Cold War ALternate Basing

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:22:19 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

I used to work at an airfield that had an 11,000 foot runway and ramps
and taxiways designed to handle fully-laden B-52s. Loaded C-5s would
often buckle the concrete, which from memory was 3 feet thick. They
weren't allowed to stop on the taxiways for that specific reason.

Loaded KC-10's are worse. Fewer wheels. IIRC, Soesterberg could take a C-5,
but not a KC-10.

As I recall, the original XB-36 could land on only two or three
airfields in the world. Happily, one of them was Carswell, next door
to the Consolidated plant.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

But think reality. It was post WWII, potential recession deferred
to some extent by the GI Bill.

Not really. It was Eisenhower who gave us the National Defense Highway
system. As a young officer, Ike had spent 28? days crossing the U.S.
in an army convoy. That was one big memory. Then as a general officer
he saw the German autobahnen (which also served as airfields). That
was the other big memory. It was the big public-works event of his
administration, which ran from 1953 to 1961.

My neighbor in Wolfeboro NH, Bertha Britten, announced in November
1952 that obviously the Great Depression was coming back, since the
Republicans were in office. But not many thought that way. Hard Times
were 12 years behind us.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Cub Driver writes:


But think reality. It was post WWII, potential recession deferred
to some extent by the GI Bill.

Not really. It was Eisenhower who gave us the National Defense Highway
system. As a young officer, Ike had spent 28? days crossing the U.S.
in an army convoy. That was one big memory. Then as a general officer
he saw the German autobahnen (which also served as airfields). That
was the other big memory. It was the big public-works event of his
administration, which ran from 1953 to 1961.

I don't see your point. You're resubmitting the original premise
with no added data.

We all know the Ike story, and that Ike admired the Autobahn.

I'm not arguing against the fact that Ike promoted the long-standing
idea of building coast to coast roads for real military reasons.
What I am saying is once the "Defense" rationale/excuse made such
into a viable campaign issue; it became the mouse designed by
committee. For example, did/does the US Army need an Interstate-quality
road from oh Bismarck to Fargo?

(The reason, of course, is that no Hill Critter would vote for any
bill unless it put money into his pocket while doing so. Hence the
eventual compromise what state got how much.)

My neighbor in Wolfeboro NH, Bertha Britten, announced in November
1952 that obviously the Great Depression was coming back, since the
Republicans were in office. But not many thought that way. Hard Times
were 12 years behind us.

And what would have been the result if so many of the returning GI's
had NOT been in school, but on the labor market?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

Good points. Actually, the construction engineer folks nowadays (and
quite
possibly could have during the early eighties--ISTR we got ours in our
combat battalion in about 1987) usually have their own nuclear
densiometers,
which means a field penetrometer test is not usually going to be
required.
Of course, we were known to use "expedient" testing in some cases (i.e.,
jamming the back of your boot heel down can give you a rough idea of how
your compaction is doing).

Without knowing squat about the equipment, if the following is accurate
the STS
people are still using penetrometers, at least they were in Afghanistan.
This
refers to the insertion at FOB Rhino, and subsequent. Hopefully the
formatting
will survive:

Note my verbage which indicates "construction engineering" units--I'd
imagine the STS folks don't want to be lugging around a nuke densiometer (it
ain't that big, but it is quite a bit more than the average sneak-and-peak
type fellow would want to hump around.

I'd noted your qualification, and was just providing it FYI.

Guy

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:20:34 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

I don't see your point. You're resubmitting the original premise
with no added data.

You're claiming that the interstates were built to defer the postwar
(post WWII) recession "deferred to some extent by the GI bill."

You are conflating two very different eras. There was no fear of a
postwar recession in 1953.

In short: your thesis is nonsense. Good times were rolling. We didn't
need no steenking interstate.

When I got off the boat from Yurrup in late August 1955, the billboard
outside Pier 92 was by Chevrolet, announcing the 1956 models: ALL NEW
ALL OVER AGAIN.

