USAirwaysCLT From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 28 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4754 times:
Here I go again... with different aircraft this time though
In my performance sheets for the A319 - A321, it says that the normal climb speed for the aircraft at "medium" weight is 250kts-->10,000ft and then 300kts from 10,000ft and up. I tried it recently and after I passed FL100, N1 went all the way up to 99% and stayed there.
I know that climb rates/speeds depend on many factors: weight, winds, weather, etc... I was wondering if someone who flies these aircraft could help me out as to a general rule of thumb to follow when deciding what climb speed to use. I.E. 260,270,280,290,300+
Thanks guys for all your help.
P.S. I know you cannot give me a definite or exact answer but something as in a ball-park figure would help. Oh, and one more thing. The A319-112 that I downloaded from IFDG says that its powered by two CFM56-5B5 rated at 26,500lbs thrust, while the CFM56 website says that the 5B5 is rated at 22,000lbs thrust. Please help. Thanks so much.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4623 times:
Flying the actual aircraft the thing to do is let the flight management computer call the speed. Climb power setting will not be affected by the speed used or by the weight lifted, but by atmospheric conditions - temperature and pressure and by the cost index entered. Your 99% does sound way too high. OTTOMH I'd expect to see something in the high 80s.
Above ten, I would expect to see climb speeds more like 280-290 for higher weights, on up to 310-320 being more common. Exception; to expedite a climb we will dial in lower speeds, all the way down to "green dot" which is L/DMAX and will be down around 240 or so. We will then pay the price for this because it will take long minutes to crawl back up out of this energy-debt. Don't mean to bash Airbus at all, but it is a bit of a pig in the climb at higher altitudes.
In fact, actual numbers from two days ago: Medium-heavy load, only ten open seats or so, fuel for a three hour flight plus alternate and reserves and we went from brake release at sea level to FL350 uninterrupted. It took 37 minutes to climb and covered 251 miles. That is 946 feet per minute and less than 140 feet per nautical mile climb gradient overall. There was only one turn made during this climb. By contrast, I once did the same leg in a 767 and went from brake release to FL400 in 16 minutes, considerably less than half the time which calculates to 2500fpm overall.
Sorry but the company does not give us full performance charts anymore, at least for this plane. I'm just relying on memory here.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
USAirwaysCLT From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4561 times:
Thanks for that info. That made total sense. I have to agree with you on the performance. I did my flight from CLT to PHX and it took me approx. 28 min to get to FL350. I had loaded the plane with 90% pax capacity.
At least now I have an idea of what to go on and plan for.