Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Airliners Are Runway Hogs?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3161 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.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRick From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3159 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.

User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4003 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3148 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.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong



Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineYYZflyer From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Il-86  scared 
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




Avoid hangovers, stay drunk.
User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3134 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!

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quote:
It's true about the CRJ, relatively speaking. That's what happens when you overload your business jet design.

Dang, you beat me to it!!

I remember reading somewhere that SAS DC-8 stretches at LAX took almost the entire runway lifting off at just the last minute!

In regards to the IL-86, didn't the IL-96 address the concerns of underpowered engines (relative to the weight) and somewhat sluggish performance in certain conditions?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Ilyushins seem to be afraid of flying.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Mark


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4003 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3113 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]).

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Rose




The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 4):
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.

Agree but I saw them even in the winter time in Canada (YHM) around x-mas
man oh man it took forever (my guess loaded to the max with goods)

Note talking about the freighters.............

Cheers,


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2521 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2970 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!).

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 6):
Ilyushins seem to be afraid of flying.

While the pics are alarming to say the least, I think some have raised the possibility that this is due to the respective pilots' reluctance to use full power on takeoff. Anyone know for sure?


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineJeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


C'mon Big B, FLY!
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 9):
I have to disagree with the 764

Me as well. 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.

Jeremy


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2793 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.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4003 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2783 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.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2755 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!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2724 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.

Karl


User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2696 times:

I remember watching Aeroflot IL-62's use almost the entire runway at IAD on many occasions. Those things are runway hogs.

User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2576 times:

At SNA, the MD-80's of NW seemed to take the entire runway to get going whereas the 757 and 737's seem to get off right away.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Airliners Has The Best Climb Out's? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 03:09:04 by 747400sp
What The Are The Strongest Jetliner Ever Built? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 18:23:20 by 747400sp
What Airlines Are You Scared Of Flying With? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 00:02:14 by Azza40
What Airlines Are In Need For A New Livery? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 06:53:39 by LH492
Which Modern Airliners Are Unpopular With Pilots? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 21:24:39 by FLALEFTY
What Aircraft Are You Flying On This Christmas? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 17:20:10 by Richardw
What Airline Are You? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 22:51:42 by RootsAir
What Airport Are You? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 20:54:47 by EZYAirbus
What Airliners.net Photo Is On Your Computer? posted Wed May 12 2004 03:34:21 by Fuffla
What Are Your Upcoming Trip Reports? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 20:49:49 by Buck3y3nut