![]() |
In the spirit of the original article, the way to clearly keep the sideways force at a minimum is to have the circular runway rotating on rollers so that the aircraft can remain stationary as the wheels go faster with the runway moving underneath. No untoward forces on the landing gear then.
:8 Oh, and no airspeed or lift either. So about as useful as the original idea. |
Originally Posted by Sepp
(Post 9708092)
@airforced: I concur.
Playing along with it though: it would also be very interesting to hear how the genius that came up with the idea plans to implement approach lighting/PAPIs. |
:ok:
Sounds legit. :} |
During my VFR XC nav training days around southern & eastern England I'm sure I saw many old WW11 disused airfields that had a triangular runway layout, with one side being the longest main runway. Many had been dug up, but the shadows were still visible. The // runway layout I suspect come from a social consideration; noise etc.
One thing about the layout design: At Schiphol they have 6 runways and are laid out principle on a square, 18 & 27 except for a primary takeoff runway of 24 and landing on 06. RW22 is primarily GA. They like to use 2 takeoff runways & 1 landing or vice versa depending on the schedule period; sometimes even 2 takeoff & 2 landing. However, the worst winds come in the winter and are NW'lys, right between the runways, with challenging X-wind consequences. This often causes single runway operation each for takeoff & landing. Huge delays & cancellations. The question asked: is it better to build the // runways not on a common east/west axis but on NW/SE, or what ever the worst wind direction is, and accept a gentle crosswind in more benign conditions? Circular runways? I get dizzy just thinking about them. |
It's the 1st April, bloody hell, it's come around again so quickly!
But I thought they already had then at < insert that airport that annoys you> No, I could never forget LHR. Putting the terminal buildings in the centre. What a clever idea. What could possibly go wrong with that? Yet midfield terminals are fashionable at present! 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!!! Maybe we should propose a big floating airport in the sea. Like a 3km long aircraft carrier with two parallel runways 1.5 km apart. Kind of like Heathrow at Sea. Landside access is a bit of an issue through. |
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank
(Post 9718304)
Makes the untried and untested concept of simulataneous take offs and landings on an extended 10L/27R at LHR (Jock Lowe's proposal to the Airport Commission) look emminently sensible..........
|
I get dizzy just thinking about this. Brooklands used to be an aerodrome. It is near-ish to London. It has a banking. Did they close and dismantle it too early? What could have been.
|
Perhaps we should propose a large treadmill runway for ARR, come in touchdown, and there you are!
If nothing else, we could get $Billions to study the concept. |
Wouldn't you use both anticlockwise and clockwise runways if you had a circular airport? You could then have 2 active runways that were into the wind. So long as they were long enough, you would have room to abort a take-off before you came into conflict with the opposing runway.
My general feeling is that when clever people suggest something that seems to be stupid, it's generally worth giving some unbiased consideration. My problem with the proposal so far is that I haven't seen enough detail about it so far to have any inkling as to how it's actually proposed it should work. |
Circular Runway proposed
Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News
The runway would be banked with the outer edge higher than the lower side. |
See post #31 from 16th March.
|
Here's the specific document dealing with whether a plane could land and takeoff on such a runway - and how the runway would be banked.
http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/...ft-aspects.pdf The key problem I see is in the landing. You would be landing on the inside of a bowl near just below the rim. If you ever went a little long or short on your approach, forget about it. You need to bank you plane as you clear the rim and then land exactly as you become tangent to you "center line". If you need to land a couple of hundred meters late, your choices are a go-around or trying to follow the curve and bank of the "center line". Their document is very light on the problems of the approach to landing. But they do say that if you do it, the acceleration forces will not upset the passengers. Yeeehaaa! |
Luton airport would have confounded even the circular runway on Monday this week. The wind was being reported throughout the day as "varying from 120 to 240 degrees"!
|
Originally Posted by .Scott
(Post 9729774)
Here's the specific document dealing with whether a plane could land and takeoff on such a runway - and how the runway would be banked.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9729945)
You haven't provided any link, but I'm guessing you mean the document linked in post #19.
http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/...ft-aspects.pdf |
circular runway
Air traffic control to captain: Do you always have to go flying off on a tangent?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.