"Fat" and "Thin" runways

[FPK1]

3O8

2820' long by 30' wide

2820/30= 94

 

[luvflyin]

The thread about narrow runways got me thinking about the ratio of length to width. Most narrow runways, of course, are also short, and most wide runways are also long. But there are some exceptions.

One in this corner of the world is Sayre, OK, which is 130 ft wide, but only 4276 ft long. Since most 5000 ft runways are somewhere around 75 or 100 ft wide, final approach to Sayre "looks weird".

If you take the length divided by the width, that gives a "thinness" ratio of 32.9, where larger numbers are "thinner" and smaller numbers are "fatter". (I thought about doing the width divided by the length, but that gives numbers like 0.0304, which don't seem as friendly to deal with.)

I'm wondering what a normal range would be. OKC's normal-size runways are 9801 x 150, which is 65.34, so much thinner than Sayre, about "twice as thin". Another nearby small airport is 4001 x 60, which at 66.7, while much shorter than OKC is pretty much the same ratio. PWA is 7201x150, or a ratio of 48, so definitely fatter than OKC.

So for anybody who's willing to play along, what are some long/narrow or short/wide runways you know of? Do the math and see where it fits. Anybody know of a 20 ft wide runway that's really long, or a 300 ft wide really short runway?

I think we should restrict this to paved runways, I know some of those grass runways can be really really wide - but I'm mostly interested in the visual illusions caused by paved runways.

And I'm fully expecting a lot of comments about "girth".

The thread about narrow runways got me thinking about the ratio of length to width. Most narrow runways, of course, are also short, and most wide runways are also long. But there are some exceptions.

One in this corner of the world is Sayre, OK, which is 130 ft wide, but only 4276 ft long. Since most 5000 ft runways are somewhere around 75 or 100 ft wide, final approach to Sayre "looks weird".

If you take the length divided by the width, that gives a "thinness" ratio of 32.9, where larger numbers are "thinner" and smaller numbers are "fatter". (I thought about doing the width divided by the length, but that gives numbers like 0.0304, which don't seem as friendly to deal with.)

I'm wondering what a normal range would be. OKC's normal-size runways are 9801 x 150, which is 65.34, so much thinner than Sayre, about "twice as thin". Another nearby small airport is 4001 x 60, which at 66.7, while much shorter than OKC is pretty much the same ratio. PWA is 7201x150, or a ratio of 48, so definitely fatter than OKC.

So for anybody who's willing to play along, what are some long/narrow or short/wide runways you know of? Do the math and see where it fits. Anybody know of a 20 ft wide runway that's really long, or a 300 ft wide really short runway?

I think we should restrict this to paved runways, I know some of those grass runways can be really really wide - but I'm mostly interested in the visual illusions caused by paved runways.

And I'm fully expecting a lot of comments about "girth".

I landed here at night. I learned a lot about ‘sight picture.’ And that full stall landings are not always a good idea and just how strong a C172’s main gear is.

 

[luvflyin]

Man, you guys sure know how to tempt a data nerd. And I already had the NFDC facilities files...

Highest aspect ratio in the data is "runway" 14/32 at Duval County Ranch Co., 28TA, near Freer, TX: 10,280x34 for an aspect ratio of 302.4! However, looking more closely at it, it appears to be more of a road than a runway. It connects to US 59 at the north end and there's a big sign arch over it at the threshold. There's a couple of what could be hangars a ways down, and then it looks like maybe there's another sign arch farther south. It's also marked as "Lloyd Bentsen Hwy" so I must say: Road, I've landed on runways. I know runways. Runways are friends of mine. Road, you're no Runway.

So, the highest aspect ratio runway that I can verify is still a runway is 7/25 at 99V Crawford County, CO which is listed as 4,900x20 for an aspect ratio of 245. This one is even weirder, though - It appears that the 20' width is only at the west end, and after a ways it widens out and the majority of the runway is more like 35' wide.

The one with the highest ratio that is the same width all the way along appears to be a glider-only runway 8G/26G at KBDU in Boulder, CO; 4,100x20 for a ratio of 205.

As far as I can tell, the fattest paved runway is at Buckingham Field, formerly Buckingham Army Air Field, FL59. The runways from the old Army airfield are gone, and the gigantic ramp now makes up the runways. Thus, runway 6/24 at 2,726x400 has an aspect ratio of 6.82 and is the fattest runway! https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buckingham+Field-Fl59/@26.638028,-81.7148815,897m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88db6de0d59ace7d:0xe73fb60f5d3ca68a!8m2!3d26.6433658!4d-81.7088623!16s/m/04185b3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

I think there is some erroneous data out there. Those runways do not appear to still be 400 feet wide.

 

[Timbeck2]

Fun fact: Converse sneakers used to be made in Peru Indiana.

I can remember a pair of Chuck Taylors (All Stars - the only choice at the time) cost $12 and my family STILL couldn’t afford them

 

[Matthew]

I can remember a pair of Chuck Taylors (All Stars - the only choice at the time) cost $12 and my family STILL couldn’t afford them

It was PF Flyers for me.

 

[Matthew]

Similar aspect ratios gave me a fun time one night. I’m near two airports, about 7NM apart. Both have 18/36 and are parallel to each other. The west airport has a 7000+ x 150 rwy and the one on the east is 4000 x 75. One night I was approaching from the south, heading to the east airport. Winds aloft were pretty heavy from the west so I had a good crab going. And that was the night the DG failed, no GPS. I could see both beacons off in the distance, then took my eyes off them for a minute. I saw the rwy lights (both are towered and both were lit), but I focused on the wrong airport. I was confused at how I got so close so quickly, and it just didn’t make sense. I had to look way off to the right and found the correct airport. The rwys are almost exactly the same aspect ratio, but one is 2x the dimensions of the other.

Good times.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think there is some erroneous data out there. Those runways do not appear to still be 400 feet wide.

View attachment 141424

I think the concrete itself is maybe even wider than 400 feet, though... And since this is about how they'd look, that one will definitely look weird regardless of the painted border. You're landing on a big ramp!

 

[luvflyin]

I think the concrete itself is maybe even wider than 400 feet, though... And since this is about how they'd look, that one will definitely look weird regardless of the painted border. You're landing on a big ramp!

Yeah, the sight picture might give you that wide runway tendency to flare high thing. But maybe the runway edge lines might prevent that if you concentrated enough. I dunno.

 

[TCABM]

Yeah, the sight picture might give you that wide runway tendency to flare high thing. But maybe the runway edge lines might prevent that if you concentrated enough. I dunno.

FL59 is an odd looking duck.