747 takeoff distance?

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
I'm having a debate with someone who claims a 747 took off in roughly 2700 feet. I say impossible, but maybe I'm wrong...

Aircraft is Sands' 747SP, individual claims it took off 25R at LAX at taxiway F, and has a picture of it airborne before Golf. I say the aircraft used the displaced threshold.

What say the heavy metal pilots here? If it did get off the ground in that distance, that's pretty impressive, even if very lightly loaded:eek:
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'm having a debate with someone who claims a 747 took off in roughly 2700 feet. I say impossible, but maybe I'm wrong...

Aircraft is Sands' 747SP, individual claims it took off 25R at LAX at taxiway F, and has a picture of it airborne before Golf. I say the aircraft used the displaced threshold.

What say the heavy metal pilots here? If it did get off the ground in that distance, that's pretty impressive, even if very lightly loaded:eek:
Click to expand...

You need to know:

Weight
flap setting
Temperature
wind
Computed thrust (max or flex)

Then it becomes more apparent.

But, if the aircraft is lightly loaded (empty?) and the fuel load is low (short trip) the air is cool and max thrust, then I wouldn't say 2700 feet would be out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Crazy. I guess it shows how much I know. I would have never thought an airplane that big could get off in such a short distance under any circumstance.

Learn something new every day...
 
Its an impressive aircraft. You really appreciate it when you're 15 feet from the wingtip just after rotation.


fepj7a.jpg
 
Last edited:
With enough headwind, short distances are possible. A 172 will take off in 100' with a 40mph headwind.
 
They are designed to haul an immense load - when empty, I bet they can hop off amazingly quickly.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They are designed to haul an immense load - when empty, I bet they can hop off amazingly quickly.
Click to expand...

The early 747s -- and the SP is one -- were also designed in an era where not every big city airport had a two mile runway. The flaps are MASSIVE, and designed to land on runways no longer than 1 mile.

SPs are 32 feet shorter than all other 747s (excepting the -8 which is even longer). This was to extend their range specifically for transpacific flight, by reducing empty weight and passenger weight while leaving most of the other parameters similar.

An SP loaded to max has a takeoff roll that seems to run into the next county, but if it's light, it's a LOT shorter.
 
coloradobluesky said:
With enough headwind, short distances are possible. A 172 will take off in 100' with a 40mph headwind.
Click to expand...

Somedudeintn said:
With enough headwind a 172 can take off in 0 feet.
Click to expand...

NJP_MAN said:
With enough feet a 172 can takeoff in 0 headwind .
Click to expand...

SixPapaCharlie said:
With enough 172s, 0 feet can have a headwind.
Click to expand...

NJP_MAN said:
With enough parachutes a cirrus can land in 0 headwind.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused.
 
No airplane will ever look as beautiful as a 747 during rotation.

 
Last edited:
Cpt_Kirk said:
No airplane will ever look as beautiful as a 747 during rotation.
Click to expand...

Concorde and/or SR-71 looked pretty good in their day! When I was stationed in Korea we had a U2 that did amazing take offs too. And of course fighters, anyone seen the F=22 at airshows? Amazing.
 
Last edited:
That back and forth about headwinds and 172's made me crack up.

I don't fly 747's but I can tell you the difference between a max loaded CRJ-900 on a hot day compared to an empty ferry on a cold day with max thrust is a HUGE difference. So I wouldn't put it past an empty lightly loaded SP to do that.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
hmm. Generic 8F model chart. Lowest I see is >5000'.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading that correctly, that chart is for the total distance required, which would include accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and continuing the takeoff or aborting. This doesn't depict takeoff ground roll alone. And, it's for a -8 which may or may not be the same model of 747 in question.
 
Used to fly the Classic 100 747. Very light it would be doable...landing is another story. A very light landing in gusty winds is easy...it is the first officers leg because it is gonna to be very interesting.
Heavily loaded in the summertime at max continuous power over the Rockies we would use the mountain waves to try to climb.
 
AWACSEng said:
If I'm reading that correctly, that chart is for the total distance required, which would include accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and continuing the takeoff or aborting. This doesn't depict takeoff ground roll alone. And, it's for a -8 which may or may not be the same model of 747 in question.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
AWACSEng said:
If I'm reading that correctly, that chart is for the total distance required, which would include accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and continuing the takeoff or aborting. This doesn't depict takeoff ground roll alone. And, it's for a -8 which may or may not be the same model of 747 in question.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.
 
AWACSEng said:
If I'm reading that correctly, that chart is for the total distance required, which would include accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and continuing the takeoff or aborting. This doesn't depict takeoff ground roll alone. And, it's for a -8 which may or may not be the same model of 747 in question.
Click to expand...

It's a 747SP, not an 8. The SP is basically a 747-100 shortened about 50 feet. They're the fastest of any 747
 
I appreciated the 747 the first time I flew one in 1973 and we landed in Rio where they had no jetway and I had to walk down the stairs from that thing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, watching the transpacific ones take off out of Dulles is amazing. They need just about all of the 11,000' runway and no adverse winds to struggle into the air with that fuel load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top