![]() ![]() He described the “gorgeous scenery…a mountain sticking up in the middle of the ocean”. One voter commented: “Cliffs, ocean and an adrenaline-pumping experience when you land, feet above a cliff and come to halting stop.”Ī panel of major names in the travel industry formed the shortlist for the public vote, with travel writer Seth Miller nominating Saba. Only certain turboprop aircraft such as the BN-2 Islander or Grand Caravan are agile enough to perform the short stop required. With a runway just 400 metres (1,312 feet) long and a challenging approach, pilots must have special training to land at the Dutch Caribbean island airport (officially called Juancho E Yrausquin Airport). View the Top 10 results or watch a video of the landing at Saba The world’s shortest commercial runway, on the Caribbean island of Saba, has topped a global travel poll of the world’s most scenic airport landings*, conducted by the private jet booking service PrivateFly. We were airborne again within 7,000 - Again, very likely with a derated take off.ġ0,000 is quite long, especially from roughly sea level and temperatures that aren't extremely hot.WORLD’S SHORTEST RUNWAY AT SABA IS ALSO THE MOST SCENIC, ACCORDING TO ANNUAL TRAVEL POLL We flew LAX-ICN on a 747-400 and took off from runway 24L (10,885 ft). We were airborne within 7,000 ft - We likely used a derated take off.Ģ. ![]() I flew IAH-NRT on the 777-200ER and we took off on runway 15R (10,000 ft). Likewise, a "mere" 10,006 ft is not short and as others have stated, can handle nearly any plane at MTOW and sea level (assuming not terribly hot) as long as there are no climb restrictions and such for an engine out.ġ. The issue you have is with taxiway clearance and maneuvering around terminals and such, not the runway width. There are a few that are 200' wide, but you can't say 150' and "only" in the same sentence. "Only" 150' wide - that is standard width for nearly all commercial runways throughout the world. Unfortunately, your premises are incorrect. In terms of hot and high, well the quads will always Have the advantage, I actually haven’t heard much about the A380 at JNB or MEX, I do know EK and QR have minimal issues at DXB And DOH in the heat because it’s never tyre speed limited. I would go as far as saying only the 359 and 35K(I’ve heard it’s sneaky good and only marginally “worse” off the field than the 359) have better field performance. Keep in mind that enormous wing was designed or a 650t cargo aircraft/stretch version. ![]() It may very well be that only the A359 offers better field performance. Not sure if they used DUS´s 05L/23R runway, i would assume they did at some point, and that is not even 9k feet.Īny runway that sees a 77W depart for long haul is long enough for the A380, and them some. MAN, DUS and probably many other airports with 10k feet or shorter runways see, or saw, regular A380 service. The problem comes with clearances between runways/taxiways, taxiway/taxiway, space in parking positions, ability to handle having so many passengers dumped into the terminal. At sea level 10k feet will essentially always be enough to depart with weight variant even with the least powerful engine versions. Runway length will pretty much never be a problem as long as it is 150" wide. Are there restrictions on load factors at BOS for this aircraft? What airports are pushing the minimum limits for use of the A380? Thanks! I thought A380 demanded at least 10,500 (at 70 percent load). For instance, the longest runway at BOS is a mere 10,006’ (and only 150’ wide) yet BA, EK and LH all had or planned to have A380 service there. Pre-covid, several airlines made grandiose plans to expand A380 flights at airports I thought were not well-suited to handle that behemoth. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |