Show us your Airports!

[Ankka__ 1]

Well, it is an altiport like the aiport of Lukla or the airport of Courchevel (please google). So sure it is death trap, but had to built one in my city =)).

[Frdm920 50]

Well, I know about Courchevel the only thing with that is it has a 19% gradient. Yours is something like 46.9% (assuming 60 m rise over 128 m run)

Those hangars look a bit out of place btw.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Zeddic

Not to be overly offensive but by those criteria your airport is actually pretty lousy.

• The runway should be twice as long to accommodate even small jet aircraft. It's also a bit on the narrow side but that's caused by the airport pack. And on top of that, the markings are hardly accurate either. I'm not familiar with the exact details of touchdown markings but at least you should have 18 on the other end to complement the 36.
• The proximity of tall trees and power lines to the runway is quite alarming. There's usually a clear zone of at least a couple of hundred meters (10+ squares) around it.
• It's true that many small airports only have a single short taxiway to connect the apron to the runway. However, it generally isn't at the very end of the runway and especially not with a bend like that.
• Airports are usually fenced for security reasons. At the very least, there shouldn't be a road with a sidewalk right at the edge of the apron without any segregation.
• Having a railway line to such a small airport would probably not happen in real life unless there were other reasons for the line to be there. It just wouldn't generate enough traffic for profitable railway operation. Even if there is another reason, the station looks really out of place with the default "rural 50's USA" model next to a modern airport terminal and should probably be replaced. Realistically the turning loop is also redundant because train units/locomotives are more or less always bidirectional. Then there are some ridiculously sharp bends on the track. Level crossings are also a safety risk and should be avoided as much as possible.
• The bridges are pointless. It would be easier to just reclaim some land from such shallow water and build the road and railway on that, rather than spend a ton of money building bridges that don't really even cross anything. Especially applies to the railway bridge which also has slopes no train would be able to handle.
• Airports generate a lot of noise and because of that, nobody wants to live near them. There probably wouldn't be a settlement of that size so close to an airport when there's plenty of empty land all around to inhabit. Some warehouses or light industry would be more probable.

I hope you can take this as constructive criticism. For a real-life example of a similar-sized airport, see here for one.quote>

I'd like to add some to this list:

• why is there a displaced threshold on rwy 18? unless there's a reason like noise abatement or obstacle clearence, there's no need for that.
• as it is common fact that airplanes start and land "into the wind" there's always 2 directions per rwy (which is if practicable, adjusted along the main direction of the wind in this area, to facilitate such a procedure), that's why it's e.g. rwy 18/36. keeping this in mind, your airport lacks a possibility for aircrafts to taxi back on the runway to use rwy 36. namely this is a dead-end like structure that allows aircrafts to turn around at the end of the runway to start in the right direction (or to taxi back to the ramp after having landed) consider this google maps image of a formerly military airport in my vicinity where I've landed many times. as you can see both the threshold area as well as the ending part of the blast strip/ stopway offer enough room for aircrafts to do a u turn if there's no other option left as to taxi on the runway. Or an even better example, the homebase of my flight training center in this picture. Comes pretty close to your creation. you can cleary see the overhang for aicrafts to make a u turn on the runway. Further I'd like to add that even tho it's a small airport with a single runway of 1066meters and mstow of 10tons, it offers localizer and rnav approaches for IFR flights
• speaking of landing: as zeddic already stated the lack of obstacle clearence (trees, powerlines etc) you have nor radio neither correct visual guiding for (non)precission approaches but want to accomodate jets. at least there should be a papi/vasi system... next to correct marking, that is.
• speaking of the runway itself. the stated lack of length (approx. 1200meters incl threshould) isn't too much of a problem for the depicted small jets, but the surface of the runway. picture quality might be misleading here, but I think I see some small bumps. while it is ok to have a small slope, bumpyness is not ok (both by laws and by practical use)
• last but not least, per definition of the icao aerodrome design manual (based on icao annex 14), an airport must have a tower, namely a structure taller than the present airport facilities, giving view on the entire runway and apron area as well as surrounding vicinity.

together with zeddics list, I guess you can get quite close to a "realistic" airport, so your correct statement about size and realism can be applied to your own creation.

