Quickest-accelerating commercial airliner at takeoff? (laden)
- Thread starter d00df00d
- Start date
Wish I knew, but it has always been one. Has the power to take off when at high altitude, on hot days, with short runways, at max weight.
As I said, previously, on any given day, the thrust setting used, and the actual, loaded weight (so the arithmetic definition of the thrust/weight ratio of the airplane) on that day, can vary considerably even across the same aircraft type.
Once in the air, you can use climb rate as a proxy for thrust/weight. We out climb everything, including the CRJ-7/900, by a good margin. Good controllers know it and let us climb first.
Inexperienced controllers give us dozens of level offs on our way to cruise because of the slugs in front of us.
In a 757-200 climbing to cruise. Real airplane. I’ve seen over 2,000 ft/min in the mid 30s.
Nothing climbs like a 757 with RB-211s.
Nothing…
Last edited:
I've flown on 737's, 757's, 767's and one 777.
I will say the 757 is the most impressive I've ever flown on (smooth and refined) and yes the take off is thrilling (especially at TF Greene in PVD with the short runways). It doesn't seem to be the 'rattle trap" that most 737's are either.
Landing a larger plane at PVD is interesting as well.......it's sort of like hitting a wall although they recently added a thousand feet or so to one runway.
@Astro14......I've seen some footage of the 787 doing some insane climbs right off the tarmac. I don't know if the 787 can attain altitude like the 757 but what I saw sure looked impressive.
I will say the 757 is the most impressive I've ever flown on (smooth and refined) and yes the take off is thrilling (especially at TF Greene in PVD with the short runways). It doesn't seem to be the 'rattle trap" that most 737's are either.
Landing a larger plane at PVD is interesting as well.......it's sort of like hitting a wall although they recently added a thousand feet or so to one runway.
@Astro14......I've seen some footage of the 787 doing some insane climbs right off the tarmac. I don't know if the 787 can attain altitude like the 757 but what I saw sure looked impressive.
Last edited:
Looking around a bit, I'm seeing that the 757 with RB-211s has slightly more thrust than a Dreamliner with less than half the MTOW? And 5-18% less thrust than an A350 with only a bit more than one-third the MTOW? Highest thrust-to-weight of any airliner other than Concorde? Are those true? If so, that's nuts!
Thanks so much for educating an aviation noob. Could I ask you to help me understand the pics you posted? My uneducated self sees >0.8 Mach, 5º nose high, above 30k ft, and climbing at 2k+ ft/min? So, not far from the max speed of any airliner in level flight at cruising altitude, but maintaining that speed while climbing like it just took off a few minutes ago, even though it's not far from cruising altitude? Not sure if I'm reading all of that right, or if I know enough to put that combination of numbers in context.
Last edited:
That’s exactly what it’s showing. Your reading of the gauges is spot on.
(And I had to edit the post, the second picture was a lightly loaded 767-300 on a domestic leg.)
At a speed that many airliners (and we’re talking airliners, before @Cujet shares Gulfstream pictures) are not able to sustain, up in the 30s, the 757 is climbing at a very rapid rate.
I’m told the 787 has a great climb rate, and it certainly cruises higher and faster than the 757 or 767. But I think those are more the result of very low drag, and an efficient wing, more than just raw power.
Those who are impressed by an airplane that needs multiple thousands of feet to get off the ground, need to get a ride in a small prop plane, it would blow your mind.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The documentary I watched was talking about how Boeing had efficiency as a main priority for the 787.
Blow it how?
Very low stall speed, coupled with modest power, and light weight, leading to a short takeoff roll?
Big deal. They run out of speed quickly, can’t climb very high, and putter along slowly. Meh. I’ve flown several.
They’re fun, in a sort of like riding a moped way…I might own one some day…but not for the performance compared with other airplanes, but just for the fun of flying anything.
I’ve also gone from 0 to 200 MPH in about two seconds, and then climbed at nearly 30,000 feet a minute, if you want to compare raw performance, I’ve seen raw performance.
I asked my friend that was a Naval Aviator what it was like to take off and land on a Carrier and he in precise words told exactly what is was like. I cant repeat the exact words on BITOG but is was amazing !
Yeah, it’s a situation where profanity might be appropriate to describe the experience…
I decided to do a little internet looking on this, and when it comes to power, the 757-200 does indeed have the best ratio of thrust per pound as compared to the 767-300, the 777-300ER and the 787-8, although the 767 and the 777 are not far behind. I thought that surely those massive GE90-115Bs would allow the 777W to out-muscle the 757, but on a power to weight basis, nope.
The 787-8 has a significantly lower thrust to weight ration than any of the other three, so as Astro observed it apparently relies more upon an optimized wing for its performance than brute thrust.
I looked at operating weight empty for these aircraft and maximum available power.
