Inclined runways
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inclined runways
I was recently contacted by the inventor of a "revolutionary" airport layout:
Earth Wise International - Starrport
The basic idea is that the runways are built on inclines (4% to 5% grade) so that all takeoffs are downhill and landings are uphill. The terminal is located underneath the peak of the pyramid structure. The inventor makes some pretty dramatic claims about the fuel saved by this design.
Is he missing something obvious, or does this seem like a plausible concept to those who know something about aviation?
Earth Wise International - Starrport
The basic idea is that the runways are built on inclines (4% to 5% grade) so that all takeoffs are downhill and landings are uphill. The terminal is located underneath the peak of the pyramid structure. The inventor makes some pretty dramatic claims about the fuel saved by this design.
Is he missing something obvious, or does this seem like a plausible concept to those who know something about aviation?
We don't like steep RWY gradients and that would make opposite departures very bad; anyway most RWY's are inclined some what
further, would you like to stop a fast jet running down hill,...
and if the runway were unidirectional well then you save lots of fuel,...by idling on the ground forever waiting for a departure slot,...or holding forever waiting for an approach,...
just another useless 'new idea'---let's just float away on pink balloons and hope the wind carries us home
further, would you like to stop a fast jet running down hill,...
and if the runway were unidirectional well then you save lots of fuel,...by idling on the ground forever waiting for a departure slot,...or holding forever waiting for an approach,...
just another useless 'new idea'---let's just float away on pink balloons and hope the wind carries us home
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 13th Jan 2010 at 15:31. Reason: s
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 38
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, it appears that the gradient is only at the beginning of the departing runway and vice versa for the arrivals. This would presumably give a reduced accelerate-stop distance since the bulk of the speed is gathered on the downhill, while the stopping is on the flat.
I can see problems with this (a runway overrun on arrival would involve a slide right through the terminal...) and the go-arounds might be tricky with departing traffic directly ahead. They're not insurmountable, though.
I can see problems with this (a runway overrun on arrival would involve a slide right through the terminal...) and the go-arounds might be tricky with departing traffic directly ahead. They're not insurmountable, though.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might as well have a 2 foot deep over-run lake to put out the brake fires, douse the engines and stop the craft with minimum damage.
What planet does your mate live on?
mm43
What planet does your mate live on?
mm43
And some very poor arithmetic!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We actually had a runway just like that here in the Sierra foothills. 5k long, 07/25.
Big hump in the middle, at the lounge/FBO. 07 was not used by veterans taking off, it was net uphill and into trees. 07 was great for landing. Uncontrolled strip, some transient thought he was entitled to a 10 mile final to 7, no radio, that could be a problem. Besides taking off into a hump that hid the departure action, one landed on 25 and exited as quickly as possible. Stopping to chat with a student on the active could put one in danger of an S2 up your tail. (Fire Base). The second turn off was well hidden from departing a/c on 25.
Cost 7 million to grade the hump down and repave, plus loss of business while closed.
Bad idea. Bad. Hump/Danger. Hump/Danger
bear
Big hump in the middle, at the lounge/FBO. 07 was not used by veterans taking off, it was net uphill and into trees. 07 was great for landing. Uncontrolled strip, some transient thought he was entitled to a 10 mile final to 7, no radio, that could be a problem. Besides taking off into a hump that hid the departure action, one landed on 25 and exited as quickly as possible. Stopping to chat with a student on the active could put one in danger of an S2 up your tail. (Fire Base). The second turn off was well hidden from departing a/c on 25.
Cost 7 million to grade the hump down and repave, plus loss of business while closed.
Bad idea. Bad. Hump/Danger. Hump/Danger
bear
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Where its at
Age: 41
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of you have actually clicked the link and seen the actual proposals? 
Animated demonstration at USAToday.com
Its not so much about having a runway on an gradient, its more about always having the terminal right at the end of the runway for arrivals, and right at the beginning for departures. This virtually eliminates taxiing, thereby saving fuel. No hump in the middle of the runway. No idling on the ground.
Personally I think its pretty ingenious. Not saying it will work, but the discussion would be more informed if people were aware of what they were debating rather than throwing negative comments around willy nilly...
Animated demonstration at USAToday.com
Its not so much about having a runway on an gradient, its more about always having the terminal right at the end of the runway for arrivals, and right at the beginning for departures. This virtually eliminates taxiing, thereby saving fuel. No hump in the middle of the runway. No idling on the ground.
Personally I think its pretty ingenious. Not saying it will work, but the discussion would be more informed if people were aware of what they were debating rather than throwing negative comments around willy nilly...
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent
What a good idea!
Note to other posters - take-off and landing are in the same direction. You need to appreciate this is two separate runways joined in the middle by an apron.
The London Underground uses this principle a lot.
Note to other posters - take-off and landing are in the same direction. You need to appreciate this is two separate runways joined in the middle by an apron.
