Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:35 am

It’s been a while since I’ve seen one of these threads on the forums but I was wondering how the latest jets compare in terms of power to weight.
Which of the latest have the greatest power to weight and how do they compare to the old champion the B757?

How powerful are the new kids on the block such as the A350-100, B787-10, B787-9, A220 and second gen E- Jets?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
Tedd
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:17 am

I flew on a Easyjet A319 a couple of years back & it seemed very spritely compared to my usual Ryanair B737-800
flights. I`d suggest the power-to-weight-ratio would be pretty good judging by the take-off & probably as nimble as
the B757 which I`ve also flown.
 
george77300
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:23 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
It’s been a while since I’ve seen one of these threads on the forums but I was wondering how the latest jets compare in terms of power to weight.
Which of the latest have the greatest power to weight and how do they compare to the old champion the B757?

How powerful are the new kids on the block such as the A350-100, B787-10, B787-9, A220 and second gen E- Jets?


Generally, but not always, the smallest members of a family will have a better power to weight ratio than the larger members. For example the A318 and B737-700 are much better in that regard than the A321 and B737-900. Also I think the Q400 especially empty is one of the most capable with an incredible power to weight ratio. Also the 757(-200) is very good too. Not really sure about others.

Also it is unlikely to be the case for tri and quad jets such as A340/A380 because the planes have to be able to continue a take off and climb after losing an engine so to climb out on 50% your engines often makes them more powerful than on 75% of your engines.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:29 am

Tedd wrote:
I flew on a Easyjet A319 a couple of years back & it seemed very spritely compared to my usual Ryanair B737-800
flights. I`d suggest the power-to-weight-ratio would be pretty good judging by the take-off & probably as nimble as
the B757 which I`ve also flown.


I'd go further and say the B737-800 isn't massively powerful.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
colemathews22
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:19 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:32 am

Nothing beats the EMB-135, that plane is a rocket ship
Just a young gun in the Aviation industry :airplane:
 
ssreekanth2000
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:11 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:01 am

I think 2 engine planes are more overpowered than 4 engine ones as they need to be able to take off with one engine as opposed to 3.
 
carlokiii
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:17 am

The punchiest takeoff I have experienced was on a half-full BR A332. While it was a rolling takeoff, my head still hit the headrest when the engines spooled up, and only took around 25 seconds after that to lift off.
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:53 am

The A330-200 seems also very powerful to me.

I've also have had several flights with A332 with light fuel load (up to 3 hours) and light passenger load (up to 30) and we were airborne after what felt like less than 800 meters with an initial climb right up to FL400.
Happy Landings
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:05 pm

trijetsonly wrote:
The A330-200 seems also very powerful to me.

I've also have had several flights with A332 with light fuel load (up to 3 hours) and light passenger load (up to 30) and we were airborne after what felt like less than 800 meters with an initial climb right up to FL400.



Thats insane! 800m is almost nothing! Anyone have some experience of a B777-200LR take off? What about the latest generation of twinjets?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
UA735WL
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:17 pm

I understand that the Boeing 720B (JT3D refan) was quite the performer, with the JT3D replacement adding the equivalent of a fifth JT3C.

I've also heard that the DC-9-10 and -20 series are quite sporty. I was surprised to learn this- the worst takeoff and climb performance I've ever experienced was a fully loaded DL DC-9-50 on a hot and humid day taking off from ATL back in summer 2013. Sluggish, but a fantastic experience.

The best performance I've ever experienced was an AA 763 flying DFW-SFO. There was a rather well developed thunderstorm parked right over the airport, and we had to shut down while holding short of the runway due to a ground stop. As soon as it was lifted we went for it- it seemed like TO/GA power was applied while we were still at a 45° angle to the runway. I was slammed into my seat by the acceleration- I can only guess that the takeoff was needed to meet wet runway requirements, or perhaps to ensure a speedy climb through icing conditions.


-Jonas
"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" -Tex Johnston
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:21 pm

UA735WL wrote:
I understand that the Boeing 720B (JT3D refan) was quite the performer, with the JT3D replacement adding the equivalent of a fifth JT3C.

