Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it was more an excuse. Old Boeing 737s used it just fine. The larger Boeing 727 and the 727 tri star used it just fine. We had DC-8 service here at one time. When various presidents have come to Charleston they have come in on Air Force One which is a 747. The Military has brought in a C-141 Starlifter and there has been a C5 Galaxy land here before.
While it is a short run way by modern standards it has plenty of room and as soon as any plane clears the end of the runway it is already 1,000 feet up and there is no noise abatement zone in Charleston. Better yet, no office tower rises over 250 feet and the FAA limit is 1,000."
I do not buy that excuse from them, Charleston's market flat lines at 250,000 boardings a year while the grow else where.
The only way a C-5 will ever land and especially take off on that runway is totally empty, on a clear sunny day. That will be the case after the extension too. You won't be seeing strategic airlift assets using that facility other than for the most exceptional circumstances. The tactical C-130s can utilize it fine, but not the much larger aircraft.
The runways at Yeager are always totally empty other than the airplane that is using it.
A C-5 has laded and taken off. That's already established. There is no need for Yeager to have a longer runway than it has (although they will eventually have a 1000 foot buffer on each end). The Air Guard has a fleet of C-130 Herc airplanes that are in daily use. That airplane meets their needs and there are no plans to change that. The commercial flights at Yeager will never need to use the large jumbo jets. No conceivable scenario would cause Charleston to need to service an Airbus 380, or anything close to that size.
The runways at Yeager are always totally empty other than the airplane that is using it.
A C-5 has laded and taken off. That's already established. There is no need for Yeager to have a longer runway than it has (although they will eventually have a 1000 foot buffer on each end). The Air Guard has a fleet of C-130 Herc airplanes that are in daily use. That airplane meets their needs and there are no plans to change that. The commercial flights at Yeager will never need to use the large jumbo jets. No conceivable scenario would cause Charleston to need to service an Airbus 380, or anything close to that size.
I know they've had a C-5 land and take off there, but as a former member of a C-5 unit, I can assure you that plane was empty when that happened. The C-130H is a tactical aircraft, with a far smaller cargo capacity. They can actually use runways that are smaller than the one at Yeager effectively, and they can do that empty or loaded. I agree with you that Yeager doesn't need a larger runway for the C-130H aircraft.
Sure the runway is usable now with the amount of planes we have coming into the city and the usage of the National Guard's C-130s. There will be a day however when the National Guard will need to upgrade, and or Yeager will need to upgrade in order to stay relevant. Status Quo is what has kept West Virginia behind the 8 ball for generations. Now we have an opportunity to build a reliable runway for large and small planes. Remember that we only have on runway now, so we better make sure that it is capable of doing whatever we need it to do. Large planes struggle to land here now as it is, and there obviously needs to be safety areas on both ends of the runway. Losing some land at Coonskin will be sad, but hopefully they can make that up with some re-purposed land and some leveling in other areas.
The only way a C-5 will ever land and especially take off on that runway is totally empty, on a clear sunny day. That will be the case after the extension too. You won't be seeing strategic airlift assets using that facility other than for the most exceptional circumstances. The tactical C-130s can utilize it fine, but not the much larger aircraft.
I was in high school and a member of the Air Explorers at the Guard Unit the day that a C5 came in. I do not know exactly how much of its total payload was utilized but it was filled totally full of equipment and parts when the Guard switched over from the C-119 Boxcars to the Herc. It left loaded as well, with stuff from the Boxcars that were phasing out of the guard 130th.
It was a chilly and windy fall day also. C5's need less runway to both land and take off than does Air Force One.
Air Force One officially requires 10,800 feet for take off, and yet it has been in Charleston several times. The C5 needs only 6,000. But, these are optimal conditions, not minimums.
Part of me sees a great opportunity in the making. An extended runway and safety area will help the airport tremendously which in turn will help the local and state economy. A larger regional airport will never happen if this goes through, but maybe that is for the best. That will allow Charleston and Huntington's airports to continue on and compete against each other. Competition can be a great thing.
With the land that will be taken from Coonskin and given to the new extension, other lands will be made ready for development. Land that could be used for more sporting/recreation facilities. Our area needs to continue to invest in sports fields, and things like aquatic centers and indoor recreation complexes. Those things attract families to areas, and ultimately help the economy. Our region needs to keep up with the times and offer our young families and kids things to keep them happy and healthy.
