Caravelle takeoff performance

[cgw444]

Found out the hard way that the Caravelle needs at least 7000 ft of runway - and this is with a medium load.

Tried to takeoff from a 6300 ft runway in the Caravelle III with flaps 10 and vr of 130kts - not good.

Not a short field airplane.

Looked up old UAL sched. from '66 when they were flying 727s out of DCA but no caravelles.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Tried to takeoff from a 6300 ft runway in the Caravelle III with flaps 10

Assuming you're at/near MGW (for which you also need to reduce fuel and/or payload) then you're a bit short of flap if you're using "FLAP 10".

You need at least 2 notches of flap .... and bit of elevator trim .... plus "MAX POWER" too.

I've not revised the CARAVELLE Flying Guides in more than a decade, but, trey my following advice and you should be OK ....

CARAVELLE III EARLY

2X RR AVON RA29 MK527 turbojet engines (no reverse) rated at 11,400 LBS thrust e/a

MGTOW = 101,400 LBS

FUEL & PAYLOAD

LEFT AUX = 69.4%
LEFT = 60%
RIGHT = 60%
RIGHT AUX = 69.4%
No payload adjustment .... results in 21 LBS overload

PANEL = "AF"

TRIM = 4 units (gauge indication)
FLAP SETTING = 2 notches
MAX T/O THRUST @ 100% THROTTLE = RPM 8,110
FLAP 2 RETRACT SPEED = 200 KIAS
FLAP 1 RETRACT SPEED = 220 KIAS
AFTER T/O CLIMB THRUST (thrust reduction)/THROTTLE AXIS = 95 (digital indication)

Maintain 1,500 FPM ROC until after gear and flap retraction .... then increase ROC to 2,000
FPM and assume the following climb schedule

- Maintain 2,000 FPM ROC until 10,000 FT
- 10,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,800 FPM
- 12,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM
- 18,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,200 FPM
- 20,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM
- 22,000 FT reduce ROC to 750 FPM
- 24,000 FT reduce ROC to 500 FPM
- 24,000 FT reduce ROC to 250 FPM
- 25,000 FT ALT CAPTURE

FL250 CRUISE PERFORMANCE

108 mile climb to FL250

IAS = 298 (X 1.50 conversion factor = 447 TAS)
MACH = 0.71
THROTTLE AXIS = 72 (digital indication)
RPM = 7,530
F/F = 1,900 LBS PER HOUR PER ENGINE (X2 = 3,800 LBS)

FL310 CRUISE PERFORMANCE

Climb to FL310 requires 500 FPM ROC beyond FL250 and exceeds 180 miles

IAS = 274 (X 1.64 conversion factor = 449.3 TAS)
MACH = 0.74
THROTTLE AXIS = 82% (digital indication)
RPM = 8,410
F/F = 1,600 KG PER HOUR (X2 = 3200 KG)


CARAVELLE III LATE

2X RR AVON RA29 MK527A turbojet engines (no reverse) rated at 11,400 LBS thrust e/a

MGTOW = 105,800 LBS

FUEL & PAYLOAD

LEFT AUX = 70.4%
LEFT = 70%
RIGHT = 70%
RIGHT AUX = 70.4%
No payload adjustment .... results in 20 LBS overload

PANEL = "SA"

TRIM = 4 units (gauge indication)
FLAP SETTING = 2 notches
MAX T/O THRUST = RPM 8,120
FLAP 2 RETRACT SPEED = 200 KIAS
FLAP 1 RETRACT SPEED = 220 KIAS
T/O CLIMB THRUST (thrust reduction)/THROTTLE AXIS = 95 (digital indication)

Maintain 1,500 FPM ROC until after gear and flap retraction .... then increase ROC to 2,000
FPM and assume the following climb schedule

- Maintain 2,000 FPM ROC until 5,000 FT
- 5,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,800 FPM
- 10,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,500 FPM
- 12,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,200 FPM
- 15,000 FT reduce ROC to 1,000 FPM
- 20,000 FT reduce ROC to 750 FPM
- 23,000 FT reduce ROC to 500 FPM
- 24,000 FT reduce ROC to 250 FPM
- 25,000 FT ALT CAPTURE

