Performance take offs

[3051Howe]

Performance takeoffs are a tactical option as well. Stick it on its backside and get above the limit heights of surface to air missile systems etc as quickly as possible. Typhoon's are now the RAF's mainstay of fast jet capability with the wind down of the Tornado and the F-35 a long way away from operational approval by the RAF so are most likely to end up in theatres that require them to be able to get out of the way of surface to air stuff, they are most vulnerable to that during landing/take off

[Seahornet1]

... Longer in reheat = lower engine life...

I can understand that it will shorten the life of the reheat, tailpipe and nozzle components, but why would it affect the engine itself? Are 'non-reheat' take offs conducted at less than full power on the engine core...?

Reheat take-offs use max engine rpm, which increases turbine inlet temperature, turbine temp, combustion temp, heat and wear of all bearings/moving components etc, and a host of other engine wear parameters, all of which reduces engine life between major overhauls...

-Dazza

So, "yes" to my last question then...? I'd always assumed that a non-reheat take-off would also require maximum engine rpm; I didn't realise the Typhoon had quite so much power to spare!

[Flap62]

It’s not really a fast jet thing to perform de-rated take-offs to preserve engine life. I’m not totally familiar with the Typhoon but each take off (unless it was a formation t/o when the leader would not use full power) was at full power in every military type I’ve flown so I can’t see that it would have any effect on engine life over normal usage.

[Dazza37]

It’s not really a fast jet thing to perform de-rated take-offs to preserve engine life. I’m not totally familiar with the Typhoon but each take off (unless it was a formation t/o when the leader would not use full power) was at full power in every military type I’ve flown so I can’t see that it would have any effect on engine life over normal usage.

The Typhoon has so much SEP at low/medium take-off weights that reheat is not needed, engine life is increased (or rather, MTBF or TBOH) as a result of not needing to use reheat for every take-off, earlier military types or those with overall heavier take-off weights/less SEP will use reheat and this is factored into the MTBF/TBOH hours. The same holds true with any type of engine though, if you don't run it at high power settings for extended periods, it will need less maintenance, and by extension, last longer...

-Dazza

[hernaman86]

Would they ever use re-heaton night flying ops? Just i went last Tuesday to Coningsby and i didn't see one re-heat take off which i was gutted about ( they sound so so much better and louder), The F15s at lakenheath use them most of the time and definitely on night ops as i have seen it, i guess it comes down to why put an engine under stress which is not needed?

[hernaman86]

i hope they are not so stingy with the F35 at Marham and use plenty of re-heat ( i have heard its very loud) ;-)

[slogen51]

I always thought ( probably wrongly) that the performance take off was related to the pilot graduating to the next stage or becoming fully operational?

The eagles at Lakenheath can launch without burners but thankfully they seem to use afterburners 90% of the time.

(Also I think the Typhoon low approach and go around is rather tame compared to LN eagles. The Typhoons don't retract the gear and pull a nice high G turn such as seen daily at Lakenheath)

[3051Howe]

Chatting to a BAe engineer a while ago, Typhoons keep the gear down once in the circuit as the aircraft has to go in and have the gear serviced every so many cycles so once down it stays down to reduce the amount of servicing required. They won’t do the high speed run up the runway and high g break downwind again as a result then of the Limiting speeds and g limit on the gear

[das]

Oh for the days when Eagles did it as standard....

Ray

[gyvespa]

We were once sitting on the M25 under the Heathrow approach, stuck in traffic.
I opened the sun roof and was idly watching the planes coming in.
As I looked up, a ‘Jumbo’ started to retract it’s undercarriage, fingers in ears time, as it gave it the big un, aborting the landing.
Really quite impressive.
First time I’d seen this happen.

[Northsky]

How about performance take off in a C-130 ?
N

[PR9]

How about performance take off in a C-130 ?
N

You can fit JATO to a Herk.

[Flap62]

Another reason for the performance takeoff is that, in air 2 air fit, ie not tanks, the single seater needs the 70 deg climb to stop it accelerating through the Mach in the climb. So, if on a Q scramble for example, the quickest way to height in full burner without the associated boom is performance take off.