Performance Margins

Paul Schmid Boeing Aerodynamics Engineering

Article 10

When an aircraft is dispatched in accordance with certification and operational regulations, there are some inherent margins included in the calculated takeoff and landing performance. Although it is not permitted to take advantage of these margins in order to increase the aircraft performance limit weight, it is of interest to be aware of the magnitude of these margins. This paper quantifies some of the margins in accelerate-stop distance, takeoff distance, minimum rate of climb, obstacle clearance, and landing distance on a 737-800, 747-400, and 777-200. Takeoff performance requires the consideration of a critical engine failure, the airport pressure altitude and ambient temperature, the runway slope, and the wind component along the runway (50% of the headwind or 150% of the tailwind).

Accelerate-Stop Distance
Prior to FAR Amendment 25-42 (JAR 25 Change 14) and FAR Amendment 25-92 (JAR 25 Change 16), the AFM accelerate-stop distance only considered an RTO associated with an engine failure on a dry runway, and no credit for the use of reverse thrust was permitted. The first amendment introduced the requirement to consider an RTO with all engines operating. The second amendment introduced the requirement for wet runway accountability. However, the wet runway acceleratestop distance can take credit for reverse thrust. Figure 1 outlines the calculation basis for the accelerate-stop distance. A mandatory 1-second interval between engine failure speed VEF and V1 is assumed, followed by a transition segment of approximately 3 seconds during which brakes are applied, throttles retarded, and the spoilers extended. The total time for this transition segment consists of the flight testdemonstrated pilot actions plus 2 seconds. If
This article is presented as part of the 2007 Boeing Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference, providing continuing support for safe and efficient flight operations.

2007 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference

reversers are used in the calculation, a 1-second delay is assumed for the selection of the reversers followed by the demonstrated time for the reverser to deploy and to spin up to the commanded reverse thrust. The reverser deployment and spin-up time is airframe-engine dependent but is in the order of 5 to 8 seconds. Furthermore, it is assumed that reverse thrust is reduced to idle between 60 knots and 30 knots.
Acceleration BR VEF 1 sec Engine failure RTO Transition* V1 ~3 sec Select Rev Full rev deploy rev 1 sec Engine dependent BR V1 VB Stop C/B to idle at 60 kt Stop VB Stopping Stop

All-engine RTO

Select Rev Full rev deploy rev 1 sec Engine dependent

C/B to idle at 60 kt Stop

Figure 1. Acceleratestop distance calculation basis

* Transition distance calculation is impacted by FAR amendment 25-42 and 25-92 (JAR 25 change 14 and 16).

The manner in which the additional 2 seconds of time in the RTO transition segment has been accounted for has changed over time and is summarized in Figure 2. Prior to 1981 one second was added to the second and third demonstrated pilot action (throttle cut and spoiler extension respectively), during which time the aircraft decelerated. In 1981 the FAA clarified that the intent of their policy was to provide a two-second distance allowance at the speed reached at the end of the demonstrated transition (VB). In Amendment 25-42 this distance allowance was redefined to be 2 seconds of continued acceleration after V1. The current certification regulations reflect Amendment 25-92 in which the distance allowance has become equal to 2 seconds at the V1 speed. The distance associated with this 2 seconds time for the 737-800, 777-200, and 747-400 is approximately 500 to 600 feet. The requirement to factor the headwind by 50% and the tailwind by 150% in takeoff performance calculations is intended to provide a margin for the possible variation of wind speed and direction during the takeoff. The magnitude of the acceleratestop distance margin associated with factoring a 10 knot headwind or tailwind is illustrated on Figure 3 for the 737-800, 777-200, and 747-400 at their respective maximum takeoff weight and sea level/30C conditions. Relative to the scheduled AFM distance, shown in parenthesis, the actual distance is reduced by 5 to 6%. It is not uncommon for operators to conservatively use zero wind performance when operating into a headwind; this practice increases the distance margin to 10 to 12%.

10.2

Paul Schmid | Performance Margins

Pre 1981
707, 727, 737-100/-200 747-100/-200/-SP/-300 VEF

1 sec V1

3 sec (typical) Typically 400 ft

Post 1981
757, 767, 747-400 737-300/-400/-500 VEF

Brakes Flt test transition

Throttle 2 sec at VB

Speed brakes Typically 100 ft

Amendment 25-42
777-200/-300 VEVENT

2 sec continued acceleration 2 sec at V1

Flt test transition

Typically 150 ft

Amendment 25-92
737 NG, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300ER/-200LR, VEVENT

