Note to self: DO NOT FLY EVA AIR

[maser_spyder]

EVA Air Boeing 747-45EM taking off from runway 36L at Amsterdam-Schiphol (AMS / EHAM) (Netherlands).

The distance to the fence was 145 meters.

[Deva Link]

Is that fuel being dumped behind it?

[fatboy b]

I managed to blag a trip to the Heathrow control tower some years back. All the twin & triple jets were taking off fairly early on the runway. The 747's were hanging on 'til quite near the end. I enquired why, and they set take-off power according to runway length; weight; and pressure altitude so that they use most of the runway. Saves engine stress not using full power.

However, that it pretty close. Guess they got the calcs wrong.

[HoHoHo]

I'm sure I've seen that photo before with a comment that it's actually not as close as it may appear, it's all to do with DOF.

That said, it looks pretty close to the fence!

[dumbfunk]

Yup, telephoto lens compression.

Somebody with far more time and determination than I did a map of the image in this thread: http://www.theaussieaviator.net/threads/eva-air-bo...

[c7xlg]

Twins always take off quicker than 4 engines a/c. The twins have 100% extra power available than they need to climb out in case of an engine failure... Ie they can climb on one engine so have lots and lots of power when both donks are working. 4 engines only have 33% extra power as they are engined to climb on 3 engines if one goes pop.

[peter tdci]

fatboy b said:

I managed to blag a trip to the Heathrow control tower some years back. All the twin & triple jets were taking off fairly early on the runway. The 747's were hanging on 'til quite near the end. I enquired why, and they set take-off power according to runway length; weight; and pressure altitude so that they use most of the runway. Saves engine stress not using full power.

However, that it pretty close. Guess they got the calcs wrong.

As I understand it, the first important point in the take-off roll is when the aircraft reaches the V1 speed for the conditions on the day.

Slower than that, the aircraft is rated to be able to stop on the runway if something happens that SOP dictates an rejected take-off (like an engine failure).

Faster than V1, they're probably going flying, but until they reach V2 (the safe take-off speed on n-1 engines), they aren't out of the woods!

Once the aircraft is faster than V2, they can rotate at the PIC's leisure :-) And I have seen some YouTube clips where *every* inch of the runway appeared to have been used!

[dr_gn]

Must admit this picture has been reposted a few times, and I never saw what was particularly amazing about it. It's obviously taken with a long lens which compresses perspective, and the people, vehicles and fences aren't directly underneath it anyway...what's supposed to be the big deal about it?

[XB70]

There is some footage on youtube of an IL-76 taking off from Canberra airport and uses every. single. foot of the runway!

[dumbfunk]

As posted above, there's a map at that link.
The plane is miles from anything.

[davepoth]

XB70 said:

There is some footage on youtube of an IL-76 taking off from Canberra airport and uses every. single. foot of the runway!

Here it is, including vaguely racist commentary from the ATC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um1cSJ650uM

[spitfire-ian]

maser_spyder said:

The distance to the fence was 145 meters.

So this bit was correct... however it was the distance between the wing tip and the fence

[uk_vette]

Nice one Nic,

I think I remember a website that shown a lot of challenging runways around the world.
Some were very close to mountains, some very close to beaches.
If any one know the site,,,,,please post up.

Vette