Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8116 times:

I have been seeing, that first gen wide bodies, use a lot of runway. Now I understand why a 747 take up almost all of a runway, because they are design for long trans Atlantic and Trans Pacific flights, from large airports like JFK, LAX, LHR and NRT. Now L1011, DC10 and A300 was design to fly from smaller like LGA, yet they are almost as big of dogs as a 747, so why are the smaller first gen wide such dogs?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinebaje427 From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

I am no expert but could it be a result of the older generation engines they have .

User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 576 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7912 times:

Engine life is extended by using reduced thrust for takeoff. Basically, when there is plenty of runway and the aircraft is less than maximum weight, you can calculate a takeoff thrust reduction that produces the minimum required climb performance which is roughly equal to a fully loaded plane at maximum power.

Of course, the mentioned models of aircraft also had engines that were rated at less power than is commonly available today on the newest engine varients.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

As 113312 mentions, reducing thrust has a lot to do with it. Airlines save big money on engine maintenance by using lower thrust and thus more runway. Also a longer run typically means higher climb speed later in the ascent. No point using all the thrust available if it is not needed.

Sure, those airliners cantake off from LGA, but they would probably not be able to cross the Atlantic from LA with any useful payload.

As for a 747 being a dog, that really depends on reduced thrust and weight. If you're doing LAX-SYD of course a lot of runway is used no matter what. If you're doing NRT-KIX with the same aircraft it can really leap off the runway.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7627 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now L1011, DC10 and A300 was design to fly from smaller like LGA, yet they are almost as big of dogs as a 747, so why are the smaller first gen wide such dogs?


The L-1011, DC-10 and A300 replaced the 707, DC-8, and VC10 and were more efficient in every way than those earlier generation jets. They in turn have been replaced by even more efficient airliners like the 777 and the A330 which are soon to be eclipsed by the 787 and A350, that is called progress!

If you think the L-1011, DC-10 and A300 are dogs I must assume that you have never flown on a A340-200?


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7575 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 4):
If you think the L-1011, DC-10 and A300 are dogs I must assume that you have never flown on a A340-200?

The A340 gets into ground effect on its own, and then only climbs due to the curvature of the earth.   

If you think the early widebodies are dogs, look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O20fo-WqRmc



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently onlineandz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8469 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6326 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A300 in 1976 was far less of a dog out of JNB than the 340 is today.

747? From -200 to -400 they leapt off this high elevation runway, something a 340 can only dream of.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

If you're an airline, you don't want a two-seat, 600HP twin-turbo Ferrari that screams down the runway into the hanger to see the mechanic, you want a van or pick-up truck that will carry enough load to make you money with a smaller engine as will do the job efficiently and cheaply.


Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 7):
If you're an airline, you don't want a two-seat, 600HP twin-turbo Ferrari that screams down the runway into the hanger to see the mechanic, you want a van or pick-up truck that will carry enough load to make you money with a smaller engine as will do the job efficiently and cheaply.



I guess, that why 739/A321 are replacing 757 200s.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 7):

That's good. Airlines want pickups, not sports cars...not that pickups don't have plenty of power available...they just use what they need, which is usually less than what is available.

The go fast handle is also the fuel economy and engine life handle.



What the...?
User currently offlinedc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

None of these aircraft are dogs except for one; DC-10-40's operated by Northwest Orient. A former Captain told me the P/W power plants were a bit underpowered. The -40s flown by JAL were fine because it's engines were rated for higher thrust.

User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5870 times:

I can only speak for the A300, and she's very far indeed from being a dog. With 2 x 50K dangling under the wings she can do the rocket trick, if asked to do so. Tthe A300 has a pretty advanced wing, allowing a no-flap slats only take-off under certain conditions. Obviously that will extend take-off roll, but airliners are not in the business of putting on a show for the sportters  

The main point is however, that as an airline you're paying for the whole runway, not just half or 2/3rds of it, so why not use it all? Flex/de-rate as much as possible, saving big bucks on maintenance, and do what the thing is built to do - namely making money for the owners.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
I can only speak for the A300, and she's very far indeed from being a dog. With 2 x 50K dangling under the wings she can do the rocket trick, if asked to do so. Tthe A300 has a pretty advanced wing, allowing a no-flap slats only take-off under certain conditions. Obviously that will extend take-off roll, but airliners are not in the business of putting on a show for the sportters

I've seen A300s do some very short takeoffs (go watch some FX ops... if the plane isn't fully loaded those guys go up fast.


Also, to be honest I've never heard the term 'dog' used in this way, but I assume you mean an airliner that is underpowered and requires a lot of runway to take off?

