Take off performance

[stumar 4]

Hello

Hope you can help me, i have been observing that the bus takes an awful lot of runway to get to Vr speed.

Tonights takeoff at EDDL 23L i was well into the skid marks at the opposite end of the runway before i became airborne!

A320 TOW 65619Kgs 1+F 27% 0.4UP

I used TPC.exe for the performance calculations, which gave me Flex 54, V1/Vr =145 V2=146. I barely made it off the runway and rotation was very slow. If I had used the Perf figures from the FMS it gave me a Vr of 162, and a higher flex temp, i would of been on the grass!

Is there something im doing wrong?

Regards

Stuart

[Airbus339 129]

I think you've made some errors (maybe when putting data into TPC): I'm using TPC since the very first release of the Airbus and I've never experienced a runway excursion

[stumar 4]

I think you've made some errors (maybe when putting data into TPC): I'm using TPC since the very first release of the Airbus and I've never experienced a runway excursion

Perhaps your right Airbus339, I have always thought she is a little too slow on takeoff acceleration, but tonight was really bad! I will keep trying!

[Cheyenne Chief Pilot 829]

Your TPC values look much better than the 'default' MCDU values - maybe your AAX is simply a bit on the heavy side? Have you checked and set ZeroFuelWeight and loaded fuel according to your flightplan/fuel calculation?

[stumar 4]

Your TPC values look much better than the 'default' MCDU values - maybe your AAX is simply a bit on the heavy side? Have you checked and set ZeroFuelWeight and loaded fuel according to your flightplan/fuel calculation?

Thanks, Olli

I used the fuel planner and entered EDDL - LZIB. I didnt think 65.6T was too heavy for takeoff at EDDL, but perhaps it was?

Im certain i entred all the data into TPC correctly.

What are the considerations in selecting TO flap config?, so far ive allways used 1+F, but is there a weight or runway length that makes you select config 2?

Dont get me wrong though, i managed the takeoff ok, but the captain needs a change of underpants now!!

Regards

Stuart

[Emi 5161]

Hi Stuart,

please first of all do a forum search now. We have head some reports on this already, but all proved to be wrong.

This is not a Boeing aircraft. Airbus uses a different philosophy on thrust rating and does not use that much power for a takeoff.

Real pilots have confirmed that our Airbus is right and it is indeed not unusual to have such less margin on the runway.

For further information please search through the forum and compare what we discovered in the past with your Airbus and tell me if there are differences. (I expecially refer to the LGSK thread here where we got information from a real pilot (Username: ---). Compare if your Airbus does the same under the same conditions or not and then report back please).

[--- 170]

Tonights takeoff at EDDL 23L i was well into the skid marks at the opposite end of the runway before i became airborne!

A320 TOW 65619Kgs 1+F 27% 0.4UP

I used TPC.exe for the performance calculations, which gave me Flex 54, V1/Vr =145 V2=146. I barely made it off the runway and rotation was very slow. If I had used the Perf figures from the FMS it gave me a Vr of 162, and a higher flex temp, i would of been on the grass!

Here's the original Airbus LPC-NG calculation

optimum by LPC-NG conf 3 (only 2645m runway) V1/R/2 132/132/136 flex 59°C stop margin 739m

manually entered conf 1+F 140/140/142 flex 60°C stop margin 536m

Just tested with conf 1+F and I was airborne approx 1000m before the runway end. The test was at ISA conditions and no wind. With your TPC calculation you should be even earlier airborne.

Trim was 0 and rotation was no problem. Re-check the actual weight in the FSX menu and the weather conditions.