Tweet
Re: Robert Morris
I'm not actually an aviator, but have had a lifetime hobbyist interest in such matters, so . . .
BKX has a 6000-foot runway. That's adequate (perhaps barely) for small commercial jets (Embraers and Bombardiers) and large turboprop commercial aircraft (Bombardiers, ATRs) but better suited to smaller (30-seat and below) turboprops) and private aircraft.
To provide probably way too much information, an Embraer E-170 jet (up to 78 passengers) has a recommended takeoff field length of from 4,865 to 5,394 ft. (depending on version) and a landing field length of 4,029 to 4,072 ft, for instance. A Bombardier Q400 turboprop (up to 86 seats) has a takeoff field length of 4,265 to 4,675 ft. and a landing field length of 4,160 to 4,230 ft. depending on version.
(Info from respective airframe manufacturers' web sites)
If I recall, a general rule of thumb for pilots is that you would really like to have twice as much runway as your aircraft needs to take off or land. You can do with less, but your margins for error (and corresponding stress level) are adjusted accordingly with shorter runways. Ask a Southwest Airlines pilot sometime about how much fun it is to land at Chicago Midway, for instance, where every few years a SWA 737 runs off the end of Midway's short runways. Tight margins, there.
If you really, really had to, you could probably put down a lightly-loaded 747 at BKX but I personally would rather not be on board when you're trying it. Getting the 747 off the ground again would be something of a piloting challenge as well, unless you put in just enough fuel to get it to Sioux Falls or somewhere with a longer runway.
For comparison, Sioux Falls FSD's long runway is 9,000 ft with a secondary runway of 7,983 ft; Watertown has two runways, 6,900 and 6,895 ft. Huron's got a 7,200-foot runway.
(Runway lengths from the South Dakota 2015-16 Airport Directory, on the SD DOT web site)
Originally posted by Nidaros
View Post
BKX has a 6000-foot runway. That's adequate (perhaps barely) for small commercial jets (Embraers and Bombardiers) and large turboprop commercial aircraft (Bombardiers, ATRs) but better suited to smaller (30-seat and below) turboprops) and private aircraft.
To provide probably way too much information, an Embraer E-170 jet (up to 78 passengers) has a recommended takeoff field length of from 4,865 to 5,394 ft. (depending on version) and a landing field length of 4,029 to 4,072 ft, for instance. A Bombardier Q400 turboprop (up to 86 seats) has a takeoff field length of 4,265 to 4,675 ft. and a landing field length of 4,160 to 4,230 ft. depending on version.
(Info from respective airframe manufacturers' web sites)
If I recall, a general rule of thumb for pilots is that you would really like to have twice as much runway as your aircraft needs to take off or land. You can do with less, but your margins for error (and corresponding stress level) are adjusted accordingly with shorter runways. Ask a Southwest Airlines pilot sometime about how much fun it is to land at Chicago Midway, for instance, where every few years a SWA 737 runs off the end of Midway's short runways. Tight margins, there.
If you really, really had to, you could probably put down a lightly-loaded 747 at BKX but I personally would rather not be on board when you're trying it. Getting the 747 off the ground again would be something of a piloting challenge as well, unless you put in just enough fuel to get it to Sioux Falls or somewhere with a longer runway.
For comparison, Sioux Falls FSD's long runway is 9,000 ft with a secondary runway of 7,983 ft; Watertown has two runways, 6,900 and 6,895 ft. Huron's got a 7,200-foot runway.
(Runway lengths from the South Dakota 2015-16 Airport Directory, on the SD DOT web site)
RMU's scores just before halftime and then in the final four minutes.
Comment