Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2538 times:
With the introduction of ultra-long-haul flights out of EWR such as Singapore's EWR-SIN, Continental's EWR-HKG, and Malaysia's EWR-DXB, is there any space for the extension of 4L?
I think that an extension of maybe 1000' would be of great advantage for these extremely long flights.
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
SQ had to push their EWR-SIN flight back to take advantage of the cooler temperatures to ensure that the flight would be able to make it off the runway without severe weight restrictions.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16316 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
"SQ had to push their EWR-SIN flight back to take advantage of the cooler temperatures to ensure that the flight would be able to make it off the runway without severe weight restrictions."
That was one posters opinion, not a fact stated by the airline itself.
CO's Hong Kong flight leaves at 11Am, if CO thought they could get better performance from the route if they left at 11PM or 6AM they would switch the departure time.
EWR's 4L was recently (5 years) extended to 11,000 ft, it's obviously enough for SQ otherwise they would be flying the route from JFK.
Having lived in New Jersey/NYC my whole life I have come to a realization, it's only hot 3 months out of the year. If SQ did indeed schedule their flight at night due to the cooler weather it would only effect them 3 months out of a 12 month year, the other 9 months it would not make a difference.
Mark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
Cooler temperatures??? Hate to tell you but, we're just begining the summer in the NY area, and it sure can get quite hot over here. I thought SQ was to begin that service in June?
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2300 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
I've watched the CO 777 EWR-HKG, EWR-NRT, and EWR-TLV, and the MH 777 EWR-DXB flights depart EWR and I've never seen them use more than 75% of 22R/ 4L. Lots of power, and lots of lift. I'm sure the A345 has plenty of ponies to get airborne quickly as well.
In the past I've seen some very long takeoff rolls from 727's on hot summer days, and for that matter some long takeoff rolls for the A342s and A343s out of EWR.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2001 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
I've watched the CO 777 EWR-HKG, EWR-NRT, and EWR-TLV, and the MH 777 EWR-DXB flights depart EWR and I've never seen them use more than 75% of 22R/4L . . .
You can not judge runway length requirement by just watching planes take-off and judging remaining runway length. Runway length requirement is NOT driven by ACTUAL take-off run, but by one of these two limiting factors:
One engine out prior to V1: at engine failure before reaching decision speed [+ including two second reaction time], remaining runway length must be sufficient for aircraft to stop using wheelbrakes only, no thrust reverse;
One engine out after V1: at engine failure after decision speed [+ including two second reaction time], remaining runway length must be sufficient for aircraft to continue accelerating to safe take-off speed.
Twin engine aircarft are more challenged since they loose a larger percentage of engine power [and thus acceleration] when one engine fails during the take-off run. Therefore they will require a faster acceleration compared to a twin, and therefore on a normal take-off run [without engine failure . . . ] they seem to leave quite some runway unusued. In reality this unused runway length is required for in case of an engine failure at decision speed [V1].
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2300 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
"You can not judge runway length requirement by just watching planes take-off and judging remaining runway length. Runway length requirement is NOT driven by ACTUAL take-off run, but by one of these two limiting factors:"
------------------------------------------
I'm not judging runway length requirements by watching planes take off- just making an observation. Obviously V1 due to possible engine out scenario would be quite a bit sooner for heavy twins compared to a "lighter" twin on any runway.
So..... would V1 for a heavy 757-300 on a hot July day at MDW be when the brakes are released?
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
Thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1976 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
That's bull guys!
11000ft of runway is plenty! If we were talking about El Alto intl airport in Bolivia, with an altitude of 13313ft Above Sea Level, then I would begin to doubt that 11000ft would be enough for an A340-500, but for EWR! Come on!
TheNoFLyZone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Two other factors as to EWR: 1) EWR is only a few feet above sea level - it is only a mile away from Port Newark, a major ocean shipping port. 2) CO and others have been operating 2 engined heavies like 777's on very long non-stop flights to Hong Kong, Japan, Europe for years.
I doubt there will be much worry of a 4-engined A-340 series getting off the ground in time, even one at very high loads.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16316 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
If it was an issue they would have flown the route from JFK, and EWR is even less than a mile from Port Newark. They are connected by a bridge from Tower road to the Port, there are shipping companies operating joint Maritime/Trucking/rail/air freight terminals all over the place.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
That was one posters opinion, not a fact stated by the airline itself.
CO's Hong Kong flight leaves at 11Am, if CO thought they could get better performance from the route if they left at 11PM or 6AM they would switch the departure time.