Flt test transition Baseline

Acceleration

Transition

Stopping

Figure 2. Acceleratestop transition segments

SL/30C No slope 737-800 CFM56-7826 MTOW (172,200 lb) F5 (AFM distance, ft)
430 390 790 Tailwind (9,130) Headwind (7,630) Headwind assumed zero (8,000)

777-200 Trent 892 MTOW (656,000 lb) F5

800 700 1,350

Tailwind (13,600) Headwind (11,150) Headwind assumed zero (11,740)

747-400 PW 4056 MTOW (875,000 lb) F10

800 700 1,400

Tailwind (13,540) Headwind (11,389)

Figure 3. Accelerate stop margins; wind Headwind assumed accountability (10 knots), zero (11,900) dry runway

10.3

2007 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference

As stated earlier, the regulations do not allow credit for the use of reverse thrust in determining the required accelerate-stop distance on a dry runway. The distance margin provided by the use of idle or maximum reverse thrust relative to the scheduled AFM distance on a dry runway is illustrated in Figure 4. For the 737-800 the effect of detent reverse is also included. The distance margins are 2 to 3% with idle reverse and 4 to 7% with maximum reverse. Note that the scheduled distance for the 737-800 and 777-200 is defined by the all-engine RTO, whereas the scheduled distance for the 747-400 is defined by the engine-failure RTO because the certification basis for the 747-400 did not require the consideration of an all-engine RTO.
SL/30C No wind/slope 737-800 CFM56-7826 MTOW (172,200 lb) F5
8,000

Idle 160 2 Rev at Detent 290 Max 300

11,740

(AFM distance, ft) All-engine RTO, no reverser

777-200 Trent 892 MTOW (656,000 lb) F5

All-engine RTO, no reverser

2 Rev at

Idle 350 Max 860

Figure 4. Acceleratestop margins; thrust reversers, dry runway

747-400 PW 4056 MTOW (875,000 lb) F10

11,900

2 Rev at 4 Rev at

Idle 250 Max 410 Idle 220 Max 720

Engine fail RTO, no reverser

On a wet runway, reverse thrust may be used to determine the accelerate-stop distance, but the calculated distance may not be less than the dry runway distance without reverse thrust. The effect of reverse thrust on the wet runway acceleratestop distance is illustrated in Figure 5. Note that the scheduled AFM distance for the 737-800 and 777-200 is defined by an engine-failure RTO and assumes credit for one reverser. The distance margins shown are therefore applicable only if there is no engine failure during the RTO. For the 747-400, the scheduled acceleratestop distance is defined by the dry runway distance, and distance margins relative to that dry runway distance are provided for an engine-failure RTO (two symmetric reversers) and all-engine RTO (four reversers) on a wet runway. By regulation the takeoff analysis must assume that the RTO occurs at V1. However, a high-speed RTO (greater than 100 knots) is rare and the decision to abort a takeoff earlier results in significant distance margins. Figure 6 illustrates that the acceleratestop distance is reduced by approximately 13% when the takeoff is aborted 10 knots prior to V1.

10.4

Paul Schmid | Performance Margins

SL/30C No wind/slope 737-800 CFM56-7826 MTOW (172,200 lb) F5 (AFM distance, ft) Engine fail RTO, 8,290 1 rev at max
2 Rev at max
90

777-200 Trent 892 MTOW (656,000 lb) F5

11,800

Engine fail RTO, 1 rev at max

2 Rev at max

230

747-400 PW 4056 MTOW (875,000 lb) F10

11,900

Engine fail RTO, dry runway Figure 5. Acceleratestop margins; thrust reversers, wet runway

2 Rev at max 4 Rev at max

420 830

SL/30C No wind/slope 737-800 CFM56-7826 MTOW (172,200 lb) F5

8,000

(AFM distance, ft) All-engine RTO, V1B = 149

V1 = 139

1,070

777-200 Trent 892 MTOW (656,000 lb) F5

11,740 1,600

All-engine RTO, V1B = 162

V1 = 152

747-400 PW 4056 MTOW (875,000 lb) F10

11,900

Engine fail RTO, V1B = 158 Figure 6. Acceleratestop margins; RTO 10 knots prior to V1B, dry runway

V1 = 148

1,600

Takeoff Distance
FAR Amendment 25-92 (JAR 25 Change 16) introduced the requirement to consider a wet runway for takeoff performance analysis. With an engine failure, the takeoff distance on a wet runway is defined to a 15-ft screen height rather than a 35-ft screen height. However, the wet runway takeoff distance cannot be less than the dry runway takeoff distance. Furthermore, with an engine failure the takeoff run is equal to the takeoff distance (i.e., no clearway credit). The requirement to factor the headwind and tailwind provides similar margins in takeoff distance as was shown for the accelerate-stop distance. Figure 7 illustrates that the wind factors provide approximately a 4% distance margins for a 10-knot

