Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Static Takeoff Vs Rolling Takeoff  
User currently offlineaerotech777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11080 times:

Hi,

Takeoff procedure 1: Engines at idle and brakes on. You release the brakes and then you advance the throttles to an intermediate thrust setting (40%N1 or 50%N1, EPR?). Once you reach this thrust on all engines, you apply takeoff thrust.

Takeoff procedure 2: With the brakes on and engines at idle you advance the throttles to an intermediate thrust setting. Once you reach this thrust on all engines, you release the brakes and then you apply takeoff thrust.

Are both takeoff procedures (1&2) considered static takeoff?

Reading from some posts, it seems the rolling takeoff is the recommended procedure. Is this true? Or is it up to the crew to decide between the rolling and the static takeoff?

Is it recommended to apply the 2 steps takeoff procedure (intermediate thrust: 40/50 N, then takeoff thrust) on both types of takeoff procedure?

When and how often the static takeoff is used (besides short runway)?

Feedback appreciated.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6956 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 11063 times:

#1 takes less time... and smoother (for pax)
#2 takes less distance... and not good on a "low fuel take off" (for ferrying).

Quoting aerotech777 (Thread starter):
When and how often the static takeoff is used (besides short runway)?

As often as when you need every available inch of runway !   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineLemmy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10978 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 1):
#2 takes less distance... and not good on a "low fuel take off" (for ferrying).

Why is that? Because it uses more fuel, or maybe because the acceleration makes what little fuel you have "slosh" and uncover a fuel pump? Just guessing.



I am a patient boy ...
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6956 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10931 times:

Quoting Lemmy (Reply 2):
Just guessing.

Correct guess... on the FCTM I got for the 732, it specifies that as a reason...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 648 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 10834 times:

Quoting aerotech777 (Thread starter):
Reading from some posts, it seems the rolling takeoff is the recommended procedure. Is this true? Or is it up to the crew to decide between the rolling and the static takeoff?

It can be up to the crew, but it is also subject to SOPs of the airline and restrictions by the airframer or the engine manufacturer. Engine companies use rolling T/O procedures to mitigate inlet distortion from crosswinds which can destabilize the engine



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3344 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10813 times:

So I think this is probably an appropriate question to put in here:

What are the actual performance gains on a static takeoff vs. rolling? How many feet of improvement can you expect to see on a given aircraft (meaning if you have experience with a certain aircraft, what is your first hand experience)? I'm aware this is always dependent on load and any number of other factors like wind, but all other things being equal, what sort of gains would one see?

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10796 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):
What are the actual performance gains on a static takeoff vs. rolling? How many feet of improvement can you expect to see on a given aircraft

As a rule of thumb, on a rolling takeoff you will basically give up the distance between where you advanced the engines to takeoff thrust. You need to get to the same speed either way and you use comparatively little distance during the low speed roll...the vast majority of the takeoff distance will be determined by your time at takeoff thrust. If you are 500' farther down the runway when you hit full thrust, you're going to give up about 500' compared to the static equivalent.

Tom.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21798 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 10672 times:

Quoting aerotech777 (Thread starter):
Are both takeoff procedures (1&2) considered static takeoff?

Not really. A true static takeoff is when you hold the brakes, apply takeoff thrust (even if you stop at an intermediate position to verify things are working properly, you'll still hold the brakes until you get the thrust all the way up), then release the brakes (gently, to avoid being slammed back into your seat) and off you go.

We do it whenever runway length is an issue. If I'm calculating I need more than two-thirds of the runway for takeoff, I'll probably be doing a static takeoff, particularly if the runway is wet.

A rolling takeoff (similar to your scenario #1) is my preferred option for takeoff, though.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefoxxray From France, joined May 2005, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10379 times:

Quoting aerotech777 (Thread starter):
Reading from some posts, it seems the rolling takeoff is the recommended procedure. Is this true? Or is it up to the crew to decide between the rolling and the static takeoff?

Rolling takeoff are mostly done on request from the atc (because of an aircraft on short final for example) or just to gain time !


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10354 times:

We used to fly a noise abatement t/o in the 727 in Long Beach, I believe, that required a static t/o but is the only time I've ever done it. I would think if your t/o requires a static t/o for other than what I just posted I'd reevaluate that t/o.  Wow!

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10340 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
Not really. A true static takeoff is when you hold the brakes, apply takeoff thrust (even if you stop at an intermediate position to verify things are working properly, you'll still hold the brakes until you get the thrust all the way up), then release the brakes (gently, to avoid being slammed back into your seat) and off you go.