EWR's 4L was recently (5 years) extended to 11,000 ft, it's obviously enough for SQ otherwise they would be flying the route from JFK.
That's what you think.
The former poster had it right.... the flight was indeed pushed back from its original time due to concerns over runway length.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
So does that mean in Sept, Oct, Nov, DEC, JAn,Feb, Mar, Apr and May the flight times will change again?
I dont know... but it's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility.
Remember UA's shortlived DEN-AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA, which switched times constantly due to temp (DEN being a rather extreme example thereof, pre-16000ft runway)
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2903 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
Is EWR and the New York area really get that hot during the summer month's to warrant a runway extension.
I thought that area of the US had similar climate and weather conditons to the UK.
At LGW and MAN which is a 10,000 ft runway they have no problems handling all types of aircraft including 744, 365 and 366's even during the summer months. Where on very occassional days in summer reaches 100'F.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16316 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
There is usually a three week period in the NYC area typically around the end of July begining of August when there will be three weeks of mid to high '90s with high humidity, one or two days may reach the 100 degree mark.
The rest of the Summer the tempatures hover in the low to mid Eighties, with low to moderate humidity.
Newark is as close to sea level as you can get, it's adjacent to Port Newark.
In a perfect World Newark would have four pararell runways each 16,000ft long.
However EWR's three runways (11,000, 10,000, 6,800ft) work well for long haul flights, Fed Ex has a major hub at EWR which they fly full MD-11s to Asia (Via Anchorage) and Europe everyday.
The runway length of EWR's runways is fine for 99.8% of EWR's flights, spending Hundreds of Millions to extend the runways even more just to accomadate more cargo on SQ's one daily flight is not worth the expense.
If CO wants better perfomance on their EWR-Hong Kong flight or if they are interested in launching their own EWR-Singapore flight the best solution for CO and SQ would be to order the 777-200LR, the superior performance and range of the 777-200LR will more than make up for the short falls of the current routes.
What's needed at EWR is better runway spacing to reduce all delays.
Section 3.3.3 FAA Takeoff runway length requirements - standard day
Model 777-200 [High Gross Weight Airplane]:
Weights
MTOW = 297,600kg [656,000lb]
Max payload = 56,900kg [125,550 lb]
OEW = 138,100 kg [304,500 lb]
Runway Length
@MTOW and @sealevel, a little over 11,100 ft of runway is required for the 772HGW at standard day conditions [15C, 59F]
At 2,000 ft pressure altitude [15C, 59F], runway length for take off @MTOW would be 15,500 ft . . .
Unfortunately, this document does not contain a temperature graph, only altitude graph.
Payload/range:
Range @max payload, fueled to MTOW: 5,800nm
Range @max fuel, MTOW: 8,600 nm [payload limited to 23,200 kg / 51,000 lb]
I believe that EWR - HKG is about 7,020nm. In order to fuel up for this range, payload would be limited by 40,000 lbs to a maximum of about 85,500 in order not to exceed MTOW.
Keep in mind that this is still air range, and also does not take into account increased EOW as a result of additional IFE and heavyweight first/business seats, which would further erode payload.
In reality, actual range required would be 10-15% more than still air range; taking into account operational effects such as: runway slope, runway [cross-]winds, runway surface condition, step climb, en-route wind, actual route deviations from great circle, unfavourable cruising altitudes, ETOPS considerations, holding at destination airport, airline policy on fuel reserves etc. etc. . .
CONCLUSION:
At standard day conditions the EWR - HKG flight on the 777-200HGW is MTOW limited at 15C/59F;
For a still air range of 7020nm, payload is limited by approx 40,000 lbs [assuming that the CO configuration EOW is 304,500 lbs, resulting in max payload of 126,000 lb - heavier EOW will reduce max payload number to stay within MZFW limits].
I don't know much about payload/fuel requirements on EWR - HKG, nor on CO OEW for the 772, but it very much seems that extending a runway at EWR beyond 11,000 ft would reduce the number of payload limited flights on CO's EWR - HKG flight.
PW100
PS. Was not able to find runway data on A340-500, therefore used the 772HGW EWR - HKG operation . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6477 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1727 times:
"At 2,000 ft pressure altitude [15C, 59F], runway length for take off @MTOW would be 15,500 ft . . .
Unfortunately, this document does not contain a temperature graph, only altitude graph."
It says "standard day"-- which would be 11 deg C at 2000 ft.
Yeah, it sure is nice of Boeing to provide us all these graphs. How come Airbus doesn't-- or do they?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2001 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1976 posts, 
From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2013, 0 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2903 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
