The magic 7003' runway

timwinters

timwinters

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
13,732
Location
Conway, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LTD
It's recently dawned on me that there are a lot of 7003' runways around. (I usually don't pay too close of attention to runway lengths because anything over 2000' is just peachy)

Anyway...

That's definitely not some random number that someone would pull out of their butt but my internet searches haven't revealed the reason for this length...only more 7003' runways than I alredy knew about.

So why is this a magic number? Is it the shortest runway for a particular make/model?

???????

Okay, experts, show your smarts.
 
I am no expert but 5000' seems like another level of 'magic number' as well...It will be interesting to see what information is posted along these lines...
 
Kelvin said:
I am no expert but 5000' seems like another level of 'magic number' as well...It will be interesting to see what information is posted along these lines...
Click to expand...
Just a guess, but the roads over much of the midwest are 5283' (plus or minus) apart. 5000' fits nicely in that space and leaves a little to get across the electirc lines..

A diagonal for a square mile field is ~7471 feet...but it doesn't explain the 7003' mentioned in the original post (rather than 7000 even)
 
Kelvin said:
I am no expert but 5000' seems like another level of 'magic number' as well...It will be interesting to see what information is posted along these lines...
Click to expand...
Isn't really that 5001' is the magic number?


I see lots of runways at that length.

A runway that is over 5000 feet (5001 ft.) is considered an intermediate length runway in the eyes of many regulatory agencies.
 
Last edited:
Probably need to ask one of them thar engineers!
I'm sure many are designed to fit within an area. Some must be certain lengths to allow 135 jet ops; so, they do a foot or two over that.
There may be some construction considerations if pre-fab castings are used.
Military has minimums, for instance, T-38s can't land here at Addison, but 135 jets can.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Probably need to ask one of them thar engineers!
I'm sure many are designed to fit within an area. Some must be certain lengths to allow 135 jet ops; so, they do a foot or two over that.
There may be some construction considerations if pre-fab castings are used.
Military has minimums, for instance, T-38s can't land here at Addison, but 135 jets can.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I know the USAF had a requiremnet for the T-37 of runways over 5000 feet. That might be the reason for the 5001 lengths. Don't know about the 7003 number. Here's another, whats so magical about 150 wide runways. The're also usually 10000 feet or longer.
 
I've seen a jet freighter W&B that was left lying on the flight planning table that had a significant step in allowable take off weight for >5K feet.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
You mean other than the fact that they are practically a gift from God himself for student pilots and windy conditions?
Click to expand...

Student pilots I can see, but windy conditions? If you're drifting that much you should be landing at an airport where the runways are in-line with the wind.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Student pilots I can see, but windy conditions? If you're drifting that much you should be landing at an airport where the runways are in-line with the wind.
Click to expand...

Naw- that's for 'cross the runway take offs and landings

 
SteveinMichigan said:
I generally try to avoid runways <75' wide as much as possible. It's not as quite the hard and fast rule as the "no grass runways" policy but it is still a preference. I just like having that extra room.
Click to expand...
I find that if the runway is less than 40' wide, my landings are considerably better.....
 
sba55 said:
I find that if the runway is less than 40' wide, my landings are considerably better.....
Click to expand...

SteveinMichigan said:
Come again?
Click to expand...

It's true. You try harder because you HAVE to.

Of course, if you land on the centerline all the time, EVERY time, then it does not matter HOW wide the runway is. OR narrow.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
I generally try to avoid runways <75' wide as much as possible. It's not as quite the hard and fast rule as the "no grass runways" policy but it is still a preference. I just like having that extra room.
Click to expand...
If the runway is wide enough to fit my gear with a spare foot on either side I'd be fine landing on it. I would prefer there be an accurate centerline if this were the case though.

Greg Bockelman said:
It's true. You try harder because you HAVE to.
Click to expand...
Very true

Greg Bockelman said:
Of course, if you land on the centerline all the time, EVERY time, then it does not matter HOW wide the runway is. OR narrow.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not landing on the center-line is a waste of your "landing money". There are times it makes sense not to land on it -- but they are rare.
 
Of course, if you land on the centerline all the time, EVERY time, then it does not matter HOW wide the runway is. OR narrow.
Click to expand...
This is very true and what I shoot for, but I just prefer having that extra space because as the saying goes "**** happens".
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Come again?
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that he's concentrating more on staying on the centerline and everything else.

