flaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 253 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
As a frequent flyer of the B737 family I was very impressed recently with the A319/320. This summer my wife and I spent about 2 weeks in Europe which included many flights on the A319/320 family. While sitting near the front on all the intra European flights, I noticed a big difference in the rotation/climb rate on the Airbus compared to the Boeing 737/NG. I know the A340 family gets no love when speaking about its climb rate but the A319/320 should get many props. The A319/320 actually feels like it leaps off the runway on rotation compared to the steady climb of the 737/NG. I was very impressed with this considering all the flights were packed solid and I am sure close to MTOW. Has anyone else noticed this difference on these aircrafts?
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
The performance of the A319/A320 is actually a bit below the B737-700/800 series, but it shouldn't be noticeable as passenger. The airline policy, actual weather and in the end the particular aircraft's thrust rating make the difference.
In summer season some airline "beat" their aircraft in order to generate more flights per day. That could mean a climb with 330 KIAS instead of 290 KIAS and more operation on maximum thrust.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2062 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2921 times:
My impression also was that 737NG's climb the quickest in common.
But - could the transition to a steady climb be slower on a 737NG because the shorter gears don't allow to apply a high pitch angle at the same rate? It is obvious that a 737 must climb a bit before the final pitch angle could be reached without tailstrike.
This of course is not a disadvantage for the 737. Within a second or two the aircraft would have enough space after lift-off and the transition to the climb pitch angle could proceed.
The difference could be that the rotation would be smoother and take some seconds more.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
Regardless of actual differences, a passenger is not able to draw any significant conclusions. A rough impression can be drawn from sensations in the bum-bum and view out of the window, but senses are easy to fool. Instruments are not.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2407 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
Most airlines use de-rated thrust on takeoff and climbout to save on fuel and engine wear. Because of this it is really hard to say one is better than the other in regards to takeoff performance. Personally I think they are both about the same.
As Starlion and others stated, it's very difficult to draw any meaningful performance conclusions as a passenger.
I flew to Vegas from LA last weekend on Jetblue (A320s both ways). The takeoff from LGB seemed slower and gentler than normal, which certainly could be possible due to the very short flight. But the takeoff from LAS seemed more "normal", even though the flight was just about the same length.
Many other factors at play there - derate, ambient temperature, altitude, wind, runway length, climb obstacles, etc.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
Quoting bohica (Reply 6): Most airlines use de-rated thrust on takeoff and climbout to save on fuel and engine wear. Because of this it is really hard to say one is better than the other in regards to takeoff performance. Personally I think they are both about the same.
Bingo, one flight might have been a derated takeoff from a long runway on a cooler/low altitude airport. The 737-700 is a true hot rod when pushed to the limit on short fields (better than a 757), however I don't think anything in the 737/A320 series beats a BA A318 takeoff from London City airport.
What you won't see is stellar climb rates on any quad if it is on a long haul flight. Quads are always "under powered" compared to twins since a twin has to maintain positive climb with half its normal thrust compared to a quad only needing positive climb with 75% thrust.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Woof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5): Regardless of actual differences, a passenger is not able to draw any significant conclusions. A rough impression can be drawn from sensations in the bum-bum and view out of the window, but senses are easy to fool. Instruments are not.
It's also very easy to draw a wrong conclusion. Firmer seats will give an impression of greater performance.
If you want to boost your cars performance by 10-20%, for example, fit firmer seats. It wont go any faster, but it'll feel like it does.
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 345 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2345 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 7): Just fly with Ryanair and you get some serious 737.800 performance...
You're not kidding, leaving Belfast City on FR6128 18 months ago has got to be the most incredible take off I've ever experienced, I don't recall hearing or feeling a reduction in power until nearly at cruise alt. We we're 2 hours late leaving due to snow at Stansted delaying the outbound and you could tell the pilots wanted to get home.