aircraft minimum range

[jgf]

Much has been written about the maximum range of aircraft, but I can find nothing about a minimum range.  For example, you could take a 747 on a 40 mile hop, but it certainly wouldn't be practical.  So, is there any data on how short a flight is practical for various commercial aircraft?

[aeroart]

Judging by your comment about the 747, you're on to the fact that it's a matter of economics. In the days before deregulation, the government was subsidizing regional carriers such as Mohawk and Lake Central to provide scheduled air carrier to cities that didn't generate enough traffic for the airline to survive. I'm sure the 44-mile BUF to ROC trips Mohawk used to fly with CV-240/440s wouldn't have been real money-makers without government help.

Art

[Stewy44]

I think Japan, at one time, used to run 747 domestic flights.

Not sure about the U.S.

747Fs fly short positioning flights all the time too.

[jgf]

Well, the 40 miles was an exaggerated example.  Whether it's 747s, 707s, DC10s, or whatever, I'm interested in what would be a realistic minimum range for such aircraft in commercial service.  Would a 737 be used for a 100 mile flight?  a 727 for 300 miles?  It's not just the economics (which could vary greatly over the years) but the logistics;  that 747 could be flown 40 miles, but by the time it reached 5000ft, maybe less, it would be time to level off and start planning the approach.  Altitude, speeds, flight paths must all play a part here;  there has to be a point at which, allowing for climb/descent and maneuvering, there isn't enough distance for the plane to achieve a reasonable cruise speed and altitude.  A point where it would be like hiring a semi truck to move across the street.

[rpjkw11]

Southwest flies 737s from Orlando, FL to Fort Lauderdale which is 156 nm and from Tampa to FLL at 166 nm.  I'm sure there are many other examples to be found.  18 years ago I flew on an American MD-11 from George Bush Houston to Dallas-Fort Worth which is about 195 nm. 

Bob

[CAFedm]

Another example...Westjet routinely flies Edmonton-Calgary using either 737-6 or 737-7, a distance of 130 nm. As mentioned, there are surely many other examples, this is a local one that comes to mind.

[machineman9]

I'd think the main issue be the fuel. You'd have to have little amounts of fuel for short hops, because nobody likes hard landings which will either damage the aircraft, or cause it to fall off the runway. Unlike a car where you can fill it up to the brim and drive as far as you like, with an aircraft you'd have to fill it so that it can reach the next several pumps (with some reserve) because you don't want to exceed the landing weight limit.

So long as they have passengers, or some sort of income, which can mean they can afford those small flights... I think that's all that really matters.

[aeroart]

Yes, fuel -- AND crew salaries and maintenance and landing fees and the cost of buying/leasing aircraft and corporate overhead for advertising, etc., etc.

Art

[Nav]

As far as I know, jgf, the economics of air travel are broadly the same as any other form of transport. So long as you have a 'satisfactory load factor' (meaning the thing is reasonably full of passengers) the short trips tend to be more profitable than the long ones.

There are plenty of inter-city routes in Europe (and even here in Australia) of only about 200nm.-300nm. range which are flown by aeroplanes up to 737 size (sometimes even bigger). On most of them, the crews fly 'out-and-return' on the same day, meaning that the airline doesn't have to pay for overnight stays etc.; so the overhead is lower than, for example, that for trans-continental or inter-continental trips where the airline has to pay hotel bills and 'subsistence' for legally-required rest periods etc., and also organise additional crews for the return trips.......

As regards fuel, that's no problem. Not only do they not have to carry so much, there's usually no need to climb as high either; so the 'cost per mile' can often be somewhat lower than for longer trips.

[tgibson]

Sometimes large aircraft will fly short distances.  An example was British 747's and 777's flying from San Diego to Phoenix.  This was an extension of the Phoenix-London flight.

Hope this helps,

[beaky]

I'd think the main issue be the fuel. You'd have to have little amounts of fuel for short hops, because nobody likes hard landings which will either damage the aircraft, or cause it to fall off the runway.

That's why many heavy aircraft have maximum landing weights (based on structural limits) that are lower than their maximum takeoff weights... again, it's a matter of fuel. Such aircraft are intended to carry lots of fuel to go long distances; nobody's expecting them to take off with full tanks and land, say, less than an hour later.