Landing distance of a 727?
Annette Meyer
727 to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. The plane was flown into
Meigs, then put on a barge and floated down the shoreline to the MUseum. They
closed Lake Shore Drive and moved it across the street to the Museum. THEN
they took the wings off to get it into the building.
I like the whole idea, and I'm sorry I didn't kow they were doing it--I bet it
would have been a gas to watch in real life. The article also says they made
a video of the whole process which will be part of the exhibiton, scheduled to
open (next?) october.
The question--they said the plane landed on Meigs's 4000 ft runway. How much
of a feat is this? How long does a 727 NEED to land (thank you, obviously
less than 4000 ft :-) ) Seriously, what's the normal rollout?
Happy flying
Annette
Andrew Tron
>The question--they said the plane landed on Meigs's 4000 ft runway. How much
>of a feat is this? How long does a 727 NEED to land (thank you, obviously
>less than 4000 ft :-) ) Seriously, what's the normal rollout?
>Happy flying
>Annette
From the book "Legend and Legacy -- the Story of Boeing and its People" by
Robert J. Serling, [a most worthwile addition to anybody's library, IMHO]
one finds that the 727 was designed to be "capable of taking off fully
loaded and landing safely on runway 4-22 at New York's LaGuardia Airport --
the sole LaGuardia runway then equipped with an instrument landing system
(ILS) and only 4,860 feet long." This was Eastern's requirement.
If a fully-loaded 727 can take off from a runway 4860 feet long, then it
is conceivable that an empty one can land in less than 4000 ft. And the
secret is all in the flaps. "On this bird, you don't lower the flaps --
you disassemble the whole damn wing!"
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tron at Princeton University | awt...@strawber.Princeton.EDU
And of the living ... none, not one who truly loves the sky
Would trade a hundred earth bound hours for one that he could fly.
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>In article <2dno1c$c...@reeve.research.aa.wl.com> mey...@aa.wl.com (Annette Meyer) writes:
>>The question--they said the plane landed on Meigs's 4000 ft runway. How much
>>of a feat is this? How long does a 727 NEED to land (thank you, obviously
>>less than 4000 ft :-) ) Seriously, what's the normal rollout?
>>Happy flying
>>Annette
5000' of runway is pretty easy for 727 (I believe it even satisfies balanced
field length requirements on reasonable days). We have 727 come in to
BMG semi-regularly (bringing athletic teams) and they seem to make it with
about 1000' to spare (5100' runway), even when touching down at the 1000'
marker (i.e. the ground roll was about 3000').
I would think that, with a lightly loaded 727, and aiming for a threshold
touchdown (as you could, bringing it in over the lake) that a 4000' runway
would be no big problem.
greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis D P S I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated gr...@cica.indiana.edu
Robert Dorsett
>From the book "Legend and Legacy -- the Story of Boeing and its People" by
>Robert J. Serling, [a most worthwile addition to anybody's library, IMHO]
>one finds that the 727 was designed to be "capable of taking off fully
>loaded and landing safely on runway 4-22 at New York's LaGuardia Airport --
>the sole LaGuardia runway then equipped with an instrument landing system
>(ILS) and only 4,860 feet long." This was Eastern's requirement.
That was also a 727-100...
---
Robert Dorsett
r...@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Mark Rogers
>
The question--they said the plane landed on Meigs's 4000 ft runway. How much
>of a feat is this? How long does a 727 NEED to land (thank you, obviously
>less than 4000 ft :-) ) Seriously, what's the normal rollout?
>Happy flying
>Annette
The airplane was one of United's firsts, and therefore a 727-100 (standard).
On a dry runway, with a landing weight of 100,000 pounds (minimum), and a
flap setting of 40 (maximumn), the landing distance is 23100 ft. This is
based on crossing the threshold at 50 ft, use of spoilers, maximum breaking,
and no reverse thrust.
For comparison, if you consider a 727 advanced (United has one standard
left, and significantly fewer stretches than advanceds), and a more average
landing weight of 130,000 pounds, with the normal flaps 30 setting, the
landing distance increases to 2600 ft. (same assumptions as before)
(Both these cases are also at Sea Level) - If memory serves, Meigs is 650
These numbers, however, represent test pilots flying the airplanes in very
unusual circumstances (in fact, on a side note: during testing for the DC-9
- I believe - the test pilots landed so hard at Edwards AFB that they broke
the entire tail section of the aircraft off - certainly not something you
would want to do with passengers :) )
To be legal to land under part 121, the runway must also have an additional
40% extra length than the landing distance. (The landing at Meigs would not
have been under part 121, though). Obviously, normal landing rollouts would
be longer, as maximum breaking would not be used on a normal basis.
