SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:06 am

I'm a student researching local demand for an airport.

Basically, I am in Japan and we have an island that is only accessible by ship. However locals want an airport.

There's 2 problems
1. The island is small and mountainous so there's very limited options on location
2. Its also a world heritage site, so there is both international and domestic resistance from environmental groups.

There was a proposal in the 80s but it got shot down due to environmental concerns.
A more recent proposal requested a 1200 meter runway to be built over an abandoned Imperial Japanese runway. but this runway is 800 m and would require 400m of extension into the sea.

I'm wondering a compromise solution could be done. using the existing 800m runway and limiting any further extension.

I heard the new ATR 42 could land on 800m, but I think there needs to be more length for safety right?

does this small runway limit things to small propeller airplanes?

Then there's the environmental side too (invasive species, etc). This seems to be more of a management issue. Does anyone know of any airports that do good cleaning of aircraft when landing?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:33 am

1200 meters if fine for small propeller aircraft with a reasonable pilot on a reasonable day. I've never heard of an airliner operating into a 1200 meter runway. Maybe someone does somewhere, but it's quite rare.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 3759
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:07 am

Saab 340 might be able to do that
 
ryan78
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:09 am

The runway at Toronto Billy Bishop Island Airport is 1216m long and there are a steady stream of Q400's from Porter and Air Canada. However when the weather gets bad, a lot of the time those airplanes end up diverting to Toronto Pearson YYZ. Of course the departure is straight over water and not mountainous terrain so that might play into it, YTZ also has EMAS at both ends of the runway, which adds to the ASDA and improves takeoff performance numbers. Rio Santos Dumont is only 1260m and they see regular 737 and A319 service but that is an extreme case and those flights are usually extremely weight restricted.
 
cuban8
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:21 am

I can not comment on the environmental issues. As other posters have mentioned, the Dash 8 has quite good capabilities. Widerøe has been flying the Dash 8 to short runways in mountainous areas for decades. To mention a few of their destinations over the years: Narvik, ENNK 965m; Svolvær ENSH 946m, Sørkjosen ENSR 880m. Check Widerøe and Northern Norway for further examples.
When business goes to hell, you get rid of three things. Your private jet, your yacht and your mistress..........and most importantly in that order.
~ Russian Billionaire ~
 
HALOGG
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:44 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:54 am

The Kapalua Airport (PHJH / JHM) on Maui has a 3000ft. (914m) runway and is 256ft. (78m) above sea level. Similar to your situation it is also hemmed in on both side geographically by a gulch. It was originally built in the 80's by Hawaiian Airlines to serve the growing hotel and tourist industry and was originally served by Hawaiian's DHC-7 (Dash 7) until the early 90's when Hawaiian moved to an all jet fleet. Today the largest aircraft that operates to JHM is the Ohana by Hawaiian ATR 42-500. Although it does have some weight restrictions when departing. Ohana by Hawaiian also operates to Molokai (PHMK / MKK) which has a 4,494ft. (1,370m) runway and Lanai 5,000ft. (1,524m) with no weight restrictions taking off.

Other short runway airports in Hawaii include Hana (PHHN / HNM) a 3,600ft. (1099m), Kalaupapa 2,700ft. (823m), and Waimea 5,197ft. (1,584m) operated by Mokulele airlines with Cessna 208 Caravans. I'm not sure if this affects you in your situation, but Mokulele's Cessna Caravans are limited to be within glide distance from shore which is why they do not operate to the island of Kauai.

This video explains Mokulele's single engine operation over water - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOiooypGCqM

In terms of the environmental side, the State of Hawaii requires all flights arriving to Hawaii from the US mainland to declare all plant or animals carried by requiring all passengers to fill out agricultural forms as well as screening all baggage of plants or animals. International flights go through the normal process of going through customs which already screen for plants and animals on arrival.

I believe when it comes to cleaning of the aircraft, all waste from international flights such as food or trash is burned to prevent possible spread of invasive species. Other countries such as Australia and New Zealand use an insecticide/disinfectant that is sprayed in the passenger cabin before allowing passengers to deplane that supposedly kills any possible insects.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3108
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:01 am

800 meters is quite long enough for prop operations, planes like the Dash 8 or ATR-42 can land there without any problems. If it needs to be, a 400 meter runway would be enough for a DHC-6. That's the length of the runway in Saba and it often sees Twin Otters.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:11 am

Antonov has a history of manufacturing overpowered, high-performance aircraft in this category: both An-24 (out of production) and An-72/74 officially need 810 m runways; An-140 (out of current production, but can be restarted) needs 630 m runways.
An-132 (in development; prototype flying), while optimized for cargo operations, probably can be adapted to transport passengers (~50) -- and this is a development of An-32, overpowered version of An24/26.I don't have its runway requirements at my fingertips, but should be relatively short.
So yes, there are options.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:21 am

Well, we need some more details on the airports environment (elevation / max daytime temps / distance to be covered by the prospected route / etc.)
Since this island is apparently small and mountainous the options regarding aircraft will be quite limited.
I´m not sure if an extension of the runway would be needed immediately.
Simply because local demand will be limited.
So, looking into a 19-seater like LET-410 / Do 228 / (Beech 1900D to a lesser degree) would be smart.
Aircraft of that size generally do well with 800m runways leaving sufficient safety margins unless high obstacles like hills/buildings near the runway obstruct approach/departure paths.
Next to this the size of such aircraft will help keeping visitor numbers under control which might be a good argument to obtain consent by environmentalists.
Since you are in Japan I´d suggest you take a closer look at New Central Air based at Tokyo-Chofu.
They do operate scheduled flights from Chofu airport to some of the Izu-Islands ("Tokyo-Islands") with a fleet of Do 228 in order to maintain connectivity for the local islanders.
The advantage of the Do 228 would be that it is already operated in Japan but the LET-410 could be an alternative (which one is better economically depends on exact conditions).
Both aircaft are still in production and can be acquired brand new if neccessary.

If a larger aircraft is needed / wanted there is actually no 30-seater in production and on the secondhand market suitable aircraft are in limited imited numbers already.
Generally suitable are:
1) Dash 8-200 / 36-seater (-200 version is preferable over the-100 because of its hot and high capability but slightly more expensive to operate)
2) Dash-7 / 50-seater (no need to extend the 800m runway but expensive to operate)
3) Dash 8-300 or ATR-42 / 50-seater

Those mentioned under 3) likely require a runway extension to at least 1000m and only the ATR-42 is still in production.

I suggest you figure out the exact requirements and maybe simultanously inquire with NCA since they already have sufficient experience with such operations (and environmental issues !).
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:43 am

kitplane01 wrote:
1200 meters if fine for small propeller aircraft with a reasonable pilot on a reasonable day. .


1200m is enough to accommodate most propeller aircraft, in most weather conditions with a reasonable pilot.
It`s really quite long.....


No Tax On Rotax
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
HALOGG
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:44 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:42 am

MHG wrote:
Well, we need some more details on the airports environment (elevation / max daytime temps / distance to be covered by the prospected route / etc.)
Since this island is apparently small and mountainous the options regarding aircraft will be quite limited.
I´m not sure if an extension of the runway would be needed immediately.
Simply because local demand will be limited.


From what I can figure out, is that they are refering to Chichijima in the Ogasawara Islands about 600miles (1,000km) south of Tokyo which is a designated world heritage site. That means it would be in a tropical environment with the airport at sea level as they know an extension would require extending it into the sea. Currently its only connection with the outside world is a once weekly ferry to Tokyo.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chichi-jima
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:09 pm

Some excellent replies here from HALOGG and MHG.

Moving one step beyond those, would it be possible to build a runway that is all or partially "off shore?" That is, could land be re-claimed - be built up above the water?

Or would seaplane service be an alternative?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:29 pm

SuperAzusa wrote:
I'm a student researching local demand for an airport.

Basically, I am in Japan and we have an island that is only accessible by ship. However locals want an airport.

There's 2 problems
1. The island is small and mountainous so there's very limited options on location
2. Its also a world heritage site, so there is both international and domestic resistance from environmental groups.

There was a proposal in the 80s but it got shot down due to environmental concerns.
A more recent proposal requested a 1200 meter runway to be built over an abandoned Imperial Japanese runway. but this runway is 800 m and would require 400m of extension into the sea.

I'm wondering a compromise solution could be done. using the existing 800m runway and limiting any further extension.

I heard the new ATR 42 could land on 800m, but I think there needs to be more length for safety right?

does this small runway limit things to small propeller airplanes?

Then there's the environmental side too (invasive species, etc). This seems to be more of a management issue. Does anyone know of any airports that do good cleaning of aircraft when landing?


Maybe worth looking at the SYD-LDH flight which is operated into a fairly short remote runway (about 900m).

From what I can gather they are looking at building the runway on the former Susaki Airfield from WW2 which i understand is not part of the designated world heritage area. The area was bombed significantly during WW2.

The Islands are semi famous as that is where former president George Bush was shot down in WW2.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:51 pm

HALOGG wrote:
MHG wrote:
Well, we need some more details on the airports environment (elevation / max daytime temps / distance to be covered by the prospected route / etc.)
Since this island is apparently small and mountainous the options regarding aircraft will be quite limited.
I´m not sure if an extension of the runway would be needed immediately.
Simply because local demand will be limited.


From what I can figure out, is that they are refering to Chichijima in the Ogasawara Islands about 600miles (1,000km) south of Tokyo which is a designated world heritage site. That means it would be in a tropical environment with the airport at sea level as they know an extension would require extending it into the sea. Currently its only connection with the outside world is a once weekly ferry to Tokyo.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chichi-jima

If that is the case the island is quite remote and the aircraft options I mentioned (D28 and L4T) are likely not suitable to cover the distance to the "mainland".
They would need refuelling on the island since their range is not sufficient for flying both ways in one go (at least if they want a useful payload ...)
Additionally ticket prices would be prohibitive since we´re talking about 3 hrs flying time each way.
Both aircraft types have a cruising speed of about 200-220 kt only ...
So, ATR42 or Dash 8 would be much more suitable but the distance is still beyond "comfortable" even though they fly faster (cruise speed ~ 260-280 kt).

Considering all this I can see one viable option:
Forget about a direct connection to the mainland and establish a service to Hachijojima (HAC) which is served by ANA A320 from Tokyo.
But it´s still about 700km/440mi to HAC which translates into ~ 2hrs flight time on a turboprop.
FlyHossD wrote:
Some excellent replies here from HALOGG and MHG.

Moving one step beyond those, would it be possible to build a runway that is all or partially "off shore?" That is, could land be re-claimed - be built up above the water?

Or would seaplane service be an alternative?

Since there already is a dedicated seaplane facility (albeit military) I can imagine that would be a possibility.
But I don´t know whether JASDF would be willing to allow civilian flights to use the facility.
... and if we talk about seaplanes it certainly wouldn´t be those types most of us have in mind (like small single engine a/c or even the well known DHC-6 Twin Otter)
The Beriev Be-200 would be perfect but ...
I don´t see that happening anytime soon no matter which way the islanders go.
Maybe JASDF would be able to offer limited seats on their flights but there are too many "if´s" and "maybe´s" to believe it´s a realistic option.
Despite the fact that this would certainly be the solution with the least environmental impact of all possibilities.
That might be a driving argument for negotiations.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
FlyingViking
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:12 am

600 mile trip and no near alternates? I assume a minimum 1200 mile range would be realistically needed. So for Turbo Props the two that comes to mind would be the Saab 2000 and the CN 235.Whats the actual range for the Q400? For Jets. Im thinking the Avro RJ70. If only an 800 meter runway, I assume that they would all be weight restricted. A combi configuration might be needed for passengers and cargo outbound, I assume just passengers inbound to Tokyo. That would take care of the weight restriction. I assume not to many are traveling. By all means that could be a fun flight.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:16 am

Hi guys. Thanks for the reply

Here are a few updates!

Yes this is Chichijima, which is about a 25 hour boat ride from Tokyo. It sits midway between Tokyo and Saipan (US Marianas).
I am actually here right now doing field observations.

The 800m abandoned WW2 era air field that was proposed as an airport site, has some very strong winds. Looking at some historical records, several pilots died attempting to land here, which is probably why they abandoned it.

For extreme emergencies, there is a self defense force base here that has a helipad. It takes 1 hour to the next big airport, which it seems to be Iwoto (or Iwo Jima to the rest of the world). Unfortunately using Iwo Jima as the main airport (then helicopter) is not possible as it is a military exclusive. maybe one day it can open up to civilian operations?

Secondly they also occasionally use a ShinMaywa US-2 boat plane.
Do you think this is commercially viable for airlines? so far its strictly for military use although the manufacturer has diagrams on how it would look if converted into passenger configuration.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18826
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:34 am

FlyingViking wrote:
600 mile trip and no near alternates? I assume a minimum 1200 mile range would be realistically needed. So for Turbo Props the two that comes to mind would be the Saab 2000 and the CN 235.Whats the actual range for the Q400? For Jets. Im thinking the Avro RJ70. If only an 800 meter runway, I assume that they would all be weight restricted. A combi configuration might be needed for passengers and cargo outbound, I assume just passengers inbound to Tokyo. That would take care of the weight restriction. I assume not to many are traveling. By all means that could be a fun flight.


No need for 1200 mile range. Use Island Reserve rules, avoiding the need to file an alternate back on the mainland altogether.
- Forecast weather conditions ½ hour before to 2 hours after planned arrival shall be at or above minima for filing as an alternate.
- Alternate and reserve fuel are replaced with 2 hours of holding fuel at cruise consumption above the destination.

SuperAzusa wrote:
H

Secondly they also occasionally use a ShinMaywa US-2 boat plane.
Do you think this is commercially viable for airlines? so far its strictly for military use although the manufacturer has diagrams on how it would look if converted into passenger configuration.


Assuming it has the range (I'm not sure), you'd likely be much better off with one or more Twin Otters on floats, as used extensively in the Maldives.

Image
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:27 am

I understand that Iwo Jima is not availlable as a regular airport.
The island is flat like a pancake and just roughly twice the size of the runway (2600m+overrun) - and nothing else is there aside from the military installations -
I doubt that JASDF will ever allow regular civilian ops there - they may allow the airfield to be used as alternate for flightplan calculations - but that´s it.
Iwo Jima is about 260km towards Tokyo from Chichi Jima.

Regarding the abandoned runway I couldn´t figure out where it actually was located (using Google Earth) ...
Still, I consider it as the most viable option.
Since I don´t know the immediate surronding terrain I can´t say whether it would be viable for commercial ops.
Principally an extension into the ocean is possible but expensive to a degree that I doubt the government would be willing to spend.
Saab 2000 and Dash 8-400 could be an alternative in theorie but need a longer runway (at least 1200m). 800m are not sufficient.

The only aircraft I consider as - maybe - suitable is the Dornier 328 with its short field performance.
To give you an idea:
Where I live (near Mannheim, Germany) there´s Mannheim airport (MHG/EDFM - hence my nickname ...) whose runway is only 1066m long.
The only aircraft operated here commercially is the Do328 because it can safely cope with the short runway and obstacles at both ends of the runway.
So, if at Chichi Jima approach/departure paths are without obstacles this aircraft might be the solution. But 800m remains "tight" IMHO.
To give you an idea here´s performance data: http://fairchild-dornier.com/resources/ ... page+2.pdf
But even the Do328 would have to be operated with slight payload restriction for Tokyo flights on the TYO-bound flights.
Which makes a connecting solution via HAC (distance is 300km less than to TYO) much more solid and avoids payload restrictions.
The Dornier´s range is sufficient for HAC-Chichi Jima-HAC with only slight payload reduction (28pax instead of 32pax) in case no refuelling at Chichi Jima would be availlable.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:04 pm

^ thanks as always for the reply! I will mention some of these plane options in a meeting with the town (they probably looked at it)

As for the location and condition, google: 洲崎飛行場
and then click images

it will show you a map, location, and many pics of its current condition
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:28 pm

@ starlionblue
@ SuperAzusa
I had thought about the Twin Otter before but was a bit hesitant to suggest it because I was not sure about its range capabilities.
Now that I checked the data availlable on the Viking website it seems it could do such a service - at least in fixed gear config although I don´t know how much restriction is there for such a distance with full Payload (considering the 89gallon long range fuel tank is installed in addition to the 378 gallon standard tanks)
In case the "abandoned" runway gets reactivated there would neither be the need to harden the surface nor extend the runwaylenght as the Twin Otter can easily handle gravel and / or short strips.

If a Twin Otter with floats is used there´s obviously no need for a runway but the downside will be lower cruise speed / higher fuel burn / less payload due to higher empty weight / shorter range (I don´t have any figures for a version with floats, though).

Again, no matter what type of aircraft will be used a link to / via Hachijojima (HAC) is in my opinion the most reasonable solution unless we want to throw economics completely "out of the window".

... and finally: expect serving the island will become an expensive operation no matter what type of aircraft or type of operation (float or runway use).
I don´t see flights operating without subsidies.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
rbretas
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:21 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:44 am

As @ryan78 said, SDU is a very busy airport with 1300 and 1200m runways. 737-700, A319, and E-jets operate regularly there. A320 and 737-800 with short field performance packages can also use the airport. The distances between Ogasawara and Tokyo/Osaka are the same as some flights operating from SDU, but I don't know about alternates.
 
FlyingViking
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:30 am

Starlionblue wrote:
FlyingViking wrote:
600 mile trip and no near alternates? I assume a minimum 1200 mile range would be realistically needed. So for Turbo Props the two that comes to mind would be the Saab 2000 and the CN 235.Whats the actual range for the Q400? For Jets. Im thinking the Avro RJ70. If only an 800 meter runway, I assume that they would all be weight restricted. A combi configuration might be needed for passengers and cargo outbound, I assume just passengers inbound to Tokyo. That would take care of the weight restriction. I assume not to many are traveling. By all means that could be a fun flight.


No need for 1200 mile range. Use Island Reserve rules, avoiding the need to file an alternate back on the mainland altogether.
- Forecast weather conditions ½ hour before to 2 hours after planned arrival shall be at or above minima for filing as an alternate.
- Alternate and reserve fuel are replaced with 2 hours of holding fuel at cruise consumption above the destination.

Island Reserve Rules would make sense for a Twin Otter operation. With 2 hours of reserve fuel upon arrival over the island, a high speed turboprop would have the fuel/range to make it back to the mainland anyway.

I doubt an amphibian Twin Otter would have the range to make it to the island non stop. A wheel equipped Twin Otter should be able to make it with about 10 passengers. Here is one for everyone: How about the Trislander? Apparently they have a range of about 850 nmi. but 3 piston engines over the middle of the Pacific? Idn. A Q400 would be my chosen airplane. With a (heavy) subsidy of course.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:57 am

I want to go back to the type of aircrafts that are available.

Boat planes - i.e ShinMaywa US2, or the Beriev Be-200 I assume, are very high maintenance and expensive to run right? let alone convert them into civilian passenger aircraft. I know the US2 and Be-200 have mock ups or drawings of a passenger lay out but I assume no passenger version has always been built?

Smaller sea planes - Twin Otter, more commercially viable but I assume they still have the same issues with maintenance (corrosion) but less so with actual flight costs (due to being smaller).

how about large helicopters - i.e. the S-92, Chinook, Mi-26 (well Russian might be politically unacceptable in Japan), etc? will they have enough range to reach the airport in Hachijojima (about 700km or 384nm)?

land based STOL aircraft - i.e. the Antonovs such as the 72/74, etc (not sure of Ukrainian is politically acceptable), turbo props?
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:42 am

"boat" planes may be a mid term solution but I don't see that happening because the ones availlable are just tioo big and expensive to operate.
Russian planes are obviously out of question for political reasons. Ukraine planes mught be ok but there's another problem in that reliable spare parts supply is not availlable (this applies for Russian planes, too.)
Some helicopters could do one-way from HAC but need refueling for the return flight.
But using helicopters for such a distance is also a exoensivw solution. One advantage may be that helicopters may fly in difficult weather conditions when fixed wing aircraft cannot land/take off. Remember, e.g. sea planes have certain limits regarding wave heights ...
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:56 pm

Some additional thoughts:

I suggest the local community stays realistic.
After all we are talking about a community of only around 2500 people and "a handful tourists" ...
Can´t imagine government would support a runway extension (a very expensive one that would be - even if it is only 200m)
The existing 800m are sufficient for Do228 and DHC-6 "Twin Otter".
I strongly recommend to contact New Central Air (NCA) who already have experience with the Do228 which I consider the most suitable aircraft due to higher cruise speed (Do228 220kt vs. the Twin Otter´s180kt)
If - after some time passenger numbers show demand exceeding the 19-seater capacity then it would be reasonable to consider larger aircraft (which require substantial investment in the existing airport infrastructure)

Btw. the relevant helicopter types I checked have a maximum range of about 1000km without reserve which is not possible to consider. With a reserve of 30 mins the range is reduced to 800km.
It will be neccessary to have refueling capability at the airport and at least basic lighting installed.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:40 pm

^ Thanks! I am meeting the town office tomorrow so I'll mention some of the things I've learned here.

as for helicopters, you don't think 800km is enough to reach HAC (Hachijojima) then transfer to a 737 to Tokyo or Osaka?
 
doug_or
Posts: 3226
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:29 pm

SuperAzusa wrote:
^ Thanks! I am meeting the town office tomorrow so I'll mention some of the things I've learned here.

as for helicopters, you don't think 800km is enough to reach HAC (Hachijojima) then transfer to a 737 to Tokyo or Osaka?


