Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Full Power Takeoffs  
User currently offlineFlaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 287 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

I have been hearing the term "full power takeoffs" alot lately. Forgive me for sounding naive, but I always assumed my aircraft was departing under full power. Why would they takeoff on anything but full power? Whats the benefit of taking off under reduced power aside from the obvious fuel burn. It seems to me there are less options in an emergency at a reduced power setting.


every day is a good day to fly
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6119 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
but I always assumed my aircraft was departing under full power.

I did nearly 2000 flights and I would say about 20 of them were full power, the rest was done with reduced thrust, so it happens most of the time.

Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
Why would they takeoff on anything but full power?

If you do that the engine isn't that stressed  Smile So it can be operated longer.

Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
It seems to me there are less options in an emergency at a reduced power setting.

It is still perfectly safe as you calculate with this thrust reduction and you have the same options. And if you want to, you can always advance the thrust levers and get full power anyway. So this is always an option as well.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9905 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
I have been hearing the term "full power takeoffs" alot lately. Forgive me for sounding naive, but I always assumed my aircraft was departing under full power. Why would they takeoff on anything but full power? Whats the benefit of taking off under reduced power aside from the obvious fuel burn. It seems to me there are less options in an emergency at a reduced power setting.

As Wilco stated, engine wear is a factor. In addition, it reduces noise, and burns less fuel as you stated.

Most large airports have long runways - the runway length isn't usually the limiting factor in a takeoff. So if you have the extra room, it makes sense to use a bit more of it and save some money.

There are situations in which a full-power takeoff is required - for instance, a short runway. I've also heard that some airlines require full-power takeoffs every so-many takeoffs, to basically ensure the engines can still work. I don't know if that's an FAA requirement, though.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6074 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
burns less fuel as you stated.

There are people still of different opinions. You need longer to reach acceleration height, so you have longer take off power until you set climb thrust. And the climb thrust is reduced as well, so you reach your cruising level later as well which cost you more fuel and you climb slower.  Wink

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
I don't know if that's an FAA requirement, though.

We don't do full power take off until it is necessary for performance or MEL reasons.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9905 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 3):
There are people still of different opinions. You need longer to reach acceleration height, so you have longer take off power until you set climb thrust. And the climb thrust is reduced as well, so you reach your cruising level later as well which cost you more fuel and you climb slower.

Ah, that's a good point. Although couldn't your climb thrust setting still be the same as for a full-power takeoff? In which case, you're only "losing" the fuel you'd use from takeoff to throttle-back to climb. Or is the climb thrust setting always also reduced?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6093 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Ah, that's a good point. Although couldn't your climb thrust setting still be the same as for a full-power takeoff? In which case, you're only "losing" the fuel you'd use from takeoff to throttle-back to climb. Or is the climb thrust setting always also reduced?

Sure you can do that, but then it could happen that the "full power" climb thrust his higher than the reduced take off thrust. That means reaching acceleration (thrust reduction) height that the engine N1 increases.  Smile

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Why use full power,when you can get airborne with the needed EPR/N1 required considering the OAT/Length of runway/load.
Saving on the Engine life is important.

Some Airports have noise restrictions too,which nessistate lower thrust settings.

regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDufo From Slovenia, joined May 1999, 798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

On Saab 340 we are required to perform full power takeoff once per 100 takeoffs (if not otherwise required by limiting factors).

Most of the time we use 92-100% of maximum 108% torque - saves a lot of money for overhaul as we operate under on-condition maintanance plan.



I seriously think I just creamed my pants without any influence from any outside variables.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5755 times:



Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
Whats the benefit of taking off under reduced power aside from the obvious fuel burn.

There you go. Whether it actually saves fuel or not is debatable, but what it does save is engine wear, and it cuts down on noise. Both of those are desirable outcomes.

Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
It seems to me there are less options in an emergency at a reduced power setting.

You can always push the throttles forward if something happens.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
There are situations in which a full-power takeoff is required - for instance, a short runway.

Depending on the airplane, a wet runway also requires a full power takeoff.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineOffshoreAir From United States of America, joined May 2009, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5731 times:

There are all kinds of "max" thrust settings, and true max thrust is not used as common as people would think.

If I remember correctly, when I took a turbine transition class that used a King Air as the turbine template, the King Air could operate, in an emergency situation, at max available thrust for a certain period of time. This is if an engine lost power on take-off or at a low altitude, the pilot could firewall the throttle which would send the ITT temps skyrocketing and the engine would need to be overhauled before it could be used again.

