I'm looking for some discussion and some clarity on which are the airports in the US and around the world where field performance really matters. I'm not thinking of airports with short runways where little demand leads to small aircraft; I'm thinking of the places where runway length or hot and high biases airlines toward the 752, 73G, 319, and 346, and away from the 739, 321, or 343.
Places that come to my mind are:
- EGE, ASE, and EYW
- PHX
- MEX and JNB
Can you all shed some more light on these airports and add others to the list?
Thanks in advance!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Field Performance Airports
There's FNC, who's runway was so short, they needed to build a runway on top of a pier in order to extend the old runway.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter): I'm thinking of the places where runway length or hot and high biases airlines toward the 752, 73G, 319, and 346, and away from the 739, 321, or 343. |
1) I'm shocked you're forgetting SXM, and speaking of....
2) ....you don't seem to realize that the A343 actually has shockingly GOOD takeoff performance from a short runway, when you throttle it to its full capability.
For example, it's still the only aircraft that does SXM-Europe nonstop, in scheduled service; and that's off of only 7700ft runway with significant obstruction at one end.
[Edited 2016-03-10 19:18:27]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
RE: Field Performance Airports
SNA, BUR, MDW. YTZ
All airports that could support larger aircraft but have short runways hemmed in or restricted by urbane development.
All airports that could support larger aircraft but have short runways hemmed in or restricted by urbane development.
RE: Field Performance Airports
HOU isn't terribly small, but surrounded on all sides by urban development and no plane larger than a 757 can land there (per some FAA NOTAM).
When wasn't America great?
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
RE: Field Performance Airports
Surprised nobody has said SDU and LCY yet. Those runways are so challenging the planes themselves need to be specially modified / certified for them.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
RE: Field Performance Airports
Well none of the aircraft you listed:
752, 73G, 319, and 346, and 739, 321, or 343
are capable of flying into ASE.
For ASE although the runway has been extended from 7000ft to 8000ft for toda and lda are still listed as 7,000ft and that is what is used for planning takeoff and landing performance there.
752, 73G, 319, and 346, and 739, 321, or 343
are capable of flying into ASE.
For ASE although the runway has been extended from 7000ft to 8000ft for toda and lda are still listed as 7,000ft and that is what is used for planning takeoff and landing performance there.
Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
-
- FlyASAGuy2005
- Posts: 3965
- Joined:
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter): |
I believe STT would fit the bill. Although the runway is 7,000ft there are restrictions going in both directions (east or west). Taking off the the east, there's the mountain and taking off to the west you have a tailwind component to worry about. Either way there is a penslty on MTOW. In the summer months, DL sometimes struggles to ATL/JFK due to this and either has a passenger restriction or will stop in SJU for fuel.
For American/B6, the 320 is a pig. There's usually a heavy passenger cap set.
What gets measured gets done.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting Mcoov (Reply 1): There's FNC, who's runway was so short, they needed to build a runway on top of a pier in order to extend the old runway. |
I know it's still a challenging airport for pilots, but I see the runway is 9100 ft now. Is it a challenging airport for aircraft anymore?
| Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 3): SNA |
The noise abatement here is a further challenge for aircraft performance, right? Any other airports where noise spurs the use of aircraft that can climb out of earshot more quickly?
| Quoting Pyrex (Reply 5): Surprised nobody has said SDU and LCY yet. Those runways are so challenging the planes themselves need to be specially modified / certified for them. |
SDU is the airport which spurred Boeing to offer the short field performance package for 737NGs, is it not?
Do the special modifications to the BA A318s for LCY extend beyond software programming? Any hard changes to the airframe?
BUR, MDW, and HOU are well within the performance capabilities of 737-800s, A320s, and MD-80s without much restriction, right? It's just that they're closer and more convenient than the long-runway airport in their metro area and would take more traffic if they could support larger aircraft. And wouldn't LGA, DCA, and DAL also be in this boat?
| Quoting Woodreau (Reply 6): For ASE although the runway has been extended from 7000ft to 8000ft for toda and lda are still listed as 7,000ft and that is what is used for planning takeoff and landing performance there. |
AFAIK, 7000 ft is plenty for your average mainline narrowbody not stretching its range, and hot obviously isn't at play during ski season, so it's just the extreme altitude at play, correct? Does increased runway altitude (holding all other variables equal) increase takeoff distance in a linear way for all types more or less or is this the kind of thing that a specific type's performance chart needs to be consulted for?
| Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 7): For American/B6, the 320 is a pig. There's usually a heavy passenger cap set. |
I'm sure SA)">AA has good reason for using a 320, but would a 319 or a 752 be able to skirt the restriction?
