NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1140 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9163 times:
Is it me, or is it the mooney bravo that provides damn bad sight over the front panel therewith limiting runway sight at landing badly?
I took a 738 at Darmstadt AAF (Z11N - I think) and performed a full flaps, full thrust (110%N1) (spooling up with appield brakes) takeoff with full pax but only 35% fuel load take-off and did manage to get of the ground close to the end of the VERY short runway (3000feet?!).
Is that the proper technique to take-off from very short fields?
Is this runway perfomance realistic?
I made a left 180 and returned to Darmstadt AAF landing the 738 using maybe only half of the runway with approach speed near 140kts, full flaps, spoilers and full thrust reverser...
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1270 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9146 times:
Quoting NicoEDDF (Thread starter): Is it me, or is it the mooney bravo that provides damn bad sight over the front panel therewith limiting runway sight at landing badly?
Use SHIFT+ENTER to raise the viewpoint for better visibility over the panel. Keep in mind visibility can be limited in real aircraft, and in the flare you don't really have much forward visibility at all.
Quoting NicoEDDF (Thread starter): I took a 738 at Darmstadt AAF (Z11N - I think) and performed a full flaps, full thrust (110%N1) (spooling up with appield brakes) takeoff with full pax but only 35% fuel load take-off and did manage to get of the ground close to the end of the VERY short runway (3000feet?!).
Full flaps takeoffs on not authorized on most aircraft. There are a number of issues here, including engine out performance (at slow airspeeds, the flight controls do not have the authority to overcome asymmetric thrust in the event of an engine failure) and second stage climb performance (flaps create a lot of drag, and though you get off the ground faster, you can't climb as quickly with full flaps--a major issue if there is terrain ahead).
110% is higher than any setting I've heard of being used, someone with 737 experience may be able to confirm just how high engines can be set.
All in all, the 737 probably would need a bit more than 3000 feet in a realistic takeoff configuration, but it is no slouch.
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9262 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9131 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1): Keep in mind visibility can be limited in real aircraft, and in the flare you don't really have much forward visibility at all.
Then just sit a bit higher and then you have clear visibility of the whole runway ahead of you. At least I have in my MD11F
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1): 110% is higher than any setting I've heard of being used
under special conditions and some aircrafts it is possible. I remember a take off in an B738 on a GreeK island. It was a full thrust take off and we had 106.3% N1 and on the MD11F the highest I have seen was 110% N1 for take off thrust.
On the other hand on the B737-300/500 I never saw more than 95% N1
The take off and landing performance of the 737 is pretty impressive for sure. The max flap setting for 737NG is 25°. On the older ones only 15°. higher flapsetting just produce more drag than lift. So you would have a worse lift drag ratio and you don't want that on take off. Advancing the throttles to full thrust and holding the brake is something we call "static take off" and if performed from time to time. It's nice, engine spooling up to take off thrust, you hold the brakes and then release them and off we go.
And the brakes are impressive as well. My shortest landing in the 737-500 was a landing distance of about 800m. Ok, there were no Passenger on board and we weren't very heavy, but these 800m weren't from touchdown, they were from the threshold down to taxi speed of about 10 knots. And a shorter way would've been possible