This paper examines the planning and design of airport hangar facilities as part of broader airport infrastructure development. It traces the evolution of hangars from early converted barns to sophisticated modern structures, and explores the regulatory framework governing their construction, including FAA guidelines and NFPA fire protection standards. The paper addresses site selection, structural types (simple, truss, cantilever, spine truss, and butterfly hangars), door systems, fire safety requirements, and engineering considerations. It also discusses how changes in aircraft size — particularly the growth of wide-body jets such as the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 — drive ongoing redesign of hangar space, and emphasizes the importance of long-range forecasting in airport and hangar planning.
The paper demonstrates synthesis of technical and economic sources across a specialized infrastructure domain. Rather than treating hangar planning as purely an engineering problem, it consistently links structural decisions back to regulatory requirements, revenue generation, and long-range demand forecasting — showing how facility planning operates at the intersection of multiple disciplines.
The paper opens with macro-level airport economics and history, then narrows progressively: from general airport development policy, to regulatory frameworks (FAA, NFPA), to hangar-specific planning principles, to structural types, to component-level detail (doors, fire systems, electrical), and finally to modern case studies. This funnel structure — broad context to narrow technical specifics — is characteristic of applied infrastructure research papers at the undergraduate level.
Airports and the concepts surrounding airport planning and construction have undergone vast changes driven by shifts in technology, demand, aircraft type, passenger requirements, and service expectations. A change in the wingspan of an aircraft, for instance, requires remodeling many elements — from runways to hangars to ground equipment. Because of the competitive nature of the industry and the evolving patterns of use, the planning of airports and their facilities has had to adapt continuously. Today, for example, airport design has become more access-oriented: the ease with which passengers can reach the airport has become a critical concern. Developing airports and their facilities is a complicated endeavor requiring experts from multiple disciplines working together. In the United States, the authority controlling airspace was established as far back as the 1930s. The federal government assumed control of the economic aspects of aviation in 1938, when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was created to oversee the aviation industry (O'Connor, 2001).
From the early twentieth century onward, air travel has grown tremendously. In the 1980s, annual growth ran at approximately 6%, and in more recent years demand for air services has continued to rise on account of general income growth and globalization. Airline and airport deregulation, as well as privatization, have further accelerated expansion of the aviation service industry. The number of freight movements and passenger trips is growing geometrically, placing heavy pressure on existing airports. Airports worldwide spend approximately $40 billion annually on development and structures, making airport development a dynamic growth sector with significant implications for employment patterns (Banister & Berechman, 2000). Given this context, the overall infrastructure requirements of an airport — and the types of aircraft and services it expects to accommodate — play an important role in determining how airport planning should proceed.
There is an inherent economic paradox in airport planning. In most industries, increasing demand generates profitability, but this relationship does not hold reliably in aviation. Despite expansion, the performance of the world's airlines has remained marginal, and the conventional return-on-assets metric does not translate well to airline profitability analysis (Doganis, 2002). Airports absorb enormous capital sums invested in large, immovable assets with no alternative use. Demand forecasts are largely outside the planner's control, as the airlines themselves determine the volume of traffic and facility utilization. The airport's primary role is to bring airlines and their customers together, making the dual objective of providing infrastructure and maintaining customer satisfaction an exceptionally difficult challenge.
The planning of airport construction is an ongoing process that can take between five and ten years to become operationally viable. A terminal building requires a projected demand horizon of at least another ten years beyond completion to justify the investment. Airport plans therefore need to be oriented at least fifteen years into the future, requiring expert application of forecasting techniques to achieve long-run profitability (Doganis, 1992). Hangars must be planned in the same spirit — accounting for likely developments in aircraft types, service needs, space requirements, and regulatory obligations.
One of the key elements that retard airport development is inadequate ground access. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has calculated a loss of $20 million per year attributable to delays, congestion, and poor airport service, which has been cited as a reason for business migration away from congested air travel corridors. Key parameters for ground access planning include total travel time, cost, and cargo and passenger volumes; origins and destinations; capacity; accident rates; ease of access; perceived quality; and average transfer time between transport modes ("Airport Ground Access Planning Guide," n.d.).
Early hangars were often barns converted for aviation purposes. In the early days of flight, requirements were minimal and airports were mostly used for military purposes. The Garfield County Airport offers an instructive example: its hangar is barn-like in appearance and built with local materials that reflect an agrarian influence on its construction. It was probably built by persons without prior experience in such construction, yet the craftsmanship proved sound — the hangar remains serviceable and has withstood the test of time. It is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Built of pine wood with gables of timber and logs — logs that were felled partly to control a black beetle infestation — the hangar is a testament to the ingenuity of early aviation infrastructure. By 1930, this airport demonstrated that remote locations with proper facilities could attract commercial activity, and in 1938 it served as a venue for Air Mail Week (Powell & Murphy, 1995).
