. Packs on when we can (90%) and off when we have to. What you flying that takes such a hit?

744F. Couple of tons gained with packs (bleeds) off take-off. I remember doing HRE-LUX 384T t/o weight, flaps 20, about 30-32 celcius.... (HRE is roughly 4500ft ASL, 14K ft rwy). Used every inch....

My memory of the 747-200 AFM is that baseline rated TO performance is based on APU running, and that an APU OFF takeoff incurs a few hundred Kg TOGW penalty.

I was told by a Boeing flight ops guy that the APU actually generated a small bit of thrust, and that Boeing treated this as a 4.001 engine takeoff (as opposed to 4.000 engines). Don't know if this is still true.