London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:47:12 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote:

I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot
of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be
practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no
mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary.

The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem...

And reduce carbon emissions from the airport at the same time. Job's a
good 'un.



--
Speaking only for myself

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 03/11/2011 09:52, d wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:14:38 +0000
Graeme wrote:
I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot
of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be
practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no
mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. Hong Kong's airport

And not forgetting europes largest natural gas storage depot which is on
Grain.

is not right in the middle of a major wildfowl migration route. Also I
can't see how you are going to get two pairs of runways to operate the
way they are depicted. There doesn't seem to be adequate clearance
between the individual runways in each pair for safe simultaneous operation.

Its a pie in the sky idea and will never happen. But if a new airport is
really needed - and I'm not convinced - then surely Manston or southend would
be the logical solution?


Southend would have much the same problem as it's only a couple of miles
north of Borisport Mk2. IIRC Manston has a ruddy great hill in the
middle of the runway.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In ,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds
are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or
west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the
noise will impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport
can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea.
What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight
over London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 03/11/2011 16:47, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote:

I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot
of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be
practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no
mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary.

The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem...

And possibly Norman Foster as well if he's not careful.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In
,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds
are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or
west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the
noise will impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the
airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the
North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will
be straight over London.

Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of
take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So
none need fly over central London.

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote:
"Graeme wrote in message

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In
,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds
are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or
west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the
noise will impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the
airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the
North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will
be straight over London.

Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of
take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So
none need fly over central London.



They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which
will still take them over London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote:
"Graeme wrote in message

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In
article4c96e498-1358-4e79-a673-
,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds
are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west)
of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will
impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the
airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the
North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will
be straight over London.

Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of
take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude.
So none need fly over central London.



They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which
will still take them over London.

And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn
- particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're
heavy with fuel. That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to
operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines
operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..).

You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have
an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the
cockpit.



--
Speaking only for myself

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

"Andy Breen" wrote in message

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote:
"Graeme wrote in message

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In
article4c96e498-1358-4e79-a673-
,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing
winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east
(or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that
the noise will impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the
airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over
the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that
departures will be straight over London.

Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of
take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to
altitude. So none need fly over central London.



They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which
will still take them over London.

And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to
burn - particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when
they're heavy with fuel. That's got immediate environmental costs,
will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive
for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..).

You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and
have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress
in the cockpit.

Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very
soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly
(ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. Also, planes
take off much more steeply than the landing glide slope, so they quickly
reach an altitude high enough that noise isn't a problem. Heavy
four-engined planes do take off at a shallower angle than twins, but
it's still much steeper than the 3 degree glide slope.

I'm off to Shanghai tomorrow, and I very much doubt that we'll fly over
central London, even if the take-off is from 09R (they don't normally
use 09L for take-offs, as that would route flights at low altitude over
populated areas).

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 03/11/2011 22:59, Recliner wrote:
"Andy wrote in message

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote:
"Graeme wrote in message

On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In
article4c96e498-1358-4e79-a673-
,
wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing
winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east
(or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that
the noise will impact more people.


Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the
airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over
the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that
departures will be straight over London.

Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of
take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to
altitude. So none need fly over central London.



They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which
will still take them over London.

And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to
burn - particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when
they're heavy with fuel. That's got immediate environmental costs,
will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive
for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..).

You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and
have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress
in the cockpit.

Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very
soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly
(ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead.

I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow.
Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

In message , at 08:05:18 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:
Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very
soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly
(ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead.

I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow.
Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then.

A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends
where they are going.

But there's no need to argue about this, actual data he
http://www.flightradar24.com/

I've just watched a Heathrow-Edinburgh flight take off west and turn
right over Cookham heading for High Wycombe then Bedford; and a
Barcelona flight skirting the east edge of Windsor Great Park on the way
to Guildford.
--
Roland Perry