I've also heard that the DC-9-10 and -20 series are quite sporty. I was surprised to learn this- the worst takeoff and climb performance I've ever experienced was a fully loaded DL DC-9-50 on a hot and humid day taking off from ATL back in summer 2013. Sluggish, but a fantastic experience.

The best performance I've ever experienced was an AA 763 flying DFW-SFO. There was a rather well developed thunderstorm parked right over the airport, and we had to shut down while holding short of the runway due to a ground stop. As soon as it was lifted we went for it- it seemed like TO/GA power was applied while we were still at a 45° angle to the runway. I was slammed into my seat by the acceleration- I can only guess that the takeoff was needed to meet wet runway requirements, or perhaps to ensure a speedy climb through icing conditions.


-Jonas


Interesting that, I also found the B763 very powerful from the various flights I’ve been on in it.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
UA735WL
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:40 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
UA735WL wrote:
I understand that the Boeing 720B (JT3D refan) was quite the performer, with the JT3D replacement adding the equivalent of a fifth JT3C.

I've also heard that the DC-9-10 and -20 series are quite sporty. I was surprised to learn this- the worst takeoff and climb performance I've ever experienced was a fully loaded DL DC-9-50 on a hot and humid day taking off from ATL back in summer 2013. Sluggish, but a fantastic experience.

The best performance I've ever experienced was an AA 763 flying DFW-SFO. There was a rather well developed thunderstorm parked right over the airport, and we had to shut down while holding short of the runway due to a ground stop. As soon as it was lifted we went for it- it seemed like TO/GA power was applied while we were still at a 45° angle to the runway. I was slammed into my seat by the acceleration- I can only guess that the takeoff was needed to meet wet runway requirements, or perhaps to ensure a speedy climb through icing conditions.


-Jonas


Interesting that, I also found the B763 very powerful from the various flights I’ve been on in it.


I suspect that most intercontinental airliners are capable of really good performance when loaded for shorter sectors- they usually don't get to show it because ordinarily they are loaded for bear on long haul flights. I would like to have experienced a 762 takeoff while they were still around here in the US- I'm certain they could "get after it" (to quote my old football coach) when performance was demanded. If Boeing had gone ahead with the 767-500ERX proposal (767-400ER wings, weights, engines, & landing gear with 767-200 fuselage length) that would've been an absolute rocket :checkeredflag:

As mentioned above, shorter variants seem to do better. I'm sure the new airliners are quite capable when they need to be. My only flight on a 787 was a derated takeoff on a UA 788 going IAH-SFO on a clear day, so performance seemed rather normal as there was no need to step on it.

I remember doing the math on the thrust to weight ratio of an empty 77F with a small amount of fuel- it came up to something like 0.8 to one- really, really, really high for an airliner. :shock:

Does anyone know how the 737-600 performs? I think the highest thrust engine available for the 736 is the CFM56-7B22 at 22k lbs of thrust. Folks are always talking about the 73G's performance on here- what about its little brother?

:smile:

-Jonas
"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" -Tex Johnston
 
Redwood839
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:40 pm

I once had a flight on a DL flight which was probably about 30% full during x-mas day out of SAN. We got off the ground in about 10 seconds and that thing climb like a monster.
 
N292UX
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:08 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:42 pm

The DC-9-10. Pocket rocket.
 
Okie
Posts: 4138
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:43 pm

george77300 wrote:
Also it is unlikely to be the case for tri and quad jets such as A340/A380 because the planes have to be able to continue a take off and climb after losing an engine so to climb out on 50% your engines often makes them more powerful than on 75% of your engines.

This, by certification for commercial use means any twin is going to have at least 50% more thrust than required to keep a MTOW aircraft flying. A 3 engine 33% more and a 4 engine only 25% more.

The use of Flex/Assumed Temp or whatever definition the aircraft manufacture uses pretty much make most take-offs pretty mundane to save the life costs of the turbines regardless of empty or at mtow.



Okie
 
NickWebb
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:10 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:46 pm

The BAC 1-11 was a real rocket!!
Last edited by NickWebb on Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[photoid][/photoid]/Users/nickwebb/Desktop/FullSizeRender.jpg
 
NickWebb
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:10 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:47 pm

The BAC 1-11 was a real rocket!!
[photoid][/photoid]/Users/nickwebb/Desktop/FullSizeRender.jpg
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:05 pm

Redwood839 wrote:
I once had a flight on a DL flight which was probably about 30% full during x-mas day out of SAN. We got off the ground in about 10 seconds and that thing climb like a monster.


