"Biggest plane that can land here"?

overdrive148

overdrive148

En-Route
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
3,903
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
overdrive148
Other than people calling asking if Delta or Southwest operate out of KSNL, I get the question of "what's the biggest plane that can land here?" quite a bit.

Dimensions:
5997 x 100 ft. / 1828 x 30 m
Surface: asphalt, in excellent condition

Weight bearing capacity:
Single wheel: 30.0
Double wheel: 40.0
Double tandem: 60.0
Click to expand...

6000 feet is a decently sized runway, and the biggest thing to land since I started here has been a Falcon 900. I've never flown a twin much less a transport jet. What could you feasibly land here? :dunno:

I tried to look up and understand the weight bearing capacity but it didn't make much sense and comparing them against large airports doesn't work because the scale appears to be different.
 
KHPN 16-34 IS 6,000 feet long and Part 121 MD-80s and 737s are in and out frequently.
 
Length wise it's good for most any commercial jet, not sure about load.
 
I live near KTTN which has very similar runway stats (although I think they are 150 wide), and Frontier flies A319's out of here daily.
 
In addition to the length of the runway, the type, depth, and compaction of substrate as well as the type, depth, compaction, and curing of the surface must be taken into consideration when determining the aircraft that can land safely.
 
overdrive148 said:
Other than people calling asking if Delta or Southwest operate out of KSNL, I get the question of "what's the biggest plane that can land here?" quite a bit.



6000 feet is a decently sized runway, and the biggest thing to land since I started here has been a Falcon 900. I've never flown a twin much less a transport jet. What could you feasibly land here? :dunno:

I tried to look up and understand the weight bearing capacity but it didn't make much sense and comparing them against large airports doesn't work because the scale appears to be different.
Click to expand...

I've seen 172s and Cirrus that use more runway then that :yes:
 
Weight bearing capibility is usually limiting. The numbers listed are for unlimited numbers of operations. They are usually estimated based on pavement design. Actual testing can yield consideribly higher numbers. Our numbers were similar to yours. After testing, we found that we could handle lightly loaded C-130 (115K lbs) with no limit on operations and could handle C-130s at 150K lbs at around 25 operations per month.

You are generally looking at cumulative damage over time from overweight operations, like semi trucks on the interstate. In extreme cases, one operation may cause the runway to need repair. There is no easy answer to your question.
 
overdrive148 said:
Other than people calling asking if Delta or Southwest operate out of KSNL, I get the question of "what's the biggest plane that can land here?" quite a bit.



6000 feet is a decently sized runway, and the biggest thing to land since I started here has been a Falcon 900. I've never flown a twin much less a transport jet. What could you feasibly land here? :dunno:

I tried to look up and understand the weight bearing capacity but it didn't make much sense and comparing them against large airports doesn't work because the scale appears to be different.
Click to expand...

There is a simple answer and a complex answer. The simple answer is to find a copy of the approved Airport Layout Plan and look on the runway data table for the "critical aircraft." This is the most demanding aircraft using or forecast to use the airport for at least 500 annual operations. The airport should be designed to adequately handle that aircraft.

However, if you get into it, this is actually an extremely complex question, as airfield design standards involve a complicated set of relationships among pavement strength, airfield geometry, approach/departure obstructions, and taxiway intersection fillet design. Any of these can create limiting factors, not just the pavement strength.

The numbers you cite are maximums based on landing gear configuration. A heavier aircraft may impose less stress on the pavement than a lighter one, depending on the how many wheels are on each gear, for example. Other limitations are created by aircraft wingspan in relation to runway/taxiway separation and other geometrical issues. If you want to get into the weeds, see AC 150/5300-13a Change 1 for 320 pages of glorious bureaucratese. This will get you started down the rabbit hole, which is deep indeed.
 
overdrive148 said:
Other than people calling asking if Delta or Southwest operate out of KSNL, I get the question of "what's the biggest plane that can land here?" quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Just tell them at almost any plane can land there once...
 
