Can a Commercial Airplane Takeoff During Landing in Casino Royale?

[XWingz87]

I was watching "Casino Royale" with my friends yesterday, and there was a part where a commercial plane was about to land, but it seems that its runway was being obstructed, so it suddenly took off again.

I am under the impression that it's not possible for a commercial airplane to takeoff when it is landing. I understand that in order for a plane to takeoff, its thrust must sufficiently large enough so that the lift force overcomes the weight. Since the commercial aircraft is so heavy, wouldn't it require a huge amount of thrust change? If this thrust change takes place in such a short time (the plane barely make contact with the ground before it takes off in the movie), wouldn't the passenger feel too much jerk and pass out or something?

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[FredGarvin]

I haven't seen the scene you are discussing. However, I will say that it's not impossible. Not likely either, but not impossible. There are a lot of factors that play into it. I could see it happening if the landing speed were higher than normal. I think you would be surprised by what large airliners can really do. We are used to seeing them flown a certain way because that is the safest way. Heck, no one thought a 707 could do a barrell roll.

 

[russ_watters]

A plane that is landing is constrained by drag - the plane is flying slow, the flaps and gear are down, and the angle of attack is high, so the engine thrust is relatively high without increasing the speed. Because of that, it is tough for a landing airliner to make a dramatic take-off-like climbout right before touchdown. It basically has to stay level for a while, gain speed slowly, raise the flaps and gear, then pull up. It probably isn't any easier to return to flight that way than to do an acutal touch-and-go.

But I haven't seen the movie either...

 

[arildno]

Good heavens.
You're talking James Bond here, right?
007 is beyond physics; if you can't relate to that, have a martini, shaken, not stirred.

 

[arildno]

Good heavens.
You're talking James Bond here, right?
007 is beyond physics; if you can't relate to that, have a martini, shaken, not stirred.

 

[Andre]

A plane that is landing is constrained by drag - the plane is flying slow, the flaps and gear are down, and the angle of attack is high, so the engine thrust is relatively high without increasing the speed. Because of that, it is tough for a landing airliner to make a dramatic take-off-like climbout right before touchdown. It basically has to stay level for a while, gain speed slowly, raise the flaps and gear, then pull up. It probably isn't any easier to return to flight that way than to do an acutal touch-and-go.

But I haven't seen the movie either...

Well there are no hard numbers mentioned here, but the final approach thrust is only slightly above idle. The aircraft is almost gliding. At full trust, altitude is gained almost immediately, also because there is a significant vertical component of the thrust vector. There is a awful lot of thrusts in those beasts today.

It's also a safety requirement to meet certain instanteneous minimum climb rates to overcome the infamous microbursts around thunderstorms, which are guaranteed to ruin your day.

 

[Dr Lotsawatts]

I was watching "Casino Royale" with my friends yesterday, and there was a part where a commercial plane was about to land, but it seems that its runway was being obstructed, so it suddenly took off again.

I am under the impression that it's not possible for a commercial airplane to takeoff when it is landing. I understand that in order for a plane to takeoff, its thrust must sufficiently large enough so that the lift force overcomes the weight. Since the commercial aircraft is so heavy, wouldn't it require a huge amount of thrust change? If this thrust change takes place in such a short time (the plane barely make contact with the ground before it takes off in the movie), wouldn't the passenger feel too much jerk and pass out or something?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Funny, last Saturday, I practised my landings in a Cessna (hadn't gone solo in 5 years), and then Sunday, I went and saw Casino Royal. I remember the scene.

In a small plane, when you are about to land, throttle is low to idle, whereas when you take off, or decide to overshoot, you max the throttle. Flaps and gears will affect performance, but take-off and approach can be done with or without them, they are very secondary to the effect of engin power.

It is common procedure to go from idle to max throttle to do an overshoot when needed, whether the plane has touched the ground or not. Passengers will feel the acceleration, but don't forget the engins have a lot of mass to pull, so the acceleration isn't unbearable. Not worse than when you go from 0 to take-off speed. In an overshoot, you go from landing speed > 0 to take-off speed (without the drag from the rolling wheels), which aren't actually very far apart.

 

[FrogPad]

By the way, that was a fantastic movie. I'm so glad Pierce Brosnan is gone.

 

[russ_watters]

Well there are no hard numbers mentioned here, but the final approach thrust is only slightly above idle. The aircraft is almost gliding. At full trust, altitude is gained almost immediately, also because there is a significant vertical component of the thrust vector. There is a awful lot of thrusts in those beasts today.