Remember the airliner type?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:32 pm

Need to remember that most airlines use thrust deration or assumed temperature on takeoff to save engine wear and fuel when there are no contaminants on the runway. Now a runway contaminated with standing water, slush, snow, or ice... that's a different story.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
Speedalive
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:35 pm

UA735WL wrote:
Does anyone know how the 737-600 performs? I think the highest thrust engine available for the 736 is the CFM56-7B22 at 22k lbs of thrust. Folks are always talking about the 73G's performance on here- what about its little brother?

I don't know the specifics, but a friend of mine who flies for WS says it's like a sports car. Best performer in the fleet. He hates flying it though because it usually means he's going to LGA :lol:
 
Redwood839
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:40 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:
I once had a flight on a DL flight which was probably about 30% full during x-mas day out of SAN. We got off the ground in about 10 seconds and that thing climb like a monster.


Remember the airliner type?


Duh, my bad. 757.
 
iRISH251
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:56 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:48 pm

NickWebb wrote:
The BAC 1-11 was a real rocket!!


Only in noise terms, though.
 
cpd
Posts: 6381
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:20 pm

Concorde lightly loaded was also a real rocket. MD-11 is also very famous for that, 747-400 also decent when light.

The 777F can also be very quick to get away lightly loaded.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:21 pm

iRISH251 wrote:
NickWebb wrote:
The BAC 1-11 was a real rocket!!


Only in noise terms, though.


Runway performance? Climb performance?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:22 pm

carlokiii wrote:
The punchiest takeoff I have experienced was on a half-full BR A332. While it was a rolling takeoff, my head still hit the headrest when the engines spooled up, and only took around 25 seconds after that to lift off.


I can believe that. There are a few A330 short take off clips around with similar times.

XL Airways A332 - https://youtu.be/KtcHCOPSxfs?t=34s
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:24 pm

cpd wrote:
Concorde lightly loaded was also a real rocket. MD-11 is also very famous for that, 747-400 also decent when light.

The 777F can also be very quick to get away lightly loaded.


I often see the departures from Nairobi and once in a while there’s a LH A340-300 departure to FRA followed by an MD 11F after a few minutes. Very often the MD 11F would have overtaken the A340 by the time they get to the northern Kenyan border.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
evank516
Posts: 2122
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:43 pm

Having flown in/out of EYW in the past with DL, I have to endorse the 73W (73G for others). Then there was my oddly empty Saturday morning flight on the 739ER from LGA-MSP that was airborne rather fast for that variant.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:01 pm

evank516 wrote:
Having flown in/out of EYW in the past with DL, I have to endorse the 73W (73G for others). Then there was my oddly empty Saturday morning flight on the 739ER from LGA-MSP that was airborne rather fast for that variant.


I think that planes main limitation is its rotation angle
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
evank516
Posts: 2122
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:08 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
Having flown in/out of EYW in the past with DL, I have to endorse the 73W (73G for others). Then there was my oddly empty Saturday morning flight on the 739ER from LGA-MSP that was airborne rather fast for that variant.


I think that planes main limitation is its rotation angle


The 739ER? Yes, definitely noticed that.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:23 pm

All airplanes are designed to the same certification standard for take-off thru enroute OEI climb profile. With fuel efficiency as a key parameter, at design TOGW, there’s not a lot of difference between types. Put them at their WAT limits, they’re all dogs even over powered bizjets. Operationally, it’s all dependent on routes, reduced thrust, climb requirements for obstacles, required fuel and payload. A B777, JFK-ORD is a rocket even with on reduced thrust take-off while a 737-800 on a hot day at DEN full going to BOS will seem slow. The EYW departure was light out of a short runway, of course it seemed powerful. The MD-11F might have light and it certainly out climbed the A340 because it was designed to climb and cruise at a higher Mach than the A340.

It’s really hard to say one plane is designed with more power than another except, of course, for the B757.

