Forgot your password?
Or sign in with one of these services
Admin, July 24, 2018 in Aviation Enthusiasts
It actually proves very little. A modern twin jet rarely uses maximum power on take off, and when you do at low weights it is seriously overpowered. Normally rotation on take off is limited to 18 degrees for passenger comfort and peace of mind. . The 30 degree legal bank is an arbitrary limit. Roll authority is always good with differential spoilers as well as outboard and inboard ailerons. Barrell rolling is no big deal either as you don't pull negative "G". but a steep climb angle may give some fuel feed and load shift problems. It's all a "wow" factor that really should not affect an Airline companys decision to purchase.. Nev
Nev, here is the 787 version:
I'd like to see that 787 one from a level viewpoint to see just how steep it was.
There's got to be some irony somewhere with Boeing building the B52 bombers, and now 787's in "Vietnam Airlines" livery...
The carbon fibre Dreamliner has an even lower empty/basic weight. That's why they can do 15 hour scheduled flights. Lots more payload. With one optional engine the thrust is half the empty weight .Nev
So if I buy a 787 with the big engine option thrust is half the empty weight and that’s good? ... the Australian Thruster t85 with the rotax 503 did better than that more than 30 years ago ... ultralights rule!!!
You can post now and register later for your post to be seen
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead
Only 75 emoji are allowed.
Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead
Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor
You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.