10.5

2007 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference

headwind/tailwind. If zero wind conditions are conservatively used to represent 10knot headwind conditions, the margin doubles to approximately 8%.
SL/30C No slope (AFM distance, ft) 737-800 CFM56-7826 MTOW (172,200 lb) F5
340 320 650

Tailwind (9,130) Headwind (7,240) Headwind assumed zero (8,000) Tailwind (13,600) Headwind (11,150) Headwind assumed zero (11,740) Tailwind (13,540) Headwind (11,380) Headwind assumed zero (11,900)

777-200 Trent 892 MTOW (656,000 lb) F5

500 450 950

Figure 7. Takeoff distance margins; wind accountability (10 knots), dry runway

747-400 PW 4056 MTOW (875,000 lb) F10

500 460 930

Minimum Rate Of Climb

The minimum climb capability of an aircraft during the takeoff phase is generally established by the regulatory minimum climb gradient at V2 speed with the critical engine inoperative and gear retracted (second segment). These minimum required gradients are 2.4, 2.7, and 3.0% for two-, three-, and four-engine aircraft respectively. Figure 8 quantifies the rate of climb for the 737-800, 777-200, and 747-400 at maximum takeoff weight, an ambient temperature of 30C, and the pressure altitude at which they reach the minimum climb gradient. The left column for each model quantifies the rate of climb with the critical engine failed and V2 speed. The higher rate of climb for the 747-400 reflects the higher minimum gradient requirement for a quad (3%) versus a twin (2.4%). The second column illustrates the improvement in rate of climb if the critical engine fails sometime after V1 by which time the speed has increased to V2+15. The third column illustrates the rate of climb achieved without an engine failure. The relatively large increase in rate of climb of the twins relative to the 747-400 reflects a doubling of thrust rather than only a 33% increase in thrust.
3,000 MTOW 2,500 2,000 OAT = 3C PA = Altitude for minimum climb gradient EO V2 +15 EO V2 +15 AE V2 +15

Rate of climb, 1,500 ft/min

1,000 500

Figure 8.Rate of climb capability second segment limit

737-800/CFM56-7B26 172,200 lb

777-200/Trent 892 656,000 lb

747-400/PW4056 875,000 lb

10.6

Paul Schmid | Performance Margins

Obstacle Clearance
By regulation the net flight path, which begins at 35 ft above the takeoff surface, must clear all obstacles by 35 ft. This net flight path is the actual flight path reduced by a climb gradient equal to 0.8%, 0.9%, and 1.0% for two-, three-, and four-engine aircraft respectively. The difference between the gross and net flight path provides an ever increasing obstacle clearance margin with distance from brake release. This is illustrated for a 737-800 in Figure 9. If the engine were to fail 10 knots after V1 the gross flight path would improve as indicated. The gross flight path without an engine failure is also shown.
1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Nett FP, One-Eng-Inop, V2 Gross FP, One-Eng-Inop, V2 Gross FP, all Eng op, V2 + 15 Gross FP, engine fail @ V1 +10

Altitude, ft

1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 OAT = 30C Alt = sea level No runway slope, no wind A/C off Forward CG, flaps 5 Takeoff wt =172,200 lb (MTOW) 60,000

Distance from brake release, ft

Figure 9. 737-800/CFM567B26 takeoff flight path

The increased obstacle clearance margin provided by factoring a 10-knot headwind is illustrated in Figure 10.
1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 Gross FP, tailwind unfactored Nett FP, tailwind factored Gross FP, tailwind factored

Altitude, ft

800 600 400 200 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

OAT = 30C Alt = sea level No runway slope, 10 knot tailwind A/C off Forward CG, flaps 5 Takeoff wt =172,200 lb (MTOW) 70,000

Distance from brake release, ft

Figure 10. 737-800/ CFM56-7B26 takeoff flight path

Note that on a wet runway, the takeoff distance may be defined by the engine-failure takeoff distance to a 15-ft screen height. In such a condition the obstacle clearance will be reduced by 20 ft.