GF
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:55 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
All airplanes are designed to the same certification standard for take-off thru enroute OEI climb profile. With fuel efficiency as a key parameter, at design TOGW, there’s not a lot of difference between types. Put them at their WAT limits, they’re all dogs even over powered bizjets. Operationally, it’s all dependent on routes, reduced thrust, climb requirements for obstacles, required fuel and payload. A B777, JFK-ORD is a rocket even with on reduced thrust take-off while a 737-800 on a hot day at DEN full going to BOS will seem slow. The EYW departure was light out of a short runway, of course it seemed powerful. The MD-11F might have light and it certainly out climbed the A340 because it was designed to climb and cruise at a higher Mach than the A340.

It’s really hard to say one plane is designed with more power than another except, of course, for the B757.

GF


So a lot of people take exception to the 757 in particular, was it that it was intentionally overbuilt compared to other airliners?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:06 pm

No, it just happened to built at a time when engines compatible with its size were developed more thrust than necessary. The RR E4 was developed from the RB211 putting over 52,000# and the E4 was rated at 40,000. The closest competitor today is the A321–20% lighter with 25% less thrust.

GF
 
LH707330
Posts: 2318
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:19 pm

The 757 was also designed to go into shorter strips that the 727 was designed for, hence the big wings and engines.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:32 pm

I don't know why, but when I initially read the thread title, I thought we were asking about the best airliner to punch.
Captain Kevin
 
426Shadow
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:55 am

Ok everyone is talking about their personal experiences in particular situations, and perception is sometimes guided by bias.

So let's look at it purely from a numbers standpoint.

A350-1000: MTOW- 696,661lb and 194,000lb Total Thrust = 0.278 T/W

B787-10: MTOW- 560,000lb and 152,000lb Total Thrust = 0.271 T/W

B787-9: MTOW- 560,000lb and 142,0000lb Total Thrust = 0.253 T/W

A220-100: MTOW- 134,000lb and up to 46,600lb (high end thrust) Total Thrust = 0.347 T/W

E-190E2: MTOW- 124,340lb and up to 46,000lb (high end thrust) Total Thrust = 0.369 T/W

B757: MTOW- 255,000lb and up to 87,000lb (Strongest RR engines) Total Thrust = 0.341 T/W

Of course these numbers would only relate to acceleration profiles and not climbing or takeoff distance because some may be rotation limited more than others.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:27 am

Mexicana A318 were amazing... they really felt like a Fighter jet...
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:43 am

Still, it depends on weight, temp and pressure altitude. T/W is only one, and rarely the primary, determining factor in a take-off. Reduced thrust or crew selection of rated power being one determining.

GF
 
Max Q
Posts: 8283
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:53 am

tjwgrr wrote:
Need to remember that most airlines use thrust deration or assumed temperature on takeoff to save engine wear and fuel when there are no contaminants on the runway. Now a runway contaminated with standing water, slush, snow, or ice... that's a different story.



Using reduced thrust on take off does not
save fuel, your elapsed time to cruise altitude where you burn the least fuel will be longer.


It is easier on the engines and that’s a priority for the airlines but if you want to
use the least amount of fuel per sector you start with a full power take off and do not use a derated climb setting



You save fuel by getting to an efficient cruise altitude as quickly as possible
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:11 pm

426Shadow wrote:
Ok everyone is talking about their personal experiences in particular situations, and perception is sometimes guided by bias.

So let's look at it purely from a numbers standpoint.

A350-1000: MTOW- 696,661lb and 194,000lb Total Thrust = 0.278 T/W

B787-10: MTOW- 560,000lb and 152,000lb Total Thrust = 0.271 T/W

B787-9: MTOW- 560,000lb and 142,0000lb Total Thrust = 0.253 T/W

A220-100: MTOW- 134,000lb and up to 46,600lb (high end thrust) Total Thrust = 0.347 T/W

E-190E2: MTOW- 124,340lb and up to 46,000lb (high end thrust) Total Thrust = 0.369 T/W

B757: MTOW- 255,000lb and up to 87,000lb (Strongest RR engines) Total Thrust = 0.341 T/W

Of course these numbers would only relate to acceleration profiles and not climbing or takeoff distance because some may be rotation limited more than others.