I know that there are fighters whose brakes can't hold the bird back with full thrust (i.e. you will go down the runway, tires locked but smoking). Wonder if there are airliners (well, other than Concorde  ) that also fall into this boat...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 9):
We used to fly a noise abatement t/o in the 727 in Long Beach, I believe, that required a static t/o but is the only time I've ever done it. I would think if your t/o requires a static t/o for other than what I just posted I'd reevaluate that t/o. Wow!

Don't they often do static takeoffs at SNA? I have experienced a few rolling takeoffs there, but I thought it's still mostly static run-ups.


User currently offlineaerotech777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9689 times:

Thank you for your feedback.

It seems that Boeing is saying there is negligible difference (less than 50ft) regarding the takeoff roll between the standing takeoff and the rolling takeoff.

If Boeing statement is true and the difference is 50 ft between the static and rolling takeoff, how much this distance will reduce the RTOW or the noise (noise abatement takeoff)?

Feedback appreciated.


User currently offlineairbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

For my aircraft static takeoff when:

LVP (rvr 400m or less)
ATS INOP
performance limited weight and actual weight within 300kg
Icing conditions
Slippery/contaminated rwy


Also all TL tables are based on static to.

[Edited 2011-11-04 16:25:33]


FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8951 times:

Wouldn't a Static T/O assist in case EPR/N1 does not register & avoid a higher speed reject......Just wondering.....


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8918 times:

I remember on another site a pilot quoting from the 737-700FCOM,

Quote:
"A rolling takeoff is recommended for setting takeoff thrust. It
expedites takeoff and reduces risk of foreign object damage or
engine surge/stall due to a crosswind. The change in takeoff roll
due to the rolling takeoff procedure is negligible when compared to
a standing takeoff."
"Allowing the engines to stabilize for more than approximately 2
seconds prior to advancing thrust levers to takeoff thrust may
adversely affect rolling takeoff distance."

The risk of FoD with static take-off is not negligable it seems;
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ng%20737-436,%20G-DOCT%2006-07.pdf



[edit post]
User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8771 times:

plus, are there any break heating issues?
I would assume that in static take offs you have more heat generated in the brakes?


User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

Are there any situations where you would apply full take-off power before releasing the breaks?
If so I would imagine the Airbus departures from LCY would be a possible.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8432 times:

Quoting AT (Reply 16):

I don't think this will generate significant, if any heat in the brakes. Heat in the brakes is caused by the conversion of kinetic energy (from aircraft motion) into heat energy. If the aircraft is stopped and the brakes are on, the brake pads arent generating any heat, they are simply holding the wheels in place.


User currently offlineaerotech777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Hi,

How often (approximate percentage if possible) do you use static takeoff versus rolling takeoff?

Feedback appreciated.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4841 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8260 times:

I'd say 75% of the time rolling takeoffs, 20% position on runway with brakes then release with throttle, 5% static/power on brakes.
Of that 75% figure about 50/50 in terms of throttles advanced to intermediate setting just prior to actually being on centerline, othertimes just advancing. It does help with expediting a departure, saves on fuel and doesn't really carry any significant impact on safety (as others have mentioned it has some safety benefits also).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8070 times:

Ive never done one in the jet. If the numbers look tight, just increase the thrust mode.


It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Static Takeoff Vs Rolling Takeoff
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...
757 Vs. MD-90 For The Takeoff Crown? posted Sun Sep 21 2008 17:39:49 by EA772LR
Flaps Landing Vs Flaps Takeoff posted Fri Oct 29 2004 01:23:19 by Flybynight
Takeoff Vs Landing posted Sun Sep 17 2000 14:27:16 by FG
Losing An Engine On Takeoff: Abort Or Floor It? posted Tue Oct 11 2011 18:49:17 by bigphilnyc
Impact Of Gradient On Takeoff And Landing B777 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 22:05:52 by mpvincent
Spoilers Used During Takeoff? posted Mon Aug 22 2011 16:51:32 by cc2314
A320 Takeoff Power posted Thu Jul 14 2011 18:11:10 by Machnumber
Is This A Normal 747sp Takeoff Roll? posted Tue Jul 5 2011 14:31:01 by 747400sp
Takeoff Thrust Application/abort: Your Company SOP posted Sun May 15 2011 21:15:29 by WestJetForLife
Vertical Takeoff/Landing Short Haul posted Wed Mar 30 2011 18:44:57 by Miercat

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format