airports of the future
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: dublin
Age: 74
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airports of the future
I am sure ppruners will find the subject of airports of the future of interest.
An Architectural Company - www.fentressarchitects.com have some interesting pieces on their website - including the sketch below - stacked runways - also on the site is an animation featuring 'the future of airbus'
The Future by Airbus - Unlocking transport congestion
www.youtube.com
An Architectural Company - www.fentressarchitects.com have some interesting pieces on their website - including the sketch below - stacked runways - also on the site is an animation featuring 'the future of airbus'
The Future by Airbus - Unlocking transport congestion
www.youtube.com
I've often wondered why the logic that was applied to containerised freight wansn't extended to the transport of passangers on aircraft.
I'm sure there are significant engineering issues, but I think there are efficienies to be gained by seperating the main components of the aircraft from the cargo/passanger module, for one you reduce delays at the aiport. Aircraft arrives, dumps the inbound payload module(s), refuels while hitching up the next bacth and off you go. Take it a step fourther, and modules could be routed to other aircraft or rail for onward journies.
Think ... Thunderbird 2 (or not as the case maybe)
JAS
I'm sure there are significant engineering issues, but I think there are efficienies to be gained by seperating the main components of the aircraft from the cargo/passanger module, for one you reduce delays at the aiport. Aircraft arrives, dumps the inbound payload module(s), refuels while hitching up the next bacth and off you go. Take it a step fourther, and modules could be routed to other aircraft or rail for onward journies.
Think ... Thunderbird 2 (or not as the case maybe)
JAS
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK,
My initial reaction was to think which kiddie has been uploading their sketches to pprune, but Fentress did bring us the wonderful Jeppesen terminal in Denver, and I don't think they were to blame for the baggage problems!
DEN is an example of what you can do when space is not a constraint - pinwheel design, spread 6 runways around so taxiing aircraft don't intersect with active runways, and leave space for another 6.
Most airports do not have the same amount of space as DEN, so they make do with what they have.
I have seen proposals for two parallel runways sloping at different angles, one to go 'down' for takeoff, the other to land 'up' - reverseable when the wind changes.
However, with either proposal, you are creating a significant additional risk in the event of runway incursions - something which seems to have been tolerated to date at somewhere like LCY, but even here, an aircraft leaving the runway would end up in water, not falling off a precipice.
The assumption that land will become in shorter supply as populations grow is natural. Continuing that forward to the point of stacking runways is far fetched - it is much easier to stack residential, commercial or office space than runways, so the exorbitant costs of such a structure would not justify the moderate benefits - and there is still the question of how the aircraft get to a terminal facility - a lift for the A380 anyone? Makes the Falkirk Wheel look like child's play.
By all means, let's have more stacked stations like Berlin's wonderful Hauptbahnhof, but it will be much cheaper to build vertical urban farms than it will to save a small amount of argricultural surface land from airport development. Let's remember that in the grand scheme of things, land devoted to active airport usage (ie runways, aprons, taxiways) is a tiny proportion of the available land in most cities - and it is far easier to stack other ancilliary structures such as car parks.
JAS - imagine Ryanair replacing the 737-800 with such a system. Yes, clip off the passenger barrel, but you'd also have to unclip the wings, tailfin, cockpit - nd that is a lot of hinges and seals to deal with, not to mention the fuel leaking everywhere.
My initial reaction was to think which kiddie has been uploading their sketches to pprune, but Fentress did bring us the wonderful Jeppesen terminal in Denver, and I don't think they were to blame for the baggage problems!
DEN is an example of what you can do when space is not a constraint - pinwheel design, spread 6 runways around so taxiing aircraft don't intersect with active runways, and leave space for another 6.
Most airports do not have the same amount of space as DEN, so they make do with what they have.
I have seen proposals for two parallel runways sloping at different angles, one to go 'down' for takeoff, the other to land 'up' - reverseable when the wind changes.
However, with either proposal, you are creating a significant additional risk in the event of runway incursions - something which seems to have been tolerated to date at somewhere like LCY, but even here, an aircraft leaving the runway would end up in water, not falling off a precipice.
The assumption that land will become in shorter supply as populations grow is natural. Continuing that forward to the point of stacking runways is far fetched - it is much easier to stack residential, commercial or office space than runways, so the exorbitant costs of such a structure would not justify the moderate benefits - and there is still the question of how the aircraft get to a terminal facility - a lift for the A380 anyone? Makes the Falkirk Wheel look like child's play.
By all means, let's have more stacked stations like Berlin's wonderful Hauptbahnhof, but it will be much cheaper to build vertical urban farms than it will to save a small amount of argricultural surface land from airport development. Let's remember that in the grand scheme of things, land devoted to active airport usage (ie runways, aprons, taxiways) is a tiny proportion of the available land in most cities - and it is far easier to stack other ancilliary structures such as car parks.
JAS - imagine Ryanair replacing the 737-800 with such a system. Yes, clip off the passenger barrel, but you'd also have to unclip the wings, tailfin, cockpit - nd that is a lot of hinges and seals to deal with, not to mention the fuel leaking everywhere.
However, with either proposal, you are creating a significant additional risk in the event of runway incursions - something which seems to have been tolerated to date at somewhere like LCY, but even here, an aircraft leaving the runway would end up in water, not falling off a precipice
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes GL, good point, thanks for the correction 
But on that point, whart sort of risk assessments were done in the planning of LCY, especially as it was a new facility, so it didn't "need" to be there (as opposed to an airport like SAB, where there weren't other sites available on the island) - although I am, of course, very glad that it is!
But on that point, whart sort of risk assessments were done in the planning of LCY, especially as it was a new facility, so it didn't "need" to be there (as opposed to an airport like SAB, where there weren't other sites available on the island) - although I am, of course, very glad that it is!