That was America in the Eisenhower administration. The Great
Depression and WWII were childhood memories. Even the GI Bill was
something out of the past. (The enrollment at the University of New
Hampshire DECLINED every year that I was an undergraduate there.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
r.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

I just drove clear to New Mexico from Tennessee on I-40 and
never
saw
anything like that, nor do I recall any large rural widenings
on
I-20
from
previous travels. The only "wide spots" I recall were the more
recent
installation of areas for use by immigrations officers in
conducting
random
checkpoint operations for commercial vehicles.

So you drove the best part of a thousand miles on one highway,
looking
specifically for this, before this discussion came up here?

Do tell.

No, I drove it last month while on vacation, and as a civil
engineer
I
typically *do* note the things that the average passerby might
ignore
(such
as, "Hey, look at those neat masonry arch bridges that parallel
I-81
along
this stretch...wonder what their story is? (Turned out to be an
old
railroad
route after investigating further)). I believe had I seen any
overly
wide
pavment sections in the middle of Lower Bum**** I might have
noticed
and
been a bit curious as to the reasoning why (such as when I noticed
the
strange "overpass to nowhere" that had obviously been under
construction
at
one site along the route at one time, and was now abandoned....).

Your lack of a real grasp of civil engineering is again making
itself
evident, chad; are you going to tell us that this somehow ties
into
your
past strange conclusions regarding the geometric design of Three
Gorges
Dam?


Now, that "one mile in five" thing is certainly wrong, if
nothing
else
than because it would be extreme overkill. You wouldn't
need
more
than
a couple of dozen such sites to give pretty fair coverage
for
interceptors for most of the western US.

Please show where this was ever even planned, much less
implemented?

If I could, I would have, but it's the sort of thing that would
be
buried in 50 year old bureaucracy, at best.

Sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory to me.... "Well,
it
is
pretty evident, but there is understandably no real evidence..."?



Many "modern" (1950s to date) concrete highways compare
pretty
nicely
to
medium-duty airport runways. A lot of them derived directly
*from*
runway design, since that was the only model for heavy loads
at
moderately high speeds.

Eh? Take a gander at typical roadway pavement sections from
the
nineteen
sixties and compare it to the pavement section required for
the
typical
combat aircraft (bombers required *very* thick sections, while
loaded
fighters typically required more than C-130's from what I
recall,
due
to
higher wheel loading). I think you will find that the sections
are
significantly different, especially if you move to the more
prevalent
ashalt
concrete as opposed to portland cement concrete.

You're comparing apples and oranges. We're not talking a
complete,
long-term runway replacement. We're talking about a short-term
fill-in
for an air base, which means you won't have to make it anywhere
*near*
as thick or heavy-duty as you'd need for a SAC base.

Again, your engineering conclusions are questionable at best, your
lack
of
taking into account the *total* pavment design (including
subgrade,
subbase
(where required), and base profiles) is a fatal flaw, and there is
no
evidence that has been presented so far that this was ever a
design
concern
for the FHWA folks, or was even really considered by the USAF.


What you seem to be using for your model is old
asphalt-covered
concrete
supported roads, not the big, continuous-cast
steel-reinforced
roads
I've seen in a number of places.

Which IIRC were not common in the sixties; ISTR the standard
method
then was to pour seperate panels of RF concrete, which is why
the
older roads that received subsequent asphalt overlays still
exhibited
the old pitch-and-sway fore-and-aft-wise uneven pavement. Why?
Usually due to *base course* failure (and this is where you
will
find
a significant difference between the old road and airfields,
with
airfields being a bit more particular and demanding in terms
of
base
course design and construction.

