Departure Citation jet from tiny uphill Alp strip.

Must have been a former aircraft carrier lander/takeoff.
Wow. I am amazed too they landed there.
 
Norman said:
1800ft of runway at 6500 ft elevation.

Brass cojones indeed. :hairraise::hairraise::hairraise::yikes:
Click to expand...

Why, the airplane is going to fly going off the end of the runway one way or another. There a lot of altitude to trade for airspeed.
 
airplane was flying when it left the runway . . . piece of cake.
 
The slope is definitely what makes this possible. Warning: science ahead.

According to Google Earth, the difference in height between the top and bottom is 318 ft. Not the most exact measure, but good enough. Basic physics says that the velocity change over those 318 ft is roughly 85 knots of ground speed. The landing speed of one of those planes is roughly...let's say 100 knots (between 1.2 and 1.3 Vso--not sure what the jets use, but it's close enough). That trues out to about 115 knots at 6600 ft. So the airplane just has to slow itself 30 more knots over the 1700 ft runway--the hill takes care of the rest. That's assuming that the pilot lands right at the numbers. And then on takeoff, you get 85 knots of free acceleration. And even if my Google Earth numbers are way off, you could still get some serious acceleration out of the hill.

I don't think it's quiiiiite as dangerous as it looks, but you'd still have to do some convincing to get me to go in there in a Citation.
 
I'd have to dig around in the closet, but a Citation II's Vr is 103-105? Take off distance at 6500 feet is probably 2500+ ft? but that downslope is the great equalizer.:yes: But, i think I'd rather watch it on YouTube than fly it out of there.:yes:
 
jpower said:
The slope is definitely what makes this possible. Warning: science ahead.

According to Google Earth, the difference in height between the top and bottom is 318 ft. Not the most exact measure, but good enough. Basic physics says that the velocity change over those 318 ft is roughly 85 knots of ground speed. The landing speed of one of those planes is roughly...let's say 100 knots (between 1.2 and 1.3 Vso--not sure what the jets use, but it's close enough). That trues out to about 115 knots at 6600 ft. So the airplane just has to slow itself 30 more knots over the 1700 ft runway--the hill takes care of the rest. That's assuming that the pilot lands right at the numbers. And then on takeoff, you get 85 knots of free acceleration. And even if my Google Earth numbers are way off, you could still get some serious acceleration out of the hill.

I don't think it's quiiiiite as dangerous as it looks, but you'd still have to do some convincing to get me to go in there in a Citation.
Click to expand...

Here's the plate for Courchevel (An old one, but the mountain doesn't move much). Its a 218ft elevation change over the runway.

4004296652_a9fbc961aa_b.jpg
 
DJTorrente said:
Here's the plate for Courchevel (An old one, but the mountain doesn't move much). Its a 218ft elevation change over the runway.
Click to expand...

In that case, the mountain gives you 70 knots groundspeed of acceleration or braking. Not shabby, especially for landing, considering that it doesn't take into account any of the wheel's friction or air drag that you get on every other landing. It's probably an overestimate for takeoff, but hey, if you're a little bit slow, just nose over a little and pick up speed once you go off the edge :).
 
DJTorrente said:
Here's the plate for Courchevel (An old one, but the mountain doesn't move much). Its a 218ft elevation change over the runway.

4004296652_a9fbc961aa_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting. The plate shows an approach to runway 04 as well. 'Some braking required' :eek: .
 
weilke said:
Interesting. The plate shows an approach to runway 04 as well. 'Some braking required' :eek: .
Click to expand...

That's not an approach to 04; that's the route you fly when AFIS is closed. You route overhead the runway and then turn left outbound, and round for final :D
 
stratobee said:
This is a departure from Courchevel Altiport. It's a one way in, one way out uphill short strip in the Alps. You need a special endorsement to land there.
I bet he ran those takeoff numbers a couple of times.....;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Wr3ilAWpo&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...
Cool video, but why mention "uphill" in the title and description when that departure is clearly downhill? :confused:

I was hoping I'd see someone do something clearly insane... like try to take off uphill from Courchevel. :D
 
I guess they pretty much blew off the accelerate-stop calculation!
 
No need to rotate, it is like a carrier launch. As for the accelerate stop, there is a mountain across the valley that would provide a rapid stop.
 
Little surprised he continued straight out, big mountain on right wingtip, deep valley to left.
 
