<<I would think many takeoffs are near maximum power, which as far as I know is actually the safest. The copilot who selected maximum power for his DC8 at JFK last week, and thus was able to climb over a 767 sitting on the runway (wrong turn!), sure profited from his decision.>> And if memory serves me correctly, not only had Air Florida sat too long in icing conditions at DCA, but company policy dictated a lower-than-full power setting for the takeoff: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9901.html <<Simply put, if the crew had firewalled the thrust levers, chances are very good that Palm 90 would have flown. This was contrary to most crew training practices governed by concern for engine longevity.>> Gerard M Foley <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Greenwood" Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:33 AM > Why would anyone take off at that angle if they didn't need to? Maybe it > was a go around and he had to pull up quickly. > I would think many takeoffs are near maximum power, which as far as I know is actually the safest. The copilot who selected maximum power for his DC8 at JFK last week, and thus was able to climb over a 767 sitting on the runway (wrong turn!), sure profited from his decision. If you are at full throttle, and keep the speed well above stall, I would be surprised if there is much difference in fuel consumption to climb to a given altitude between one safe rate of climb and another. Noise control requires maximum safe climb from some runways at some airports. It has often seemed to me that DC9's climb at higher angles than most jets. The 757 is reputed to be the most overpowered commercial plane, but we don't get many around here. Gerry http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/ http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263/egypt/egypt.html My mail program does not allow me to "reply" to digitally signed messages. --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page