Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
chrisrad
Topic Author
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 7:26 pm

Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:48 pm

Hello All,

Could someone please provide the climb out rates for B763, 77W, 744, vs. A330, 345/346, A380. Just trying to prove a point that not all airbus aircraft climb slowly versus their Being counterparts.

Thanks in advance!
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:04 pm



Quoting Chrisrad (Thread starter):
Could someone please provide the climb out rates for B763, 77W, 744, vs.
A330, 345/346, A380.

At what weight, with which engine, and at what thrust? It's an extremely variable question.

Quoting Chrisrad (Thread starter):
Just trying to prove a point that not all airbus aircraft climb slowly versus their Being counterparts.

Airbus and Boeing have to design to the same regulations with respect to minimum climb gradient. The 744 climbs just as badly as the A340, when loaded for an equivalent mission.

Tom.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:20 pm

As I understood it, climbrates vary indeed widely, with weather, wheight, noise restrictions (at the beginning of the climb over cities and such), company policy (level of derated climb ,CI setting and temp setting), type of engine, and probably other factors too.

However on a related note I seem to remember that Boeing aircraft are usually certified to fly at higher altitudes than their Airbus counterparts.
-A319-21 up until FL393 vs 737 up until FL410.
-A330/340 up until FL410 vs 767/777 at FL430
-A380 up until FL430 vs 747 at FL450

pls anybody with better info correct me on the numbers as I'm only doing this from my head but that's what I tought was the general trend.

BTW doesn't the 340 usually outclimb the 747 up until 10,000ft at a similar load ?
[edit post]
 
chrisrad
Topic Author
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 7:26 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:31 pm



Quoting Chrisrad (Thread starter):
At what weight, with which engine, and at what thrust? It's an extremely variable question.

Just at typical weights

I just have someone carrying on that the A345/6 climbs worse than equivalent Boeing counterparts. I just want a general comparison of the aircraft to prove that's not always the case.

I have seen a comparison done before on this, but I just can't find it via search
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20362
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:34 pm



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 2):
However on a related note I seem to remember that Boeing aircraft are usually certified to fly at higher altitudes than their Airbus counterparts.

Well, at heavier weights there is no way the aircraft is reaching that altitude anyway.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
timz
Posts: 6580
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:46 pm



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 3):
I just have someone carrying on that the A345/6 climbs worse than equivalent Boeing counterparts.

He's saying if you compare A345/6 with a 744 at the same gross weight and the same rated static thrust at the same altitude and temperature, the Airbus will climb slower? Get him to explain, and relay it to us.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5585
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:00 am

From our company manual:

These are minimum achievable climb gradients with all operating engines for up to ISA +15 for the first segment climb only as they're used to determine SID climb gradient compliance.

They are gradients, not climb rates, so the actual climb rate would depend on speed. They're very vague figures depicting the worst case scenario and don't reflect the actual 4th segment climb performance... But they give a very rough comparison:

(in degrees)

A340-300: 7.9
A330-300: 15.4
B777 (worst of -200, -300 & -300ER): 13.2
B747-200F: 7.7
B747-400: 9.4
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
chrisrad
Topic Author
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 7:26 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:15 am

Sorry to be so vauge, but this idiot just wrote on one of my Youtube videos, that all Airbus aircraft have pathetic climb rate compared to Boeing. I just want some comparisons like the A346 will climb faster to X alltitude than B744 etc
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5585
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:01 am



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 7):
, but this idiot just wrote on one of my Youtube videos

Ah yes, Youtube video comments. The summum of mankind's knowledge and intelligence...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
r12055p
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:34 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:39 am

I think your best bet is to look at thrust to weight ratio. Most people, especially those on youtube, are more likely to think of rate of climb as a component of engine power so those stats should be convincing.

From Wikipedia, contains comparisons between airbus and boeing aircraft in performance and other catagories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:40 am



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 7):
Sorry to be so vauge, but this idiot just wrote on one of my Youtube videos, that all Airbus aircraft have pathetic climb rate compared to Boeing. I just want some comparisons like the A346 will climb faster to X alltitude than B744 etc

There's no real such comparison, given how variable climb rates and such are.

However, it is worth noting that keeping everything else equal, a two-engined airplane will probably be able to achieve a higher climb rate than an otherwise equal four-engined airplane, simply due to it having significantly more thrust (at max thrust).

Note in Francoflier's post how the 2-engined aircraft all have a steeper minimum achievable climb gradient with all engines functioning.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20362
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:26 am



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 7):
Sorry to be so vauge, but this idiot just wrote on one of my Youtube videos, that all Airbus aircraft have pathetic climb rate compared to Boeing. I just want some comparisons like the A346 will climb faster to X alltitude than B744 etc

As Francoflier says, YouTube comments are hardly the epitome of intelligent discourse.

I would remind you not to argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:19 am



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 3):
I just have someone carrying on that the A345/6 climbs worse than equivalent Boeing counterparts.

Well, the 77W will outclimb a 346.

But consider this: should either of them lose an engine, the situation will be reversed, and the 346 will be outclimbing the 77W.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
DH106
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:31 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
But consider this: should either of them lose an engine, the situation will be reversed, and the 346 will be outclimbing the 77W.

Is that actually the case - wouldn't they both be at around the same min. acceptable performance level with each having an engine out?
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:46 pm



Quoting DH106 (Reply 13):
Is that actually the case - wouldn't they both be at around the same min. acceptable performance level with each having an engine out?

I don't think so. Far as I remember (and from what I found), the minimum engine-out climb gradients are steeper for a 3-engine, and even steeper for a 4-engine aircraft.

Here's a post I found from B747Skipper outlining the relevant FARs from this thread:
Climb Gradient On SIDs (by Mr.BA Jun 18 2002 in Tech Ops)

Climb gradient for transport airplanes certificated in USA are subject to US/FAR 25... the most "critical" gradient (or hardest to achieve) is the "second segment climb gradient"... which is assumed to start at gear retraction (that is the end of the first segment), and completed at a height "not less" than 400 feet above the reference point...
The configuration for the second segment for all airplanes is as follows -
* gear completely retracted,
* flaps at the takeoff position,
* one critical engine "out" (outboard engine on 4 engine aircraft),
* other engines (remaining operating at maximum T/O thrust),
No change of configuration permitted during the second segment...
The gradient of climb required to be achieved shall be no less than -
* 2.4% gradient for 2 engine airplanes, i.e. a B-767,
* 2.7% gradient for 3 engine airplanes, i.e. a MD-11,
* 3.0% gradient for 4 engine airplanes, i.e. a B-747...
The second segment gradient is often the limiting factor for departures at high elevation airports, and high temperature, we say "climb limited"...
In order to achieve a better second segment, some airplanes can select a T/O flaps position which favors the climb, i.e. the 747 can take off with a choice of 20 flaps or 10 flaps... using 20 flaps favors "runway limit weight" but is detrimental to the second segment climb limit weight... using 10 flaps favors the "second segment climb weight" but requires a longer runway...
Hope this gives you an idea about the subject... XXXX10...


That amounts to a difference of about 32 feet per nm between 2-engine and 4- engine.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
DH106
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:52 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 14):
I don't think so. Far as I remember (and from what I found), the minimum engine-out climb gradients are steeper for a 3-engine, and even steeper for a 4-engine aircraft

Fair enough  Smile
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
chrisrad
Topic Author
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 7:26 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:07 am

OK can someone please give the climbout rate on the A340 series especially the 500-600, to 10,000ft
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
 
astuteman
Posts: 7199
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:09 pm

Quoting R12055p (Reply 9):
I think your best bet is to look at thrust to weight ratio.

Even that on its own isn't a reliable indicator IMO, because it doesn't take into account lift or drag.....

