|
|
Post by crossbone40 on Oct 26, 2013 18:49:10 GMT
In order to try´n keep the new "CONCORDE - HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS" article (on the Aircraft Histories forum page) "on-topic" .... I´ve created this new thread .... "HERE" .... and into which I´ve moved some of the off-topic CONCORDE article responses (concerning large/heavy aircraft types operations onto shorter RWY´s etc .... in order to avoid loosing some of this information as th result of any other form of "tidy-up" and since it might be of interest/benefit to some folk.
SEE BELOW
Mark C
BOG/COI once saw the Singapore Airlines-Concorde on some southeast-asian airport, either in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Bangkok or was it HK-Kai Tak?(parking only) and a take-off of a BA-Concorde in NY JFK-airport. Both were in the 80s. LH even landed once a B 747 in Innsbruck (very light!!) to christian it "Innsbruck". Kind regards Walter I have recently installed Aerosoft´s "Approaching Innsbruck" for FS9, how did they manage to land (and start) a B-747 on that relatively short runway ? I couldn´t take off with the HJG-L 1011 Tristar (=I crashed). Anyway, it´s a nice idea of LH to baptize a german plane with an austrian city-name. Hermann
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 26, 2013 22:37:54 GMT
INNSBRUCK apparently has a field/RWY length of some 6,500FT .... at an altitude of some 1,900 FT and is located within some fairly restricting surrounding geography also .... SO .... I imagine the aircraft would have been "severly weight restricted" if not completly empty. WELLINGTON INTL AIRPORT (in New Zealand) has a field/RWY length of some 6,800 FT (something a little over a 747´s length longer than that of INNSBRUCK), but, is also little above SL too .... and which would make a positive difference (meaning INNSBRUCK would be even more challenging) .... but .... it´s also got it´s own particular difficulties too .... particularly in regard to its world reknowned "ventral wind effect" (see the following 2 videos shot by Paul BRENNAN, a fellow New Zealand aviation photography colleaguw/acquaintance of mine) .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LaAkAyoz0www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfS4X-xF_Y0.... and .... also in consideration of high terrain located within relatively close proximity of its RWY 16 RWY approach and RWY 34 departure routes too, so, WELLINGTON might still be considered "just as challenging" as INNSBRUCK, but, in it´s own particular way. None-the-less .... we/AIR NEW ZEALAND .... did fly 1 one of our B747-200´s into WELLINGTON during the late 1990´s .... as a "diversion trial" in the event that such action might ever be necessary (for whatever reason) in the future, but, I think it´s weight was also restricted/simulated to approximate what it would/should normally be upon the conclusion of any long-haul trans-Pacific flight, but, it "CAN" be "DONE". AIR NEW ZEALAND hasn´t ever done this at WELLINGTON during the course of its routine scheduled operations, but, on one very memorable occasion, during the 1990´s, a UNITED AIRLINES B747-100 was "forced" to "DO SO", due to "fuel considerations", when AUCKLAND (its destination airport) was closed/fogbound .... as was CHRISTCHURCH (the normal diversion) too .... and as was RNZAF Base OHAKEA also (which has, in the past, been occasionally used as a secondary diversion point in such cases). The following video presents a little about the AIR NEW ZEALAND B747-200´s .... including (near the end) a short segment in regard to the airlines diversion trials into WELLINGTON .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJjVlqu9YoDuring more recent times AIR NEW ZEALAND has also conducted similar "diversion trials" (only) into WELLINGTON using its B777-300ER aircraft. We got the aircraft "IN" OK .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahok2vLA8uE.... AND .... we even got it out again too .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTJgjs7zG4ISO THEN .... and what Walter has also "touched on" above .... such short field operations using very large/heavy aircraft, like these, and despite the fact it´s neither standard/routine or common, "CAN BE ACCOMBLISHED" .... and quite safely too .... provided the RWY is of sufficient bearing strength, aircraft weight is also "restricted", and so long as as all other defining factors/restrictions are "well within the established limits" for such operations also. In regard to "FS" .... and INNSBRUCK .... and using the HJG/VL L1011 TRISTAR. By restricting the simulations "FUEL" (only) weight .... and using 3 knotches of flap and a sensible trim setting .... and also applying full/"MAXIMUM" T/O thrust too .... then it "IS" possible to fly out of INNSBRUCK. Whether or not this could be achieved for real .... of course .... is open to conjecture/debate .... but .... it "CAN", at least, be done within the "Bullnuts & Jellybeans" virtual world of FS. Mark C BOG/CO |
|
|
|
Post by crossbone40 on Oct 26, 2013 23:52:33 GMT
Thanks for the interesting links to these YT-Videos, Mark!
