Britain's longest aircraft runway ?

[motomk]

miln0039 said:

Erm, I was going to say this. That's longer than anything else quoted in the UK so far, or am I being thick and missing something? (Eric?)

Probably find Heathrows second runway is the second longest too!
Did they have to mod them much to fit the "big bus"?

[tuffer]

doogz said:

tuffer said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

tuffer said:

Boscombe may be long but its far from flat and the approach is a bit dodgy (at least it looks it to me), big hill right in front of it.

I've never had an issue landing at Boscombe.

In a Space shuttle?

Don't space shuttles approach at a much steeper angle than any other aircraft. If a hill doesn't bother a plane, it's unlikely to bother a shuttle.

FFS, does no one get sarcasm round here any more.

[Eric Mc]

It's only allowed in The Lounge.

We only get serious people in here.

[miln0039]

motomk said:

miln0039 said:

Erm, I was going to say this. That's longer than anything else quoted in the UK so far, or am I being thick and missing something? (Eric?)

Probably find Heathrows second runway is the second longest too!
Did they have to mod them much to fit the "big bus"?

I can only assume so. I watched a couple taking off from the SkyTeam lounge in T4 in January....they stay in view and on the ground quite a while...not surprising really given the amount of people, fuel, bags and (in the case of the Gulf airlines) the amount of damned luxury they have on there!

But yes, I though Heathrow seemed the obvious answer.

Maybe NASA should have bought BMI for some of the landing slots?

[Eric Mc]

I keep saying this - EVERY runway in the world of a reasonable length and within the de-orbit cross range glide capability of the Shuttle was a potential emergency landing ground.

[AndyNetwork]

motomk said:

Probably find Heathrows second runway is the second longest too!
Did they have to mod them much to fit the "big bus"?

At 3900m I would suspect they did not need to alter the runway at all.

Manchester is also certified for the A380, and has a runway of 3050m and the other of 3048m.

At Max take off weight the A380-800 needs 2750m.

[mrloudly]

AndyNetwork said:

motomk said:

Probably find Heathrows second runway is the second longest too!
Did they have to mod them much to fit the "big bus"?

At 3900m I would suspect they did not need to alter the runway at all.

Manchester is also certified for the A380, and has a runway of 3050m and the other of 3048m.

At Max take off weight the A380-800 needs 2750m.

Needs very little (relatively) to land! Was quite shocked in Sydney when we made one of the first turn offs!
Here's a gratuitous pic I took after landing having blagged my way up there ;-)

[miln0039]

AndyNetwork said:

At 3900m I would suspect they did not need to alter the runway at all.

Manchester is also certified for the A380, and has a runway of 3050m and the other of 3048m.

At Max take off weight the A380-800 needs 2750m.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I read they changed the thrust they take off at from Heathrow to lower the noise emissions, which, if they're got an extra 1,200 metres makes sense.

What would a 747 need, max take off weight? (For comparatives?)

Also - does that 2750m assume no headwind etc as I guess this would shorten the amount futher?

[Eric Mc]

miln0039 said:

AndyNetwork said:

At 3900m I would suspect they did not need to alter the runway at all.

Manchester is also certified for the A380, and has a runway of 3050m and the other of 3048m.

At Max take off weight the A380-800 needs 2750m.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I read they changed the thrust they take off at from Heathrow to lower the noise emissions, which, if they're got an extra 1,200 metres makes sense.

What would a 747 need, max take off weight? (For comparatives?)

Also - does that 2750m assume no headwind etc as I guess this would shorten the amount futher?

Thrust at takeoff is set purely on weight, wind and safety criteria - not noise. Once safely airborne, power settings may be reduced as part of the noise abatement procedures.

[miln0039]

Eric Mc said:

Thrust at takeoff is set purely on weight, wind and safety criteria - not noise. Once safely airborne, power settings may be reduced as part of the noise abatement procedures.

