Glad I'm not a passenger on this plane.

 

That's either a heck of a lot of thrust, or its running absolute minimum weight -- or both.

 

That's either a heck of a lot of thrust, or its running absolute minimum weight -- or both.

I'd say both... the plane had no passengers, and they probably put the minimum required amount of fuel for the maneuver...

 

I was at that airshow and that video is misleading. While the aircraft did attain a very steep climb angle there is no way it was near straight up. I'll see if I've got video of that take-off from a different angle.

 

I was at that airshow and that video is misleading. While the aircraft did attain a very steep climb angle there is no way it was near straight up. I'll see if I've got video of that take-off from a different angle.

Right... the video did say that the plane was taking off at an angle of 30°, but the camera is placed almost in front of the plane, giving the illusion of a much steeper angle... it's still pretty impressive, though...

 

I was waiting at runway 16 for take off clearance at Renton, WA (KRNT), when the tower cleared a brand-new, fresh-out-of-the-Boeing plant, 757 to take off on runway 34 (opposite direction on the same runway). I understand that as these aircraft roll off the assembly line, they do not yet have any interior (seats, fittings, etc), and they put just enough fuel in them to ferry them to where-ever the production process is finished. The runway is short, and they pull into what appeared to be about a 40degree deck angle to climb rapidly for noise abatement. It sure looks impressive when the take-off roll is directly toward you. I'm thinking that the 757 was more than 2000ft agl when it went over me. Not bad off a runway that is only 5380 ft long.

 

This article indicates a 1:2.5 thrust-to-weight ratio -- not sure if that is loaded or unloaded.

 

Search the name of the air show with 2014 and 787. There are already a bunch of videos from different angles posted on youtube.

 

Back in the early 90's I was driving out on east Long Island to go night fishing when I spotted a pair of dull red orbs on the near end of the runway at Calverton Airport. At the time Calverton was a private airfield of the Grumman Corporation and they were using it to base F-14 Tomcats in for rebuild or repair.

I locked up the brakes (after checking six) and stopped on the road side. Shortly the dull red orbs went bright red, scooted down the runway and I swear did indeed go straight up and out of sight.

You never forget your first full military power take off.

 

You have to remember that most wing sections have a maximum angle of attack of about 18° before they stall. Of course the angle of attack is measured with respect to the relative wind.

 

As a regular attendee of Air Shows with Military Aircraft doing flying demonstrations, I have seen some amazing "max-performance", "full-afterburner" climbs. Steep (vertical) climbs are easy if you have more thrust than the aircraft weighs...

Here is a table of thrust to weight ratios for most military aircraft.

 

Steep (vertical) climbs are easy if you have more thrust than the aircraft weighs...

That's what I was thinking. Who needs wing angles when you're driving a surface to air missile?

 

That's what I was thinking. Who needs wing angles when you're driving a surface to air missile?

High performance military aircraft use their wings to change direction; less so for holding up the aircraft in level flight.

 

What amazes me these day's isn't vertical take off anymore; it's drones landing on ships.......big ones


kv

 

I'm glad I'm not a passenger of this plane either!:

 

Those videos taken through a telephoto lens always make it look much scarier than it actually is. The fore-shortening caused by the lens makes the crab-angle look much more extreme than it actually is.

Low-wing jet aircraft with wing-mounted engine pods cannot do what I do in my high-wing Piper or Cessna, which is to land in a slip, with the upwind wing low, touching down on one main wheel. If they did, they would scrape the engine pod on the runway.

My landings keep the aircraft axis aligned with the runway center line all the way to touch down. Jets have to hold the crab-angle to just above the runway, and then kick-out the crab just before the wheels touch to prevent side-load on the main landing gear.

 

Those videos taken through a telephoto lens always make it look much scarier than it actually is. The fore-shortening caused by the lens makes the crab-angle look much more extreme than it actually is.

Low-wing jet aircraft with wing-mounted engine pods cannot do what I do in my high-wing Piper or Cessna, which is to land in a slip, with the upwind wing low, touching down on one main wheel. If they did, they would scrape the engine pod on the runway.

My landings keep the aircraft axis aligned with the runway center line all the way to touch down. Jets have to hold the crab-angle to just above the runway, and then kick-out the crab just before the wheels touch to prevent side-load on the main landing gear.

Actually, it's the way the tail swayed to and fro before touchdown that impressed me the most...

 

put a big enough engine in it and a billet of pig iron could fly supersonic. just reference the aged F-14.

 

Jets have to hold the crab-angle to just above the runway, and then kick-out the crab just before the wheels touch to prevent side-load on the main landing gear.

That's what makes my south end clench shut!

 

not sure if that is loaded or unloaded.

The state of the pilot's inebriation doesn't affect aerodynamics.