Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Single Aisle Aircraft Climb Rate  
User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 16214 times:

Hi
I would like to post this thread, not for an A vs B war.
Can anyone tell me which of these aircrafts usually have (or able to give) the steepest take off?
Airbus 318, 319, 320 and 321
Boeing 736, 73G, 738 and 739
I always wonder as the 737-400 was famous for its overpowered engine but can anyone tell me whether you think a particular type of plane has a 'relatively' more powerful engine?
Thanks
William


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16166 times:

Quoting Musapapaya (Thread starter):
Can anyone tell me which of these aircrafts usually have (or able to give) the steepest take off?

The one with the lightest fuel, cargo, and passenger payload, they all perform well empty, they all don't perform well when at MTOW on one engine.

I think both the 737-700, and 319 are certified for operations high altitude airports in Nepal, and for operations into Innsbruck which requires a steep takeoff performance.

I think technically the 320 series could go to a higher pitch attitude after takeoff due to the FBW, and they are generally regarded as having a higher initial climb gradient using a higher flap setting.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRyanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16065 times:

Well from those that you have listed I would go for the Boeing 736, 73G, 738 and 739. These aircraft generally have no problems whatsoever concerning climb rate. The Airbus 318, 319 and 320 normally have no issues regarding climb rate but the A321 gives off a much shallower climb than the rest. Airbus should have certified some bigger engines on them!  Wink

Ryanair737


User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16050 times:

Indeed, usually the Boeing have the edge, but on average, it comes down to which thrust rating the engine has.

For example, at my airline, the 73Gs have 24K engines (24,000 lbs of static thrust). At EasyJet, their 73Gs have 20K engines.

This make a WORLD of difference. You'd be tempted to think that our 73G's can climb better by about 20%, but it's much more than that. The climb performance is determined by how much "excess" thrust you have, meaning more thrust than required for level flight. So, if for example you need 16K to maintain speed and leve flight, then EZY's birds have 4K left and we have 8K left, giving about a 100% better climb performance. In practice, this results in us being able to cruise at higher levels, which is beneficial if you make long sectors.


User currently offlineRsbj From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 15993 times:

How in the world does climb rate get improved by FBW?! You're kidding, right?

My 737-700W manual states at 150,000lb a climb rate of 4000fpm at SL, 2500fpm at 20,000' and 1500' at 30,000'

For a 110,000lb -700; 5700fpm at SL, 4800fpm at 10,000', 2200fpm at 30,000' and 1500fpm at 40,000.

Parameters are 280/.76, bleeds auto, ISA +5C, and of course, climb power.

The only commercial plane I know of (not including business jets) that can touch it, is the 757. In particular the models with the Rolls 42.5k thrust engines, though 757's with the Pratts are very impressive too.

I can get data for both the 757 and A320, and will post my findings here within the week. I may be able to get data on the CRJ-200 and EMB-145 too, but it may not be as timely.

If you count the KC135R (707) I fly in the Guard as a single isle, then approximately double the climb rate of a 737-700W at 150,000lb for a 160,000 lb tanker.



I fly really fast and take a lot of chances.
User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15921 times:

It will always come down to the thrust to weight ratio. Not only are there different thrust ratings for different engine models, but also derating or reduced thrust used to prolong engine life. Different operators are authorized different procedures for determining reduced thrust for takeoff. Actual climb performance will always be a function of actual thrust in relation to actual weight at the given conditions of temperature and pressure altitude.

If you want to see some real climbing performance, take any plane at its minimum weight, max rated thrust setting, at sea level on a cold day! You should see what a DC10-30 will do with minimum fuel, no payload, and maximum thrust! Trust me, it will outclimb a Lear!


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15917 times:

The MD-90 is no slouch, either.

User currently onlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 579 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15910 times:

Climb rate is a very little consequence to the operators of Part 121 aircraft. It doesn't make a difference safety wise how fast an aircraft climbs.

What matters is climb angle!

That being said, all the airliners listed are operated in such a manner they climb at a sufficient angle to clear obstacles by a prescribed amount given an engine failure at the worst possible moment.

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 4):
How in the world does climb rate get improved by FBW?! You're kidding, right?

I think the poster may have an arguement here with respect to climb angle. I suspect the procedure for avoiding terrain in an Airbus product is 1- full power 2- pull full stick aft. FBW may fly the plane at an optimum angle of attack more accurately than a human can.

SLCPilot






What follows I found on the internet (I believe everything I read there, heck, why would somebody go to the effort of typing it out if it weren't true!)...

Here is a rough reproduction of a chart from FAR 25.

