Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RWY Length/Airport Altitude & Engine Performance  
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 15
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could tell me the relationship between runway length, airport altitude and engine performance. The reason why I ask is for the airports in Bogota and the new airport to be opened at Quito. Cargo aircraft taking off from these airports at full payload need a fuelstop if they fly to Europe but will this still be the case of these airports would extend their runways or does the altitude of these airports still influence the engine performance, no matter how long the runway is? Can cargo airlines soon fly nonstop to Europe from the new airport in Quito when it is opened?

A388

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6360 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another thing to consider is tire-rotation speed limits. At some point, no matter how long the runway, you cannot exceed certain speed for a given amount of time, otherwise they´ll blow.

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

BOG is at elevation 8,360 feet. Quito is even higher at 9,200 feet.

At such elevations a heavy plane very fast runs into problems with wheel speed limit. No runway length can solve that problem.

Airports with such elevation will always have severe operational limitations compared to more normal airports. What limitations depends on aircraft type, temperature, wind, runway conditions (wet/dry) etc.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

This is great information, please give me more information. Can you tell me more about this wheel rotation speed limit? How does this work, especially for the 747-800F, 747-400F, 777-200LRF, MD11F, A330-200F? Based on the replies I got so far, this speed limit is a problem at high altitude airports? I also remember reading in the past something about the air thickness (correct me if I'm using the wrong wording here) having an influence on engine performance?

Best regards,

A388


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting A388 (Thread starter):
I was wondering if anyone could tell me the relationship between runway length, airport altitude and engine performance.

Higher altitude means less thrust from the engines, which means more runway is required to reach a given speed. Compounding the problem, higher altitude means thinner air, which means you need to go faster to takeoff, so you need to reach even higher speeds using less thrust, which leads to really long runways.

Quoting A388 (Reply 3):
Can you tell me more about this wheel rotation speed limit? How does this work, especially for the 747-800F, 747-400F, 777-200LRF, MD11F, A330-200F?

All tires have a speed limit (they start to come apart if they go too fast). It's typically about 245 mph. If you look at the takeoff charts in the ACAP document for any airplane you'll see the tire speed limit in there.

Quoting A388 (Reply 3):
Based on the replies I got so far, this speed limit is a problem at high altitude airports?

The limit always exists, but you never get there for low altitude airports because you can get enough lift out of the wing, even at max weight, at a speed lower than the tire speed limit. It's only when you're up high that you need to go that fast on the ground just to takeoff.

Tom.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4597 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In many instances, the first limit to hit an airliner at a high elevation airport is the climb one (on a second segment, generally ), especially for twin-engined ones.
Then on a rather quick succession, the braking energy limit and the tyre speed limit intervene.
The only way to avoid these limitations is the conveyor belt        



Contrail designer
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 2):
BOG is at elevation 8,360 feet. Quito is even higher at 9,200 feet

And LPB is 13,325 ft.


User currently offlinekl671 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Quoting A388 (Thread starter):
I was wondering if anyone could tell me the relationship between runway length, airport altitude and engine performance.

Everything you want to know about take off performance is provided on the Boeing and Airbus web sites.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.html

http://www.airbus.com/support/mainte...cal-data/aircraft-characteristics/


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4040 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
In many instances, the first limit to hit an airliner at a high elevation airport is the climb one (on a second segment, generally ), especially for twin-engined ones.
Then on a rather quick succession, the braking energy limit and the tyre speed limit intervene.
The only way to avoid these limitations is the conveyor belt

How would the conveyor belt let you avoid the second segment climb limits?   


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4597 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rwessel (Reply 8):
How would the conveyor belt let you avoid the second segment climb limits?

Wot !?! You don't believe in technical magic ? Shame on you !   



Contrail designer
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 8):
How would the conveyor belt let you avoid the second segment climb limits?   

Suppose it would be used correctly, it could allow the airplane to obtain higher Vr and consequently V2, through virtues of lowering relative speed aircraft/surface, thus enabling higher CAS/IAS to be used regarding maximum tyre speed (at the very extreme, tyre speed could be zero), additional braking for V1 cut (max. brake energy requirement) and possibly also better ground controlability in case of engine failure.

Some sort of catapult assisting device could also help give airframe more energy.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
In many instances, the first limit to hit an airliner at a high elevation airport is the climb one (on a second segment, generally ), especially for twin-engined ones.

I would have thought 4-engined aircraft have a harder time, as twins tend to be very much overpowered, due to the design need to be able to climb with one engine out.

It might be interesting to watch a loaded A340-300 try to take off from Quito...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4597 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

I would have thought 4-engined aircraft have a harder time, as twins tend to be very much overpowered, due to the design need to be able to climb with one engine out.

That's exactly the point. We do not dispatch before all engine-out possibilities are explored, and as in case of engine failure, the twin has lost half of its thrust and has tghe burden of the big fan drag, the quad still has 75% of its thrust wiuth an added half valuie drag compared to the twin... therefore, the twin loses traffic load a lot more rapidly than the equivalent quad.
Of course, if everything is normal, the twin sparkles - and even more so that it takes off at a lighter wieght than its counterrpart.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
It might be interesting to watch a loaded A340-300 try to take off from Quito...

See this :
340 out of Quito

A non event



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21691 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
I would have thought 4-engined aircraft have a harder time, as twins tend to be very much overpowered, due to the design need to be able to climb with one engine out.

Twins are only overpowered if both engines are running, otherwise they're barely making the required climb gradient. So in an engine-out situation, the quad will outperform the twin almost every time.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Twins are only overpowered if both engines are running, otherwise they're barely making the required climb gradient. So in an engine-out situation, the quad will outperform the twin almost every time.

With an engine-out the quad will only barely make the required climb gradient too...the basic sizing considerations are the same in either case. However, the required gradient is different between quads and twins.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
However, the required gradient is different between quads and twins.

