Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail once again OverRun. It has greatly helped my understanding of this subject.
As background to my questions, EDI has declared its desire to attract long-haul operations and, as a frequent flyer, I'll be pleased if they succeed in that ambition. I'm just concerned that some aspects of the infrastructure might not yet support that ambition. I had previously wondered why the likes of Emirates hadn't introduced flights from EDI to DXB, but it's now clear why they could not operate from EDI with a sensible payload. Of course they might have chosen Glasgow and Newcastle for other reasons but the PCNs do not help EDI to attract Boeing 777-300ER operators.
EDI currently has just 3 stands that are larger than 767-300 size and these are all on the SE apron. To reach the SE apron it is necessary to use taxiway Lima or Mike. Both of these taxiways are effectively part of runway 12/30 which has a PCN of 31/F/C/X/T. If Lima and Mike are also 31/F/C/X/T then I can't see how long-haul flights can depart from the SE apron as the ACNs are likely to be around twice the PCN of these taxiways. (See;
NATS | AIS - Home for the layout of the airfield and taxiways.)
Given the current ACN/PCN limitations, and the fact that the runway could be upgraded by adding another 200mm of asphalt, I find it surprising EDI didn't upgrade 06/24 when they resurfaced it two years ago. Or maybe they did but they haven't updated the technical analysis yet? Do airport operators sometimes leave the surface to "bed-down" for a while before they carry out a technical analysis and declare a higher PCN?
My interpretation is that the runway has an asphalt overlay, on top of a concrete (rigid) pavement. If I sharpen the pencil and calculate deeply, the weight limit is closer to 605,000 lb or 274.4 t (rather than 610,000 lbs).
I agree with you for 06/24. The slightly lower 595,000lbs figure I calculated was based on the 72R/C/W/T rating on the aprons. Or maybe I'm just reading the Boeing charts slightly differently to you as the resolution is not that great. We're near enough the same answer anyway.
That pavement rating at EDI 06/24 is good enough for fully laden Boeing 747-400 territory. Gee guys – that's pretty generous already. Running a Boeing 747 off that short 2556m long runway is almost over-servicing the airport.
I looked at the ACN/PCN and runway length limitations at EDI for a range of aircraft and concluded that the PCN limits operations of many aircraft from EDI more than the runway length does. The undercarriage arrangement of a 747 is kinder to pavements than the more recent long-haul twin-jets. I don't think 747s are likely to operate from EDI in the foreseeable future. More likely would be A330 / A350 / B787 / B777 if the PCNs would support them. Unfortunately, the ACNs of all but the A330 are a fair bit higher at MTOW than the current PCNs at EDI which will therefore limit their potential payload/range. I've added some examples at the end of this post.
The AN124 with its 100+ tonnes payload – well the ACN is 73 at maximum takeoff weight, so no concession was needed (the Russians build very pavement-friendly aircraft).
The issue with the AN124 was not the PCN of the take-off runway, but the PCN of the runway they parked it on. Block 33, where it was parked, is the turnaround area at the SE end of runway 12/30. That runway has a PCN of 31F/C/X/T. To reach 06/24 the AN124 had to taxi the whole length of 12/30. The ACN of an AN124 at MTOW on that surface is 77. I'm not sure what the all-up weight of the aircraft was on departure but I expect the ACN was more than double the PCN of 12/30. This makes me wonder whether the declared PCN of 12/30 is perhaps a lot less than the actual PCN, hence my comments about them perhaps reducing the declared PCN to restrict the size of aircraft allowed to take-off and land on that runway.
Examples of payload/range limitations from EDI; NB. The figures in brackets are those that would apply if there were no PCN or runway length limitations. All figures are based on data from the Boeing website and are based on the apron PCN of 72R/C/W/T rather than the runway PCN of 74R/C/W/T.
Boeing 787-8 Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 53,500lbs (20%).
ACN empty; 40. ACN at MTOW; 84.
Boeing hasn't published any payload/range or runway performance figures for the 787-8 yet but it is already clear, based on the preliminary ACN charts they have published, that payload/range from EDI will be limited by the PCN of the apron, taxiways and the runway unless they are all strengthened.
Boeing 777-300ER Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 180,000lbs (49%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 1,350nm (5,700nm).
Range from EDI with 364 pax and no cargo; 2,650nm (6,850nm).
Range from EDI with 364 pax and 30,000lbs of cargo; 1,800nm (5,850nm).
ACN empty; 34. ACN at MTOW; 109
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 5,920ft runway at this weight.
Boeing 777F (115) Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 161,000lbs (36%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 850nm (5,800nm).
Range from EDI with 180,000lbs of cargo; 2,550nm (6,300nm).
ACN empty; 27. ACN at MTOW; 105.
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 5,850ft runway at this weight.
Boeing 777-200LR (115) Fuel /payload reduction from EDI; 161,000lbs (36%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 3,600nm (7,650nm).
Range from EDI with 266 pax and no cargo; 5,800nm (9,500nm).
Range from EDI with 266 pax and 30,00lbs of cargo; 4,600nm (8,450nm).
ACN empty; 27. ACN at MTOW; 105.
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 5,700ft runway at this weight.
Boeing 777-300 (98) Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 78,000lbs (25%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 1,750nm (3,700nm).
Range from EDI with 364 pax and no cargo; 3,950nm (5,700nm).
Range from EDI with 364 pax and 30,000lbs of cargo; 2,900nm (4,700nm).
ACN empty; 33. ACN at MTOW; 88.
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 8,100ft runway at this weight.
Boeing 777-200ER Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 51,000lbs (15%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 4,100nm (5,750nm).
Range from EDI with 266 pax and no cargo; 6,700nm (8,400nm).
Range from EDI with 266 pax and 30,000lbs of cargo; 5,350nm (7,200nm).
ACN empty; 26. ACN at MTOW; 82.
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 8,250ft runway at this weight.
Boeing 747-400ER (GE) Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 77,000lbs (15%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 4,850nm (6,300nm).
Range from EDI with 416 pax and no cargo; 6,600nm (7,850nm).
Range from EDI with 416 pax and 40,000lbs of cargo; 5,700nm (6,900nm).
ACN empty; 23. ACN at MTOW; 81.
Payload/range from EDI is currently limited equally by runway length and PCN but if runway is extended it would then be limited by PCN unless the runway, taxiways and aprons are strengthened.
Boeing 747-8I Fuel/payload reduction from EDI; 138,000lbs (29%).
Range from EDI with max payload; 3,750nm (6,200nm).
Range from EDI with 467 pax and no cargo; 6,750nm (8,800nm).
Range from EDI with 467 pax and 45,000lbs of cargo; 6,200nm (8,600nm).
ACN empty; 35. ACN at MTOW; 88.
Payload/range from EDI is currently PCN limited; only requires 7,700ft runway at this weight. NB. These figures are based on preliminary Boeing data.
Airbus' data is less detailed than Boeing's, but indications are that the A330 is only very slightly limited by the PCNs at EDI. The A350 payload/fuel reduction is likely to be around the same as the B787 based on preliminary ACN data from Airbus i.e. somewhere around 20% depending on version.