Re: Cold War ALternate Basing

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "David Lesher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There's a long-standing Urban Legend that the Interstate Highway
> > system was designed to serve as replacement airfields The Day After.
> >
> > See "One-Mile-in-Five"
> > http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
> > &
> > http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm
> >
> > I seek to debunk this UL on an engineering basis. I think the
> > Interstate is unusable for multiple reasons, one of which is a 2-lane
> > highway is simply not wide enough for B-52/B-57, much less a B-36,
> > gear.
> >
> > But I have had little luck finding the gear footprint of such
> > aircraft. Everyone talks wingspan. Suggestions/data?
> >
> > I'd also like to compare PSI loads for such aircraft with those of
> > trucks.
>
> Check old copies of the US Army's TM 5-430, IIRC; one was titled "Planning
> and Design of Roads, Airfields, and Heliports in the Theater of Operations",
> and the various USAF aircraft were listed by type with data regarding
> pavement loading and minimum operating strip dimensions. Not sure that the
> current TM manual is the same as the older versions; ISTR the older ones
> were a 5-500 series pub, but that just may be due to hazy memory.

AFPAM 10-1403 lists required runway and taxiway widths and lengths, as well as
ACN requirements for each type of a/c. Not quite what you're asking for, but
should get you going. fas.org has it online:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm

Until recently all of the army FM/TM were online at TRADOC's website, including
the one Kevin mentions, but it appears that it's now restricted to official use.

Guy

[M]

Kevin Brooks >
> Some European nations (especially Sweden) did indeed design roadways
> to handle dispersed aircraft operations, but that was aimed primarily
> at tactical fighters.

Indeed. And most (all?) the Swedish jet fighters. An example of
adoption for road bases is the unusual thurst-reversal engine
exhaust of Viggen, which dramatically cuts the lenght of the
landing run.

In Finland too, the airforce planned (and still does) to operate
dispersed from highway bases in war. There are also sections of
highways specifically designed as bases, being wide, straight
and with a runway profile and markings. While not designed for
road bases, the fact that the current F-18's of the FAF are
carrier planes, is helpful. For example, they do arrested
landings on prepared highway strips.

Some Soviet tac fighters, too, are well adapted for operations
from improvized bases, even unpaved runways. MiG-29 being a good
example: STOL, tough undercarriage and unusual alternative air
intakes for take-off and landing for avoiding FOD.

What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as
I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think
that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? And,
consequently, the planes weren't (aren't) that well suited
for such operations either (eg F-16, although I think that
Norway operates its Vipers from road bases too).

[Steve Mellenthin]

>What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
>the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as
>I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think
>that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? And,
>consequently, the planes weren't (aren't) that well suited
>for such operations either (eg F-16, although I think that
>Norway operates its Vipers from road bases too).
>
>

The South Korean equivalent of the Interstate highway system has wide spots all
over it 200-300' wide and 12,000' long at a guess with taxiways as well. They
exercize them from time to time, at least they used to.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
David Lesher > wrote:

> There's a long-standing Urban Legend that the Interstate Highway
> system was designed to serve as replacement airfields The Day After.
>
> See "One-Mile-in-Five"
> http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
> &
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm
>
> I seek to debunk this UL on an engineering basis. I think the
> Interstate is unusable for multiple reasons, one of which is a 2-lane
> highway is simply not wide enough for B-52/B-57, much less a B-36,
> gear.

However, much of the system was just dandy for pretty much anything
except the big bombers, and most of the fighter aircraft of the Cold War
would have had little or no problem flying from some of the wider
Interstate highway sections.

You should also note that some parts of the more remote Interstate
system were wider than two lanes in places that really didn't
technically need two lanes for the traffic involved. If you're
addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
a large factor.

I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
fighter fields if we need to." The bombers had enough range to be able
to fly from a much more restricted system of bases or airports, while
the fighters, especially those of the time, would have needed a more
comprehensive list of places to fly from, especially out in the middle
of the less-populated Western and Central states.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[George Shirley]

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> David Lesher > wrote:
>
>
>>There's a long-standing Urban Legend that the Interstate Highway
>>system was designed to serve as replacement airfields The Day After.
>>
>>See "One-Mile-in-Five"
>>http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
>> &
>>http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm
>>
>>I seek to debunk this UL on an engineering basis. I think the
>>Interstate is unusable for multiple reasons, one of which is a 2-lane
>>highway is simply not wide enough for B-52/B-57, much less a B-36,
>>gear.
>
>
> However, much of the system was just dandy for pretty much anything
> except the big bombers, and most of the fighter aircraft of the Cold War
> would have had little or no problem flying from some of the wider
> Interstate highway sections.
>
> You should also note that some parts of the more remote Interstate
> system were wider than two lanes in places that really didn't
> technically need two lanes for the traffic involved. If you're
> addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
> Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
> a large factor.
>
> I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
> fighter fields if we need to." The bombers had enough range to be able
> to fly from a much more restricted system of bases or airports, while
> the fighters, especially those of the time, would have needed a more
> comprehensive list of places to fly from, especially out in the middle
> of the less-populated Western and Central states.
>

The primary purpose behind the Eisenhower National Highway System, IIRC,
was to provide a strategic highway network for moving military goods and
troops. If you look on the DOT pages for the NHS you will find a map
showing most of the strategic highways and they are interstates that
lead to the US borders and strategic points including ports. I think the
aircraft landing portion was just incidental and possibly deliberate in
the more desolate areas.

I was in my mid to late teens when the system was started and ISTR that
the original purpose was as described above. Regardless of reason for
building there are some states and areas within states that it is almost
worth your life to drive the IH system due to poor maintenance. I
certainly wouldn't want to land an aircraft around here in Louisiana
where I live now. Of course we've got enough closed AF bases that we
have lots of big, long runways now. <VBG>

George

[Steve Mellenthin]

>>What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
>>the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as
>>I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think
>>that their bases would survive in the 'big' war?
>
>I suspect the planners thought the aircraft would not..

At most bases in Europe the planes were dispersed around the taxiways all over
the air patch. Most were parked in hardened shelters called Tab Vs complete
with blast doors in front and high spped taxiways and IIRC many were sealed and
filtered for chem-bio warfare.. .

[B2431]

>From: M *@*.*
>

<snip>

>What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
>the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as
>I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think
>that their bases would survive in the 'big' war?

Actually there were several dispersment plans. Look at the autobahn, there were
more sites than the Luftwaffe could use. I remember someone pointing out a rest
stop near Stutgardt as being laid out as a parking ramp for fighters. We went
back and looked at it and it seemed plausible to me.

USAFE also had plans for deployment to other countries and civil airports.

It is interesting to note West German bridges used to have orange signs showing
maximum weight for tanks as well as trucks.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ragnar]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> If you're
> addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
> Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
> a large factor.
>
> I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
> fighter fields if we need to."

Actually, the engineers who designed the roadbeds thought ahead to heavier
/bigger vehicles using the highway systems.

