Show us your Airports!

[Evillions 552]

I have a couple of airports of mine:

My most recent airport and probably the most complete one I ever made.

My first custom airport:

After several attempts, I created a better airport.

My second Middle Eastern airport:

[smf_16 1,838]

I'm currently renovating one of my very first cities I ever built and of course, a custom built airport should come with that! The airport has 3 runways and 3 terminals, two of them lie in one city, the third lies in another city. It also has a cargo and private jet area. Hope you like it

Airport overview:

Terminal 1A and 1B:

Terminal 1C and 1D:

Terminal 2:

Terminal 3:

Cargo & private jet area:

[Josh6 873]

@1000000000000: Very cool terminal design. You should defiantly release those at some point

[SylvioJ 388]

Elavery: Loved your aiport. It's ery beatiful and the sun effects are simply perfect. http://www.majhost.com/gallery/eugenelavery/Mahibadhoos/dhiraagu_airport_mosaic_3.jpg - Best image, in my opinion. Anyway, where did you download those ATR empty parking spots? Couldn't find anywhere.

[Ace3 1,209]

Some very innovative airports here

Here's an overview of the most recent one I did:

Full update here: https://community.simtropolis.com/journal/2974/entry-17421-masel-international-airport/

[LoonyMan 239]

Awesome airports! I have the runways and taxiways, but where do the airport terminals come from?

EDIT: I decided to experiment with the airport lots and stuff like that for the first time. So it may seem a little sloppy.

Terminal 1, International Terminal

Terminal 2, Regional Terminal

  Edited July 25, 2012 by LoonyMan  

[AIX 270]

My first real attempt at a custom airport. More images in my city journal!

[Blakeway 211]

First time I'm making a regional airport. Welcome to Kalis Airport, in Kalis, Saremia!

[SylvioJ 388]

Nice, Blake! I found very interesting the fact that you use a different kind of terminal, and the diagonal runaway. But i've missed the security fence and a hangars section. Great for you first airport.

[Mayor Gaetan 21]

Here is it is the first time when I to create an airport have to leave flexible parts then I would like to know of what you think of it (it is about a military airport)

[Sandis_van_Great 346]

Here is it is the first time when I to create an airport have to leave flexible parts then I would like to know of what you think of it (it is about a military airport)

not bad, but for me theres something missing, thought im not sure what

[TekindusT 3,809]

@dzekins, @Mayor Gaetan: Perpahps runway markings, identifiers and blast pads. Also, the runways are around 600-700 meters long, and I'm not sure a B-52 Stratofortress like the ones you're showing is capable of landing in such a short stretch

[GMT 389]

let me see what I can say to this years airports (at least since my last post)

terring: nice heliport, I bet the placement is just perfect for this guy. I just love that bat.
as for your spaceport, I think the runways are too short, but then again, we're so far in the future probably safety doesn't ask for more

Josh6: I like your terminal design and the apron seems to be well thought through.

terring: again, nice spaceport

Jorge_carrillo: now that's a city there... the airport is even more impressive. Too big tho, or too small. I see 8 runways of which 6 run parallel in pairs of 3. Either way you can only use 2 runways parallel (as in at the very same time) by ICAO standards (runway centerlines must be 760m = 48 tiles apart to allow for some sort of parallel operation, in this case it's segregated parallel operation; 100% parallel operation requires 1035m/65 tiles)
your small airport looks good aswell, the runway might be a tidbit short but the runway markings are a little off tho; there's no need for L/R designators with only one runway and also the distance markers are a little off, the large ones are 1000ft-ers and supposed to be 19 tiles from threshold. I like your use of a displaced threshold

Haljackey: Nice airport layout and placement, but runway is too short and wrong marked, but I know it's a custom lot and not a custom airport, so...

Sylvio Jorge: Nice small airport. Unfortunately too small for depicted jets; it's 64tiles = 1024m long and I think I spot an Embraer 190 which, at max takeoff weight, needs twice the length. Also I would suggest to correctly use the runway puzzle pieces (correct rotation)

kingdiz_55: nice design so far

im shot: like how sattelite the reed maximillus airport is. Runway length seems ok, looks like we got a direction change in progress... runway markings are a tidbit off the poptaloo airport seems nice aswell, too bad no better picture is awailable.

