Originally Posted by
KC10 FATboy
You are comparing Naval Aviation catapult takeoffs with normal aviation takeoffs. Apples and oranges.
An engine is more likely to fail at higher power settings. This is a fact, and makes sense. The more power you ask from the engine, the more stress and heat damage you cause. If you are at a higher risk for using higher power settings, then why would you use them when you didn't need to?
This just isn't for heavies. The business jets, commuters, small airliners, and big jets use it.
No KC - I was not comparing the takeoffs - rather the idea that I want every bit of thrust coming out of my engines that I can get. So far - this has been my thought process.
As for the second bolded comment - because just meeting the mins if I can have a higher safety margin is safer IMO.
I guess the problem I'm having in this discussion is the safety factor. I will have to do some research myself but I'd bet a beer that increase SAFETY is on down the list when the reasons for reduced power takeoffs are considered.
Navigatro
Also, at very light weight and aft CG configurations, 4-engine aircraft may become (temporarily) uncontrollable with an outboard engine failure during the takeoff roll. Hence another reason to use reduced power takeoffs.
This is a good point. I'm sure there are specific circumstances. Question for those flying the heavies - especially in the circumstances above - if on takeoff and let's say 500' - would the first procedure not be to go to full power on the remaining engines?
USMCFLYR
I'm sure it is used in all those situations that you mention.