I did not know this (and have no clue if it’s true)

X3 Skier

X3 Skier

En-Route
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
4,632
Location
GDK & SBS
Display Name
Display name:
Geezer
“The Eisenhower interstate system requires that one mile in every five must be straight. These straight sections are usable as airstrips in times of war or other emergencies.”

And am too lazy to check it.

Cheers
 
I've heard that all my life about the U.S. Interstate system and the German Autobahn that inspired Ike to build it. Never knew if it was true.
 
I think if you add them all up there is well over 20% landing ready roadway.

Issue is where you need it ;)
 
Ravioli said:
I think if you add them all up there is well over 20% landing ready roadway.

Issue is where you need it ;)
Click to expand...

Not around here, obviously, but in South Korea I was startled to pass over a section of freeway that had runway paint markings applied.

Dave
 
Ravioli said:
I think if you add them all up there is well over 20% landing ready roadway.

Issue is where you need it ;)
Click to expand...
Ever see I-70 in Kansas ? I-80 in Wy. I-90 in MT. most of those roads will take a c-17 easy.
 
Stingray Don said:
I don’t know about that, but there are other references debunking the myth in this case.
Click to expand...

So, in the era of the Cold War, you want to put in writing that 20% of the highways in the United States are landing zones for invading forces?

I think that the highways are great for emergency operations. Civilian or military.
 
Tom-D said:
Ever see I-70 in Kansas ? I-80 in Wy. I-90 in MT. most of those roads will take a c-17 easy.
Click to expand...

Until they started putting up wind farms the whole State of Kansas was one giant emergency landing field. ;)
 
Tom-D said:
Ever see I-70 in Kansas ? I-80 in Wy. I-90 in MT. most of those roads will take a c-17 easy.
Click to expand...
I-80 in NE, other roads in the plans states too. Nice and flat, no turns.

Tom-D said:
Snopes has been known to make this shi- up as they go.
Click to expand...
Tom-D said:
Just sayin, Snope isn't always the best source
Click to expand...
Snopes seems to have it right this time, as they even agree with what you wrote below...
Tom-D said:
The military had big influence in getting funding for the highway system. as for having 1 mile in every 5 as a runway. It is never mentioned in the design or debate over it.
Click to expand...
 
Tom-D said:
Just sayin, Snope isn't always the best source
Click to expand...

Snopes was just fine until "fake news" was invented, and now there's people who don't believe things that are right in front of their faces.

But yeah, this one's a myth. An oft-repeated myth for sure, but a myth nonetheless.
 
GRG55 said:
Until they started putting up wind farms the whole State of Kansas was one giant emergency landing field. ;)
Click to expand...

Bringing my plane home from Nebraska last november to Michigan, I hadnt flown in 4 years and no TW endorsement so took my instructor with me. Seeking to be diligent and also to impress him I put a route together that took us over every little airport i could within reason, being the 1947 was going to be new to us...

Salty old 20,000+ hour, with no airline time, instructor said, "thats fine but if i cand find a spot to put a little taildragger down in Nebraska, Iowa, and rural Illinois on home we probably dont belong in the cockpit..
 
The straight sections of highway for landing is a myth (in the US), but there was a proposal to build runways for light planes at intervals alongside the interstates, just like the rest areas. The idea was that since all the equipment was there building the highway anyway, it wouldn't cost that much. Wolfgang Langeweische wrote about it in one of his books.* Alas, it was never done. In Sweden, sections of highway were indeed designated and strengthened for military aircraft.
 
Dana said:
In Sweden, sections of highway were indeed designated and strengthened for military aircraft.
Click to expand...

Some of these emergency landing fields have taxiways off into the woods to hide the aircraft. All the swedish fighters are designed in a way that they can be supported with minimal ground equipment so they can be turned around at these emergency fields.

The german autobahn system has 2 or 3 sections that were used during the cold war for those types of operations. They have turn-arounds at the ends of the section, the center median is paved through and the guardrail sections could be removed flush with the concrete. The german air-force would occasionally block the highway to practice the operation. I don't think this has been done since the 80s and by now I doubt that anyone maintains the equipment.
 
38FAF56F00000578-3817035-image-a-20_1475315362899.jpg

Them Finns do some crazy stuff.

Nauga,
who knows it's still 4-wheelin' if two are on the nosegear
 
What's it matter when 4 miles out of every 5 are under construction anyway? I've lived in Florida all my life, and I cannot remember a time when some part of I-4 wasn't under construction. For such a short bloody interstate, you'd think by now they could've finished it.
 
Half Fast said:
What's it matter when 4 miles out of every 5 are under construction anyway? I've lived in Florida all my life, and I cannot remember a time when some part of I-4 wasn't under construction. For such a short bloody interstate, you'd think by now they could've finished it.
Click to expand...
Ha! The state bush of Nebraska is a 4' tall plastic barrel with orange and white stripes.
 
The AV-8 and F-35C makes every Walmart parking lot an airstrip.
 
Whole eastern part of ND is a emergency landing area
 
OkieFlyer said:
I've heard that all my life about the U.S. Interstate system and the German Autobahn that inspired Ike to build it. Never knew if it was true.
Click to expand...

.

I think Nikita Khruschev inspired Eisenhower more than the Autobahn.

.

Although the primary justification for the Interstate System involved civilian benefits, its value for defense purposes was another important factor. A particular concern was the need to evacuate cities if an atomic bomb were on the way.

In the 1950's, the issue of evacuation was not in any sense frivolous at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, while President Dwight D. Eisenhower began lobbying congressional leaders on behalf of the highway proposal he would submit on February 22, 1955, he was preoccupied with the Formosa Straits crisis that erupted when the People's Republic of China appeared ready to cross the straits and attack Chinese Nationalists on Formosa (now called Taiwan) over control of the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

This was a major international crisis, as illustrated by Eisenhower biographer Stephen E. Ambrose's observation that, "the United States in early 1955 came closer to using atomic weapons than at any other time in the Eisenhower Administration."

For the President, the Formosa crisis illustrated the need for the Interstate System. He worried about evacuating Washington and other cities in the event of a nuclear attack. He knew the present roads were inadequate for that purpose.

Still, in a meeting with legislative leaders on January 11, 1955, the Formosa crisis prompted a discussion of what would happen in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. The President said he was worried about an atomic bomb attack, which prompted him to suggest the need for a plan to relocate Congress in an emergency.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/civildef.cfm
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#45ae0a98227f

Just a matter of the internet and who you wish to believe.

old skeptic here.
Click to expand...
That writer spent a lot of time drawing inferences based on process concerns, but I'm not seeing any proof (or even allegation) that Snopes "has been known to make this shi- up as they go."

The proof of the pudding in any article, whether written by Snopes or anyone else, is whether the facts cited in it can be independently verified, and if they can, whether the stated conclusions logically follow from those facts.

As for the Daily Mail article that got him started on the subject, that too has come under criticism:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/23/why-is-mail-online-going-after-fact-checkers-snopes
 
Palmpilot said:
That writer spent a lot of time drawing inferences based on process concerns, but I'm not seeing any proof (or even allegation) that Snopes "has been known to make this shi- up as they go."

The proof of the pudding in any article, whether written by Snopes or anyone else, is whether the facts cited in it can be independently verified, and if they can, whether the stated conclusions logically follow from those facts.

As for the Daily Mail article that got him started on the subject, that too has come under criticism:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/23/why-is-mail-online-going-after-fact-checkers-snopes
Click to expand...
Like I've said,, "It's the internet, and who you wish to believe."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top