I seem to recall reading that SA has kept/is keeping the 346 around because it can handle JNB better than most. Is that true?
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 8): I seem to recall reading that SA has kept/is keeping the 346 around because it can handle JNB better than most. Is that true? |
High-elevation already impacts takeoff performance, which then also has to be calculated with an engine-out contingency.
A quad on 75% available power is generally going to have superior performance to a twin on 50% power, even accounting for the fact that the twins otherwise boast a greater power/weight ratio.
At lower elevation airports, or airports without significant obstruction, the twins' superior economics will usually outweigh quads' performance on takeoff and climbout. At airports like JNB, it can be another story.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
-
- mandala499
- Posts: 6600
- Joined:
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 2): 2) ....you don't seem to realize that the A343 actually has shockingly GOOD takeoff performance from a short runway, when you throttle it to its full capability. |
A343 has good take off performance, yes, true and factual, but it is considered blasphemy here!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20556
- Joined:
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10): Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 2): 2) ....you don't seem to realize that the A343 actually has shockingly GOOD takeoff performance from a short runway, when you throttle it to its full capability. A343 has good take off performance, yes, true and factual, but it is considered blasphemy here! |
Indeed. Flex take-off and climb derate are used all the time though, so it seems sluggish. If the take-off meets climb gradients, there's no need to push the engines to the limit and increase maintenance bills.
For that matter the 330 and 777 very seldom show off their true performance either. In the 330, on a 30 degree day at MTOW we'll still use flex 45 or so (meaning this thrust limit is valid to 45 degrees) for take-off and derate 1 for climb (-10% thrust). Plenty of margin!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 8): I know it's still a challenging airport for pilots, but I see the runway is 9100 ft now. Is it a challenging airport for aircraft anymore? |
I don't particularly think there are many field restrictions from there, but other than the TAP A330s to Caracas there does not tend to be much widebody traffic. The apron is pretty small, though, so maneuvering and parking a large aircraft sometimes causes some challenges to airport operations.
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 8): SDU is the airport which spurred Boeing to offer the short field performance package for 737NGs, is it not? |
Not absolutely sure but I believe it might be. Landing and taking off from there is quite a ride!
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 8): AFAIK, 7000 ft is plenty for your average mainline narrowbody not stretching its range, and hot obviously isn't at play during ski season, so it's just the extreme altitude at play, correct? Does increased runway altitude (holding all other variables equal) increase takeoff distance in a linear way for all types more or less or is this the kind of thing that a specific type's performance chart needs to be consulted for? |
Aircraft are limited to a maximum 95ft wingspan and Max takeoff weight of 100,000lbs or less to operate into ASE so you are not going to see any narrow body airliners flying in and out of ASE.
LOC DME 15 is a 4.55 degree descent angle for a straight in landing minimums of 1000-3,
LOC DME-E is a 6.59 degree descent angle for a circle to land minimums of 2300-3 for most airliner approach speeds.
limiting factor for ASE is not the 7000ft landing/takeoff distance, limiting factor is go around performance for rwy 15 and single engine takeoff performance for rwy 33.
Go around is not possible after passing CEYAG. Single engine go around is not possible after passing the final approach fix LIFTT.
As far as takeoff or landing performance we look at outside air temperature and tailwind and look it up on a chart and the aircraft has to be below the weight listed. I have no idea if it is linear for altitude and runway length or not. Every airport has its own chart.
If the runway is "wet" it will severely weight restrict the aircraft from a max landing weight of 67,000lbs to 55,000lbs which means instead of 65 people getting to fly into aspen that day we are only carrying 27 passengers. Everyone else will have to get bumped for weight restrictions.
[Edited 2016-03-12 10:26:39]
Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
RE: Field Performance Airports
I did see a Hawaiian A332 depart Maui the other day. It left from the runway nearest the water with a lot of help from the wind. The mains left the ground at the 3K marker and it floated up non-aggressively; still I was in awe.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting Woodreau (Reply 6): Well none of the aircraft you listed: 752, 73G, 319, and 346, and 739, 321, or 343 are capable of flying into ASE. |
Worth noting that this is not because of the runway length, altitude, or terrain but because of the wingspan and MLW limitations imposed by airport rules. Lift those limitations and 73G, 319, and 752 would all do just fine.