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 2):
-A380 up until FL430 vs 747 at FL450

A 1 235 000 lb A380 with 4 x 70 000lb engines has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.227
A 875 000lb 744 with 4 x 60 000lb engines has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.274 - nearly 21% more thust per lb weight than the A380.
But I suspect the A380 will typically be quicker to FL430 because it generates so much lift.
The A388's climb profile is pretty impressive, and has been commented on by posters on Civ Av more than once..

Although the A380 at MTOW weighs 40% more than the 744, the difference in drag, I suspect, is going to be nearer 10%-12% - a function of the lift/drag ratio, so the A380 actually has more thust in comparison to drag, whilst generating a lot more lift.

Rgds

[Edited 2009-08-20 05:24:54]
 
747fan
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:58 pm

In regards to the A340 and 744, one observation I have noted is that the A340 is often able to climb to a higher initial cruising altitude (FL330-350 for longer hauls such as LHR-LAX and FL370 for medium-long hauls such as JFK-LHR) than the 744. On flights such as LAX-LHR, for example, 747's generally level off at around FL310 initially.
Despite its lower thrust-weight ratio than the 747, the A380 is actually a relatively good climber; on flights such as LAX-SYD it often initially cruises at around FL340, compared to FL300 for a 744 (and 777's on this route routinely cruise initially at FL320). You can thank the A380's sophisiticated high-lift wing for this.
As for the initial climb rate I'd say the A340 and 744 would be comparable at MTOW, with the A345/6 being the best, the 744 in-between and the A343 the worst-this is based solely on observation however. I remember reading an online A343 flight manual (or maybe a brochure) that was linked to a thread here on a.net before, I'll see if I can dig that up.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:35 pm



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 7):
Sorry to be so vauge, but this idiot just wrote on one of my Youtube videos, that all Airbus aircraft have pathetic climb rate compared to Boeing. I just want some comparisons like the A346 will climb faster to X alltitude than B744 etc

I've hardly ever seen more idiotic comments than on youtube.

Anyway, ever been on an a300 or a310? Those take off like rockets!
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21965
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:49 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):

Airbus and Boeing have to design to the same regulations with respect to minimum climb gradient. The 744 climbs just as badly as the A340, when loaded for an equivalent mission.

Have you ever been on a 744 from SFO to SYD? That's about the maximum useful range of that type and I'm told it's usually pretty weight-restricted and leaves at or near MTOW on almost all flights. At rotation, the aircraft has a ground speed around 200 knots. All of South San Francisco knows about the Australia flights; they take off of 28 at about 10-11PM because it involves two 744's (one -ER) flying nice and loudly across the entire city with their engines at high power and scraping and crawling like crazy for that sky.

Yeah, a fully-loaded 744 climbs like a brick.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 17):

A 1 235 000 lb A380 with 4 x 70 000lb engines has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.227
A 875 000lb 744 with 4 x 60 000lb engines has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.274 - nearly 21% more thust per lb weight than the A380.

Isn't that why the A380 is so much better than the 744 at efficiency? How is the 748's T/W ratio?

My understanding was that the 744's wing, which is essentially identical to the 741's wing, makes so much lift-induced drag that the plane needs all that extra thrust. Hopefully, they fixed that on the new 748 wing.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
astuteman
Posts: 7199
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:58 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
Hopefully, they fixed that on the new 748 wing.

Just my opinion, because I'm not an expert - the 748 wing will be better - for a start it's now supercritical, but I still think it's been artificially constrained by the trade-off between changing a lot of the tooling or limiting the shape change, so I'm going to suggest it's not aerodynamically "optimal" in the pure sense - it's rather the best compromise for the programme.
I reckon a new plane of 975k lb MTOW from Boeing would have a 72m-75m span wing if designed from scratch, vs the 68m wing of the 748.

Fear not - the A380's wing isnot perfect either - Airbus wanted it to be 83m-84m span  Wow!

