The 320 does not stop as well as a 757. I don't care what the perf figures may say. In the real world, the 75 is a much better stopper.

Friend of a friend has just supplied me with a couple of new pictures. One showing clearly how near the a/c got to the steep bank at the end of 14.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F24b.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F06.jpg

:eek: - don't want to be any closer..........

Have now found the LBA 14/32 distances.

14 TORA/ASDA 6932ft/2113m LDA 5912ft/1802m TODA 10397ft/3169m

32 TORA/ASDA 7185ft/2190m LDA 6286ft/1916m TODA 7838ft/2389m

Given the runway is 7382ft/2250m then you can see that the CAA required displaced thresholds reduce LDA in both directions though 14 is worst affected.

Having said that I remember a Wardair 747 landing on 14!

Hope this helps.

Would love to have seen Wardair 747 land on 14!.Remember seeing JAT 707,Aviaco DC8-61 land on 14 though.Those were the days!.

Would've thought the Aviaco DC-8-61 would have been more interesting than the 747. Pity I missed that one.

back again
 

hey

the very same aircraft was back again yesterday morning. with four people on the flight deck.

the captain also landed the damn thingperfectly and stopped well before delta taxiway.

Good work lads

laters

Thanks for the post JW411. Actually i have practiced it in the sim. I witness many RTOs, MLW landings and the like for 2 weeks every month. I have a few goes to experiment myself at the end of the checks i do on people. I see crews stay on the rwy and those who go off with the same conditions. You need to brake hard. The fact that all the tyres survived makes me suspect that max braking wasn't used. In the end its debatable what is worse, a brake fire or going off the end, but thats another story.
The figure of 800 or so is an ALD from 50' above the threshold, chop the throttles, don't flare and apply max braking. No reverse. But then you seem so knowledgable i'm sure you know this.
And i have landed at MLW, a lot in places all over the world, but as i'm always on the numbers, i don't need to thrash the brakes. I have also done the same in a 757. Can't say i have seen much difference to speak of.

I had a bit of personal familiarity with the two Wardair 747-200's they ordered straight from Boeing (they also had -100's from the aftermarket). These had all the structural upgrades for 820,000# MTOGW, but were delivered with earlier brakes which limited them to 785,000 if memory serves. This was intentional to avoid landing fee excess costs at HKG etc.

They soon upgraded the brakes, and could have applied for the higher TOGW if it ever seemed worthwhile, but meanwhile they had two 747's that could stop on a Canadian dime.

ia1166

Your post seems to contain some contradiction and exageration. The most glaring being that anyone who thinks it is clever to land an airliner "on the numbers" really should not be doing simulator cx on anybody.

I don't know about the A320 but if you were to land a 757 from a 3 degree approach without some sort of flair it would involve a lot of hangar time for the ship. I don't suppose an airbus is that much stronger.

I guess stopping an A320 in 800mtrs from 50ft across the threshold at MLW is possible. My figures for a 757 state less than 3000 ft at "average" landing weight, which would probably equate, but a flare is allowed for in taking 1000 ft from 50 over the threshold to touchdown.

If your facts are correct then why spoil your argument with all the other stuff? It doesn't impress really.

I only put that bit in get him to react with another attack. I'm a bit bored at the moment. The figure is an airbus one so involves a test pilot with a test ac so it is optimistic to believe us mere mortals could reproduce it. The airbus does stop extremely well though, and not far off from the 800 quoted, but you will definately blow a few plugs and may start a fire. But this is how boeing generate their figures as well. When they tested the asdr figures for the 777 they set fire to both MLG. You have to press and press as hard as you can. it has anti skid and as any F1 driver will tell you, changing over to carbon brakes is the biggest thing when starting in F1. They are very powerful.
The bus and 757 both land at an attitude of around 2-3 deg nose up. Although a slight flare is required, when i was an fo i witnessed a no flare landing. The rubber jungle fell out, and one tyre was damaged. a bit of hangar time but no hvy maintenance. The problem is landing on 3 points or the nose only. Or dropping it on the rwy from 100 feet after flaring early, or encountering windshear etc etc.
All in all it doesn't seem to have gone far off the runway. And it hasn't blown any tyres. One wonders if there was no braking malfunction and the cause was a long landing, whether the crew got on the brakes early enough and trusted the anti skid. Airworld used to operate the 321 out of bristol at mlw. No mean feat for the crews, and i believe bristol is shorter than leeds?Anyway, no harm done and everyone walked away.
This thread has degenerated into a 757 320 pissing contest so i'm off.

1166,

Yes I agree with all that. I am only talking 757 because that is what I know about. I have no axe to grind. I still have trouble with the no flare bit though. It is very difficult psychologically not to flare and in the instance you quote a slight, or very gentle flare would perhaps have been made. Just enough to take the edge off the impact. A small reduction in the flight path angle makes a big difference to the vertical speed on touchdown. On the 75 most people start to flare much earlier than the Boeing recommended technique. If you do it the Boeing way the ground really seems to be rushing up in the last second or so. It takes a steady nerve, but it works.

Yes this thread has drifted off course so I will shut up now too.

Cheers