[zahrul3 472]

Both airports were calculated well, the builders had something in mind about the aircraft that fly there when the airport was built in the first place. Lukla and courchevel aren't that extreme, the slope of courchevel is okay for the DHC-6 that go there and is quite mild while the one at Lukla is even milder, at 12% gradient, its quite reasonable instead of planes crashing into the surrounding valley while looking for it if it was located in the valley. As if the Nepalese and the French are dumb.... no human is stupid unless they are hunter gatherers(eg. Bushmen of Africa), who do not need much intellegence to live.

[GMT 389]

I think comment about bushmens intelligence is rather inappropriate

[thepokemaniac 18]

Reminds me of an episode of the world's most extreme airports!

[Ankka__ 1]

Thanks for all the instructons! I'll do some modifications my altiport ride away.

PS. There are no bumps its the picture quality.

[Zeddic 3]

Originally posted by: GMT

• why is there a displaced threshold on rwy 18? unless there's a reason like noise abatement or obstacle clearence, there's no need for that.
• as it is common fact that airplanes start and land "into the wind" there's always 2 directions per rwy (which is if practicable, adjusted along the main direction of the wind in this area, to facilitate such a procedure), that's why it's e.g. rwy 18/36. keeping this in mind, your airport lacks a possibility for aircrafts to taxi back on the runway to use rwy 36. namely this is a dead-end like structure that allows aircrafts to turn around at the end of the runway to start in the right direction (or to taxi back to the ramp after having landed
• speaking of the runway itself. the stated lack of length (approx. 1200meters incl threshould) isn't too much of a problem for the depicted small jets, but the surface of the runway. picture quality might be misleading here, but I think I see some small bumps. while it is ok to have a small slope, bumpyness is not ok (both by laws and by practical use)

quote>

Thanks for the real aviation-geekery. But making a rough approximation from the picture, I think the runway is closer to maybe 900 m which really isn't enough for jets. The turning areas on the other hand aren't quite as necessary if the runway itself is wide enough. At least in the Nordic countries that's the case at several smaller airports, including the one I linked (Skellefteå, SFT/ESNS). Of course, the airport pack runways are only two squares (32 m) wide which really isn't quite enough for that. Something needs to be done about it anyway.

[jim 546 43]

Originally posted by: Zeddic

Of course, the airport pack runways are only two squares (32 m) wide which really isn't quite enough for that. Something needs to be done about it anyway.

quote>

RMIP-3 is in development over on SC4D, which focuses on a 5-tile wide runway.  I think it allows for 3 tiles as well.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Zeddic

Thanks for the real aviation-geekery. But making a rough approximation from the picture, I think the runway is closer to maybe 900 m which really isn't enough for jets. The turning areas on the other hand aren't quite as necessary if the runway itself is wide enough. At least in the Nordic countries that's the case at several smaller airports, including the one I linked (Skellefteå, SFT/ESNS). Of course, the airport pack runways are only two squares (32 m) wide which really isn't quite enough for that. Something needs to be done about it anyway.

quote>

you're welcome

anyways, I took scale from the sidelines of the parking lot inside the rail loop (which seems to be 3x4 in total) and applied it to the runway, that's how I came up with 1200meters.

concerning the turning areas, that's true. But like you stated already, a 32m runway isn't enough for those bigger aircraft among the small ones

[Ankka__ 1]

Hello again. I made some changes (the slope looked better on my simcity).I tried to make a <25% slope (it looks a bit different on this picture but it has something to do with the resolution). I removed some runway pieces and put the threshold there were it should be. The runway was enlarged by 5-6 tiles to ensure that big turboprobs (ATR and Dash- can land here regularly and safely. I hope you liked it, but if you don't, feel free to comment.

Duck__

[GMT 389]

better layout, still don't like the slope tho.

the transition from level runway to sloped runway is too hard, make it more like a curve than a wedge (both the lower and the upper transition) and maybe reduce the height difference a little. you'll still have an insanely % gradient but it'll get a little more practicable in terms of flying I also doubt the runway length in addition of the available slope is enough to accomodate atr42 and dash8. more likely dash6 and do228

EDIT: speaking of slopes in general, I think it would do you a big favor if you'd consider using a slope mod. It helps to get rid of these utterly ugly (and unrealistic and therefore insane) hard transitions from level surfaces to sloped surfaces. Take a look at your roads to know what I am talking about. Not that 45% slopes on avenues (lower left corner) are a doubtful sight, just think of you having to get your car on such a slope. it's like driving into a wall.

same accounts for the runway, btw. even the 12% slope in lukla feels like flying into a wall...