I've scanned the laws that brought the highway system into being, and there
isn't ONE, not ONE, reference to using them as runways for military
operations. There are references to making sure they were X feet wide and
could support vehicles of Y weight, but they were thinking about Army
equipment being transported and not airplanes.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>
> > > Like I said before: bombers and heavy transport planes are
> > > certainly a no-go (from sheer width), but fighters wouldn't
> > > overload most Interstates by any stretch. A 50,000 pound plane on
> > > a couple of tires is a lot of load, but compared to a
> > > minute-by-minute pounding from 60,000+ pound semis, not so much.
> > > You only need *really* thick concrete with thick supporting beds
> > > when you plan on building something to take heavy loads and abuse
> > > for a long time with little maintenance.
> >
> > Eh? Care to imagine what the impact load of that 50K pound plane is
> > when it *lands*?
>
> Quite high, but it's not like we're talking about doing this sort of
> thing long-term. Landing a 50,000 pound fighter on a highway a couple
> of times is *not* going to destroy the road. Highways are overdesigned
> to take the load of thousands of trucks over several years.
>
> Landing a plane on a concrete surface isn't as big a deal as you'd
> suggest, either, since it's putting a *compression* load on the surface,
> which is exactly what you want with concrete.

OK, I can see this is about as wasteful an effort as trying to convince you
that your punch-a-hole-in-Three Gorges thoughts were a farse. Your civil
engineering knowledge far outweighs mine, obviously, as you have developed
assumptions and design criteria otherwise unknown, not to mention the
presence of those strange rural "extra wide" interstate sections that you
can't seem to identify specifically, etc.

>
> > > One other little thing: a lot of the more remote Interstates were
> > > built with thicker concrete because it lasts longer - by adding a
> > > couple of inches of thickness, you can *quadruple* the life of the
> > > road (rule of thumb: for every extra inch of thickness, you double
> > > the road surface life).
> >
> > Huh? Never heard such a thing in my life as a civil engineer.
>
> You know, I'm not surprised. Do the math sometime and get back to us.

I found that doing the math the last time I argued with you over something
you obviously had no grasp of was a wasted effort, so why bother? You make
these unsupported claims and then expect others to provide concrete
(heh-heh) disprovals, while ignoring the provision of
actual-honest-to-goodness civil engineering basics.

>
> > All of the pavment thickness in the world was not going to matter is
> > the subgrade was poor, or the base course was crummy or of
> > insufficient thickness.
>
> Here's where your argument falls apart.
>
> Not all of the road locations in the world *have* bad subgrade to begin
> with. Lots of them are on hard ground, and are basically just waiting
> for someone to overcoat them with a layer of reinforced concrete to be
> really, really good roads - or runways.

Oh, goody! A new engineering description! "When a road is to be built upon
"hard ground", the pavment design will not have to consider the subgrade
condition or pay any attention to base course design--see Chad for
evidence." Is that the way it appears in the various design specification
requirements. Do you know what soil plasticity index refers to? Anything
about "liquifaction"? Shrink/swell? Caliche and what may be under it? You
obviously don't, so why am I even bothering asking?

>
> > And I don't recall any efforts to "overbuild" the interstate highway
> > system--the general procedure was to build to design requirments. And
> > as to adding to the lifetime with extra thickness...seems a bit
> > screwy given that the usual procedure was to lay by panels, with the
> > eventual uneven settling of those panels being the usual cause for
> > later resurfacing.
>
> There you go again with that "usual" silliness. "Usual" isn't what
> we're talking about here, no matter how many times you repeat it.

We are talking about a timeperiod here where the use of such roads would
have been even considered, and that means you better be going back deep into
the dark days of the Cold War, *before* the routine use of continuous pour
construction.

>
> All it takes is someone saying "hey, we have a nice stretch of flat
> ground with good characteristics, all we need is a bit of extra concrete
> and you could land a frigging PLANE on it." Repeat that a couple of
> dozen times over the tens of THOUSANDS of miles of Interstate, and there
> ya go.

It is obvious now that there is a reason you have never been employed as a
civil engineer or highway construction supervisor, or for that matter in the
runway construction design business--and that is because you are so uteerly
clueless.

>
> If anything, I'd bet that there wasn't a design requirement ahead of
> time. Someone just noticed that they had a lot of potential improvised
> runways, and went with it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time
> someone in the government decided to allow for potential military use of
> civilian resources (especially since the Interstates were defense roads
> to begin with).

Having worked directly in the business of designing and building roads and
airfields, to include the truly short duration use "theater of operations"
strips and roadways, it is obvious that you again are shooting wildly from
the hip with the above. You might see Bufdrvr's comments as to why this is
not a likely scenario if you won't take my own comments--his notice of the
fact that a stip of pavment does not an airfield make is viable, even for
tactical fighters (you would be wise to read up a bit on the European
practices when it came to developing roadway dispersal strips--they indeed
tpically included *really* wide pavement sections, apron areas, and a taxi
system). The Pentagon is not in the practice of saying, "Hey, we have no
eartly idea if this would really work, but let's plan on it anyway".

>
> > But what about the subgrade prep and base course design
> > requirments??! They are equally as important as the pavment section.
>
> But if you're not planning on using the road for a runway for years and
> years, with no long-term damage, it's not as critical as you pretend it
> to be. If you're building a thick concrete highway in the middle of
> nowhere, the design requirements are *very* similar to medium runway
> design. Good bed, a foot or so of concrete, linear and horizontal
> reinforcement. It's not something you need for city streets, but if you
> look at the cross-sections of runways and heavy-duty highways, you're
> not going to see any show-stoppers for short-term use.

You again point to the fact that you are clueless when it comes to pavement
design with the above nonsense.

Brooks

>
> > > Note that the runway at Palmdale airport has been operating for
> > > *years*, and is only 14 inches thick...
> >
> > Obviously with one heck of a good subgrade and base.
>
> Gravel, on a clay and sand dry lake bed. Compared to "modern" runways,
> not as high tech as you'd pretend. If you have a good solid piece of
> ground to start with, you don't need to lay down six feet of work before
> doing anything useful. And you only need two or three feet of concrete
> over a good foundation if you're planning on landing B-52s or C-5s there
> on a regular basis.
>
> I've seen the runways under construction at Orlando International
> Airport. They have a *thick* (upwards of six feet) base, with two feet
> of concrete, but that's because they're building on a *swamp*. A lot of
> places out West are basically rock or hard dirt, with no real variation.
> Lock the water out with a layer of clay and a foot of concrete, and the
> only wear and tear is going to be whatever you run over them.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Bob > wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:52:04 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> > wrote:
>
> >a) I'm still talking SAC bombers.
>
> Landing, regenerating to war status, and taking off a Cold War B-52
> from a highway was about as likely as the 1903 Wright Flyer going to
> the moon.

Once a "hot" nuclear-type war started, we weren't going to *have* any
more B-52s or other strategic bombers. They were all going to be going
on one-way trips to Siberia and points west, or were going to be various
kinds of vapor.

Fighter-interceptors and smaller cargo planes? Lots of reasons to plan
for dispersing those.

Like the Europeans and Taiwanese are doing right now, for example.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:22:19 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>> I used to work at an airfield that had an 11,000 foot runway and ramps
>> and taxiways designed to handle fully-laden B-52s. Loaded C-5s would
>> often buckle the concrete, which from memory was 3 feet thick. They
>> weren't allowed to stop on the taxiways for that specific reason.
>
>Loaded KC-10's are worse. Fewer wheels. IIRC, Soesterberg could take a C-5,
>but not a KC-10.

As I recall, the original XB-36 could land on only two or three
airfields in the world. Happily, one of them was Carswell, next door
to the Consolidated plant.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

>But think reality. It was post WWII, potential recession deferred
>to some extent by the GI Bill.