Another Professor of mine who use to be a 777 captain at United told us they only used full-power take-offs if the runway had a certain amount of rain water or snow on it. He told us a story where he did it in FRA and said they upset a lot of locals near the airport with the giant 777 engine noise  laughing 



OffshoreAir
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5665 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Although couldn't your climb thrust setting still be the same as for a full-power takeoff?

It depends on the aircraft, but yes it sure could.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Or is the climb thrust setting always also reduced?

Again, it depends on the aircraft. Even some aircraft with reduced thrust climb available don't use it at some operators for a variety of reasons.

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 5):
Sure you can do that, but then it could happen that the "full power" climb thrust his higher than the reduced take off thrust. That means reaching acceleration (thrust reduction) height that the engine N1 increases.

This is uncommon, but not unheard of (MD-90 for example.)

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Quoting Flaps30 (Thread starter):
It seems to me there are less options in an emergency at a reduced power setting.


You can always push the throttles forward if something happens.

Mir is right. All reduced thrust takeoffs meet performance requirements without requiring additional thrust. There are times when reduced thrust may not be advisable (unstable weather, for instance,) but the ability to advance the throttles always exists (although EEC/FADEC controls may limit the power produced to prevent overboosts or overspeeds unlike earlier hydromechanical fuel controls.)


User currently offlineFlaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5638 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
Some Airports have noise restrictions too,which nessistate lower thrust settings.

OK, but what about SNA (John Wayne airport Orange County,CA). That seems to be an exception because the noise restrictions require departing aircraft to make a very steep initial climb. Can that be done on a lower thrust takeoff or is SNA one of the exceptions that require a full power takeoff?

[Edited 2009-05-26 12:17:08]


every day is a good day to fly
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5634 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
This is uncommon, but not unheard of (MD-90 for example.)

Can happen on the 737 if you use max deration for take off and select full CLB thrust, then the N1 increases. usually the 737 uses CLB - 2 then and the N1 reduces slightly, but if you select CLB, then the N1 increases. Uncommen - yes, but possible.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5609 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 12):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
This is uncommon, but not unheard of (MD-90 for example.)

Can happen on the 737 if you use max deration for take off and select full CLB thrust, then the N1 increases. usually the 737 uses CLB - 2 then and the N1 reduces slightly, but if you select CLB, then the N1 increases. Uncommen - yes, but possible.

Thanks for the info. I only flew classic 737's and it was a while back. You are talking about the 737NG, right? I have seen this most frequently on the MD-90 (this is an interesting difference from the MD-80; I wonder about the 717...) but it's possible on others as well. Thanks for your insight!  Smile


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5609 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):
Thanks for the info. I only flew classic 737's and it was a while back. You are talking about the 737NG, right? I have

Nope, I was talking about classic. Maybe it is a different software setup then. I used to fly -300/-500s and they had that feature. To be honest, I cannot really remember on the NG, but I guess it is available there as well.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5573 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 14):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):
Thanks for the info. I only flew classic 737's and it was a while back. You are talking about the 737NG, right? I have

Nope, I was talking about classic. Maybe it is a different software setup then. I used to fly -300/-500s and they had that feature. To be honest, I cannot really remember on the NG, but I guess it is available there as well.

Thanks...I don't know much about the NG; I mostly flew the 732, but we also had 733 in fleet. It's just been too long!  Smile


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5550 times:



Quoting Flaps30 (Reply 11):
OK, but what about SNA (John Wayne airport Orange County,CA). That seems to be an exception because the noise restrictions require departing aircraft to make a very steep initial climb. Can that be done on a lower thrust takeoff or is SNA one of the exceptions that require a full power takeoff?

Yes, the SNA noise abatement profile requires a full power takeoff (which is still not the max available power of the engines, since, as has been mentioned, the engines will be damaged if you firewall them), followed by a dramatic thrust reduction soon after takeoff (at 1,000 feet if memory serves).

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):
I have seen this most frequently on the MD-90 (this is an interesting difference from the MD-80; I wonder about the 717...) but it's possible on others as well.

It can happen on the CRJ-200 as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5530 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
which is still not the max available power of the engines, since, as has been mentioned, the engines will be damaged if you firewall them),

If you have a EEC/FADEC engine you can certainly firewall them since you have protection on overboost, overspeed and overtemp.


