Charliejag1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19665 times:
Agreed and agreed.
-5300ft above sea level. This means there is less air to make lift for departing a/c and drag for arriving a/c. It just takes more distance for a plane to takeoff or land as you increase elevation.
-DEN is a major hub. This means there are big widebodies that use the airport, necessitating a long runway.
-It gets cold in Denver. Ice and snow on the runway mean you need more distance to stop. Sometimes this can increase the landing distance by 100% or more. This way, a long-haul widebody won't have to divert nearly as often when DEN is getting a winter storm.
Does anybody know of a civil airport with any runway that is longer than those at DEN? Exclude airports that were built as a military base originally.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21310 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19665 times:
Short answer: because there was room!!
Quoting EHHO (Reply 3): Now, if there would be anyone doing that. A340/B777 is all that goes, or will ever go to Europe from DEN.
But you also must consider freighters.
Anyway, it makes it a valid diversion airport for any type, as well. On a flight from NRT-DFW, we diverted to DEN despite being 400 miles out of the way, because everything closer was closed or couldn't handle us...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19643 times:
To go along with the altitude I believe high heat can come into consideration as well. With the longer runway you should have less possibility of weight restrictions on takeoff. I was on a flight this summer where they took 15 volunteers off a MD-88 because of the heat.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
ATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19615 times:
Altitude, and it gets hot in the summer, especially on black tarmac. Charlie also said ice, which is entirely possible too. We just got a snow/rain thing here and it froze to become black ice almost all over, so I agree with charlie, even though I never thought of it before. (Good idea charlie)
Quoting EHHO (Reply 3): A340/B777 is all that goes, or will ever go to Europe from DEN.
I know for a fact that a LH 747 lands there every week direct from Munich and I'm assuming that it goes back the same way. (As my dad has flown on it a few times.) Plus as Ikramerica said, there are a bunch of freighters too. I have seen an AN-24 a few 767s and others land, take off, or be on the tarmac at DEN. (Along with the 777).
I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19621 times:
If I remember correctly, United requested the long runway so that it could fly a 747-400 or a 777 DEN-NRT or other DEN-Asia routes fully loaded year round.
United still hasn't done it, but the runway was built.
The whole of DEN was designed for 24/7/365 operations, regardless of most weather patterns. The 16,000 foot long runway enables the above mentioned diversions as well as hot and high operations and the widebody landings in the cold.
I believe the runways are also heated to keep snow and ice at bay, so to speak.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Vref5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19508 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9): There are very few in the world that can, and very few that are needed anyway.
Ah, there are literally dozens of ELS (emergency landing site) locations all over the world. You've got RTLS back to KSC, ECAL to places up the east coast of the U.S. such as Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, TAL to places in Spain, Morocco, and elsewhere, and general ELS sites for emergency landings from orbit. For instance, Stockholm Arlanda (ARN / ESSA) is a designated ELS site.
For a sea level airport, the Space Shuttle normally needs only about 6000 ft of runway assuming normal braking conditions, touchdown point, speed, etc. Not sure how much longer you'd need at a high altitude place like Denver.
NASA's top preference is U.S. military sites for ELS locations because easier to secure as well as less inconvenience to civilian air traffic. However, they do have a mixture of military and civilian airports for the designated ELS sites. Outside the U.S., they take what they can get, within reason. (For instance, they don't operate ELS sites in politically risky locations.)
The full and current list is classified for operational security reasons, but you can find old versions of the list that is probably still 95% the same. They have closed or discontinued use of ELS sites at locations that appears to be risky (politics or security-wise) such as Banjul (BYD) in the Gambia.
In a pinch, a lot more airports could serve as landing sites... NASA just has designated ELS sites since they have trained personnel, procedures, equipment, capacity, facilities, in a suitable location reachable during launch or from orbit, amongst other factors for selection.
But if it came to the worst and the Shuttle couldn't reach a ELS site, then, well, sure, they can dial into VORTACs and give it their best shot at reaching an airport with a suitable runway along their path they can make, ELS or not.
Denver in the summer would probably not be such so fun. But at 16,000 ft in length, it's possible, I suppose. Do, however, keep in mind that the Shuttle touches down at approx. 195-200 knots -- faster than normal traffic that lands.
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1322 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19472 times:
I got in a situation this summer where I did not have the performance to take-off. 16K is not always enough when it is 98F and the field is over 5,000'. I removed 20 pax and fuel stopped in Memphis. And it still was a sporting takeoff.
Fll2993 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19433 times:
what airlines you fly for?
Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 16): I got in a situation this summer where I did not have the performance to take-off. 16K is not always enough when it is 98F and the field is over 5,000'. I removed 20 pax and fuel stopped in Memphis. And it still was a sporting takeoff.
Well...given his screen name and the fact that he lives in the USA, I'd assume you can narrow it down to two airlines...
