Can an empty 747 land in a distance equal to 50% of Meigs field?

[Guest]

Just for fun I took all the passengers out, and drained all but 10% of the fuel in the main tanks. I then landed on the leading edge at Meigs with an effort to make the shortest landing possible. I came to a stop exactly half way down the runway, and while I don't know how many feet that it, it seems pretty short. Could it be done in real life? And would the PMDG 747 behave in a similar fashion?

[Guest]

I decided to try this same scenario with the PMDG 747...I landed about half the length of the plane past the 3rd taxiway from 36. 9% fuel (burned more than I thought I would just getting there), max auto brake, auto spoilers, full reverse all the way to zero knots, on a standard day (no wind). Just looking at the replay though it appears I landed a few yards short of the runway but even taking my error into account there was plenty of room left. My REF speed was 127 but I flew it at about 112.

[rhodges 6]

Hello:With a quick search, the following may or may not answer your question:http://www.bh.com/companions/034074152X/ap...a-a/default.htmLooks like 6,200 feet for a 747-200 and 6,988 feet for a 747-400 (Converted Data from metric in the tables). However, I think these figures are with max landing weight, not empty and with minimum fuel which would be significantly shorter.A few years ago, I remember a 747-200 from Iceland landing at EEA AirVenture in Oshkosh after a flyby. Viewing from the sidelines at a location estimated to be about 3/4 down the runway, he was not even within site on the ground when he completed his landing roll and began to taxi. Extremely short. Wind was reasonably calm.The main runways at Wittman are 09/27 which is 6,178 feet long, and 18/36 which is 8,002 feet long. I don't remember which at the moment is applicable to the air show as normal activity seemed to still be taking place on the other at quite a distance. My estimation would be that the Iceland pilot which had just made a very low and slow flyby did not use a quarter of the runway on his landing roll. One beautiful aircraft.For what it is worth:Happy flying:RTH

[Geofa 108]

I did some investigating on a website lastnight (type 747 landing distance in google) and there were some that said that at light fuel/weight that a 747 could be landed in 3000 ft (I wouldn't know). I also googled Meigs runway and came up with 3900' (I landed there about 8 years ago but can't remember).That being said-it sounds awfully tight to me!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest]

I tried agian and here's how short it stopped. My wheels touched down right about where the runway meets the grass. I had 8% fuel left in the three main tanks after the flight. http://sio.midco.net/FTP4/747.jpg

[Guest jsvw2001]

Two real aircraft, a B747-200 and a B747SP has been flown from Johannesburg Intl (FAJS) to the SAA Museum at Rand Airport. The runway at Rand Airport (FAGM) is at elevation 5483 ft and 5600 ft long. Here is an extract from what the Captain posted on a Forum:"Correct approach teqnique and correct speed will put you where you want to be on the runway. When we took "Lebombo" to Rand we HAD to comply with this rule. The landing speed is dependant on the landing weight, and in most small aircraft the weight spread is relatively small, so therefore the approach speed is almost constant for all landing weights, but in and aircraft that has a landing weight spread of say 190 000 kg to max landing weight of 259 000 kg, the landing speed, Vref, varies from 120 to 160kts. Because runway 11 at Rand is 25% shorter than 03L at Jo'burg International, we could not afford to carry any excess speed on the final approach, and had to ensure that we were on the correct approach path, not too high and not too low. How the PAPI's would work with the 747 we did not know, so we decided to "plot" the path using the Rand VOR/DME. For a 3 degree approach angle, one has to decend at approximately 300ft per nautical mile, so this is how we did it:- With my hand held GPS, I saw that the threshold of R/W 11 was 0.6 nm from RAV. The altitude at the threshold was 5470 ft, so at 1,6 DME we has to be 5770 ft, 2,6 DME 6070 ft and at 3,6 DME 6370 ft. This was called out by our first observer to the co-Captain on final approach. The landing weight was 180 000 kg, quite light for a 747, so our Vref was 119 kts. Under normal operating conitions, we approached at Vref +5 kts, and add increments for wind and gusts, up to a maximum of 15kts to the Vref. For this aproach we flew at Vref -5 kts, ie 114 kts, as the stalling speed in the landing configuration with 30 flap is Vref-17 kts, ie 102kts that day. We did many practice runs in the flight simulator using FAJS 03L, with a 5kt cross and a 5 kt tail wind, and everytime we landed and stopped the aircraft at intersection "Lima". using medium auto brake and No reverse thrust. We were only to use reverse thrust in an emergency, as all 4 engines would be off the tar at Rand, and they were going to be removed at a later stage. As R/W 11 has quite a step up before the threshold, we did not want to land short, as this might damage the gear, and we also did not want to land deep and run off the end into the TAC pub!! To prevent this happening, we put a white stripe at 150 metres in from the threshold, and another at 1000 metres from the end of R/W 29. This was the landing distance that we need on the day, as calculated by SAA flight performance section. Well it worked on that day, we approched at 114kts, had a 3kt tail wind and about 4 kt crosswind. When the flight engineer called out 20ft on the radio altimeter, I closed the thust levers and she sat dowm "firmly". With a firm landing, as recomended by Boeing, and a slight uphill on 11, we stopped at the interesction of R/W 36, shorter than I land the Pitts. So guys, size does not matter, it is the technique that counts."See the videos here

, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ETZzodOgqo...related&search= and

[Guest]

The most impressive short field landing I have ever seen was done by the C-17. I can hardly believe how fast that thing comes to a stop.Take a look.

[WarpD 824]

I believe the 747 was originally designed for a military contract for STOL cargo aircraft. While I could be mistaken, I believe it's competition was the Lockheed C5 Tristar.

[Guest]

I don't know much about military cargo planes, but I don't think the 747 or the C5 were designed for STOL operations. I think they're more for intra-theater transport connecting major bases. The C-17 fits the STOL roll better. Nevertheless, an empty 747 running on fumes does some interesting things. Another fun thing to try is disabling the EECs and go full thrust and watch that sucker fly.

[Guest YukonPete]

Qantas landed a retired 747-200 on 3500ft of rwy at its Longreach museum. Here's a clip of the landing

See a short Qantas 747-400 take off! From the time it starts rolling until it rotates is about 13-14 seconds!

[Guest jshyluk]

The beauty of MSFS Free Flight is that you can really let your imagination run wild! I enjoy threads like this one a lot.My thinking isn't so much about getting the plane to stop on the runway, as opposed to stopping the plane from going INTO the runway, i.e. would the asphalt at Meigs be strong enough to hold up a B747 trying a short landing? Of course, FSX doesn't model this, which is good from a flight insurance point of view.Jeff Shyluk Senior Staff Reviewer, Avsim

[jeffhunter 0]

Rwy 22 @ YLRE is 1936m or about 6300 feet. Even so, they did it without reverse thrust on 1 and 4 because of the narrow runway and the risk of fodding the engines - not sure exactly why it would matter, given that it wasn't going anywhere again. ;-)These days the engines have perspex covers on to keep out nesting birds!There is a good video of the most recent addition to the Qantas founders museum at Longreach - a 707 doing a couple of passes, including a missed approach before landing. It would have made some serious noise.

regards,Jeff YBBN

[Gavin 99]

Great post. Great videos. How about this for an interesting 'last landing' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukHULbHqW4Q

[Guest TomOOO]

I fly a lot for my work (as a passenger). About 9 years ago I was on a trip from UK to Boston, US. There had been one of the worst snow storms for many years with several feet of snow. The captain announced that the landing would be interesting as theyhad only cleared 400 yards clear of snow (1200 feet) from the runway andwere have difficulty keep this clear. Since most airports in thearea were hit they could not divert. The landing was interesting - we braced for the landing - buteven so I smacked my head on the seat in front we braked so hard,and the reversing thruster were definitely operating as soon as the main landing gear touched. I cannot confirm the length ofcleared runway, but I can confirm that 747 can slow down like acar hit a brick wall. Oh, and apart from that it was quite normal.Tom

[rhodges 6]

Good point Jeff:That is the limiting factor here at my home airport, KLWB. Although plenty long enough, the limiting factor is weight. The old 707's used for Air Force One use to shoot touch and go landings here (Have a video tape of one making approaches over my house), but the switch to more modern birds have negated that fun. When you heard one, you knew it was something different, as Noise Abatement was a joke. Bush did land in a 757 not long ago (Republican event at the Greenbriar Resort - "Old White")C130's from the National Guard in Charleston also shoot landings, but the runway would not stand up under a 747.Thanks:RTH