The moving of dirt on the other side of the river could also lend itself to economic development. Mink Shoals is about as prime of a location as one could ask for. The problem is that there is no flat land. There is a slither of land for sale beside the southbound off ramp that has remained empty for years because it isn't large enough to support anything. If the airport plans on taking dirt from the north side of the river somewhere (honestly I don't know what the article is referring to), then maybe a mixed use development with a park and sports facilities as well as a planned development could transform that area. I could see something similar to what Bridgeport has accomplish with Charles Pointe, but on a smaller scale. Welcome to Charles Pointe In fact, Bridgeport just announced that they were going to build a large indoor recreation complex at Charles Pointe. As someone who works with youth, I understand the need our area has for those sorts of things. We really need to look towards the future. Coonskin is a great asset, but accompanied with other assets on the other side of the river, we could see a positive swing for the Northern Charleston area. The Elk River community is poised to take the lead in county development. Especially considering that there will be a new high and elementary school in the near future. Mink Shoals, Pinch and Elkview are already desirable places for families to live. Obviously the river valley has proven to be a hazard, so building up new developments away from the river will continue that.
Also, the existing park area that will be untouched could use the opportunity to upgrade facilities and re-purpose land.
and now the other side of the story
None of that will ever happen in this area, and this is just the airport getting greedy. They will destroy one of our area's biggest assets, and will create an eyesore for everyone to see.
Rant over
Maybe we are just old Chris.
Coonskin is not what it used to be, not since the valley lost 100,000 people. More than losing that many people it was the type of people it lost - those mostly likely to make the effort to go a park like Coonskin. The middle income families moved to Putnam County or out of state leaving behind everyone else and they just do not use parks. The only assets the county sees in use are the city pools because the urban poor flock to those. Coonskins has days when it is busy but it not the traffic jam and 'destination' it was in the 70's and 80's.
It is not a loss to me. Its only saving grace is that it is close by, unlike Kanawha State which is too far out for most people unless you live in South Hills.
The tiny strip that is left of Old Coonskin is probably enough. The shelters get busy on Sunday and Holidays like Mother's Day, 4th of July etc...but otherwise it is pretty quiet out there.
Charleston just does not have the population it once did to make these places worth the money and effort.
I was in high school and a member of the Air Explorers at the Guard Unit the day that a C5 came in. I do not know exactly how much of its total payload was utilized but it was filled totally full of equipment and parts when the Guard switched over from the C-119 Boxcars to the Herc. It left loaded as well, with stuff from the Boxcars that were phasing out of the guard 130th.
It was a chilly and windy fall day also. C5's need less runway to both land and take off than does Air Force One.
Air Force One officially requires 10,800 feet for take off, and yet it has been in Charleston several times. The C5 needs only 6,000. But, these are optimal conditions, not minimums.
That depends on the version of the C-5 in question. The more modern version has increased thrust (30% more) and maneuverability characteristics that do enable it to utilize shorter runways, but not all C-5 aircraft are of the newer design. Most of the older version have been phased out of Guard units with some being replaced by the C-17 Globemaster. Personally, I have never known of a C-5 unit being based at an airport with less than 8,000 feet but that doesn't mean some don't exist. Martinsburg, which had the older C-5 fleet replaced by the C-17, has a runway greater than 8,800 feet.
The military wanted to move cargo aircraft out of Yeager, but politics intervened and that didn't happen. I have a hunch (only my opinion) that this had nothing to do with the runway but rather Charleston's remote location relative to larger population centers and major military assets that would be needed to be moved in case of emergency. Time is of the essence in cases like that, and getting assets to and from Charleston from the large cities would be comparatively inefficient. Logic says they'd want those air assets closer to the larger population centers and places with large concentrations of troops and materials. The C-130H, being a tactical aircraft instead of a strategic one, makes the disadvantage of location less of an issue. At least it would seem that way to me, but I have never been a strategist.
That depends on the version of the C-5 in question. The more modern version has increased thrust (30% more) and maneuverability characteristics that do enable it to utilize shorter runways, but not all C-5 aircraft are of the newer design. Most of the older version have been phased out of Guard units with some being replaced by the C-17 Globemaster. Personally, I have never known of a C-5 unit being based at an airport with less than 8,000 feet but that doesn't mean some don't exist. Martinsburg, which had the older C-5 fleet replaced by the C-17, has a runway greater than 8,800 feet.
