GKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24627 posts, RR: 58 Posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1414 times:
for these a/c.
L1011-1 @mtow and max landing weight
B747-200 @ AS ABOVE
B767-300ER @ AS ABOVE
A330-200 @ AS ABOVE
A340-200 @ AS ABOVE
AN124 @ AS ABOVE.
Thanks for any help.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Spootter10 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
It`s hard to tell because it also depends on airport elevation and the temperature.
A B747-200 would need more runway at Quito Airport, Ecuador (which is a pretty high elevated airport) in summer than the same a/c at Amsterdam airport in winter (on a de-iced runway, of course).
Ryaneverest From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
Pressure (elevation) and temperature both matters. You can't just say "warm summers and cold winters" because that would also mean a range of -10C~30C which is 40 degrees in the centigrade scale. This accounts for quite a difference in density of air molecules and hence the length of runway needed to takeoff.
Me From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 220 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1243 times:
I have no earthly idea, but let me tell you why this is such a difficult question to answer. A pilot of a commercial aircraft is not so much concerned with the runway length as he is the aircraft weight. Charts in the cockpit list every airport and runway that a specific airline is authorized to operate from. If we want to know if we are able to takeoff or land on a specific runway, we can consult that publication (called runway analysis charts). The charts take into consideration runway slope, outside air temp (OAT), headwind/tailwind component, inoperative aircraft equiptment (anti-skid, ground spoilers) and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. These conditions are used to arrive at a weight, if the aircraft is at or below that weight, the takeoff/landing is legal. In the case of a takeoff, the aircraft can accelerate, have an engine fail, and either stop on the remaining runway using max braking and ground spoilers (not taking into consideration the reverse thurst) or depending on the speed at which the engine failed (at or above V1), continue the takeoff and climb with the engine failed. Even if I had runway analysis info for aircraft you mentioned, all I could do was tell you a max takeoff/landing weight under identical conditions. hope this helps. -I love this little guy!!
GalaxyEngineer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
For the C-5 aircraft, at a weight of 769,000 (max weight for peacetime) and STANDARD DAY -- 15 degrees charlie, sea level pressure altitude, dry runway, no winds or slope, the take off distance is 7400 feet.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1159 times:
GalaxyEngineer wrote:
-------------------------------
For the C-5 aircraft, at a weight of 769,000 (max weight for peacetime) and STANDARD DAY -- 15 degrees charlie, sea level pressure altitude, dry runway, no winds or slope, the take off distance is 7400 feet.
-------------------------------
Thanks GalaxyEngineer. Great information. But I am not sure that it was what GKirk asked for.
I assume that this 7400 feet take off distance is the distance you roll on the rwy under the conditions mentioned.
But the minimum runway length would be somewhat longer, taking into account a calculated, brake down from V1. My best, but certainly not qualified, guesstimate would be a lot nearer the 10,000 feet mark.
And then I would guess that there may be a second set of wartime rules, which ignores V1, accepts increased MTOW, and approves almost any take off which can be done without getting feet wet. Most likely classified rules.
Am I right?
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
OO-VEG From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1142 times:
I know the An-124 doesn't need that much runway length. At my homebase airport MST with 1 runway of 2500m (about 7500ft) you sometimes see quit a lot An-124 aircrafts which take off pretty fast. I know this aircraft was designed to land under strange circumstances (it is capable of landing on the grass without getting damaged) and that it takes off pretty fast, they are able to do this because of the large amount of wheels. I think it is able to take-off on a runway of 7000ft up to 7250ft.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 1142 times:
OO-VEG, Don't judge anything from a take off, which you watch, unless you have a photocopy of the weight and balance sheet in your hand.
Double weight on any given aircraft doesn't mean double runway length, it is much, much worse than that.
An AN-124 with full cargo load and half full fuel tanks will probably jump in the air after cosiderably less than half the rwy roll it would need at MTOW. But then, with half full fuel tanks, the crew would almost for certain use reduced take off power. How much reduced is their decision, we can only guess. Their decision will be based upon what runway length is available.
The only thing which is pretty sure, they won't carry one ton of fuel for no reason.
Conclusion: don't look at actual take offs, look at the official figures. Anyway I assume that you are right that the AN-124 is a pretty good runway performer.
So is a B-52 bomber. At light weight it takes off almost like a helicopter. But when they were on alert to destroy the world, then their fuel load was calculated so they would exactly scrape the tail at the very end of their 13-14,000 feet long runway. And the KC-135A tankers, which would be sent on it's tail, would scrape the same runway trench even deeper.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
the number that galaxy engineer gave you is the actual runway length required to take off and if an abort accured the aircraft would stop within that length ( abort is predicated on theworst time for it ) so that is the runway length required for that day with those conditions.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24627 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 75 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 220 posts, 
-I love this little guy!!
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1081 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