Ken Ibold said:
There is a simple answer and a complex answer. The simple answer is to find a copy of the approved Airport Layout Plan and look on the runway data table for the "critical aircraft." This is the most demanding aircraft using or forecast to use the airport for at least 500 annual operations. The airport should be designed to adequately handle that aircraft.
Click to expand...

Found the ALP for 2012 on the common drive since I think this is now pretty important to know instead of being a passing curiosity. The Critical Design Aircraft is labeled "Grumman Gulfstream III" for both "existing" and "ultimate".
 
overdrive148 said:
Found the ALP for 2012 on the common drive since I think this is now pretty important to know instead of being a passing curiosity. The Critical Design Aircraft is labeled "Grumman Gulfstream III" for both "existing" and "ultimate".
Click to expand...

Good deal.

Keep in mind that this is not the largest that CAN use the airport, but is the largest using or expected to use the airport on a more or less routine basis.

The gear configuration weights you posted earlier are published so that operators can verify that the pavement strength is adequate. And when you find that the scales don't match up, as you said earlier, it's because FAA's definitions/acronyms changed a couple years ago.
 
Skip Miller said:
KHPN 16-34 IS 6,000 feet long and Part 121 MD-80s and 737s are in and out frequently.
Click to expand...

drotto said:
I live near KTTN which has very similar runway stats (although I think they are 150 wide), and Frontier flies A319's out of here daily.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the data points.

AuntPeggy said:
In addition to the length of the runway, the type, depth, and compaction of substrate as well as the type, depth, compaction, and curing of the surface must be taken into consideration when determining the aircraft that can land safely.
Click to expand...

Graueradler said:
Weight bearing capibility is usually limiting. The numbers listed are for unlimited numbers of operations. They are usually estimated based on pavement design. Actual testing can yield consideribly higher numbers. Our numbers were similar to yours. After testing, we found that we could handle lightly loaded C-130 (115K lbs) with no limit on operations and could handle C-130s at 150K lbs at around 25 operations per month.

You are generally looking at cumulative damage over time from overweight operations, like semi trucks on the interstate. In extreme cases, one operation may cause the runway to need repair. There is no easy answer to your question.
Click to expand...
This is turning out to be a lot more complex than I thought. :eek:

Clark1961 said:
Just tell them at almost any plane can land there once...
Click to expand...
I have told people the length is probably enough to land all kinds of regional jets. Then told them that they (or any other aircraft) may have trouble ever taking off again :D
 
Ken Ibold said:
Good deal.

Keep in mind that this is not the largest that CAN use the airport, but is the largest using or expected to use the airport on a more or less routine basis.

The gear configuration weights you posted earlier are published so that operators can verify that the pavement strength is adequate. And when you find that the scales don't match up, as you said earlier, it's because FAA's definitions/acronyms changed a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder how the Falcon 900 crew made the decision to come in then? I imagine that landing at smaller airports like mine would bring up that kind of concern.

Found an example of a Gulfstream V :eek:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...mac-and-sunken-gulfstream-gv-business-206560/

getasset.aspx


getasset.aspx


A lot more info here...
http://code7700.com/acn_v_pcn.html

You should always keep in mind that most aviation professionals — FBO managers, mechanics, even pilots — don't really understand the stresses an aircraft places on pavement depend more on the distance between each wheel than on the weight of the aircraft itself. In the drawing, the B-737 weighs 8% more than the G550 and yet puts 40% less stress on the pavement.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
Last edited:
You can put a DC-8 down on a snow covered 4800 foot runway (6D9 Iosoco County, MI) and get it back out a couple days later.
 
overdrive148 said:
Interesting. I wonder how the Falcon 900 crew made the decision to come in then? I imagine that landing at smaller airports like mine would bring up that kind of concern.

Found an example of a Gulfstream V :eek:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...mac-and-sunken-gulfstream-gv-business-206560/

getasset.aspx


getasset.aspx


A lot more info here...
http://code7700.com/acn_v_pcn.html

:eek:
Click to expand...

That's on the ramp, not on the runway. We have made dents on the ramp when we were parked on a hot day and we are probably less than half the weight of a GV. That's why many airports have concrete pads for jets to park on and why I now call ahead to ask if there will be any issue for parking if I have some doubt. Also, there can be a big difference between landing at max landing weight and min fuel/no passengers or cargo.
 
