Is this feasible?
Circular runway?
- Thread starter spasm3
- Start date
- Status
I bet that'd work great in a cross wind.
They'll have to build race car suspensions into the aircraft using THAT skid pad, and open the field on April first.
The early landing fields were more or less circular so landings and takeoffs could always be into the wind. Check out Lindbergh's landing in Paris or early pictures of Laquardia and many, many others. But this concept has as much going for it as many another European aerospace business venture. Bankrupt from the start.
Kestas
Staff member
I first saw this concept back in the 60s. I think it's tough enough to land a large plane and keep it straight on the runway, without having to negotiate a curve.
Since landings and take offs are potentially dangerous, adding complication to the process sounds like a bad idea. There will also be additional stress on landing gear not designed for such stunts and what do you do with rejected takeoffs or emergency landings?
Thanks but no thanks. Give me a long straight runway. This is a solution looking for a problem.
Thanks but no thanks. Give me a long straight runway. This is a solution looking for a problem.
No.
JHZR2
Staff member
By the time you get the curvature as straight enough to facilitate taking off without a ton of steering, and easy landings without much airframe stress, I suspect it's larger than a traditional runway.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Aren't you taking this a bit too seriously?
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Aren't you taking this a bit too seriously?
I answered the question.
Clearly the answer is no.
But I chose to substantiate the response. Had I not substantiated it, you would've been asking "why not?".
Clearly the answer is no.
But I chose to substantiate the response. Had I not substantiated it, you would've been asking "why not?".
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Aren't you taking this a bit too seriously?
In his defense there are readers or lurkers out there who truly would like to know.
The answer is no.
Credentials:
FAA Air Traffic Control license
Bachelor of Science in Air Traffic Control
Job: Air Traffic, and Airspace Manager
Additional certifications in Airfield Management, building airspace, and TERPS.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Is this feasible?
No.
And the designer contradicts himself in the video. He states that his runway eliminates crosswind landings. Then he states that you can land up to three airplanes at once. Then he states that you can have landings and takeoffs in any direction to shorten arrival and departure paths.
Only one of those statements can be true. If three airplanes are landing, and airplane 1 is landing directly into the wind, then airplanes 2 and 3, equally spaced at 120 degrees around the circle, must be landing at MAXIMUM crosswind and WITH A TAILWIND. So, you've only eliminated crosswind for one airplane, and forced tailwind for the other two. Consider, too, that the "no crosswind" claim is only true at one moment during landing...float the landing a bit, go beyond the intended touchdown point, and it's a crosswind landing on a sloping, curved runway...
You can really only land one airplane at a time on this runway that's 3.1 times more concrete than a conventional runway.
As far as landing directly, and taking off directly? Well, yeah, if the wind allows it...but airplanes have crosswind limits, and they have, really restrictive tailwind limits. So, no, you're not taking off directly towards your en-route fix unless the wind allows it. So, that claim isn't true.
Further, every airplane takeoff has to have the engine failure scenario calculated and considered. The airplane has to clear obstacles based on engine-out climb performance. When you've got 360 potential takeoff directions (yes, degrees matter in the calculation and certification of runways), then you have 360 engine out climb profiles to be briefed and considered. How does the crew begin to even determine what to do in the event of an engine failure? It's clear that this guy is from the Netherlands, because only in a country as flat as a pancake, would you be able to climb in any direction with an engine out....that is, if the buildings along that path aren't very tall...so, any direction? No, not really...
As for the banked runway countering centrifugal/centripetal forces, that isn't true, either. That's only true for an airplane at one speed on the bank, the design speed. Let's say it's 140 KTS. But airplanes take off and land at very different speeds. Every transport category airplane bases speed on gross weight and wind, so every airplane will be landing above or below that speed and have some sideload/pull either towards the outside or the inside upon landing...and as the airplane decelerates, it will pull to the inside.
This pull gets worse as the airplane experiences crosswind. And since the runway is curved, the crosswind will change as the airplane's heading changes. An airplane on landing is still flying until about 80 knots...and the rudder still experiences crosswind all the way to the gate...so there will always be crosswind during the rollout...just as there will always be crosswind and pull on takeoff. The takeoff roll starts at zero knots. On a banked runway, that airplane will pull to the inside and the crew is going to have to fight that pull, then deal with changing wind AND changing bank as the airplane accelerates.
God help them if they're dealing with changing crosswind, changing bank and then lose an engine and have to contend with THAT pull to the inside or outside of a curved path...
Considering that there's an engineering solution to aligning instrument approach systems to the continuously variable runway, the critical safety failure of this design is the missed approach/rejected landing. Consider our three landing airplanes. They're pointed at each other's arrival path during the approach. In the event of a missed approach, or rejected landing, the airplane going around is pointed right at the other incoming traffic, at low altitude, with minimal separation. Not good. Not good at all. Downright dangerous, in fact.
So, no, you'll never see commercial traffic on a circular runway.
Aren't you taking this a bit too seriously?
In his defense there are readers or lurkers out there who truly would like to know.
The answer is no.
Credentials:
FAA Air Traffic Control license
Bachelor of Science in Air Traffic Control
Job: Air Traffic, and Airspace Manager
Additional certifications in Airfield Management, building airspace, and TERPS.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I answered the question.
Clearly the answer is no.
But I chose to substantiate the response. Had I not substantiated it, you would've been asking "why not?".
Astro,
your response was sensible, measured, and clearly from a position of someone whose day to day trade is doing the business end of what airports are designed to get done.
On watching the video, my engineer's response was to pick up the majority of the geometrically impossible promises made...then how much more fun would landing on a bank be than on the flat, then what if you are a few (or hundred) yards late on touchdown, and then where does your touch and go-go ?
I appreciated your post, particularly given that if push comes to shove you are about the only poster who has ever done (let alone daily) what is being offered.
As to the circle...3.5km diameter to get 3 runways...I should patent a pentagram airport...5 runways in the same area...always one with a headwind, and random distribution (chaos) ensures that the affect on neighbours is shared more evenly (another claim of the circular).
I answered the question.
Clearly the answer is no.
But I chose to substantiate the response. Had I not substantiated it, you would've been asking "why not?".
Astro,
your response was sensible, measured, and clearly from a position of someone whose day to day trade is doing the business end of what airports are designed to get done.
On watching the video, my engineer's response was to pick up the majority of the geometrically impossible promises made...then how much more fun would landing on a bank be than on the flat, then what if you are a few (or hundred) yards late on touchdown, and then where does your touch and go-go ?
I appreciated your post, particularly given that if push comes to shove you are about the only poster who has ever done (let alone daily) what is being offered.
As to the circle...3.5km diameter to get 3 runways...I should patent a pentagram airport...5 runways in the same area...always one with a headwind, and random distribution (chaos) ensures that the affect on neighbours is shared more evenly (another claim of the circular).
LOL. What's the arrival rate of a circular runway? Can you imagine rush hour at Ohare or Atlanta with circular runways?
This runway must be for NASCAR fans.
The runway reminds me of a saying in the Air Force about Republic Aviation, the builder of the ground loving F-105 Thunderchief: "If the Air Force built a runway around the world, Republic would build an aircraft that couldn't take off on it."
The runway reminds me of a saying in the Air Force about Republic Aviation, the builder of the ground loving F-105 Thunderchief: "If the Air Force built a runway around the world, Republic would build an aircraft that couldn't take off on it."
Last edited:
- Status
