Richmond International Airport

[Lexy]

Wow! Lexy. That Antonov is one big airship!

Give us more pix, please.

I think the Queen's 777 might have been parked where the Antonov is because the building behind it looks like the Continental hangar.

There must be shots of the plane on the ground -- or either arriving or departing. I'll keep looking around, too.

Thanks for your picture show, Eric. More from you, too, please!

Well, in Lexington, KY they shut the airport down and all the airspace above and around it was shut down as well. I had reports that secret service was crawling all over the airport grounds and neighboring streets around Lexington-Bluegrass Airport yesterday, so getting pictures at either airport would've been hard without the proper credentials I would think. I hope I am wrong because I believe they infringed on some Constitutional Rights by running people off from non-airport public grounds.

Here are a few more of the Antonov Burt. They have been coming into Nashville recently to deliever the Boeing 787's new engine here for wind tunnel testing at Arnold Air Force Base.

This is the flightdeck. It takes six people to fly this airplane. A pilot and his/her first officer, two flight engineers, a communications officer, and a navigator.

Here is an Antonov parked next to a 727 for size comparison sake!

[burt]

They are terrific photos, Lexy. Thanks for sharing. Doen't the US Air Force have planes as large as the Antonov?

You mean the Queen's 777 flew into Lexington rather than Louisville?

I hope they had more than one air controller on duty.

I would have thought with its recent troubles and the lack of a long runway, Lexington would not have been able to handle the plane.

[Lexy]

They are terrific photos, Lexy. Thanks for sharing. Doen't the US Air Force have planes as large as the Antonov?

You mean the Queen's 777 flew into Lexington rather than Louisville?

I hope they had more than one air controller on duty.

I would have thought with its recent troubles and the lack of a long runway, Lexington would not have been able to handle the plane.

The airport is safe, albeit it has a short runway. But both the 747 and the 777 are high performance designed machines and they can utlilze the runway up there with ease. They typically have four or five visits a year from two 747's in Lexington. Being that Lexington is the CENTER of the horse industry in this world, there are two horse farms that are up there that are owned by both the Prince of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Both guys have a pair of 747's that fly into there multiple times each year. The airport doesn't see much traffic in the form of "Heavies", but when theey do see the traffic it's usually awesome airplanes. I wished I still lived up there, if for just this weekend alone! LOL!!! That airport's setting is one of the best in the world with it being completely surrounded by horse farms. It's just a great place to fly into.

The Queen is staying at a horse farm in Lexington, so the need to fly into there was more than the need to fly into Louisville. Now, she just hops on a helicopter for the 30 minute ride to Churchill Downs in Louisville from her horse farm in Lexington.

The US Government has been seen doing touch and goes at that airport with both "Air Force One" (the 747)and "Air Force Two" (the 757).

The Air Force has the C-5 Galaxy which is basically the same size as the Antonov. THe Antonov came along AFTER the C-5 did.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Lexy

[eandslee]

Yeah, thanks Lexy for the photos and for also pointing out that Richmond lands the Antonov. When browsing photos last night I saw a photo of Air Force One on Richmond's tarmac. So, you're right - Richmond can accommodate the "big boys". Burt the Air Force aircraft that that looks like the Antonov is the C-5. Its nose opens up the same way the Antonov does.

[asace8888]

Great pictures...Richmond's runway is definitely long enough to land planes like 747's and 777's. I can remember in the mid 90's the AN-124 landed at Richmond to take a large shipment of tobacco from Philip-Morris back to Moscow. The problem was that it was such a risky landing for a plane that big that it took the AN-124 at least 10 tries to finally land (I remember seeing it fly over my neighborhood multiple times that day). Richmond also handled the USAF C-5 Galaxy which used to land at Richmond on a monthly basis when the National Guard was stationed there and that plane is about the same size as the AN-124. Runway length is not a problem for landing planes if we need to handle them; the problem is that our runway length is only 9,000 feet where most airports that handle jumbo jets on a regular daily basis are at least 10,000 feet. But I still think we should build another runway at KRIC that's at least 10,000 feet, that'd be great.

[Lexy]

Runway length is not a problem for landing planes if we need to handle them; the problem is that our runway length is only 9,000 feet where most airports that handle jumbo jets on a regular daily basis are at least 10,000 feet. But I still think we should build another runway at KRIC that's at least 10,000 feet, that'd be great.

Thanks guys!