Well, a C-17 landed and took off from a 3400 foot strip a couple years ago, so SNL should be able to handle a C-5 or Antonov 225 I reckon ;)
 
Everskyward said:
That's on the ramp, not on the runway. We have made dents on the ramp when we were parked on a hot day and we are probably less than half the weight of a GV. That's why many airports have concrete pads for jets to park on and why I now call ahead to ask if there will be any issue for parking if I have some doubt. Also, there can be a big difference between landing at max landing weight and min fuel/no passengers or cargo.
Click to expand...

I figured it was on the ramp with the hangars in the background, but that's crazy that a runway can be to certain landing specs and the taxiways and ramp can be otherwise. I've seen runway specs all over the place in the A/FD but now that I think about it, never for taxiways and ramps. We don't have any concrete pads unfortunately.
 
overdrive148 said:
Interesting. I wonder how the Falcon 900 crew made the decision to come in then? I imagine that landing at smaller airports like mine would bring up that kind of concern.
Click to expand...
Most pilots don't know anything about the pavement/airplane classification numbers that define pavement loads; they look at runway length and that's about it. The airport operator has to pay attention because, as was mentioned earlier, you're looking at the cumulative effect and what that means for pavement life. A few landings of an airplane that's too heavy may not matter if the pavement is new. But if it's old, that might just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Check for a recent pavement condition index determination to see what shape the pavement is actually in.

Both the G-III and Falcon 900 are in Airplane Design Group C-II, and the MTOW of the Falcon 900 is, I think, less than the G-III. The pavements are generally designed to meet a specific design group rather than a specific aircraft, so it should not have been an issue.
 
overdrive148 said:
I figured it was on the ramp with the hangars in the background, but that's crazy that a runway can be to certain landing specs and the taxiways and ramp can be otherwise. I've seen runway specs all over the place in the A/FD but now that I think about it, never for taxiways and ramps. We don't have any concrete pads unfortunately.
Click to expand...
And you're in Oklahoma which is where we made the dents. :rofl:

Only small dents...
 
Ken Ibold said:
Most pilots don't know anything about the pavement/airplane classification numbers that define pavement loads; they look at runway length and that's about it. The airport operator has to pay attention because, as was mentioned earlier, you're looking at the cumulative effect and what that means for pavement life. A few landings of an airplane that's too heavy may not matter if the pavement is new. But if it's old, that might just be the straw that broke the camel's back. Check for a recent pavement condition index determination to see what shape the pavement is actually in.

Both the G-III and Falcon 900 are in Airplane Design Group C-II, and the MTOW of the Falcon 900 is, I think, less than the G-III. The pavements are generally designed to meet a specific design group rather than a specific aircraft, so it should not have been an issue.
Click to expand...

I'll look for a more recent ALP later, just a cursory search at first. The runway is in great shape though, I drive it every day I'm on for inspections. The only thing I could say about it is it's not flat, you can't see the end of the runway from the numbers on 17.

Also good to know. Wikipedia says the Falcon 900 has a higher MTOW than the G-III but they didn't leave any dents (eyes Everskyward suspiciously) in the ramp either. They took on a courtesy of ~100 gallons during their visit but considering the Phillips 66 Line Manual says it can hold around 3100 gallons... Who knows if they were full!
 
Hopefully it can hold the Piper PA-28 when I head up there Tuesday :wink2:
 
Tyjay30 said:
Hopefully it can hold the Piper PA-28 when I head up there Tuesday :wink2:
Click to expand...

Depends on if you take fuel or not! Airport management may end up finding out that a PA-28 is out of limits otherwise :D

Nah, just kidding. Glad to have you either way. I don't know the schedule for that day... but if I am working I'll be sure to say hello :yes:
 
Maciej said:
:rofl:

A part of my soul dies when I see landings like that.
Click to expand...