There was a thread on this several years ago in which the thrust/weight ratios were listed. The 717 and 737-700 were in the same ballpark as the 757 with the best power. Regional jets weren't listed in that thread. Of course the Concorde beat all of them.

For large airplanes, the 777-300ER and 777-200LR are very peppy. On test and ferry flights with underated takeoffs, and low takeoff weight, the 777-300ER will be airborne in well under 20 seconds from brake release. You push TO/GA and get slammed into the back of your seat when those GE90-115Bs spool up.
 
mchei
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:14 pm

I recently flew the Bombardier C-Series, now called A 220-100, with a light load on a short trip from Zurich to Hamburg. Runway was wet after a thunderstorm and we had about 30 degrees Celsius. The airport was packed because it had been closed for roughly 30 minutes due to the weather.
Additionally, the aircraft was less than a year old. That takeoff was impressive. And the vertical speed after takeoff was also impressive. Someone really wanted to get to Hamburg and back :)

I also remember a departure with an Air France A 318 out of Geneva to Paris. The engines really cried for help when they were asked to deliver thrust but man they did. Plus it’s a scenic departure out of GVA!

I also have the Fokker 70 in my mind as being a powerful aircraft.

All of this as a pax, so it’s just about feelings :)
F70-F100-E145-E170-E190-319-320-321-735–736-737-738-752-763–742-744-333-343-ATR72-Metroliner-Saab2000-Lockheed Electra-C172-C182-C182RG-MD11
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:17 pm

Max Q wrote:
tjwgrr wrote:
Need to remember that most airlines use thrust deration or assumed temperature on takeoff to save engine wear and fuel when there are no contaminants on the runway. Now a runway contaminated with standing water, slush, snow, or ice... that's a different story.



Using reduced thrust on take off does not
save fuel, your elapsed time to cruise altitude where you burn the least fuel will be longer.


It is easier on the engines and that’s a priority for the airlines but if you want to
use the least amount of fuel per sector you start with a full power take off and do not use a derated climb setting



You save fuel by getting to an efficient cruise altitude as quickly as possible


Yeah, it's a common misconception that a derated climb saves fuel. As you point out, it burns more fuel.

On Boeing airplanes (other than 737, which I'm not as familiar with), the baseline Climb Derate Washout is 10,000-12,000 feet. In other words, you'll have your selected derate (usually 10% or 20%) up to 10,000 feet. Then the derate will gradually washout until you reach underated climb thrust at 12,000 feet.

There is an option to instead have the Climb Derate Washout from 10,000-30,000 feet. In other words, you spend much longer at a derated climb thrust. While this option burns more fuel, I remember when Rolls Royce showed data that the maintenance cost saving on the engine was about 7 times greater than the cost of additional fuel. You are running the engine at the climb derate and lower EGT for much longer, which reduces wear on the engine.
 
Runway28L
Posts: 2092
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:25 pm

I have to go with the B73G based off of personal experience like many others have. They surely waste no time climbing.

I was also surprised at how quick the B762 was too. We had a really steep climbout followed buy a hard 180 degree turn. Granted, we weren't very full and it was a relatively short flight (MCO-CLT).

I am dying for an opportunity to fly on a B752 as I haven't been able to yet. Would love to experience a takeoff in that thing considering it's the holy grail on A.net. ;)
 
Max Q
Posts: 8283
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:27 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Max Q wrote:
tjwgrr wrote:
Need to remember that most airlines use thrust deration or assumed temperature on takeoff to save engine wear and fuel when there are no contaminants on the runway. Now a runway contaminated with standing water, slush, snow, or ice... that's a different story.



Using reduced thrust on take off does not
save fuel, your elapsed time to cruise altitude where you burn the least fuel will be longer.


It is easier on the engines and that’s a priority for the airlines but if you want to
use the least amount of fuel per sector you start with a full power take off and do not use a derated climb setting



You save fuel by getting to an efficient cruise altitude as quickly as possible


Yeah, it's a common misconception that a derated climb saves fuel. As you point out, it burns more fuel.

