3 ms·

I’m not sure that thrust calculation is actually incredibly common. I’d be curious what the handbook on these aircraft say, but common practice for many aircraf

I’m not sure that thrust calculation is actually incredibly common. I’d be curious what the handbook on these aircraft say, but common practice for many aircraft is full thrust on takeoff - rarely is there a negative safety penalty for too much thrust. Just an earlier rotate. Comment OP isn’t wrong entirely - this is the result of an economic decision. Not without it’s good effects - both can be true, but this is not a safety optimization by any means. Many aviation accidents can be traced back to capitalistic pressure - cost saving on inspections, time saving for flow, etc. It’s appropriate to ask whether this is true here as well.

zaroth 4y ago
“Common practice for many aircraft is full thrust on takeoff” - not for the class of aircraft we are discussing. What hobbyists do on their Turbo Props is irrelevant to the operation of a 737. There are many considerations to setting takeoff thrust like climb speed limits, tire speed limits, elevation, temperature, engine-out safety margins, and many more I’m sure I don’t know about with my limited flight knowledge. This is before we get into discussing weight load, which is primarily a factor of fuel load, which is also not just filled to 100% for every flight, but carefully calculated based on distance, weight, wind speed, etc. to not carry unnecessary fuel, which is also a huge efficiency boost. In short there are safety reasons to use the appropriate (non-maximum) thrust on these types of planes just as much as there are efficiency reasons. Capitalistic market forces are a big reason we have such an amazing airline industry with planes that are technological marvels of comfort, speed, and efficiency. Capitalism drove 120 years of relentless R&D into commercial flight systems, from the very first flight in 1903. Not paying for necessary safety inspections is not “capitalistic” in any way. It seems like an ideological battle to use the term that way.

zaroth 4y ago

“Common practice for many aircraft is full thrust on takeoff” - not for the class of aircraft we are discussing. What hobbyists do on their Turbo Props is irrelevant to the operation of a 737. There are many considerations to setting takeoff thrust like climb speed limits, tire speed limits, elevation, temperature, engine-out safety margins, and many more I’m sure I don’t know about with my limited flight knowledge. This is before we get into discussing weight load, which is primarily a factor of fuel load, which is also not just filled to 100% for every flight, but carefully calculated based on distance, weight, wind speed, etc. to not carry unnecessary fuel, which is also a huge efficiency boost. In short there are safety reasons to use the appropriate (non-maximum) thrust on these types of planes just as much as there are efficiency reasons. Capitalistic market forces are a big reason we have such an amazing airline industry with planes that are technological marvels of comfort, speed, and efficiency. Capitalism drove 120 years of relentless R&D into commercial flight systems, from the very first flight in 1903. Not paying for necessary safety inspections is not “capitalistic” in any way. It seems like an ideological battle to use the term that way.