Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unbalanced Field Length, Any Difference?  
User currently offlinesmartt1982 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

With being presented an unbalanced field length, do we actually get any extra benefit if we have more of one thing than the other e.g. clearway/stop way.

Do the figures (V1) look any different if we are still constricted to keep it balanced i.e. the distance for the stop case still needs to be the same as the distance for the go case?

Does this impede/restrict aircraft performance because you cant take advantage of the extra bit of stopway/clearway if you only have one of them, as in you could take that extra weight if you for example defiantly knew you wouldn’t have to stop on the runway but not in the other case?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):

With being presented an unbalanced field length, do we actually get any extra benefit if we have more of one thing than the other e.g. clearway/stop way.

Yes. Stopway counts as clearyway (since a stopway is obviously clear) but not the other way...so having more stopway gives you the benefit of the stopway (more stopping distance available) *and* the benefit of the equivalent clearway (since you can fly over it). Having more clearway only gives you an advantage on obstacle clearance but not on stopping distance.

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
Do the figures (V1) look any different if we are still constricted to keep it balanced i.e. the distance for the stop case still needs to be the same as the distance for the go case?

If you're constrained to stay balanced you'll be forced to the more restrictive of the two. It should be a lower V1 for extra clearway than for extra stopway.

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
Does this impede/restrict aircraft performance because you cant take advantage of the extra bit of stopway/clearway if you only have one of them, as in you could take that extra weight if you for example defiantly knew you wouldn’t have to stop on the runway but not in the other case?

Yes. To take full advantage of a clearway you need to do an unbalanced field calculation (if your limit is obstacle clearance or stopping distance). If your limit is Vmcg, tire speed, brake energy, etc. then it may not make any difference.

Tom.


User currently offlinesmartt1982 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Again, thanks Tom,

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1):
If you're constrained to stay balanced you'll be forced to the more restrictive of the two. It should be a lower V1 for extra clearway than for extra stopway.

Is there anyway to know if the calculations are based on a balanced calculation or not? All I know is that we go into a regulated take off weight chart/table for the runway we are using


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 2):
Is there anyway to know if the calculations are based on a balanced calculation or not?

Not from just looking at the speeds. If you have access to the all-engine go/one-engine stop/one-engine go distances you can tell (for example, the Boeing Onboard Performance Tool or Boeing Laptop Tool provide this data). Or you can ask the person doing the performance calculations. But I don't know of a way, a priori, to know just by looking at the speeds.

Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 2):
All I know is that we go into a regulated take off weight chart/table for the runway we are using

Best bet is to talk to the people who did the chart. If it's a Boeing stock chart, I believe they default to balanced field and I believe Airbus defaults to unbalanced field, but I'm not positive about that.

Tom.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Best bet is to talk to the people who did the chart. If it's a Boeing stock chart, I believe they default to balanced field and I believe Airbus defaults to unbalanced field, but I'm not positive about that.

If "Improved Climb Take Off" is unbalanced, then Airbus' is unbalanced, as their default take off tables already include improved climb. The Airbus tables is "maximum load possible for a given runway length", either TOD limited, or ASD limited, or climb gradient limited, and there's a limit code in the table depicting which limitation it's at for whichever scenario. But the TOD limit or ASD limit is based on TORA, not TODA or ASDA.
Can't be bothered to look at them at the moment as bed is waiting for me, so, don't blame me if the above are way off!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 4):
If "Improved Climb Take Off" is unbalanced, then Airbus' is unbalanced, as their default take off tables already include improved climb.

Yes, an improved climb takeoff is unbalanced.

Tom.


User currently offlinesmartt1982 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Yes, an improved climb takeoff is unbalanced

Is that the only/majority of the time were there is an unbalance?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 6):

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Yes, an improved climb takeoff is unbalanced

Is that the only/majority of the time were there is an unbalance?

That would depend, a lot, on individual airline procedure. From a performance standpoint that's probably the most common reason to do an unbalanced takeoff but I don't know what actually drives it most in practice.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Unbalanced Field Length, Any Difference?
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...
A319 Landing Field Length posted Fri Oct 20 2006 23:47:55 by Vmcg
757 And 767 RB211 Is There Any Difference In Size? posted Mon Jun 19 2006 14:38:00 by Edumotoki
Any Difference In Handling This Jet posted Thu Mar 24 2005 19:26:23 by HAWK21M
747-100 Vs 747-200. Any Difference? posted Sat Oct 27 2001 10:54:44 by Funny
Balanced Field Length posted Sun Mar 4 2001 10:34:31 by Skwpilot
Difference Of Length Btween B707-138B And B720B posted Sun Sep 28 2003 17:24:43 by Dennys
Minumum Take Off And Landing Length posted Wed May 30 2012 18:04:25 by FlyIndia
Any News About The GEnx-2B PIP? posted Thu May 17 2012 03:58:52 by 747classic
Any Airworthy R-4360 Wasp Major Engines? posted Sun May 13 2012 04:32:34 by CrimsonNL
Difference Between Runway And Departure posted Tue Apr 24 2012 05:50:54 by smartt1982

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format