757 take off/land question

[3WE]

Maybe it's because the 757 typically doesn't take off as close as MTOW as other planes do?

I flew a 757 once, from Buenos Aires to Princess Juliana non-stop. It was 100% full of passengers in one class (the most cramped coach I've ever seen). It was a charter flight (operated by LAPA) with everybody on-board having bought an at-least-one-week vacation package, so everybody had some heavy suitcases.

I don't remember being surprised by any out-of-the-ordinary performance.

Take-off acceleration and climb performance (specially at low speed / low altitude) is a matter of mainly thrust-to-weight ratio.

On the other hand, one of the most stringent limitations for the engine size (rated thrust) on the low side is the one-engine-inop take-off and initial climb performances at MTOW, which again are a matter of thrust-to-weight (except thrust with only one engine).

That's why twins at MTOW tend to have a more-or-less similar acceleration and climb performance, and it's better that those in a four-engines plane (which would still have 75% of the installed thrust available after one engine quits)

I've flown on a lot of full 757's but I'm thinking that the fuel load was probably on the light side (2-4 hour flights). Frankly, I've never felt that accelation was that impressive.....other than it keeps accelerting.

What does get me is how high the nose attitude feels...on ALL airliners.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Go reread everything...you have selective "hearing".

Go show me where Peter was comparing cruising speeds.

My hearing's fine, thanks for your concern.

[Peter Kesternich]

(...) Cruise speeds don't figure into my definition of a fast aircraft (...) when I talk about a fast or sporty aircraft, cruise speed doesn't figure into my considerations. (...)

Well, I take issue with your statment that "speed doesn't figure in the definition of fast"

Thanks for distorting my quote, 3WE... One could almost come to believe that you were a politician

[3WE]

Thanks for distorting my quote, 3WE... One could almost come to believe that you were a politician

No distortion. Your sentence and my paraphrase (highlighting trivial things like the subject and verb) indicate the same thing: You have an awfully strange defintion of fast.

[3WE]

Go show me where Peter was comparing cruising speeds.

Right here where he said:

The only area where 707s, MD-80s, and 747s could blow the doors off a 757 is noise produced during takeoff run

in contradiction to my post which said:

Rocket? I was thinking slow

Anyway- I think Peter and I understand each other. I made some exagerated comments (to try and make a point)- and he took issue with them. And he even said some strange things to make his point (speed doesn't figure in his definition fast). I'll give him a little grief over that- but hey Peter I know what you are saying, and I think you'd agree on me calling a 757 an "effecieincy" machine- even though a glider might beat the heck out of it on "miles per gallon of jet fuel".

[Peter Kesternich]

but hey Peter I know what you are saying, and I think you'd agree on me calling a 757 an "effecieincy" machine- even though a glider might beat the heck out of it on "miles per gallon of jet fuel".

no hard feelings... Just to make things crystal clear again: The whole thread started with a discussion of a takeoff experience in a 757. What I was talking about was 'speed' as pertaining to the time an aircraft needs to get you off the ground, i.e. acceleration and takeoff performance. That's where you get to really "feel" the speed and power of an aircraft. Once you are up at cruising altitude speed is only relevant as it relates to the time you need to reach your destination. You do not "feel" it - and definitely you do not "feel" the difference between an aircraft cruising at M.74 like a DC-9 and at M.86 like a 747-400.