I said correct me if I'm wrong

That does make more sense though that they might use less thrust on the climb out once airborne. Interesting stuff either way (to me at least).

[mko9]

alangla said:

Bah, you don't need a long runway for a Jumbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPJiOareZnA

Hurn airport, 7451ft/2271m according to Wiki

Can't find a video, but various sources on the web say that BA 747-400s landed at Cambridge airport during the late 90s for work at Marshall Aerospace. Cambridge is only 6446 ft long according to Wikipedia...

There was a 747 there sometime around 2006, I think. I had a car in the Mercedes dealership, and the nose was looming over the trees. Obviously, they are going in and out of there with no passengers or cargo. I assumed they were probably lightly fueled as well.

[AndyNetwork]

miln0039 said:

What would a 747 need, max take off weight? (For comparatives?)

If the information I have here is correct, as it was supplied from Airbus for comparison, not Boeing, a 747-800 needs 3018m at MTOW.

ETA - They probably lifted it of Wikipedia, as it's the same figure there!

Edited by AndyNetwork on Thursday 7th June 15:52

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Eric Mc said:

Thrust at takeoff is set purely on weight, wind and safety criteria - not noise. Once safely airborne, power settings may be reduced as part of the noise abatement procedures.

Unless you are doing a T/O with 'Rated Thrust' (ie the R/W is long enough to use less than full power).

[Eric Mc]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Eric Mc said:

Thrust at takeoff is set purely on weight, wind and safety criteria - not noise. Once safely airborne, power settings may be reduced as part of the noise abatement procedures.

Unless you are doing a T/O with 'Rated Thrust' (ie the R/W is long enough to use less than full power).

I'm sure there are various permutations of the possibilities - but my point is that noise factors come after safety, weight etc.

[Odie]

Would the shuttle have been able to ditch at sea?

[mko9]

With that perfectly flat plane on the bottom it would probably skip like a stone!

[Prawo Jazdy]

Heathrow may be so long for flexibility reasons, rather than for a particular aircraft. If the runway is really long you can get pretty much anything to depart from an intersection as they'll still have loads of room (helpful if the first aircraft in the queue at the threshold can't go for any reason). It might let them stay on the runway in use longer if the wind becomes a tailwind. A runway change at Heathrow would probably be pretty disruptive if it weren't expected.

[Johnnytheboy]

I know this is left field but I googled it:

About third result said:

In the UK there are a total of 9 runways that exceed 3000 metres in length. Sorted longest first they are :-

Heathrow 3902 Metres (Runway 9L)
Heathrow 3658 Metres (Runway 9R)
RAF Marham 3209 Metres
Gatwick 3159 Metres
RAF Brize Norton 3050 Metres
Manchester 3048 Metres
Stansted 3048 Metres
RAF Fairford 3046 Metres
Bruntingthorpe 3000 Metres.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120301035759AAjEOwS

So Heathrow, rather boringly, gets gold & silver.

Now the Shuttle landing there would have been amusing.

[Eric Mc]

Odie said:

Would the shuttle have been able to ditch at sea?

It was part of the emergency landing procedures and they did train for such an event on the simulator. However, in reality, most people at NASA acknowledged that n Orbiter could not survive a sea ditching. The Shuttle's touch down speed was around 200 knots and the expectation was that the vehicle would break up on impact. There was not much structure between the crew compartment in the nose and the thrust structure at the back of the payload bay onto which the main engines, OMS pods and tailfin were attached.

The cargo bay was mostly empty space and the cargo bay doors did not help rigidise the structure. They cargo bay doors were only fairly thin fibreglass and plastic. They were so weak that they could not be opened on the ground without beiong supported by removable metal bracing.

[Cheib]

Eric Mc said:

I keep saying this - EVERY runway in the world of a reasonable length and within the de-orbit cross range glide capability of the Shuttle was a potential emergency landing ground.

True....but there are a quite a few that if the Shuttle had landed there they might not have got the Shuttle back