Looking at what may have been the last four engine airliner types, the A380 has an operating empty weight of a porky 610, 239 lbs and only 280,000 lbs installed thrust (RR) while the 747-8i weighs 485,300 lbs empty and has 266,000 lbs installed thrust (GE).
On a thrust to weight basis, the big twins out-muscle the four engine planes as they must to account for the loss of an engine and half their power potential after the rejected takeoff speed has been passed.
Finally, to outperform a 757 with a civil aircraft wouldn't require the expense of a Gulfstream. A Lear Model 24 could do so handily.
The 787-8 has a significantly lower thrust to weight ration than any of the other three, so as Astro observed it apparently relies more upon an optimized wing for its performance than brute thrust.
I looked at operating weight empty for these aircraft and maximum available power.
Looking at what may have been the last four engine airliner types, the A380 has an operating empty weight of a porky 610, 239 lbs and only 280,000 lbs installed thrust (RR) while the 747-8i weighs 485,300 lbs empty and has 266,000 lbs installed thrust (GE).
On a thrust to weight basis, the big twins out-muscle the four engine planes as they must to account for the loss of an engine and half their power potential after the rejected takeoff speed has been passed.
Finally, to outperform a 757 with a civil aircraft wouldn't require the expense of a Gulfstream. A Lear Model 24 could do so handily.
Last edited:
Just curious, do you have any knpwledge on how the 727 would compare. I recall our pilots saying it was a great plane back in the day
Truth; Rolls engines are/were dope. Love the sound of the old RB-211s spinning up.
Speaking from first hand experience, hands-down, no question:
#1 = Concorde (Mic drop)
Also very impressive (Sorry, I have little memorable experience w/757s):
- A-310: short/fat w/ 2x RB-211's
- 747 SP: Old but gold (Pretty sure the SV ones I serviced were RB-211's also)
- BA 747-200 (RBs of course)
Grey Area: Once I worked a LHO (Living Human Organ) charter. Operated with an older Learjet Super-60 (Interior gutted for cargo only). Cowboys made that thing blast off every bit as hard/fast/steep as a mil a/c
Speaking from first hand experience, hands-down, no question:
#1 = Concorde (Mic drop)
Also very impressive (Sorry, I have little memorable experience w/757s):
- A-310: short/fat w/ 2x RB-211's
- 747 SP: Old but gold (Pretty sure the SV ones I serviced were RB-211's also)
- BA 747-200 (RBs of course)
Grey Area: Once I worked a LHO (Living Human Organ) charter. Operated with an older Learjet Super-60 (Interior gutted for cargo only). Cowboys made that thing blast off every bit as hard/fast/steep as a mil a/c
727
Pilots loved the 727. I never flew it. It had a high cruise speed, and it was a “pilot’s airplane” from what I’m told.
But the thrust/weight wasn’t there.
I was on the jumpseat for a Denver departure many years ago. Not quite full fuel (going to Bradley, just outside of Hartford, CT) and at max thrust (set by the engineer) we rolled nearly 10,000 feet before rotating. I was nervous. I’d never seen an airliner trundle down the runway for so long…we were right at the limit for takeoff on that day, and we weren’t at max weight. Getting airborne with 2,000 feet of remaining runway is nerve wracking.
Contrast that with a 757on an equally hot day, in Denver, at max weight, going to Hawaii - and we get airborne with 6,000 feet remaining - not even close to needing all the runway. Plenty of margin. Easy day.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Yeah - we covered Turbo Beavers in another thread - but it’s an extra thrill when he can’t shut down quick enough and mows a bit of marsh grass
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
789’s feel plenty strong on take off …
As for sounds spinning up? GE90-115B is a complete symphony …
Quickest takeoff roll I´ve experienced was a 737, probably a -300 or slightly later version with the CFM-56. It was the shortest version of that aircraft at that time (early 90´s) and it had just me, my friend, and the crew. Fuel load was LIGHT. It was going from Cincinnati to Indianapolis. I asked the captain if we could do max performance takeoff and climb-out, and he smiled and said, ¨You got it!¨ It was amazing, and the initial climb amazed me. So much fun! I thanked him when we de-planed in Indy and had a good conversation and some laughs. Nice guy. He had as much fun with that as I did. Probably more.
So how the plane is loaded makes a HUGE difference. Really, all the difference.
I do remember comparing a 777-300 to a 747-400. Both were heavily loaded, with the 777 going from Chicago to Beijing and not an empty seat, and same for the 747 except going from Shanghai to Chicago. The 777 won that drag race, judging by the seat of my pants. But even the old Queen felt like it had plenty of juice with a full load. I would guess it did take a good bit more runway than the 777.
I also rode a 777 with only 24 people on it from Chicago to Doha. Other than a big load of fuel, it was light and had a strong takeoff roll.
I´ve always loved the 757. Love the skinny fuselage with the fat engines. It has a nice face, too, with the big windscreen design.
