I work here at Orlando International Airport.....so lucky me gets to see planes landing & taking off daily.
I noticed that the MD-80s take up almost 6000 feet of runway before rotation....whereas a larger aircraft, like the B767 or even the A300-800 takes up only about 5000-5500 feet before full rotation.
Why is this? Is the MD-80 a much heavier plane then say.....a B767?
2007-05-09 05:56:44 · 9 answers · asked by primoa1970 7 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
Hi Jeff....
Yes...it is cool. The road you're thinking of might be Bear Road which runs just on the northern border of the west side of the airport (Rwys 18L & R). That's the road where my office is....and it's still open.
2007-05-09 13:35:13 · update #1
There are huge number of variables involved. But basically speaking, a B767 has SOME STOL (short take-off and landing) design features built into it that MD-8x's do not. Namely, the wing-mounted engines.
By mounting the engines on the wings, the thrust can be directed to the flaps and redirected downward, thus reducing stall speed and increase lift. A rear-engine plane like MD-80 can't do that, esp. with a T-tail.
There are a LOT of variables though on take-off and landing distance, as those phases are most sensitive to piloting techniques and retardation devices, load of aircraft, and so on. It's not all about thrust-weight ratio or wing load ratio and all that. They are all part of the equation, and there are special software that are used to calculate things like that.
http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/pug/c10.html
2007-05-09 12:11:48 · answer #1 · answered by Kasey C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The MD-88 and other models of the MD-80 have "Super Critical" wings and thus require a longer take roll before rotation. This is also why you see fewer of these aircraft in Western US airports like in the Rockies in Summer. The heat and high altitude make them impractical. The usual replacement is the B-737
2007-05-09 13:17:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a former flight attendant who once flew the MD-80 quite a bit. I can't verify this, as I have little aviation technology schooling, but I once heard that planes with rear mounted engines (such as the 80) have to maintain a higher speed to prevent stalling; this is due to the high profile of the tail which is necessary to accommodate the engines. 767's on the other hand, have wing-mounted engines, allowing a lower profile of the tail assembly (more aerodynamic) Of course, the fact that 767's have more powerful engines probably helps too !!
2007-05-09 10:30:19 · answer #3 · answered by 13th Floor 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not necessarily heavier, the engines are a bit underpowered and the airplane needs a higher airspeed to lift off. Hence the longer takeoff distance.
MCO is an awsome airport. You're lucky to work there. I hope you are used to the hot weather. Can you still park by that road to watch planes come in or did they get rid of that spot?
2007-05-09 06:21:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 767 and a300-800 are much heavier aircraft but use less runway because they have a much higher thrust to weight ratio
2007-05-09 06:19:54 · answer #5 · answered by i12batp 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The MD80 has a bit less wing area then the Boeings, and the engines are a bit less powerful.
The new 717 might have corrected this, it seems to be a redesigned MD80.
2007-05-09 06:31:53 · answer #6 · answered by gromit801 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
possible pressure/weather conditions, but i'd most likely say its the configuration of the wings and engine location not generating as much lift as the boeing heavies.
2007-05-09 06:27:55 · answer #7 · answered by chrisbowe82 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it may be different matterials, and since it is a longer/ narower plane, it may not have the best breaks in the world.
2007-05-09 08:31:33 · answer #8 · answered by John S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the wing are more efficent. have higher lift.
2007-05-09 07:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by none 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