From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Date: 13 Apr 94 02:46:46 PDT References: 1 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <email@example.com>, petrus lundqvist <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >I would like to get some rough figures on how long runways certain >airliners require for landng and takeoff. I know that it varies a lot >but a plane moderately loaded with "average" loads of passenger and >fuel and in "normal" weather and sea-level. The airliners I would >like to get info of are the following: >Boeing 727, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, >Airbus 320, DC-9, MD-87 (the 80 series?), MD-11, DC-10. Well, as a rule of thumb, you can figure than a twin engined commercial jet transport is designed to get in and out of La Guardia. That airport is our limiting design case for a lot of stuff. :-) The 747 uses somewhere around 8,000 to 10,500 ft of runway depending on mission length. I can't speak to tri-jets, we don't do them anymore. :-) BTW, there is no economic benefit to using less runway than is available at La Guardia. There is a niche market for the really short runways, but the compromises you would be forced into drives down your cruise performance and therefore your operating costs go up. The traffic out of those small runways is pretty thin. Look at the sales of BAe 146s, and see what I mean. -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."