Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Manhattan Airport In Central Park  
User currently offlineQuestAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 367 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11278 times:

The so-called Manhattan Airport Foundation is pushing the idea of demolishing Central Park to make way for a more convenient NYC airport. Quite the ludicrous idea... from Jaunted:

"Although their Terminal renderings do look pretty, there are a gazillion and one reasons why this idea ... fantasy ... fever dream, whatever it is, won't work at all. For one, there is no way airplanes can get any closer to the city than they do now; remember the Air Force One photo-op debacle? Another reason is that Central Park sits on so much uneven bedrock that it would far too cost-prohibitive to try and level it for runway use."

Still, a pretty good prank. The Airline Blog reports that the address that they give out on their website is on the 58th floor of a 57-floor building (haha). But for those A.netters who live in Manhattan, how inconvenient is going JFK/LGA/EWR? Assuming that there could be an airport in Manhattan (never mind real life), would it be all that more convenient?


'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I�m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11219 times:

Will never happen EVER. The location is too bad. And central park i'm pretty sure is protected by the EPA. And they don't need more traffic over an already crowded New York City


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11191 times:

This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.

User currently offlineStar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11181 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1):
Will never happen EVER. The location is too bad. And central park i'm pretty sure is protected by the EPA. And they don't need more traffic over an already crowded New York City

Please tell me you are not taking that website seriously. It certainly sounds that way. Please!  Smile


User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4461 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11140 times:

I just spent a 3 hour walk last weekend at Central Park. It is full of life, culture, nature, arts. I love airports and all, and I hate to travel to JFK, EWR but there is no way. Period!

User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11113 times:

Perhaps this is someone's school project for website design or marketing or something??

Pretty funny stuff!

EDIT: I'm now a fan on Facebook!

[Edited 2009-07-21 17:30:15]

User currently offlineQuestAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11084 times:

From what I've gathered it's a joke, but it's pretty well done.


'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I�m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
User currently offlineCrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10994 times:



Quoting QuestAir (Reply 6):
From what I've gathered it's a joke, but it's pretty well done.

Yeah, the "Environmentalists Rally in Support of Manhattan Airport" part is pretty much a giveaway.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3151 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10986 times:

Fascinating! But what an odd premise for a hypothetical study, be it a goof or a simplistic statement of some sort. Some "thought exercises" for exhibitions, contests, or classes have a least some grounding in reality. I guess it's a swath of land that can hold 2 runways, but no more.

I used to do this sort of exercise, too... when I was 10 years old. I used to plan airports for cities. Pull out a road map, look at an area that looked vacant or without roads, design an airport for it. Forget that there might have been a mountain, or national park, or railyards, or....

Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.

I wonder what "vestigial architectural elements" they're saving from Central Park?!  Wow! (see the "About Us" section)

-Rampart


User currently offlineCross757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10912 times:



Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 5):
Perhaps this is someone's school project for website design or marketing or something??

Pretty funny stuff!

Exactly what I am thinking. This is nothing more than a (well done, I might add) figment of somebody's imagination, perhaps an assignment in their drafting or urban development class. Have to admit, it is somewhat fun to think about!

Quoting Crosswinds21 (Reply 7):
Yeah, the "Environmentalists Rally in Support of Manhattan Airport" part is pretty much a giveaway.

Absolutely! That along with the fact that any rational person would realize that there is no way to design an instrument approach into an airport surrounded by 50+ story buildings...imgaine the descent rate it would take on final approach...it would certainly make for one wild ride!

Maybe this was the brainchild of the U.K. teen who foiled people into thinking he was starting an airline?! Ha ha...


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10883 times:

That's pretty funny--the idea of an airport surrounded by buildings, and buildings that are considered obstacles as far as aircraft performance is concerned. They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers... Nor would those obstacles allow installation of ILS systems that would be needed during those bad weather days...

Nice try...  Wink


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2897 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10835 times:

Take away the only green space in the heart of America's largest city and replace it with something that will create pollution, congestion, and danger. New York has already endured 3 urban plane crashes this decade alone. Some people have WAY too much time on their hands to be generating such a detailed website about an absolutely preposterous proposal.


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10777 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10):
They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers...

Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building  Smile



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10543 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12):
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building

Would be a fun takeoff



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5281 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10507 times:

Sounds like some sort of dumb marketing stunt. There wouldn't be three voters in Manhattan in favor of it, even if it were technically feasible, which it isn't, for the reasons above.

