Hi Mutt,

Thanks for the correction, it seems that I'm correct for the 'small picture' of the Takeoff in isolation, but didn't address the 'big picture' of the entire flight profile. I must admit that the OP's reference to 500 ft thrust vreduction altitude had me thinking that after 500 ft both scenarios are the same. No argument from me that a 'Thrust Reduced Climb' will cost more fuel.

Best Regards,

Old Smokey

From memory, book figures show a 200kg saving to TOC for the 767 at intermediate weights using reduced T/O and clb thrust.
Grey matter is a bit dusty ..... last flew it in 2001.... but sure of figures.

'#19 (permalink)
barit1

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 70
Posts: 3,669

If you're actually at the limit of your payload-range envelope very often, then I'll argue you need better equipment.'


As a mere line Pilot I don't get to select the equipment !

:} but if the engine blows during take-off, that becomes our (the pilots) major problem:}.