Real Flight 737 ATL-LAS

[Chaos81 110]

That would make sense, but according to AirTran's website, they have CFM56-7B26s. See: http://www.airtran.com/aircraft/boeing_737_aircraft_specifications.aspx

No idea how accurate they normally are, but planespotters.net has them using planes with the 20K, 22K, and 24K engines. There could be a 26K in there too, I didn't look at all of them. Might need someone who works there to get a proper answer.

[Chris F. 95]

Can someone explain to me "derate" and "reduced thrust" in the terms that you guys were using them?Noob question. I know but I would like to know :)

[kjjj11223344 48]

what is the difference between deratet and reduced thrust?

Can someone explain to me "derate" and "reduced thrust" in the terms that you guys were using them?Noob question. I know but I would like to know :)

I'm not so good at explaining so here is a good article:http://www.b737.org.uk/assumedtemp.htm

[Ben Cap 89]

[Tabs 2,790]

Can someone explain to me "derate" and "reduced thrust" in the terms that you guys were using them?Noob question. I know but I would like to know :)

In the context of this thread:Derate = selecting one of the preset modes - TO 1 or TO 2 that reduce the thrust by a set amount proportional to what it would be if the engine was a different rating - on the 800 with the 26K engines, TO 1 is equivalent to having 24K engines, TO 2 to having 22K engines.Reduced thrust = entering an assumed temperature, which cause the engines to produce less thrust - it's a variable amount though and airlines that do this have their own data for it. It allows you to be more precise than using the preset modes above.Both methods are "derates" or "reduced thrust" in the broader meaning of those terms. It's just on the NG's language, one is referred to as a derate, and the other reduced thrust.

[Tatave 57]

I went in a Qantas 737-800 cockpit a week ago after a flight, I mentioned that I'm a flight simmer and I'm waiting for a very complex simulation of the 737NG series for FSX (the NGX of course). That 737 was equipped with the HGS, and it looks much larger on the NGX preview videos!

[captainklm 1]

when you say "half power takeoffs" you mean derated thrust right? How much N1 would a half power takeoff typically be? And Im not being an "eco maniac" or something but in my opinion Air Trans takeoff is good. Using up the runway saves a hell lot of fuel, less co2 pollution and it makes use of a long runway. Whats the point of a long runway if your not gonna use it?

[SWA737 0]

I like what southwest does. I live in ontario california and we have a 10000 and 12000 ft runways. southwest will take off in about 4000-6000ft depending on how full it is. then the climps out are allways fast. I think they preform the best take offs in the 737.

[AUPilotAU 0]

when you say "half power takeoffs" you mean derated thrust right? How much N1 would a half power takeoff typically be? And Im not being an "eco maniac" or something but in my opinion Air Trans takeoff is good. Using up the runway saves a hell lot of fuel, less co2 pollution and it makes use of a long runway. Whats the point of a long runway if your not gonna use it?

It's all fine and dandy until you lose an engine...I honestly don't think they would have enough thrust to make it over the trees...I'd much rather waste gas and be airborne quicker and up high faster than save gas and be much more vulnerable...

[Efussander 0]

It's all fine and dandy until you lose an engine...I honestly don't think they would have enough thrust to make it over the trees...I'd much rather waste gas and be airborne quicker and up high faster than save gas and be much more vulnerable...

+1 It kind of scares me sometimes thinking of that exact scenario.

[JBZ 13]

It's all fine and dandy until you lose an engine...I honestly don't think they would have enough thrust to make it over the trees...I'd much rather waste gas and be airborne quicker and up high faster than save gas and be much more vulnerable...

+2Now, as I'm not a pilot and have never flown an actual airplane in my life, I couldn't say whether or not they would make it. What I can say, is that when the aircraft is barely making 200 ft over top the Vegas strip with both engines, it does make you wonder if they would actually make it if they lost an engine after V1.I hope this will change once the merger with SWA is fully complete, but it would be a nightmare to find out what would actually happen. *knock on wood*

[Airbus Commander 563]

Well, actually, Flex thrust uses MORE fuel than a full thrust takeoff, the only savings are in maintaining the engine. This is due to the fact that jet engines aremore efficient at higher power settings and higher speeds...

[isaiah 1]

Guys, I genuinly enjoyed reading this thread. It's quite nice to see professionals and people that do this for a hobby interacting in such a constructive way. I somehow missed it the last month/months on this forum, with people getting agitated.I therefore hope this thread stays clean and may become the longest thread on avsim, for entertainment and educational purposes only.

[JBZ 13]

Guys, I genuinly enjoyed reading this thread. It's quite nice to see professionals and people that do this for a hobby interacting in such a constructive way. I somehow missed it the last month/months on this forum, with people getting agitated.I therefore hope this thread stays clean and may become the longest thread on avsim, for entertainment and educational purposes only.

+1I really enjoy getting feed back, especially from pilots who fly in and out of Vegas. Definitely helps with pilot & controller relations. Plus, as you said, it's educational for those who aren't in the industry but love aviation! Great thread guys!

[Guest dva5656]

lol.