Josh6: nice airport design and placement. Runways might be a tidbit short but hard to tell from the distance and night. that one bright white tower might restrict approaches to the runway 36/18, also the S-curve approach/departure 27/09LR makes no sense to me. yet very impressive and nice depth of details on the aiport (over in your CJ)

TekindusT: nice airport design, from these pics I can't find anything to moan about...

10000000000000: awesome terminal

elavery: lagouira airpot has a nice idea of the 3wide runways, but the runway designators make no sense at all. 09 and 18 will never be on the same runway on this planet. 09 is magnetic east and 18 is magnetic south.
dhiraagu airport has an awesomely detailed environment and it looks like the airport itself is a consistent work, except for the room between taxiway and gates, you see how a plane taxing past that 747 would get into collision problems

Evillions: Nice Airports. The runway markings are not to standard tho. and the fences between apron and taxiways are also off. 32m wide taxiway and then the fence would mean that every plane with a spanwidth beyond 32m (what even includes 737s built from 1998 on, which is 737-600 and up) would risk and most probably get severe damage to the wings. I see 747s at the gates, their spanwidth is from 59.6m up to 68.5m (over 4 tiles), they would not just severly damage thei wings, but also their engines. would be quite a short flight, eh?
except for your "first custom airport", the other airports look better from that perspective, except for the runway markings. Maybe your "second middle-eastern airport" might run into some obstacle clearance problems with the skyscrapers in or too close to the approach/departure path

smf_16: I like the design of your terminals. but your runways are too short and the markings are off. also obstacle clearance is not given on the approach/departure paths.

10000000000000: nice one, very realistic. good runway and taxiway layout, markings seem right, enough room to taxi... well done

LoonyMan: so far so good I guess. Markings on apron seem to be inconsistent but for a first time that aint bad at all.

AIX: for the A/C I see here, the runway length is at the very lower limit. Also, runway markings are off. terminal layout is nice, but I would place the tower closer to the center of the "wedge" your airport forms. From the looks of it, your obstacle clearence on approach/departure might be endangered aswell. Also, I think your sims will hate whoever created the terminal for the looo...ooong ways from entrance to the farthest gate.

Blakeway: nice idea to have a diagonal runway. nice little faraway airport from what I can see
--

there's two things I always stumble over, it's runway length and runway markings.
as for markings, there's a very comprehensive tutorial in the RMIP readme files I can only suggest to read.
for runway lengths, here's a list of more or less common planes to get an idea:

Aircraft	Takeoff (m)	SC4 tiles	Landing (m)	SC4 tiles
737-100	1676	105	1207	75
737-800	2100	131	1634	102
747-100	3050	191	2134	133
747-400	3490	218	2134	133
777-200	2225	139	1660	104
777-300	3353	210	1860	116
A319	1820	114	1470	92
A320	2340	146	1470	92
A380-800	2750	172	1524	95
A340-600	3099	194	2063	129
A350-900	2438	152	1219	76
Q400	1402	88	1286	80
CRJ900	1944	122	1621	101
Learjet 60	1661	104	1042	65
Challenger 850	1918	120	886	55
Legacy 600	1662	104	702	44
ERJ190	2055	128	1323	83
ERJ140	1850	116	1380	86
182 Skylane	242	15	179	11
Caravan 765	353	22	227	14
Citation CJ4	1005	63	812	51
Citation X	1085	68	810	51
Kingair 350	1005	63	640	40
Gulfstream 500	1569	98	844	53
Falcon 2000LX	1791	112	801	50

the table is in reference to takeoff distance required / landing distance required at respective maximum allowable masses at ISA conditions which mean 15°C (59°F), 1013.25hpa (29.92inHg), 1.225kg/m³ (0.0024 slug/ft³). Higher elevation, higher temperature and lower pressure increase these values and the other way around reduce them. Runway condition (dry, wet, snow) also have an increasing effect in that order. (in)operational AC equipment (autobrakes, anti-skid) also has a positive or negative effect. And, of course, the AC mass itself does have it's influence; the lighter the better.
all figures from wikipedia and/or aircraftcompare.com

so as you can see, there's basically 3 rules of thumb for runway lengths to be derived from this:
small, prop driven AC aswell as private jets: 60 tiles
large propdriven AC and medium passenger jets: 130 tiles
large passenger jets: well beyond 200 tiles

EDIT: format and details
  Edited August 31, 2012 by GMT  

[TekindusT 3,809]

@GMT: I'm bookmarking that table. Very useful help!

