Posted Feb 13, 2015, 8:04 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty
Probably had at least something to do with it.
From the article:
Front Range Airport:
2 runways, both 8,000' x 100'.
Weight bearing capacity on runway 17/35, the stronger of the 2 runways:
Single wheel: 34.0
Double wheel: 75.0
Colorado Springs Airport:
3 runways, largest being 17R/35L at 11022' x 150'.
Weight bearing capacity of 17R/35L:
Single wheel: 75.0
Double wheel: 175.0
Double tandem: 340.0
Dual double tandem: 750.0
Denver International Airport:
6 runways of at least 12,000' x 150'.
Weight bearing capacity on all runways:
PCN 92 /R/B/W/T
Single wheel: 116.0
Double wheel: 240.0
Double tandem: 515.0
Dual double tandem: 1085.0
Only 2 of those airports could land a 747, and only 1 of them was able to provide "$357 million in incentives [from] the city of Colorado Springs and by El Paso County." (per the article). The article did not mention if Denver provided any incentives for something that would fit nicely in at the airport city. |
Thanks for that, I had always assumed Front Range was used or going to be used for big cargo planes, but I guess that isn't the case.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
|