Circular Runways?

[Startledgrapefruit]

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294)

But I thought they already had then at < insert that airport that annoys you>

[onetrack]

The idea has some merit, but the greatest single disadvantage of his design is that no expansion of airport buildings or airport size is possible (they could go up, I guess, but there are limitations there, too); and the need to install subways for vehicular access to the airport infrastructure is also a costly and limiting factor.
You would need subways large enough to take the biggest construction equipment in and out, as repair and maintenance, and any building expansion would need items such as large cranes, earthmovers, etc., to be able to access the airport infrastructure.
In essence, the banked runway is a block to movement. You could build roads over the embankment, but then you have the additional hassle of juggling substantial numbers of vehicle movements across a very active runway.
I do not see the advantages of his radical design outweighing the disadvantages.

[paperHanger]

Another idea would be to use say, 3 runways offset by 60 degrees, ensuring that at worst, the crosswind would be at worst 30 degrees off the nose ... I doubt it has been tried though ;)

For modern large passenger planes, and with runways aligned with the prevailing wind, and with competent crews, crosswind components are usually within limits. There are of course notable exceptions, and some airports could definitely use some runway options, but for busy international airports, with significant pressure on groundspace availability, the minor inconvenience of a little crosswind does not justify the operational problems of a circular runway ... I'd love to see how he plans to get 3 of those into use at LHR for example ...

[Una Due Tfc]

Ever seen the damage a banked circuit does to the tyres (tires) of a high performance car? Now put a 300+ ton/tonne aircarft on those tyres.

Imagine the torsion stress on the gear. Imagine the potential winshear once you cleared the lip of the bowl. Engine stalls due lack of airflow in sheltered parts of the bowl....what clown proposed this?

[Offchocks]

Funny, but thirty odd years ago as we flew over southern Italy there was a large circular race/ test track. I called up one of the Hosties to show her saying it was a new Italian runway design ...... poor girl believed me! :)

[Una Due Tfc]

Nardiello?

It's been dumped as a concept by supercar designers because their cars cannot reach top speed on them.

[spekesoftly]

Nardiello?Nardo Ring.

[Una Due Tfc]

There we go...

[short bus]

A circular runway would be perfect for those times when someone might need to attempt a single engine take off with a 777 as discussed in an earlier thread.

[innuendo]

Another idea would be to use say, 3 runways offset by 60 degrees, ensuring that at worst, the crosswind would be at worst 30 degrees off the nose ... I doubt it has been tried though

Airfields with runways as a connected triangle were pretty common in Canada especially in the west where a lot of training was done during and after WWII.

Even as late as the fifties and sixties the format was in use. RCAF 2FTS Moose Jaw where a lot of the sixties training was done was a triangle.

The format became a couple of parallel runways rather than the triangle, probably as it could accommodate more traffic.

[underfire]

Another idea would be to use say, 3 runways offset by 60 degrees, ensuring that at worst, the crosswind would be at worst 30 degrees off the nose ... I doubt it has been tried though

Nope, never...(from a cherished book I have...)

http://i66.tinypic.com/96xftl.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/xd5fr5.jpg

BTW, just as a thought on the circular concept, the max bank angle, and turns below 400 would make some interesting designs and issues. With max bank angle, you would probably look at close to a 4nm radius, and then many aircraft would have issues with any turn below 400 feet.

Most aircraft would be close to 100 to 140 kts at the threshold, given the weight, and coeff of friction on the tires, it would be like Daytona with a 40 degree bank for a 4nm radius, make it about 30nm radius.

Imagine DEP?!?!?!

http://i67.tinypic.com/35jmn3t.jpg

[Aluminium shuffler]

Amazing how much research can go into a patently stupid idea.

[darkbarly]

Lmfao. Best windup I have seen for a while. First FTL, now this, the European Commission really do have a sense of humour.

Makes Brexit seem entirely sensible:D

[Piltdown Man]

Capacity will be doubled at a stroke when aircraft can go in both directions. And it makes an ILS a very interesting proposition.

