Just to add to my virtual "Binder of Obscure Trivia", I'm wondering.

Where could I find data on the runway length needed for land-based
operations (for takeoff and landing) for:

F-16
F-15
F-14
F/A-22
B-52
B-1
E-2
E-3
E-8
MiG-29
MiG-23
MiG-25
Su-27
MiG-31
Su-30
C-130
C-5
C-141
C-17

If people don't have such data, or don't want to give it, OK.:-) I'm
just wondering where I could *find* such data.

John

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:46:46 -0500, John Penta >
wrote:

>Just to add to my virtual "Binder of Obscure Trivia", I'm wondering.

Well, start the folder of BOT with a statement that takeoff and
landing rolls depend on a lot of factors such as gross weight,
temperature, field elevation, wind and slope. In other words it
varies--a lot!

Then note that a NATO "standard" runway was defined as 8000 feet
approximately, so that tells you an all purpose figure that works most
of the time. Certainly a longer runway will allow for heavier loads,
greater safety margins, and broader range of density altitude
conditions.

Typically most fighter aircraft (not STOL) will use about 1500-4000
feet of ground roll for take-off, depending upon load. Century series
aircraft consumed a bit more pavement.

>
>Where could I find data on the runway length needed for land-based
>operations (for takeoff and landing) for:
>
>F-16
>F-15
>F-14
>F/A-22
>B-52
>B-1
>E-2
>E-3
>E-8
>MiG-29
>MiG-23
>MiG-25
>Su-27
>MiG-31
>Su-30
>C-130
>C-5
>C-141
>C-17
>
>If people don't have such data, or don't want to give it, OK.:-) I'm
>just wondering where I could *find* such data.
>
>John

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:21:19 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:46:46 -0500, John Penta >
>wrote:
>
>>Just to add to my virtual "Binder of Obscure Trivia", I'm wondering.
>
>Well, start the folder of BOT with a statement that takeoff and
>landing rolls depend on a lot of factors such as gross weight,
>temperature, field elevation, wind and slope. In other words it
>varies--a lot!
>
>Then note that a NATO "standard" runway was defined as 8000 feet
>approximately, so that tells you an all purpose figure that works most
>of the time. Certainly a longer runway will allow for heavier loads,
>greater safety margins, and broader range of density altitude
>conditions.
>
>Typically most fighter aircraft (not STOL) will use about 1500-4000
>feet of ground roll for take-off, depending upon load. Century series
>aircraft consumed a bit more pavement.

Thanks for the info.

I wasn't looking for exact stuff, more what the lengths are that
planners use when planning for basing, emergency fields...things like
that.

The numbers that would (all other things being equal) allow one to
intelligently say "X can go here, here, here, and here, but not here,
here, here, and here. Meanwhile, Y can go here, here, here, and
here..."

Um. I really hope I'm making sense.

John

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:17:58 -0500, John Penta >
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:21:19 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>
>>Well, start the folder of BOT with a statement that takeoff and
>>landing rolls depend on a lot of factors such as gross weight,
>>temperature, field elevation, wind and slope. In other words it
>>varies--a lot!
>>Typically most fighter aircraft (not STOL) will use about 1500-4000
>>feet of ground roll for take-off, depending upon load. Century series
>>aircraft consumed a bit more pavement.
>
>Thanks for the info.
>
>I wasn't looking for exact stuff, more what the lengths are that
>planners use when planning for basing, emergency fields...things like
>that.
>
>The numbers that would (all other things being equal) allow one to
>intelligently say "X can go here, here, here, and here, but not here,
>here, here, and here. Meanwhile, Y can go here, here, here, and
>here..."

You are making sense and considering the sort of stuff that a lot of
folks tend to overlook. There are even more issues than mentioned.
Things like load bearing capacity of the pavement. Aircraft not only
need to be supported by the runway, but also by the taxiways and
ramps. Large aircraft especially can sink through the pavement at high
gross weights. "Footprint" weight is important, considering max gross
weights as well as size and number of tires on the landing gear.

There are also some shortcuts to make runways that might not otherwise
be suitable OK. Things like jet barriers and arresting gear. A runway
too short for safe takeoff at high gross weight because it is
inadequate for a high speed abort, might become useable with a
departure end barrier installed. Or, a too short recovery field might
become an option with an approach end barrier capability deployed and
a suitably tail-hook equipped aircraft.

And, when considering suitability, don't forget compatible instrument
approaches.

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:17:58 -0500, John Penta >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:21:19 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> >wrote:
>SNIP:
Things like load bearing capacity of the pavement. Aircraft not only
> need to be supported by the runway, but also by the taxiways and
> ramps. Large aircraft especially can sink through the pavement at high
> gross weights. "Footprint" weight is important, considering max gross
> weights as well as size and number of tires on the landing gear.
SNIP:
Back in late 1957 I delivered their first F86D to the Kelly TX ANG to
replace their F80s. Upon deplaning we discovered the Dog's main gear
had sunk not into but through the asphalt of their parking ramp. . . .
Walt BJ