I find that very hard to believe given the vast amount of drag that is added by full flaps and gear and a high angle of attack. And with a thrust to weight ratio that can't be much above .5 with the tanks empty and at full throttle, the engines can't provide more than a quarter of the lift - while reducing their ability to provide forward speed by the same 25% (at 15 degrees aoa).

And I know they work hard to combat wind shear, but you still don't land if there is a thunderstorm nearby. There isn't anything a pilot or airplane can do if they get a significant downdraft with their nose in the air and their throttles near idle. It takes what - 5 seconds for the engines to spin up? 10 or more for the gear to come up?

...Except for the part about final approach being slightly above idle - I'm sure that's true, but on final approach, you are decending. With a good glide ratio, it doesn't take much decent rate to keep the speed up. That doesn't mean it can quickly transition to a climb.

 

[Danger]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I think that I might based upon the few clips that I've seen. The last Bond movie that I saw at all was the one with the drug kingpin (shows you what a fan I am; I can't remember the title), and I only saw it because it came on TV when I had nothing else to do. This one looks as if it has a nice edge to it, though... more in line with the original books.
Dr., glad to see that you're keeping up. It's somewhere around 30 years since I had a chance to fly. Although you don't really get to do it much, I just loved the X-treme takeoffs (for passenger reaction); everything to the wall with the brakes locked, then kick 'em off and horse it back.
And despite the signature, I never used flaps unless I had to. I prefer a clean bird.

 

[StatMechGuy]

I'd just like to point out that this followed a chase in which a man on foot caught up with a full speed truck, jumped onto another truck, jumped back, and then got into a fight in the cab of the truck. So yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about the particulars of the physics there.

 

[gone gator]

A plane that is landing is constrained by drag - the plane is flying slow, the flaps and gear are down, and the angle of attack is high, so the engine thrust is relatively high without increasing the speed. Because of that, it is tough for a landing airliner to make a dramatic take-off-like climbout right before touchdown. It basically has to stay level for a while, gain speed slowly, raise the flaps and gear, then pull up. It probably isn't any easier to return to flight that way than to do an acutal touch-and-go.

But I haven't seen the movie either...

well I've seen the movie, but i do not recall the scene. how steep was the climb?

and while i hate to spoil the nice theory with an ugly fact, but i have been in an aborted landing AFTER we were over the runway; no touch and go; no dramatic climb. in fact we climbed very slowly as we headed down the East river. (looking in apartment windows, i was trying to recall how high the bridges were).

 

[cells]

i know that fighter jets when landing on a carrier are required (for safety) to put on max thrust before they land (hence if they miss they got plenty of speed to fly away)

i assume the same is true with passenger planes, they are probably required to increase power just before they land and have it on just incase they need to take off again

I’m pretty sure of it, if u notice next time you’re on a plane, when landing the noise level increases indicating that the engine is going faster

 

[FredGarvin]

i know that fighter jets when landing on a carrier are required (for safety) to put on max thrust before they land (hence if they miss they got plenty of speed to fly away)

i assume the same is true with passenger planes, they are probably required to increase power just before they land and have it on just incase they need to take off again

I’m pretty sure of it, if u notice next time you’re on a plane, when landing the noise level increases indicating that the engine is going faster

No. No. No. Two very different situations. In a carrier landing, the engines are increased to max at the moment of touchdown. The decent rate is controlled by throttle. They would not be able to land if they had the aircraft at max before they touched down.

In an airliner, the change in throttle you hear is because the thrust reversers are employed on the engines. The engines are brought to a higher throttle to help slow the plane.

I really have to see this movie now.

 

[cells]

No. No. No. Two very different situations. In a carrier landing, the engines are increased to max at the moment of touchdown. The decent rate is controlled by throttle. They would not be able to land if they had the aircraft at max before they touched down.

humm perhaps its my wording, but that's what i ment.

have max thrust just before you land (you can have max thrust and not even be moving) not landing with max velocity

 

[Boeing_pilot]

Hi folks, well being a pilot myself I had to comment on this.

I have seen the film, and all the pilots are doing is a "Go Around".
It is a normal procedure and on the Boeing 737/300-900 you will start to climb without hitting the deck.
Jet aircraft come down the glide slope with 30 degree of flaps and gear down, now that's a lot of drag.
To counter this there are Leading edge flaps and slats to help increase lift at slow speeds, say 130 Kts.
The power setting on a 737 is normally around the 58% that is on the N1 gauge, it is the front fan speed, with a 2.5 degree nose up. Go around power is 85% ish
To give you an idea about straight and level, at 210 kts you have 60% N1 with 6 degrees nose up and at 250 kts, 67% N1 and 4 degreess nose up both speeds are clean with no drag devices deployed.
This is why on a cat III autoland we can have a decision altitude of 50 feet.
Just for the record 737's have about 20-25 tonnes of thrust per engine and a 757 have 50tonnes per engine. Hope that answers your question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Heck, no one thought a 707 could do a barrell roll.

