RAF standard runway width

[ZeBedie]

Was it a waste of resources during WW2 to build all runways 50 yards wide, when half of that would have been plenty for most purposes?

[oxenos]

They also built most WW2 airfields with 3 runways. Given that most aircraft were taildraggers, no doubt the number of runways and their width would have been to cater for the fact that the were no good in a cross wind.

[Jhieminga]

...when half of that would have been plenty for most purposes?
What do you base this statement on? Can you elaborate in this perhaps? I am not sure what 'most purposes' means in this context, as it could be construed in different ways.

If the 50 yard wide runway saved the lives of a complete bomber crew in 2% of all landings of bombers returning from missions, would you say that having that runway available was a waste? :rolleyes:

[dixi188]

It would appear that there were plenty of resources available when you look at the number of airfields that were built in double quick time. I suppose they could have dropped the concrete on Germany instead.
What I see as a waste is that we didn't retain some of these airfields and buildings as emergency accommodation centres for displaced persons, instead of paying a fortune to put them in hotels.

( Tin helmet on, ready for incoming).

[chevvron]

Was it a waste of resources during WW2 to build all runways 50 yards wide, when half of that would have been plenty for most purposes?
It wasn't just the paved runway width which mattered, each paved runway, even subsidiary ones, also had to have an unobstructed 'cleared and graded strip' usually covered in grass out to 300ft (100 yds) each side of the runway centreline in case an aircraft ran off the edge of the runway and the joint between the paved and unpaved surface had to be 'de-lethalised' in order to avoid damage to undercarriages.

[Bergerie1]

Remember that many aircraft types of those days had a swing on take-off causeed by the dirction of rotation of the propellers. Also, as has been mentioned, tail draggers were not so easy to keep straight during the first part of the take-off run.

[spekesoftly]

I also wonder if sufficient runway width for formation take-offs was part of the consideration?

[Top West 50]

Remember that many aircraft types of those days had a swing on take-off causeed by the dirction of rotation of the propellers. Also, as has been mentioned, tail draggers were not so easy to keep straight during the first part of the take-off run.
Slipstream, torque, asymmetric blade effect and gyroscopic effect and, of course, crosswind. But enough of the theory Bloggs, just use the rudder to keep straight.

[oxenos]

Slipstream, torque, asymmetric blade effect and gyroscopic effect and, of course, crosswind.
​​​​​​​Now you're just showing off.

[sycamore]

Captains wallet....or co-pilot`s lunches.....

[chevvron]

I also wonder if sufficient runway width for formation take-offs was part of the consideration?
It was at Shobdon.

[ShyTorque]

I liked ‘em wide so I could land across.

[76fan]

This may be of interest

Runways - UK Airfield Guide (https://www.ukairfieldguide.net/articles/runways)

[Kiltrash]

Surely in times of need you want as much runway length and width available....

[Asturias56]

I liked ‘em wide so I could land across.


I had an interesting conversation with a FIGAS Islander pilot about the RAF's attitude to that at Mt Pleasant :p

[FlightlessParrot]

Surely in times of need you want as much runway length and width available....

And the time of need, I guess, would be landing rather than take-off? When alignment with the centre line would have been harder for many reasons.

[Jetset 88]

The runway at RAF Sharjah used to be much narrower than most 'standard' runways. On approach, its perspective made one think that you were much higher than was the case.
It was probably responsible for many a hairy flight engineer saying, 'Have we landed or were we shot down?' to unaware co-pilots on their first trip there.

[oxenos]

'Have we landed or were we shot down?
Did the Nimrod conversion course at St. Mawgan in '70. St. Mawgan had a 300' wide runway. Having got used to that, the first landing I did on a standard width runway was well and truly planted.

[kenparry]

Sharjah: yes. Quite challenging when launching a 4-ship formation with only a 30m wide runway:rolleyes:

[76fan]

The runway at RAF Sharjah used to be much narrower than most 'standard' runways. On approach, its perspective made one think that you were much higher than was the case.
It was probably responsible for many a hairy flight engineer saying, 'Have we landed or were we shot down?' to unaware co-pilots on their first trip there.
And just the opposite at Manston, almost a feeling of landing below ground level!