Recliner wrote:
>> nightjar
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>>>> longer than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main
>>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or
>>> damaged aircraft, for example. Colin Bignell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four
>> runways those that are used now and two more running about 035/215
>> and 135/310, I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view
>> of the then new Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in
>> our neckerchief badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have
>> no idea it they are still marked out on the sea of concrete that the
>> current airport occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by
>> a later terminal.
>
> Actually, Heathrow was originally built with six runways (three parallel
> pairs, laid out in an approximately equilateral triangle). No more than
> two runways were ever in use at one time, but I assume they needed to be
> laid out that way as the early piston-engined airliners couldn't take
> off and land in strong cross winds (unlike modern jets), so they had to
> use the runway pair that were roughly in line with the prevailing winds.
Yes, you have twanged memory chords. IIRC the eastern of the pair that
ran roughly 135/310 was discontinued pretty quickly as was the western
of the pair 035/215 the building of term's 2 and 3 got in the way IIRC.
BTW I was present at the opening of the Queens Building.
>
> Three have been built over, but you can just about make them out in
> Google Earth (they are the wider than necessary taxi-ways). In the
> current (out of date) image, 23L looks like it's still open, but there's
> little sign of 23R. The new control tower is built right on it. Of the
> other two, one went through what is now the remote T3 pier, one the
> other through the ends of the T1 piers. If all were still in use, the
> central area would be tiny, so there was no choice but to build over
> them.
Thanks for that I'll check, maybe our old house is still there.