That's why you don't see it *everywhere*, but you do se it in
some
places, if you're paying attention. You really, really do see
it
on
some of the more remote roads (the continuous-pour roads last
longer).
They overbuilt those 1950s bases (a whole different technique)
because
they expected to use them for a half-century of million pound
aircraft
loads (there was a certain tendency to allow for extremely huge
plane
designs of the future). The overbuilt some of those late-1950s
highways
because they didn't want to have to keep fixing them every
winter.
I'd
bet that the aircraft basing thing came after someone in the
Pentagon
noticed that we had hundreds of miles of potential airfields in
the
middle of nowhere, with a little extra work.

Please show where a continuous pour road was built during the
1950's.
Your
posit would have required the Pentagon to have "noticed" this
after
continuous pour became the vogue in the seventies (IIRC), which is
a
bit
fishy to say the least.


A foot of concrete over a good solid gravel and clay base would
(and
will) handle a good-sized plane on an occasional basis, just as
it
will
handle a constant pounding from 80,000 pound semis.

God, what an amazing feat of engineering you have developed! Why
bother
with
calculating the CBR's, eh? No need for a pavment design (fire all
of
those
worthless civil engineers--Chad says we don't need them!) either,
eh?
Just
*assume* your 12 inch thick concrete surface sitting on a "good
solid"
base
is going to do the trick.


You are mixed up--see the difference betwen continuous pour PC
concrete
roads and what was used as the standard method back in the
good
ol'
days;

For the SIXTH OR SEVENTH TIME: this isn't what you're going to
see
as
a
default, but unless you're specifically looking for it, you
won't
notice
it. There *are* roads like that, even if you, in your extreme
perceptiveness, haven't noticed it while you were driving along
at
70
MPH at night in the middle of nothing...

When were they built, Mr. Engineer? And BTW, I rarely pushed our
RV
at
70
MPH--a bit of a gas guzzler as it is, that would have been a bit
too
much....and the vast majority of our traveling was done by day,
too.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com



I believe the interstate highway system was designed from the
beginning
for
trucks carrying 60,000 lbs on four axles at 55 mph. In the
mid-sixties
it
went to 80,000 pounds on five axles and up to 65mph for rural areas.
Today
just about every road in the country (roads not streets) are capable
of
taking 20,000 pounds per axle. This is with either four standard
width
tires
or two wide tires.Older rural interstate highways had two, 12 foot
lanes,
a
8-10 foot right shoulder, and an 6-8 foot left shoulder. This would
be
a
total of 38-42 foot wide section of pavement. More modern
interstates
have
13-14 foot wide lanes, with wider shoulders. I think that if the
highway
will take day in, day-out 80,000 pound tractor trucks pounding on
them
you
could land a few fighter there. Of course the pilots would have to
be
½
awake so they wouldn't run off the road.

AASHTO would maybe disagree with your analysis: "The nation's
Interstate
Highway System is nearly 50 years of age; much of it has already been
reconstructed, rehabilitated, or repaired at least once; and too much
of
the
system has been overloaded greatly in excess of the design loads,
particularly in number of axles..."

www.webs1.uidaho.edu/bayomy/TRB/A2B03/
A2B03Files/AFD60%20RNS%20on%20Recycling%20Design%20Guide.htm

They HS-20 design load which was used later in the day (I am not sure
an
H-20 was not originally specified) results in a wheel loading of about
16
kips per-- a tactical fighter with only a single tire on each main
strut
can
easily exceed that loading.

Also, your assumption that the shoulders are paved to the same
standards
as
the main traveled way is wrong--which is why every now and then you
see
where the shoulders have been "rutted". This was especially true on
older
interstate sections (look at some of I-40 and note how narrow the
shoulders
are, for example in NC, and how the pavement surface differs from that
of
the traveled way).


Bridges are a different story, but I don't think anyone but
Hollywood
would
want to land an aircraft on a bridge.

As for landing aircraft on highways, the Swiss do it all the time.

The Swiss have designed and built their roads that are so used to
handle
these requirements, to include provision of apron and taxi ways. We
did
not.

