Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why DL 77L Use So Much Runway On The LAX-ATL Route  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3677 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

This morning I went to I-hill to watch planes take off of runway 25 at LAX, and I saw the DL 77L on the LAX-ATL route taking off, and I was suprized to see such a long range plane use so much runway ( about same amout it use on the LAX-SYD route) on such a short route. Most of the time, long range planes, use just a little runway to get air born for shorter routes, so why DL use so much runway with ultra long range plane like a 77L ,on such a short route?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5620 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

Derated takeoff. Why waste fuel and unnecessarily stress the engines if you have enough runway to avoid it?

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21700 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4980 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
Derated takeoff. Why waste fuel and unnecessarily stress the engines if you have enough runway to avoid it?

IIRC, a derated takeoff actually uses up more fuel than a non-derated one, but the maintenance savings make it worth it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4925 times:

While the most likely answer is a derated take off, what's to say the plane isn't full?

Maybe DL had a large amount of cargo going LAX-ATL on that specific flight and the flight was full of passengers and bags. While lacking the extra fuel to make the trans-pacific flight, that available payload could be used for other things!



Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
a derated takeoff actually uses up more fuel than a non-derated one, but the maintenance savings make it worth it.

What's the reasoning behind the fuel-saving part? First time I've ever heard such a thing, you'd think you'd be saving fuel as well as you're running at a lower N1 with a derate.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 4):
What's the reasoning behind the fuel-saving part? First time I've ever heard such a thing, you'd think you'd be saving fuel as well as you're running at a lower N1 with a derate.

You have to run them longer at 90% N1 to achieve liftoff and initial climb thrust reduction than you do at, say, 98% N1.
That is, it takes a longer amount of TIME to get off of the ground, followed by a longer amount of TIME to get to your initial point of reducing power to cruise thrust.
That said, I suspect that there are multiple curves working on graphs in this situation, and as such, whether or not it uses more or less fuel is dependent on several other factors.
I suspect that, many times, it uses less fuel. But sometimes, probably not.


User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4814 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
That is, it takes a longer amount of TIME to get off of the ground, followed by a longer amount of TIME to get to your initial point of reducing power to cruise thrust.
That said, I suspect that there are multiple curves working on graphs in this situation, and as such, whether or not it uses more or less fuel is dependent on several other factors.
I suspect that, many times, it uses less fuel. But sometimes, probably not.

Ah yes, I figured it would be something like that. Makes sense.

What I find even more strange is when the derated T/O thrust is less than the climb thrust. Why even bother derating the T/O thrust if you're gonna bump it back up anyways? All I can think off is that its "easier" on the engines once the plane is on the air...


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4794 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
but the maintenance savings make it worth it.

Yes it seems like maintenance intervals go shorter, exponentially, as you use higher thrust. We can guess, overhauling some of these top thrust GE90-115 engines costs an absolute fortune.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
You have to run them longer at 90% N1 to achieve liftoff and initial climb thrust reduction than you do at, say, 98% N1.
That is, it takes a longer amount of TIME to get off of the ground, followed by a longer amount of TIME to get to your initial point of reducing power to cruise thrust.

All turbine engines becoming more efficient at higher loads might be a reason why a de-rated takeoff uses more fuel.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5056 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Quoting Packcheer (Reply 3):
Maybe DL had a large amount of cargo going LAX-ATL on that specific flight and the flight was full of passengers and bags.

Assuming typical density for belly cargo and full passenger load the typical ZFW for a fully loaded 77L is ~200t. which for something less than a 2000nm jaunt to ATL requites a TOW of about 232t. The takeoff chart shows a a takeoff distance of 5000' for this TOW. Certainly sounds like much less than max power was used.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4702 times:

Out of curiosity, what would typically be the highest derate from maximum thrust used on current types, for example with light weights and a long runway on a cold day? I noticed, for example, the following item a couple of weeks ago in the Transport Canada daily incident reports referring to a 737-700 taking off at 86.4% of maximum power. How much lower would that percentage normally go?

TSB reported that the WestJet Boeing 737-700, C-GWSE, was operating as flight WJA 1478 from Calgary, AB to Las Vegas, NV. The takeoff was performed with the autothrust engaged and a takeoff thrust setting of 86.4%. At 81% N1 the No. 1 engine ceased to accelerate and the No. 2 engine N1 continued to 86.4%. The crew advanced the No. 1 thrust lever with no effect and then noticed the N1 reducing. The takeoff was rejected at approximately 85 KIAS and the No. 1 engine (CFM56-7B24) failed as the aircraft decelerated through 70 KIAS. The aircraft returned to the gate where maintenance observed fuel leaking from the HMU. The company will advise the TSB of their findings.


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21700 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 4):
What's the reasoning behind the fuel-saving part? First time I've ever heard such a thing, you'd think you'd be saving fuel as well as you're running at a lower N1 with a derate.

You have to run them longer at 90% N1 to achieve liftoff and initial climb thrust reduction than you do at, say, 98% N1.

That, and the fact that turbine engines are more efficient at higher N1s. So even if you use marginally more fuel, you're getting significantly more thrust.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
Out of curiosity, what would typically be the highest derate from maximum thrust used on current types, for example with light weights and a long runway on a cold day? I noticed, for example, the following item a couple of weeks ago in the Transport Canada daily incident reports referring to a 737-700 taking off at 86.4% of maximum power. How much lower would that percentage normally go?

A takeoff thrust setting of 86.4% is an N1 setting, not a % of thrust setting. 86.4% is usually more than a 13.6% thrust drop, because the thrust vs. N1 curve isn't linear.

That said, you can easily get takeoff derates of 20%, with an assumed temperature on top of that.

Tom.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4392 times:

Part of the reason the RB211 is so durable on the 757 is because its excess power is often not needed.

User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

I guess, that part of reason why lighter plane needs more runway than heavier is, that you need less runway to stop, therefore you can use more of the runway to get to V1 and therefore you need less thrust. If other requirements such as need to get to 35ft (or maybe some other number) on critical engine failure on V1 over threshold warrant V1 to be equal to Vr and to go all the way up.


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9558 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
We can guess, overhauling some of these top thrust GE90-115 engines costs an absolute fortune.

Just a note, DL has 110s not 115s.



yep.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why DL 77L Use So Much Runway On The LAX-ATL Route
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...
Why No Extra "cockpit" Windows On The Top Of A-380 posted Tue May 27 2008 04:10:37 by L1011CPH
Why Are There Always So Many QF744s Parked At LAX? posted Tue Feb 12 2008 04:12:23 by SKAirbus
Tiller Use On The Runway posted Sat Aug 4 2007 04:46:07 by Starlionblue
Why Do Cargo Airlines Like The MD-11 So Much? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 12:09:49 by Mozart
Why's This Runway Displaced So Much? posted Tue Jan 28 2003 00:17:57 by Mr Spaceman
787: What Is The Benefit Of So Much Wing Flex? posted Tue Dec 22 2009 03:06:46 by Faro
Why No Winglets On The 736? posted Tue Sep 1 2009 18:20:16 by Hawaiian763
Rubber On The Runway posted Fri May 29 2009 19:16:43 by Lrdc9
Water On The Runway posted Wed Aug 20 2008 21:11:37 by JoseKMLB
Keeping It On The Runway After A Tire Failure posted Mon Jun 30 2008 10:26:14 by Filton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format