747-400 take off

My experience too... many trips to Taiwan in a 747 ... wondered if it would EVER
get off the ground. But they do... I was always up in the nose in "Business Plus"
or whatever it's called on Evergreen Air... WAY ahead of the engines... I described
it as "being in your living room on the sofa and slowly going to Taiwan"....

Amazing birds, the 747. Have a poster of the cockpit of a 747-400 on my office wall

Jedi

 

You want some pucker factor?

Try flying 744 - or pretty much any airliner - out of Mexico City (MEX).

At 7,300 ft the first time I left (on a plenty of power 752) I thought for sure I was going to die. We rolled and rolled and rolled and rolled. I'd swear we used 12,000+ ft of the ~13,000 ft runway.

Then I flew a KLM 744 MEX-AMS and I think I got to see the 1,000 ft of runway that was left..

I flew MEX-DFW probably 50 times in MD-80 - every time I wondered if it would be my last.

 

even with the A380's in service, i still love flying the 747-400's ...

amazing aircraft ...

 

Just so there's no confusion here at KLAX:
7L/25R = 12,191' x150'
7R/25L = 11.095' x 200
6R/24L = 10,285' x150
6L/24R = 8925' x150
Gary Bobileff

 

Oh, of course... that clears a LOT of my confusion up... yeahyoubetcha...




Jedi

 

same here when i went to L.A from Sydney,must be all the fuel and cargo.

 

brave couple to fly Qantas,I don't.

 

Why not?

 

Mate, that is a bit mean ... they still have their return trip ...

Those 747-400s are the Kenworths of the sky, big heavy and slow planes ... 767's are more fun on the take off.

I'm sure the evitable throttling back when you were approaching Sydney was more annoying (they have to as they are not allowed to land before 6am). Really pissed me off after so many hours in a plane to hear the engines dramatically slow down and the thing just putters in to Sydney.
Pete

 

Funny I've never felt that way in a 747-400.
I travelled back-and-forth LA-Jakarta 3 times a year back during college years ('89 to '95) in every kinds weather and mostly during high season with full passengers. I sat on the upper deck but never felt that the fully loaded plane was slow to accelerate. I travelled with Singapore airlines. Back then the stopovers were either Honolulu, Tokyo or Taipei.
Lovely plane the 747, and back then the 400 series "Megatop" were very new, replacing the 747-300 "Bigtop".

FYI I don't like A380 for some reason.

 

google all the dramas they have had since they got rid of the best engineers in the world.

 

Don't they still have a perfect safety record?

 

I think the scariest takeoff I ever had was in a fully-loaded 727 out of Buffalo. I'm pretty certain that we left the ground with no more than 1000 feet left of the runway. I asked the captain about it after we landed and all he said was "we were heavy".

It seemed to me that late in their lives, the 727s did not have the same level of short-field performance that they did when new. On my last 727 flight, a departure out of Denver used about 9000 feet of the 12,000 feet available; even accounting for the elevation, that seems like a lot. Does anyone else concur?

 

Jim- The 727s were underpowered out of any high density altitude airport when full, including mine in Albuquerque, where summer density altitude is usually 8000' or so. During the last legs of their operational lives at Delta, the pilots would have to shut down one of two APUs because they could not afford the loss of bleed air during summer take-offs. The flight attendants hated the galley in the 737-700s when they were still serving meals, but the pilots loved the aircraft. They and the 737-800 effectively killed the 757.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

The original 727-100 was designed for short field high altitude airports and performed beautifully as a short to medium range transport. When the airplane was stretched , 727-200, and porked up with airline stuff it was no longer capable of doing what it was first designed to do. Technology advances, better engines, and the incredible flexibility of the 737 spelled the end of several airplanes. The 737-900 does the same job on two engines that the 707 did with four and with a lot more airframe weight.
Switches

 

Maybe more fun on take off but the 747 is faster at cruise. Ultimately it is faster than a B-52 even. It's no slouch once they get it's lard ass moving.
Not sure if it's still true but I thought the 747 was the fastest regular service (heavy) air liner in operation.

 

I have seen DC-10/MD11s do the same thing at KSEA. Max T/O weight for a run across the Pacific. They held them down right to end of the runway and as a spectator I could see they had a LOT of speed when they rotated. The climb out was still slow though.

 

On my last 727 flights, at least those where I could see the flaps, I got the impression that they never used full flaps anymore on landing. Is there any truth to that, and if so, why?

 

Jim, from what I remember full flaps on a 727 requires 80+% power to make them work and if you're not going into a short field it wouldn't be necessary to use them . Awful powerful but awful draggy.

 

Out of Ascension Island at max gross we routinely lifted off with 500 ft to spare in a fully loaded DC-10-30 on our way to the Falklands with the UK MOD on board. We were always at or near Max Gross. Same thing out of Oman with the USS Cole Crew onboard in September of 2000. I did not think we were going to fly on that one. I had to firewall the throttles and it still only climbed 500 fpm until we reached CMS. It is not uncommon and perfectly safe including a engine failure at V1 and the capability to maintain second segment climb gradients with room to spare. Assuming you weigh what you think you weigh! which was not the case with the USS Cole folks. We now use actual weights and not avg weights with DOD flights for obvious reasons since the contract is based on being at or below a predetermined payload. It Not uncommon to see roatation speeds in excess of 192 mph or 167 knots and CMS numbers in the high 280's. (clean wing). Your screwed if you get a second engine failure!

 

#1 reason is noise abatement reasons why they dont use full flaps. u only save 4 knots in reduction on ref speeds and 1/2 degree lower deck angle. Same with the DC-10/MD-10/MD11. We dont use flaps 50 unless we need them. They help more on rollout than on approach and it rumbles and is disconcerting for the passengers, not to mention setting off the noise monitors for Stage III compliance since u have to have N1 higher than the approximate 74% normal approach at flaps 35. Selecting flaps 50 once touching down is an often used technique for experienced Douglas drivers.

 

The 727 has two APUs? Do you mean two engine bleeds independant of the single APU?
In that case you would leave the APU running to supply conditioned air to the cabin.

The -17A powered and Super 27's are not underpowered at all. It is a good mod for them and the Super 27 makes for a very good personal airliner for the affluent. It is a hotrod and a joy to fly! Especially zoom climbs empty from 350 knots at 10,000 ft to 25,000 ft in 2 minutes or less!

Cheers

 

Considering the close call the USS Cole crew had on board their ship, I wonder if they realized their second close call! If they had been cats, they probably would only had seven lives left after that.