Hold on a minute. I occasionally fly into SWF RW 09/27 (11817 ft)and depending on where I want to go, I fly the entire length of the runway and land in the last 1,000 ft. Beats the heck out of taxiing for 2 days to get where I want to go.
;)
 
As far as airliners at MTOW, probably a 752. KTUP is 7150ft, and we have 744s in and out, no problem.
 
Shepherd said:
Hold on a minute. I occasionally fly into SWF RW 09/27 (11817 ft)and depending on where I want to go, I fly the entire length of the runway and land in the last 1,000 ft. Beats the heck out of taxiing for 2 days to get where I want to go.
;)
Click to expand...

LOL, fair enough!
 
This thread reminds me of when Marine One landed at Marlboro Airport (9B1) and did $800,000 worth of damage to the ramp. 9B1 has a 1600x30 runway and probably isn't meant for anything bigger than a 172.
 
Skip Miller said:
KHPN 16-34 IS 6,000 feet long and Part 121 MD-80s and 737s are in and out frequently.
Click to expand...

Was based in HPN for 16 years. It's possible, but I've never seen an MD80 in there. A 737 possibly, A320 definitely, but none of those still go in there to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps because it's not a guaranteed thing. Hot or wet and we couldn't get a Citation X in it out of there at gross.
 
The runway the falcon crew landed on was undoubtedly safe. The apron they parked on was probably added at a later date by local " experts" who had their head up their azz. There are usually several of these types on local boards. Many of these runways were originally built by the government during WW2 and if anything they were overbuilt.
 
6000' is more than enough for a C-130. I'm sure there are bigger ones that could use it.
 
Slight revival of the thread.

There's a G450 scheduled to arrive in the next few days for fuel. The pilots called my coworkers yesterday asking about the runway capacity and weight and etc, asking some pretty deep questions (ALP completed during summer? etc). Sounds like they are pretty worried about it.

I showed my boss the G-III on the ALP for critical aircraft design and the thread itself and now he's worried whether or not they'll damage anything.

G450 is 43,000lb empty, 70,000lb + at MTOW. According to my ramp rat resources they hold 4300+ gal. Runway dual wheel bearing capacity is 40.0. They said they would be landing light on fuel (passed on info) but if they're looking for fuel...

Boss is calling the G450 guys to get a plan together, but I dont think there's much more to offer them information wise.

At the same time... This picture was taken in the winter a year or two ago. I don't know the model of Gulfstream but it seems fine and I don't see any dents in the ramp or anything.

yuSl8IK.jpg


I could either put him in the same place this one was parked, or I could aim for the concrete... here? Not sure if it's stronger or weaker or anything though.

86OwoTp.jpg


I won't be here for it tomorrow, but he may be back Sunday when I work alone. What would you guys do?
 
I'd hazard a bet the concrete is stronger than the asphalt, especially on a hot summer day.
 
Weather has been mid to upper 90's for the last few weeks. Not sure how much of an impact it has but I imagine it's something to consider.
 
overdrive148 said:
At the same time... This picture was taken in the winter a year or two ago. I don't know the model of Gulfstream but it seems fine and I don't see any dents in the ramp or anything.
Click to expand...
Asphalt is softer in the summer so I'm not sure I would go by that.

overdrive148 said:
I could either put him in the same place this one was parked, or I could aim for the concrete... here? Not sure if it's stronger or weaker or anything though.
Click to expand...
I would say that, in general, concrete is stronger than asphalt but I'm sure there are paving experts here to confirm.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, some airports have concrete pads specifically for that reason, but I am not sure if there are various grades of concrete or if the underlayment is different when they are built for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
overdrive148 said:
Weather has been mid to upper 90's for the last few weeks. Not sure how much of an impact it has but I imagine it's something to consider.
Click to expand...

It depends on how deep the asphalt is and what is beneath it. Asphalt gets soft in the heat and sun though as the tar gets gooey. I would rather put it on the concrete where it will not have the opportunity to sink in divots.
 
Landing is one thing. Sitting a day or two on hot asphalt is another. Asphalt never really hardens. 20V (Kremmling, CO) has a large cement pad put in by a GIII owner so he could safely park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top