Originally Posted by Ted DuPuis
Student pilots I can see, but windy conditions? If you're drifting that much you should be landing at an airport where the runways are in-line with the wind.
Click to expand...

I was taught to, and still do, use those 150' wide runways to reduce the cross wind component on extremely windy days by landing diagonally on the runway. Almost 10 degrees of the crosswind component can be eliminated this way (in an airplane that can get down and stopped in less than 1000' which mine can).
 
Last edited:
My CFI told me that professionals use the center line but I was welcome to use it as well....

The point about narrrower runways is very accurate...
 
135 ops are based on balanced field lengths, and vary depending on the type. A Citation-III can't use "normal" takeoff flaps (20) on hot days at KADS, but must use (7) instead. Lots of hoop-jumping in the BFL numbers.

Dave Siciliano said:
Probably need to ask one of them thar engineers!
I'm sure many are designed to fit within an area. Some must be certain lengths to allow 135 jet ops; so, they do a foot or two over that.
There may be some construction considerations if pre-fab castings are used.
Military has minimums, for instance, T-38s can't land here at Addison, but 135 jets can.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Not so mysterious, when you send out precisely 1000 loads of aggregate to be laid at the standard 4.5" depth covered with 1500 loads of hot Georgia ashphalt and rolled by rollers using 4500 gallons of diesel fuel it results in ..

...wait for it...

a 7003 foot runway.

Easy!
 
sba55 said:
I find that if the runway is less than 40' wide, my landings are considerably better.....
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
It's true. You try harder because you HAVE to.
Click to expand...
I learned how to fly at RAF Lakenheath. The runway is 9000 feet long and 150 feet wide. I think Ron is familiar with this runway. It even had barriers at each end that could be raised to help stop aircraft that had break issues.

When I started flying in America and had to land on a 3000' x 40' runway I thought it just couldn't be done. It was mostly because I had so much extra room to deal with that I did not have to try very hard to stay aligned with the centerline. My landing got better really quick on the narrower, shorter runways i had to deal with in the US.
 
when i taught students to fly from 2400 X 24 they solo'd just as quick as the students on 5000 X 150. But I wouldnt send most of the 5000 X 150 student solo to the 2400 X 24 airport.
 
mikea said:
Not so mysterious, when you send out precisely 1000 loads of aggregate to be laid at the standard 4.5" depth covered with 1500 loads of hot Georgia ashphalt and rolled by rollers using 4500 gallons of diesel fuel it results in ..

...wait for it...

a 7003 foot runway.

Easy!
Click to expand...

If what you said is true, then you, sir, have truly cracked the code. As a bonus, it actually makes sense.
 
Yeah I got my private in Oshkosh on 8002' x 150'. So when we flew into Brennand (79C) to get some cheap gas I danm near freaked out. 2450' X 20' of crumbling concrete, blacktop, dirt, and grass with trees on the north end and a silo on the south. It's since been repaved and made somewhat more civilized.
 
vontresc said:
Yeah I got my private in Oshkosh on 8002' x 150'. So when we flew into Brennand (79C) to get some cheap gas I danm near freaked out. 2450' X 20' of crumbling concrete, blacktop, dirt, and grass with trees on the north end and a silo on the south. It's since been repaved and made somewhat more civilized.
Click to expand...

When every flight starting with your demo flight is from a 3270 foot x 40 foot runway with a launching bump at 800 feet, it's just home. I didn't know it was unusual until much later when I told pilots where I flew and they clued me in.

Landing on 12000 x 150 foot runways took me some getting used to, like when I had to power up to taxi 1500 feet ahead to the first turnoff at IND.
 
vontresc said:
Yeah I got my private in Oshkosh on 8002' x 150'. So when we flew into Brennand (79C) to get some cheap gas I danm near freaked out. 2450' X 20' of crumbling concrete, blacktop, dirt, and grass with trees on the north end and a silo on the south. It's since been repaved and made somewhat more civilized.
Click to expand...

Back in the olden days, the old man kept the Cessna 120 at what is now Oakland Troy (VLL) - at the time it had a diagonal runway that was in about the same shape, but a bit longer. So when my brother thought I needed to actually learn to fly so he took me over to New Hudson (now Oakland Southwest Y47) because they had a nice new well marked reasonably sized runway - (probably the same as the current 3148X40 not counting displaced thresholds) to learn to take off / land. No problem. Nice big well marked strip. What could be hard about landing there?

