Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jetliners With Lowest Takeoff And Landing Speeds?  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17036 times:

What commercial airliners from 1949 to present have the lowest takeoff and landing speeds?

Also what commercial aircraft from 1949 to present have the shortest takeoff and landing runs?

Andrea K

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2302 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17014 times:

Shortest landing/takeoff runs: I would guess either the DHC-6 or the DHC-7... I'm not sure if this is accurate or not.
Hope it helps.


User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17001 times:

Quoting Dc9northwest (Reply 1):
Shortest landing/takeoff runs: I would guess either the DHC-6 or the DHC-7... I'm not sure if this is accurate or not.
Hope it helps.

I would agree. If you are talking jets, I would say the RJ100 or BAE-146 has a very slow rotation speed. As well as the Dornier 328J (I have no actual experience in this airframe). Also for the size the 757 has very impressive short-field performance. Another that isn't an airliner per se is the C-17. 800 feet to stop at max gross weight.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16988 times:

Quoting XJET (Reply 2):
Also for the size the 757 has very impressive short-field performance

Yes it does

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16887 times:

I was talking about Jets only.

What enables the C-17 to stop so quickly?


User currently offlineMD11Fanatic From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16860 times:

Low approach speeds, big-time thrust reverse, and some powerful brakes!

User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16833 times:

Quoting XJET (Reply 2):
BAE-146 has a very slow rotation speed

I'll say. Some info from my electronic kneeboard;


V1: 105 - 120
VR: 110 - 125
V2: 120 - 135
Approach Speed (VREF): 157 @ Flaps 30



Note that those figures are for a particular model in FS2004. Usual cautions apply, though I would hope that someone in a position to be in command of one wouldn't need to refer to an A.Net post for figures.

Interesting that the approach speed is (apparently) higher than a 734, assuming the figures are correct.

Mr. Click; you seem happy to spare the time for us wannabes - could you comment please?



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 16753 times:

Before you electron jockeys get too wound up in yourselves, read the first post in this thread:

Airliner Performance Observations (by Flyf15 Jan 31 2007 in Tech Ops)

It may go some way in explaining why you aren't getting any real answers here.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16669 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 6):
Quoting XJET (Reply 2):
BAE-146 has a very slow rotation speed

I'll say. Some info from my electronic kneeboard;

V1: 105 - 120
VR: 110 - 125
V2: 120 - 135
Approach Speed (VREF): 157 @ Flaps 30

From a passenger's perspective, I agree the BAe 146/Avro RJ seems to have a noticeably slower takeoff/landing speed than other jets. I fly on Swiss Avro RJ-85/100s quite often and have also noted that they also seem to be among the easiest aircraft to land smoothly, possibily partly due to the slow landing speed. Even a bad landing seems smooth compared to many larger jets, and many landings are so smooth you can barely tell that you've touched down except for the rumbling noise of the tires.

Another impression is that they seem to ride very well in turbulence, possibly related to the high wing.


User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16604 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 6):

Mr. Click; you seem happy to spare the time for us wannabes - could you comment please?

Well since he hasn't commented yet (hopefully soon,) I do recall him talking at length about BAE 146 performance, and mentioning that the plane was more like a SLLT (short landing long takeoff) plane than a STOL. I hope I'm remembering correctly, but I seem to recall this explaination pretty clearly.



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16570 times:

At light weights you could see v1/rotation and landing (ref) speeds for the EMB-135 in the 110 knot range.

User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16539 times:

Quoting MrChips:
Before you electron jockeys get too wound up in yourselves,

I wasn't going to, since this has nothing to do with FS. Those are just numbers and they're either in the right range or they're not, which is the question I was asking.

I mentioned they were from an FS plane for the same reason that topographical maps say "Not suitable for navigation" on them - because the world is full of stupid people doing stupid things.

Quoting MrChips:
read the first post in this thread:

I did. I also posted there. It roughly says;

"I fly light singles for real, so I know that FS isn't very realistic" and,

"this site helps me make the best of simulated jet flying, even though I know that's not very realistic either".

Quoting Speedracer1407:
I do recall him talking at length about BAE 146 performance,

You're right. I'll go and have a look at the answers there rather than bother him again.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16526 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 11):

You're right. I'll go and have a look at the answers there rather than bother him again.

No no, see we WANT him to add some good stories/info about flying the 146; there's always something new and informative. I was just recalling a discussion on the aircraft that was somewhat memorable--It's speed brake, and slow landing speeds made it a great aircraft for landing on really short fields, or possibly more importantly for its mission, landing short on contaminated runways. However, it's takeoff length and initial climbing abilities precluded it from being a relatively STOL jet. --Just what I remember.



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16522 times:

Quoting Speedracer1407:
No no, see we WANT him to add some good stories/info about flying the 146;

Definitely, but it's probably best not asking people the same questions they've answered before!

Anyway, I did do a little search and yes, there's a wealth of stuff... but it doesn't look like anyone ever asked that one.

The answer, however, is that VAPP for a 146-200 at 38 tonnes - a typical landing weight - is 124Kts.

So there you go.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17186 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 16462 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 6):
Mr. Click; you seem happy to spare the time for us wannabes - could you comment please?

That's Captain Click to you, private. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 659 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 16452 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 6):
Approach Speed (VREF): 157 @ Flaps 30

Can't say I ever saw an approach speed anywhere near that in my time on the 146!

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 13):
The answer, however, is that VAPP for a 146-200 at 38 tonnes - a typical landing weight - is 124Kts.

Not being pedantic, but Vapp is an Airbus term. Vref is for others.