[CarrotCake07 3]

Here is it is the first time when I to create an airport have to leave flexible parts then I would like to know of what you think of it (it is about a military airport)

@dzekins, @Mayor Gaetan: Perpahps runway markings, identifiers and blast pads. Also, the runways are around 600-700 meters long, and I'm not sure a B-52 Stratofortress like the ones you're showing is capable of landing in such a short stretch

Yeah the runway is a bit short and no runway markings. Further it looks good. Much better then my silly attempts for a medium size city airport.

[CarrotCake07 3]

All of these are very cool!

[Mayor Gaetan 21]

Thank you, I am going to to stretch out runways, on the other hand that want to say yourselves on the subjects of the runways markings

[husher 18]

To Tekindust:, i agree mate, i've read all of Dale Browns books and he's quite clear on the subject; the average B52 needs a 6000 yards minimum to take off and land, even with JATO packs, 700 yards is no good for take off, landing?, it might do it with a headwind, good brakes and some liquid courage!

I've had the priviige of seen a few B52's at airshows here in England, they're massive beasts who need loads of room, this lads airfield is fine for fighters not bombers, great try though.

[SAVAGExPHOENIX 955]

@dzekins, @Mayor Gaetan: Perpahps runway markings, identifiers and blast pads. Also, the runways are around 600-700 meters long, and I'm not sure a B-52 Stratofortress like the ones you're showing is capable of landing in such a short stretch

It's not the stratofortress I'm worried about. It's the blackbird. The SR-71 uses ramjets. That requires a ridiculously high speed to be efficient. It requires a very long runway. 2500-3000+ meters, actually.

Source: My grandfather was an SR-71 Mechanic.

  Edited August 31, 2012 by daTSchikinhed  

[heitomat 156]

First off, I have to agree with Linoa06; this thread belongs to the thread.

@Mayor Gaetan: I like the overall concept, but in addition to what's already mentioned by TekindusT, I miss some taxiways.

Nice display of different props and buildings, though. But where is this B-52 everybody but me seem to have spotted? I recognize the B-2, SR-71, F-16, E-3 AWACS, C-17 and something that looks like a KC-10, but no B-52..?

[heitomat 156]

A lot of great and interesting airports here. Fantastic work, guys!

@GMT: Thank you ever so much for the table and your feedback. Great input and inspiration for any lurker.

[Zodicus 34]

You need taxi ways, atleast one runway going in a borth _ south direction. More hangers. Outside parking area's. Get rid of the dang SR-71's we stopped using those in the early 90's. You also need JP-8 tanks (jet fuel) as well as ground vehicle props. Security fencing would be nice along with a guardhouse. Check the the SNP stuff on https://www.sc4devotion.com

@dzekins, @Mayor Gaetan: Perpahps runway markings, identifiers and blast pads. Also, the runways are around 600-700 meters long, and I'm not sure a B-52 Stratofortress like the ones you're showing is capable of landing in such a short stretch

It's not the stratofortress I'm worried about. It's the blackbird. The SR-71 uses ramjets. That requires a ridiculously high speed to be efficient. It requires a very long runway. 2500-3000+ meters, actually.

Source: My grandfather was an SR-71 Mechanic.

Old leaky (the SR-71) Actually takes off at subsonic speeds then refuels in mid air. The reason they refuel is that they take off with just enough fuel to get them to a tanker because the skin and fuel tanks have open seems in them which causes the fuel to leak all over the tarmac (hence old leaky). The reason for that is that at high supersonic speeds (the 71 is capable of mach 3.4+) causes the fuselage to heat to 1000 degrees + causing the metal to expand and fill the open seems. If it was not designed to do this the fuel tanks and fuselage would buckle in mid air and cause a catestrophic failure. Once they have fueled in mid air they accelerate to supersonic speeds. The SR-71 needs no more runway space than the B2's in that picture

Sorry had to point that out. My uncle is retired Airforce. He worked on many aircraft over the years including the F117, F111, SR71, U2 and the B1. At the end of his military career he was a crew chief on Airforce One during Jimmy Carters administration. After he retired from the military he went back into aircraft maintenance as a civilian including the B1, F18, F22, and you guessed it, the SR71 restoring earlier versions for museums.