Not really. It was Eisenhower who gave us the National Defense Highway
system. As a young officer, Ike had spent 28? days crossing the U.S.
in an army convoy. That was one big memory. Then as a general officer
he saw the German autobahnen (which also served as airfields). That
was the other big memory. It was the big public-works event of his
administration, which ran from 1953 to 1961.

My neighbor in Wolfeboro NH, Bertha Britten, announced in November
1952 that obviously the Great Depression was coming back, since the
Republicans were in office. But not many thought that way. Hard Times
were 12 years behind us.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[David Lesher]

Cub Driver > writes:


>>But think reality. It was post WWII, potential recession deferred
>>to some extent by the GI Bill.

>Not really. It was Eisenhower who gave us the National Defense Highway
>system. As a young officer, Ike had spent 28? days crossing the U.S.
>in an army convoy. That was one big memory. Then as a general officer
>he saw the German autobahnen (which also served as airfields). That
>was the other big memory. It was the big public-works event of his
>administration, which ran from 1953 to 1961.

I don't see your point. You're resubmitting the original premise
with no added data.

We all know the Ike story, and that Ike admired the Autobahn.

I'm not arguing against the fact that Ike promoted the long-standing
idea of building coast to coast roads for real military reasons.
What I am saying is once the "Defense" rationale/excuse made such
into a viable campaign issue; it became the mouse designed by
committee. For example, did/does the US Army need an Interstate-quality
road from oh Bismarck to Fargo?

(The reason, of course, is that no Hill Critter would vote for any
bill unless it put money into his pocket while doing so. Hence the
eventual compromise re: what state got how much.)

>My neighbor in Wolfeboro NH, Bertha Britten, announced in November
>1952 that obviously the Great Depression was coming back, since the
>Republicans were in office. But not many thought that way. Hard Times
>were 12 years behind us.

And what would have been the result if so many of the returning GI's
had NOT been in school, but on the labor market?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip>

> > > Good points. Actually, the construction engineer folks nowadays (and
> quite
> > > possibly could have during the early eighties--ISTR we got ours in our
> > > combat battalion in about 1987) usually have their own nuclear
> densiometers,
> > > which means a field penetrometer test is not usually going to be
> required.
> > > Of course, we were known to use "expedient" testing in some cases (i.e.,
> > > jamming the back of your boot heel down can give you a rough idea of how
> > > your compaction is doing).
> >
> > Without knowing squat about the equipment, if the following is accurate
> the STS
> > people are still using penetrometers, at least they were in Afghanistan.
> This
> > refers to the insertion at FOB Rhino, and subsequent. Hopefully the
> formatting
> > will survive:
>
> Note my verbage which indicates "construction engineering" units--I'd
> imagine the STS folks don't want to be lugging around a nuke densiometer (it
> ain't that big, but it is quite a bit more than the average sneak-and-peak
> type fellow would want to hump around.

I'd noted your qualification, and was just providing it FYI.

Guy

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:20:34 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>I don't see your point. You're resubmitting the original premise
>with no added data.

You're claiming that the interstates were built to defer the postwar
(post WWII) recession "deferred to some extent by the GI bill."

You are conflating two very different eras. There was no fear of a
postwar recession in 1953.

In short: your thesis is nonsense. Good times were rolling. We didn't
need no steenking interstate.

When I got off the boat from Yurrup in late August 1955, the billboard
outside Pier 92 was by Chevrolet, announcing the 1956 models: ALL NEW
ALL OVER AGAIN.

