Current large twin performance question
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 441
Likes: 82
From: Marlow (mostly)
Current large twin performance question
Can anyone give me a rough number for the minimum runway length needed for a 787 and an A350 at maximum takeoff weight, sea level and 30 deg C?
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,731
Likes: 2,105
From: Reading, UK
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 441
Likes: 82
From: Marlow (mostly)
I'm just looking at comments elsewhere (i.e. other media not PPrune) about this Heathrow 3rd runway argument, and wondering why they think they need 3500m. Wondering whether a modern twin used for long haul flights would actually need that much.
Joined: Apr 2004
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 189
From: Dorset UK
It's something that bugs me as well. There's room for a 2500m runway without moving the M25 so why do they need to spend billions of pounds extra to get a third intercontinental runway. A 2500m runway is perfectly adaquate for short/medium routes.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
No dog in this fight, but for an international hub, 2500m (8,200ft) is somewhat limiting for a widebody. You’d be able to lift most anything off a 3500m (11,500ft) runway. If you need to make an emergency landing, the longer runway is obviously better as well (reduced need to dump fuel etc).
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,731
Likes: 2,105
From: Reading, UK
One of the main drivers for having the third runway full-length is that it will supposedly allow a symmetrical operation that would provide predictable, equal respite for communities under all three approaches.
If the new runway could only be used principally for arrivals, then distributing the respite equitably would not be possible.
Having said that, even a full-length third runway would mean that communities under the current approaches would have respite one-third of the time, instead of the current 50%.
If the new runway could only be used principally for arrivals, then distributing the respite equitably would not be possible.
Having said that, even a full-length third runway would mean that communities under the current approaches would have respite one-third of the time, instead of the current 50%.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 845
From: Tring, UK
A longer runway would allow higher derates for takeoff therefore less noise, so it makes sense in most respects. You can lift a surprising amount off shorter runways if you have to but it increases the maintenance costs and noise footprint.
If you’re going to have a runway, making it 1000m longer if you have the space and budget is a bit of a no-brainer. It also allows more in the way of ‘land after’ clearances and LVPs for big/heavy aircraft.
If you’re going to have a runway, making it 1000m longer if you have the space and budget is a bit of a no-brainer. It also allows more in the way of ‘land after’ clearances and LVPs for big/heavy aircraft.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 118
Likes: 36
From: Somewhere
B787/8 RR 1000AE about 228 tons requires a 3000 m runway, but climb-limited at about 214 tons.
B787/9 RR 1000D about 247 tons requires a 3200 m runway, but climb-limited at about 237 tons.
B787/9 GE about 252 tons requires a 3200 m runway, but climb-limited at about 249 tons.
228,247,252 are around MTOW.But because the temperature is as high as 30°C, it still cannot take off at MTOW (due to the climb limit).
But if there are icing conditions and the various anti-icing systems have to be turned on or wet, contaminated and whatever, a 3200 m runway may not be sufficient even lower temperature . (All affected condition) Therefore, a runway length of 3500 m or more would be required to cover all cases (field length limit).
Last edited by Noknoipobin; 5th March 2026 at 09:08.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 441
Likes: 82
From: Marlow (mostly)
Thanks Noknoipobin, very useful.
One of the many things I don't believe about Heathrow's "need" is that the existing runways are more than adequate for all traffic from LHR that needs that much runway. What possible projected increase in long range traffic can they anticipate that would use the capacity of 3 runways ALL that length, especially with the cost and disruption associated with the M25 to accomodate it?
Off topic - who remembers operating off the PREVIOUS third LHR runway? I say: just reinstate 23L! It was always fun!
According to wikipedia (!) it was not decommissioned until 2005 and in another thread Topbunk says "The last approach I flew to LHR 23 (SRA) was 1st Feb 2002 in A319 G-EUOD as BA363 from LYS in VERY strong SW winds ar about 2200Z." So only just over 21 years ago..... might be quicker than the arguments they're having now!
One of the many things I don't believe about Heathrow's "need" is that the existing runways are more than adequate for all traffic from LHR that needs that much runway. What possible projected increase in long range traffic can they anticipate that would use the capacity of 3 runways ALL that length, especially with the cost and disruption associated with the M25 to accomodate it?
Off topic - who remembers operating off the PREVIOUS third LHR runway? I say: just reinstate 23L! It was always fun!
According to wikipedia (!) it was not decommissioned until 2005 and in another thread Topbunk says "The last approach I flew to LHR 23 (SRA) was 1st Feb 2002 in A319 G-EUOD as BA363 from LYS in VERY strong SW winds ar about 2200Z." So only just over 21 years ago..... might be quicker than the arguments they're having now!
Last edited by slast; 5th March 2026 at 10:56.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Basel/Geneva
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 10,588
Likes: 805
From: Northumberland
Joined: Apr 2004
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 189
From: Dorset UK
I still think 2500m would be more than adaquate for 50% of Heathrow traffic, ie. European, north Africa and near East destinations.
Build T6 and move all the European airlines there. You then have 27C and 27R for that traffic and 27L and 27C for everyone else.
Build T6 and move all the European airlines there. You then have 27C and 27R for that traffic and 27L and 27C for everyone else.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,682
Likes: 3,346
From: Everett, WA
One thing I learned while looking at 'noise abatement' procedures was somewhat counter-intuitive. Specifically, doing a derated takeoff didn't reduce the noise footprint - it actually made it larger (there is a db limit that defines the 'footprint', although I don't recall what it was).
What happens with a derated takeoff is that you make less noise, but you spread it over a larger area because you climb slower. So the peak noise goes down, but the 'noise footprint' doesn't reflect peak noise - just the area exposed to the noise level above the footprint threshold.
What happens with a derated takeoff is that you make less noise, but you spread it over a larger area because you climb slower. So the peak noise goes down, but the 'noise footprint' doesn't reflect peak noise - just the area exposed to the noise level above the footprint threshold.