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4926 posts, RR: 43
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5495 times:

"Firewalling" the engine/engines in the event of a failure is something one has to be careful of. VMC is calculated at the reduced thrust, if you had the misfortune to lose an engine right at Vr, and you thought it prudent to firewall the remaining engine, you might not be able to control the aircraft at that low speed/high thrust condition.

It takes discipline (and restraint) but you have to trust that the calculations were made using the reduced thrust, and all things equal, it should carry you to safety one on engine.

That being said though, in non-thrust loss occurrences like say wind-shear or terrain warnings, firewalling the engine is always available.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5448 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
If you have a EEC/FADEC engine you can certainly firewall them since you have protection on overboost, overspeed and overtemp.

Very true. My point was that even on a full power takeoff, the engines are not developing all the power that they physically could be.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

I've ridden on a NW A330-300 that had a pretty mild takeoff, but upon the time the flight would usually be throttling back, the engines actually increased and the buzzsaw was very pronounced for the next couple of minutes. So it would seem that the climb thrust was set above the takeoff thrust, however, it's impossible to tell for sure from the peanut gallery.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineLU9092 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 69 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5170 times:

Back in December I rode on a UA A319 LGA to ORD. The weather was quite rainy that day in New York, and upon lining up on 31, the pilots held the plane with the brakes until the engines had reached (or, just about reached) takeoff thrust. I hadn't experienced that technique since sometime in the late 80's on a UA 727-200 departing LAS in late July. Would the pilots hold the plane with the brakes if they were not using "max thrust"? I do know I've never felt an A319 accelerate quite like this one did.  Cool

User currently offlineTK739ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5155 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
a wet runway also requires a full power takeoff.



Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 9):
they only used full-power take-offs if the runway had a certain amount of rain water or snow on it.

What is the reason for this? Maybe to cut the rolling time and get airborne asap because the runway surface is unstable??


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2753 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5145 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):
I have seen this most frequently on the MD-90 (this is an interesting difference from the MD-80; I wonder about the 717...) but it's possible on others as well.

It can happen on the CRJ-200 as well.

Very true. In fact I'd say the majority of reduced thrust takeoffs I've done in the CRJ have resulted in an N1 increase. Depending on weight, runway length and atmospheric conditions, it isn't uncommon to have an N1 increase of 2-4% when climb thrust is set.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9905 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TK739ER (Reply 22):
What is the reason for this? Maybe to cut the rolling time and get airborne asap because the runway surface is unstable??

In a sense, yes. I would guess the major reason is that in the event of a rejected takeoff, your stopping distance will be considerably longer on a contaminated runway.

More distance required for stopping = less distance available for accelerating for takeoff = more power needed (for a given weight and configuration).



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
25 OffshoreAir : Surface conditions of a paved runway that include snow, water, ice, etc also induce a certain amount of extra drag on the aircraft landing gear as we
26 LongHauler : Quite often at LGA, ATC will instruct you to "keep the thrust up, be ready for an immediate takeoff", as they are co-ordinating landings on the inter
27 Stratosphere : Thats true. Last year we had 2 727's that had windshear events in the same week one in RNO and one in GJT I believe and both required all 3 engines r
28 Lu9092 : It really is impressive to watch ops at LGA on a busy day. Clearly, every second counts!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Full Power Takeoffs
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...
P&W GTF Full Power Ground Run... posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:37:43 by JoeCanuck
Finals With Full Power? posted Wed Jan 10 2007 10:56:25 by Ps76
Who Flies The Trent800 And/or GE90 At Full Power? posted Sun Oct 5 2003 02:09:19 by ConcordeBoy
Rolling: Does Full Power Make A/c Nose Raise? posted Tue Jul 29 2003 21:13:26 by Pe@rson
Full Throttle Power-but For How Long? posted Sun Oct 31 2004 02:39:55 by Horus
Full Flap Landings posted Sat May 23 2009 18:51:55 by C5LOAD
Could Concorde Turn At Full Speed? posted Sun Jan 25 2009 05:48:18 by A380900
Best Way To Power A Triple Deck Jetliner? posted Wed Dec 24 2008 21:09:00 by 747400sp
Ground Power Augmentation posted Sat Nov 15 2008 10:25:54 by 3arrows
Wet Takeoffs And Weight? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 21:27:45 by DocLightning

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format