There's no strict answer. It depends on temperature (and density altitude), headwind, plus a load of other factors I'm afraid.
Page 66 of this document may help you though, if you know the conditions of the day you're thinking of.
Originally posted by dunbarm
Hope preiffer's response answers your question. Why are you interested though?
Are you planning to redo your garden?;)
garden to stay the same. i was intrested after a visit to manchester how both the virgin flights needed different amounts of runway but both going to orlando
As a very rough rule of thumb, a 744 at max-takeoff weight (i.e. average full payload and fuelled for 6,500 miles) should be capable of getting safely off a 3,050m /10,000 feet strip such as MAN assuming the following:
-airfield not significantly above sea level
-ISA standard atmosphere (i.e. 15 degrees celsius, 1013 mb pressure)
-Zero wind (or a headwind - which is actually beneficial)
-Zero runway slope
-Dry runway
However, there can be quite big variations depending on which engine options are used even on otherwise identical variants.
What all this means is that 744s are good for more-or-less unrestricted operations off all 10,000 ft runways in the UK in pretty much all weather conditions that we're likely to encounter here.
Where takeoff performance really tails off is where the field is hot and/or high - Johannesburg being an example, where high temps and 5,500 ft elevation means 744/A346s struggle to get airborne in 14,000 feet of slab.
Another side-issue is that on long runways, pilots don't always try for "maximum performance" takeoffs - they deliberately use a couple of percent less thrust so as to reduce engine stress and increase the intervals between required engine overhauls, primarily for economic reasons.
In other words you don't know how hard they're trying; I have seen a 767 use most of LGW's 10800 ft runway, whilst at the other end of the scale, Emirates are able to thrash a full-payload 777-300ER this summer on certain flights out of BHX's rather short 8500ft strip.
Ever since the mid-80s, it has been tacitly accepted that all new aircraft types need to be designed to have a full-load takeoff roll of no more than 10,000 ft in typical conditions; there is not the public or political will to allow ever-longer runways to be built to handle increasing aircraft size as happened first with the advent of the 707/DC-8, and then later again with the B747.
Incidentally, designing the A380 so that it would not need any additional takeoff roll compared to existing types was a major "non-negotiable" pillar of the project specification, and one which required a huge amount of time and effort to deliver.
-airfield not significantly above sea level
-ISA standard atmosphere (i.e. 15 degrees celsius, 1013 mb pressure)
-Zero wind (or a headwind - which is actually beneficial)
-Zero runway slope
-Dry runway
However, there can be quite big variations depending on which engine options are used even on otherwise identical variants.
What all this means is that 744s are good for more-or-less unrestricted operations off all 10,000 ft runways in the UK in pretty much all weather conditions that we're likely to encounter here.
Where takeoff performance really tails off is where the field is hot and/or high - Johannesburg being an example, where high temps and 5,500 ft elevation means 744/A346s struggle to get airborne in 14,000 feet of slab.
Another side-issue is that on long runways, pilots don't always try for "maximum performance" takeoffs - they deliberately use a couple of percent less thrust so as to reduce engine stress and increase the intervals between required engine overhauls, primarily for economic reasons.
In other words you don't know how hard they're trying; I have seen a 767 use most of LGW's 10800 ft runway, whilst at the other end of the scale, Emirates are able to thrash a full-payload 777-300ER this summer on certain flights out of BHX's rather short 8500ft strip.
Ever since the mid-80s, it has been tacitly accepted that all new aircraft types need to be designed to have a full-load takeoff roll of no more than 10,000 ft in typical conditions; there is not the public or political will to allow ever-longer runways to be built to handle increasing aircraft size as happened first with the advent of the 707/DC-8, and then later again with the B747.
Incidentally, designing the A380 so that it would not need any additional takeoff roll compared to existing types was a major "non-negotiable" pillar of the project specification, and one which required a huge amount of time and effort to deliver.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Lukecouchman and 181 guests