Required Climb Gradient Number of Engines: 4 3 2
Flight Condition:
First Take-Off Segment 0.5% 0.3% 0.0%
Second Take-Off Segment 3.0% 2.7% 2.4%
Final Take-Off Segment 1.7% 1.5% 1.2%
Enroute Climb 1.6% 1.4% 1.1%
Approach Segment 2.7% 2.4% 2.1%
Landing Segment 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%

The flight conditions are as follows:

First Take-Off Segment is with the critical engine inoperative, take-off thrust, landing gear extended, flaps in take-off position, V = Vlo, and weight that exists at the time gear retraction is started (essentially the take-off weight).

Second Take-Off Segment is similar to first segment climb except that gear is up, V = 1.2 Vs, and the altitude is 400 feet above the ground.

Final Take-Off Segment also has one engine inoperative, but the others are operating at maximum continuous thrust rather than at take-off thrust. The altitude is that achieved when transition to enroute configuration is accomplished (flaps, slats, gear up) or 1500 feet (whichever is higher). Speed is 1.25 Vs at the weight at the end of the take-off segment.

Enroute Climb also requires one engine out, although there are requirements for two engine-out performance of 3 and 4 engine aircraft. One may choose a favorable speed, and an altitude that is sufficiently high to clear obstacles.

Approach Segment is again with one engine out and take-off thrust. Gear is up. Flaps are retracted a bit to increase stall speed by 10% above the stall speed with landing flap deflection. With this flap setting the airplane is flown at V = 1.5 Vs at the landing weight.

Landing Segment is the only case with all engines operating. Gear is extended, flaps in landing position, V = 1.3 Vs and thrust that is available 8 secs. after the throttle is moved from idle to take-off thrust position.



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently onlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 579 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15909 times:

Musapapaya,

I am sorry for the long winded reply that didn't answer your question. From anecdotal evidence, the 757 is often regarded as one of the steeper climbing and more overpowered single aisle aircraft.

A person providing you the correct answer will back it up with facts and the source of their data.

Respectfully,

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15908 times:

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 4):
How in the world does climb rate get improved by FBW?! You're kidding, right?

I'll hazard a guess:

FWB planes like the A320 series might be able to optimize pitch attitude better than non-FBW. So all things equal, the Boeing pilot might be forced or inclined not to ride the envelope on takeoff, whereas the Airbus pilot might be able to do so without fear of stalling.

It's also my guess that, relative wieghts and power being equal, if the Airbus can utilize its FBW to achieve greater initial climb rate, basic physics will catch up with it, and the Airbus pilot will have to reduce the rate of clime before speed deteriorates.

Just a guess based on what I've read around here; I'd like to know what Zeke thinks about it....or anyone else.

O



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15903 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
I think both the 737-700, and 319 are certified for operations high altitude airports in Nepal

707 and 727 were common at Kathmandu, no problem. Are you thinking of Paro, Bhutan?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
and for operations into Innsbruck which requires a steep takeoff performance.

Malmö Aviation operates their BAe's there and they are no rockets.

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15889 times:

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 4):
How in the world does climb rate get improved by FBW?! You're kidding, right?



Quoting Musapapaya (Thread starter):
Can anyone tell me which of these aircrafts usually have (or able to give) the steepest take off?

I was answering the question, i.e. angle of climb. It is possible with the Airbus FBW to go immediately to MAX AOA (windshear recovery) and hold it to give the steepest takeoff . Hence my comments "I think technically the 320 series could go to a higher pitch attitude after takeoff due to the FBW, and they are generally regarded as having a higher initial climb gradient using a higher flap setting." which is all addressing climb gradients.

The text of the first post to me was asking about angle of climb, not rate of climb. Rate of climb means nothing in most jets as most takeoffs are derated/FLEX and dependent on weight, altitude, temperature and cost index (the lower the cost index the steeper the gradient).

The 320 series use very little runway at high flap settings, and have steep climb gradient at high flap settings. The lightest aircraft will always have a higher gradient as its capable of a lower speed.

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 4):
The only commercial plane I know of (not including business jets) that can touch it, is the 757. In particular the models with the Rolls 42.5k thrust engines, though 757's with the Pratts are very impressive too.

With only a 17t payload, lots of aircraft can outperform a 737, even the 340. A lot of aircraft around that will carry more than a 737 at MTOW in fuel load alone.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 7):
What follows I found on the internet (I believe everything I read there, heck, why would somebody go to the effort of typing it out if it weren't true!)...

Yes 4 engine aircraft are certified for a better gradient one engine out, however with both engines operating twins will generally have a better gradient. Takeoff data, SIDs etc are based on one engine inoperative.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 8):
I am sorry for the long winded reply that didn't answer your question. From anecdotal evidence, the 757 is often regarded as one of the steeper climbing and more overpowered single aisle aircraft.