10.7

2007 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference

Landing Distance and Runway Length Required

The landing distance is defined by FAR/JAR 25.125 to be the horizontal distance to come to a complete stop from a point 50 ft above the landing surface, assuming Airspeed at the runway threshold is VREF. A level, smooth, dry, and hard surfaced runway. Airport altitude and standard day temperature. 50% of the headwind or 150% of the tailwind. Maximum manual braking. No reverse thrust. If the runway at the destination is forecast to be dry at the time of dispatch, FAR 121.195(b) and JAR-OPS 1.515(a) specify that the aircraft must come to a stop within 60% of the available runway length. Therefore, the dry runway length required is 1.67 (1/0.6) times the landing distance calculated per FAR/JAR 25.125. The landing distance provided in Boeing AFM/AFM-DPI includes this operational factor. If the runway at the destination is forecast to be wet at the time of dispatch, FAR 121.195(d) and JAR-OPS 1.520(a) specify that the runway length required is 115% of the required dry runway length. The landing distance provided in Boeing AFM/ AFM-DPI includes this operational factor. Note that FAR 121.195(d) and JAR-OPS 1.520(c) provide for a reduction in the 115% factor subject to additional flight test and operational approval on wet runways. The FAR do not differentiate between wet and slippery runway length requirements at the time of dispatch. However, JAR-OPS 1.520(b) specifies that the runway length be the greater of the required wet runway length or 115% of the contaminated runway landing distance. Figure 11 outlines the calculation basis for determining landing distance and the required runway length. The landing distance includes the flare from a 50-ft threshold to touchdown, a transition segment during which brakes are applied and spoilers extended, and a stopping segment. A flare time of approximately 4.5 seconds, established by flight test, results in a flare distance of 1,000 to 1,200 ft. A transition time of 1 second is assumed when the auto spoilers are armed, and 2 seconds if the spoilers are extended manually. The deceleration during the stopping segment assumes the maximum manual braking coefficient demonstrated in flight test on a dry runway. As discussed previously, the required runway length for a dry and wet runway are respectively 1.67 and 1.92 (1.67*1.15) times this calculated landing distance. When reverse thrust is used in the calculation of advisory landing distance, a 1 second delay to engage reversers is assumed, followed by the time it takes the reverser to deploy and spin up to the selected level. Furthermore, it is assumed that reverse thrust is reduced to idle between 60 knots and 30 knots. Figure 12 shows how the calculated landing distance for the 737-800 at maximum landing weight is affected by airplane braking coefficient (related to runway friction capability) and the use of reverse thrust, and how this distance compares to the scheduled AFM dry and wet landing field length. The 737-800 demonstrated an airplane braking coefficient of 0.38 on a dry runway, and a braking coefficient of

10.8

Paul Schmid | Performance Margins

0.20 is typical for a wet smooth runway. Boeing associates braking action reports of Good, Medium, and Poor with airplane braking coefficients of 0.20, 0.10, and 0.05 respectively. It is very evident from this data that a significant distance margin relative to the scheduled AFM distance is available for dry runway conditions. When the runway is wet (or braking action is good) the distance margin is less when no reversers are used, but is approximately the same as on a dry runway if reverse thrust is used. However, as the runway becomes more slippery, the distance margin ceases to exist even with credit for reverse thrust.
Flare Transition TD ~ 4 1/2 sec 1 sec (AS) 2 sec (MS) VB Stopping Stop

FAR/JAR 25 Landing Distance

50 ft

Runway length required Dry runway (AFM)

* 1.67 * 1.15
Select Rev Full rev deploy rev 1 sec Engine dependent C/B to idle at 60 kt Stop Figure 11. Landing distance calculation basis

Wet runway (AFM)

14 12 10

Landing Weight (MLW) = 146,300 lb Max Manual Braking

No Reverse Thrust Detent2rev Maximum rev

Flaps 30, Approach Speed = Vref30 Sea Level, Standard Temperature (15C) No Wind, No Runway Slope

Landing 8 distance, 1,000 ft 6

4 2

AFM wet LFL = 6,675 ft AFM dry LFL = 5,805 ft

Poor
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Wet/good
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Dry
0.4

Airplane Braking Coefficient

Figure 12. Landing distance, 737-800

10.9

2007 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference

Figure 13 quantifies the distance margins for the dry and wet runway conditions depicted on the previous figure. This presentation highlights the fact that some of the potential distance margin provided by the 1.67 and 1.92 factors must accommodate the adverse effects of higher approach and landing speed, ambient temperature above standard day, and negative runway slope, which are not included in the AFM landing distance. Nevertheless, adequate distance margins remain for dry and wet runway conditions.
MLW (146.300 lb) Flap 30, VREF 30 Max manual braking No reverse thrust Dry runway
2 Rev @

Actual 3485 Detent 140 Max 150

AFM distance, ft 5805

VREF 30 + 5 215 60 ISA + 10C 35 -1% slope

Wet/good runway
2 Rev @ Figure 13. Landing distance margins, 737-800 Detent Max 510 550

5070

6675 (1.15* dry)

VREF 30 + 5 305 95 ISA + 10C 95 -1% slope

10.10