Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780!jeffw
From: jeffw@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Commercial aircraft power-to-weight
Message-ID: <36400006@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 15:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.36400006
Posted: Mon Jan  6 15:17:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 20:01:18 EST
References: <59200011@trsvax.UUCP>
Lines: 54
Nf-ID: #R:trsvax:59200011:ISM780:36400006:000:2821
Nf-From: ISM780!jeffw    Jan  6 15:17:00 1986


/* Written  9:57 pm  Dec 26, 1985 by gm@trsvax in ISM780:net.aviation */
/* ---------- "Commercial aircraft power-to-weight" ---------- */


Hi there. I have a question for you knowledgeable types out there on
commercial aircraft. Of the currently flying (subsonic) airliners, which 
one has the highest power-to-weight ratio? I have flown in Boeing 7*7's, 
DC-{9,10}'s, a Lockheed L-1011, and an Airbus A300. I have noticed they all 
will accelerate at different rates, and seem to climb at different angles. 
Subjectively, the fastest accelerator seemed to be a Boeing 737 with 
Rolls-Royce something or other engines.

Is there really a big difference, or is it just my all-too-overactive
imagination?  What is the Concorde like?  What is the shuttle like? :-)

						------------
						George Moore (gm@trsvax.UUCP)
/* End of text from ISM780:net.aviation */

        I don't know about the power to weight ratio, but the BAe146 has 
        the steepest climb angle of any airliner I've ever been in (which 
	includes 727s, 737s, 747s, DC-[9,10]s, and L-1011s).  Since I
        don't have the specs on the BAe146 I'll just have to say that it 
        appears to be a little smaller than the 737 (in both size and 
        passenger/payload capacity).  It has a high-wing configuration 
        (initial thought when I first saw the craft was that it looked 
        sort of like an oversized Harrier) with two AVCO Lycoming jet 
        engines mounted on pylons under each wing.  Based on the routes 
        I've travelled in the BAe146 (with PSA) and its observed 
        passenger/payload capacity, I'd guess that this airplane will be 
        used only on the shorter commuter flights.  

        In addition to the angle of climb, I've noted three other 
        interesting characteristics of the BAe146 - of the 3 flights I've 
        taken in BAe146's, all began with with very quick, short takeoff 
        rolls (the kind that press you into your seat) and all ended with 
        very steep final approaches (with the craft being in a very 
        "nose-down" attitude) and short rollouts.  These characteristics 
        must have been contributing factors in PSA's decision to purchase 
        the BAe146 since it flies into such places as Burbank Airport and 
        Orange County (John Wayne) International where the take-off and 
        landing patterns cross over some fairly densely populated areas.  
        I'd have to think the BAe146 affords the communities below a 
        litte more peace and quiet than do the other aircraft I've been 
        in.  

        If anyone out there has the 'real' specs on this airplane I'd 
        like to see them.  I found it a joy to fly in and am looking 
        forward to my next commute to S.F.  

	Jeff Wise

	decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jeffw