Yes..correct.

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 10):
707 and 727 were common at Kathmandu, no problem. Are you thinking of Paro, Bhutan?

Yes Bhutan.

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 10):
Malmö Aviation operates their BAe's there and they are no rockets.

ATPs ? Might be slow enough to do a turn and climb out to the east.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15883 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
ATPs ? Might be slow enough to do a turn and climb out to the east.

Nah, those 5 hairdryer things  Wink

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8863 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15872 times:

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 12):
Nah, those 5 hairdryer things

No problem, 5 helicopter engines should make you go vertical  Smile

The are known for pretty good takeoff performance, hear they can get out of some very high temperature airports that other jets just cannot.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15869 times:

LOL, yeah, a 146 going vertical would be a nice sighting!!

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineCptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15825 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 8):
and more overpowered

no such thing in my book...  Wink

Your CptSpeaking



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently onlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 579 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 15794 times:

Quoting CptSpeaking (Reply 15):

no such thing in my book...

Overpowered - The common technical desciption of this adjective is the ability to exceed Vmo/Mmo in a vertical climb at flight idle.

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16992 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 15777 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 16):
Overpowered - The common technical desciption of this adjective is the ability to exceed Vmo/Mmo in a vertical climb at flight idle.

Like the British Electric Lightning? Don't know if it could do that, but pilots were cautioned not to use reheat (afterburner for Americans) for take-off.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 15768 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
Like the British Electric Lightning? Don't know if it could do that, but pilots were cautioned not to use reheat (afterburner for Americans) for take-off.

But then they got equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks all over, to stretch combat radius beyond 100 miles, and things were back to normal.  weightlifter 



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineWing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1559 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 15745 times:

Quoting Musapapaya (Thread starter):
Can anyone tell me which of these aircrafts usually have (or able to give) the steepest take off?

The lower the flaps selected for take off the steepest take off you perform.The same aircraft with 1+F selected can achieve higher initial climb than flap 2 selected for take off.Same goes the 5/15 flap selection on the 737 family.


Quoting Musapapaya (Thread starter):
I always wonder as the 737-400 was famous for its overpowered engine

I wouldnt name it "overpowered" because it is not,but I have to tell you that -400 has the best climb rate until FL280 compared to the others listed in your question.

(ofcourse we have to take the seating configuration into account.A 737400 can be loaded with 174 passengers and full load of fuel can not achieve the same rates as it is configured with business class and 150 econ seating configuration)

[Edited 2006-04-27 10:36:34]


Widen your world
User currently offlineJetflyer From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 15720 times:

I was on an A321 which flew from Faro - Heathrow and the field performance was excellent, but the climb was really slow. It seems people say the A321 has "small" engines but actually it has a really high thrust/weight ratio, comparable to a 757, thus the good field performance.

Its climb rate suffers at altitude due to its very high wing loading for its size, just compare it to a 757's which is way lower. I guess its wings just don't "bite" through as much air as a 757s and given its weight it strugles a bit. Just a thought.

Another thing I have a video of a "Go" airlines charter Boeing 737-300 going from Lisbon - Stansted - it's a ITVV cockpit video and the initial climb rate is 4,000fpm, 3,000fpm at 20,000ft and 2,200fpm through 30,000ft. Wow.

[Edited 2006-04-27 15:44:28]

[Edited 2006-04-27 15:46:13]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Single Aisle Aircraft Climb Rate
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B744 Initial Climb Rate? posted Sat Mar 18 2006 17:51:51 by Qantas744ER
Climb Rate/take-off Performance For Widebodies posted Sat Sep 3 2005 01:01:31 by WunalaYann
A343, A332, And A333 Climb Rate Questions posted Thu Mar 3 2005 20:01:07 by DCAYOW
Climb Rate And Distance From LHR posted Sat Jan 15 2005 22:43:32 by Ba97
AMS : Different Climb Rate? posted Mon Aug 23 2004 15:02:05 by Kl911
Aircraft Utilization Rate--best Examples? posted Fri Aug 13 2004 22:48:56 by Kgin11
A340- Why The Fuss About Climb Rate? posted Mon Aug 4 2003 22:04:43 by Mirrodie
Vertical Climb Rate For These.... posted Sun Feb 23 2003 04:27:41 by Wardialer
Best Single Engine Aircraft To Train On? posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:41:24 by Fly_yhm
Climb Rate For 727-200 posted Sat Jun 2 2001 00:16:25 by H. Simpson

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format