A UPS flight a few days ago GSO-SDF, Flightaware had a hard time keeping up with the speed. Max takeoff followed by shallow climb then pull up with 4-5000 fpm climb with a slight level off at 20,000 to gain speed then a pull zoom climb reaching over 6000 fpm climb. Time to FL 320 less than 8 minutes! Guess it was a lightly loaded flight. Wish I had that job!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS ... F/tracklog

Last week, TUPJ to EGGP, sea level to F450 in 27 minutes, non-stop climb at .85.

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was
"Has somebody drawn another penis on FR24 ?"

Probably just ADS-B data inaccuracies

This is pretty typical of cargo operators, particularly at night with low chance of traffic conflicts. If they have a light load, they almost always climb at 3,000-4,000+ fpm, more if they're able. I see this regularly with both UPS and FedEx. The level-offs was almost certainly waiting on the next facility to take the handoff and the delay in the transfer of communications. Sometimes they climb so quickly they they'll level before the next controller has a chance to keep the climb going.

Only reason this plane stopped at FL 320 was the length of flight, it could have easily reached up over FL 400. The 757 is approved to FL 420.

FJL767400 wrote:

Probably just ADS-B data inaccuracies

There are a lot of ADS-B inaccuracies posted on this forum, but I'm willing to bet this one is legit based on my experience working these flights at night. Cargo guys and gals love to fly their airplanes.

atcsundevil wrote:

This is pretty typical of cargo operators, particularly at night with low chance of traffic conflicts. If they have a light load, they almost always climb at 3,000-4,000+ fpm, more if they're able. I see this regularly with both UPS and FedEx. The level-offs was almost certainly waiting on the next facility to take the handoff and the delay in the transfer of communications. Sometimes they climb so quickly they they'll level before the next controller has a chance to keep the climb going.

Adds to the lore of the 757.

Quicker to cruise, lower the fuel expense, makes sense.

william wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This is pretty typical of cargo operators, particularly at night with low chance of traffic conflicts. If they have a light load, they almost always climb at 3,000-4,000+ fpm, more if they're able. I see this regularly with both UPS and FedEx. The level-offs was almost certainly waiting on the next facility to take the handoff and the delay in the transfer of communications. Sometimes they climb so quickly they they'll level before the next controller has a chance to keep the climb going.

Adds to the lore of the 757.

Quicker to cruise, lower the fuel expense, makes sense.

Absolutely, although they seem to climb well with most of their fleet (UPS and FDX), the MD and 76 notwithstanding. Even the A300 does pretty well for herself, which is impressive since Airbus aircraft aren't generally known for their climb performance!

MD-11 can be amazing.

Check out the landing speed! 105-110 kt ground speed, assuming a stiff 20 kt headwind that is still 130 kt or less vref. The 757 is known for takeoff performance but is equally capable on landing. I've seen 757s get down and stopped in 3000'

Aren't they all having fun being 757 pilots?

One time I saw a cargo 757 climb a ladder over the airport to like.... 4000?

Lately I've been watching FedEx 757s departing GRR for RST (Rochester, MN) presumably ferrying empty or continuing to RST lightly loaded. Routinely they rotate before the 3000 ft runway marker- and the climb... Wow! I would LOVE to be in the jump seat!

william wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This is pretty typical of cargo operators, particularly at night with low chance of traffic conflicts. If they have a light load, they almost always climb at 3,000-4,000+ fpm, more if they're able. I see this regularly with both UPS and FedEx. The level-offs was almost certainly waiting on the next facility to take the handoff and the delay in the transfer of communications. Sometimes they climb so quickly they they'll level before the next controller has a chance to keep the climb going.

Adds to the lore of the 757.

Quicker to cruise, lower the fuel expense, makes sense.

Wears the turbine and compressor blades faster, tho.

Thought this is why we have flex climb, etc.

32andBelow wrote:

The air transport (Amazon) 767s that take off empty on short flights are crazy. 6000fpm+

I don't work them too often, but I believe it. I think the technical term is "space shuttle status".