We have four runways in Nashville and only one of them is over 10,000 feet. And you are right, all of our heavies, sans a couple of them, that land here use Runway 13-31 (11,000 feet usuable). They like that extra "room" in case something happens. I have seen our daily 747 delivery of computer parts from China use one of the 8,000 foot runways to land and take off on with room to spare both times. Here is a great shot that shows a China Airlines freighter leaving Nashville on an 8,000 foot runway with about 3,500 feet to spare...

A good pilot can put these things down, and get them back up, alomst anywhere a decently long runway is. But having a runway over 10,000 is certainly a good marketing tool for the airport no doubt!

Edited May 5, 2007 by Lexy

[asace8888]

You're right about that...747's can definitely land on runways as short as about 7,000 feet. I have a great movie showing this. This is a 747 taking off from Bournemouth Airport in England which has a runway of only 7,400 feet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q

[Lexy]

You're right about that...747's can definitely land on runways as short as about 7,000 feet. I have a great movie showing this. This is a 747 taking off from Bournemouth Airport in England which has a runway of only 7,400 feet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q

That's a pilot that knows what he/she is doing. Increadible takeoff! The point of rotation was almost at the piano keys!

[eandslee]

You're right about that...747's can definitely land on runways as short as about 7,000 feet. I have a great movie showing this. This is a 747 taking off from Bournemouth Airport in England which has a runway of only 7,400 feet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feGZ4l5fk4Q

This is a great video! I saw this one yesterday when I was browsing youtube. I wasn't aware that it was a short runway though (I guess I didn't pay much attention to the title - Duh!). I can see why a 10,000ft runway would give an airport some extra assurance that planes will land and take off safely. I wish Richmond International would build a longer runway or extend one of our runways. There was a plan to do so in the late 90s, but I don't know what became of it.

[Lexy]

This is a great video! I saw this one yesterday when I was browsing youtube. I wasn't aware that it was a short runway though (I guess I didn't pay much attention to the title - Duh!). I can see why a 10,000ft runway would give an airport some extra assurance that planes will land and take off safely. I wish Richmond International would build a longer runway or extend one of our runways. There was a plan to do so in the late 90s, but I don't know what became of it.

Like anything that is to do with the FAA and the government, runway length and extensions is a hot topic and one that generates a lot of public "input". Most bystanders don't realize that longer runways are infact more safe and less prone for accidents. Not to mention, the airport can then diversify their offereings a bit and market themselves to cargo companies much like Nashville did with China Airlines and FedEx just to name a couple. Nashville has one runway that is slated to be extended from 8,000 feet to around 13,000 feet in the not to distant future. It's their "cargo" runway (the runway in my picture posted above) which runs along the side of the two cargo ramps here. If Richmond can get a longer runway, that will help with growth in the future for sure. It's just the process of securing funds and getting approvals/land rights for it that takes up so much time.

[eandslee]

If Richmond can get a longer runway, that will help with growth in the future for sure. It's just the process of securing funds and getting approvals/land rights for it that takes up so much time.

Perhaps Richmond's runway extension program is still ongoing, but since it takes so long to actually do, its probably just in a phase of development where funds are being secured, etc. It's just that we haven't heard anything about it in a number of years. I think I'm going to email Troy Bell, RIC's spokesman, and see what information I can get from him about this project. I'll let you all know what I find out. Lexy, thanks so much for you comments in the Richmond International Airport thread. Your knowledge is vast and you photos are amazing. Wish you lived in Richmond so that you could grab photos of aircraft and RIC and the airport itself as it continues to grow!

[Lexy]

Perhaps Richmond's runway extension program is still ongoing, but since it takes so long to actually do, its probably just in a phase of development where funds are being secured, etc. It's just that we haven't heard anything about it in a number of years. I think I'm going to email Troy Bell, RIC's spokesman, and see what information I can get from him about this project. I'll let you all know what I find out. Lexy, thanks so much for you comments in the Richmond International Airport thread. Your knowledge is vast and you photos are amazing. Wish you lived in Richmond so that you could grab photos of aircraft and RIC and the airport itself as it continues to grow!

Hey thanks! It's my pleasure and if I am ever in RIC, I will be sure to get some pictures for you guys. You have a wonderful airport that is on the cusp of some great things. Use it, appreciate it and it will give more back to the community than you could imagine.

