Overpowered aircraft

[gnx99]

I thought I heard somewhere that the Dornier 328 jet climbs quite nicely when empty.

 

[Dangerkitty]

I thought I heard somewhere that the Dornier 328 jet climbs quite nicely when empty.

Only to fly at .64 Mach to the destination.

 

[FlyJordan]

Only to fly at .64 Mach to the destination.

Might as well walk

 

[Dangerkitty]

Might as well walk

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

But since you have never been faster than .55 Mach you wouldn't understand now would you?

 

[bigsky]

I dont remember who said concorde,( sure it goes fast and high) but it barely gets off the ground. I have seen it probably over a hundred times and thought for sure it was going to crash on several occasions, as it doesnt do very well when it is slow. I would be interested to know its thrust to weight ratio but am guessing it is not so impressive.

 

[piperpa30]

I said Concorde and it *has* to have a higher thurst:weight ratio than other commercial airliners to go Mach 2. It just seems logical.

I dont remember who said concorde,( sure it goes fast and high) but it barely gets off the ground. I have seen it probably over a hundred times and thought for sure it was going to crash on several occasions, as it doesnt do very well when it is slow. I would be interested to know its thrust to weight ratio but am guessing it is not so impressive.

 

[FlyJordan]

I dont remember who said concorde,( sure it goes fast and high) but it barely gets off the ground. I have seen it probably over a hundred times and thought for sure it was going to crash on several occasions, as it doesnt do very well when it is slow. I would be interested to know its thrust to weight ratio but am guessing it is not so impressive.

I caught that too just didnt say anything, they really are turds on the ground.
I think they go mach 2 b/c they are so aerodynamic. But that does not help them get off the ground, that takes thrust. And if I remember correctly they have high speeds, I dont remember what Vr is but I think its up there, so that too explains why they are runway hogs.

I just looked it up, Max TO is 408,000lb and all I found was "average TO speed" (whatever that is) was 250MPH, thats freaking gettin it for TO

 

[inthewind]

I thought I heard somewhere that the Dornier 328 jet climbs quite nicely when empty.

The old Dork was an awesome machine. In the summer with a full boat and one in the JS we still got climbs of 4-5000 fpm. Once in the winter on an empty leg out of FWA we got cleared to 10000 on departure. I got that beast to 35 deg nose up and she was still accelerating. VSI buried at 9900+ fpm, so I don't know our real rate but we were level at FL180 three minutes after tower said 'cleared for takeoff.' Yes I'm such a dork that I actually started the timer.
Only .64m but it sure was fun getting up there.

 

[FlyJordan]

I just learned the Concorde has 13 fuel tanks, what the heck. Think fuel management might be a full time job? It also pumps fuel around depending on speed to keep the CG within limits. Said actually trimming the airplane would cause too much drag. That is one airplane I dont think I would want to fly, sounds like a cluster f**k.

 

[NookyBooky]

I caught that too just didnt say anything, they really are turds on the ground.
I think they go mach 2 b/c they are so aerodynamic. But that does not help them get off the ground, that takes thrust. And if I remember correctly they have high speeds, I dont remember what Vr is but I think its up there, so that too explains why they are runway hogs.

I just looked it up, Max TO is 408,000lb and all I found was "average TO speed" (whatever that is) was 250MPH, thats freaking gettin it for TO

Empty weight on the Concorde is 173,050

Max t/o thrust per engine is 38,050

4x38,050/173,500 = .88

The long t/o roll and high t/o speeds are due to the wing shape. Highly swept wings with low aspect ratios are chitty at low speeds which is why planes like the Tomcat and B-1B land with them fully extended rather than swept back. The Concorde was built for speed at 60k, not short field t/o's.

...............but you all knew that already

 

[EuroWheenie]

Flyjordan

I'm still kicking myself for "only" having flown the Concorde once. I have never, ever, gotten such a kick in the back during take-off. When they lit the reheater, she accellerated like you wouldn't belive it.

As for the fuel-tanks, I suppose you are well familiar with the fact that the aerodynamics change rather dramatically as you speed past M 1.0. Especially in a delta winged aircraft. To keep the aircraft in trim, using fuel to shift the CoG was actually a rather smart idea at the time. Remember, she was designed in the 60s while MDC, Lockheed, Boeing et al fiddled around with rather more pedestrian designs. She still represents the biggest step change in aircraft design. And yes, fuel management did take up a fair bit of the F/E's time.

