Joe Egginton wrote:

When I see airplanes on the TV, they look like they climb at about a 45
degrees angle, so I assumed their vertical climb was at a greater rate
then 1000 feet per minute.

1000 ft/min = 10 knots vertical.

Now two engine aircraft (technical reasons to do with the requirement
to be able to fly with one engine failed) usually have a much better
rate of climb. I have never flown any of the Boeings but I would
expect that a 737 with a full passenger load but not much fuel (as
would be the case for eg London to Scotland) would be quite light so
could easily climb at 4,000 ft/min (40 knots vertical) at 200 knots
forward speed (into a pretty average 10 knot headwind after take off -
we usually try to take off with a headwind component), that is a
gradient of approx 5 to 1.

That translates to the achieved angle of climb of as seen from the
ground of 11 or 12 degrees. Add to that is the "angle of attack" of
the wings, (effectively, the angle of the nose relative to the actual
path flown) of another 12 degrees or so, and you have the aircraft
APPARENTLY climbing at an angle of 25 degrees or as seen by an
observer.

Even more extreme cases are possible. I used to fly in and out of
Edinburgh in a woefully underpowered BAe 146. At the time, British
Airways often used Boeing 757s for the shuttle to and from London. Now
with appropriate fuel load, a 757 can cross the Atlantic so with the
fuel needed just to get to London, the aircraft would be very light
indeed. I can't remember the exact departure profile of height
limits at Edinburgh, but I believe there was a requirement to level off
at 3,000 feet. Many a time, I watched these 757s reaching this
level-off point by the end of the runway (or so it seemed). It was of
course much easier when there was a very strong headwind. But those
guys clearly used to climb at these ridiculous angles just for fun.
Even our 146 could climb quite steeply at times but we had a 15 degree
fuselage angle limit so that the cabin crew were able to control their
trolleys.

But back to the original theme, heavy Jumbos can climb very poorly
indeed - that is not just my own thoughts. I was talking the other
day to a retired Jumbo Flight Engineer who totally agree.

Get flying Joe. It's not dangerous (except as I was telling my
daughter only yesterday, when you do something like trap your finger in
the parking brake handle - ouch. I can still feel that 20 years
later!)

Jack