|
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. |
@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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10505210)
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. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10505210)
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. |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10505873)
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.