Will circular runways ever take off?

March 17, 2017, 09:56 AM

I think the idea is that you'd never have a cross wind approach, since you can approach from any vector.

I admit, it sounds really whacky to me. The EU is funding this? Let them build one for real, on their Euro, and see how it works.

quote:
Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
Good luck in a heavy crosswind. Seems purely retarded to me. Let's test this at ORD and see how well it works, lol.

March 17, 2017, 10:03 AM

V-Tail

quote:
Originally posted by entropy:
As I sit here and have my morning coffee before heading out for "old fashioned straight runways" I chuckle.

This is the most ridiculous, devoid of aeronautical knowledge, and functionally stupid thing I have seen in quite a while. It ranks right up there with having passengers flap their arms to help take off.

So I guess now that when you label something as "green" and "eco-friendly" the rules of physics no longer apply because you "mean well".

Then again...look at the source.

I was looking for the words. You said it way better than I could have.

March 17, 2017, 10:12 AM

ArtieS

Low speed, take off, landing and close to the ground. Just where you want differential lift, enhanced stall potential, and more complexity.

BravO...

Some day, in some place, I want to be paid boo coo bucks by someone to be professionally stupid.

"I vowed to myself to fight against evil more completely and more wholeheartedly than I ever did before. . . . That’s the only way to pay back part of that vast debt, to live up to and try to fulfill that tremendous obligation."

Alfred Hornik, Sunday, December 2, 1945 to his family, on his continuing duty to others for surviving WW II.

March 17, 2017, 10:15 AM

Fly-Sig

quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
I think the idea is that you'd never have a cross wind approach, since you can approach from any vector.

Winds are frequently variable in direction. And as one moves around the circle the relative direction changes. So we would still have crosswinds, and some of them would push us inwards or outwards.

I think the potential to lose directional control is greater with the circular runway, especially in stormy conditions or with contaminated runways.

In addition, the bowl shape would cause some unpredictable low level winds.

March 17, 2017, 10:21 AM

slosig

Another idea that might appear to have some benefit until one thinks about it or sobers up.

March 17, 2017, 10:21 AM

TigerDore

Oh hayul yeah! Hold mah beer while I land this baby!

March 17, 2017, 10:26 AM

arabiancowboy

quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
I think the idea is that you'd never have a cross wind approach, since you can approach from any vector.

I admit, it sounds really whacky to me. The EU is funding this? Let them build one for real, on their Euro, and see how it works.

quote:
Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
Good luck in a heavy crosswind. Seems purely retarded to me. Let's test this at ORD and see how well it works, lol.

Completely stupid idea obviously developed by somebody with zero aviation knowledge. There is no reason it would be more environmentally friendly or less noisy, and it would be more expensive and take more land to make. And that is before discussing the problematic physics of decelerating while turning into a changing wind. And your tires would be destroyed. But it does not surprise me that Europe is still throwing money at this dumb idea

March 17, 2017, 10:31 AM

PPGMD

quote:
Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Only if Naval Aviators fly, they're used to landing while turning left. Other pilots need that straightaway to get their autopilot to land for them.

Yeah, but they would never actually land as if they don't catch a cable they would take off again.

-------
A turbo: Exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens, and you go faster.

Mr. Doom and Gloom
"King in the north!"
"Slow is smooth... and also slow.

March 17, 2017, 10:34 AM

darthfuster

What if we built a giant wooden catchers mit?

March 17, 2017, 10:35 AM

nighthawk

Not to also mention, these days most of the airline type aircraft have wing mounted engines, that do not give you a whole lot of clearance if you need to be in a constant rate of turn to land. Throw in gusty winds, turbulence, snow and ice on the runway, no thanks.

March 17, 2017, 10:42 AM

V-Tail

Reaching way back in memory, despite the dead brain cells, I recall my early days of flying in the mid 1960s, in New Jersey.

There was a field, I believe left over from WW-2 training days, that was "all directions." Basically, as I recall, a large blob of pavement with paved extensions sticking out in many, many, directions, like spokes sticking out of a hub. Probably enough extensions so that a trainee never had to deal with much more than twenty degrees or so of crosswind.

I never landed there, but I flew over it and saw it many times.

March 17, 2017, 10:51 AM

PPGMD

quote:
Originally posted by V-Tail:
Reaching way back in memory, despite the dead brain cells, I recall my early days of flying in the mid 1960s, in New Jersey.

There was a field, I believe left over from WW-2 training days, that was "all directions." Basically, as I recall, a large blob of pavement with paved extensions sticking out in many, many, directions, like spokes sticking out of a hub. Probably enough extensions so that a trainee never had to deal with much more than twenty degrees or so of crosswind.

I never landed there, but I flew over it and saw it many times.

Flagler Airport is a later example of one of those style of airports. The original design had four runways in a equilateral triangle with a runway sticking through it pattern.

-------
A turbo: Exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens, and you go faster.

Mr. Doom and Gloom
"King in the north!"
"Slow is smooth... and also slow.

March 17, 2017, 10:54 AM

TigerDore

I think if we make the circular runway a giant roulette wheel that catch the airplane in one of its slots as it lands and then sling another one off into the air for take-off, it would work.

March 17, 2017, 11:13 AM

nighthawk

What if we just put pontoons on everything, and just take off and land on rivers, problem solved !!!!!!, 747 sea plane rating would be fun.

March 17, 2017, 11:20 AM

snoris

quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey:

Well, they have an expert on staff...

If this is one of the terrorists' smartest clerics, why haven't we beaten these guys by now?!?

March 17, 2017, 11:28 AM

P250UA5

quote:
Originally posted by nighthawk:
What if we just put pontoons on everything, and just take off and land on rivers, problem solved !!!!!!, 747 sea plane rating would be fun.

I want to see the Dreamlifter Seaplane

March 17, 2017, 11:30 AM

TigerDore

quote:
Originally posted by snoris:
If this is one of the terrorists' smartest clerics, why haven't we beaten these guys by now?!?

They were essentially beaten, but we stopped trying 8 years ago.

.

March 17, 2017, 11:35 AM

bettysnephew

This makes as much sense as the new roundabout in Marion, Iowa that has a stop light 1/2 block away that backs up traffic on the circle.

March 17, 2017, 12:39 PM

IrishWind

I've been trying to find a pic I recently saw of an early Naval Airfield. Basically, it is a giant circle with a wind sock on the side. But it was from the 20s/early 30s, and when biplanes didn't need large runways to take off.

March 17, 2017, 12:43 PM

2012BOSS302

What about a landing malfunction and you need a nice straight runway to come to a stop? How about an aborted take off, do you just run into the back of the next plane in the circle? What would be the contingency plans for emergency events? This thinking outside the box has them stuck in a circle.