[burt]

Since Prince Philip was touring Nauticus and the new Half Moone cruise ship terminal in Norfolk, there was some confusion about the Royals' departure point for Lexington. Richmond Times Dispatch writer Bill Geroux answered my query as to whether the 777 picked up the Prince at Norfolk Naval Air Station, or whether he flew back to RIC to rejoin the Queen, thusly: "...there was enormous secrecy about the flight plans...I could not get confirmation on any of them."

Edited May 6, 2007 by burt

[Lexy]

I can tell you that it arrived in Lexington from Norfolk. That may shed some light on the situation for you perhaps.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Lexy

[burt]

I can tell you that it arrived in Lexington from Norfolk. That may shed some light on the situation for you perhaps.

Thanks for the confirmation, Lexy. I've passed your words along to the Norfolk board.

[eandslee]

I was pleasantly surprised to look in my email inbox this morning to see a response from Troy Bell from RIC regarding my inquiry on a runway extension at RIC. The following was his response:

"Mr. Lee, thank you for dropping us a note. The 10,000-ft runway will

likely remain an option under the airport's Master Plan - now being

updated - but the cost is likely to keep it on the back burner until

there's a pressing need. Even a 1,400-ft extension to 16/34 would cost

more than $40 million, with no apparent need. Hope all is well in

Montana!"

So, it appears that a longer runway is on the radar screen, but according to him, there is no need right now for one - afterall, our current runway configuration and lengths handle the current traffic RIC is experiencing just fine AND it is able to accommodate planes as large as 777 and the Antonov. Looks like it will be years away, I'm afraid......unless, we can land a hub or something crazy like that to warrant a runway extension or the building of a new runway. I can see both sides of the argument: for one, it's very expensive to do and if there is no pressing need for one right now, why fight the battle to get the funds etc. to make it happen. However, on the flip side, it would be nice to have the infrastructure in place to attract more traffic to the airport such as a hub (for passengers or cargo). I guess the airport has decided to stick with the status quo for right now. I guess that's all they can do right now.

Edited May 7, 2007 by eandslee

[burt]

That was a fast, courteous and informative reply from Troy Bell, Eric. Maybe he reads our posts here.

Richmond seems like a logical site for a large air freight facility. With two Interstates and an enviable location along the Megalopolis corridor, I'm surprised it hasn't happened.

At least we know longer runways are in the Master Plan. Wouldn't the Fed's cover much of the $40M to extend 16/34? What would cost $40M today, will escalate to $60M soon. Rather than wait untill traffic demands it, they ought to push ahead with an extension now, IMO.

Edited May 7, 2007 by burt

[burt]

I'm looking forward to Chip Jones' report on April boardings.

Has anyone heard anything about the proposed Airport Spur off of 895?

[eandslee]

I'm looking forward to Chip Jones' report on April boardings.

Has anyone heard anything about the proposed Airport Spur off of 895?

Good question there burt. There hasn't been much talk of the airport connector lately, but you can access some information about it here:

Pocahontas Parkway and Airport Connector web site

...And that's all I know of what is currently going on. I thought funding was already in place, but I may be wrong. I just thought we were waiting for a groundbreaking, but there's nothing going on right now.

[wrldcoupe4]

Wasn't the airport connector funding part of the deal the state had with Transurban when it turned over control of 895?

[eandslee]

Wasn't the airport connector funding part of the deal the state had with Transurban when it turned over control of 895?

Sure. That's what I thought, but I don't know what the big hold-up is.

[wrldcoupe4]

According to Transurban:

Under Transurban

[eandslee]

Makes sense to me, but I had also thought that they had obtained that financing, but my impatient mind may be wrong. Not sure where to look to see if I'm correct or not. Any thoughts?

[wrldcoupe4]

The times-dispatch may have written up an article about it, but all of the pre-new website content has disappeared into the dark depths of the internet since they failed to do anything to allow people to access it. Media General is a big company... one would hope they'd have to capability to have the timesdispatch.com articles linked to in some way...

[eandslee]

The times-dispatch may have written up an article about it, but all of the pre-new website content has disappeared into the dark depths of the internet since they failed to do anything to allow people to access it. Media General is a big company... one would hope they'd have to capability to have the timesdispatch.com articles linked to in some way...

Past expeience has shown that if one is trying to access a past article from the RTD online, you have to pay for it. I'm not sure how far back it has to be in order for us to access it without being charged, but sifting through the available articles to find this particular one seems like a very daunting task...unless there is a very effective search engine.