Guest Foot56 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I made a bet about a 747-400 landing at my local air field. The total length of the air field is 7010 feet by 150 feet. Lets say if the 747-400 land right at the start of this run way and land by the text book/ checklist as far as flaps and throttle can it come to a complete stop and not go over the 7010 feet mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VL-16 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 According the the manual, it would most likely run off the end of the runway, but I'm sure it is possible to stop it in that distance. A 747-400 has a required landing distance of 2,300m, which converts out to 7,545 feet. I think "officially" you may have lost this one. [ 29. July 2005, 13:41: Message edited by: ENJJPTorBust ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheBobGoat Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 they can land in that short of a distance, is it empty or full (gas and cargo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Foot56 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 the way we said was .. a normal landing so how much fuel is left say comming from New York and cargo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheBobGoat Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 i dont know what their book or TOLD says, so i am probably no help - but they can land in the distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fbomb Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I saw a picture of it somewhere on the internet being done, so I would have to say yes, and no the picture did not look doctored. also depends on how ggod the pilots are and what is on the aircraft at the time. Also what kind of runway is it, concrete or asphalt. some runways just cannot handle that kind of weight. DO a little reasearch on the airport itself and maybe ask the airport director, they might know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KoolKat Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 "say comming from New York and cargo..." From NY to where? Which airport to which airport, what's the route, what's the fuel flow, what's the landing weight? If it's by the book, it should be clear enough. If it's "can" it, it depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest waxgoblin Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Foot56, need to make a new thread that so we can all tell you that you're right, for you to show your friend? kidding.. that would be too e-vil [ 30. July 2005, 01:45: Message edited by: waxgoblin ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pogo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Here in England we've had an older model 747 (and KC-135s, F-111s and F-15s) take off and leave on just short of 6000'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainman A-10 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 LaGuardia is only 7000 feet. I'm pretty sure they land 747s there but I can't confirm it off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJDRVR Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I don't have the numbers, but 7000 feet is easily within the 747's capability for landing. The issues that would be a show stopper is that your airport is probably not stressed for a 870,000 pound jet. Even more importantly, where are you going and how much weight are you taking? The runway analysis numbers for departure are going to be much more restrictive in terms of distance needed. Foot, as far as landing distances for transport category jets, the actual distance is measured from a 50' obstacle to a normal touchdown, followed by max performance braking. (Antikid cycling.) No thrust reversers are allowed, and the tires are sanded down to approximate a normal level of service wear. In addition to that number, a "penalty" is applied for all 121 or 135 operators, resulted in a factored, or "required" landing distance. (Even more is added for contamination.) For your wager, you're probably gonna lose simply because the concrete's not thick enough. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyAF Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 http://www.skypark.org/747Landing.htm That's a 747-200, but still pretty impressive. The article says that they didn't use reversers either, but they had new brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas Man Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergman Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Holy sh1t! I guess there's a reason the 747 captains earn the big bucks. I read on another site that the main gear is 41.33' wide...leaves about 4' on each side for slop. No problem... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Sorry, I thought you said "I need answers for a TEST!" :rolleyes: Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas Man Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 It may have been a short and narrow runway, but at least it was hilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now