Rgds
 
kimberlyRJ
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:35 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:59 pm

Hi all

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 2):
However on a related note I seem to remember that Boeing aircraft are usually certified to fly at higher altitudes than their Airbus counterparts.
-A319-21 up until FL393 vs 737 up until FL410.
-A330/340 up until FL410 vs 767/777 at FL430
-A380 up until FL430 vs 747 at FL450

Having worked on the Boeing 747, Boeing 767 & Boeing 777 for more years then I care to think about and I have never gone above FL410 on any of them, so maybe Airbus is more realistic on their service ceilings?

KimberlyRJ

[Edited 2009-08-27 11:59:41]
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:50 pm

Service ceiling is a technical definition set by regulation. So the criteria are the same for both Airbus and Boeing. It is not a marketing thing.

Just like rotation speeds, etc. the service ceiling is determined by straight forward analysis of the data.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20362
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:48 am



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 23):
Service ceiling is a technical definition set by regulation. So the criteria are the same for both Airbus and Boeing. It is not a marketing thing.

Quite. As I understand it service ceiling is the lowest of the following two:
- A height at which the aircraft is unable to climb faster than a certain value.
- The maximum altitude at which the aircraft is able to descent, within a specified time period, to an altitude not requiring pressurization. (In case of depressurization).
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:44 am



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Quite. As I understand it service ceiling is the lowest of the following two:
- A height at which the aircraft is unable to climb faster than a certain value.

Typically 100 feet per minute.

FYI, aircraft climb rate is a factor of excess thrust. The equation can be written:

ROC = [ (T-D)*V ] / W

where:

ROC = rate of climb
T = thrust
D = drag
V = velocity (true airspeed)
W = weight
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:38 pm



Quoting link][/quote]
[quote=Kimberlyrj
(Reply 22):
Having worked on the Boeing 747, Boeing 767 & Boeing 777 for more years then I care to think about and I have never gone above FL410 on any of them, so maybe Airbus is more realistic on their service ceilings?

KimberlyRJ

Absolutely true ,I was mostly talking theoretically however I've been on more than 1 flight , usuallly WN in and around Texas on relative short flights (2Hrs or less) where the plane seemed to climb fast and cruised always at at least FL380 (that's what I seem to remember).

But that the max FL is more theory than everyday practise is maybe explained best by this event.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/PinnacleCRJ2.html

Quote:
The cockpit voice recording, released by the National Transportation Safety Board at the start of a three-day hearing into the Oct. 14, 2004 accident, revealed how the pilots cracked jokes and decided to "have a little fun" and fly to 41,000 feet _ the maximum altitude for their plane. Most commuter jets fly at lower altitudes.

"Man, we can do it, 41-it," said Cesarz at 9:48 p.m. A minute later, Rhodes said, "40 thousand, baby."

Two minutes later, "There's 41-0, my man," Cesarz said. "Made it, man."

At 9:52 p.m., one of the pilots popped a can of Pepsi and they joked about drinking beer. A minute later, Cesarz said, "This is the greatest thing, no way."

But at 10:03 p.m., the pilots reported their engine had failed. Five minutes later, they said both engines had failed and they wanted a direct route to any airport.

The transcript recounts their increasingly desperate efforts to restart the engines and regain altitude. They tried to land at the Jefferson City, Mo., airport but by 10:14 p.m., it was obvious they wouldn't reach it.

"We're not going to make it, man. We're not going to make it," Cesarz said. The plane crashed in a residential neighborhood of Jefferson City. No one was injured on the ground.

[edit post]
 
EcuadorianMD11
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:32 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:27 pm



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 26):
"Man, we can do it, 41-it," said Cesarz at 9:48 p.m. A minute later, Rhodes said, "40 thousand, baby."

Two minutes later, "There's 41-0, my man," Cesarz said. "Made it, man."

That´s a shocker......the pilots didn´t do anything wrong really since they stayed in the plane´s envelope..........but still, a heavy prize to pay for an experiment.
Some kind of "mythbusters" for real.

I wonder about ATC, didn´t they object or raise questions?
Did the manufacturer adjust their service-ceilings after this?