The US
Marines have been know to do it occasionally with the AV-8A&B's. As
for
a
specific area of interstate for this purpose I believe there is/was
an
section of I-40 about 30 miles or so east of Little Rock AK that was
designed for this.It has wide shoulders and what can only be
describes
as
an
apron to the sides of both the east and west bound lanes. Of course
this
was
what I was told many, many years ago, but, as of 1991 this stretch
of
road
was still there, and I thing the Ak State police used it
occasionally
to
inspect trucks. But it couldn't have been designed as rest area or a
truck
inspection area, as it is too large and there is nothing there but
pavement.

There is no evidence whatsoever that has as yet been produced to
support
the
contention that either the USAF or the FHWA thought to include
aircraft
operations on *any* US interstates, to include that Snopes bit from
the
FHWA
themselves.

Brooks


Lyman road at Camp Lejeune NC is a typical construction of a two lane
road.
It is a road that goes from the mainside area of Camp Lejeune, to
Triangle
Outpost Gate, and allows access to highway NC-172, and to the
communities
to
the north east of the base. It is open to traffic 24/7 except for times
when
certain ranges are being used or AV-8 operations are being conducted.

Read Guy's comments about the AV-8. Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up
in
the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across
it.


It is not re-enforced. The only modifications made to the road other
than
painting some lines are a couple of paved access ramps to allow AV-8's
to
pull off of the road, into the woods to their "hides". The road is used
several times a year for AV-8 operations. I am sure that the Marines
have
other places at their other bases that are used for the same training. I
believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run" areas
of
the base are also used for AV-8 operations.

See above.

Brooks

In response to:

"Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up in
the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across"

1) I was born here, I live here. I was stationed here and/or worked here for
about 29 years total time out of a 41 year military/civil service/private
career. I use that road almost every day. And I have used that road since
before I got my first drivers license in 1957.
2) I have lived here for most of my life, except when stationed elsewhere or
away at school etc. We have either always lived here, visited here or
returned here, as this is my family home and has been the family home since
1810.
3) I remember when the road was paved. (before the Marines even though about
AV-8's).
4) I have seen numerous demonstrations there.
5) They tell observers that the road has not been re-enforced for aircraft.
6) Plus I asked the Facilities Chief (engineer) (phone 910-451-3034) this
specific question in 1969, when the idea first came up about using the road
for this purpose.
7) This one relative straight and level stretch of road about 2 miles long
is not the only section of this road that has been used. It is just used the
most, out of habit, because it offers good visibility for demonstrations,
and last but not least, "because it has always been done that way".
8) Other sections of Lyman Road have been used, specifically a section that
is about ½ between OP 2 and the junction with Highway 172. Over the years
Highway 172 near the G-5 and G-6 range has also been used and likewise
Onslow Beach Road, and Sneads Ferry Road.

Now it that isn't good enough for you write or call the Public Affairs
Office 910-451-5655

I am not in the habit of lying or making BS statements. If I make a
statement then it is true. If I add a qualifier such as 'I believe' or ' I
was told' then it is subject to discussion.

I said "I believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run"
areas of the base are also used for AV-8 operations." I qualified this with
'I believe' because I have not witnessed it with my very own eyeballs. But
it is reliably reported to have occurred by the base newspaper and others
with whom I have had contact.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Minor technical problems"??! Only you could call the lack of an
apron or taxiways, the fact that pavments were not specifically
designed for aircraft loading, the fact that anything but a four-lane
section of roadway comes in under the required runway width
requirement, etc., etc., "minor technical problems". OTOH, you have
offered up such gems as (1) there are long patches of extra wide
pavement along interstates (but you can't tell us exactly where) that
just HAVE to have been developed for this purpose, even though the
FHWA knows nothing about it, (2) continuous pour concrete roadways
were common during the deepest, darkest days of the Cold War and when
interstae highways were first constructed, etc. You know, you were
actually doing a lot better when you said a really big shaped charge
could be used against TG Dam--at least that one was sort of funny.