Katamarino said:
That's not an approach to 04; that's the route you fly when AFIS is closed. You route overhead the runway and then turn left outbound, and round for final :D
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd attempt that arrival when he airport is unattended (airport/tower closed). I'd want someone available to phone in the wreckage promptly. :D
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, no kidding. I think you are committed once you push up the throttles.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking too, about 2 seconds after brake release, you ARE going off the other end, one way or another!:D
 
Everskyward said:
I guess they pretty much blew off the accelerate-stop calculation!
Click to expand...

I've always felt that, while it is good data and worth considering, on certain takeoffs you basically accept the risk in certain situations. If you think about it, it doesn't make you any worse off than you would be in a single with an engine failure anyway.

At 2800 ft, our home airport probably has accelerate/stop per what the book would say, but not really for operational reality.
 
Can anyone translate the cameraman's comments?
 
DJTorrente said:
Can anyone translate the cameraman's comments?
Click to expand...

I can't really make out the mumblings in the beginning, but as the plane is going down the slope, someone shouts "He's not going to make it" and someone else (the cameraman?) says, "Oh yes he is" followed by laughter. Right after the plane leaves the ground, the cameraman (I assume) says roughly, "He's made it!" Right at the end they're just talking about how the plane's going to appear small in the video but that you'll be able to see it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've always felt that, while it is good data and worth considering, on certain takeoffs you basically accept the risk in certain situations. If you think about it, it doesn't make you any worse off than you would be in a single with an engine failure anyway.
Click to expand...
In a way you are worse off because you would have a whole lot more momentum in that airplane than in most singles. Although in this case it probably wouldn't matter. I don't know about the legal issues in other countries either or how that airplane was certified.
 
DJTorrente said:
Here's the plate for Courchevel (An old one, but the mountain doesn't move much). Its a 218ft elevation change over the runway.

4004296652_a9fbc961aa_b.jpg
Click to expand...

The French charts have way cooler parachutes then ours.:D
 
The nose gear on those things must take a pounding at the bottom of the 'ramp'. I imagine that is a healthy shove in the vertical direction. Wowsers
 
Everskyward said:
In a way you are worse off because you would have a whole lot more momentum in that airplane than in most singles. Although in this case it probably wouldn't matter. I don't know about the legal issues in other countries either or how that airplane was certified.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, correct. My point is more that you aren't worse off in terms of general possibilities of what could go wrong. Basically engine quits, you go down, you might crash into something.
 
If you're Part 91 and the boss says "go" , well I guess you go.
 
Lance F said:
If you're Part 91 and the boss says "go" , well I guess you go.
Click to expand...

That was the main reason I got hired for my flying jobs. "I know you don't cancel unless there's something really bad like the plane's on fire."
 
Blatham489 said:
Little surprised he continued straight out, big mountain on right wingtip, deep valley to left.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is applicable to a jet, but if wind goes uphill, you really need to hug the wall to obtain the benefit. I received demonstrations of that effect in mountain flying and it's fairly useful, even if looks odd, even dangerous to flatland pilot. Of course you never do that on the opposite side: not only the wind will push you down, but eddies are going to shear off the mountain and shake you badly, maybe even flip upside down.

In addition, if you ever want to turn around, for whatever reason, you don't want to start your turn in the center of the valley. And finally, traffic is easier to see and avoid this way, in part because others expect you to hug the upwind wall and not barrell down the center. Again it may not apply to departure from Curchevel, especially on IFR plan the jet was on, but generally don't be surprised if people do that.
 
It would be interesting to see a heart rate monitor readout as that pilot spooled up and took off.
 
rbridges said:
let me ask an ignorant question. Does a jet even notice 6500 ft elevation?
Click to expand...

Yes. In addition to the normal effects of density altitude that affects ALL airplanes, a jet engine is a normally aspirated engine. It suffers the same power loss issues that a recip does.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yes. In addition to the normal effects of density altitude that affects ALL airplanes, a jet engine is a normally aspirated engine. It suffers the same power loss issues that a recip does.
Click to expand...

thanks. Given their service ceilings, I didn't know if 6500 ft was noticeable.
 
rbridges said:
thanks. Given their service ceilings, I didn't know if 6500 ft was noticeable.
Click to expand...

And the wing notices just like any airplane. :) One day of sim training is always high and hot take offs, usually Amarillo at 90 degrees. :D And they are sluggish with not turning under those conditions. ;)
 
Greg Bockelman said:
a jet engine is a normally aspirated engine.
Click to expand...
Greg, I'm not sure I buy that statement. Seems to me there's a lot of mechanical compression going on before that air meets the JetA. What am I missing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top