Sorry for the somewhat late post-
:)
-Mark
(standard disclamers)
Phil Jern
Gregory R. TRAVIS <gr...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>touchdown (as you could, bringing it in over the lake) that a 4000' runway
>would be no big problem.
>
>greg
>--
>Gregory Reed Travis D P S I
>
But, of course, at Meigs, the sailboaters like to hang out at the ends of
the runway. I'd like to see what wingtip vortices do to small boat
navigation :)
...and it's well documented that a 727 can stop in 1500' on a wet runway.
--
Phil Jern --- pj...@chinet.chi.il.us --- PROFS: CHGVMIC1(PJERN)
My opinions are probably not IBM-Compatible, and represent only
my own warped sense of reality.
Mark Rogers
>The airplane was one of United's firsts, and therefore a 727-100 (standard).
>On a dry runway, with a landing weight of 100,000 pounds (minimum), and a
>flap setting of 40 (maximumn), the landing distance is 23100 ft. This is
^^^^^
Which explains why United doesn't fly the standard anymore :) not many
25,000 ft runways. No, seriously: inexperience with my editor caused
the typo (it didn't appear on my screen that way!) The number should
be 2310 ft.
-Mark
>(standard disclamers)
David Lesher
Note that, just in the "how do we fly it out of here?" thread a
few weeks ago; if you're willing to strip the a/c, do 360's
until the tanks are dry, wait for a 20 kt headwind, etc...
you can likely do better......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Shalom Nelson
moment) there is a Lockheed Super Constellation (1049 I believe) which is now a
bar. The 2 runways have lengths of 2600, and 2300 ft, with trees at all ends
(except the one with the 35 ft. cliff ). I would like to have seen them squeak
that puppy in!
Tom Grover
: At Greenwood Lake airport in NJ (the 3 letter identifier eludes me at the
I dunno, give me a White Freightliner and a flatbed trailer and I could
probably find a way to do it <grin>!
--
Tom Grover-...@us.dell.com
__________________________________
This opinion is my own - i think....
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Engineers - often wrong but never in doubt. |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Rogers
>...and it's well documented that a 727 can stop in 1500' on a wet runway.
>
Well documented? What kind of documentation is that? The lowest figure
I have found is 2310 ft. (best conditions)
-Mark
Larry Stone
> mey...@aa.wl.com (Annette Meyer) writes:
> For comparison, if you consider a 727 advanced (United has one standard
> left, and significantly fewer stretches than advanceds), and a more average
> landing weight of 130,000 pounds, with the normal flaps 30 setting, the
> landing distance increases to 2600 ft. (same assumptions as before)
The last 727 Standard was retired in early November. I believe there are still
3 727-222's in service (all in Europe) that will be retired by month's end.
There are 75 Advanced 727-222's.
===
Larry Stone | United Airlines
sto...@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725
Albert Dobyns
MR-> Subject: Re: Landing distance of a 727?
MR-> Date: 8 Dec 1993 05:41:49 GMT
MR-> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
MR-> mmr4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Rogers ) writes:
MR-> >The airplane was one of United's firsts, and therefore a 727-100 (standar
MR-> >On a dry runway, with a landing weight of 100,000 pounds (minimum), and a
MR-> >flap setting of 40 (maximumn), the landing distance is 23100 ft. This is
MR-> ^^^^^
MR-> Which explains why United doesn't fly the standard anymore :) not many
MR-> 25,000 ft runways. No, seriously: inexperience with my editor caused
MR-> the typo (it didn't appear on my screen that way!) The number should
MR-> be 2310 ft.
Oh, I just assumed you meant to type 2310.0 and left out the decimal
point! :) Are there any hard-surfaced-paved (not dry lakebed) runways
anywhere near 25,000' long? The only one I've heard of is a 30,000'
runway at some oddball place called Groom Lake where rumors of something
much faster than the SR-71 can go! Anyway 4000' at Meigs doesn't like
much of a strain for a stripped down 727. It sure looked like the
wingspan was close to the width of the single runway! A local news
announcer asked the pilot if the airlines practiced short-field takeof
and landings very often. I believe the reply was that most airlines do
not require their pilots to practise them except perhaps in a simulator.
* SLMR 2.1a * Drat!! I got the decimal point in the wrong place!!
----
MidWest BBS - 708-513-1034 -ILINK Charter Member, UsMail Regional Hub, Usenet