Circular runways for airports

Fretwired

Apparently a circular runway can handle as much traffic as four normal runways but takes up less space ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294

Ravenous

Takeoff would be fine, but not sure I like the look of the landing...

Also takes "Going around" far too literally in my opinion...

Cirrus

It'd mean faster takeoff and landing speeds - stall speed increases as planes bank as some of the lift from the wing is going sideways instead of up against gravity - plus as the runway surface would be constantly rising to meet you (due to the camber), you'd need to be going faster to counteract that effect.

Then there'd be the increased precision you'd need - on a conventional runway, the touchdown point has a bit of flexibility forward and back - really, as long as there's still room to stop safely after your wheels touch it doesn't matter exactly where that happens. With a curving runway, go too far in front or behind and you'll be touching down outside the circle, or at least off the center line.

I dunno. I'm sure it could work, but I'm not sure exactly what problem they're trying to solve. Planes coming and going from all angles would be a logistical nightmare for ATC...

HAL9000

Surely aircraft take off and land into the wind. Working out the take off point would take some doing.

HAL9000

Circular runways for flying saucers?

digitalscream

Cirrus said:

It'd mean faster takeoff and landing speeds - stall speed increases as planes bank as some of the lift from the wing is going sideways instead of up against gravity - plus as the runway surface would be constantly rising to meet you (due to the camber), you'd need to be going faster to counteract that effect.

Which, in turn, would mean higher fuel costs. Can't see that being popular with the airlines at all.

ThorpyFX

digitalscream said:

Cirrus said:

It'd mean faster takeoff and landing speeds - stall speed increases as planes bank as some of the lift from the wing is going sideways instead of up against gravity - plus as the runway surface would be constantly rising to meet you (due to the camber), you'd need to be going faster to counteract that effect.

Which, in turn, would mean higher fuel costs. Can't see that being popular with the airlines at all.

and higher noise levels, which is exactly the problem the runway was designed to solve!

ICBM

Just put the whole thing on a giant turntable which turns backwards at the same speed as the planes move forwards. Problem solved.

er...

Ravenous

ICBM said:

Just put the whole thing on a giant turntable which turns backwards at the same speed as the planes move forwards. Problem solved.

er...

OH NO NOT AGAIN!

Cirrus

Better idea:

- Tower 2km high.

- Planes connected to top of tower with harness on 2km of rope.

- Tower spins, causing attached planes to be pulled round by rope.

- Centefugal force pushed planes outwards as they spin, causing them to gradually move faster through air. Like carousel.

- When plane reaches safe flying speed, harness is jettisoned and plane flies away as normal.

- For landing, planes intercept unused ropes that are whirling around tower

I got this idea while idly watching youtube videos, so I think it's legit.

Sporky

ICBM said:

Just put the whole thing on a giant turntable which turns backwards at the same speed as the planes move forwards. Problem solved.

You beat me to it!

I don't like the idea. I get sick on fairground rides that go 'round and 'round.

Fretwired

Just build runways in the sky with large lifts to the ground. Reduces noise ..

PolarityMan

If you built a 4d runway that also extends forwards in time then the planes could just taxi to the point where we have teleporters and not need to take off at all. Which is clearly the ultimate solution to the conveyor belt problem too.

Cirrus

Ok, rought maths tells me 204 million lbs of thrust would be required to keep an aircraft carrier airborne. That would be a bit over 27 Saturn V rockets firing at maximum thrust constantly. I think it's safe to say, noise would not be reduced. 

Fretwired

Cirrus said:

Ok, rought maths tells me 204 million lbs of thrust would be required to keep an aircraft carrier airborne. That would be a bit over 27 Saturn V rockets firing at maximum thrust constantly. I think it's safe to say, noise would not be reduced. 

Airship tech ..... float away .. ;-)

PolarityMan

Cirrus said:

Ok, rought maths tells me 204 million lbs of thrust would be required to keep an aircraft carrier airborne. That would be a bit over 27 Saturn V rockets firing at maximum thrust constantly. I think it's safe to say, noise would not be reduced. 

Your assuming its flying, you just cant see the strings attached to the firmament in that picture. The big fans are for air conditioning because its much hotter that close to the moving sun lamp.

TimmyO

Fretwired said:

Apparently a circular runway can handle as much traffic as four normal runways but takes up less space ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294

Won't happen. Someone has picked up on a fringe 'expert' on a slow news day 

TimmyO

Cirrus said:

Ok, rought maths tells me 204 million lbs of thrust would be required to keep an aircraft carrier airborne. That would be a bit over 27 Saturn V rockets firing at maximum thrust constantly. I think it's safe to say, noise would not be reduced. 

Luckily that's not how it works. Far less energy blowing over a lifting surface would also do it. 

Sporky

Did I post my brilliant idea for improving air travel?

Little lifting body pods, taking about 4-6 people each. Delivered to your home (or trundling there autonomously), with a little luggage compartment for your stuff. Then they trundle to regional railguns where they are fired heavenwards, docking with larger aircraft for most of the journey. Then rather than going through an airport at the other end, the pods can be dropped off as they pass over the final destination, descending in a powered glide and gently merging with traffic.

Returning pods with no passengers or cargo would carry fuel for the mothership.

Pure liquid genius as you've surely come to expect from the forum's preeminent sea otter.

Cirrus

TimmyO said:

Cirrus said:

Ok, rought maths tells me 204 million lbs of thrust would be required to keep an aircraft carrier airborne. That would be a bit over 27 Saturn V rockets firing at maximum thrust constantly. I think it's safe to say, noise would not be reduced. 

Luckily that's not how it works. Far less energy blowing over a lifting surface would also do it. 

Alight mate, once you build your practical flying aircraft carrier I'll retract my joke.

 

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Did I post my brilliant idea for improving air travel?

Little lifting body pods, taking about 4-6 people each. Delivered to your home (or trundling there autonomously), with a little luggage compartment for your stuff. Then they trundle to regional railguns where they are fired heavenwards, docking with larger aircraft for most of the journey. Then rather than going through an airport at the other end, the pods can be dropped off as they pass over the final destination, descending in a powered glide and gently merging with traffic.

Returning pods with no passengers or cargo would carry fuel for the mothership.

Pure liquid genius as you've surely come to expect from the forum's preeminent sea otter.

Great idea .. what's to stop me filling one with dummies and a big bomb .. :-)