[Edited 2016-03-13 10:59:47]
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 14): I did see a Hawaiian A332 depart Maui the other day. It left from the runway nearest the water with a lot of help from the wind. The mains left the ground at the 3K marker and it floated up non-aggressively; still I was in awe. |
I see OGG is only 7,000 ft. Are widebodies able to get out of there only because of relatively light fuel loads for the West Coast?
| Quoting Woodreau (Reply 13): Aircraft are limited to a maximum 95ft wingspan and Max takeoff weight of 100,000lbs or less to operate into ASE so you are not going to see any narrow body airliners flying in and out of ASE. |
| Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15): Worth noting that this is not because of the runway length, altitude, or terrain but because of the wingspan and MLW limitations imposed by airport rules. Lift those limitations and 73G, 319, and 752 would all do just fine. |
Interesting. Any other airports come to mind where the constraint is parking rather than runway? FNC was already mentioned as having such issues.
RE: Field Performance Airports
I should have been more clear with my previous comment. The HA 332 I witnessed depart Kahului, Maui was airborne after a very short takeoff roll of about three-thousand feet. I figured it might have just been a flight to HNL, and therefore super light, which I know they do occasionally.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 16): I see OGG is only 7,000 ft. Are widebodies able to get out of there only because of relatively light fuel loads for the West Coast? |
They do more than the west coast. AA does a 767-300 OGG-DFW, and DL previously did a 767-300 OGG-ATL. I think that's cutting it pretty close though. I believe the AA flight does packs off takeoffs.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 18): and DL previously did a 767-300 OGG-ATL. |
IINM, DL's routing was ATL-OGG-DFW-ATL with the L10s, and later ATL-OGG-LAX-ATL with the 767s.
Pretty sure the furthest inland nonstop scheduled from OGG has been OGG-ORD.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 19): Pretty sure the furthest inland nonstop scheduled from OGG has been OGG-ORD. |
Didn't that used to run OGG-KOA-ORD with the KOA stop mainly to take on more fuel for the ORD trip (KOA has an 11,000 foot runway). Maybe that was years and years ago, but I remember there being a flight like that on United.
RE: Field Performance Airports
JAC - Jackson Hole, Wyoming - also comes to mind.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
RE: Field Performance Airports
DCY (4,200 meter runway) and BPX (5,500 meter runway) are not straightforward. I believe only A319s are certified to fly there. I wonder what it feels like to take off there - do they have special tires rated for higher speeds?
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 19): IINM, DL's routing was ATL-OGG-DFW-ATL with the L10s, and later ATL-OGG-LAX-ATL with the 767s. Pretty sure the furthest inland nonstop scheduled from OGG has been OGG-ORD. |
I'm pretty sure DL did OGG-ATL with a 763 without stopping in LAX. Let's look for some old A.net postings on it.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter): airports with short runways where little demand leads to small aircraft |
You may be confusing cause and effect there....
| Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter): 752, 73G, 319, and 346, and away from the 739, 321, or 343. |
I think the 343 and 346 have similar performance. Though the Trents are bigger, they need to lift +100 tons.
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 8): Do the special modifications to the BA A318s for LCY extend beyond software programming? Any hard changes to the airframe? |
Nope, they just changed the spoiler logic to deploy a smidge to hold glideslope.
| Quoting flyboy80 (Reply 14): I did see a Hawaiian A332 depart Maui the other day. It left from the runway nearest the water with a lot of help from the wind. The mains left the ground at the 3K marker and it floated up non-aggressively; still I was in awe. |
| Quoting L.1011 (Reply 16): I see OGG is only 7,000 ft. Are widebodies able to get out of there only because of relatively light fuel loads for the West Coast? |
Yeah, it's less than half their spec range. The A332 has good performance out of there because it's overwinged. Recall that it shares the same wing as a 343.... I was at Baldwin Beach two months ago and loved watching all the 332s and Mad Dogs take off
Quito is another one, but I heard they're opening a new airport at lower altitude with a longer runway.
RE: Field Performance Airports
| Quoting LH707330 (Reply 24): Quito is another one, but I heard they're opening a new airport at lower altitude with a longer runway. |
They already did. It's been open for like two years. The old airport is being made into a park. It's more like 7000 feet altitude. I flew out of there in January. Nice airport. Even better city. AA even does an A319 UIO-DFW now.