PizzaPolli From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 243 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
Ok, I know that 747 300's serve SXM regularly and that runway is about 7000 feet long. Does this mean that a 747 300 or 747 400 could land and take off from LGA safely? With the elevation and temp, etc. there can they operate there? (I know they wouldn't but is it possible) What about 747 200's? And if it could not, what is the biggest plane that can operate in and out of LGA safely. I know TWA used to fly L1011's in and out and Delta did until a year or two ago. What about 777's or A330's etc. Also does anyone know what the biggest plane to ever land there was?
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1338 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2235 times:
LGA has runways built on landfill with the ends of 31 and 4 being built on piers. I think that a 747 could land there but not taxi due to the damage it would do to the runways and taxiways. The L1011's that DAL used to fly there were limited to certain weights due to the piers.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
The biggest plane you will see now is aDL 767-200 or 300. But I've seen L-1011s land there and the 767-400 canland there with reduced weight. CanDCA handle anything biggger than a 757 or is it the same as LGA? I've seen a 757-200 but what about bigger planes like the 777? With 9-11 the biggest you'll see is Alaska's cramped 737-900.
Fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2026 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Despite its size and weight, it is entirely possible that an An-124 could have landed at LGA. Most CIS (Antonov is Ukrainian) cargo planes and Soviet passenger jets have more wheels than would have been found on their Western counterparts, because of the many unprepared (unpaved) runways throughout the former Soviet Union.
Weight distribution (the pressure each tire generates on the pavement) is of greater concern at an airfield like LGA than simple weight. The spacing of the undercarriage legs on the TriStar was such that it generated less pressure on the pavement than the lighter Airbus A300. That is why L-1011s (Eastern and TWA) were regular visitors at LGA, while the smaller A300 (Eastern) could not land fully loaded until the main runway at LGA was reinforced.
The Boeing 747 was never a regular visotor at LGA, but with its 18-wheel undercarriage, perhaps (I'm not an expert here) the pressure the Jumbo generated was less than or equal to that of the aforementioned trijets.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6122 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
.. and don't forget that most of the 747's at SXM have come all the way from Europe, and so they're low on fuel, meaning that they won't require as much runway. Also, when they depart, I know that KLM flies via Curacao (where the runway is longer), and so they can depart with low fuel. As for Air France, I'm not sure where they stop. Anyone?
.. and since New York is a bit more popular than St. Martin, I doubt that people going through and from LGA will have the patience to fly to a nearby airport for a fuel stop.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4534 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
Regarding DCA: The airport has always been restricted to narrowbody operations for NIMBY reasons. But jumbos have landed there. I've seen pictures of an Eastern A300 landing there in the late 1970's, probably an experiment.
In 1998, I think it was, a United DC-10 bound for BWI landed at DCA after running low on fuel. There was bad weather over BWI, and after circling awhile the fuel ran low. There were pictures of the plane in the Washington Post, parked in front of the old DCA 1940's terminal. I wasn't able to get down to the airport and take pictures, but the Post's shot got into the AP wire. I've seen it as a file photo in subsequent unrelated news stories.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
afaik, LGA is not prepared to handle aircraft of a wingspan such as the A330s/340s and 777s regularly.
they obivously could land but their massive wingspan would cause major problems at gate positions, turning points and taxiways and thus would interfere with the on-going traffic at LGA. that´s why they may not operate to LGA.
there are exceptions to the rule, as the example of the An-124 shows.
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8286 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
The TriStar and DC10 were specifically built to fly from LGA. It was a key requirement in the briefing AA et al circulated in the mid/late 60s when they asked the manufacturers to build a domestic widebody airliner.
The 747 puts less weight on each tyre than the 707, I know that much. Not that 707s ever flew from LGA (maybe 720s? never heard of it though). But I think you'd have no problem getting a 747 in and out of there, the problem would be taxiing and parking.
Love to know more about the DC10 at DCA.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3750 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
I live right under the final landing pattern at LGA - if I saw or heard a 747 flying over my house, I think I'd have a heart attack! (Especially so soon after AA587.)
I have never even seen a 767 land here, though I know from others in this group that they do (I must just never be watching when they're scheduled to come in). A 747 should be able to land in an emergency, but I sure wouldn't want to be on that plane (or under it).
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!