Some time later, when I was off at school, another guy in the same dorm was working on his private out of Ann Arbor airport (ARB 3505X75) - one day he comes in to the room kinda excited, kinda ****ed -

"Just passed my check ride - but that examiner was a real pain in the ass".

"Cool - what was the problem with the examiner"

"Well I was doing OK until he had me go to this crummy little airport with this tiny runway and expected me to land there..."

He goes on and on complaining about this airport and how small it was and how he failed to get it down the first two or three tries, and the examiner said "land or fail" and it wasn't fair that he had to land at this small airport and, and, and...

So, the whole time, I'm thinking "where did they go?" finally I ask. "New Hudson" was the reply.

I never did ask him to take me for a ride...
 
gprellwitz said:
This is a good place to learn:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDTG
2634' x 21', but it's centered on a 100' turf strip, so if the student messes up, it's alright.
Click to expand...
'round here thats a rental aggreement violation. (landing on unpaved runways)

I did my PP from a 5000'+ runway. When my cfi took me to another airport with a 2400' rwy it looked so short that I said "So I need to do a short field here?":D
 
Pi1otguy said:
'round here thats a rental aggreement violation. (landing on unpaved runways)

I did my PP from a 5000'+ runway. When my cfi took me to another airport with a 2400' rwy it looked so short that I said "So I need to do a short field here?":D
Click to expand...
But it's not an unpaved runway!:no: It's a 21' wide paved runway.:thumbsup:
 
Pi1otguy said:
'round here thats a rental aggreement violation. (landing on unpaved runways)

I did my PP from a 5000'+ runway. When my cfi took me to another airport with a 2400' rwy it looked so short that I said "So I need to do a short field here?":D
Click to expand...

You should see my CFI land in his 172. He gets stopped and makes the first turn off on the FBO end of our 3270 foot runway. Gotta be 1200 feet, tops.
 
Landing on a 10,000' runway has it's pluses and minuses. Plus: plenty of runway to play with, perfecting short field landing so I don't have to taxi back for 20 mins. Minus: I get sloppy with so much concrete to play with. I go out to some smaller, shorter paved and gravel strips to try to keep sharp.
 
You guys out west crack me up with what you think is a short runway. On the other hand, us east coast flatlanders generally don't have much of a clue about the real issue with density altitude either so maybe you need 5000' to get a 172 down and stopped :)

I did my primary training at a runway that is 2400x30; power lines at one end and really tall trees at the other.
 
PittsDriver said:
You guys out west crack me up with what you think is a short runway. On the other hand, us east coast flatlanders generally don't have much of a clue about the real issue with density altitude either so maybe you need 5000' to get a 172 down and stopped :)
Click to expand...

Naw, I can get a 172 down and stopped in 500' just like the next pilot. Getting it back up again, now that's the trick. Try a max gross 160 hp 172 with a cruise prop on a 100 degree August afternoon in Denver. It might be a few thousand feet of taxi before departure to a slow, Cub like, climb.:D

Even the t-Dak can take a lot of runway when it's hot. Keeping it light and using flaps buys a lot of real estate....but if ya gotta go heavy then that 8,000' strip looks just about right.
 
mikea said:
You should see my CFI land in his 172. He gets stopped and makes the first turn off on the FBO end of our 3270 foot runway. Gotta be 1200 feet, tops.
Click to expand...

He should be able to do it in half that.
 
EdFred said:
He should be able to do it in half that.
Click to expand...

He does. I think I guessed the distance wrong.


On my best landing I'm at least 500 feet beyond that. I think I've made that first turn only once or twice, but I'm not flying a 172 with 40 degree flaps.
 
I learned at a 5000x100 runway. First time my CFI took me to a 2500 x 40' runway = "What the hell is that a sidewalk??" and of course I got the response "just land the plane" LOL

Luckily I had a great CFI and we went to every airport we could so I got a lot of great experience at "different" places.
 
PittsDriver said:
I did my primary training at a runway that is 2400x30; power lines at one end and really tall trees at the other.
Click to expand...

Around here that's called get'in sued. Besides, we have enough fun dodging gulls, crows, pigeons, coyotes, & stray dogs without them pesky trees.

On the other hand, us east coast flatlanders generally don't have much of a clue about the real issue with density altitude either so maybe you need 5000' to get a 172 down and stopped :)
Click to expand...
5000' lets u roll, rotate hear a thud or door/hatch open, take a vote on "should I stop?", then land on the same run. Under 2400' the accelerate-stop option starts to suck.

Try L35. At 6752' @ 100+* heat you pucker up the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top