Runway Lengths for passenger airports

Thanks folks!

Here is a daft question then….why has Newcastle got 2 different lengths when its essentially one piece of tarmac? Surely its the same length whichever way you land or take-off….

well no
because u may have wots called a displaced threshold (a safety parameter)
and also maybe because of obstruction at either end of the runway limits the available distance v the approach or take off requirements…

and a wee bit of history of LHR EGLL had i think 5 runways when built…

the 2 main east – west strips that we now use 27L/R
plus
23/05 now no longer used which was where i saw BOAC 707-436 g-arwe land on fire in 1968 when an an engine detached after t/o and it landed back on this short runway in a crosswind 3 mins later ! sadly 5 pax and 1 crew didnt get out due to the raging fire.

the other 2 peices of concrete are now hidden under what is now piers and parking stands…
i dont know the old runways headings…so one of you please kindly remind me thanks !

this link from airliners.net
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0503402&size=M
shows a 1967 view t/o from what is prob 27L (28L then) and the air canada dc8’s are parked on one of the old runways i think.
the approach end of 05 i think can be seen too where the BOAC 707 on fire came in on…
cheers for now and i am a newbie here…great site btw

i started in aviation in 1972 at LGW+LTN as air spain rep then with court line til 74
then northeast (trident 1e’s) at LHR
then BMA LR as traffic duty officer 1977-85
then monarch d/o LGW 1985
and so on lol

Thanks folks!

Here is a daft question then….why has Newcastle got 2 different lengths when its essentially one piece of tarmac? Surely its the same length whichever way you land or take-off….

Try this one. http://worldaerodata.com/countries/
If you click on the designated runway you can see more detail.

Wikipedia is good but it has it’s limits and to a certain extent can’t be relied upon 😉

LBA Rwy 14 TORA 2113m
LBA Rwy 34 TORA 2190m

NCL Rwy 07 TORA 2329m
NCL Rwy 25 TORA 2262m

MME Rwy 05 TORA 2291m
MME Rwy 23 TORA 2291m

If you need any more just shout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Bradford_International_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Tees_Valley_Airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_International_Airport

google answers almost everything;)

Does anyone have the runway lengths of our main airports; including the three NE airports in LBA, MME and NCL?

The one key factor in determining runway length is COST,if everyone had room to build a 10000ft runway they would,but if the money isnt there then the longest runway they can afford is built.Other mostly environmental factors also hugely effect runway lengths,noise pollution & terrain issues.

ST-21

This doesn’t make sense to me, surely V1 fits around the runway length, the runway length does not fit around V1, V1 is the variable here, and many factors decide it.
If you had a fully laden 747-400 (396t) taking off on a 2,000m runway then V1 would be quite small (it would also go off the end of the runway before rotate), however if it were taking off on a 4,000m runway then V1 would be closer to Vr, if not the same as Vr. So runway size doesn’t matter, the performance tables will give you the required V1 for the required runway regardless of length.
In my aircraft we only use V1 for the runway should it be less than the V1 from the TOLD cards, called a V1 split, factors that can split the V1 is whether the runway is wet, a lower QNH than 1013, whether we are de-rating with flex power, de-ice fluid contamination, runway contamination etc etc.

Generally the sizing parameters are besides the individual aircraft’s take-off performance:
– prevailing winds
– slope
– altitude of airport (shouldn’t be a factor for you examples, but explain why Denver has such long runways)
– prevailing temperatures

Generally, a 3200m runway is sufficient to bring any current aircraft in the air. But it doesn’t have a big margin. If you look at aircraft with rather bad take-off performance (e. g. a fully loaded B747-400) may have problems at temperatures above 25°C and has to decrease take-off weight. A take-off with maximum take-off thrust is also a big strain on the engine, and it makes sense to accept longer run if the engines can be spared a bit.

A longer runway is always better, safer, offers more flexibility. But it also costs a lot, and many airports simply lack the space. For a new airport in warm latitudes 3800 to 4000m seems best size, in colder regions a 3400m runway is fully sufficient.
For any normal operation of single aisle aircraft 2400m/8000ft are OK, 2800m for challenging conditions (hot&high). For widebody it is more like 2800m as lower limit, while 3200m is a good length.

Don’t forget that some airports are back-up military bases and a long runway is well suited to even be usable after it cashed in some bombs (a 4000x60m runway is actually 4* 2000x30m, so more or less 4 military runways).

In addition to all the above and the length needed for the aircraft to get airborne, the overriding factor is the distance an aircraft needs to accelerate to just below V1, lose the critical engine, and safely stop on the runway (above V1 you continue the takeoff). This distance will vary with type of aircraft and its condition, plus the other factors mentioned above, determine what the required length of a runway will be. Clearly an airfield that does not plan to operate anything larger than a Cessna Mustang will not need runways, all else being equal, as one where 747 operations are expected.

This applies to runway lengths for commercial operations. Military operations do not necessarily operate with these margins.

HKG is built on a man made island, so that is a big factor there!

Nearby surroundings also have an effect BOM is in quite a buit up area.

Generally the sizing parameters are besides the individual aircraft’s take-off performance:
– prevailing winds
– slope
– altitude of airport (shouldn’t be a factor for you examples, but explain why Denver has such long runways)
– prevailing temperatures

Generally, a 3200m runway is sufficient to bring any current aircraft in the air. But it doesn’t have a big margin. If you look at aircraft with rather bad take-off performance (e. g. a fully loaded B747-400) may have problems at temperatures above 25°C and has to decrease take-off weight. A take-off with maximum take-off thrust is also a big strain on the engine, and it makes sense to accept longer run if the engines can be spared a bit.

A longer runway is always better, safer, offers more flexibility. But it also costs a lot, and many airports simply lack the space. For a new airport in warm latitudes 3800 to 4000m seems best size, in colder regions a 3400m runway is fully sufficient.
For any normal operation of single aisle aircraft 2400m/8000ft are OK, 2800m for challenging conditions (hot&high). For widebody it is more like 2800m as lower limit, while 3200m is a good length.

Don’t forget that some airports are back-up military bases and a long runway is well suited to even be usable after it cashed in some bombs (a 4000x60m runway is actually 4* 2000x30m, so more or less 4 military runways).

Other than that it is down to what the aircraft need to take off on full weight. For example an A380 would need a longer runway than an A320. Temperature and Height effect this decision.