FL250 CRUISE PERFORMANCE

110 mile climb to FL250

IAS = 298 (X 1.50 conversion factor = 447 TAS)
MACH = 0.71
THROTTLE AXIS = 72 (digital indication)
RPM = 7,580
F/F = 2,000 LBS PER HOUR PER ENGINE (X2 4,000 LBS)

FL310 CRUISE PERFORMANCE

Climb to FL310 requires 500 FPM ROC beyond FL250 and exceeds 180 miles

IAS = 272 (X 1.64 conversion factor = 446 TAS)
MACH = 0.735
THROTTLE AXIS = 82 (digital indication)
RPM = 8,250
F/F = 1,700 KG PER HOUR PER ENGINE (X2 = 3,400 KG)

All other CARAVELLE Flying Guides are "HERE" ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/2939/caravelle-panel-installation-handling-notes


UA operated CARAVELLE VIR's which are both heavier and more powerful.

Erik's done some nice textures for these


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Oct 28, 2022 21:07:52 GMT cgw444 said:

Found out the hard way that the Caravelle needs at least 7000 ft of runway - and this is with a medium load.

Tried to Take-off from a 6300 ft runway in the Caravelle III with flaps 10 and vr of 130kts - not good.

Not a short field airplane.

Looked up old UAL sched. from '66 when they were flying 727s out of DCA but no caravelles.

Hi friends:

While discussing Take Off Performance one must also include a measure called "density-altitude" of the airport in case. Means the higher an airport is and the hotter the air the performance of any airplane degrades substantially. In FS 9 that is simulated. So, one can bring out "our" AFG Caravelle III with max take-off weight from Mexico City (7300 ft altitude with runways a little shy of 12.000 feet) even at 25 dig centigrade and no wind using all the concrete available. With a DM Trident it won't work. Taking a HJG B 727-100 64 (MEXICANA) you fly gracefully away having only a little more than half of the runway behind, same with a DM Comet IV. One can understand, why MEXICANA opted for the B-727 and AeroMexico for the DC-9s. But Caravelle was operated by various Latin American operators (from Argentina to Venezuela) successfully.
Most Caravelle accidents happened on approach or landing, but only one at take-off correctly while taxiing.

Kind regards

Walter

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

On one of his videos on Youtube Nils Alegren the owner of www.flycaravelle.com/ mentions the design goal of Caravelle to operate from short runways on local airports, so the basic take-off run fully loaded was around 3300 ft.
Kind regards

Walter

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

Now a practical demonstration:

Lets go to Chetumal a small airport at the Mexican Belize frontier:




Our Caravelle III French Airforce is fully loaded:



Temperature and pressure is ISA (15 dig C):



We are at see level and have 7263 ft of concrete available, wind is calm.

Our cockpit is ready: Flap 20, trim 4 dig Vr =135 kts



Full power!



Rotate!



Gear UP, V 2:



At downwind we configure 81.000 pds landning wheight:



On final:



Short final Vref+20



touch down:



safely landed: Welcome in Chetumal!



Kind regards

Walter

P.S.: The real airplane would have needed less runway.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Good/Interesting presentation Walter .... and I, for one, always enjoy your technical (if not historical) analyses of different aspects of aviation and how some of these can be practiced using FS

In respect of RWY length and simulated load versus airport elevation, ambient air temperature and pressure etc/etc/etc .... FS "does" replicate the latter influences "to some extent", but, I can't vouch as to how well .... so .... as is always the case in FS everything that's observed or experienced needs to be digested with "a grain of salt"

GOING SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC HERE .... BUT GOING NONE-THE-LESS ....