You keep insisting that normal highway construction techniques just
won't work for aircraft runways, when the FAA tells us just the opposite:

http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5100-13a.pdf

A quick summary: for runways for planes under 60,000 pounds, with over
200 psi tire pressure, highway construction techniques are sufficient,
according to the FAA, for thousands of landings per year, as long as
minimum thickness of the surface is followed - and that thickness is
less than the standard for Interstates in most of the U.S.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
r.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Diamond Jim" wrote in message
r.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

I just drove clear to New Mexico from Tennessee on I-40 and
never
saw
anything like that, nor do I recall any large rural
widenings
on
I-20
from
previous travels. The only "wide spots" I recall were the
more
recent
installation of areas for use by immigrations officers in
conducting
random
checkpoint operations for commercial vehicles.

So you drove the best part of a thousand miles on one highway,
looking
specifically for this, before this discussion came up here?

Do tell.

No, I drove it last month while on vacation, and as a civil
engineer
I
typically *do* note the things that the average passerby might
ignore
(such
as, "Hey, look at those neat masonry arch bridges that parallel
I-81
along
this stretch...wonder what their story is? (Turned out to be an
old
railroad
route after investigating further)). I believe had I seen any
overly
wide
pavment sections in the middle of Lower Bum**** I might have
noticed
and
been a bit curious as to the reasoning why (such as when I
noticed
the
strange "overpass to nowhere" that had obviously been under
construction
at
one site along the route at one time, and was now
abandoned....).

Your lack of a real grasp of civil engineering is again making
itself
evident, chad; are you going to tell us that this somehow ties
into
your
past strange conclusions regarding the geometric design of Three
Gorges
Dam?


Now, that "one mile in five" thing is certainly wrong, if
nothing
else
than because it would be extreme overkill. You wouldn't
need
more
than
a couple of dozen such sites to give pretty fair coverage
for
interceptors for most of the western US.

Please show where this was ever even planned, much less
implemented?

If I could, I would have, but it's the sort of thing that
would
be
buried in 50 year old bureaucracy, at best.

Sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory to me....
"Well,
it
is
pretty evident, but there is understandably no real
evidence..."?



Many "modern" (1950s to date) concrete highways compare
pretty
nicely
to
medium-duty airport runways. A lot of them derived
directly
*from*
runway design, since that was the only model for heavy
loads
at
moderately high speeds.

Eh? Take a gander at typical roadway pavement sections from
the
nineteen
sixties and compare it to the pavement section required for
the
typical
combat aircraft (bombers required *very* thick sections,
while
loaded
fighters typically required more than C-130's from what I
recall,
due
to
higher wheel loading). I think you will find that the
sections
are
significantly different, especially if you move to the more
prevalent
ashalt
concrete as opposed to portland cement concrete.

You're comparing apples and oranges. We're not talking a
complete,
long-term runway replacement. We're talking about a
short-term
fill-in
for an air base, which means you won't have to make it
anywhere
*near*
as thick or heavy-duty as you'd need for a SAC base.

Again, your engineering conclusions are questionable at best,
your
lack
of
taking into account the *total* pavment design (including
subgrade,
subbase
(where required), and base profiles) is a fatal flaw, and there
is
no
evidence that has been presented so far that this was ever a
design
concern
for the FHWA folks, or was even really considered by the USAF.


What you seem to be using for your model is old
asphalt-covered
concrete
supported roads, not the big, continuous-cast
steel-reinforced
roads
I've seen in a number of places.

Which IIRC were not common in the sixties; ISTR the standard
method
then was to pour seperate panels of RF concrete, which is
why
the
older roads that received subsequent asphalt overlays still
exhibited
the old pitch-and-sway fore-and-aft-wise uneven pavement.
Why?
Usually due to *base course* failure (and this is where you
will
find
a significant difference between the old road and airfields,
with
airfields being a bit more particular and demanding in terms
of
base
course design and construction.