And back on topic-
I N/R'ed on GQ back to BIL once out of DEN. That was a fun takeoff on a 1900D. The PIC kept it on the runway past the 9,000 foot marker and boy oh boy did that thing climb when we came off the ground...
By the way, almost all major airport runways in Canada are 200 ft. wide, 50 ft. wider than the most common 150 ft. width in the US, although some US commercial runways are 200 ft. All JFK runways are 150 ft. except (ironically) the shortest runway which is 200 ft.
Many airports at much higher altitudes than DEN probably wish they had the luxury of a 16,000 ft. runway.
MEX -Mexico City, altitude 7,316 ft, longest runway 12,966 ft
UIO - Quito, Ecuador, altitude 9,228 ft, longest runway 10,236 ft.
LPB - La Paz, Bolivia, altitude 13,325 ft, longest runway 13,123 ft.
I recall departing MEX on a KLM 744 (combi) nonstop to AMS last year, about an 11 hour flight. It seemed like almost all of the 12,966 ft. were used before it lifted off, and the whole aircraft seemed to shudder for about 5 seconds just after liftoff like it really didn't want to fly (I was in the upper deck).
Re LPB, I recall a story (whether true or not I don't know) many years ago when Eastern acquired Braniff's South America routes after BN went bankrupt and shut down (a few years before EA did the same thing and the routes were acquired by AA). EA initially used a B727 from MIA to LPB with a couple of en route stops. According to the story, on the first flight, when the EA 727 parked at the gate at LPB and the cabin door was opened, all the oxygen masks dropped, as the airport altitude is above the usual altitude where oxygen would be required if the aircraft was airborne. They had to make some adjustments to the oxygen system to prevent that from happening on future flights to LPB.
BAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19177 times:
Quoting Vref5 (Reply 14): However, they do have a mixture of military and civilian airports for the designated ELS sites.
And Zaragoza is both at the same time.
Quoting Vref5 (Reply 14): The full and current list is classified for operational security reasons, but you can find old versions of the list that is probably still 95% the same.
NASA publishes a list of landing sites - be they for launch emergencies or not - on their own website. For example;
Now maybe you know something I don't and maybe that list isn't complete, but there are a limited number of places the orbiter can put down in the event of an emergency and if you'll pardon the expression, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out where they are. The flightplan is publicly accessible.
Besides, why would a terrorist plan an attack against a fuel-less dodo the size of a DC10-10, which may or may not have to make an emergency landing at some airport (s)he might be able to get to, when they can take over a nice fat airliner full of fuel and wang it into an occupied building?
Vref5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19054 times:
Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 23): Now maybe you know something I don't and maybe that list isn't complete, but there are a limited number of places the orbiter can put down in the event of an emergency and if you'll pardon the expression, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out where they are. The flightplan is publicly accessible.
Yep, true on both counts. The Keplerian elements are publically published and readily available. With a little math and some lookups of airport capabilities, one can indeed work out these things given a little time.
The orbiter also has a 3,000 mile cross-range capability (thanks to the wings as well as the original military requirement from the Cold War) where it can deviate from its planned ground track if necessary to make a site. So there are quite a few potential landing sites in addition to the officially designated ELS sites.
Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 23): Besides, why would a terrorist plan an attack against a fuel-less dodo the size of a DC10-10, which may or may not have to make an emergency landing at some airport (s)he might be able to get to, when they can take over a nice fat airliner full of fuel and wang it into an occupied building?
I seem to recall this particular classification was done prior to 9/11. Don't necessarily assume all things are 9/11-related. Keep in mind the programme had been operating for two to three decades prior to 9/11.
Destroying the orbiter as an attack would obviously have a low casualty count, but it would be spectacular to attack a prominent national status symbol. Increased security obviously resulted post-9/11, though some of it has been relaxed a bit now.
Incidentally, the orbiter is closer to a DC-9-40 in terms of size for length/width as well as wing length, though it does match the DC-10-10 in height. Very expensive Michelin tyres used only once per flight and they put on RAT (roll-around tires; slightly used) tyres to roll the orbiter from the runway.
But here, I think we're veering more into another forum.