[India Four Two]

The format became a couple of parallel runways rather than the triangle

And some airfields combined both concepts - Claresholm, Alberta, for example:

http://www.claresholmmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/977.012.064r.jpg

Only one of those six runways is now maintained, but the others are still usable, with care.

[Piltdown Man]

I42 - you are forgetting LHR. Also designed with three sets of parallel runways.

[India Four Two]

No, I could never forget LHR. Putting the terminal buildings in the centre. What a clever idea. What could possibly go wrong with that? ;)

[sitigeltfel]

A error resulted in this article being published seventeen days too early.

[DaveReidUK]

If proof were ever needed that the EU has more money than sense:

The Endless Runway Project - Final Report (http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/downloads/d5.4-the-endless-runway-final-report-v2.pdf)

[Flying Binghi]

I suspect we will need full computer flown aircraft in use before this idea becomes viable.
Options for expansion would be another 'strip' as a second ring runway around the first circular runway.
Issues: Turbulance... in any sort of steady wind there'd likely be a beautiful roller come off the high side embankment, and where exactly is the wake turbulence going?





.

[Sawbones62]

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.

[Flying Binghi]

Apparently no terrorists were abused by the researchers..:hmm:

"...Research having the potential for terrorist abuse..."

http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/downloads/d5.4-the-endless-runway-final-report-v2.pdf

[noflynomore]

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.

[Herod]

Will circular runways ever take off?

No. The lift/drag ratio is all wrong.

[hoss183]

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39284294)

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...

[Bergerie1]

Heathrow in 1955 - it didn't last long in this configuration:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Heathrow_Airport#/media/File:Aerial_photograph_of_Heathrow_Airport,_1955.jpg

[ATC Watcher]

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 )

[horatio_b]

They do use them in the Congo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iLHhq_V5c

[Tu.114]

...why not make the circular runway spin like a turntable? That way you have the best of both worlds: runway and conveyor belt.

[Whirlybird]

What do you think? http:///www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294

[DaveReidUK]

From the BBC clip about the researcher:

"He was inspired by watching scary crosswind landings on YouTube."

Hmmm.

[student88]

Yeah I kinda understand where he's coming from, but it'll never take off.

It's a no from me.

[pax britanica]

xx 123 cleared takeoff runway errrrr...

[oldbeefer]

The approach plates would be interesting, I guess!

[Loose rivets]

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!!!

[mommus]

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.

[Gulf Julliet Papa]

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

[Carry0nLuggage]

Build it as a turntable and spin it :E

[ETOPS]

A 747 pilot writes.....

Pod strike :eek:

The inventor has clearly never tried to wrestle a big jet onto the ground in real weather :ugh:

[c52]

The clip reckons that "the military" tried it in the 1960s - anyone know more?

[Teevee]

I reckon someone's slipped up and published this story 16 days too early .....

[Council Van]

So what wind direction should we use when calculating take off performance?

[GearDown&Locked]

-Bridge to Engeneering.
-Engine room, Scott here.
-I've got a plane 100 klicks dead ahead that I need to stop. Can you route extra power to the tractor beam so it'll hold across that distance?
-Aye, I can route half your shield output through the tractor beam array.

[Pegpilot]

Would it be clockwise landing in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the south ?

[dwhite-montrose]

See Popular Science June 1966

[pax britanica]

If the military tried it I suspect it was on a very very small scale and they concreted over the grass in the centre and landed Harriers on it.

As for the EU link i suspect that is in the straight bananas category of Daily Mail lies or that it got mentioned in a few lines in a much wider study.

If they were that stupid how come so many of their members have better highways, railways, airports, education, health , standard of living etc etc etc than we do in the UK-sorry for the thread drift but I didnt start it.

I love the mental image 747 driver paints and would like to add the idea of Boeing having to make the proposed T7 stretch as an articultated version to make it work on such a layout

[TURIN]

Carryonluggage.

LEAVE IT!!!!