That's why you don't see it *everywhere*, but you do se it in
some
places, if you're paying attention. You really, really do see
it
on
some of the more remote roads (the continuous-pour roads last
longer).
They overbuilt those 1950s bases (a whole different technique)
because
they expected to use them for a half-century of million pound
aircraft
loads (there was a certain tendency to allow for extremely
huge
plane
designs of the future). The overbuilt some of those
late-1950s
highways
because they didn't want to have to keep fixing them every
winter.
I'd
bet that the aircraft basing thing came after someone in the
Pentagon
noticed that we had hundreds of miles of potential airfields
in
the
middle of nowhere, with a little extra work.

Please show where a continuous pour road was built during the
1950's.
Your
posit would have required the Pentagon to have "noticed" this
after
continuous pour became the vogue in the seventies (IIRC), which
is
a
bit
fishy to say the least.


A foot of concrete over a good solid gravel and clay base
would
(and
will) handle a good-sized plane on an occasional basis, just
as
it
will
handle a constant pounding from 80,000 pound semis.

God, what an amazing feat of engineering you have developed! Why
bother
with
calculating the CBR's, eh? No need for a pavment design (fire
all
of
those
worthless civil engineers--Chad says we don't need them!)
either,
eh?
Just
*assume* your 12 inch thick concrete surface sitting on a "good
solid"
base
is going to do the trick.


You are mixed up--see the difference betwen continuous pour
PC
concrete
roads and what was used as the standard method back in the
good
ol'
days;

For the SIXTH OR SEVENTH TIME: this isn't what you're going to
see
as
a
default, but unless you're specifically looking for it, you
won't
notice
it. There *are* roads like that, even if you, in your extreme
perceptiveness, haven't noticed it while you were driving
along
at
70
MPH at night in the middle of nothing...

When were they built, Mr. Engineer? And BTW, I rarely pushed our
RV
at
70
MPH--a bit of a gas guzzler as it is, that would have been a bit
too
much....and the vast majority of our traveling was done by day,
too.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com



I believe the interstate highway system was designed from the
beginning
for
trucks carrying 60,000 lbs on four axles at 55 mph. In the
mid-sixties
it
went to 80,000 pounds on five axles and up to 65mph for rural
areas.
Today
just about every road in the country (roads not streets) are
capable
of
taking 20,000 pounds per axle. This is with either four standard
width
tires
or two wide tires.Older rural interstate highways had two, 12 foot
lanes,
a
8-10 foot right shoulder, and an 6-8 foot left shoulder. This
would
be
a
total of 38-42 foot wide section of pavement. More modern
interstates
have
13-14 foot wide lanes, with wider shoulders. I think that if the
highway
will take day in, day-out 80,000 pound tractor trucks pounding on
them
you
could land a few fighter there. Of course the pilots would have to
be
½
awake so they wouldn't run off the road.

AASHTO would maybe disagree with your analysis: "The nation's
Interstate
Highway System is nearly 50 years of age; much of it has already
been
reconstructed, rehabilitated, or repaired at least once; and too
much
of
the
system has been overloaded greatly in excess of the design loads,
particularly in number of axles..."

www.webs1.uidaho.edu/bayomy/TRB/A2B03/
A2B03Files/AFD60%20RNS%20on%20Recycling%20Design%20Guide.htm

They HS-20 design load which was used later in the day (I am not
sure
an
H-20 was not originally specified) results in a wheel loading of
about
16
kips per-- a tactical fighter with only a single tire on each main
strut
can
easily exceed that loading.

Also, your assumption that the shoulders are paved to the same
standards
as
the main traveled way is wrong--which is why every now and then you
see
where the shoulders have been "rutted". This was especially true on
older
interstate sections (look at some of I-40 and note how narrow the
shoulders
are, for example in NC, and how the pavement surface differs from
that
of
the traveled way).


