The A321 at high weights does not climb rapidly. The Airbus is more of a cruise climb, where the higher speed is near cruise speed but the rate of climb is less than the 737. The Airbus will climb 250 knots up to 10,000 feet, then accelerate to 300 knots or a little more, then transition to Mach. 7 around 24,000 feet are average for the 737. Above 10,000 feet, 280 to 300 knots with a transition to Mach. Most jets climb at 250 knots up to 10,000 feet due to FAA regulations. The difference is due to the algorithms in the computers. As a general rule, the 737s climb at a lower speed, but faster rate than the Airbus. What is a more realistic climb scenario for a real aircraft, so that you can achieve maximum distance?Īnswer: Normally, climb speed is set by the flight-management computer based on weight, temperature and cruise altitude. The problem is I've exhausted almost 10% fuel and my forward speed is just about 200 knots before reaching cruise altitude, which shortens my range. After that I adjust speed to about 280 knots inching towards 300 knots, averaging about 2,500 fpm. Assuming there is a moderate amount of climbing (1500 meters) and drafting is an option then for an average amateur cyclist it will take 5.5 – 6.5 hours to complete the 100 mile long journey.— - Question: Hello Captain Cox, I would like to know the most efficient rate and speed of climb of a commercial aircraft such as a Boeing 737-700 or Airbus A321? I have two flight-simulator games on my computer and to hit cruise altitude quickly (about 33,000 feet) I start my climb at about 3,500 feet per minute going just under 250 knots below 10,000 ft. The average speed of a Gran Fondo or a Century is very dependant on how hilly the terrain is. Photo Credit: Average Speed of a Gran Fondo or Century (100 miles) The fastest was in 2005 by Lance Armstrong (if you count that) with an average bike speed of 25.88 miles per hour (41.65km/h). Since the year 2000 the Tour De France average speed for the winning time has been around 25 miles per hour (40 km/hr) over the 3 week stage race. On straight, slight downhill grades the heavier cyclist should outpace the lighter cyclist however, on steep descents with sharp corners, it comes down to bike handling skills and comfort with risk. Generally the top speed of a road bike is in direct correlation with how much risk the rider is comfortable taking on. This is why pure climbers generally weigh less. It is true that the larger riders generally have more muscle mass and can generate more power, but the advantage is the smaller riders. In order for the 200 pound rider to go as fast as the 150 pound rider up a 5% grade the 200 pound rider will have to push 255 watts. The less you weigh the less power you have to generate to get up the hill within the same amount of time.Ī 150 pound rider pushing 200 watts will go 10 miles per hour up a 5% grade.Ī 200 pound rider pushing 200 watts will go 8 miles per hour up a 5% grade. This is where the smaller riders will have an unfair advantage as the secret to climbing uphill is the power to weight ratio. Generally larger riders will do quite well on the flats as their pure power will outweigh the larger frontal area they have to push through the air. The number one key to being fast on flat terrain is pure power. The table below represents the average road bike speed taking each variable in to account. How do you compare to the pro cyclist? How about the average cyclist?Īverage sustainable watts for 1 hour (FTP)Īverage Time of a Gran Fondo/Century (100 miles) The average bike speed varies immensely depending upon total distance/duration, grade, and level of cyclist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |