1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Why the need for long runways?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Brian in Oregon, Aug 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    In 1962 a pilot unfamiliar with Portland International Airport (PDX) mistook at night the vastly smaller Troutdale Airport (TTD) just to the east, and landed his DC-8 there by mistake, barely stopping before the end of the runway.

    Here is a newspaper clipping about the mistake.

    In order to take off from the short runway, the plane was stripped of seats and much of the interior to shed weight, and only enough fuel was put in to allow a 10 mile hop from TTD to PDX, with no fuel for a go around. The ferry flight went without a hitch.

    The story has become folklore in the area, and most people say it was a Boeing 707 with a Boeing test pilot, but it was a DC8.

    Troutdale used to be the base for Borate Bombers, ranging from twin engine A26 invaders and ex-Navy P2V to the ex-Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer, a maritime patrol bomber modification of the B-24 Liberator. Some Borate Bombers still operate from there as needed, but I don't think any are stationed there any more.
     
  2. G550

    G550 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Same thing happened at DaNang in the late 60's. DC-8 landed at night at Monkey Mtn on a visual approach. A very short runway parallel to DaNang's two long runways but several miles east. Had to strip the interior out and fuel it for a 10 min flight. With the DC-8 there wasn't much runway to spare on takeoff. Most large jets can land in a surprisingly short distance because the brakes are designed for aborted takeoffs at max gross takeoff weight and much higher speeds. Max anti-skid braking at touchdown will hang you in the straps and is way more impressive than any automobile I have ever tried it in. Even my Z06.

    RCH
     
  3. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Thrust reversers also help a lot, probably more then the brakes

    When I was in the USAF we would fly B 52's out of Guam with a 305,000 lb fuel load and 68,000 lbs of bombs, we would generally take off runway 17, we would get on the runway past the threshold, and used every inch of the runway, if the density altitude was high which it almost always was, we would have to dive a little off the end of the runway to pick up speed to get enough lift, a few didn't make it

    It was the only time I ever saw a buff climb with a nose high attitude, they always climbed with a 7 degree nose down attitude when they weren't over loaded
     
  4. G550

    G550 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    At light weights and slower speeds the TR's are less effective. They take too long to translate to fully open and the power is locked at idle until they are fully open. At higher weights and speeds they are more effective. Ground spoilers dump the lift and allow max braking almost instantly at touchdown. On longer runways less braking and more thrust reverse is often used unless the pilot is trying to make a convenient taxiway. My experience is military, charter, and big corporate. Air carrier pilots have regs specific to their company's operating manual.

    RCH
     
  5. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    I'm sure you're right, I flew on Buffs they had no reversers, it just seemed like when I was on 141's C5's and 130's when they would hit them hard we really stopped fast
     
  6. G550

    G550 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Cat....Your correct. I flew the C-141 A/B for 10+ years. They had (4) target type TR's which are more effective and translate open faster than the cascade type (C-5 & C-17) in common use with today's high bypass engines. At normal landing weights with 8,000' + runways we rarely used brakes above 50 knots. We also had ground spoilers on the top and bottom of the wing along the entire span except for the outboard aileron portion. The jet was the runway performance king of it's era. Even at 325,000#. And, doing local training with the A model, no cargo, and about 8,000# of fuel the touchdown speed was 98 knots. We could also easily back the jet with TR's although it was frowned upon in normal operations.

    RCH
     
  7. warren

    warren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    Fernley, Nevada
    Try this one

    warren
     
  8. CalvinMD

    CalvinMD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,854
    Location:
    Northeastern MD @ the top o the Bay
    Says a lot of the man at the controls as well as the aircraft don't it...could have been really ugly
     
  9. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    Has happened a lot. Especially on parallel runways a few miles apart. We had an F-15 land at a short runway at Destin Airport once just off of Eglin AFB. His story was he was out of fuel, but many think her just took the wrong airport. We sent one of my crew chiefs and a weapons guy to decart ,defuel and drop the centerline tank. They put JUST ENOUGH fuel in the Eagle to hop back to Eglin. Another pilot brought the jet back and the guy never quite lived it down.--G550, I was a crew dog on C-141 A model and the C-5 A at Altus AFB OKLA. The old A model 141 sure had plenty of extra power! The C-5 A carried about as much weight in FUEL as the C-141 grossed! I seem to remember the gross of the C-141A models at about 320,000. Catpower I remember the old B-52s and their drag chute bellowing! What a sight! At least you had 8 engines. I remember the old KC-135 A models with four J -79s STRUGGLING to get off the ground with a full load! On a hot day they would use up a LOT of runway!
     
  10. G550

    G550 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Slide. Back in the late 60's (I think) A 21AF Stan-Eval pilot was flying a trip with a McGuire crew. On his leg (left seat)they were flying the high ADF/NDB penetration into Incirlik on a sunny but hazy day. On the inbound turn he had the airport in sight but Incirlik tower didn't see him but cleared him to land. He transitioned to a visual. Incirlik tower still no contact. Just before touchdown realized they were at Adana (civil airport). The runways were aligned on nearly the same heading. They did a touch and go and landed at Incirlik 6 miles further east. Normal Max gross 325,000 (EWO was 343,000 I think). Max fuel 153,352. Some things you never forget!! I remember watching the "Tank" at Kadena taking off over the water with four smoke trails struggling to get to flaps up speed before they were out of water injection.

    RCH
     
  11. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Slide, actually tankers and Buffs used a J57 P&W, the J79 was a GE engine ( with a lot more thrust)they used on F4's B 58's and a few others, the tanker engine had more thrust that the Buff engine though they were a different series.

    One time when I was at Ellsworth we were going to take off in a Buff I will never forget the tail number of 59-2602, or as we called it two sicko two, that damn thing had a bad attitude and stayed broke I swear it was the biggest lemon ever made, well one hot summer afternoon we were heading out and they ended up having to do a red ball engine change on number 7, still never figured out when a bird was supposed to fly they would jump through hurdles to make it happen, but they changed the engine I think it took 30-45 minutes, but when they did they forgot to put a cotter key in one of the mounts, we were making our take off run, Ellsworth was at about 3500 ft and it was hot so our density altitude was pretty high, and right at rotation the pin in the mount fell out, the engine swung away from the fire wall, #7 had the water pump in it so the whole pod lost power, damn glad we had a good AC driving we made off, then ended up having to circle the base for about 8 hrs to burn off enough fuel to land

    Man I thought we were going buy the farm that day
     
  12. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    12,611
    Location:
    God's Country
    One time, back in the early 70's, I think, I was visiting my Dad in California, and a Japan Airlines jet landed short of the runway in the San Francisco Bay. We drove up and looked at it, and it was just floating there. Probably thought it was a rice paddy. Charlie
     
  13. cafowler

    cafowler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    NorCal
    The C-17's are amazing. I just saw a bunch as I left Travis AFB Skeet club an hour ago. They do an air show each summer and the C-17 demo's what these guys did in the video. A high altitude aproach like they're in the sand-box, land and stop as fast as they can, back-up un-assisted on the runway, then do a full speed brakes on take-off in as short as they can to a high altitude. Really incredible to watch it compared to the lumbering C-5s. The whole crowd "wow's" in unison as that C-17 takes off in a couple hundred yards I think. Those Boeing engineers earned their fee with the C-17, just incredible.
     
  14. G550

    G550 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    This one didn't go so well. " A man's got to know his limitations." As well as the aircrafts limitations.

    RCH
     
  15. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    Catpower, you are quite correct. I'm getting older and have lapses with typOs now and then. The KC-135 did indeed use the J-57. I still remember the water injection for thrust augmentation. Can't remember but I think they used about 600 gal. on take off! I remember being on board an old "A" model 135 on a couple of deployments and bginning to wonder when we passed the 5,000 ft marker LOL! The newer model with the turbo fan engines gave the old tanker a LOT more power!
     
  16. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    G550, I still remember the staggered take offs on Guam. Three Buffs and a "Tank" in an group. Lots of smoke. I remember the "big Dip" in the runway at Guam! The Buffs would disappear all but their massive tails,then show up on the other side of the dip!-- When I in transient alert at England AFB LA. I remember funny story. We had a C-5 A come in and was taking Army troops and euip. to Germany. I called Job control and asked for 280,00 lbs. of fuel. The young two striper ( who had no experience except on A-10s) tried to tell me I really meant 28,000. She finally said " I KNOW that acft. doesn't take 280,000 lbs of fuel"! No I said," it takes 318,000 but they don't need a FULL load"! lol!-- Is Incirlik still open? One of the things on my bucket list is to hop around the world and visit some of the old bases still left. My how times have changed!
     
  17. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    And then there were the MITO's or minimum interval take offs, it was tanker bomber tanker bomber until the whole alert pad was in the sky, we used to have them during our CAFE inspections, after the first tanker bomber there was so much smoke you couldn't even see where you were going

    One time we did it in fog so thick you couldn't see 100 ft

    That was back when I would do anything they told me to do, it wouldn't happen again, was always scared some one would have to abort
     
  18. Chichay

    Chichay TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,866
    MITO on you-tube.
     
  19. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,249
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    The Buffs in the video are H models they had TF 33 engines they were turbo fans, didn't even smoke compared to the turbo jets in the earlier versions, and if it was warm enough for water injection they smoked like steam engines

    They also had a lot more minimum interval than we did, guess they finally figured out had bad it could have been if something went wrong
     
  20. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    The H model B-52s had a lot more power with the TF-33 (the same engine the C-141 had). They also later moded some the KC-135 with TFs. Those take offs with the J-57s and water injection ewould really rattle the windows and actually broke some! Guess SAC (now ACC when they combined with TAC) did away with the 11 sec. intervals! BTW G550, Do you remember the approach into Yakota? That was one crowded place !
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.