T-33 Shooting Star Runway Length requirements!

[warbirdguy]

I sitting here and began pondering the required runway length in order to operate a T-33 Shooting Star. I thinking on the lines of 5,000'. More or less? Any ideas?

[mlenoch]

Yes, that is an acceptable runway length. Accurate landing profiles are essential; you cannot waste runway & go-arounds after touch down may not be possible.
Tire & brake wear will be greater than a 6000' runway, of course.
During the summertime, full fuel takeoffs will likely not be possible.
VL

[DamienB]

Duxford is 4900 ft I think - they successfully operated a T-33 out of there between the early 1980s and this year.

[T33driver]

I sitting here and began pondering the required runway length in order to operate a T-33 Shooting Star. I thinking on the lines of 5,000'. More or less? Any ideas?

5000' of runway is comfortable, and gives you a little cushion if you're a few knots fast on approach and float it, but that's the "gotcha"...don't be even a few knots fast on appch/landing. My home runway is 5849' which is comfortable for my Canadair T-33. The Rolls-Royce powered Canadair with full fuel, 90 degree day, sea-level, has a ground roll of about 3500', but if you abort the takeoff just prior to takeoff/refusal speed it's gonna be tight getting it stopped before the end of a 5000' runway--dash one says consider jettisoning tip tanks (3200 lbs) during a high speed, max gross wt abort if stopping on available runway in question, but that can create other hazards--things to think about beforehand. At lighter fuel weights (tips empty, approx 12,000 lb gross wt) 4000' is bare bones, and not something I wanna do on a regular basis. Like Vlado said, even with 5000', you can't waste any runway on landing, gotta nail the approach speeds and get the mains on the surface early.

[Bill Greenwood]

When Aspen was 6000' at 8000' elevation a 33 used to visit and seemed to land ok, but he used most of the runway on takeoff without much climb rate. A Soko based there briefly seemed about the same. Larry Salgenak? in Santa Fe runs a good school with 33, Mig, L-29, L-39, etc. Not as expensive as you might think, but of course not quite as cool as a Merlin.

[wendovertom]

A friend of mine had an interesting if not nearly deadly experience with flying an American T-33 out of Aspen. He also relates that his love for the Canadair T-33 is in part due to the more powerful Rolls Royce engine.

Tom P.

[Bill Greenwood]

Tom, I think the 33 that used to visit was based near Salt Lake, perhaps Heber. Do you know the details of the incident.

[T33driver]

When Aspen was 6000' at 8000' elevation a 33 used to visit and seemed to land ok, but he used most of the runway on takeoff without much climb rate. A Soko based there briefly seemed about the same.

T-Bird operating on the old Aspen runway?! Yikes! I guess they picked the right days for takeoff...

[bdk]

Tom, I think the 33 that used to visit was based near Salt Lake, perhaps Heber.

Kay Eckardt? Did some sheet metal work on that one in 1985 when it was rebuilt in Chino.

[Mike]

Duxford is 4900 ft I think - they successfully operated a T-33 out of there between the early 1980s and this year.

Perhaps not too good a recommendation Damien, as the 'successfully' bit came to rather an abrupt end a few weeks back.

I had always thought that Duxford's runway lost 1,500 of its standard RAF 6,000 foot length when the M11 was built, reducing it to 4,500 feet. However, the IWM website quotes the main runway as having a maximum length of 1,319m, which equates to just over 4,300 feet.

http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1181

[krlang]

Had a Canadian pilot abort a takeoff here in Bedford, Ma a few years back.
7000 Ft. runway with an abort on rotation, he kept the tip tanks on but he threw everything else out to slow it down. Even the Canopy!
Both tires and wheels were junk by the time he got it stopped in the over run. It sat there until the replacement brakes and wheels arrived.

[T33driver]

Had a Canadian pilot abort a takeoff here in Bedford, Ma a few years back.
7000 Ft. runway with an abort on rotation, he kept the tip tanks on but he threw everything else out to slow it down. Even the Canopy!
Both tires and wheels were junk by the time he got it stopped in the over run. It sat there until the replacement brakes and wheels arrived.

Throwing the canopy up on landing roll or an aborted takeoff rollout is a flight manual approved procedure for the T-33. I chuckled when I first read it in the Dash One, but it's effective. Below 90 kts, you can crack it open an inch and a half and below 55kts all the way up...then goes on to say if stopping in the runway remaining is in doubt, disregard speed limits and open her all the way ASAP! Wheel brakes on the old jets aren't so good, there's no anti-skid so in urgent situations, you need all the help you can get to get her stopped--though the brakes on Canadair built versions of the T-33 and F-86 are much improved from the original US-built airplanes.