The military wanted to move cargo aircraft out of Yeager, but politics intervened and that didn't happen. I have a hunch (only my opinion) that this had nothing to do with the runway but rather Charleston's remote location relative to larger population centers and major military assets that would be needed to be moved in case of emergency. Time is of the essence in cases like that, and getting assets to and from Charleston from the large cities would be comparatively inefficient. Logic says they'd want those air assets closer to the larger population centers and places with large concentrations of troops and materials. The C-130H, being a tactical aircraft instead of a strategic one, makes the disadvantage of location less of an issue. At least it would seem that way to me, but I have never been a strategist.
CT are you being sweet to me? heh heh, you sly dog, you!
You suggest it was a newer C5 that plunk down at Yeager when I was there. That is so kind, really. Lord no, it was not new. This happened in the fall of 1974 I believe. I think the full transition took about another year and I do believe a C5 came in several times but I was only there for this one landing and take off.
That depends on the version of the C-5 in question. The more modern version has increased thrust (30% more) and maneuverability characteristics that do enable it to utilize shorter runways, but not all C-5 aircraft are of the newer design. Most of the older version have been phased out of Guard units with some being replaced by the C-17 Globemaster. Personally, I have never known of a C-5 unit being based at an airport with less than 8,000 feet but that doesn't mean some don't exist. Martinsburg, which had the older C-5 fleet replaced by the C-17, has a runway greater than 8,800 feet.
The military wanted to move cargo aircraft out of Yeager, but politics intervened and that didn't happen. I have a hunch (only my opinion) that this had nothing to do with the runway but rather Charleston's remote location relative to larger population centers and major military assets that would be needed to be moved in case of emergency. Time is of the essence in cases like that, and getting assets to and from Charleston from the large cities would be comparatively inefficient. Logic says they'd want those air assets closer to the larger population centers and places with large concentrations of troops and materials. The C-130H, being a tactical aircraft instead of a strategic one, makes the disadvantage of location less of an issue. At least it would seem that way to me, but I have never been a strategist.
Your assumptions about the Air Guard at Yeager are incorrect. The work that the 130th does is similar to work done at other Air Guard installations (of course). During the base realignment process, the plan was to reduce the number of installations doing that work. At that time, the 130th had 6 130s and Washington wanted to close Charleston and move those airplanes elsewhere because Charleston could not expand to accommodate very many more airplanes. When the review took place, the 130th had some 130s from other locations parked at Yeager along with their own, so the reviewers saw 14 130s in place and ready for use. Efficiency of the work done by the 130th, along with the ability to expand, caused the location to stay open. Those are facts, not speculation.
Your assumptions about the Air Guard at Yeager are incorrect. The work that the 130th does is similar to work done at other Air Guard installations (of course). During the base realignment process, the plan was to reduce the number of installations doing that work. At that time, the 130th had 6 130s and Washington wanted to close Charleston and move those airplanes elsewhere because Charleston could not expand to accommodate very many more airplanes. When the review took place, the 130th had some 130s from other locations parked at Yeager along with their own, so the reviewers saw 14 130s in place and ready for use. Efficiency of the work done by the 130th, along with the ability to expand, caused the location to stay open. Those are facts, not speculation.
You might well be right. I'm retired military, but was never a member of the 130th. I actually looked into joining that unit at one time, and because I worked for the state at the time I happened to know 2 unit members personally. At the time, when I asked them about it (and I had a significant military resume), I was told not to bother because that unit was basically closed to anybody but residents of that area unless somebody had a rare skill set. I had never known of that sort of tribalism in a guard unit, but that is what I was told, and one of the individuals who told me that was in a position of leadership (not at the highest levels) in both the guard unit and state government. I have a hunch that since the area has lost a major portion of it's population, that has changed though. I'm now seeing recruiting billboards in Morgantown.
I followed the base closure process closely, and saw the awesome Army post near Monterey, CA, mostly including newly constructed facilities, and home to the 7th. Infantry, closed in the process. As an Air Guard retiree, I know that many facets were considered in that process. Frankly, I was surprised that they didn't close Yeager, but they didn't. They did close regular bases that had a lot more going for them, such as the regular USAF presence at Rickenbacker Field in Columbus (converted to a National Guard and state defense forces base). I'm trying to remember who was Governor in West Virginia when this process was taking place, because I have to believe it took a lot of smoke to get a facility removed from the closure list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