Bridges are a different story, but I don't think anyone but
Hollywood
would
want to land an aircraft on a bridge.

As for landing aircraft on highways, the Swiss do it all the time.

The Swiss have designed and built their roads that are so used to
handle
these requirements, to include provision of apron and taxi ways. We
did
not.

The US
Marines have been know to do it occasionally with the AV-8A&B's.
As
for
a
specific area of interstate for this purpose I believe there
is/was
an
section of I-40 about 30 miles or so east of Little Rock AK that
was
designed for this.It has wide shoulders and what can only be
describes
as
an
apron to the sides of both the east and west bound lanes. Of
course
this
was
what I was told many, many years ago, but, as of 1991 this stretch
of
road
was still there, and I thing the Ak State police used it
occasionally
to
inspect trucks. But it couldn't have been designed as rest area or
a
truck
inspection area, as it is too large and there is nothing there but
pavement.

There is no evidence whatsoever that has as yet been produced to
support
the
contention that either the USAF or the FHWA thought to include
aircraft
operations on *any* US interstates, to include that Snopes bit from
the
FHWA
themselves.

Brooks


Lyman road at Camp Lejeune NC is a typical construction of a two lane
road.
It is a road that goes from the mainside area of Camp Lejeune, to
Triangle
Outpost Gate, and allows access to highway NC-172, and to the
communities
to
the north east of the base. It is open to traffic 24/7 except for
times
when
certain ranges are being used or AV-8 operations are being conducted.

Read Guy's comments about the AV-8. Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed
up
in
the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth
across
it.


It is not re-enforced. The only modifications made to the road other
than
painting some lines are a couple of paved access ramps to allow
AV-8's
to
pull off of the road, into the woods to their "hides". The road is
used
several times a year for AV-8 operations. I am sure that the Marines
have
other places at their other bases that are used for the same training.
I
believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy Run"
areas
of
the base are also used for AV-8 operations.

See above.

Brooks

In response to:

"Secondly, how do you KNOW what the
pavement section is for that road, or whether or not it was not beefed up
in
the past? It is not as if you can tell just driving back and forth across"

1) I was born here, I live here. I was stationed here and/or worked here
for
about 29 years total time out of a 41 year military/civil service/private
career. I use that road almost every day. And I have used that road since
before I got my first drivers license in 1957.

Good. None of that indicates you have any idea of the pavement profile,
though, unless you happen to have also taken some pavement core samples?

2) I have lived here for most of my life, except when stationed elsewhere
or
away at school etc. We have either always lived here, visited here or
returned here, as this is my family home and has been the family home
since
1810.

See above.

3) I remember when the road was paved. (before the Marines even though
about
AV-8's).

What was it paved with? What was the base composition? Were base or
intermediate courses/grades of asphalt used before application of the
normally thin surface layer?

4) I have seen numerous demonstrations there.

Of core sampling?

5) They tell observers that the road has not been re-enforced for
aircraft.

But do they tell you that their engineers evaluated the pavement that was in
place to determine suitability before they embarked on these exercises?
Worked around a few USMC engineers at times, and they struck me as being
rather competent types--one would expect their evaluation before this use
was first begun.

6) Plus I asked the Facilities Chief (engineer) (phone 910-451-3034) this
specific question in 1969, when the idea first came up about using the
road
for this purpose.

And he presumably said they had evaluated it for the required loads--in
which case, "case closed".

7) This one relative straight and level stretch of road about 2 miles long
is not the only section of this road that has been used. It is just used
the
most, out of habit, because it offers good visibility for demonstrations,
and last but not least, "because it has always been done that way".
8) Other sections of Lyman Road have been used, specifically a section
that
is about ½ between OP 2 and the junction with Highway 172. Over the years
Highway 172 near the G-5 and G-6 range has also been used and likewise
Onslow Beach Road, and Sneads Ferry Road.