It must have been very exciting as a pilot to land a big bird (like the b-747) on such difficult airports like Innsbruck, Kai-Tak and Wellington.
I flew my L-1011-1 with the standard settings(=full tanks) from Innsbruck so I think, that that was the problem I couldn´t manage to take off.
Aerosoft´s Innsbruck is very interesting, also because of the cars driving around the Airport.
Hermann
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 27, 2013 0:03:48 GMT
I´ve sent you a PM "CROSSBONE40"  Reduce your L1011 fuel loading (only) to around 50% (in each tank) .... or less .... and use 3 knotches of flap as well as "MAXIMUM T/O THRUST" .... and you will/should, then, have no problem, at all, getting off the ground at INNSBRUCK .... "in FS at least" .... and also with room to spare too. Remember .... the "HEAVIER" your simulation is, then, the more RWY length demanding it´s also going to be/become. Mark C BOG/CO
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Oct 27, 2013 9:57:08 GMT
Hi: Innsbruck: The LH 747 was flown in and out by LH chief pilot and it was nearly empty and the fuel was only planed for the short hop to Frankfurt. Weather is also a consideration: As a go around there demands a tight turn (maximum radius 1700m) between mountains (procedure West) or a tight circling (procedure East), the weather must be nearly CAVOK (2507 ft above ground and 6,3 km visibility for Proc. West) and the runway 26 has to be dry, if not you would still end up in the river Inn at the end of RWY 26. There is a special procedure for specially trained pilots with lower minima in smaller airliners available, but due to the size of a B 747 oder Tristar this would not be applicable. If you are interested: In PT flightshool we discussed the details landing departing in a Tu-154M: www.protu-154.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12367&highlight=innsbruckThe links there for charts LOWI are still working. Kind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Oct 27, 2013 16:36:05 GMT
Some numbers still:
A Tu-154M would go out with full T.O. weight of 100 to up to 15 deg. Centigrade in no wind condition, max power flap 28. The landing at maximum landing weight (80 to) would not be possible at 15 deg Centigrad only 72,5 to would be possible. (Dry Runway!)
The transfer to a new thread was a good idea! Thanks Mark!
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 19:14:59 GMT
Crossbone, Look at video showing Wardair 747-200 taking off from short 7,000 ft runway: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxii9qLNjgLook carefully at what degree of flaps did they use for take off. Aharon |
|
|
|
Post by crossbone40 on Oct 28, 2013 18:05:51 GMT
Thank you very much for your informations and video-links! So it is possible to take off with such big planes from RWYs of max.7000 ft. All I have to do now is the successful departure from such airports.
I didn´t know about the (relatively) short runway in Wellington. Mark, do you know if there exists any freeware scenery for its airport?
Hermann
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 28, 2013 18:57:22 GMT
"THESE" fils are the only ones I know of .... and which are available from FLIGHTSIM.COM and AVSIM as specified below.
I can´t, personally, vouch for any of these though since I don´t use either of them .... BUT .... take your pick anyway and as follows ....
AVAILABLE FROM FLIGHTSIM.COM
1. FS2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Scenery
FS2004 Scenery--Wellington Airport
Name: wgtnagn.zip
Size: 2,109,384 Date: 08-02-2005 Downloads: 4,465
FS2004 Scenery--Wellington Airport and city autogen add-on package, New Zealand. Third party add-on to the Wellington Airport and city scenery released by Ian Warren, Jon Murchison, James Eden and Robin Corn. This package contains full autogen and new Gmaxed buildings - The Beehive and The Cake Tin. Package also includes Christian Stock's Wellington Building Package. By Heath Wells.