Please, do elaborate.

 

[FredGarvin]

Please, do elaborate.

It was rolled on a whim (a very educated whim) by the Boeing test pilot for a display for Boeing employees in boats over Puget Sound (1955). There is a very famous picture taken from inside the cabin:
http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/Approaches/707_barrel_roll.jpg

http://historyink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=390
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

It was rolled on a whim (a very educated whim) by the Boeing test pilot for a display for Boeing employees in boats over Puget Sound (1955). There is a very famous picture taken from inside the cabin:
http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/Approaches/707_barrel_roll.jpg

http://historyink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=390
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

A whim.

I have a tuna melt instead of a club on a whim. This guy barrel rolls commerical jets.

 

[FredGarvin]

Well, maybe whim wasn't the right word. Rumor has it that it was not planned by anyone. I am sure that the test pilots knew exactly what they were doing and what they could get away with. Did notice how much altitude they had under them?

Still, what a cool display that must have been. Definitely something that was done in a very different time and state of mind.

 

[zt14427]

A few points...
1. There is a lot of surface are on the planes wings.
2. With the flaps extended the plane would not only have more drag but also have more lift.
3. There was a lot of space between the plane and the runway. about 40 feet.
4. There were 4 new state of the art engines, probably a lot of thrust.
5. The decent was shallow.
6. They were landing half way in the runway. wtf
7. The amount of thrust with the mass of the plane and the angle of approach would make it possible, but would take a toll on the engines.

 

[zt14427]

btw the plane with the two groups of engines right next to each other (total of four engines) was a modified boeing 747 used for movies. Its registration number isn't a valid number for a commercial jet. The plane's slangish name is the "Boeing 747-XXX"

 

[mikelepore]

Good heavens.
You're talking James Bond here, right?
007 is beyond physics; if you can't relate to that, have a martini, shaken, not stirred.

Some physics textbooks use James Bond examples. I saw at least one text refer to the scene in "Diamonds Are Forever" where Jill St. John falls into the ocean because she was standing on the offshore oil rig, fired the machine gun, and recoiled backwards off the platform.

 

[skeptic2]

Not too long ago I was on a commercial airliner at a window seat watching what seemed to be a normal landing, when just as the wheels were about to touch, the plane went to full throttle and climbed at steep angle. The plane circled around once before landing. Though nothing was said, I suspect he was on the wrong runway.

 

[captn]

... all the pilots are doing is a "Go Around".
It is a normal procedure...

Thanks for the confirmation.

I have seen jets do a Go Around from only about 20-30 ft above the runway. One case looked like they were about to land too near the forward end! (They should have touched-down sooner.) I have also been in a Go Around---in the fog! Only because I knew the airfield could I see and recognize light glows in the fog.

My understanding is that normal Go Arounds don't even need to be reported to the FAA.

the_captn (NOT a pilot)

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for the confirmation.

I have seen jets do a Go Around from only about 20-30 ft above the runway. One case looked like they were about to land too near the forward end! (They should have touched-down sooner.) I have also been in a Go Around---in the fog! Only because I knew the airfield could I see and recognize light glows in the fog.

My understanding is that normal Go Arounds don't even need to be reported to the FAA.

the_captn (NOT a pilot)

I should have my friend's son the cadet tell you about the barrel roll he was forced to at nape-of-Earth in his glider because someone decided they needed that runway more than he did.

 

[FredGarvin]

Rolling a glider at "nap" of the Earth type altitudes? Sorry Dave. It's a good bar story, but I call total BS on that one. Your cadet buddy is full of it. Powered aircraft have troubles not losing altitude in a roll let alone a glider. I would need some form of proof for this one.

Then again, maybe NOE is defined differently for a glider pilot than a helicopter jock.

 

[Phrak]

What are liftoff and touchdown, throttle, speed and flaps for a 747?

 

[TurtleMeister]

What are liftoff and touchdown, throttle, speed and flaps for a 747?