Now it that isn't good enough for you write or call the Public Affairs
Office 910-451-5655

Why is this getting your panties so twisted up? Guy explained how different
AV-8 characteristics and operations can indeed make it possible for an
aircraft that has been known to operate off of unimproved surfaces to
operate in this manner--but that is a far stretch from being about the
subject of this thread, which is use by conventional aircraft (or should I
say *military combat* aircraft, since you apparently will try and trundle
out where you KNOW that a Cessna 172 once landed and took off from county
route umpty-ump back in...?).


I am not in the habit of lying or making BS statements. If I make a
statement then it is true. If I add a qualifier such as 'I believe' or ' I
was told' then it is subject to discussion.

Nobody has accused you of either. However, that does not mean you were
knowledgable of any preliminary evaluations of feasibility, etc., that may
have been conducted. Hell, it may very well be that the AV-8 has a lower
loading than many other tactical fighters (due to bigger tires or lower tire
pressure, etc.) and the engineers said, "hey, no problemo!"--great. But it
does not address the issue under discussion in this thread.

Brooks


I said "I believe that Verona Loop Road and another road in the "Sandy
Run"
areas of the base are also used for AV-8 operations." I qualified this
with
'I believe' because I have not witnessed it with my very own eyeballs. But
it is reliably reported to have occurred by the base newspaper and others
with whom I have had contact.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Minor technical problems"??! Only you could call the lack of an
apron or taxiways, the fact that pavments were not specifically
designed for aircraft loading, the fact that anything but a four-lane
section of roadway comes in under the required runway width
requirement, etc., etc., "minor technical problems". OTOH, you have
offered up such gems as (1) there are long patches of extra wide
pavement along interstates (but you can't tell us exactly where) that
just HAVE to have been developed for this purpose, even though the
FHWA knows nothing about it, (2) continuous pour concrete roadways
were common during the deepest, darkest days of the Cold War and when
interstae highways were first constructed, etc. You know, you were
actually doing a lot better when you said a really big shaped charge
could be used against TG Dam--at least that one was sort of funny.

You keep insisting that normal highway construction techniques just
won't work for aircraft runways, when the FAA tells us just the opposite:

http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5100-13a.pdf

A quick summary: for runways for planes under 60,000 pounds, with over
200 psi tire pressure, highway construction techniques are sufficient,
according to the FAA, for thousands of landings per year, as long as
minimum thickness of the surface is followed - and that thickness is
less than the standard for Interstates in most of the U.S.

LOL! Try again. That says the *methodology* is acceptable--not some kind of
simple "one pavement fits all". If you bothered to READ the document, you
would have noted that it also starts out the pavement section with:
"...standards developed for pavement design should consider: (a) maximum
gross weight of aircraft, (b) gear type and configuration, (c) traffic
volume and distribution, (d) strength of subgrade soil" and goes on to say
it is OK to use AASHTO design *methodology* for aircraft under 60K gross,
but with a couple of caveats (i.e., the addition of table A1-3, and in fact
*all* of the tables in that appendix relate to customizing the AASHTO design
*method* for use in designing airport runways). There is NOTHING there that
indicates a radway is "good to go" for use with aircraft. Different design
parameters ARE used. Thanks for making my point for me, though...

Brooks



--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:17:21 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

You're claiming that the interstates were built to defer the postwar
(post WWII) recession "deferred to some extent by the GI bill."

The GI Bill sucked thousands of GI's out of the labor pool, AND
created many academic jobs, further reducing the massive drag of
unemployment.

From 1946 to 1950. The numbers declined after that, every year at
least till 1955. The interstate got rolling in the late 1950s.

Two different eras. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
There was no recovery from WWII. We went from prosperity with
rationing to greater prosperity with no rationing. It was a boom time.

There was a blip in the academic population after the Korean War, but
not much of a one. For the most part Korea was fought with leftovers
from WWII, both materiel and men. It was nothing like Vietnam.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com