Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-400 Takeoff Length Differences  
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5383 times:

Just an interesting observation on the takeoff roll lengths of my past 2 747 flights last week.

1. LAX-ICN on OZ 744. Flight time: 12:50 for about a 6,000 mile journey

I was seated in the F cabin so I had a great view of the runway. We hear all the time that the 747 is a dog on long heavy flights, but I was amazed that we lifted off Runway 24L at the "3" marker, which means we had about 3,000 ft of runway left. By doing the math, we only needed about 7,200 ft to take off on this fairly long flight.

2. SYD-LAX on UA 744. Flight Time: 12:48 for about a 7,500 mile journey

Surprisingly, this flight took much more room and at rotation only had about 2,500 ft of runway left on Runway 34L, which is 13,000 ft long.


Now both flights had roughly the same flight time length, load factor, elevation, temperature at takeoff and winds were less than 10 mph on both segments.

Now I know a lot of variables can go into takeoff calculations and whatnot, but I just thought it was an interesting observation that one flight used so much more runway than the other given many similar variables. Granted I do not know anything about the cargo loads. I'm 99% both flights used a de-rated takeoff as well.

Just my observation for my trip. Great flights on both though  


Christopher W Slovacek
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Thread starter):
I'm 99% both flights used a de-rated takeoff as well

Well there you go. With a longer runway you can de-rate more. Temperature, engine type, and obstacles could also play a roll.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1959 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5125 times:

First off, even though the flight times were close there are still a lot of variables which might explain the difference.

Secondly, thrust reductions are based in large part on runway length. An airplane on a longer runway will generally use a lower takeoff thrust setting to save wear on the engines, making the takeoff roll longer. The 747 often uses "assumed temperature" reduced thrust methods, which give operators a wide range of thrust setting availability up to a 25% de-rate.

In short, if more runway is available, a large jet is usually going to make use of the extra length to save wear on its engines. It's not just a "full thrust" or "reduced thrust" 2 way choice, there are more options than that.

Look up "balanced field length" for more information. There is some calculus involved in runway performance calculations and there are many variables involved (contaminated runways, rising terrain, atmospheric conditions, aircraft center of gravity and weight, engine performance, different flap settings, noise abatement profiles, etc etc).

[Edited 2011-11-18 16:41:33]

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4755 times:

You basically did the same takeoff each time...you were just looking at the wrong parameter for "same":

Quoting DFWHeavy (Thread starter):
1. LAX-ICN on OZ 744...we had about 3,000 ft of runway left
Quoting DFWHeavy (Thread starter):
2. SYD-LAX on UA 744..had about 2,500 ft of runway left

Notice that you were very close to the same distance remaining each time...since these were flight of similar duration, weights were probably close. Braking distances depend almost entirely on weight (and not at all on thrust selection). In both cases, you rotated with about the same distance remaining and, to respect climb requirements, probably at about the same speed.

The runways were different lengths so it took different thrusts to have the airplane reach rotation speed at the right point on the runway, hence the different length takeoff rolls.

There are tons of other factors involved, as other posters have already pointed out, but the basic scenario is that you want to use all the runway you have available and still be safe.

Tom.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4200 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

This is likely simply the difference between a full power flaps 20 takeoff and a reduced power flaps 10 takeoff.  


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

I appreciate the responses and thank everyone for their input. Some have explained it quite well. It appears both probably uses different de-rate settings to achieve takeoff with about the same amount of runway remaining.

Again, I thought it was just kind of interesting to the the variance in takeoff on a relatively similar flight.

Both flights were a blast  



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4401 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Thread starter):
We hear all the time that the 747 is a dog on long heavy flights

You won't hear that all the time on this forum. As you found out the 747 can be a good performer if it needs to be, but if more runway is available why use more thrust than is necessary to take off safely?



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747-400 Takeoff Length Differences
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...
747-400 Mtow Differences posted Wed Jun 18 2008 10:01:02 by Xerses
747-400 Minimum Take Off Length posted Sat Sep 30 2000 21:33:45 by SW737-700
747-400 Take-off Performance Tables posted Sun Apr 24 2011 13:48:30 by B737200
747-400 Questions posted Thu Mar 31 2011 22:05:23 by alaska737
Common Type Rating 747-400 And 747-8. posted Thu Jun 17 2010 02:51:55 by 747classic
United Airlines 747-400 Procedures posted Thu Feb 18 2010 13:30:57 by qantas744ER
747-400 Independent Gear Retract/extend posted Wed Feb 3 2010 14:55:19 by Njxc500
747-400 Startup posted Sat Jan 2 2010 02:32:51 by Kimon
LCD 747-400 / 800 posted Thu Dec 24 2009 15:17:37 by Kimon
747-400 CDU posted Thu Mar 26 2009 23:11:31 by Jumboforever

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format