Circular Runways?
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 8
From: KAPL
NAS North Island c. 1930:
https://goo.gl/images/Mc2t9j
As aircraft got larger and faster, conventional runways were built, but you can still see traces of the circular runway there today.
https://goo.gl/images/Mc2t9j
As aircraft got larger and faster, conventional runways were built, but you can still see traces of the circular runway there today.
Last edited by Sawbones62; 16th March 2017 at 07:50. Reason: Link
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 14
From: Australia
Apparently no terrorists were abused by the researchers..
"...Research having the potential for terrorist abuse..."
http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/...-report-v2.pdf
"...Research having the potential for terrorist abuse..."
http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/...-report-v2.pdf
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
From: UK
I can't see how this could result in an increase in traffic or spread the noise around much. The only useable part of the circle is the into wind part, the rest is crosswind or downwind to varying degrees meaning that most movements will inevitably be from the same into wind sector, as will the approaches and departures. Then there's tyre wear, stress on the gear, the practical problem of landing in a turn, designing a whole new instrument landing system that can cope with a 360' runway...
Anyway straight runways aren't a faulty concept so why try to fix them?
Someone's on a nice little gravy train I fear.
Anyway straight runways aren't a faulty concept so why try to fix them?
Someone's on a nice little gravy train I fear.
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
From: BRS/GVA
circular runway anyone?
Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News
Seems to me it introduces a whole bag of extra issues / dangers. I imagine lining up on approach would be tricky, landing on a curved and banked runway not easy and spotting an incursion not so obvious...
Seems to me it introduces a whole bag of extra issues / dangers. I imagine lining up on approach would be tricky, landing on a curved and banked runway not easy and spotting an incursion not so obvious...
Joined: Apr 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 489
From: A place in the sun
Heathrow in 1955 - it didn't last long in this configuration:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...port,_1955.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...port,_1955.jpg
Pegase Driver
Joined: May 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 4,452
Likes: 1,165
From: Europe
I am surprised this comes up again . It is a very old idea from the 1920's that only worked with the very slow aircraft of the time.New tests were made in the 60s and were abandoned because, if I recall well, of the centrifugal forces forcing the fast aircraft out of the runway and gear load asymmetry. That said , the NLR ( Dutch research laboratory ) are no fools so they must have done the maths correctly . Curious to hear how they solved that on current modern aircraft that are not designed to have constant excessive loads on one set of wheels ( as the MD11 recent accidents demonstrate )
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 374
Likes: 12
From: the dark side
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Psychophysiological entity
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 169
From: Walton on the Naze Essex.
Great, no crosswind.
Ah, bit of a crosswind.
Aaaaaagh, crosswind is out of limits.
Well, take off again then!!
Can't, we've got a tailwind!!!
Ah, bit of a crosswind.
Aaaaaagh, crosswind is out of limits.
Well, take off again then!!
Can't, we've got a tailwind!!!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: London
Just watched this. Apparently it was funded by the European Union.
I can't see any benefit from it, and dozens of issues.
Primarily, the cost of building what amounts to an enlarged and reinforced Nascar circuit and being able to land on it in reduced visibility.
In fact, landing safely on it under ideal conditions could prove deadly.
He says it would eliminate issues with crosswind landings, but the angle an aircraft was taking relative to the wind would constantly be changing (due to the curve) and the wind direction at the beginning of a take off would be different when rotating and climbing out - unless the diameter of the circle was absolutely enormous, but then an airport would consume hundreds of sq km.
I can't see any benefit from it, and dozens of issues.
Primarily, the cost of building what amounts to an enlarged and reinforced Nascar circuit and being able to land on it in reduced visibility.
In fact, landing safely on it under ideal conditions could prove deadly.
He says it would eliminate issues with crosswind landings, but the angle an aircraft was taking relative to the wind would constantly be changing (due to the curve) and the wind direction at the beginning of a take off would be different when rotating and climbing out - unless the diameter of the circle was absolutely enormous, but then an airport would consume hundreds of sq km.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
And how can it be used simultaneously by 4 aircraft?
One into wind, 2 crosswind and 1 tailwind is the solution?
Interesting the video does not show any take offs....
The only thing to be amazed by this is that someone has let it get so far and spent money on it
One into wind, 2 crosswind and 1 tailwind is the solution?
Interesting the video does not show any take offs....
The only thing to be amazed by this is that someone has let it get so far and spent money on it