[barnahadnagy 7]

According to FAA, the max slope for Cat A and B aircraft (stall speed*1.3 <121 knots) is 2%, can change 1% / 90 M (300 feet), for C, D cat. (<166 knots) it is 1.5% but only 0.8% at the first and last quarter of the runway, can change 1% / 300 M (1000 feet). A 737 is in C or D category. Dash-8 and other props are in B. (BTW it is hard to find theese stats...). Just to make things clear. (or more complicated )

[kingdiz_55 12]

Wow. This is a lot of aviation-geekery (as Zeddic put it) even for me to handle.

[Simcitymaster13 27]

World's Most Dangerous Airport goes to .... Ankka_

[Gath22 15]

An airport would never be built on such an mountainous area. Just imagine the aircraft landing to slow, he'd crash into the mountains in front of the airport, or landing to fast and not braking in time, he would just fall off, and such a slope in a runway is not realistic, if you want to build a realistic airport you have to search for a flat area.

[kingdiz_55 12]

I'm not really sure if I already posted these once before so if I did, I apologize. Anyway, I was looking around my Photobucket album and found these two. Makes me wanna play SC4 again.

[tonyr 926]

Awesome airport,I love the use of the plazas,and other custom content! Thanks for sharing it!

I'l start off!

Centreburg Gateway International Airport (CTB/CCGW)

45 million passengers recorded in 2009

2000 tons of freight recorded in 2009

type="_moz">

  Edited March 24, 2011 by tonyr  

[antsel 841]

Great airports everyone!

Ankka, that runway looks terribly dangerous!!

Tony, when you quote a post please remove the pictures as this clogs the thread and makes it more difficult to navigate.

[kingdiz_55 12]

Tony, when you quote a post please remove the pictures as this clogs the thread and makes it more difficult to navigate.

This goes out to everybody who'll be quoting anything.

[Simcitymaster13 27]

This Is Mitchell Field Airport (Est. 1957). Its located just outside the City and County of Royland.

You can get to the airport by either taking Arizona Road all the way in or getting of Exit 2A on the Scotchbrook Toll Expressway.

Out of the 2 current airports build in or outside the City and County of Royland, Mitchell Fields is the only airport to be buildt by a Toll Expressway.

[tonyr 926]

  Edited March 24, 2011 by tonyr  

[kingdiz_55 12]

Simcitymaster13: There are a few things I would like to point out about your airport. First off, there's this pole thing at the West end of one runway. Next, you designated one of your runways as "L" which supposedly stands for "left" runway (used only when runways are parallel to one another), and lastly, your taxiways are too far away from the runways. You also lack taxiways in the middle of the runway meaning you'd have to make planes travel all the way to the other end of the runway (which really isn't good if you have another 747 about to land) That's just my opinion is all. (realism wise, that is)

*and yes, I said "runway" a lot of times.

[antsel 841]

Thanks kINGDIZ-55 and Selles ! I've made the correction. I apologize for disrupting the flow,again thanks! I'm learning...

No prob!

[iv76erson03 2]

Hello again. I made some changes (the slope looked better on my simcity).I tried to make a <25% slope (it looks a bit different on this picture but it has something to do with the resolution). I removed some runway pieces and put the threshold there were it should be. The runway was enlarged by 5-6 tiles to ensure that big turboprobs (ATR and Dash- can land here regularly and safely. I hope you liked it, but if you don't, feel free to comment.

Duck__

Yeah, the slope is a little ridiculous. However, if you were overweight, you just run it off the end of the runway and it would probably start flying. Reminds me of a little grass landing strip by my house that has a ravine at the end of the runway, by the time you go off the runway, you're flying whether you like it or not. Anyway, about the mountainous terrain, while it isn't normal, it isn't unheard of. May I present Innsbruck in Austria. Lodged in the Alps, the minimum safe altitude in the area is 11,500 feet, yet the runway is at 1,900 feet. It's a treat landing there. Fix the slope, keep the mountains, could be a great airport. Cheers!

[graciannewest 2]

This is how I spent my weekend. Still a WIP - any suggestions?

[antsel 841]

This is how I spent my weekend. Still a WIP - any suggestions?

I'm no expert on airports, but yours looks mighty fine!

[TekindusT 3,809]

Creative terminal layouts are always super-welcome in this thread; and definately these curved concourses look very nice!.

[_marsh_ 1,118]

Ghazuo International Airport. If you want mre click the link in my sig.

[Josh6 873]

whoa. Thats sweeet