[beardy]

See Popular Science June 1966


https://books.google.es/books?id=2CkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=circular+runway+in+US+military-aviation&source=bl&ots=nvfNP0gif_&sig=NMsqCtqHoCAYOQy2YDMhu5UFElc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI-vLd9trSAhWCVxQKHUH5AL8Q6AEIdjAJ#v=onepage&q=circular%20runway%20in%20US%20military-aviation&f=false



Page 77 for a report on the trials conducted in the USA

[c52]

Surely it's OK to investigate it for a small cost, just because all the obvious problems MIGHT disappear on close examination, and the benefits are at least promising.

[G0ULI]

Three sets of parallel runways set at 60 degrees to each other around the compass always seemed like the best idea to me.

[n305fa]

I've had an idea. What if we simplify it a bit and turn it into a triangle with 3 runways, then to save space move the runways in a bit so they don't touch at the ends. Oh, just realised that is how airfields used to be designed, we can't have that!

How on earth did this get funding?

Sorry G0ULI, I didn't see your reply

[The Ancient Geek]

A better idea might be to concrete over the whole big circle and go back to the early days of big grass fields where everything was done into wind.

Yes I know....... but not much dafter and for different reasons.

[n305fa]

Interesting experience if you get a nose wheel steering failure and go over the banking.

Or, how about an evacuation, the downslope slides would be very "sporty" but you might have to run down the upslope ones

[Cough]

The ONLY benefit that I can see.

'Bloggs, In the event of an RTO I shall close the thrust levers, apply reverse and roll to a stop over a few KM keeping the brakes cool for another go...'

Back to the real world, where RVR's play a part with rollout guidance (curved localiser anyone?)

One real issue is the engine failure case... Which part of the runway are you gonna lift from? And will you have a headwind or tailwind by that point? Interesting point if the runway is constrained by a little terrain in certain directions!

[Sepp]

@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.

[pasta]

One real issue is the engine failure case... Which part of the runway are you gonna lift from? And will you have a headwind or tailwind by that point? Interesting point if the runway is constrained by a little terrain in certain directions!
Wouldn't you just shut down the remaining engine, and carry on trundling round and round until you came to a halt?

[space-shuttle-driver]

Here's what I was demonstrated on my first flight on floatplane, the ones with the hull in the water, not the ones on floats:
in order to take off and land on a small pond, we made a 360 on the pond, like a boat, during which the floatplane accelerated and then the last stretch we drove straight ahead through the middle of the pond, attaining rotation speed. Reverse logic for landing. Very impressive.

[Nemrytter]

Rather than scoffing from obvious superiority it might be worth first checking out their website: Documents (http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/documents/index.php)
They actually answer a few of the points raised here (unsurprisingly). No matter how barmy the idea it's still not really on to go in guns-blazing without first putting in at least minimal effort to understand the concept.

[Prophead]

Could be an interesting circuit procedure. Touch and goes could be done without leaving the centreline.

[galaxy flyer]

first flight on floatplane,

To be pedantic, that's a seaplane or, to divide further, a flying boat of amphibian depending the the presence or absence of terrestrial landing gear. Beaching gear doesn't count.

[pax britanica]

Where do you put the passenegr terminals-in the centre a la Heathrow or round the sides of what would be a pretty big radius area so solving the aeronautical bits might actually be easier than sorting out what happens to the ground side structures and operations.

[GearDown&Locked]

http://cdn.panrotas.com.br/media-files-original/2013/02/06/betocarrero060213.jpg

Ok, I've just re invented the circular runway, this time with a twist - a vertical one.
Its main advantages: same runway lenght in a short space, no more worries abount crosswinds because the system will self align into the wind, and last but not least, more fun for the pax (and lo-cos can charge more for it too!).

Any EU funding will be very appreciated, thank you.

[DaveReidUK]

From the BBC clip about the researcher:

"He was inspired by watching scary crosswind landings on YouTube."

Hmmm.

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294)

[Parson]

At last, a runway that will suit my approaches..........:)

[donotdespisethesnake]

Rather than scoffing from obvious superiority it might be worth first checking out their website: Documents (http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/documents/index.php)
They actually answer a few of the points raised here (unsurprisingly). No matter how barmy the idea it's still not really on to go in guns-blazing without first putting in at least minimal effort to understand the concept.