Similar applies too in regard to fuel burn. We use official TSFC charts in order to determine the best values for this (this data is specific to each engine type .... and often each aircraft type/engine type too .... as no 2 engine types are burn alike and the same engine on a different aircraft type can result in different FF indications too). The conclusions we then state within our FDE are mostly accurate "at SL only" (or as accurate as can easily be achieved at least) .... BUT .... once subjected to environmental influences "as simulated within FS" and respect of FF at varying altitude layers (in this particular case at least), we "have to" accept whatever FF becomes by the time each simulation arrives at cruising altitude .... and which, in some cases, result in such indications being either slightly higher, or lower, than is realistic. Mike and I have, over the years, done a lot of work/experimentation/testings in regard to these details "within FS".

I use the above FF versus altitude related commentary as "a single example only" to hilite some of the "fickleties" of FS .... but the like of this can be multiplied across any number of other FS parameters.

We can create a simulation and make it perform "close to reality" (certainly perform well), but, never in regard to absolute fidelity. FS is "a game" and there's simply not enough manipulable parameters within its programming in to be able to do more than we can achieve.

So .... simulating actual aircraft performances and capabilities "in FS" (in respect of the M$ product/s our offerings are all founded upon at least) is, and will always be, a combination of "BULL-SHI-YET AND JELLY BEANS"

After all's said and done though .... HJG, since 2000, has always compiled its simulations the way it does in order to try give people something "relatively realistic" and with as much "versatility" as is practical too .... in order to try'n satisfy the way different FS enthusiasts like to fly .... be such tastes in favor of just short circuits and bumps only, or historic route re-enactment, or be such preferences heavily flight planning oriented .... and this, apart from the variety HJG has also always tried to offer too, is what stands our simulations apart from other productions/offerings. It'd be "A REAL DUMB THING TO DO" if what we offer was almost precisely similar as the same thing offered by someone else

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi Mark:

I admire, how close to real the HJG (AFG, DM) simulations "fly" within the possibilities of FS 2004. Think one could only come nearer to the real thing using another platform like X-plane. The cited www.flycaravelle.com/ uses X-plane. But that would also mean, that all the valuable work done in FS 2004 would be lost, needing a recreation of everything.

Kind regards

Walter

P.S.: Tried to install the X-plane 12 trial version, BUT: it does not cooperate with my INTEL UHD 620 video"card". SORRY! Means the system requirements are above my possibilities.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

One of the reasons why I mentioned all that (within my last posting above) is because "by far the greater majority" of people tell me/us they want/like "REALISM", so, we "try to" give them (among the files we ourselves have produced at least) the best realism we possibly can and in accordance with .... (1) the extent of our own understanding and abilities .... and (2) the limits/definitions imposed by the host FS2004 and FSX platforms we produce for and support that allows us to do what we can.

However .... one possibly wouldn't believe the number of comments I've seen around the place (FS forums generally .... not here though) to the extent that "some people" actually seem to think FS is real and is composed of absolute reality !

The "REALITY" though is .... FS (even as good as we try to, and can, make it) is, and always will be, nothing more than "a game/ENTERTAINMENT"

My above commentary "DOES NOT" apply to Walter's interesting analyses though .... as Walter appreciates the differences between fact an fiction

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

As FS permits many ways of playing, I always lough about people, who "land" a B 747 at Courchevel or on the Lexington Carrier. And my try does not mean, that a Carvelle could operate at Steamboat Springs (6882 ft altitude 4452 ft runway) LOL! BUT: in real to Courchevel and Steamboat Springs have flown 4 engined turboprop's i.e. the DH DHC-7.
Kind regards

Walter

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I always lough about people, who "land" a B 747 at Courchevel or on the Lexington Carrier.

"DON'T" get me started on that

I guess "the Devil made them do it"

Another aviation factor that by far the majority of people don'y even consider ((but which isn't, and probably never will be, represented in FS) is RWY and apron bearing strength. There's some places one can't even land or park a B737-200.

I'm not a pilot .... and never will be .... but when I see people doing "DUMB THINGS" even with v-aircraft/simulations it just causes me the "switch off entirely" .... and walk away muttering about something in regard to their likely ancestry and intelligence.

The "PURITAN IN ME" .... just won't let me do it

Mark C
AKL/NZ