Airfield design in the United States was pioneered by the Air Force. The design methods developed for heavy bombers — aircraft of unprecedented weight at the time — remain a model for construction, especially in pavement design. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created the first rigid airfield pavement design standards, and growth in technology has since introduced many new methods, including layered elastic methods. In planning airports more broadly, numerous factors beyond hangar space determine what facilities are required. The central area between parallel runways is typically the most extensively developed area. Consider, for example, the master plan developed for Paine Field Airport, which specified that "new development in the central area will be primarily related to general aviation hangars and industrial aviation facilities. Airport-compatible commercial/industrial uses are programmed for the southern portion of the central area… On the east side of airport property, only the area directly east of the secondary parallel runway can be feasibly provided with taxiway access; therefore, it is the only site programmed for aviation use" ("Paine Field Airport Master Plan / Update," n.d.).
Development plans today also encompass museums, tour operations, flying clubs, and other user groups. Planning airport structures must therefore address the creation of many diverse facilities. Only when those facilities are in place and mandatory regulatory requirements are met can a coherent airport design be considered complete. The design of an airport and its facilities — and the types of aircraft expected to use them — is crucial in determining the type and scale of hangars required. The needs addressed by hangars have come a long way from the log-built structures of the 1930s, and regulatory compliance, funding considerations, and legal requirements all shape how hangar space must be planned today.
The general guidelines for airport construction address not only technical but also economic considerations. While private enterprise in aviation is now well established, governments, states, and cities remain concerned about project feasibility because developing an airport requires significant infrastructure investment outside the airport perimeter to make it useful and viable. Plans must also address environmental concerns, noise pollution, and other regulatory requirements. A careful study of the regulations governing airport construction is therefore essential to defining the proper structure of any plan.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) passed the Vision 100 — Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, which among other things authorized the allocation of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds for facilities such as hangars and fuel farms. The Act provides that the Secretary may allocate funds "apportioned to the airport sponsor under section 47114(d)(3)(a)" where the Secretary determines that adequate provision has been made for financing airside needs ("Airport Improvement Program," 2004). All planners and builders seeking such funds are required to submit a business plan demonstrating demand, documenting intent to rent hangar space, projecting revenue, and benchmarking against comparable airports. For hangars specifically, "the plan should show the rental fees for hangar space and the basis for determining those fees. For fueling facilities, the plan should show the amount of projected fuel sales, the amount of revenue to be received from each gallon, and the basis used to determine that amount" ("Airport Improvement Program," 2004).
Construction must comply with all federal, state, and local regulations — particularly where federal funding is involved. All hangars delegated for management to Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) must observe the requirement that hangars are used only for parking aircraft; the facilities must not be used for maintenance, painting, or other commercial services, and there must be no discrimination between users ("Airport Improvement Program," 2004). While some of these requirements apply specifically to federally funded projects, they also reflect sound general principles of airport management. Site selection considerations beyond FBO rules include passenger accommodation, aircraft facilities, hangar space, maintenance, fueling facilities, flight crew and office space, traffic volume, noise ordinances, runway configuration, instrumentation, operational modes, and security. The design of hangars should minimize the need to move aircraft to accommodate others, thereby reducing the risk of damage (Sheehan, 2003).
The NFPA 409 standard governs fire protection requirements for hangars, classifying them into groups based on size and construction type. Group I hangars must be protected with a foam-water deluge system; those housing aircraft the size of a Boeing 747 require an additional supplementary system. Group II hangars must be capable of blanketing the entire hangar floor with foam, and may also employ high-expansion foam systems, sprinklers, or water sprinkler systems. Group III hangars do not require fire protection unless they are used for hazardous activities such as fuel transfer, spray painting, or welding, in which case Group II requirements apply (Reese, 2000). The cost of these fire protection systems — together with the EPA-mandated clean-up procedures for accidental discharges — significantly increases overall project costs.
There is also a general reluctance to change once investment has been made. Existing structures cannot easily be abandoned, and funding for renovation or adaptation may be slow to materialize (De Neufville & Odoni, 2002). Hangar development plans therefore follow the broader airport development plan and are constrained by regulations, legal requirements, and environmental considerations. There are no universal principles applicable to all situations; a hangar development project is, in essence, like any other business development plan, and must begin with a thorough understanding of existing facilities, regional transportation systems, and airport-specific requirements ("Airport Ground Access Planning Guide," n.d.).
You’re 33% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 5 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.