I think in the end it is more a function of fuel and payload weight, not of the aircraft itself.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9827 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

The DC10 & L1011 max out their engine capability in the same way the 747-100/200/300 does. All have rather weak runway performance since the engines are heavy fuel burners and are lower in thrust than more modern engines. In reality however, minimum runway length is not changing with new designs. Minimum takeoff runway lengths are increasing from what they were in the 60s when the DC10 and L1011 were designed. There isn't hardly an airport in the world that warrants widebody service and has a runway shorter than 9,000 ft. We have been accustomed to twins with much higher thrust to weight ratios because that is required for ETOPS and engine out performance. In reality, an airplane slower to takeoff is more efficient. Aviation fans hate it, but there is a reason why airlines are replacing 757s with lower powered 737s and A320s.

Quoting andz (Reply 6):
A300 in 1976 was far less of a dog out of JNB than the 340 is today.

Any twin is going to have better takeoff performance than a quad (except the specially designed Avros). The reason is engine out performance. It has to climb on 50% thrust instead of 75% thrust.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineFriendlySkiesUK From UK - England, joined Jul 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 12):
I've seen A300s do some very short takeoffs (go watch some FX ops... if the plane isn't fully loaded those guys go up fast.

You want a quick take off? Try flying on a Monarch Airlines A300, admittedly not a first generation A300 (they operate the Airbus A300-600R’s) but boy can those birds get off the runways quickly and the climb out – simply amazing!

I once flew on an L1011 (CKT) out of Dalaman (Turkey) and I was alarmed by just how much of the runway we seemed to use up – but as B777LRF said the airline is paying for the whole runway length so I guess they should use as much as possible and get the most for their money...  



Katie
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13):
Minimum takeoff runway lengths are increasing from what they were in the 60s when the DC10 and L1011 were designed. There isn't hardly an airport in the world that warrants widebody service and has a runway shorter than 9,000 ft.

Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a bit.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5327 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a

Only in their original configuration. The weight increases of follow-on models made them too heavy for LGA .


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5293 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 16):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a

Only in their original configuration. The weight increases of follow-on models made them too heavy for LGA .

Fair point. However the design was still originally for LGA. Perhaps it would otherwise have been different, with a knock-on effect on the heavier versions.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5066 times:

Quoting dc863 (Reply 10):
None of these aircraft are dogs except for one; DC-10-40's operated by Northwest Orient. A former Captain told me the P/W power plants were a bit underpowered. The -40s flown by JAL were fine because it's engines were rated for higher thrust.

NWs DC10-40s were flying some long stage lengths, too, save fuel on take-off in case the weather at your destination changes in the hours it takes to get there.

Not all DC10s were that way. I was on a UA DC10 (a -10 I'm assuming) on a CLE-TPA flight that was lightly populated. Halfway down the runway the pilot set it on its tail and I could barely lift my head off the seatback until we leveled off a few minutes later.



Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 18):
NWs DC10-40s were flying some long stage lengths, too, save fuel on take-off in case the weather at your destination changes in the hours it takes to get there.

Not all DC10s were that way. I was on a UA DC10 (a -10 I'm assuming) on a CLE-TPA flight that was lightly populated. Halfway down the runway the pilot set it on its tail and I could barely lift my head off the seatback until we leveled off a few minutes later.

Now that what I call a good climb out!    You sure you was not on a DC10 30, because that sound like the pilots had a lot of power at there fingertips.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?
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...
Are The L1011 Windows Bigger Than A 747 Windows? posted Sat Sep 6 2008 17:57:20 by 747400sp
Why Are Some Afterburners Blue And Some Orange? posted Wed Jan 30 2008 06:38:42 by CHRISBA777ER
How Are The CRJ-700 And Dash 8 Mx-wise? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 01:28:20 by KBFIspotter
Why Are The TF-39 On C-5 Galaxy So Loud? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 18:02:08 by 747400sp
Why Are There Multiple Codes For The Same Airport? posted Tue Apr 20 2010 10:11:50 by RobertS975
Seaplanes And Flying Boats (What Are The Obstacle) posted Sat Feb 17 2007 02:23:21 by Blackbird
How Similar Are The 707 And The 720? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 19:28:57 by Duke
Why Is The TF-34 Such A Low Powered Engine? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 05:16:18 by 747400sp
Why Four Rotating Beacons On The L1011? posted Wed May 4 2005 22:59:19 by JumboJim747
DC10 And The Famous Cargo Doors. posted Fri Jul 2 2004 13:21:53 by Dakotasport

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format