On Boeing airplanes (other than 737, which I'm not as familiar with), the baseline Climb Derate Washout is 10,000-12,000 feet. In other words, you'll have your selected derate (usually 10% or 20%) up to 10,000 feet. Then the derate will gradually washout until you reach underated climb thrust at 12,000 feet.

There is an option to instead have the Climb Derate Washout from 10,000-30,000 feet. In other words, you spend much longer at a derated climb thrust. While this option burns more fuel, I remember when Rolls Royce showed data that the maintenance cost saving on the engine was about 7 times greater than the cost of additional fuel. You are running the engine at the climb derate and lower EGT for much longer, which reduces wear on the engine.



Yes, overall the savings from not pushing engine limits are significant and worth far more than the extra fuel consumed
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
426Shadow
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:36 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Still, it depends on weight, temp and pressure altitude. T/W is only one, and rarely the primary, determining factor in a take-off. Reduced thrust or crew selection of rated power being one determining.

GF



You are complicating a simple question (at least he wants a simple answer, and not the usual A.net copout of "It depends on too many factors bla bla bla, we know that). Of course all that stuff matters and of course airliners rarely use more than 100% N1 but my point in using T/W was to take the bias out of it. And I am not referring to the takeoff(as in liftoff), which would have more to do with available lift than available thrust, which is something maybe only the aerodynamicists for the programs would know. The only solid numbers we have are thrust and weight.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:03 am

Not complicating it all, just trying to accurately describe the answer to the question and T/W ratios are meaningless in normal operations. I flew a Global for years, at gross the T/W was .296; at a minimum operating on a short flight would be .475. A gross weight take-off, it would climb at 15⁰ and slowly accelerate to flap retract. At that light weight, doing a V2+20 climb, body angle would be 25⁰ and gaining airspeed. At heavy weights, tha passenger would think the plane was a dog; at light weights, the pax would report that a Global was an F-15 with seats. If the crew restricted the deck to 15⁰, reduced power slowly, even the light take-off wouldn’t be very impressive.

It’s not knowable in the back what’s going on with the plane, so making judgements based on a couple of rides in the back is worthless.

GF
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19938
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:56 am

tjwgrr wrote:
Need to remember that most airlines use thrust deration or assumed temperature on takeoff to save engine wear and fuel when there are no contaminants on the runway. Now a runway contaminated with standing water, slush, snow, or ice... that's a different story.


If the runway is contaminated, we often must derate because of VMC concerns. In these cases, the performance numbers are often better with derate than with TOGA.

It is of course true that if you're flying a 330 on a 2 hours sector the performance margin is massive and FLEX take-off is typically used. TOGA take-off in these cases gives rather spirited performance.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
gtargui
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:42 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:24 am

Flew with HOP! on a E190 not too long ago and that really kicked be back into my seat.
Made the pilots 777 I connected on afterwards seem like they were out for a lazy Sunday pleasure flight to meet a friend for lunch.
 
User avatar
Boair
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:03 pm

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:57 pm

The one that most surprised me was the 757-200. Flew it for the first time a few months ago on a long trip (LIS-EWR) and that was one powerful T/O.
Other powerful plane that I have experienced are A318, 747 (that was a 2 hours flight), 789 (1 hours flight) or Dash 8.
A313 A318 A319 A320 A321 A21N A330 A343 A380 B734 B73H B738 B744 B752 B763 B77E B77W B788 B789 AT72 DH8D MD88 E145 E175 E190 IL96 F100 PC6 PA28
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:13 pm

gtargui wrote:
Flew with HOP! on a E190 not too long ago and that really kicked be back into my seat.
Made the pilots 777 I connected on afterwards seem like they were out for a lazy Sunday pleasure flight to meet a friend for lunch.


Of course, the B777 was “lazy”; it was heavy and probably reduced thrust take-off. Just as a light 787 will seem “powerful”.

GF
 
426Shadow
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Punchiest airliners

Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:09 pm

So the takeaway I get from all this is, stop having aircraft performance discussions on this site because there is always someone who is going to throw some shade in it for whatever reason and then try to justify it. Everything always depends on too many factors, so there is never going to be a solid answer to any performance questions on here. Lets all head over to the Civilian Aviation forum and argue about routes and who isn't serving peanuts anymore.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos