• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
05:00PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesBoeing Dreamlifter Takeoff Jabara Airport Wichita KS

Back to Squawk list

Boeing Dreamlifter Takeoff Jabara Airport Wichita KS

Submitted
With pavement to spare...incredible aerodynamics to get off on 6100 feet of runway. (www.youtube.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 5
I really don't think he used but about 5000'
eandrade1424
Ed Andrade 1
Amazing! I have watched AF1 take off from KMHT's main runway which is listed at 9250 feet in about half the length, so they probably used just about 5000 feet too. Granted the only real commonality between the two are the first 3 digits of the aircraft model, but still an amazing site to see.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
They're both heavily customized 747s, just fir radically different purposes.
mldavis2
Mike Davis 1
AF1 has the advantage of having larger engines than standard, and it isn't loaded with 300+ passengers. And, yes, it is an amazing sight to watch that beast lift off.
siriusloon
siriusloon 0
And now that the Dreamlifter has gone, the site is presumably less amazing to see.
bill54494
bill54494 0
You've never made a homophone mistake?
siriusloon
siriusloon 3
"Incredible aerodynamics"? You mean the same aerodynamics it has for every takeoff? Perhaps the engine thrust played a part, too?

Few airliners or cargo aircraft do anything close to a max-effort takeoff every time, so when they get a little bit closer to doing that in a situation like this, it may be unusual, but it doesn't need aerodynamics that are any less credible than what it always has.

If they (a) didn't need to unload it, (b) didn't need to reduce the fuel on board, and (c) didn't use the entire runway, then you can be sure that they were well within the safety margins, let alone the limits, of what it could do.
preacher1
preacher1 3
In 69, when PanAm had their 747 training school at Roswell, they came up to ABQ quite often. No idea on loading but they could land, full stop on the runway, take off again from that stop, all in about 7200'. This was a piece of cake, no big deal.
panam1971
panam1971 1
Reminds me of that scene from "Passenger 57" when a TriStar lands at a little GA airport...
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
I can give you a list of two guys who I can promise you were NOT flying this leg...
bill54494
bill54494 6
At least they're alive, nobody got hurt, and no plane got dinged. Maybe just a touch of compassion is in order.
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
It was reportedly in the air for 20 minutes before landing at McConnell, so I wonder if it was the same two pilots enjoying potentially their last Dreamlifter flight. If it was another crew, they got them there quickly and while that's certainly possible to do, don't forget the crew rest rules. I won't be surprised if it was the "oops crew" who repositioned it to where it was supposed to be.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
I thought the didn't release the names of the pilots out of respect for their families.
8-)
what's with the downthumbs?
preacher1
preacher1 3
They said their was a crew change, idk. They took off to the North, had to turn South and do a full downwind/base/final, to turn in for McConnell. The flight plan showed an 18 minute duration, I think.

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
That may become the day-after spin on an otherwise unfortunate event.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 4
What is your point? A Dreamlifter can't take off on the taxiway while a A319 can. Does that make the A319 better?
siriusloon
siriusloon 5
So? They're different aircraft. You do realise (or perhaps you don't) that each aircraft has its own requirements for such things as takeoff roll, maximum takeoff weight, and so on?

Is your assertion that the A340 and A380 are incapable of taking off from a 6100-foot runway based on direct knowledge of their certified technical capabilities and limitations, or is it merely supposition derived from an irrational personal hatred of Airbus products?

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, idk either but I was told this morning, that despite the wingspan and flaps, that the 380 was heavier than the 747 and had smaller engines, hence wouldn't make the grade on short field. IDK; never flown either one. All I know is that this one landed in less than 6100 feet and got off on about 5 without much effort.