That was America in the Eisenhower administration. The Great
Depression and WWII were childhood memories. Even the GI Bill was
something out of the past. (The enrollment at the University of New
Hampshire DECLINED every year that I was an undergraduate there.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Diamond Jim]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> > > r.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just drove clear to New Mexico from Tennessee on I-40 and
> never
> > > saw
> > > > > > > anything like that, nor do I recall any large rural widenings
on
> > > I-20
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > previous travels. The only "wide spots" I recall were the more
> > > recent
> > > > > > > installation of areas for use by immigrations officers in
> > conducting
> > > > > random
> > > > > > > checkpoint operations for commercial vehicles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you drove the best part of a thousand miles on one highway,
> > looking
> > > > > > specifically for this, before this discussion came up here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do tell.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I drove it last month while on vacation, and as a civil
engineer
> I
> > > > > typically *do* note the things that the average passerby might
> ignore
> > > > (such
> > > > > as, "Hey, look at those neat masonry arch bridges that parallel
I-81
> > > along
> > > > > this stretch...wonder what their story is? (Turned out to be an
old
> > > > railroad
> > > > > route after investigating further)). I believe had I seen any
overly
> > > wide
> > > > > pavment sections in the middle of Lower Bum**** I might have
noticed
> > and
> > > > > been a bit curious as to the reasoning why (such as when I noticed
> the
> > > > > strange "overpass to nowhere" that had obviously been under
> > construction
> > > > at
> > > > > one site along the route at one time, and was now abandoned....).
> > > > >
> > > > > Your lack of a real grasp of civil engineering is again making
> itself
> > > > > evident, chad; are you going to tell us that this somehow ties
into
> > your
> > > > > past strange conclusions regarding the geometric design of Three
> > Gorges
> > > > Dam?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, that "one mile in five" thing is certainly wrong, if
> > nothing
> > > > else
> > > > > > > > than because it would be extreme overkill. You wouldn't
need
> > more
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > a couple of dozen such sites to give pretty fair coverage
for
> > > > > > > > interceptors for most of the western US.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please show where this was ever even planned, much less
> > implemented?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I could, I would have, but it's the sort of thing that would
be
> > > > > > buried in 50 year old bureaucracy, at best.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory to me.... "Well,
it
> > is
> > > > > pretty evident, but there is understandably no real evidence..."?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Many "modern" (1950s to date) concrete highways compare
pretty
> > > > nicely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > medium-duty airport runways. A lot of them derived directly
> > > *from*
> > > > > > > > runway design, since that was the only model for heavy loads
> at
> > > > > > > > moderately high speeds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eh? Take a gander at typical roadway pavement sections from
the
> > > > nineteen
> > > > > > > sixties and compare it to the pavement section required for
the
> > > > typical
> > > > > > > combat aircraft (bombers required *very* thick sections, while
> > > loaded
> > > > > > > fighters typically required more than C-130's from what I
> recall,
> > > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > > higher wheel loading). I think you will find that the sections
> are
> > > > > > > significantly different, especially if you move to the more
> > > prevalent
> > > > > ashalt
> > > > > > > concrete as opposed to portland cement concrete.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're comparing apples and oranges. We're not talking a
> complete,
> > > > > > long-term runway replacement. We're talking about a short-term
> > > fill-in
> > > > > > for an air base, which means you won't have to make it anywhere
> > *near*
> > > > > > as thick or heavy-duty as you'd need for a SAC base.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, your engineering conclusions are questionable at best, your
> > lack
> > > of
> > > > > taking into account the *total* pavment design (including
subgrade,
> > > > subbase
> > > > > (where required), and base profiles) is a fatal flaw, and there is
> no
> > > > > evidence that has been presented so far that this was ever a
design
> > > > concern
> > > > > for the FHWA folks, or was even really considered by the USAF.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What you seem to be using for your model is old
> asphalt-covered
> > > > > concrete
> > > > > > > > supported roads, not the big, continuous-cast
steel-reinforced
> > > roads
> > > > > > > > I've seen in a number of places.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which IIRC were not common in the sixties; ISTR the standard
> > method
> > > > > > > then was to pour seperate panels of RF concrete, which is why
> the
> > > > > > > older roads that received subsequent asphalt overlays still
> > > exhibited
> > > > > > > the old pitch-and-sway fore-and-aft-wise uneven pavement. Why?
> > > > > > > Usually due to *base course* failure (and this is where you
will
> > > find
> > > > > > > a significant difference between the old road and airfields,
> with
> > > > > > > airfields being a bit more particular and demanding in terms
of
> > base
> > > > > > > course design and construction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's why you don't see it *everywhere*, but you do se it in
some
> > > > > > places, if you're paying attention. You really, really do see
it
> on
> > > > > > some of the more remote roads (the continuous-pour roads last
> > longer).
> > > > > > They overbuilt those 1950s bases (a whole different technique)
> > because
> > > > > > they expected to use them for a half-century of million pound
> > aircraft
> > > > > > loads (there was a certain tendency to allow for extremely huge
> > plane
> > > > > > designs of the future). The overbuilt some of those late-1950s
> > > highways
> > > > > > because they didn't want to have to keep fixing them every
winter.
> > > I'd
> > > > > > bet that the aircraft basing thing came after someone in the
> > Pentagon
> > > > > > noticed that we had hundreds of miles of potential airfields in
> the
> > > > > > middle of nowhere, with a little extra work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please show where a continuous pour road was built during the
> 1950's.
> > > Your
> > > > > posit would have required the Pentagon to have "noticed" this
after
> > > > > continuous pour became the vogue in the seventies (IIRC), which is
a
> > bit
> > > > > fishy to say the least.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A foot of concrete over a good solid gravel and clay base would
> (and
> > > > > > will) handle a good-sized plane on an occasional basis, just as
it
> > > will
> > > > > > handle a constant pounding from 80,000 pound semis.
> > > > >
> > > > > God, what an amazing feat of engineering you have developed! Why
> > bother
> > > > with
> > > > > calculating the CBR's, eh? No need for a pavment design (fire all
of
> > > those
> > > > > worthless civil engineers--Chad says we don't need them!) either,
> eh?
> > > Just
> > > > > *assume* your 12 inch thick concrete surface sitting on a "good
> solid"
> > > > base
> > > > > is going to do the trick.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are mixed up--see the difference betwen continuous pour PC
> > > > concrete
> > > > > > > roads and what was used as the standard method back in the
good
> > ol'
> > > > > days;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the SIXTH OR SEVENTH TIME: this isn't what you're going to
see
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > > default, but unless you're specifically looking for it, you
won't
> > > notice
> > > > > > it. There *are* roads like that, even if you, in your extreme
> > > > > > perceptiveness, haven't noticed it while you were driving along
at
> > 70
> > > > > > MPH at night in the middle of nothing...
> > > > >
> > > > > When were they built, Mr. Engineer? And BTW, I rarely pushed our
RV
> at
> > > 70
> > > > > MPH--a bit of a gas guzzler as it is, that would have been a bit
too
> > > > > much....and the vast majority of our traveling was done by day,
too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe the interstate highway system was designed from the
> beginning
> > > for
> > > > trucks carrying 60,000 lbs on four axles at 55 mph. In the
mid-sixties
> > it
> > > > went to 80,000 pounds on five axles and up to 65mph for rural areas.
> > Today
> > > > just about every road in the country (roads not streets) are capable
> of
> > > > taking 20,000 pounds per axle. This is with either four standard
width
> > > tires
> > > > or two wide tires.Older rural interstate highways had two, 12 foot
> > lanes,
> > > a
> > > > 8-10 foot right shoulder, and an 6-8 foot left shoulder. This would
be
> a
> > > > total of 38-42 foot wide section of pavement. More modern
interstates
> > have
> > > > 13-14 foot wide lanes, with wider shoulders. I think that if the
> highway
> > > > will take day in, day-out 80,000 pound tractor trucks pounding on
them
> > you
> > > > could land a few fighter there. Of course the pilots would have to
be
> ½
> > > > awake so they wouldn't run off the road.
> > >
> > > AASHTO would maybe disagree with your analysis: "The nation's
Interstate
> > > Highway System is nearly 50 years of age; much of it has already been
> > > reconstructed, rehabilitated, or repaired at least once; and too much
of
> > the
> > > system has been overloaded greatly in excess of the design loads,
> > > particularly in number of axles..."
> > >
> > > www.webs1.uidaho.edu/bayomy/TRB/A2B03/
> > > A2B03Files/AFD60%20RNS%20on%20Recycling%20Design%20Guide.htm
> > >
> > > They HS-20 design load which was used later in the day (I am not sure
an
> > > H-20 was not originally specified) results in a wheel loading of about
> 16
> > > kips per-- a tactical fighter with only a single tire on each main
strut
> > can
> > > easily exceed that loading.
> > >
> > > Also, your assumption that the shoulders are paved to the same
standards
> > as
> > > the main traveled way is wrong--which is why every now and then you
see
> > > where the shoulders have been "rutted". This was especially true on
> older
> > > interstate sections (look at some of I-40 and note how narrow the
> > shoulders
> > > are, for example in NC, and how the pavement surface differs from that
> of
> > > the traveled way).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bridges are a different story, but I don't think anyone but
Hollywood
> > > would
> > > > want to land an aircraft on a bridge.
> > > >
> > > > As for landing aircraft on highways, the Swiss do it all the time.
> > >
> > > The Swiss have designed and built their roads that are so used to
handle
> > > these requirements, to include provision of apron and taxi ways. We
did
> > not.
> > >
> > > The US
> > > > Marines have been know to do it occasionally with the AV-8A&B's. As
> for
> > a
> > > > specific area of interstate for this purpose I believe there is/was
an
> > > > section of I-40 about 30 miles or so east of Little Rock AK that was
> > > > designed for this.It has wide shoulders and what can only be
describes
> > as
> > > an
> > > > apron to the sides of both the east and west bound lanes. Of course
> this
> > > was
> > > > what I was told many, many years ago, but, as of 1991 this stretch
of
> > road
> > > > was still there, and I thing the Ak State police used it
occasionally
> to
> > > > inspect trucks. But it couldn't have been designed as rest area or a
> > truck
> > > > inspection area, as it is too large and there is nothing there but
> > > pavement.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence whatsoever that has as yet been produced to
support
> > the
> > > contention that either the USAF or the FHWA thought to include
aircraft
> > > operations on *any* US interstates, to include that Snopes bit from
the
> > FHWA
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> >
> > Lyman road at Camp Lejeune NC is a typical construction of a two lane
> road.
> > It is a road that goes from the mainside area of Camp Lejeune, to
Triangle
> > Outpost Gate, and allows access to highway NC-172, and to the
communities
> to
> > the north east of the base. It is open to traffic 24/7 except for times
> when
> > certain ranges are being used or AV-8 operations are being conducted.
>
> Read Guy's comments about the AV-8. Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
> pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up
in
> the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across
> it.
>
> >
> > It is not re-enforced. The only modifications made to the road other
than
> > painting some lines are a couple of paved access ramps to allow AV-8's
to
> > pull off of the road, into the woods to their "hides". The road is used
> > several times a year for AV-8 operations. I am sure that the Marines
have
> > other places at their other bases that are used for the same training. I
> > believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run" areas
of
> > the base are also used for AV-8 operations.
>
> See above.
>
> Brooks