Absolutely, twin 2.4% and quads 3.0%. Now why the difference?



Non French in France
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Great thanks for all the information guys.

I'm going through the Boeing material but I can't find the runway length/airport altitude related aircraft performances (tire speed limits etc). Can anyone point me to the document concerned or is there a website that has an overview of the necessary runway lengths due to airport altitudes? For example, which cargo aircraft types can take off at full payload from the new airport in UIO when it opens? What about BOG?

Cheers,

A388

[Edited 2012-12-06 11:49:15]

User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3643 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
which leads to really long runways.

What runway length do you consider really long?

A388


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting A388 (Reply 16):
I'm going through the Boeing material but I can't find the runway length/airport altitude related aircraft performances (tire speed limits etc). Can anyone point me to the document concerned or is there a website that has an overview of the necessary runway lengths due to airport altitudes?

What you want is the FAR takeoff chart from the ACAP documents. For example:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf

Take a look at p.6 of the PDF: FAR takeoff length requirements for the 777-200LR on a standard day. There are (at least) two ways to use this chart. If you want to know what you can do at a particular airport, start at the runway length and go across until you hit the curve for the airport's altitude, then go down and read off the weight you can takeoff at. If you want to know how much runway you need, start at your desired takeoff weight and go up to the airport altitude curve, then read across to the runway length you need.

The dotted line across the top of the curves is the tire speed limit...you can go faster than that even if you have more runway. The dotted line on the right is the maximum takeoff weight...you can't go heavier than that even if you have more runway. Depending on the aircraft, you may also see another speed limit line (e.g. the 737 has two different speed ratings on the tires) and/or a maximum brake energy line.

ACAP documents are available at:
Boeing: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.html
Airbus: http://www.airbus.com/support/mainte...cal-data/aircraft-characteristics/
Embraer: http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/#/en/apm
Bombardier: haven't found this one yet...

Quoting A388 (Reply 16):
For example, which cargo aircraft types can take off at full payload from the new airport in UIO when it opens? What about BOG?

To figure that out, you need to go through the ACAP documents one-by-one. However, what matters for takeoff is total weight (OEW+fuel+payload), not just payload, so you need to know what range you want to go before you can answer a question like that.

Quoting A388 (Reply 17):
What runway length do you consider really long?

I'd call anything over about 12,000' "really long" but that's just me. The old SAC bases like Moses Lake (KMWH) or Glasgow MT (07MT) are "really long" at 13,000'+. Denver 16R/34L is really really long at 16,000' (it's longer than Edwards AFB).

Tom.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Twins are only overpowered if both engines are running, otherwise they're barely making the required climb gradient. So in an engine-out situation, the quad will outperform the twin almost every time.

I was thinking about normal operations - 99.999% of the time all engines are running.

Edit: Just out of interest, I looked up the longest runway in the world. It's in China, at 14,200 feet altitude, and the runway is over 18,000 feet long.

[Edited 2012-12-06 18:02:28]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4597 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18):
.you can go faster than that even if you have more runway.

Happens to me all the time : You wanted to say : "you CAN'T go faster than that even if you have more runway... "

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):

I was thinking about normal operations - 99.999% of the time all engines are running.

Yes,; but understand that these twins have already been restricted to a lower GW due to the fact that we always consider an engine failure for our take off weight computations, and as Ferpe has written in his # 16+ :

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):

Absolutely, twin 2.4% and quads 3.0%.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

WS started this a couple of years ago to save fuel, but maybe the same thing could help high altitude airport operations. Lower weight would help the takeoff speeds, and both 1st and 2nd segment climbs.

http://www.westjet.com/guest/en/media-investors/helium.shtml

Otherwise - interesting thread, and while I knew the concepts it's interesting seeing the details. Especially thanks for the links on the real facts!



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlinestarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):
Edit: Just out of interest, I looked up the longest runway in the world. It's in China, at 14,200 feet altitude, and the runway is over 18,000 feet long.

That's the longest paved runway. The longest runway in the world is at Edwards AFB, 17/35 at 39,907 ft long. There are multiple others at Edwards longer than 20000 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Air_Force_Base#Main_base



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 20):
Happens to me all the time : You wanted to say : "you CAN'T go faster than that even if you have more runway... "

Yes. Yes I did.

Tom.


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3546 times:

Quoting starlionblue (Reply 22):
The longest runway in the world is at Edwards AFB, 17/35 at 39,907 ft long

I knew this before, but seeing it written here made me realise that runway is longer than some flights I've made that begin and end at different airports - including international flights. Not on transport category planes, but in personal GSA and some commercial GA charters as well!



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RWY Length/Airport Altitude & Engine Performance
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...
Scalability Of Engine Performance posted Wed Dec 8 2010 13:08:42 by mafi29
Net Flight Path And All-engine Performance posted Sun Dec 4 2005 16:40:15 by BKAA
Cold Weather Engine Performance. posted Wed Feb 2 2005 04:07:19 by Masonaries
Water/rain-ingestion Affect Engine Performance? posted Thu Mar 18 2004 18:35:36 by ConcordeBoy
Density Altitude And Human Performance posted Sat Aug 11 2012 13:28:51 by 26point2
High Altitude Airport And A343 posted Mon Oct 11 2010 05:39:02 by Quokka
High Altitude Airport And Long Range Airplane posted Sat Oct 9 2010 18:10:51 by juanchito
DC3 Engine Out Performance posted Mon Jun 21 2010 07:04:36 by TravelAVNut
772LR Climb Performance On One Engine posted Fri Feb 29 2008 21:47:35 by VikingA346
Engine Thrust At Altitude? posted Mon Oct 11 2004 03:37:52 by ArmitageShanks

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format