747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
When I say runway hogs, I mean an airliner that take almost a whole full size runway to lift off the ground. These jets come to mind, a fully loaded 747 classic, 707, DC 8, IL 86 and a DC 10 30 (on a long flight). Do you have any airliners you could think of that take almost a whole runway to takeoff.
Rick From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
I know this has been beaten into the ground, the early CRJ 100's - 200's seem to take a lot of time to get into the air. I think there was an earlier thread from someone referring to them as pavement grippers. I remember on a fully loaded UA (express) flight from IAD to Columbia, SC the take off was in very hot and humid weather early in the day with a lot of humidity. That plane stayed on the runway forever with the engines at high power, seemed we were halfway down I-95 before it got air born. Once air born, she climbed pretty good as we got above the cloud deck. I actually love to fly on those little pups, the long takeoff roll is all part of the fun.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2169 times:
It's true about the CRJ, relatively speaking. That's what happens when you overload your business jet design.
Also the A340-300 and 767-400, both tend to have a rather longer take-off run than a 747-400 (or DC-10-30). I'm pretty positive about this, because it took me a long time to get each of them photographed like this. Requires special repositioning along the runway at AMS.
EWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 379 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2155 times:
Since you didn't specify either airport ID or runway dimensions, I can say a fully loaded B727-200 on a hot day seemed to take forever to get off the ground. I recall being in one taking off from DCA for ORD in the middle of a hot and humid summer day and seriously wondering if we would ever rotate. Also I've seen ATA 727-200s use up almost all of MDW's runway 13C before lifting off. I swear it was so low ii seemed possible to reach up and touch the main gear as the plane roared over the barrier at 55th and Central!
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Quote: Douglas managed to take the DC-8 production total to a healthy 556, despite the fact that they are the noisiest and most airfield-demanding of all civil transports (FAA field length of the Super 63 is no less than 3505 m [11 500 ft]).
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2409 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1991 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 2): Also the A340-300 and 767-400, both tend to have a rather longer take-off run than a 747-400 (or DC-10-30).
I have to disagree with the 764; they pay regular visits in/out of HNL and don't seem to have much trouble rolling off of 8R despite the relatively hot and humid climate here in the Islands. I will give you the A340, however, as it needs to make a 45 degree bank at 500 ft to clear downtown Honolulu (and my damn building!).
Jeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 962 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
747s and MD-11s will sometimes make full use of 17L (8500 ft) at SDF. I have seen a full 747 classic clear the blast fence at the departure end by about 30 feet. Was a real treat considering I was standing in the parking lot just beyond that blast fence.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 2): Also the A340-300 and 767-400, both tend to have a rather longer take-off run than a 747-400 (or DC-10-30). I'm pretty positive about this, because it took me a long time to get each of them photographed like this
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 11): DL routinely does OGG-LAX/SLC off of the 7,000 foot runway. While it is more sluggish than the 767-300, the 767-400, for its size, still has pretty good takeoff performance.
The 767400 has better take off performance than an A330 300. Look! go to www.flightlevel350.com look up Manchester UK. And click then on the video that show the US A330, DL 767 400 and CO 757 200, and then time them from engine spool up to rotation and you see.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1804 times:
I guess you guys are be right about the 767-400 not being a hog. Its thrust/weight ratio at MTOW is about 0.28, compared to only 0.22 for the A340-300. Since the 767 has a big wing, the 764's wing loading shouldn't be too bad either.
I can only assume then that both daily Continental 764s from AMS tend to be very heavy. One goes to IAH, which is also quite a long flight, although the other one goes to EWR.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8785 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
A fully loaded A345 flight for an ultra long haul flight takes a long time to get to speed. I timed the takeoff roll for SIN-EWR at 1 minute and 2 seconds. For most of my other flights, takeoff time is between 35 and 50 seconds.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4777 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
It's an unfair comparison to use the Manchester video as DL get poor loads on their MAN-JFK service and US get relatively good ones on the MAN-PHL. I would also say that, despite the extreme length of the 764, the A330 is a bigger, bulkier plane.
Speaking of real runway hoggers, the Trident was an unbelievable example - they never wanted to come unstuck! They were nicknamed something here in the UK but I can't remember what.