Boeing Improved Climb
 

Two questions for discussion....

1: When did Boeing first start using "improved climb", I know that it existed for the 707, but was it originally in the AFM or added later.

2: Is it safe? If no, why not?

Hate to post and run, will be back on line in a few days. But i hope that this raises some discussion.

Mutt

(PS... 411A, is it applicable to the L1011?)

AFAIK, improved climb was available on the straight-pipe (non-fan) 707's early on that I flew, and yes, the L1011 has the same performance information included in the AFM.
And, used to good effect, runway permitting.
Runway 16 at ZRH is a good example, for heavy weight departures.
A valuable alternative, if used properly, as intended.

............and the figures extracted, are the correct ones and carefully cross-checked.:ok:

will investigate for you, regards :ooh:

hope this goes with the subject, anybody has "Stand 2 Output Analysis" (73CL)?
is it the same with Boeing Improved Climb?
Many thanks

I do not know the history of it, but in answer to 'is it safe?' - provided all the criteria are met - long and dry runway, rated thrust, no tailwind etc, it is the SAFEST way to go. Think about the best place to be when the engine goes bang. On the ground of course. Improved climb keeps you on the ground longer. Then when airborne, greater margins over everything - Vmca, obstacles etc. Similar argument can be applied to scheduling V1 max for the RUNWAY, regardless of being at a lower weight than max allowable under the conditions. Maybe it results in a bit more tyre wear, but how much does that really cost on takeoff? We did this on the old Viscount, so I suppose it was a crude form of improved climb that dated back to about the time of the B707.