In response to:

"Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up in
the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across"

1) I was born here, I live here. I was stationed here and/or worked here for
about 29 years total time out of a 41 year military/civil service/private
career. I use that road almost every day. And I have used that road since
before I got my first drivers license in 1957.
2) I have lived here for most of my life, except when stationed elsewhere or
away at school etc. We have either always lived here, visited here or
returned here, as this is my family home and has been the family home since
1810.
3) I remember when the road was paved. (before the Marines even though about
AV-8's).
4) I have seen numerous demonstrations there.
5) They tell observers that the road has not been re-enforced for aircraft.
6) Plus I asked the Facilities Chief (engineer) (phone 910-451-3034) this
specific question in 1969, when the idea first came up about using the road
for this purpose.
7) This one relative straight and level stretch of road about 2 miles long
is not the only section of this road that has been used. It is just used the
most, out of habit, because it offers good visibility for demonstrations,
and last but not least, "because it has always been done that way".
8) Other sections of Lyman Road have been used, specifically a section that
is about ½ between OP 2 and the junction with Highway 172. Over the years
Highway 172 near the G-5 and G-6 range has also been used and likewise
Onslow Beach Road, and Sneads Ferry Road.

Now it that isn't good enough for you write or call the Public Affairs
Office 910-451-5655

I am not in the habit of lying or making BS statements. If I make a
statement then it is true. If I add a qualifier such as 'I believe' or ' I
was told' then it is subject to discussion.

I said "I believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run"
areas of the base are also used for AV-8 operations." I qualified this with
'I believe' because I have not witnessed it with my very own eyeballs. But
it is reliably reported to have occurred by the base newspaper and others
with whom I have had contact.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Minor technical problems"??! Only you could call the lack of an
> apron or taxiways, the fact that pavments were not specifically
> designed for aircraft loading, the fact that anything but a four-lane
> section of roadway comes in under the required runway width
> requirement, etc., etc., "minor technical problems". OTOH, you have
> offered up such gems as (1) there are long patches of extra wide
> pavement along interstates (but you can't tell us exactly where) that
> just HAVE to have been developed for this purpose, even though the
> FHWA knows nothing about it, (2) continuous pour concrete roadways
> were common during the deepest, darkest days of the Cold War and when
> interstae highways were first constructed, etc. You know, you were
> actually doing a lot better when you said a really big shaped charge
> could be used against TG Dam--at least that one was sort of funny.

You keep insisting that normal highway construction techniques just
won't work for aircraft runways, when the FAA tells us just the opposite:

