From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Takahashi) Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Date: 01 Jun 96 16:27:11 References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Robert J. Carpenter <email@example.com> wrote: >Tim Long (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: >> I seem to remember around 1982 or so, PSA (later merged into USAir) >> started flying the BA146. >In the US, few routes >require the short field performance of the 146..... There arent many >airports in developed countries that have substantial passenger traffic >and very short runways > Similarly, you don't see many Dash-7s since their short-field >performance isn't an issue most places, while the four engines must be >maintained. It's interesting to see a Dash-7 land at DCA. They seem to >regally float in and stop a few plane lengths after touching down. Then >the longish taxi to the USAir terminal. STOL seems to have petered out. I always thought that the DASH-7 was an interesting looking airplane (never have had a ride) but doesnt seem to have sold in the way that ATRs and DASH-8 have. What was the rationale? I've heard bits about being able to use taxi-ways at major airports, but have never seen such operations. Given the short take of run of a non-STOL commuter plane, like a BaE Jetstream 31, a DASH-7 must be amazing. It seems that most of the major airports have installed runway extensions and the like to handle modern jets. Presumeably, 737-500s and F100s dont have the take-off run of a DC-8-61 either. Does anybody know the reason why STOL died?