Ecuadorian MD11.
A lot of people need to be offended on a regular basis I always felt, and I�´m the very boy to do it! - Billy Connolly
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:11 pm



Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 27):
That´s a shocker......the pilots didn´t do anything wrong really since they stayed in the plane´s envelope..........but still, a heavy prize to pay for an experiment.
Some kind of "mythbusters" for real.

Yes they did many things wrong - they got up to altitude, but they got up there dangerously low on energy. By the time they got up there, they were already at a low speed and high angle-of-attack (basically, they were in unsustainable flight - something had to give). They ignored the stick shaker (twice, if memory serves) and tried to stay at altitude.

And then, once they were in an emergency situation, with both engines stopped, they only told ATC that one engine was stopped. They didn't say they had a double engine failure until it was probably too late to reach an airport.

You don't need to exceed the airplane's operating envelope to cause problems.

Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 27):

I wonder about ATC, didn´t they object or raise questions?

The air traffic controller did ask what type they were, as apparently she hadn't seen a CRJ up at FL410 before. But what exactly was she supposed to do? The pilot is responsible for the flight.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/AAR0701.htm
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041014-1
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
EcuadorianMD11
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:32 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:16 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 28):
Yes they did many things wrong - they got up to altitude, but they got up there dangerously low on energy. By the time they got up there, they were already at a low speed and high angle-of-attack (basically, they were in unsustainable flight - something had to give). They ignored the stick shaker (twice, if memory serves) and tried to stay at altitude.

Ahhaa, some details I didn´t know about............
Yes, if you ignore a stick shaker twice you´re pushing it a bit!

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 28):
But what exactly was she supposed to do? The pilot is responsible for the flight.

What I was getting at was whether they had permission to do so or did they just go on a jolly as they pleased..........
By no means did I put responsibility on her..........

Ecuadorian MD11.
A lot of people need to be offended on a regular basis I always felt, and I�´m the very boy to do it! - Billy Connolly
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:49 pm

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6):
A340-300: 7.9
A330-300: 15.4
B777 (worst of -200, -300 & -300ER): 13.2
B747-200F: 7.7
B747-400: 9.4

I believe these are takeoff MTOW climb gradients. But I think the numbers should be in % not degrees. Just to add a couple more:
A320 15.0%
A321 14.9%

Then we have some MLW Missed Approach climb gradients:
A343 16.9%
A333 21.1%
B777 16.7%
B742F 13.4%
B744 18.0%
A320 17.6%
A321 19.1%

[Edited 2009-08-31 06:57:43]
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12972
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 29):

What I was getting at was whether they had permission to do so or did they just go on a jolly as they pleased..........
By no means did I put responsibility on her..........

They substantially exceeded their company flight planned altitude, without notifying anyone other than ATC. They did as they pleased and paid for it with their lives. Poor judgment, airmanship and professionalism at their absolute worst.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:31 pm



Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 29):
What I was getting at was whether they had permission to do so or did they just go on a jolly as they pleased..........
By no means did I put responsibility on her..........

Understood. If you mean, did they have clearance to go up to FL410, yes, I believe they did. No reason for the controller to deny them clearance, far as I know - he or she doesn't know all the details about the flight, and whether or not they should be up there.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
acjflyer
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:44 am

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:06 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
I would remind you not to argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

This could very well be the best phrase I have had the pleasure of reading in quite some time.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20362
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:26 pm

I would really like to take credit but I stole it from someone a long time ago. Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12598
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:39 am



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 34):
I would really like to take credit but I stole it from someone a long time ago.

And suddenly I'm reminded of your sig line:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 34):
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic

 Wink
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Max Q
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates

Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:47 am

I have been to FL430 on a very light 767-200 (with the highest thrust engines) on rare occasions it can be beneficial. There have been occasions on the North Atlantic where, westbound we have been able to climb above the worst headwinds and save fuel.


Incidentally, power / weight ratio is not the only factor here, the aerodynamic efficiency of the wing is vital. The 767-400 has a quite reasonable p/w but the wing is simply too small to take advantage of it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jjairbus and 40 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