Of course, a nice heliport... now THAT might be fun! (But in Manhattan, people who live in buldings right on the crowded, noisy FDR drive STILL object that the helicopters at the existing heliports are "too loud". They go right by my window and I don't hear them through the insulation... However, the anti-development sentiment in Manhattan would like to shut down even the existing heliports.)

Anyway, nothing like a really dumb idea to get all sorts of folks unnecessarily worked up!


User currently offlineJolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10466 times:

An airport in the middle of Manhattan would reek of Kai Tak part deux. I'm also wondering what the friends and relatives of 9/11 victims or people traumatized by 9/11 will be against this.

If you want my opinion, EWR is the better of NYC area airports.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21791 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10180 times:



Quoting QuestAir (Thread starter):
But for those A.netters who live in Manhattan, how inconvenient is going JFK/LGA/EWR?

Not very.

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2):
This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.

 checkmark 

Quoting Rampart (Reply 8):
Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.

Now that would be interesting. I don't think it will happen, though - too much stuff on the river to get in the way. The landings in IMC would be very hard to do.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10):
That's pretty funny--the idea of an airport surrounded by buildings, and buildings that are considered obstacles as far as aircraft performance is concerned. They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers... Nor would those obstacles allow installation of ILS systems that would be needed during those bad weather days...

Just make it like the space shuttle - vertical takeoff, and an ultra-steep approach path with arresting wires to eliminate the need for a long runway. Problem solved.  Smile

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10171 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1):
This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.

Apparently you haven't heard of the idea back in the late 50s to build a new Vancouver airport at Spanish Banks, adjacent to the downtown area. Just happens to be the most popular beach area in Greater Vancouver. Like this would be well-received.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineJolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9631 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 8):
Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.

We could call it the Chesley Sullenberger Intercontinental Airport, and the airport code cold be CSI.  rotfl 


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21791 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9478 times:



Quoting Jolau1701 (Reply 18):
We could call it the Chesley Sullenberger Intercontinental Airport, and the airport code cold be CSI.

And then you could have a show about untraceable crimes at the airport.....  mischievous 

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3646 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9450 times:

Ok, since not everybody seems to have gotten it yet, THIS IS A JOKE and/or hoax. Some of the giveaways are listed here: http://gawker.com/5319855/huffington-post-serves-up-hoax-on-front-page

And yes, it is a dumb idea. (This is especially aimed at those of you saying it isn't.) HENCE THE JOKE.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3646 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

Alright, I admit it, nobody actually said it was a good idea. I could have sworn I read "still, not a bad idea" somewhere up there before writing my post...


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9030 times:

This will never happen! Central Park costs hundered of millions of dollars! Plus, you cant land a plane in Manhattan, it's simply dangerous. Although it will be convenient but Central Park is a New York Icon and cannot be demolished. LGA is very accesible from Manhattan. Plus three airports in the New York City vicinity is more than enough.


It's a cultural thing.
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1697 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8371 times:

Great idea!
Here's why this would work:
-Central Park is valuable real estate sitting doing nothing excepting looking pretty. It should be put to good use
-A lot of rich people live in New York. They would find this very convenient
-New York-Manhattan Int'l would reduce the need, and possibly eliminate JFK, EWR, LGA and possibly everything up to YYZ.
-This is an extremely safe place. All of the high-rise skyscrappers are in Brooklyn anyway.
-With so much space, DL could relocate from Atlanta to this airport
-In fact, there'll be so much space that every airline between New York and Turkey should move their hub there
-People would rather look at AA MD80s and US CRJs than ugly-Al-Gore-ish green all day


User currently offlineBG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 269 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 8347 times:

Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?


Koi mi sra v gashtite?
User currently offlineJolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 8347 times:



Quoting JetBlue777 (Reply 22):
Plus, you cant land a plane in Manhattan, it's simply dangerous.

I think I mentioned something about it being akin to Kai Tak......


User currently offlineStgs1988 From Denmark, joined Sep 2007, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 8062 times:

Hello !

As BG777300ER is saying...

Quoting BG777300ER (Reply 24):
Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?

Could a eg. Boeing 747 land on the airport? Or are we talking about Avro RJ-100?


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 27, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 8021 times:



Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2):
This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.

Never been married, have you?  rotfl   duck 



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7251 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 23):
Great idea!

Wow! Most high rises in NY are not in Brooklyn, most oof them are in Midtown Manhattan near times square. This idea is completely bizzare! First of all, Central Park is one of the most valuable piece of land in New York, second since most of central park are located in a resedential are (mostly rich people), so you think that those residents won't complain? Third, millions of people every year visit central park and everyday thousands of new yorkers, like me unwind and relax in the park. Fourth, it also provides a bountiful amount of oxygen. There a billions of reason why this idea wont work.

