5 ms·
The article says its typical takeoff run is 3300 feet, which is about half what a 737 needs. I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but that seems like a pretty sh
by joshyeager 6y ago
The article says its typical takeoff run is 3300 feet, which is about half what a 737 needs. I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but that seems like a pretty short runway length requirement. What am I missing?
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y agoThe 737 is a far larger plane. The Celera has capacity for 6 passengers, while you can cram over 200 into a 737. For a better comparison, the world's most popular aircraft, the four-seater Cessna 172, needs under 500 feet to take off in optimal conditions, although you might need 1500 feet if fully loaded and high up. http://www.dmjwilliams.co.uk/gbsep_performance.htm http://www.dmjwilliams.co.uk/gbsep_performance.htm (in meters, not feet) However, the Cessna Citation M2 business jet, which targets a similar market as the Celera, also requires ~3000 ft (again depending on weight, altitude, conditions). So not seeing a huge difference here. https://prijet.com/performance/Cessna%20Citation%20M2 https://prijet.com/performance/Cessna%20Citation%20M2
- whatch 6y ago3300 feet = 1 km (for people outside US)
- AceyMan 6y agoTakeoff run length is for the marketing sheets. What counts is the ASD — accelerate-stop distance, see also, balanced field length. Citation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_field_takeoff?wprov=s... /Acey
- sowbug 6y agoA typical small airport might have a 2,500-foot runway, and you never want to come anywhere close to using all that up. It's often desirable to use small airports that are closer to your origin and destination, which could save several hours of travel time before takeoff and after landing. Usually there's also less air traffic to contend with, no landing fees, and cheaper aircraft parking.