2. FS2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Scenery
FS2004 Scenery--Wellington International
Name: nzwn04v1.zip
Size: 10,569,204 Date: 08-12-2004 Downloads: 7,563
FS2004 Scenery--Wellington International Airport (NZWN) and City Centre/Lower Hutt/Wainuiamata Valley. Stand-alone scenery designed to fit within Photoreal Wellington New Zealand Scenery being developed by GodZone Virtual Flight. Features detailed photoreal terminal buildings with jetways, detailed apron markings, Wellington Aeroclub facilities for GA operations, RNZAF, Vincent Aviation hangars, Air Capital - Westpac Rescue and also will have city area icons added in future updates. Optimised for FS2004 but should work in FS2002. Also comes with AFCAD2 by Alistair Slee. By Robin Corn, James Eden, Jon Murchison and Ian Warren.
2. AVAILABLE FROM AVSIM.COM
1. Category: Flight Simulator 2004 - Scenery
Wellington International and City
File Description:
The 'Real New Zealand' Wellington International and City scenery previously available as payware is now offered here as freeware. Includes a custom-built airport and city, based on a photo scenery which covers the greater Wellington area.
Filename: installrnzwellfs9.zip
License: Freeware, limited distribution
Added: 31st March 2012, 04:17:09
Downloads: 2991
Author: Robin Corn, Ian Warren
Size: 83760kb
As I mentioned above .... I can´t vouch/advise you as to the quality of any of these files, but, anything authored by Robbin CORN and/or Ian WARREN name is usually a "good bet" .... since they´re both known to have produced a fair bit of, apparently, good quality FS scenery for various New Zealand airports and regions.
Mark C
BOG/CO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 6:42:03 GMT
Speaking of heavy operations in "smaller" airports, didn't American or Continental try operating DC-10's from KDCA at one point?
(Or, at least, experiment with it?)
|
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Oct 29, 2013 11:40:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 15:42:00 GMT
Also, 737s and A319s have no trouble handling 4,134 foot runway at SBRJ Santos Dumont Airport serving Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. That is a lot shorter than KEYW's 4,800 ft runway!!!
Aharon
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Oct 29, 2013 18:27:09 GMT
Hi: Courchevele Altiport (1700 ft Rwy 6600ft high Rwy 16 deg inclination): Tyrolean Airways flew there with a 4 engined turboprop airliner (DHC Dash 7) in regular service, without incident or accidents: www.youtube.com/watch?v=55SswKIn18AKind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 29, 2013 19:25:12 GMT
"TECHNICALLY" .... that´s not entirely correct Aharon Those aircraft types "CAN" get in/out of there (and so could many larger types by virtue of just similar RWY lenth alone too) .... and we know that .... BUT .... they´re also strictly "WEIGHT RESTRICTED" in order to be able to do so safely .... AND .... I certainly wouldn´t ever regard the likes of A318´s and B737´s to be heavy or even large aircraft types either "and which is the prime topic of this particular thread".As myself, and Walter, have tried to impress much earlier within this thread .... "RWY length" is just one factor only .... but .... the applicable/defining "RWY bearing strength" is something else again .... and then .... there´s a multitude of other "variables" which also ultimately determine what (aircraft types) may operate into/onto any particular airport/RWY too .... and right down to "meteorological" factors also. What the often "BULLnuts & JELLYBEANS" world of FS let´s one do is something entirely different again .... and even I "DO" admit to having taken some very unlikely aircraft types (simulations) into a number of exremely unlikely places in FS .... and gotten away with it too as FS, most of the time, always allows one to do  Mark C BOG/CO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 20:07:10 GMT
Mark,
Yes of course when I said "737s and A319s have no trouble handling 4,134 foot runway at SBRJ Santos Dumont Airport serving Rio de Janeiro, Brazil", it means it can be done only with weight restriction but I am sure the original poster Crossbone or anyone already know that anyway.
In case the original poster Crossbone or anyone does not know about weight restriction or what I mean by my words ""737s and A319s have no trouble handling 4,134 foot runway at SBRJ Santos Dumont Airport serving Rio de Janeiro, Brazil", it means NO MORE than 70 percent passenger load factor and there must be restricted fuel loading for 737s and A319S. Also, GOL's 737s are using special short field performance option that is made by Boeing specially for GOL's order of about 30 737-800s with special short field performance option. This option is available for any airline who wants it for 737-700s or 737-800s. So far, no takers except GOL airline. This SFP option is standard in 737-900ERs.
That is what I mean.
Aharon
|
|
