Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Runway Extension At EWR?  
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2692 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3978 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.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePizzaandplanes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3957 times:

EWR does not need a runway extension, 4L is 11,00 feet.

User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2692 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3919 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.

Apparently, 11,000' isn't enough.


User currently offlineOrdpark From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 576 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is little if any room for a runway extension at EWR - it's pretty well landlocked at this point...

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3878 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.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

What's needed at EWR is not runway extensions but better runway spacing, the runways need to be further apart to reduce delays.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3809 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?

User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3747 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.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2554 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3580 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!"
    User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3509 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?  Smile



    Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
    User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2638 posts, RR: 11
    Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3459 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 !!
    User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3432 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.


    User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3417 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.


    Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3403 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.


    User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

    So does that mean in Sept, Oct, Nov, DEC, JAn,Feb, Mar, Apr and May the flight times will change again?

    It's only hot from Late June untill Late August.



    Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3339 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)


    User currently offlineTaca From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2013, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

    I'm trying to find out where can I see runways dimensions an maps in the net. Can anybody help me?
    Thanks in advance to all!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


    User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

    Longer runway would certainly allow one thing: Extended engine life, due to more de-rating at heavy take-offs.

    User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3047 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3327 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.


    User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3289 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.



    Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
    User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

    Overviews of EWR's Runways..


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Matthew Smith
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Kurt Werner Jakobus




    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Carlos Ferreira
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Nick Onkow




    Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
    User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2554 posts, RR: 13
    Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

    OK. Here are some detailed figures on runway requirement specs for the 772HGW [source Boeing.com]:
    http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/7772sec3.pdf



    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!"
    User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6895 posts, RR: 7
    Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3167 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?


    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...
    Approach To Runway 11 At EWR? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 15:47:07 by Timz
    Airport Runway Extension At Klan Almost Done posted Thu Sep 29 2005 01:34:07 by KarlB737
    No Runway Extension At Guernsey. posted Mon Jan 26 2004 13:48:47 by Applepie81
    Runway Configuration At EWR posted Mon Sep 8 2003 22:58:45 by Potomac
    New Runway At EWR? posted Tue Jan 18 2005 00:12:09 by COEWR777
    Runway At EWR Closed posted Fri Sep 5 2003 01:09:53 by Ybacpa
    Are They Talking Runway Extension Again At PVD? posted Mon Jun 16 2003 04:32:09 by John
    3rd Parallel Runway At EWR posted Sat May 13 2000 05:12:15 by Das Flugzeug
    UA 757 Incident At EWR Yesterday (Nov 2)? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 14:44:14 by 22right
    Over The Years: Delta At EWR... posted Thu Nov 2 2006 21:51:21 by Tommy767