First off, I have to agree with Linoa06; this thread belongs to the thread.

@Mayor Gaetan: I like the overall concept, but in addition to what's already mentioned by TekindusT, I miss some taxiways.

Nice display of different props and buildings, though. But where is this B-52 everybody but me seem to have spotted? I recognize the B-2, SR-71, F-16, E-3 AWACS, C-17 and something that looks like a KC-10, but no B-52..?

You're C-17 Globemaster is actually a C5 Galaxy. Notice the fat nose of the plane as well as the lower half of the fuselage. Globemasters are more rounded. That is what everyone is mistaking for the B52. Note to everyone, the B52 gas 8 engines mounted in 4 pods, not 4 engines in 4 pods. Also, the B52's wings are more narrow and extended at less of an angle to provide more lift and a higher operating ceiling than the C5 in the picture.

  Edited August 31, 2012 by Zodicus  

[SAVAGExPHOENIX 955]

But where is this B-52 everybody but me seem to have spotted? I recognize the B-2, SR-71, F-16, E-3 AWACS, C-17 and something that looks like a KC-10, but no B-52..?

... good question. I think they may be mistaking the C-17 for it. I know for a fact that the C-17 can land on short runways. When I was in Taji, Iraq, they'd land at the airfield there, and it's a fairly small runway..

[Ace3 1,209]

236 would seem a good length for my runway? Lol, my runway was only 123 :[

  Edited September 1, 2012 by 10000000000000  

[Evillions 552]

Sticky that data table!

Thanks for the constructive criticism though, I will expand the spaces between the fences and the runways. I never knew the actual distance of takeoff / landing of some airplanes, so thanks for that.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Evillions  

[Mayor Gaetan 21]

You see it can be not on the image but there are already barriers protected by patriots sites in extremity and in the center of the airport and there is already traffic lane but it is it yellow and they are visible fear but I am going to stretch out it. In the South I would like to create an airport civil but in diagonal but I do not find a runway in diagonal and somebody shall can how explains me to put the night lighting in my buildings.

[TekindusT 3,809]

@Evillions: Until now, measuring distances in Google Earth and doing the calculations was the solution for most of us...

[GMT 389]

236 would seem a good length for my runway? Lol, my runway was only 123 :[

236 is 3,776m which is in fact a quite good length to accomodate almost any AC. Most larger airports have runways in the 4km regime.

I don't think another huge table is necessary, so I just give a good rule of thumb in terms of runway length as seen from an airport perspective:

• Large international / intercontinental operation: 3,500m / 218 tiles and beyond; most of them rotate around 4,000m / 250 tiles (think United, Lufthansa, Delta, KLM, ANA)
  
• Small international / interregional / continental: between 2,000m / 125 tiles and 3,000m / 188 tiles (think Ryanair, Southwest, JetBlue, US)
  
• Regional / business / company / private: mostly around 1,000m / 63 tiles, but even up to 2,000m / 125 tiles (think all the subdevisions of big airlines labled "express, cityline, connection, connect" or their contractors)
  
• Recreational flying / sports and the likes: up to 1,000m / 63 tiles but values as low as 150ft / 46m / ~3 tiles (no kidding, 0WN5; Potts Field Ultralight in North Cape, Wisconsin) are possible. But since the smallest AC we get in SC4 is a 172-ish Cessna, I would say don't go below 500m / 32 tiles threshold to threshold, this gives at least a little margin for bad approaches and rejected takeoffs with your common single engine piston.
  

  Edited September 1, 2012 by GMT  

[Ace3 1,209]

Yes, I think 3,776m (236 tiles) would be the most appropriate for medium-sized international airports. Some funny facts, Kai-Tak (I'm sure you've heard about it's dangerous approach), was only 3390m (only about 212 tiles). What skill it must have taken to get a 747-400 to takeoff of that death trap.

Meanwhile, Dubai (OMDB) Airport's longest runway is 4,477m (almost 280 tiles)

These guys are playing it safe!

  Edited September 1, 2012 by 10000000000000  

[NorthStarDC4M 8]

Enough lurking...

Still a work in progress

I can post more detailed shots if anyone wants...

City Journal is planned.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by NorthStarDC4M