Revelation wrote:

william wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This is pretty typical of cargo operators, particularly at night with low chance of traffic conflicts. If they have a light load, they almost always climb at 3,000-4,000+ fpm, more if they're able. I see this regularly with both UPS and FedEx. The level-offs was almost certainly waiting on the next facility to take the handoff and the delay in the transfer of communications. Sometimes they climb so quickly they they'll level before the next controller has a chance to keep the climb going.

Adds to the lore of the 757.

Quicker to cruise, lower the fuel expense, makes sense.

Wears the turbine and compressor blades faster, tho.

Thought this is why we have flex climb, etc.

How? The RPMs should be the same. The thicker air?

I've seen a FX 757 at DEN take off on one of the east runways and turn to the west. It was already at 9000 before it left the western edge of the airport.

william wrote:

Revelation wrote:

william wrote:

Adds to the lore of the 757.

Quicker to cruise, lower the fuel expense, makes sense.

Wears the turbine and compressor blades faster, tho.

Thought this is why we have flex climb, etc.

How? The RPMs should be the same. The thicker air?

Faster climb = more power needed = higher temp and stress = more wear.

slcguy wrote:

Check out the landing speed! 105-110 kt ground speed, assuming a stiff 20 kt headwind that is still 130 kt or less vref. The 757 is known for takeoff performance but is equally capable on landing. I've seen 757s get down and stopped in 3000'

The Metar at the time and landing on 35 would indicate only 3-4 kts of headwind, low ground speed would suggest lightly loaded.

07/01/2022 08:56->
METAR KSDF 070856Z 28010KT 9SM -SN OVC023 M10/M14 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP252 P0000 60000 T11001144 51017 $=

If you can't have some fun now and then...

slcguy wrote:

Check out the landing speed! 105-110 kt ground speed, assuming a stiff 20 kt headwind that is still 130 kt or less vref. The 757 is known for takeoff performance but is equally capable on landing. I've seen 757s get down and stopped in 3000'

I miss the ATA 757-200/-300 days into / out of KMDW. Was always a lot of fun and showed the incredible performance of the 757

It's surprising how quickly an empty airliner can climb. A 744 with no payload and a light fuel load can reach FL410 in less than 15 minutes.

atcsundevil wrote:

FJL767400 wrote:

Probably just ADS-B data inaccuracies

There are a lot of ADS-B inaccuracies posted on this forum, but I'm willing to bet this one is legit based on my experience working these flights at night. Cargo guys and gals love to fly their airplanes.

Pax guys and gals love to fly their airplanes too.
Doesn’t have much to do with cargo or not, it has to do with aircraft performance.

Brings back memories of the rocket like 757 takeoffs when I used to fly out of SFO in the 1990’s. Sadly I now live in a part of the world where the bird is all but extinct.

atcsundevil wrote:

Absolutely, although they seem to climb well with most of their fleet (UPS and FDX), the MD and 76 notwithstanding. Even the A300 does pretty well for herself, which is impressive since Airbus aircraft aren't generally known for their climb performance!

Shouldn't aircraft with lightly loaded wings climb better than the ones with heavily loaded wings? I thought Airbus designed their aircraft to have light wing loadings.

I once had the pleasure to jumpseat in the cockpit of a lightly loaded 777F flying from East Midlands to Leipzig, we climbed in excess of 6000fpm for a big part of that climb. Felt like a fighter jet!

PolarRoute wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Absolutely, although they seem to climb well with most of their fleet (UPS and FDX), the MD and 76 notwithstanding. Even the A300 does pretty well for herself, which is impressive since Airbus aircraft aren't generally known for their climb performance!

Shouldn't aircraft with lightly loaded wings climb better than the ones with heavily loaded wings? I thought Airbus designed their aircraft to have light wing loadings.