Helicopters are incredibly expensive to operate. That's why you rarely see them operated as commercial passenger transports.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:50 pm

MHG wrote:
The existing 800m are sufficient for Do228 and DHC-6 "Twin Otter".


There is no existing 800 m strip, that was built in WW2 and heavily bombed.

There is many proposals for different runways there, the longest proposed is 1750 m.

The 228 and twin otter are totally unsuitable for the task, they do not have the range.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:02 am

@ zeke
I included those two types only in reference to a possible reactivation/rebuild of the old runway wihout extension.
They are obviously not the optimum solution but could do it.
You are right helicopters are even less suitable for such a.distance.
I simply put together all theoretical options.
It will depend on whether and how much authorities are willing to invest into neccessary infrastructure.

My personal favourite solution would be a 1200m runway to accomodate modern "high speed" turboprops like the Dornier328 or Saab2000 or Dash 8-400 or ATR-42/72 (although the latter ones are less "high speed" but more economical)
I don't see the need for a longer runway because I don't see the demand for a B737/A320 sized aircraft.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:22 am

alright I did a lot of work talking to various officials and local people about the topic.
support is about half-half. However if we make the plane aimed primarily for locals, the support seems to shift to 90%.

The last mayor of Tokyo, Ishihara, was against it. But Koike (the current one) wants a 1200m runway to commemorate the 50 year return to Japan.

But due to some strong pro-environmental side, a compromise solution could be a 800m or 1000m runway, to reduce the need to extend the current site. Susaki is the only possible area as its the only area that falls outside the world heritage zone and is flat enough for a runway.

Thanks for mentioning Hachijojima as a transfer point. Most people here wanted Ioto (Iwo Jima), but that may be difficult as it is military only. Surprisingly, not many here thought of Hachijojima (HAC)! However some of the pro-airport people are saying its either all the way to Tokyo or none at all. A lot of this is due to hospital issues lacking on the island.

Passenger capacity: they prefer 30-50 people
Frequency: once per day
Funding: Koike is proposing a Tokyo wide tax to pay for it.
Use: a lot of support for villager only because they don't want more tourists coming. although there are some who are open to some tourists riding it in order to make up costs. they know it will need subsidies from the government

too bad the An-72 is getting old and is Ukrainian. When I mentioned its take off characteristics, a lot of people here opened their eyes with a big smile. Then when I said.. its Ukrainian.. its like I shot down their hopes and dreams. Everyone realizing the country is in a middle of a war and spares may be difficult. There were a lot of comments along the lines of 'why cant Japan make something similar, we have the technology'

There was a lot of love for the Osprey. but it seems unlikely it will be used beyond military applications. and I don't think its passenger capacity will be as big as some think it will be. but there is sure a lot of interest in tilt rotors.

Is there any site where I can get information of operating costs and acquisition costs of various aircraft? Im thinking of calculating some kind of 5 or 10 year total operational costs (includes cost of aircraft and 10 years of operation).
 
rbretas
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:21 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:01 am

@SuperAzusa If you are allowed to give your sincere opinions on the subject... are the intentions of Tokyo and Ogasawara the same?

I find hard to believe Tokyo would invest money in that if not mostly for tourism, even if they are not saying that directly. I understand the issue of having no easy access to a large hospital, but we are talking about a country in which the city and province governments have many workers with the only task of "convincing" (mostly coercing with emotional blackmail) people in isolated areas to move to a larger city so the government doesn't need to keep using money to maintain access infrastructure to their houses. I have seen that while living in countryside Japan for many years, and also a strong sense from the "city people" of not wanting to subsidize small villages. At the same time the main reason for subsidizing airports and roads (like free toll roads) in countryside Japan is to increase tourism. I believe this mentality will not be different for an island.

So, in the end, it is about finding the cheaper option: convincing people to move out (specially the elders), building and operating the airport, or making the island more convenient by improve the infrastructure (doubtful as in most isolated places the population is decreasing fast). There may be strong political reasons to keep the island populated, but increasing tourism seems to be the only one that would give some monetary return and probably have even more international impact.

Finally, I can't see the government operating an aircraft by themselves and neither a commercial airline buying a one of a type model just to serve this island. They will have to find something that is already operated by ANA/JAL/IBEX (or even New Central Airservice and other smaller companies) and focus on how much those companies would require in subsidies to keep this flight going. So it would be better to meet with these airlines and check their requirements for an airport. That should be the main factor in the calculation.

