Circular runways?

Stupid European Commision eh.

How ridiculous.

Funding research that might make the huge increase in air traffic more efficient and less troublesome.

Madness
 
Surely as soon as the tyres leave the tarmac the planes going to go in a straight line otherwise it has to bank risking clipping the ground with a wing tip. As for landing, what happens when you hit the brakes on a wet greasy road when going round a corner?
 
simon ess said:
Stupid European Commision eh.

How ridiculous.

Funding research that might make the huge increase in air traffic more efficient and less troublesome.

Madness
Click to expand...

It looks and smells like an early April 1st story...
 
I think the risk of wingtip to runway interface will render this to the "nice idea, but no" tray.
 
beyond the blue said:
Did people not laugh at the idea of "flying" in the past? I'll keep an open mind on this one.
Click to expand...

There are simply too many risks with this - yes the bank and curve will be gradual but in its current form I just don't see it as viable.
 
Got to be just a stupid invention of a story that has achieved it's purpose of stirring up some talk.
Since aircraft take off and land into the wind it woud prove tricky.
Don't see how the landing aids that provide straight lateral and vertical guidance could work.
Also, in the event of an aborted take off when the brakes and reverse thrust take effect the aircraft will carry on going straight ahead.

Instead of this circular mullarkey how about shorter runways with catapults and arrester wires (along with bloody strong seats and seatbelts).

Hells, bells, in second thoughts why not just go the whole hog and have transporters Startrek style. Get yourself beemed over to Majorca and your wife (or M in law) simultaneously beemed onto Mars.
 
I think it's a problem that doesn't need any attention TBH. Airports design their runways to point in the general direction of where the weather fronts usually come from, so you can land either direction depending on the headwind. Landing crosswind is not so difficult as you 'crab' the aircraft and stick a boot of opposite rudder in just before hitting the tarmac. It's sometimes challenging but as a pilot you know the crosswind capabilities of the aircraft anyway.

Airports have complex 'roadways in the sky' that are very well charted and depending on the runway in use you can find out details of circuit directions, what the airport expects you do for landing and take-off procedures and so it can be 1 of a few options to land. The big aircraft will usually have 10+ miles finals so they're setting up to land in a nice straight line. By creating a computer graphic that shows many different landing possibilities then I fail to see how this would work daily when it could be constantly changing. When a pilot calls into the airport for joining/landing instructions then theyre pretty sure it's one of a few possibilities and although the big boys will use ILS systems to bring them in there's still times when the pilot flys the aircraft into the ground.

I'm looking at this from a PPL perspective, I've no experience on airliners but the principle are similar.
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
Instead of this circular mullarkey how about shorter runways with catapults and arrester wires (along with bloody strong seats and seatbelts).
Click to expand...

Which is how harriers used to land on aircraft carriers.

It might be better with a massive butterfly net, then it's the ATCs responsibility to 'catch' any aircraft wishing to land.
 
Guys, this is a seriously real possibility.

If the runway is banked then the aircraft will have the same forces acting on it as it does on a flat runway - at least that what our research chappies tell me :)

@Angelboy: i think you'll find that Harriers were never used with catapults or arrestor wires. In fact AFAIK they were never equpped wth arrestor hooks. Carriers were modified to have ski-jumps which gave extra lift at take-off and they landed vertically.
 
@Angelboy: i think you'll find that Harriers were never used with catapults or arrestor wires. In fact AFAIK they were never equpped wth arrestor hooks. Carriers were modified to have ski-jumps which gave extra lift at take-off and they landed vertically.[/QUOTE]

So what aircraft have I seen online that used the wires to shorten the landing?

I'll have a dig around and see if I can find a clip - probably American military though.
 
Angelboy said:
So what aircraft have I seen online that used the wires to shorten the landing?

I'll have a dig around and see if I can find a clip - probably American military though.
Click to expand...

Most aircraft operating off carriers but not the Harrier. Vertical/short take off & landing. They didn't need anything but the ski ramp to assist on take off. Think fixed wing helicopters, but for their time probably even more complex.
 
Angelboy said:
@Angelboy: i think you'll find that Harriers were never used with catapults or arrestor wires. In fact AFAIK they were never equpped wth arrestor hooks. Carriers were modified to have ski-jumps which gave extra lift at take-off and they landed vertically.
Click to expand...

So what aircraft have I seen online that used the wires to shorten the landing?

I'll have a dig around and see if I can find a clip - probably American military though.[/QUOTE]

The steam catapult was a British invention but the Americans have pretty much perfected the design and technique - likewise the arrestor cables and landing aids used on their carriers. But these are only needed for conventional aircraft that would normally require a runway, which the Harrier and AV8 (American version build by McDonnell Douglas under license) doesn't.

The Harrier was a brilliant aircraft, way before it's time. The new American F35B owes much of it's technology to the Harrier :)
 
ecoleman said:
A friend of mine and I where chatting about this the other day. He's a pilot / captain for Emirates.

His words "Never going to happen"
Click to expand...

They said the same thing before the Wright brothers took to the air and before Sikorsky built the first helicopter and before the Harrier and before Concorde ... do you see a pattern emerging?

The world is round; why not have circular runways :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top