User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 16439 times:

Quoting ThrottleHold:
Can't say I ever saw an approach speed anywhere near that in my time on the 146!

No, it seemed a little high to me, too, but I didn't really notice until I saw it alongside the 737 figures. TBH, I probably transcribed it from the original document incorrectly.

Hey - maybe that explains why I was having trouble making the turn for the last taxiway at LHR 9L (just kidding).

Quoting ThrottleHold:
Not being pedantic, but Vapp is an Airbus term. Vref is for others.

The pedantry is appreciated - I had no idea, but am happy to learn.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16322 times:

What's the shortest distance a 727 can take-off and land in (727-100) under standard conditions?

Andrea K

[Edited 2007-02-07 01:47:35]

User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16176 times:

At what weight, bare bones or typical service weights? I bet an empty (i.e. no payload, 30 min fuel) B777 can post some nice numbers. The 787 probably more so (better OEW vs MTOW).

At operating weights, aircraft designed for short field operation will win out (BAe146, C-17 etc). At minimum weight its not that simple. Since you are not at the design point, the winner probably is:

1. a long range aircraft for a given weight class (because it is designed to take off at MTOW, and you are carrying no payload and minimum fuel)

2. a twin (excess power since it is designed to take off with one engine)


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 16126 times:

Mrocktor,

I meant service weights...


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 49
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15891 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
I meant service weights...

Look no further than short haul jetliners (designed for secondary airports) and military transports then. No regular jetliner will beat aircraft specifically designed for short field operation.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15847 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
What commercial airliners from 1949 to present have the lowest takeoff and landing speeds?

For takeoff I have used the V2 speed, as V1 and VR maybe reduced for various reasons.

Top 10 with the lowest takeoff speeds (kt)

RJ70 119
RJ85 124
F70 126
RJ100 127
RJ115 127
DC 9-10 127
A319-100 133
F100 136
DC 9-30 137
Tu-154M 138

Top 10 for the lowest landing speeds (kt)

DC 9-10 115
F70 119
RJ70 121
Tu-154M 121
RJ85 122
RJ100 123
RJ115 123
DC 9-30 126
EMB-145 126
F100 128

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):

Also what commercial aircraft from 1949 to present have the shortest takeoff and landing runs?

Top 10 shortest takeoff distances (m)

F70 1296
RJ70 1440
EMB-145 1500
CRJ100 1605
DC 9-10 1615
RJ85 1646
A319-100 1750
767-200 1770
DC 9-30 1777
RJ100 1829


Top 10 shortest landing distances (m)

RJ70 1170
RJ85 1192
F70 1210
RJ100 1265
RJ115 1265
737-600 1268
EMB-145 1290
DC 9-30 1317
F100 1321
A319-100 1350



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 15782 times:

What weights are these at?

User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 15701 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
EMB-145 1500

Yeah, that's not going to happen.


User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 15697 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
I fly on Swiss Avro RJ-85/100s quite often and have also noted that they also seem to be among the easiest aircraft to land smoothly, possibily partly due to the slow landing speed.

The 146 has what's called "trailing link" landing gear. The main landing gear has a knuckle that adds a lot more suspension to the landing gear. Makes for a much softer touchdown on most occasions. The EMB-135/45 also has this feature. Although, it isn't as "big" of a knuckle. But every little bit helps!


25 Ryanair737 : The 737-500 and 600 typically have low takeoff and landing speeds. The A330-200 also has remarkably low landing speeds for the size of the aircraft wh
26 Zeke : A380 is 138 !!
27 XJET : This is actually a common speed for a lot of airliners.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Jetliners With Lowest Takeoff And Landing Speeds?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Takeoff And Landing Speeds B-747 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 18:08:58 by 707fan
Boeing 747-400 Takeoff And Landing Speeds posted Wed Aug 3 2005 02:42:04 by Qantas744ER
Takeoff And Landing Distance Calculations posted Sat Feb 11 2012 13:35:45 by jbcontrails
Impact Of Gradient On Takeoff And Landing B777 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 22:05:52 by mpvincent
Using A Camcorder During Takeoff And Landing posted Sat Nov 25 2006 17:21:11 by FCA767
Keeping The Plane Straight On Takeoff And Landing? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 03:29:34 by SuseJ772
Window Shades Must Be Up For Takeoff And Landing posted Tue Jun 8 2004 18:23:27 by Airways6max
Takeoff / Landing Speeds Question posted Thu Nov 15 2007 12:18:19 by Blackbird
About Takeoff Weight And Landing Weight posted Wed May 24 2000 06:21:28 by Samurai 777
Final With Gear Up And Go Around Questions posted Sat May 14 2011 09:39:05 by Gonzalo
Boeing 747-400 Takeoff And Landing Speeds posted Wed Aug 3 2005 02:42:04 by Qantas744ER
Takeoff And Landing Distance Calculations posted Sat Feb 11 2012 13:35:45 by jbcontrails
Impact Of Gradient On Takeoff And Landing B777 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 22:05:52 by mpvincent
Using A Camcorder During Takeoff And Landing posted Sat Nov 25 2006 17:21:11 by FCA767
Keeping The Plane Straight On Takeoff And Landing? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 03:29:34 by SuseJ772
Window Shades Must Be Up For Takeoff And Landing posted Tue Jun 8 2004 18:23:27 by Airways6max
Takeoff / Landing Speeds Question posted Thu Nov 15 2007 12:18:19 by Blackbird
About Takeoff Weight And Landing Weight posted Wed May 24 2000 06:21:28 by Samurai 777
CPR Onboard And Landing posted Wed Nov 20 2013 13:57:36 by A320ajm

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format