P.S.: Osprey? Really? Wheren't they just being nice or are people that desperate for an air connection to "mainland"? No Japanese in sound mind I know would ever ride an Osprey.
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:20 am

@rbretas
I fully agree to your comment.
Since environmentalists seem to play a significant role in the decision making process reactivation and limited extension of the runway seems to be the most reasonable approach
Osprey ?
Does not meet civil aviation requirements and is extremely expensive to operate.
As I said before the cheapest solution (in terms of investment into infrastructure) would be a link to HAC with Do228.
Next level would be the slightly extended 800m runway (maybe additional 200m) and a direct link to Tokyo by Do328 which always requires refueling at Chichi Jima (same applies to Do228 flights to HAC).
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:18 pm

Thanks for the constant replies and feed back.
My area is more on the policy and legal side rather than the aviation side. Also most on the island don't know much on aviation either (a lot is just basic information or stuff decided by Tokyo) which is why I came here.

To answer a few questions:
Tokyo vs Islanders: For Tokyo it really depends who is in charge. The previous governor (the controversial Ishihara) surprisingly fell in love with the islands and established a bunch of environmental protection laws (there were very limited before him). The current governor (Koike) has made it her goal to build an airport. She wanted 1200m but is willing to compromise. I don't know how the average Tokyo person feels about paying for taxes for the islands which limits the number of visitors to protect its environment.

The islanders are split as I mentioned.

My own personal feelings: I think they do need some kind of airport, or upgrade their hospital. There's some serious health limitations on that island because their current hospital can't even operate at full capacity. Even their official website shows an appeal by a doctor hinting at a desire for an airport.

One thing that surprised me is that while most of rural Japan is aging, this island has quite a lot of young people. high birth rate (for Japan).

As for Ospreys: the islanders are not Okinawans (which has had unfortunate incidents in the past with US bases). They're familiar with the protests elsewhere in Japan over the reliability of the Osprey, but seem willing to risk it if it can bring the ability to provide air transportation without building a large runway. I know such military aircraft are costly to run, and unlikely to be converted into a civilian passenger aircraft any time soon (if at all). I recall Augusta Westland has two similar tilt rotors planned, a smaller 9-10 seater, and a larger one that's supposed to be unveiled in 2020 (but I assume both will be more costly to operate than a conventional plane, and the latter 2020 plane may never leave the drawing board).

I know costs/expense are often mentioned here but I need help gauging the extent of operation costs. I assume it would be something like this (from most expensive to cheap) Amphibious plane US-2 > Osprey > future tilt rotors? > large helicopter like S-92 > An-72 > Bombardier Dash 8 > Do 228

although on the other hand, as far as the airport goes.. 1200m runway > 1000 > 800 > heliport > sea for boat plane

on a related note, anyone know of any way I can get data on operating costs of these airplanes?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:36 pm

With all due respect the main reason the runway is on the agenda is to provide a means for people on the island to get access to the same level of medical care as others in Japan.

The runway needs to support aeromedical equipped business jets as that is what would be required to get a sick person to Tokyo in a reasonable amount of time.

Depending on the nature of the injury (eg eye, head, stomach) aircraft may neeed to fly at lower altitudes than normal to maintain a sea level cabin altitude.

The primary sizing of the runway should be fior aeromedical use, the commercial aspects will follow. A runway sized for aeromedical use should be able to support DHC-8, ATR, Airbus A220.

A DO228 is totally unsuitable, so is an 800 m long runway.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:48 pm

zeke wrote:
The primary sizing of the runway should be fior aeromedical use, the commercial aspects will follow. A runway sized for aeromedical use should be able to support DHC-8, ATR, Airbus A220.

A DO228 is totally unsuitable, so is an 800 m long runway.


How about the upcoming ATR-42-600S which is intended for short runways?
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:17 pm

I was going to suggest considering Nanto (or is it Ogichi?) just south of the main island. But after reading reviews, this island is too pristine and precious to destroy for an airstrip.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:49 pm

zeke wrote:
With all due respect the main reason the runway is on the agenda is to provide a means for people on the island to get access to the same level of medical care as others in Japan.

The runway needs to support aeromedical equipped business jets as that is what would be required to get a sick person to Tokyo in a reasonable amount of time.

Depending on the nature of the injury (eg eye, head, stomach) aircraft may neeed to fly at lower altitudes than normal to maintain a sea level cabin altitude.

The primary sizing of the runway should be fior aeromedical use, the commercial aspects will follow. A runway sized for aeromedical use should be able to support DHC-8, ATR, Airbus A220.

A DO228 is totally unsuitable, so is an 800 m long runway.


If medevac use is THE deal-breaker, than Antonov 72/74 is your answer, with 800 m runway (Coando effect in its full glory).
Its cruising speed is ~600 km/h and max speed is ~700 km/h. Hopefully enough for an evacuation run. Range seems to be sufficient.
The cabin is, AFAIR, 5-abreast. I guess that must do it for a medevac.

It remains in low-rate production, with tooling intact. If Japanese will pay, a more modern electronics suite (to reduce the crew count) will be deployed (Antonov seems to be experienced with these things by now).
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
MHG
Posts: 861
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:10 pm

For MEDEVAC the best offer on the market is the Pilatus PC-24.
(it´s not by accident that the Royal Australian Flying Doctors operate it exactly for that purpose)

I understand ZEKE´s arguments and principally he´s right but my suggestions regarding those smaller turboprops were based on the assumption that no runway extension will be made.
In such a case one would have to get the aircraft that copes best with the "existing" infrastructure.
As soon there´s a runway extension those small aircraft are out of the game.
Flying is not inherently dangerous but it is very unforgiving in case of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:51 pm

There is no runway, nothing is existing.

All that is there now is a helipad and a ramp to the seawater.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:16 pm

zeke wrote:
There is no runway, nothing is existing.

All that is there now is a helipad and a ramp to the seawater.



https://www.google.com/maps/@27.072437, ... a=!3m1!1e3

That is the old runway used by the empire which was referred to earlier.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:33 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
zeke wrote:
There is no runway, nothing is existing.

All that is there now is a helipad and a ramp to the seawater.



https://www.google.com/maps/@27.072437, ... a=!3m1!1e3

That is the old runway used by the empire which was referred to earlier.


That is not a runway, stop kidding yourself
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:31 pm

This paper discusses many of the issues with building a runway on land in the island group, many different sites and sizes were studied.. http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJA ... 08Guo3.pdf

Does not matter where on land a runway is sited, it has environmental problems.


I think the best way forward is to build the new runway on the water using a similar construction technique to an elevated causeway, the weight of the expected aircraft would be less than normal road traffic. Piles placed into the seabed and the runway sitting above water. The components could be prefabricated and shipped to the island reducing construction waste. Prevailing year round winds would have a north south direction the most favourable.

The footprint is the piles into the seabed, water flow and marine life impact negligible.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:11 am

Hi Zeke and TRP,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm familiar with Dr. Guo's paper. Unfortunately there are a few things mis-leading in its contents. Or rather, a few things obsolete. Its over 10 years old. Just a few years after it was published did the local government push for an island wide survey on local attitudes towards an airport. The airport supporters are just as large as the environmental protection supporters. We've also done our own work. I can't mention the details yet, other than that those who oppose the airport will support it if certain conditions are met, furthering airport.

Currently I've done a lot of work there already and am back in Tokyo waiting for the reply of their airport chief (yes, the island now has a dedicated one!!). unfortunately he was away when we were there.

We also learned that ATR was pushing their ATR-42-600S (you probably saw my post elsewhere) as a solution earlier in the year! so I've been in contact with them.

as for the water runway, have you heard of the floating 1000m runway that was built in Tokyo Bay? I have thought of that one too.
http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/maritime/mega_float.html

Unfortunately its quite old and likely, the people in charge of it are probably no longer there. I cant find too much detailed information sadly. just the same rehashed basic info. you know of any other floating runways? wikipedia says there is one being built in Indonesia.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10372
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:10 am

As I had some free time unwinding from a long road-trip, I thought I'd offer some input on the design side of a potential airport in Chichi-jima.

Firstly, it's necessary to understand how airfields are categorised, as this dictates the design parameters. This alphanumerical 'airfield reference code' consists of two parts, the first relating to the declared runway length (this is certified declared distances, not the physical length of tarmac/concrete), and the second relating to the type of aircraft which are going to use the airfield:

Runway Length:

Code 1 - up to 799m
Code 2 - 800m to 1,199m
Code 3 - 1,200m to 1,799m
Code 4 - 1,800m or greater

Critical Aircraft:

Code A - up to 14.99m wingspan, 4.49m wheel span
Code B - 15m to 24.99m wingspan, 4.5m to 5.99m wheel span
Code C - 25m to 35.99m wingspan, 6m to 8.99m wheel span

Realistically as types like the A220, A320 and B737 all fit within Code C, there's no need to list more, but for reference you also have Code D, E and F, taking you right up to the B748i and A388.

Based on this, you can project three realistic scenarios to expand upon:

1. Code 1B airfield up to 799m long, accommodating aircraft like the Do228NG and similar.
2. Code 2C airfield up to 1,199m long, accommodating aircraft like the ATR 72-600, Q400, ERJ-170/190 etc...
(If the critical aircraft was considered to be the ATR 72, the airport could be downgraded to Code 2B as this is a category smaller than the Q400. This would mean the runway width could in theory be decreased to 23m from 30m, however operationally this isn't ideal on a windy island)
3. Code 3C airfield up to 1,799m long, accommodating aircraft like the A320-200NEO and B737-8MAX

There's a number of variable key pieces of information which then need to be considered to assess how practical each option would be:
- The required runway strip width - this is the area of land around the paved runway surface which allows safe operation of the aircraft.
- The required RESA (Runway End Safety Area) in case of aircraft under or overshooting the paved runway.
- The necessary approach surface - this is the base of the protected airspace through which aircraft fly when landing at the airfield.
- The necessary take-off climb surface - as above, when aircraft are departing the airfield.

From this, the necessary airfield footprint and airspace requirements can be calculated for each option.


Option 1 - Code 1B:

Runway Length - up to 799m
Runway Width - minimum of 18m
Runway Strip Width - 60m non instrument or 150m instrument
RESA - 0m non instrument or 90m instrument (minimum), preferably 120m
Approach Surface - 5% or 1:20 slope non instrument slope, 2.5% or 1:40 precision instrument slope
Take-Off Climb Surface - 5% or 1:20 slope

Non Instrument Footprint - 799m x 60m
Precision Instrument Footprint - 979 x 150m

Option 2 - Code 2C:

Runway Length - up to 1,199m
Runway Width - minimum of 30m
Runway Strip Width - 80m non instrument or 150m instrument
RESA - 0m non instrument or 90m instrument (minimum), preferably 120m
Approach Surface - 4% or 1:25 slope non instrument slope, 2.5% or 1:40 precision instrument slope
Take-Off Climb Surface - 4% or 1:25 slope

Non Instrument Footprint - 1,199m x 80m
Precision Instrument Footprint - 1,379m x 150m