I'm not a real pilot but I have a lot of hours with the 747 in MS Flight Sim. For takeoff I use 5 or 10 degree flaps. Takeoff and landing speeds can vary and depend to some extent on loading. I usually start my rotation at around 150 IAS. For landing I gradually decrease speed and extend flaps one notch at a time as I reach the maximum safe speed to do so. One of the quirks of the 747 is that it's difficult to slow it down when you're in a decent. Just cutting back on the throttle won't do it so I have to use the speed brakes. I try to get my air speed down to about 170 IAS before I enter the glide slope on final. I could go down to 160 or even 150, but fully loaded the 747 will stall at just under 150 so I like to some margin of safety. And higher speeds give you better control. Once established on final and I'm into the glide slope I lower the gear and go to full flaps (30). The main purpose of flaps when landing is to put the aircraft at a more level angle. If I could not use flaps on landing I would not be able to see the runway, unless I increased air speed to bring the nose down.

As someone has already mentioned the "go around" is pretty routine and normal. It even happens in flight sim. If the plane landing in front of me is too slow exiting the runway or if I'm just coming in too fast behind him then I will get a "go around" from the control tower.

 

[DaveC426913]

Rolling a glider at "nap" of the Earth type altitudes? Sorry Dave. It's a good bar story, but I call total BS on that one. Your cadet buddy is full of it. Powered aircraft have troubles not losing altitude in a roll let alone a glider. I would need some form of proof for this one.

Awesome. I'm pleased to hear that you find it hard to believe. I'm not experienced enough to know how hard it is, but his parents, and the cadets, and the tower guys who witnessed it practically threw themselves at his feet (my words).

I'll be happy to provide proof. Stay tuned.

P.S. It's "nape-of-Earth". That wasn't a typo.

 

[Phrak]

I'm not a real pilot but I have a lot of hours with the 747 in MS Flight Sim. For takeoff I use 5 or 10 degree flaps. Takeoff and landing speeds can vary and depend to some extent on loading. I usually start my rotation at around 150 IAS. For landing I gradually decrease speed and extend flaps one notch at a time as I reach the maximum safe speed to do so. One of the quirks of the 747 is that it's difficult to slow it down when you're in a decent. Just cutting back on the throttle won't do it so I have to use the speed brakes. I try to get my air speed down to about 170 IAS before I enter the glide slope on final. I could go down to 160 or even 150, but fully loaded the 747 will stall at just under 150 so I like to some margin of safety. And higher speeds give you better control. Once established on final and I'm into the glide slope I lower the gear and go to full flaps (30). The main purpose of flaps when landing is to put the aircraft at a more level angle. If I could not use flaps on landing I would not be able to see the runway, unless I increased air speed to bring the nose down.

As someone has already mentioned the "go around" is pretty routine and normal. It even happens in flight sim. If the plane landing in front of me is too slow exiting the runway or if I'm just coming in too fast behind him then I will get a "go around" from the control tower.

From what I've been gathering the changes required between takeoff and landing are increasing throttle, retracting the speed brakes and decreasing flaps by 10 degrees. The flaps and speed brakes may take 15-20 seconds to change setting.

It looks as though, full flaps on takeoff will prevent the 747 from rotating nose up for takeoff. You might try it in your simulator to see how it reacts.

 

[TurtleMeister]

From what I've been gathering the changes required between takeoff and landing are increasing throttle, retracting the speed brakes and decreasing flaps by 10 degrees. The flaps and speed brakes may take 15-20 seconds to change setting.

It looks as though, full flaps on takeoff will prevent the 747 from rotating nose up for takeoff. You might try it in your simulator to see how it reacts.

Are you talking about a touch-and-go landing? 15 - 20 seconds sounds about right for the flaps, but the speed brakes are much faster. Touch-and-go landings are normal procedures, so I'm sure there's one for the 747. But an aborted landing after touch down would be a different situation because the braking, speed brakes and wheel brakes, come on automatically when the wheels touch the runway. I guess it would depend on how soon you discover you have to get back in the air, how much runway you have left, and how heavy you are. I'll give it a try the next time I'm playing with flight sim.

 

[vibjwb]

The back and forth between Cells and Fredgarvin might be explained like this. There is a response time between putting the throttle on max thrust and the engine being on full thrust. I would think that the pilot would put the throttle on full thrust before touch down to get full thrust out of the engine at touch down. I think that both meant the same thing.

 

[sganesh88]

If taking off while landing can make you guys raise your eyebrows, then watch this..


If laws are your GODS then do not watch it. Blasphemous.!

 

[DaveC426913]

Rolling a glider at "nap" of the Earth type altitudes? Sorry Dave. It's a good bar story, but I call total BS on that one. Your cadet buddy is full of it. Powered aircraft have troubles not losing altitude in a roll let alone a glider. I would need some form of proof for this one.

My bad.

I should have heard the full story from the horse's mouth before speaking out.

He veered off all right, but never rolled past 90.