Quoting Directorguy (Reply 23):
People would rather look at AA MD80s and US CRJs than ugly-Al-Gore-ish green all day

Only aviation buffs would like to see AAMD80s and etc..... People will complain about the noise!



It's a cultural thing.
User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

I had an idea at one point to build a tunnel from Manhattan to JFK and then use people movers (like those used at IAD when it first opened) through the tunnel to board people directly onto flights at JFK.

People would arrive at the Manhattan Center and check in for their flights, clear security, and then board a people mover that would take them directly to their aircraft. The people movers would then go through the tunnel to the airport and surface directly onto the tarmac. Then the people mover would dock onto the front-right door of the aircraft at JFK. Traditional boarding would still take place at JFK through the front-left door for those who live closer to JFK or were connecting through there.

Baggage would be checked at the Manhattan Center, and when someone was travelling to NY, they could select the Manhattan Center as their destination so that their bags would go directly there. They would go in a separate compartment on the people mover.



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineContrails15 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6770 times:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! This just made my day. I had no idea such a project was ever discussed. This will NEVER happen and if it does, I'm moving out of NYC. I don't even wanna bash the idea because my fingers would fall off.from writing. OMG what joke.


Giants football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineLufti5525 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6740 times:

I lived in New York City. And by NYC, I mean Manhattan. As a New Yorker, I can truthfully say: When pigs fly!!!!!! It must be a suggestion from someone who spends alot of time in one
of the infamous state hospitals.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 32, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

This is the best thread I've seen in a LOOOOOOONG time on this site. Over 30 replies in and it appears that most of the posters still believe this is a real proposal, even to the point of seriously rebutting a sarcastic argument of why this would be a good idea.

I'll be heading out the door in a few minutes with a smile on my face! Big grin



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4045 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

Funny but sarcasm gives it away in a fraction of second. They should have gone for an elevated runway. The whole thing is also very amateurish when it comes to airport projects with no clearances built onto any part of the "airport" and lots of space wasted. Central Park is about 13200 ft north-south. An elevated runway of about 5000 ft could be build in the middle section with underground facilities preserving a very large share of the park.


Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineVictrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 523 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6313 times:

I for one, think this is a very sensible proposal. I am sure that when the cities forfathers so wisely decided to set aside land for Central Park, they new that one day this land would be needed for an international airport. Second of all, Tavern on the Green would have the opportunity to install an observation deck and thus rival The Proud Bird at LAX. Third of all, Central Park is a piece of urban blight. Who knows what king of festerning vermin live in its trees or the water of the reservoir?

I'm sure that the only thing that will kill this excellent proposal will be when the taxi drivers band together to kill it since that will put an end to their lucrative trips out to JFK.


User currently offlineIdlewild From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have always thought that leveling the half of/the south-west portion of Staten Island would make for a great airport. Think about it. Over 15,000 acres for runways, terminals, cargo, you can use Port Mobil for fuel storage, have light rails pick up passengers from the ferry terminals. The Verrazzano Bridge feeds right into the BQE and Belt, great for commercial traffic and outer borough residents respectively. Hell! Level 3/4's and Bloomberg can get his beloved NASCAR raceway as well as a couple of stadiums in there. Eminent Domain won't cost a thing because not many people (relative to NYC) live there. EWR needs to expand? Well I say close your doors and move on in to Richmond County...all of it.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21791 posts, RR: 55
Reply 36, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5934 times:



Quoting Victrola (Reply 34):
Who knows what king of festerning vermin live in its trees or the water of the reservoir?

I don't think the airport catering companies are that picky, actually.  Smile

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineATLTPA From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5836 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 23):
-With so much space, DL could relocate from Atlanta to this airport

You just had to bring DL into it, didn't you?

Next, the "When will Delta retire the Northwest DC-9s?" posters will start pointing out that an airport in Central Park will be a great place to use the NW 9's!

You know, perfect expansion fleet and so forth....  Wink


User currently offlineDartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My favorite line:

"Yet surprisingly, New York City has no viable airport. JFK, La Guardia and Newark may work for people who live in certain outer boroughs. But they are not an acceptable option for the majority of New Yorkers"

They neglect to mention that more people live in Queens and Brooklyn each than Manhattan. A large majority of "New Yorkers" live in the outer boroughs!

Not to mention calling 3 of the busiest airports in the country not viable....


