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

On 4 Jul 2006 01:23:20 -0700, wrote:

...
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.
...

This is very nicely modeled in Microsoft FlightSim 2004 using the PMDG
747-400 add-on (not the default 747, which is crap). Fully laden, the
climb rate is very poor and it also has to exceed the FAA 'not more
than 250kts below 10,000 feet' limit to achieve that rate of climb.

There's a very nice 146 add-on, if you'd like a nostalgia trip, at
http://www.baepanelproject.com

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
Some walks and treks:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks

Alan White wrote:

There's a very nice 146 add-on, if you'd like a nostalgia trip, at
http://www.baepanelproject.com

That does indeed look very good and would be a superb training aid at a
fraction of the cost of the huge simulators that we used.

It might be nostalgic to try it, but I would find it so embarrassing to
realise just how much I had fogotten in eight years.

Jack

Malcolm wrote:

How do they dump the baggage? Does the baggage hold have bomb doors?

The activation switch was always known as the BOMB. But with the
increased terrorism threat, that term was withdrawn because of the
potential for confusion. Incidentally, I was forever having to chide
fellow crew members who would greet me with "Hi Jack". I'm not
quite sure how I would have reacted to the real thing!

So the system was renamed as Baggage Removal Activation (BRA). This of
course upset the female crew members, so they were still scratching
around for terminology when the ultimate happened. A co-pilot
accidentally operated the switch in error after landing at Stansted and
the runway was strewn with a long line baggage. We had quite a few
non-British Europeans working for, and on this occasion, the pilots
were both Spanish. In his report into the incident, the Captain wrote
of his co-pilot: "He's from Barcelona" - which just happened to
be true.

The powers-that-be decided that as the baggage dump system had never
actually been needed, the risk of unwanted dumping was unacceptable.
The CAA issued an order to all BAe146 operators to "Remove BRAs"

Jack

In article . com, dated
Tue, 4 Jul 2006, wrote

Malcolm wrote:

How do they dump the baggage? Does the baggage hold have bomb doors?

The activation switch was always known as the BOMB. But with the
increased terrorism threat, that term was withdrawn because of the
potential for confusion. Incidentally, I was forever having to chide
fellow crew members who would greet me with "Hi Jack". I'm not
quite sure how I would have reacted to the real thing!

So the system was renamed as Baggage Removal Activation (BRA). This of
course upset the female crew members, so they were still scratching
around for terminology when the ultimate happened. A co-pilot
accidentally operated the switch in error after landing at Stansted and
the runway was strewn with a long line baggage. We had quite a few
non-British Europeans working for, and on this occasion, the pilots
were both Spanish. In his report into the incident, the Captain wrote
of his co-pilot: "He's from Barcelona" - which just happened to
be true.

The powers-that-be decided that as the baggage dump system had never
actually been needed, the risk of unwanted dumping was unacceptable.
The CAA issued an order to all BAe146 operators to "Remove BRAs"

Jack


oh lovely! It certainly all deserves to be true.

Perhaps it is?

--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne if you want
to reply personally

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's correct. 1,000 feet per minute would be good for a fully
laden Jumbo on a hot day.

A Jumbo just after take off can be extremely heavy and climb very badly
indeed, but of course the weight reduces in flight as fuel is consumed.
If an engine failure occurs just after take off, the climb is minimal
and if two fail after take off - well. "Windsor Castle. Here we
come"

Used to work at Gatwick quite a few years ago and watching fully laden
Jumbos just get over the road on take off, was interesting!

Andy