Classic British Flight Sim

Shalom and greetings all my pals,

Assuming 100 percent passenger load factor, 100 percent luggage load factor, and enough fuel for 90 minute or 450-500 nautical mile flight plus required emergency reserve, what is the most minimum runway distance for take off in nice weather, please for BAC-111 plane?

Thanks,

Aharon

Hi Aharon

I have the following:
Take-off run at sea level, ISA
6500ft(1981m) Srs200
7500ft(2286m) Srs300
7450ft(2270m) Srs400
5500ft(1676m) Srs475
6500ft(1981m) Srs500

Balanced take-off to 35ft at sea level, ISA
6850ft(2088m) Srs200
8000ft(2438m) Srs300
7800ft(2377m) Srs400
5900ft(1798m) Srs475
7300ft(2225m) Srs500

These are ball park figures for the real thing.. weights unknown. Gives you something to aim at though
ATB
DaveB

Thanks, Dave!!!!

I'd say those are MTOW figures. I've managed shorter take offs for shorter routes and routes with less passengers (Fspassengers). It's no STOL aircraft but can manage 4500-5000ft takeoffs with half usable load. That's the Srs200 so expect more runway for the heavier types.
That's the issue with British jets; they tend to be underpowered. If the BAC 1-11 had an updated version with Tay engines, the British aircraft industry could have survived a little longer...

Shaun wrote: That's the issue with British jets; they tend to be underpowered. If the BAC 1-11 had an updated version with Tay engines, the British aircraft industry could have survived a little longer...

Ah, like this you mean

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_P ... 141&size=m

Ttfn

Pete

Motormouse wrote:

Shaun wrote: That's the issue with British jets; they tend to be underpowered. If the BAC 1-11 had an updated version with Tay engines, the British aircraft industry could have survived a little longer...

Ah, like this you mean

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_P ... 141&size=m

Ttfn

Pete

Haha yes Pete! Unfortunately that is just a modified aircraft :/ wish the Tay was in full production on the 1-11.

It's Ying and yang isn't it. While a Tay engined 1-11 would have been nice, it's unlikely we'd have seen the 146 series.

TSR2 wrote:It's Ying and yang isn't it. While a Tay engined 1-11 would have been nice, it's unlikely we'd have seen the 146 series.

Hmm I'm not so sure. Both aircraft seem to have different roles; the 146 is an STOL short range aircraft, while if the 1-11's low-bypass Speys were replaced with the higher-bypass Tays, fuel economy would have been increased dramatically along with the range. Given the 1-11's could have optional fuel tanks backs this up; I would think you could get the range of 737 classics, say UK to the Canaries.

Shaun wrote:

Motormouse wrote:

Shaun wrote: That's the issue with British jets; they tend to be underpowered. If the BAC 1-11 had an updated version with Tay engines, the British aircraft industry could have survived a little longer...

Ah, like this you mean

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_P ... 141&size=m

Ttfn

Pete

Haha yes Pete! Unfortunately that is just a modified aircraft :/ wish the Tay was in full production on the 1-11.

Actually Dee Howard company was using that to prototype 1-11 Tay conversion., it would have been the first of many if Bad hadn't blocked the project in favour of the 146.

Ttfn

Pete

Oh Dave needs to fit the Tays onto his 1-11's hahaha I'd love to see how it would perform.