<http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5100-13a.pdf>

A quick summary: for runways for planes under 60,000 pounds, with over
200 psi tire pressure, highway construction techniques are sufficient,
according to the FAA, for thousands of landings per year, as long as
minimum thickness of the surface is followed - and that thickness is
less than the standard for Interstates in most of the U.S.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
r.com...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
> > > > r.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just drove clear to New Mexico from Tennessee on I-40 and
> > never
> > > > saw
> > > > > > > > anything like that, nor do I recall any large rural
widenings
> on
> > > > I-20
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > previous travels. The only "wide spots" I recall were the
more
> > > > recent
> > > > > > > > installation of areas for use by immigrations officers in
> > > conducting
> > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > checkpoint operations for commercial vehicles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you drove the best part of a thousand miles on one highway,
> > > looking
> > > > > > > specifically for this, before this discussion came up here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do tell.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I drove it last month while on vacation, and as a civil
> engineer
> > I
> > > > > > typically *do* note the things that the average passerby might
> > ignore
> > > > > (such
> > > > > > as, "Hey, look at those neat masonry arch bridges that parallel
> I-81
> > > > along
> > > > > > this stretch...wonder what their story is? (Turned out to be an
> old
> > > > > railroad
> > > > > > route after investigating further)). I believe had I seen any
> overly
> > > > wide
> > > > > > pavment sections in the middle of Lower Bum**** I might have
> noticed
> > > and
> > > > > > been a bit curious as to the reasoning why (such as when I
noticed
> > the
> > > > > > strange "overpass to nowhere" that had obviously been under
> > > construction
> > > > > at
> > > > > > one site along the route at one time, and was now
abandoned....).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your lack of a real grasp of civil engineering is again making
> > itself
> > > > > > evident, chad; are you going to tell us that this somehow ties
> into
> > > your
> > > > > > past strange conclusions regarding the geometric design of Three
> > > Gorges
> > > > > Dam?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, that "one mile in five" thing is certainly wrong, if
> > > nothing
> > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > than because it would be extreme overkill. You wouldn't
> need
> > > more
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > a couple of dozen such sites to give pretty fair coverage
> for
> > > > > > > > > interceptors for most of the western US.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please show where this was ever even planned, much less
> > > implemented?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I could, I would have, but it's the sort of thing that
would
> be
> > > > > > > buried in 50 year old bureaucracy, at best.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory to me....
"Well,
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > pretty evident, but there is understandably no real
evidence..."?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Many "modern" (1950s to date) concrete highways compare
> pretty
> > > > > nicely
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > medium-duty airport runways. A lot of them derived
directly
> > > > *from*
> > > > > > > > > runway design, since that was the only model for heavy
loads
> > at
> > > > > > > > > moderately high speeds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eh? Take a gander at typical roadway pavement sections from
> the
> > > > > nineteen
> > > > > > > > sixties and compare it to the pavement section required for
> the
> > > > > typical
> > > > > > > > combat aircraft (bombers required *very* thick sections,
while
> > > > loaded
> > > > > > > > fighters typically required more than C-130's from what I
> > recall,
> > > > due
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > higher wheel loading). I think you will find that the
sections
> > are
> > > > > > > > significantly different, especially if you move to the more
> > > > prevalent
> > > > > > ashalt
> > > > > > > > concrete as opposed to portland cement concrete.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're comparing apples and oranges. We're not talking a
> > complete,
> > > > > > > long-term runway replacement. We're talking about a
short-term
> > > > fill-in
> > > > > > > for an air base, which means you won't have to make it
anywhere
> > > *near*
> > > > > > > as thick or heavy-duty as you'd need for a SAC base.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, your engineering conclusions are questionable at best,
your
> > > lack
> > > > of
> > > > > > taking into account the *total* pavment design (including
> subgrade,
> > > > > subbase
> > > > > > (where required), and base profiles) is a fatal flaw, and there
is
> > no
> > > > > > evidence that has been presented so far that this was ever a
> design
> > > > > concern
> > > > > > for the FHWA folks, or was even really considered by the USAF.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What you seem to be using for your model is old
> > asphalt-covered
> > > > > > concrete
> > > > > > > > > supported roads, not the big, continuous-cast
> steel-reinforced
> > > > roads
> > > > > > > > > I've seen in a number of places.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which IIRC were not common in the sixties; ISTR the standard
> > > method
> > > > > > > > then was to pour seperate panels of RF concrete, which is
why
> > the
> > > > > > > > older roads that received subsequent asphalt overlays still
> > > > exhibited
> > > > > > > > the old pitch-and-sway fore-and-aft-wise uneven pavement.
Why?
> > > > > > > > Usually due to *base course* failure (and this is where you
> will
> > > > find
> > > > > > > > a significant difference between the old road and airfields,
> > with
> > > > > > > > airfields being a bit more particular and demanding in terms
> of
> > > base
> > > > > > > > course design and construction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why you don't see it *everywhere*, but you do se it in
> some
> > > > > > > places, if you're paying attention. You really, really do see
> it
> > on
> > > > > > > some of the more remote roads (the continuous-pour roads last
> > > longer).
> > > > > > > They overbuilt those 1950s bases (a whole different technique)
> > > because
> > > > > > > they expected to use them for a half-century of million pound
> > > aircraft
> > > > > > > loads (there was a certain tendency to allow for extremely
huge
> > > plane
> > > > > > > designs of the future). The overbuilt some of those
late-1950s
> > > > highways
> > > > > > > because they didn't want to have to keep fixing them every
> winter.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > > > bet that the aircraft basing thing came after someone in the
> > > Pentagon
> > > > > > > noticed that we had hundreds of miles of potential airfields
in
> > the
> > > > > > > middle of nowhere, with a little extra work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please show where a continuous pour road was built during the
> > 1950's.
> > > > Your
> > > > > > posit would have required the Pentagon to have "noticed" this
> after
> > > > > > continuous pour became the vogue in the seventies (IIRC), which
is
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > > fishy to say the least.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A foot of concrete over a good solid gravel and clay base
would
> > (and
> > > > > > > will) handle a good-sized plane on an occasional basis, just
as
> it
> > > > will
> > > > > > > handle a constant pounding from 80,000 pound semis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > God, what an amazing feat of engineering you have developed! Why
> > > bother
> > > > > with
> > > > > > calculating the CBR's, eh? No need for a pavment design (fire
all
> of
> > > > those
> > > > > > worthless civil engineers--Chad says we don't need them!)
either,
> > eh?
> > > > Just
> > > > > > *assume* your 12 inch thick concrete surface sitting on a "good
> > solid"
> > > > > base
> > > > > > is going to do the trick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are mixed up--see the difference betwen continuous pour
PC
> > > > > concrete
> > > > > > > > roads and what was used as the standard method back in the
> good
> > > ol'
> > > > > > days;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the SIXTH OR SEVENTH TIME: this isn't what you're going to
> see
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > > > default, but unless you're specifically looking for it, you
> won't
> > > > notice
> > > > > > > it. There *are* roads like that, even if you, in your extreme
> > > > > > > perceptiveness, haven't noticed it while you were driving
along
> at
> > > 70
> > > > > > > MPH at night in the middle of nothing...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When were they built, Mr. Engineer? And BTW, I rarely pushed our
> RV
> > at
> > > > 70
> > > > > > MPH--a bit of a gas guzzler as it is, that would have been a bit
> too
> > > > > > much....and the vast majority of our traveling was done by day,
> too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the interstate highway system was designed from the
> > beginning
> > > > for
> > > > > trucks carrying 60,000 lbs on four axles at 55 mph. In the
> mid-sixties
> > > it
> > > > > went to 80,000 pounds on five axles and up to 65mph for rural
areas.
> > > Today
> > > > > just about every road in the country (roads not streets) are
capable
> > of
> > > > > taking 20,000 pounds per axle. This is with either four standard
> width
> > > > tires
> > > > > or two wide tires.Older rural interstate highways had two, 12 foot
> > > lanes,
> > > > a
> > > > > 8-10 foot right shoulder, and an 6-8 foot left shoulder. This
would
> be
> > a
> > > > > total of 38-42 foot wide section of pavement. More modern
> interstates
> > > have
> > > > > 13-14 foot wide lanes, with wider shoulders. I think that if the
> > highway
> > > > > will take day in, day-out 80,000 pound tractor trucks pounding on
> them
> > > you
> > > > > could land a few fighter there. Of course the pilots would have to
> be
> > ½
> > > > > awake so they wouldn't run off the road.
> > > >
> > > > AASHTO would maybe disagree with your analysis: "The nation's
> Interstate
> > > > Highway System is nearly 50 years of age; much of it has already
been
> > > > reconstructed, rehabilitated, or repaired at least once; and too
much
> of
> > > the
> > > > system has been overloaded greatly in excess of the design loads,
> > > > particularly in number of axles..."
> > > >
> > > > www.webs1.uidaho.edu/bayomy/TRB/A2B03/
> > > > A2B03Files/AFD60%20RNS%20on%20Recycling%20Design%20Guide.htm
> > > >
> > > > They HS-20 design load which was used later in the day (I am not
sure
> an
> > > > H-20 was not originally specified) results in a wheel loading of
about
> > 16
> > > > kips per-- a tactical fighter with only a single tire on each main
> strut
> > > can
> > > > easily exceed that loading.
> > > >
> > > > Also, your assumption that the shoulders are paved to the same
> standards
> > > as
> > > > the main traveled way is wrong--which is why every now and then you
> see
> > > > where the shoulders have been "rutted". This was especially true on
> > older
> > > > interstate sections (look at some of I-40 and note how narrow the
> > > shoulders
> > > > are, for example in NC, and how the pavement surface differs from
that
> > of
> > > > the traveled way).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bridges are a different story, but I don't think anyone but
> Hollywood
> > > > would
> > > > > want to land an aircraft on a bridge.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for landing aircraft on highways, the Swiss do it all the time.
> > > >
> > > > The Swiss have designed and built their roads that are so used to
> handle
> > > > these requirements, to include provision of apron and taxi ways. We
> did
> > > not.
> > > >
> > > > The US
> > > > > Marines have been know to do it occasionally with the AV-8A&B's.
As
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > specific area of interstate for this purpose I believe there
is/was
> an
> > > > > section of I-40 about 30 miles or so east of Little Rock AK that
was
> > > > > designed for this.It has wide shoulders and what can only be
> describes
> > > as
> > > > an
> > > > > apron to the sides of both the east and west bound lanes. Of
course
> > this
> > > > was
> > > > > what I was told many, many years ago, but, as of 1991 this stretch
> of
> > > road
> > > > > was still there, and I thing the Ak State police used it
> occasionally
> > to
> > > > > inspect trucks. But it couldn't have been designed as rest area or
a
> > > truck
> > > > > inspection area, as it is too large and there is nothing there but
> > > > pavement.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence whatsoever that has as yet been produced to
> support
> > > the
> > > > contention that either the USAF or the FHWA thought to include
> aircraft
> > > > operations on *any* US interstates, to include that Snopes bit from
> the
> > > FHWA
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lyman road at Camp Lejeune NC is a typical construction of a two lane
> > road.
> > > It is a road that goes from the mainside area of Camp Lejeune, to
> Triangle
> > > Outpost Gate, and allows access to highway NC-172, and to the
> communities
> > to
> > > the north east of the base. It is open to traffic 24/7 except for
times
> > when
> > > certain ranges are being used or AV-8 operations are being conducted.
> >
> > Read Guy's comments about the AV-8. Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
> > pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed
up
> in
> > the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth
across
> > it.
> >
> > >
> > > It is not re-enforced. The only modifications made to the road other
> than
> > > painting some lines are a couple of paved access ramps to allow
AV-8's
> to
> > > pull off of the road, into the woods to their "hides". The road is
used
> > > several times a year for AV-8 operations. I am sure that the Marines
> have
> > > other places at their other bases that are used for the same training.
I
> > > believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run"
areas
> of
> > > the base are also used for AV-8 operations.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> In response to:
>
> "Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
> pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up
in
> the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across"
>
> 1) I was born here, I live here. I was stationed here and/or worked here
for
> about 29 years total time out of a 41 year military/civil service/private
> career. I use that road almost every day. And I have used that road since
> before I got my first drivers license in 1957.