I think the issue tends to be more with the engines rather than the wings. In my experience, most Airbus types have pretty poor climb rates in general, especially on warmer days.

atcsundevil wrote:

FJL767400 wrote:

Probably just ADS-B data inaccuracies

There are a lot of ADS-B inaccuracies posted on this forum, but I'm willing to bet this one is legit based on my experience working these flights at night. Cargo guys and gals love to fly their airplanes.

That is an understatement.

I was jumpseat in a 773 and we got off the ground in 2000 ft! Even the capt rated co pilot was amazed!

"It's fun until someone gets hurt" - Every Mother on earth

Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Last week, TUPJ to EGGP, sea level to F450 in 27 minutes, non-stop climb at .85.

Now you're just showing off!

Cool story..
Back in the late 90’s I was in college at ERAU in Daytona. My mother worked for a major airline and I guess they had a 757 which was chartered from DFW to MCO. She called me since I wasn’t far in Daytona and said do you want to go for a ride? Without hesitation I hopped in the car and headed for MCO. After this charter flight from DFW, the 757 was being ferried from MCO to STL with nothing more than the pilots, and 5 or so flight attendants…..and now me in the jump seat. It was a very early morning departure without any other traffic in site. This is where the fun begins and I will never forget this. As we are taxiing towards the end of the runway, the captain requests a “high performance takeoff” in which tower got back to us approving the request and also worked out an unrestricted climb to 14,000 with tracon. The pilots stood on the brakes with the throttle up and the airplane was bouncing and shaking just waiting for the brakes to be released. We start rolling and it was the shortest takeoff roll I have ever experienced……and I fly Cessna 172’s!!! From the jump seat I was only able to see the old analog backup vsi in the middle, but it was pegged at 6,000fpm all the way up to 140!! What we were actually climbing at I will never know, but it was absolutely insane. I will never forget that experience on N706TW.

Twins, due to OEI certification rules, have tons on excess thrust on both engines.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Twins, due to OEI certification rules, have tons on excess thrust on both engines.

So why are 737-900s and A321 dogs, comparatively speaking when it comes to climbing? They must be able to takeoff with an engine out.

The MD80 could climb like a scalded cat too.......at least the first couple of thousand feet.

william wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Twins, due to OEI certification rules, have tons on excess thrust on both engines.

So why are 737-900s and A321 dogs, comparatively speaking when it comes to climbing? They must be able to takeoff with an engine out.

The MD80 could climb like a scalded cat too.......at least the first couple of thousand feet.

I think it's due to the OP wing that is fitted on to the 757. I think it's 767 wing bolted on to a 737. If you look at the wing surface area I think the 737 has the smallest then a321 finally 757

atcsundevil wrote:

PolarRoute wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Absolutely, although they seem to climb well with most of their fleet (UPS and FDX), the MD and 76 notwithstanding. Even the A300 does pretty well for herself, which is impressive since Airbus aircraft aren't generally known for their climb performance!

Shouldn't aircraft with lightly loaded wings climb better than the ones with heavily loaded wings? I thought Airbus designed their aircraft to have light wing loadings.

I think the issue tends to be more with the engines rather than the wings. In my experience, most Airbus types have pretty poor climb rates in general, especially on warmer days.

Your experience must be pretty limited then.

Under hot/high conditions the A300 and A310 will achieve higher climb gradients than the 757. JNB, NBO, MEX, Yemen etc

I limited pitch attitude to 20 degrees during my corporate days. Higher deck angles could make important folk feel funny.

Chaostheory wrote:

Your experience must be pretty limited then.

Under hot/high conditions the A300 and A310 will achieve higher climb gradients than the 757. JNB, NBO, MEX, Yemen etc

I limited pitch attitude to 20 degrees during my corporate days. Higher deck angles could make important folk feel funny.

Nope, that's why I said *most* types. I even said up thread that the A300 does pretty well for herself, because I was not referring to the A300 (and by association A310) with my "poor performer" post. Let me know the next time you've dealt with climbing a stream of departing A32Xs on a hot day into an overhead flow, then we can talk about experience. Comments like that really aren't necessary.