Nothing cooler than departing London at 1030 local time, to arrive in New York at 0930 local! She'll be sadly missed.

She was fitted with 4 Rolls Royce Olympus engines, each producing more than 38K pounds with reheat. She would accellerate to 200 knots in around 20 seconds, and take-off at around 220 knots. And she is still, in my humble opinion, the sexiest piece of flying machine ever known to man kind, with the possible exception of a Mossie.

Back on thread:

We've only got the -535C motors on our 757s, but the aircraft have been scaled down to a MTOW just shy of 100 tons. On a short HAM-CGN flight with 7 tons of fuel and ditto payload, it has happened that someone "forgot" to set the thrust reduction temperature, resulting in a max power take-off. Good fun! Several of our skippers have previous 767 experience, and they talk fondly of -300ERs with CF6 motors at low weights. Not quite the rocketship that a light 75 is, but not far behind either.

As for the A340 "Classics", well, they sure take a long time to get up there! Have paxed with GF out of BAH on a hot summers day. The aircraft seemed to limp up to something like 1000ft, and then just hang there for an eternity! Don't think we climbed an inch while they cleaned her up and accellerated to a fair rate of knots, and after that it took by my watch around 40 minutes to reach FL380. We'll do that in 20 with the 75

 

[T-REX]

The Lear 60 has a total of 9,200 lbs of thrust.
The max takeoff weight is 23,500 lbs.

I dont know how the Lear 23 and 24 compares but I am sure it is pretty close.

FWIW, we get 6000 ft per min on t/o all the time. The best I have ever seen is 15,000 ft per min on a cold night when we were light.

Lear 24

Thrust 5800-5900#
BOW 7300#
MTOW 13000-13500#

 

[cands]

Lear 23

Max t/o Weight 12,500
Thrust 5700 Ib

Will out climb a lear 60 any day.

 

[EagleRJ]

Empty weight on the Concorde is 173,050

Max t/o thrust per engine is 38,050

4x38,050/173,500 = .88

But I doubt the Concorde ever took off anywhere near empty, even on repo flights. The fuel burn was enormous!

Concorde max takeoff weight = 408,000#

Thrust/Weight
152,000/408,000 = .37 Pretty lethargic!

CRJ-700 at max weight:
25,340/75,000 = .33

CRJ-700 at typical repo weight:
25,340/50,000 = .50

F-16 C/D at max weight:
27,000/37,500 = .72

 

[9GClub]

Ok how 'bout fighters......

Raptor (units in pounds):
2 x 35,000 = 70,000
MTOW = 60,000 give or take
T/W = 1.1+ = acceleration in a vertical climb

Anything wrong with my numbers?

 

[M. St. Lawrence]

Comm. Thrust to Weight

Hands down...it was the Boeing 720-B!!!!!!!!Small jet with big hooters!!!!

 

[WMUSIGPI]

I just learned the Concorde has 13 fuel tanks, what the heck. Think fuel management might be a full time job? It also pumps fuel around depending on speed to keep the CG within limits. Said actually trimming the airplane would cause too much drag. That is one airplane I dont think I would want to fly, sounds like a cluster f**k.

Fuel management was a full time job for the flight engineer. That plane was a 35 year old design. It didn't have all the computers crammed into todays designs to do that stuff in place of an engineer.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Lear 31A

2x3500# = 7000#
Max T/O = 17000#
BOW = 11000#

Unlike the 20 series it would keep on climbing from max weight right up to 430. Though that probably had more to do with the newer longer wing than the engines. And we could do all this on about 60% of the fuel used in a 20 series.

 

[j41driver]

FRJ
12,100#T/ 34524#W (heavy a/c gross, if memory serves me)=.35 ratio

Not to shabby, but throw on a straight, high aspect ratio wing and hold on.

I once saw 780 feet to FL310 (ceiling) in 17 minutes in a nearly full airplane flying the standard profile. I miss that airplane.

That thing was awesome....

 

[capt_zman]

G4, BED-BUR with 18 pax, 27000 lbs fuel last February (cold, cold day), passing FL390 at 2500 ft/min. 8000 lbs fuel, crew only, PBI-MTH, rated power takeoff, 5000' by the end of 27R. I know its not much for you lear types, but at ~53,000 lbs, that's smoking hot to me.

On another note, a 727-100, ROA-MEM at FL280, mach .90. Blew by a USAirways 737 a thousand feet below literally like it was standing still. Poor guy was complaining to ATC that they had to wait for us to go by before getting higher, well, it wasn't a very long wait