PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   744 Packs off Take Off (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/360767-744-packs-off-take-off.html)

L337 5th February 2009 04:50

BA have a SOP that all takeoffs above 300 tons are packs off. It is not often a performance issue, more as has been alluded to, fuel and engine conservation. But they do operate hot and high where, on some days, packs off are required for performance.

eg. Jo'burg, Nairobi, Mexico.

And to muddy the waters, they also in addition load the aircraft with an aft C of G to squeeze the last kilo out of the performance.

bcgallacher 5th February 2009 11:13

Packs off take offs will give a lower EGT for the same EPR or N1 setting - good for engine life.

barit1 5th February 2009 13:06


Packs off take offs will give a lower EGT for the same EPR or N1 setting - good for engine life.
And since it's good for engine life, that equates to long-term fuel savings. :ok:

wiggy 5th February 2009 19:12

And to add grist to the mill even an individual airline's SOP can change with time...in BA's case with the 744 from always having the packs on if performance allowed, then to APU to Ctr pack and then finally (perhaps) to all packs off above 300 tonnes...seems to depend on the latest enviromental priority /engineering demand / New Training Manager's previous fleet:bored:.....

GlueBall 6th February 2009 16:07


Capt "mutt" . . . "All got to do with fuel conservation which now governs every flying technique, packs off means greater thrust reduction and fuel savings."
Actually, at some carriers it has more to do with pax comfort rather than rabid fuel conservation, sir. :ooh:

Cartmen 17th April 2009 10:03

When selecting the packs back on after t/o we nearly always get a brief ">Trim Air Off" Eicas. It clears after about 5 secs.

Does anyone have a tip to stop this happening? ie. select Pack x on first?

muduckace 17th April 2009 18:08


Actually, at some carriers it has more to do with pax comfort rather than rabid fuel conservation, sir.

Wow, I thought passenger comfort was an Idea abandoned back in the late 1980's. :ugh:

stilton 18th April 2009 00:54

On an individual basis, flex / reduced power take off's do not save fuel.


Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.


This will allow the Aircraft to get to cruise Altitude as soon as possible where it burns the least fuel.


This is my technique when operating at the very limits of my Aircraft's performance on long range operations and has made a noticable difference.

clivewatson 18th April 2009 01:18

What is the big deal - packs off or packs on? Just remember the three B's at 10K, bleeds (packs), babes and bulbs and all will be fine and dandy - especially with the bean counters.

barit1 18th April 2009 02:33

stilton:

On an individual basis, flex / reduced power take off's do not save fuel.

Whilst not the most cost efficient profile when taking into account all other factors a full power take off followed by a max continuous thrust climb to altitude will save the most fuel.
You have stated this quite correctly, given your condition of min fuel for max range. I believe this is true for most turbofan aircraft.

Just don't overlook the " taking into account all other factors " for more mundane ops. Those "all other factors" are far from trivial.

mutt 18th April 2009 04:43


Actually, at some carriers it has more to do with pax comfort rather than rabid fuel conservation, sir.
Considering that this has bounced up again.... I would say that PACKS ON are for passenger comfort, PACKS OFF are for "rabid fuel conservation :)

Mutt

CR2 19th April 2009 02:13

Hot-high-heavy = more payload.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:31.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.