Option 3 - Code 3C:

Runway Length - up to 1,799m
Runway Width - minimum of 30m
Runway Strip Width - 150m non instrument or 300m instrument
RESA - 90m non instrument (minimum), preferably 240m, or 240m instrument
Approach Surface - 3.33% or 1:30 non instrument slope, 2% or 1:50 precision instrument slope
Take-Off Climb Surface - 2% or 1:50 slope

Non Instrument Footprint - 1,979m x 150m
Precision Instrument Footprint - 2,279m x 300m


So having established the aerodrome footprint and required approach/take off surface parameters, next you can look at where the three options could be located within Chichi-jima - in conjunction with Google Earth (useful for measuring distances and also viewing the sea's shore type), take a look at this online topographic resource for reference: http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Chichi-jima-2104838/

It's pretty clear that, unless you flatten a mountain top (presumably completely off the table), there are precious few potential sites. In fact the only potentially workable option is where the historic 'runway' appears to be. However, the surrounding topography makes even this site highly challenging - to the South/South-West you have a headland around 1,000m away and rising to 70m ASL, whilst to the North-East you have high ground around 3,000m away, rising to 270m ASL, plus a string of high ground 3,500m to the North, behind Ogasawara, which rises to between 40m and 90m.

At this point Option 3 can be discounted. Even if the majority of the runway was built on land reclaimed into the sea to the South West (highly impractical and ecologically catastrophic) the 1:50 take-off climb surface would be intercepted by the high ground to the North. So this leaves Option 2 as the next best fit - the 1:40 precision instrument approach surface is still going to be challenging to accommodate, but a compromise would be to design for a non precision instrument approach, as this surface has a 1:30 slope and only extends for 2,500m beyond the runway strip, at a height of 83m. Still it's not simple, and would require the take-off climb surface and approach surface over the bay to be slewed, avoiding the worst of the high ground. In practice this means a left turn immediately after take-off when departing to the North, or a right hand bank into landing when arriving from the North.

This quick overlay probably makes it easier to understand:

Image

In practice, this is the most feasible approach, as Option 1's shorter runway would not be able to accommodate aircraft capable of making the trip from mainland Japan. It will require land reclamation to both the South and North, but the impact of this could be mitigated with sensitive design and construction methods. Also because it's possible to accommodate small regional jets, the trip to Tokyo could be completed in approximately 1h 30mins.

Summary:

Paved Runway = 30 x 1,319m
Runway Strip = 150 x 1,319m
RESA = 90 x 90m, both ends
LDA = 1,259m (Landing Distance Available - this length is not limited)
ASDA = 1,199m (Accellerate Stop Distance Available)
TORA = 1,199m (Take Off Run Available)
TODA = 1,199m (Take Off Distance Available)

Potentially the runway length could be increased, as certain aviation authorities allow otherwise compliant Code 2 airports a +10% declared distance dispensation. If so, it would further increase the LDA to 1,379m, which accommodates the MLW for many regional jets and means they could tank more fuel on the inbound.


Hope this helps
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
SuperAzusa
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:43 am

^ Thanks a lot! I sent you a PM!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:33 am

SuperAzusa wrote:
Hi Zeke and TRP,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm familiar with Dr. Guo's paper. Unfortunately there are a few things mis-leading in its contents. Or rather, a few things obsolete. Its over 10 years old. Just a few years after it was published did the local government push for an island wide survey on local attitudes towards an airport. The airport supporters are just as large as the environmental protection supporters. We've also done our own work. I can't mention the details yet, other than that those who oppose the airport will support it if certain conditions are met, furthering airport.

Currently I've done a lot of work there already and am back in Tokyo waiting for the reply of their airport chief (yes, the island now has a dedicated one!!). unfortunately he was away when we were there.

We also learned that ATR was pushing their ATR-42-600S (you probably saw my post elsewhere) as a solution earlier in the year! so I've been in contact with them.

as for the water runway, have you heard of the floating 1000m runway that was built in Tokyo Bay? I have thought of that one too.
http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/maritime/mega_float.html

Unfortunately its quite old and likely, the people in charge of it are probably no longer there. I cant find too much detailed information sadly. just the same rehashed basic info. you know of any other floating runways? wikipedia says there is one being built in Indonesia.


I wasn’t thinking of a floating runway, same sort of construction technique as elevated causeways. Easy to build from prefabricated sections with minimuak footprint.

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:47 am

zeke wrote:
The primary sizing of the runway should be fior aeromedical use, the commercial aspects will follow. A runway sized for aeromedical use should be able to support DHC-8, ATR, Airbus A220.


If you are going for the medevac role wouldn't a Pilatus PC-24 do the job?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_P ... ifications
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:42 pm

Sure however existing equipment would be the likes of a Hawker 800 or Challenger 604.

1000 nm flying low to maintain a sea level cabin would not be that easy.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
lsh228
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:33 am

Re: Need help researching aircraft with short runway requirements, and airport environmental laws

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:18 am

Chanced upon this and personally a Dornier228 fan.

The Dornier 228 operates from the Lukla Airport in Nepal which has a runway that is of 1,729 feet (527m) long and approximately 65 feet (20/30m) wide. It is also surrounded by high mountains, this seems like a good reference for your project.

More info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhvpwDu ... ture=share
https://www.facebook.com/Dornier228Asia ... 7481940429

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gcskye and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos