TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29 Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6534 times:
Yesterday I was spotting in CGN which is both a civilian and military airport. Sometimes figher planes are visiting CGN, this was the case yesterday. A Tornado took off on rwy 14L. This runway is 3800metres long, so there is plenty of runway to use.
I was happy to see that the Tornado used full afterburner, it was great to hear such a loud airplane, I guess it was even three times as loud as the IL76 that visited CGN yesterday.
But still I ask myself, why did it take off with afterburner? Is this standard procedure for military airplanes? It consumes a lot of fuel and makes a lot of noise, and while I like it, why is it done on such a long runway?
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6497 times:
Not sure what the "official" reason would be, but seems to me, the faster (and shorter distance) you get to rotation, the more runway you have available should you need to abort. In my AF ATC days, I've seen a few fighter-types abort that used damn near all the runway to stop.
This could be the case, as there has been a Tornado that went off the runway in CGN some years ago, although nothing happened that time. Anyway, I really don't complain, as the noise was great! F-16 and Tornados sound totally fantastic with the burner on... Although I was surprised how quiet it was while taxiing...
In July 2005 I watched 27 (IIRC) F-15´s taking off in pairs (and higher numbers) from RAF Lakenheath departing for a day routine lasting about 60 minutes. Some of them used afterburners, others didn´t. While some carried external tanks others didn´t, but there was no combination of "external tanks" = "use of afterburners".
Side note: While some F-15´s landed directly upon return, some others performed touch-and-go as well as aborted approach-procedures (some again with ´burners chipping in) - What a sound !
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6343 times:
The higher you are sooner, the more time you have to deal with any failures. I dunno about RTO, I think your going to not hit V1 before something goes boom if you hold the brakes a little longer past full throttle, but once you scream past v1 and vr, the more inertia the better, get up as much as posible (unless your at EDW), and pick a spot to plant it. Once you are airborne, there is no such thing as too much speed and altitude during the takeoff phase.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6310 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 9): I dunno about RTO, I think your going to not hit V1 before something goes boom if you hold the brakes a little longer past full throttle, but once you scream past v1 and vr, the more inertia the better, get up as much as posible
One might also consider the ejection seat envelope. Low speed and low altitude requirements seem to get modified with each successful ejection.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6272 times:
Once again thank you all for your replies, especially SlamClick, its always nice to have comments from people that really share their knowledge.
About the Tornado: It seemed to fly the regular SID and rotated after 1500metres, so it was not that different from other airplanes taking off, just louder . Maybe he used the burner to greet the spotters It was a nice alternative to the A320s and 737s...
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6007 times:
It all depends on fuel calculations when you use the burners. If its outside of a wartime environment, which in this case it was, then there is no necessity to use them. So, it all depends on the fuel on board. Because you use the most fuel during taxi and takeoff, its up to the pilot to determine whether or not burning them will be such an additional fuel loss that he can't spare it. This rarely happens, as most military aircraft have plenty of reserves outside of wartime......you see the big kicker here is OUTSIDE OF WARTIME. During war, they use them to get out of trouble. Otherwise, if you have the fuel and you don't have any other pressing reason, like wing SOP or military regs., then why not! Burn the bastards!