Have seen loads of twins flying what seems like fighter jet departures.
BA 757s on the LHR shuttles regularly went for the heavens.
When AA used to have a LHR-BRU tag on, saw several crews go what looked like ballistic in a 767.
AA used 777s on the CRAF flights into KWI, but on departure due to the very restricted airspace, they used to pretty much aim for the stars to gain their height as quick as possible.
As GalaxyFlyer pointed out, the twins usually have plenty of power in reserve, as it’s a requirement.
Over in the super friendly cargo thread, there was a video of a Everts Maddog departing, which would put some fighter jocks to shame.
Maddog departure starts at 3:05, but the whole video is worth a watch.
Enjoy


https://youtu.be/O16Oqo51hI0

Second warning from Mom -
2010 Alaska USAF C-17 crash


Here is the link to The Flight Channel Video re Pinnacle Airlines Crash
How these Pilots Crashed their Plane While Having Fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLKI0GJXiU

I've had several very impressive short takeoff roll events in my 757 career. Some that surprised ATC. We are often lightly loaded, and even with a maximum 25% derated takeoff, the airplane will just get up and go. Our 9000 series flight numbers are often reposition flights and as such are sometimes moving empty containers back to base. These are particularly fun.

Chemist wrote:

This is the 757 takeoff video I remember at HHR - look how high it gets by the airport boundary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkvprDIZlO0

When you posted HHR, I was thinking Hawthorne (CA) and said to myself, “wow this will be exciting”.

CarlosSi wrote:

Aren't they all having fun being 757 pilots?

Exactly my thoughts.

Love when i am flying a empty 747. Especially the -8F. The roll is ridiculous, and the climb rate is amazing especially above the FL300.

I had an empty 757 HOU-IND. it was a reposition sport charter flight and there is only 60 seats. 16k of fuel and I had a 20kt wind and 50f, a nice cool day. My boys were out to look over the plane since I could give a tour on the private ramp. Wind was 040 at 20k. I requested runway 4 and when taking the runway, I squared the turn perfectly. My boys said the tail was right at the end. V1 was 120kts. I had the nose off the ground about the 1200 mark and the mains left the ground at the end of the 1500ft paint stripe. 25degrees and the vvi was pegged at the 6000+ mark. I was at 3000k at the end of the runway cleaned up at 200Kts+. Empty or full, nothing beats the 757 and of course the 747. The lightest I flew a 747 was 530k and it was a screaming bandit! 450000 DTW to ATL at .91m.

atcsundevil wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

Your experience must be pretty limited then.

Under hot/high conditions the A300 and A310 will achieve higher climb gradients than the 757. JNB, NBO, MEX, Yemen etc

I limited pitch attitude to 20 degrees during my corporate days. Higher deck angles could make important folk feel funny.

Nope, that's why I said *most* types. I even said up thread that the A300 does pretty well for herself, because I was not referring to the A300 (and by association A310) with my "poor performer" post. Let me know the next time you've dealt with climbing a stream of departing A32Xs on a hot day into an overhead flow, then we can talk about experience. Comments like that really aren't necessary.

How much of it is choice for optimal cost vs. actual aircraft performance? Just because operators choses to save money doesn't mean the aircraft isn't more capable.

Chaostheory wrote:

Your experience must be pretty limited then.

Under hot/high conditions the A300 and A310 will achieve higher climb gradients than the 757. JNB, NBO, MEX, Yemen etc

I limited pitch attitude to 20 degrees during my corporate days. Higher deck angles could make important folk feel funny.

And then the nose goes over and that 300 accelerates to a blistering M.80!

I do love the 300/310. Fascinating aircraft.

But yeah, the 321Ceo especially is a well known dog, even with no pax. Top it across for a ferry with nothing in the back other than maintenance logs, and it is still no sparkling performer, especially compared to a 319/320