I think everyone understands the concept. If there is money available to research barmy ideas, why not take it?

[procede]

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.

[Good Business Sense]

Effect of rainfall/snowfall ?

[Martin_123]

so you lose your nose gear steering for whatever reason and end up at your local airport tesco's.. what a brilliant idea

[WindSheer]

Am I the only one loving the idea of this?

The purpose of a touchdown zone is for stopping distance. You could just keep going and correct appropriately to land wherever you need to.
Ridiculous comments about ILS etc. Modern GPS would eliminate the need for this.

The only challenge for me is wind consistency as you travel around the corner.

A marvel of an idea....good luck to them!!!!!!

[tech log]

High speed loss of thrust below V1 on critical engine + track banked downwards at 10+ degrees. What a brilliant idea that can't possibly go wrong.

Not to mention how completely absurd any plates, CTR/CTA and separation design would be. Good luck designing 360 degrees worth of missed approaches to ICAO spec.

Landing on a banked surface with gear not downlocked? Cartwheels. Dead.

[esa-aardvark]

There was one at Stifkey (Norfolk, UK). Used by the military
for launching target drones. I suppose landing may not have
been a problem for them.

[Scoggy]

Surely all you need is a large conveyor belt that can be rotated into wind?

[andrasz]

Hmmm... I'm not sure you'd get high or far with a 220kt groundspeed and zero airspeed... :E

[smith]

how many ILS's would there be or would there just be one that rotated as well?

[Skyjob]

I vote for reduced runway length use by installing catapult systems on all thresholds and arrester gears at each end!

[fireflybob]

Snow clearance could be interesting.

How about drainage during/after heavy rain? Camber on "normal" runways and other devices encourage drainage from the middle of the runway. I don't fancy the idea of aquaplaning off the side of the circular runway.

[binzer]

At least you can get rid of the V1 call now

[ExSp33db1rd]

Nothing new, early aviation started flying from big fields, didn't it ? Just take off into wind.

[BusBoy]

Unlimited TODA

[galaxy flyer]

Unlimited ASDA and LDA, too.


And posters claim the BBC is a valid source of news

[llondel]

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.

[llondel]

@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.

That's easy, you just have a bunch of self-driving cars with lights on top that drive round at high speed in formation. You approach with an ever-decreasing spiral manoeuvre (aka the oozlum trick), keeping the cars in sight as you slowly descend.

[Sepp]

:ok:

Sounds legit. :}

[RAT 5]

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.

[Fairdealfrank]

It's the 1st April, bloody hell, it's come around again so quickly!

Will circular runways ever take off?
Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294)


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..........


But I thought they already had then at < insert that airport that annoys you>

CDG!

No, I could never forget LHR. Putting the terminal buildings in the centre. What a clever idea. What could possibly go wrong with that?

It was at the time. Problem was that there was no concept of future-proofing or accounting for the fact that aviation would eventually take off big time.

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!!!

Arrrgh, how do you do a go-around?


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.

Boris Island?

[DaveReidUK]

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..........

To be fair, even the daft Heathrow Hub proposal doesn't feature a runway with a bend in the middle. :O

[RAT 5]

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.

[underfire]

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.

[abgd]

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.

[.Scott]

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39284294)
The runway would be banked with the outer edge higher than the lower side.

[DaveReidUK]

See post #31 from 16th March.

[.Scott]

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/downloads/d3.2-aircraft-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!

[KelvinD]

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"!

[DaveReidUK]

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.

You haven't provided any link, but I'm guessing you mean the document linked in post #19.

[.Scott]

You haven't provided any link, but I'm guessing you mean the document linked in post #19.Nope. I actually got the link from the "Documents" in post #59. That site lists about 6 sections to the report. Section 3.2 addresses issue with landings and take-offs and with the banking of the runway.

http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/downloads/d3.2-aircraft-aspects.pdf

[Myrtle Beach]

Air traffic control to captain: Do you always have to go flying off on a tangent?