25 SkyWest700: MD88Captain is correct you can have 100 miles of runway still not be able to takeoff at full max gross weight. why you may ask? Higher temperatures an
26 SLCUT2777: DEN needs a runway of this length given it's elevation (roughly 5,300'). I will amaze you how much runway a 763ER or even a 772ER requires in hot weat
27 BAe146QT: Read you, 5 by 5. That'll be the polar orbit mission? Good point, well made. But there are softer targets which would be far cheaper to attack and do
28 SkyWest700: SLCUT2777 DIA has 6 runways and a master plan four 12. There will be parallel 8-26's another 34-16 another 35-17. there will also be a 7-25 put in nex
29 Gigneil: The A380 was well in progress when the 16000x200 runway was planned, and was already being manufactured when it opened. NS
30 3201: Is one of your two Aeromexico? 'Cause as far as I can tell, only one airline in the US flies the -88 right now. In any event, the other one you're pr
31 Remcor: Wait a minute, 16,000 ft runways? I just measured the runways with Google Earth (goto Tools -> Measure) and they all come up to be only 12,000 ft. Am
32 FlyDreamliner: DEN puts their 16,000ft runway to use. Mexico City would love that kind of runway down there. High altitude airports need the space, especially ones w
33 OPNLguy: Google Earth satellite photos can be 2-4 years old. IIRC, the runway in question at DEN was 12,000 when the airport opened, and was extended to 16,00
34 OPNLguy: I'm no test pilot, but my guess is that it gets more use for really long landing rolls than it does for takeoffs...
35 Boeingsukz: uhhh... delta comes to mind going to atlanta.
36 Goldenshield: Airplane + Payload + Fuel M, then you can sure bet that F isn't the number going to be reduced.
37 Gigneil: Negative... the runway in question was constructed all new. DEN opened with 5 runways. The 6th runway does not appear on Google Earth. NS
38 GQfluffy: Aye... I'm pretty sure the other one I'm thinking of flies the -88...
39 Remcor: Yeah, I just noticed that you can see in Google Earth the beginning of the construction of the 6th runway. I'm probably a fool, but how come big airp
40 Steeler83: This may have already been posted, and this may seem off topic, but is there a link where I can find this, or can someone list those on here? So DEN
41 Vikkyvik: Nope The runway didn't exist when the airport opened (there were originally 5 runways - now there are 6). When the runway was built, I believe it was
42 Mir: It's the only CatIII certified runway at the airport, so it makes sense for it to be wider. Don't forget MSP, which has flights to AMS. -Mir
43 SLCUT2777: I'm more than aware of the DEN master plan, and the eventuality to double up all but one existing runways as well as adding the 7-25 next to the carg
44 MCOflyer: I think MD88Captain flies for DL. I recall him giving good info on DL. I have yet to fly into DEN, but I would imagine DEN handles A LOT of Diversions
45 Vikkyvik: Possibly, but there are plenty of CatIII certified runways that are 150 feet wide. Though I can see what you're saying. To be fair, CDG has 4, and He
46 AirWillie6475: Haven't you heard, DEN doubles as an alien space port. http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Denver_Airport.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre
47 SkyWest700: Denver has very little delays unless it is weather related and it is becasue of the number of runways it has and the way they are laid out. I belive
48 3201: Sorry, was assuming that one was obvious to everyone. But given that no other airline flies 88's to Denver, I thought he was thinking of someone that
49 OPNLguy: Thanks. I wasn't quite sure, and just assumed that they did it like DFW did, i.e. opening at one length and extending it later. Wasn't paying particu
50 GQfluffy: Tis ok. I was responding to someone's post about who MD88Captain flies for, and I figured I'd be kind of cryptic with it. It had nothing to do with w
51 DeltaGator: I don't believe there would be any problem with doing that even with 8R down for maintenance. You just wouldn't be able to use 8L for takeoffs at the
52 Andz: JNB is at 5,557ft and has two runways, 14,494ft and 11,154ft. The longer runway is used for all takeoffs. Right now there is a new terminal under cons
53 Aussie747: I can remember being on one of QF's 742's back in 1999 taking off from JNB to PER I too seriously felt if was forever on it's take off roll. As it wa
54 PanAm747: You're not a fool at all. It's a legitimate question. The main reason is the age of the landing fields. Heathrow dates from WWII, and Frankfurt befor
55 KC135TopBoom: So, is DFW 3rd? DFW has 4 runways at 13,400'. Now, we are in the initial planning stages of adding another 2,000' extension to 18L/36R. That is the o
56 BAW716: At 5000+ feet in altitude, the runways have to be about 40% longer to compensate for the thinner air. In the summer, when it is hot, its worse, becaus
57 Nosedive: Oh, do they now... No he hasn't. Pretty funny, now that a.net has a decent search option on the bottom forum pages, to see how often the 16K runway c
58 N1120A: Nope. 744s fly the route all the time It is daily and it is from Frankfurt, not Munich Not to mention White Sands Actually, it was specifically so th
59 Qantas744ER: Hey, that is one of the 3 options: 1. Waiting for temp to go down 2. Getting Cargo/Pax off the plane. 3. Turning of 2 of the 3 Airconditioning packs.
60 BlazingCessna: Two words Density Altitude DEN is not a normal STS landing site, but the runway is more than capible of doing the job. The SLF at KSC is a 1000 feet (
61 Andz: I'd hardly call 4 years since the last thread frequent! Compared to NW DC-9s/SAA buying 380s/346 climb performance/Why does EK need so many 380s/etc