Good. None of that indicates you have any idea of the pavement profile,
though, unless you happen to have also taken some pavement core samples?

> 2) I have lived here for most of my life, except when stationed elsewhere
or
> away at school etc. We have either always lived here, visited here or
> returned here, as this is my family home and has been the family home
since
> 1810.

See above.

> 3) I remember when the road was paved. (before the Marines even though
about
> AV-8's).

What was it paved with? What was the base composition? Were base or
intermediate courses/grades of asphalt used before application of the
normally thin surface layer?

> 4) I have seen numerous demonstrations there.

Of core sampling?

> 5) They tell observers that the road has not been re-enforced for
aircraft.

But do they tell you that their engineers evaluated the pavement that was in
place to determine suitability before they embarked on these exercises?
Worked around a few USMC engineers at times, and they struck me as being
rather competent types--one would expect their evaluation before this use
was first begun.

> 6) Plus I asked the Facilities Chief (engineer) (phone 910-451-3034) this
> specific question in 1969, when the idea first came up about using the
road
> for this purpose.

And he presumably said they had evaluated it for the required loads--in
which case, "case closed".

> 7) This one relative straight and level stretch of road about 2 miles long
> is not the only section of this road that has been used. It is just used
the
> most, out of habit, because it offers good visibility for demonstrations,
> and last but not least, "because it has always been done that way".
> 8) Other sections of Lyman Road have been used, specifically a section
that
> is about ½ between OP 2 and the junction with Highway 172. Over the years
> Highway 172 near the G-5 and G-6 range has also been used and likewise
> Onslow Beach Road, and Sneads Ferry Road.
>
> Now it that isn't good enough for you write or call the Public Affairs
> Office 910-451-5655

Why is this getting your panties so twisted up? Guy explained how different
AV-8 characteristics and operations can indeed make it possible for an
aircraft that has been known to operate off of unimproved surfaces to
operate in this manner--but that is a far stretch from being about the
subject of this thread, which is use by conventional aircraft (or should I
say *military combat* aircraft, since you apparently will try and trundle
out where you KNOW that a Cessna 172 once landed and took off from county
route umpty-ump back in...?).

>
> I am not in the habit of lying or making BS statements. If I make a
> statement then it is true. If I add a qualifier such as 'I believe' or ' I
> was told' then it is subject to discussion.

Nobody has accused you of either. However, that does not mean you were
knowledgable of any preliminary evaluations of feasibility, etc., that may
have been conducted. Hell, it may very well be that the AV-8 has a lower
loading than many other tactical fighters (due to bigger tires or lower tire
pressure, etc.) and the engineers said, "hey, no problemo!"--great. But it
does not address the issue under discussion in this thread.

Brooks

>
> I said "I believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy
Run"
> areas of the base are also used for AV-8 operations." I qualified this
with
> 'I believe' because I have not witnessed it with my very own eyeballs. But
> it is reliably reported to have occurred by the base newspaper and others
> with whom I have had contact.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Minor technical problems"??! Only you could call the lack of an
> > apron or taxiways, the fact that pavments were not specifically
> > designed for aircraft loading, the fact that anything but a four-lane
> > section of roadway comes in under the required runway width
> > requirement, etc., etc., "minor technical problems". OTOH, you have
> > offered up such gems as (1) there are long patches of extra wide
> > pavement along interstates (but you can't tell us exactly where) that
> > just HAVE to have been developed for this purpose, even though the
> > FHWA knows nothing about it, (2) continuous pour concrete roadways
> > were common during the deepest, darkest days of the Cold War and when
> > interstae highways were first constructed, etc. You know, you were
> > actually doing a lot better when you said a really big shaped charge
> > could be used against TG Dam--at least that one was sort of funny.
>
> You keep insisting that normal highway construction techniques just
> won't work for aircraft runways, when the FAA tells us just the opposite:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5100-13a.pdf>
>
> A quick summary: for runways for planes under 60,000 pounds, with over
> 200 psi tire pressure, highway construction techniques are sufficient,
> according to the FAA, for thousands of landings per year, as long as
> minimum thickness of the surface is followed - and that thickness is
> less than the standard for Interstates in most of the U.S.

LOL! Try again. That says the *methodology* is acceptable--not some kind of
simple "one pavement fits all". If you bothered to READ the document, you
would have noted that it also starts out the pavement section with:
"...standards developed for pavement design should consider: (a) maximum
gross weight of aircraft, (b) gear type and configuration, (c) traffic
volume and distribution, (d) strength of subgrade soil" and goes on to say
it is OK to use AASHTO design *methodology* for aircraft under 60K gross,
but with a couple of caveats (i.e., the addition of table A1-3, and in fact
*all* of the tables in that appendix relate to customizing the AASHTO design
*method* for use in designing airport runways). There is NOTHING there that
indicates a radway is "good to go" for use with aircraft. Different design
parameters ARE used. Thanks for making my point for me, though...

Brooks


>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:17:21 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>>You're claiming that the interstates were built to defer the postwar
>>(post WWII) recession "deferred to some extent by the GI bill."
>
>The GI Bill sucked thousands of GI's out of the labor pool, AND
>created many academic jobs, further reducing the massive drag of
>unemployment.

From 1946 to 1950. The numbers declined after that, every year at
least till 1955. The interstate got rolling in the late 1950s.

Two different eras. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
There was no recovery from WWII. We went from prosperity with
rationing to greater prosperity with no rationing. It was a boom time.

There was a blip in the academic population after the Korean War, but
not much of a one. For the most part Korea was fought with leftovers
from WWII, both materiel and men. It was nothing like Vietnam.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Andrew Chaplin > writes:
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>> No, I drove it last month while on vacation, and as a civil engineer I
>> typically *do* note the things that the average passerby might ignore (such
>> as, "Hey, look at those neat masonry arch bridges that parallel I-81 along
>> this stretch...wonder what their story is? (Turned out to be an old railroad
>> route after investigating further)).
>
> Hmm. I suppose the constant re-application of lessons learned as young
> adults is a fairly common trait. I find myself looking at woods and
> open areas as I go along the highways and byways, not as landscape and
> scenery, but as crest hazards, flash cover and locations for gunlines,
> command posts, battery echelons, wagon lines, positions of assembly,
> rendez-vous for recce parties, ammo drops, laying up areas, hides,
> OPs, air sentry posts, AAA positions.... :^)

That's not entirely a futile practice. The best spots tp put tank in
turret defilade or hull defilade to cover a stretch of road are also
the spots that the local Gendarmerie use for setting up radar traps.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > You keep insisting that normal highway construction techniques just
> > > won't work for aircraft runways, when the FAA tells us just the
opposite:
> > >
> > > <http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5100-13a.pdf>
> > >
> > > A quick summary: for runways for planes under 60,000 pounds, with over
> > > 200 psi tire pressure, highway construction techniques are sufficient,
> > > according to the FAA, for thousands of landings per year, as long as
> > > minimum thickness of the surface is followed - and that thickness is
> > > less than the standard for Interstates in most of the U.S.
> >
> > LOL! Try again. That says the *methodology* is acceptable--not some kind
of
> > simple "one pavement fits all". If you bothered to READ the document,
you
> > would have noted that it also starts out the pavement section with:
> > "...standards developed for pavement design should consider: (a) maximum
> > gross weight of aircraft, (b) gear type and configuration, (c) traffic
> > volume and distribution, (d) strength of subgrade soil"
>
> So, Mr. Wizard, tell us *how* it's different...

Already have, repeatedly. Go take a gander at those tables you forgot to
consider when you tried this ill-fated ambush of yours.

>
> You keep bleating about how it's all completely different, but it's
> funny how you can't actually tell us *how* it's different, other than to
> toss a few technical phrases out there with no actual numbers attached...

Impact loads, wheel loading, number of axles (how many heavy truck loads do
YOU know of where the majority of the load is centered on a single axle, as
it is on a tactical fighter?), etc. Done and done and done again and
again--work on that reading comprehension of yours, Chad--it might keep you
from providing evidence for your opponents' claims, as you did by pulling up
that FAA document. And thanks again for that... Get back to me when you have
your CE degree in hand, OK? 'Cause so far, your grasp of the basics has
proven to be pretty sad--how is that "really big shaped charge" of your's
coming, by the way?

Brooks

>
> So, given equivalent soil conditions, what *are* the differences between
> a standard Interstate highway and one of the runway designs mentioned
> above (handling a 60,000 pound aircraft with 200 psi tires)? Build them
> right next to each other, parallel, same rainfall amounts. Let us know
> what you figure out.
>
> You have a major talent for telling us that something is impossible, but
> come up really short on using that amazing engineering skill to show
> your work...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > wrote:

> Which would seem to be an appropriate place to step in and provide tire sizes
> and pressures for the AV-8B and F/A-18C/D, from Jane's:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AV-8B (S/L ISA max VTO weight 20,595 lb. w/ -408 engine. MTOGW 31,000 lb.).
>
> Landing Gear: Retractable bicycle type of Dowty design permitting
> operations from rough unprepared surfaces of very low CBR (California
> Bearing Ratio) . . . Single steerable nosewheel . . . twin coupled
> mainwheels . . . small outrigger units . . . Mainwheel tyres (size
> 26.0 x 7.75-13.00) and nosewheel tyre (size 26.0 x 8.75-11) all have
> pressure of 8.62 bars (125 lb/sq. in.) Outrigger typres are size
> 13.5 x 6.00-4.00, pressure 10.34 bars (150lb./sq. in.).
>
> F/A-18C/D (t/o weight fighter mission 36,710 lb., attack mission
> 51,900 lb., MTOGW 56,000 lb.)
>
> Landing Gear: Dowty retractable tricycle type, with twin wheel nose
> and single wheel main units . . . Nosewheel tyres size 22 x 6.6-10,
> 20-ply, pressure 24.13 bars (350 lb./sq.in) for carrier operations,
> 10.34 bars (150 lb./sq.in) for land operations. Mainwheel tyres size
> 30 x 11.5-14.5, 24-ply, pressure 24.13 bars (350 lb./sq.in.) for
> carrier operations, 13.79 bars (200 lb./sq.in.) for land operations.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> What's patently clear from the above, even if Jane's didn't spell it
> out in so many words, is that the Harrier gear provides a much lower
> ground pressure than a CTOL fighter.

Well, "much lower" in the sense of running the main tires at 62.5% of
the pressure of the land-based F-18. In other words, the F-18 puts less
than twice the PSI on the ground, not an extreme amount for concrete,
which should be able to handle well over 600 PSI...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Hairell]

On 07 Aug 2004 04:47:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>John Hairell wrote:
>
>>I used to work at an airfield that had an 11,000 foot runway and ramps
>>and taxiways designed to handle fully-laden B-52s. Loaded C-5s would
>>often buckle the concrete
>
>Hmmm, this doesn't make sense. The B-52 psi "footprint" is heavier than any
>other USAF aircraft. Between our twin tandom gear and our relatively small
>wheels, a fully loaded B-52 has a ridiculously high psi....at least that's what
>we were told and what AP-1B bears out.
>
>

I'm not saying that loaded B-52s would never have buckled the concrete
either, we just never had any visit to put it to the test.
Regardless, the airfield was built originally to handle B-52s, and
I've seen fully-loaded C-5s buckle the concrete.

John Hairell )

[Guy Alcala]

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> > Which would seem to be an appropriate place to step in and provide tire sizes
> > and pressures for the AV-8B and F/A-18C/D, from Jane's:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > AV-8B (S/L ISA max VTO weight 20,595 lb. w/ -408 engine. MTOGW 31,000 lb.).
> >
> > Landing Gear: Retractable bicycle type of Dowty design permitting
> > operations from rough unprepared surfaces of very low CBR (California
> > Bearing Ratio) . . . Single steerable nosewheel . . . twin coupled
> > mainwheels . . . small outrigger units . . . Mainwheel tyres (size
> > 26.0 x 7.75-13.00) and nosewheel tyre (size 26.0 x 8.75-11) all have
> > pressure of 8.62 bars (125 lb/sq. in.) Outrigger typres are size
> > 13.5 x 6.00-4.00, pressure 10.34 bars (150lb./sq. in.).
> >
> > F/A-18C/D (t/o weight fighter mission 36,710 lb., attack mission
> > 51,900 lb., MTOGW 56,000 lb.)
> >
> > Landing Gear: Dowty retractable tricycle type, with twin wheel nose
> > and single wheel main units . . . Nosewheel tyres size 22 x 6.6-10,
> > 20-ply, pressure 24.13 bars (350 lb./sq.in) for carrier operations,
> > 10.34 bars (150 lb./sq.in) for land operations. Mainwheel tyres size
> > 30 x 11.5-14.5, 24-ply, pressure 24.13 bars (350 lb./sq.in.) for
> > carrier operations, 13.79 bars (200 lb./sq.in.) for land operations.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What's patently clear from the above, even if Jane's didn't spell it
> > out in so many words, is that the Harrier gear provides a much lower
> > ground pressure than a CTOL fighter.
>
> Well, "much lower" in the sense of running the main tires at 62.5% of
> the pressure of the land-based F-18. In other words, the F-18 puts less
> than twice the PSI on the ground, not an extreme amount for concrete,
> which should be able to handle well over 600 PSI...

You've only mentioned the tire pressure, without calculating the respective contact
areas and then dividing the weight of each a/c by that (which is fine if the a/c
isn't moving, but then there's descent rate and landing speed to factor in as
well).

An AV-8B (usually) lands vertically, sinking down onto an air cushion (think air
hockey puck) trapped between the air dams formed by the strakes and speed brake,
and then reduces power further to touch down, i.e. a descent rate of a few fps at
essentially zero forward speed. An F-18 will land on a runway at say 130 knots,
with a descent rate that is probably higher (albeit a lot less than the 24 fps max.
descent rate carrier landing the gear is designed for), say 6-10 fps typical if
you're making a flared landing. If you want/need to make a short, arrested
landing, it's a lot closer to a carrier 'controlled crash' with higher descent
rates.

Guy