I do wish they had upped the sarcasm a little. An elevated-runway to preserve the park below would be totally sweet...and maybe incorporating the museum of natural history and the metropolitan museum of art into the airport design: think blue-whale security check point and temple of dendur baggage claim....


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5671 times:

I think everyone else is ignoring a significant part of the irony and humor in this one...kind of the reverse of what happened to CGX (Meigs Field in Chicago...). Sieze the park, and turn it into an airport (instead of the other way around)  devil 


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4045 posts, RR: 13
Reply 40, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4807 times:



Quoting Dartland (Reply 38):
They neglect to mention that more people live in Queens and Brooklyn each than Manhattan. A large majority of "New Yorkers" live in the outer boroughs!

That depends on who you ask. For some people, those who live outside of Manhattan are not New Yorkers.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4718 times:



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 40):
That depends on who you ask. For some people, those who live outside of Manhattan are not New Yorkers.

Most people that live in Queens are immigrants, like me Big grin



It's a cultural thing.
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1697 posts, RR: 11
Reply 42, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4489 times:



Quoting ATLTPA (Reply 37):
Next, the "When will Delta retire the Northwest DC-9s?" posters will start pointing out that an airport in Central Park will be a great place to use the NW 9's!

Indeed. Those DC9s will do wonders at New York-Manhattan, and would enable travellers to choose from multiple daily flights. It's a shame that DL will ever retire those 9s-they're so fleet efficient and I believe they're only second to the B707 in terms of efficiency anyway. I really don't know why DL's bothering with those regional 747s it got from NW anyway. When you have DC9s in the fleet, the sky is the limit. I have it on good authority from a Friend Who Works At Delta that they've applied to the DoT to start Manhattan-Sydney-Nairobi twice a day on the DC9s.


User currently offlineFuzzman777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4148 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12):
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building

this is going to be a 757-only airport  Smile UA will move their p.s. ops from JFK to here, and why not just relocate the UX flights as well


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 44, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4082 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 13):
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12):
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building

Would be a fun takeoff



Quoting BG777300ER (Reply 24):
Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?

Measuring on Google Earth, the park is 2.55 miles long - about 13,500 feet. So with the overruns which would be required - about 10,000 feet max runway length. That is as long as Guam, Boston, Gatwick and many other airports which have heavy traffic. It is longer than Antigua or St Martin.

Another big issue would be the high buildings.

I can just see people agreeing to knock down Carnegie Hall and the Museum of Modern Art for a clearance zone south of the airport.

Right !!!


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3151 posts, RR: 6
Reply 45, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4017 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12):
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building

If you made it one way in, one way out only (like a mountain airport), you could still keep 7500' of runway at the south end (a little over half the park's length, roughly). That would be a runway from 59th St. (with a huge blast fence, I presume) to the middle of The Reservoir. Assume buildings are less than 60 stories on the north end (it's Harlem, but were seeing a real estate resurgence recently, so extrapolate to the future). That will give you the potential for glide slopes less than 3°. I don't know about rates of climb, I guess it's steeper than 3°. Anyhow, consider Central Park to be like Aspen, and you could fly in Avro RJs, A318s, and E-190s.

The upside is that you could keep more than half the park! You need all that open space for the approach, and if limited to smaller jets, obviously this wouldn't be the international airport as proposed. A win win: jet convenience for Uptown, and environmental preservation for the birdwatchers!

Just saying.

-Rampart


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...
And The #1 Airport In The USA For Birdstrikes Is.. posted Fri Apr 24 2009 11:49:22 by B6JFKH81
Angola Airlines Lands At Wrong Airport In Lusaka posted Sun Apr 19 2009 19:26:49 by Viscount724
Next New Airport In Japan posted Mon Feb 16 2009 14:53:36 by Carpethead
1st Private Airport In Spain Finally Opens Today posted Thu Dec 18 2008 06:47:58 by Toulouse
Boyd: MSY Is Third Fastest Growing Airport In USA posted Wed Oct 15 2008 18:52:14 by ConcordeBoy
No More Removing Shoes At Airport In The Future? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 00:09:58 by Elite
Korean Air Builds A Logistics Hub In Central Asia posted Sun Aug 31 2008 22:33:03 by Kalsky
Cheapest Airport In Europe posted Sat Jun 7 2008 10:26:58 by KingAirMan
Police Chief At The Airport In PVD posted Thu May 15 2008 13:25:05 by WarRI1
Largest Metropolitian Areas With 1 Airport In US posted Sat May 3 2008 10:47:36 by C150Driver