The London Underground uses this principle a lot.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All well and good until you land short, and have to use 95% power to taxi up the hill to the terminal, or you have to taxi back to blocks, or something goes wrong on the take off roll and the stop distance is increased by 50% beacuse of the down slope. Imagine how many snails would be killed by the manufacture of these new airports - they would have to be new as the infrastructure would take too long to build at an existing one
It's funny, they say the Denver airport is wasteful, yet it was designed as a pinwheel with the terminals in the center. Also check the layout of KNMM and KNKT, both US Naval Air Stations with the ramp areas in the middle of runways laid out like wheel spokes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My caution was that airports should be humpless. Not necessarily spokeless. Undergrounding is remarkably different than surface engineering, and could easily cost twice the sum a standard aerodrome might. For instance a tunnel can be ten times as expensive as a surface roadway of the same length. Plus all connections to appurtenant services, infrastructure.
Flamboyant Architecture was passe in the thirties, and from whence cometh the Bonds? China's tapped, my friend.
bear, not gopher
Flamboyant Architecture was passe in the thirties, and from whence cometh the Bonds? China's tapped, my friend.
bear, not gopher
Pffft .... no big deal having a steep runway.
Fane in Papua New Guinea, averages about 12° slope and the middle is about 15° I think. Yes it's a one-way strip but because it's close to the equator there's never much wind so you don't have to suffer much head/tail at any time. The 2,000' drop at the end also does wonders to help build up airspeed if needed.
I can see how the idea of an inclined runway could work, but it'd be very difficult to work in the real world, with varying winds and so on.
Fane in Papua New Guinea, averages about 12° slope and the middle is about 15° I think. Yes it's a one-way strip but because it's close to the equator there's never much wind so you don't have to suffer much head/tail at any time. The 2,000' drop at the end also does wonders to help build up airspeed if needed.
I can see how the idea of an inclined runway could work, but it'd be very difficult to work in the real world, with varying winds and so on.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't/doesn't Montreal Mirabel have the runways laid out so the terminal is at the end of the landing runway and beginning of the take off runway - been a few years since I went there, so I may be wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone here landed on a 5 degree upslope here? I have and its horrible. Really bad visual illusion means that you need to be talked down practically on a visual approach. the flare becomes a six degree pullup affair, which, if you pork, means going around and burning even more fuel.
Oh, what happens when the wind isnt in your favour and you have to get airbourne on the upslope? Does wonders for your performance, meaning you may need to flag somewhere, at massive increase in fuel burn!
Flat runways are the best!
Oh, what happens when the wind isnt in your favour and you have to get airbourne on the upslope? Does wonders for your performance, meaning you may need to flag somewhere, at massive increase in fuel burn!
Flat runways are the best!
Having a raised terminal at the end of a raised runway would make your go-around gradient calculations interesting wouldn't it. Overrun would be quite spectacular as well, pity he didn't consult anyone who knows about aircraft operations before designing this.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courchevel Airport, France, CVF
Good job the airport designers of CVF didn't read some of the posts here first.
"The French however, have decided not to let a simple matter like density altitude get in the way. By simply making the runway follow the slope of the mountain, and decreeing that takeoffs are downhill and landings uphill, gravity is used as a replacement for air molecules. Large twins and even four engine turboprops are able to takeoff and land on a runway which totals 535m (from the drop-off at the bottom to the mountain face at the top) a TODA or LDA which would be marginal if it was at sea level, and flat.
At Courchevel, with varying gradients along the length of the runway (to a maximum of 18.5% for the central 238m) the mere fact that the local QFE on a standard day would be 793mb is no obstacle either to take-off or to landing. It does however put paid once and for all to the argument about always landing on QFE. Just try winding off 6000' from your altimeter as you enter the circuit to see why..."
World's Most Dangerous Airports: Courchevel Airport, France, CVF || Jaunted
higher.flyer.co.uk
YouTube - Beech Baron landing at Courchevel Airport, France
"The French however, have decided not to let a simple matter like density altitude get in the way. By simply making the runway follow the slope of the mountain, and decreeing that takeoffs are downhill and landings uphill, gravity is used as a replacement for air molecules. Large twins and even four engine turboprops are able to takeoff and land on a runway which totals 535m (from the drop-off at the bottom to the mountain face at the top) a TODA or LDA which would be marginal if it was at sea level, and flat.
At Courchevel, with varying gradients along the length of the runway (to a maximum of 18.5% for the central 238m) the mere fact that the local QFE on a standard day would be 793mb is no obstacle either to take-off or to landing. It does however put paid once and for all to the argument about always landing on QFE. Just try winding off 6000' from your altimeter as you enter the circuit to see why..."
World's Most Dangerous Airports: Courchevel Airport, France, CVF || Jaunted
higher.flyer.co.uk
YouTube - Beech Baron landing at Courchevel Airport, France
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 14th Jan 2010 at 15:16. Reason: spelling
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone here landed on a 5 degree upslope here?
Clearly you would need a whole new set of calculations for V1 etc. With regard to complications with go-arounds, I guess you would just have to make sure the incline was less than the go-around flight profile.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EHBP/BUD/Budapest works very well.
They have offset 13L/R and 31L/R with the terminal in the middle, so you land on 13R or 31L and take off on 13L or 31R hence minimising taxi distances after landing and nefore take off; works well!
They have offset 13L/R and 31L/R with the terminal in the middle, so you land on 13R or 31L and take off on 13L or 31R hence minimising taxi distances after landing and nefore take off; works well!