Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
engine failure and landing on a country road.
He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
Goodyear's test track.
A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
Taladega?
Daytona?
(What are the other Super Speedways?)

Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.

Wu Chia Ba airport in Kunming used this arrangement before the
Americans arrived toward the end of 1941.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
>

Yes, but that's not what he's talking about. What you're describing is an
"all ways" airfield in which aircraft can land and takeoff in any direction,
but with a straight ground run. He's talking about a runway in a circle
where aircraft use a curvilinear ground track.

Sounds like an obvious candidate for that wonderful approach
out East with a DME arc right to the MAP...

John

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> > You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> > landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
> >
>
> Yes, but that's not what he's talking about. What you're describing is an
> "all ways" airfield in which aircraft can land and takeoff in any
direction,
> but with a straight ground run. He's talking about a runway in a circle
> where aircraft use a curvilinear ground track.
>
>

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.

I don't think that's what he's talking about. You're right that circular
airfields (always grass, as far as I know) where the pilot could always land
into the wind were common in the early days of aviation.

Sounds to me as though what the original poster is talking about is a paved,
circular track. Sort of the exact opposite of the early circular airfields,
in that rather than always being able to operate in a straight line into the
wind, the pilot would always be assured of having the most difficult type of
landing or takeoff, with a varying crosswind at virtually every point of the
operation (except for one very brief moment), and the requirement that the
airplane be flown in a turn for the entire time.

The only advantages I see are that you never run out of pavement (the runway
is effectively of infinite length) and that you can use the land more
efficiently. However, given how well landing in a straight line seems to be
working out for most of us, I can't imagine the benefits would outweigh the
considerable safety concerns.

Perhaps this was an April Fool's joke that Air & Space Magazine played on
its readers?

Pete

Rod Machado has suggested a similar runway for those pilots that don't know
what the rudder pedals are for.

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
> Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
> A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
> engine failure and landing on a country road.
> He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
> someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
> The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
> Goodyear's test track.
> A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
> Taladega?
> Daytona?
> (What are the other Super Speedways?)

Peter Duniho wrote:
> I don't think that's what he's talking about. You're right that circular
> airfields (always grass, as far as I know) where the pilot could always land
> into the wind were common in the early days of aviation.

The theory posited in the article was that one could always land and
takeoff into the wind using a circular runway.

> Sounds to me as though what the original poster is talking about is a paved,
> circular track. Sort of the exact opposite of the early circular airfields,
> in that rather than always being able to operate in a straight line into the
> wind, the pilot would always be assured of having the most difficult type of
> landing or takeoff, with a varying crosswind at virtually every point of the
> operation (except for one very brief moment), and the requirement that the
> airplane be flown in a turn for the entire time.

The banked track would counter the crosswind component.

> The only advantages I see are that you never run out of pavement (the runway
> is effectively of infinite length) and that you can use the land more
> efficiently. However, given how well landing in a straight line seems to be
> working out for most of us, I can't imagine the benefits would outweigh the
> considerable safety concerns.

Perfect for aircraft built by Republic Aircraft. ("If they built a
runway around the world at the equator, Republic would build and
airplane to use it.")

> Perhaps this was an April Fool's joke that Air & Space Magazine played on
> its readers?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:18:52 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
>You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
>landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.

Lindbergh Field in San Diego was the same in the early days.

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
> The theory posited in the article was that one could always land and
> takeoff into the wind using a circular runway.

Surely you can see how that theory makes no sense. The airplane would only
be pointed into the wind for a very brief moment during a takeoff or
landing.

> The banked track would counter the crosswind component.

Actually, I expect the bank is intended to deal with the bank of the
airplane required to produce the constant radius turn required for landing.
There's no way a banked track would "counter the crosswind component",
especially given that the component would be constantly changing throughout
the takeoff or landing.

But it's even worse than that, since the bank of the track will only match
the bank of a given airplane at a given groundspeed, since the aircraft
needs to maintain a constant radius turn. There will still be some degree
of difference between the bank of the airplane and the bank of the track.

> Perfect for aircraft built by Republic Aircraft. ("If they built a
> runway around the world at the equator, Republic would build and
> airplane to use it.")

Not sure what that has to do with this circular runway. After all, a runway
around the world at the equator would still be straight.

Pete

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:52:35 GMT, jsmith > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>The banked track would counter the crosswind component.

That would be true 50% of the time.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> That would be true 50% of the time.
>

How so?

jsmith wrote:
>
> The theory posited in the article was that one could always land and
> takeoff into the wind using a circular runway.

Well, at some point in your takeoff or landing you could be in line with the wind and
the runway at the same time, but at other points, you'd have to deal with a crosswind
component. Furthermore, that component would be changing as you rolled along.

> The banked track would counter the crosswind component.

No, it would counter the tendency of the aircraft to travel in a straight line. If
the track were not banked, you'd run off the track before you got airborne.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

In a previous article, jsmith > said:
>A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
>engine failure and landing on a country road.

Sounds like the old joke: "If somebody made a runway that stretched
around the world, Convair would make a bomber that couldn't take off from
it."


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a
mistake when you make it again. -- F. P. Jones

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:18:52 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> >You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> >landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
>
> Lindbergh Field in San Diego was the same in the early days.

All early airfields were built that way.

Larry Dighera > writes:

> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:52:35 GMT, jsmith > wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
> >The banked track would counter the crosswind component.
>
> That would be true 50% of the time.

Or less. A lot less. The bank needed would depend on the aircraft's
varying speed, in addition to the (variable) wind velocity. The whole
thing sounds like a joke--1 day early.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:47:02 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>I don't think that's what he's talking about.

Oh, I knew that, Peter. Just wanted to parade my arcane knowledge :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>Perhaps this was an April Fool's joke that Air & Space Magazine played on
>its readers?

I haven't seen the magazine yet, but in my experience George Larson
takes aviation very seriously.

Well -- there was the cover with the dog flying the plane.

And the big feature about the world's ugliest aircraft...

Come to think of it, perhaps it is an April Fool edition. My
contribution is a "Soundings" about the XC-99 cargo plane finding a
new home at Wright-Patt.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 01:26:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That would be true 50% of the time.
>>
>
>How so?
>

Yah, you're right. I was being very liberal.

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
>
> Wu Chia Ba airport in Kunming used this arrangement before the
> Americans arrived toward the end of 1941.
>

See: http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/FL/Airfields_FL_JaxN.htm,
and search for "VQQ". This will show Cecil Field NAS in Jax in a WWII
aerial photo. The original circular landing area still shows.

It's a cool website in any case.

-Malcolm Teas

I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's when
I was in grade school. I believe it was that august aviation publication "My
Weekly Reader". Don't know why, but as a young airplane nut, the artical made
a big impression on me, and I had a good chuckle when the subject popped up
again in Air&Space

Howard Kahn
Fairfax Station, VA
Howard Kahn
Fairfax Station, VA

On 02 Apr 2004 14:48:42 GMT, (Hjk40) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's

For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
again.

I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
would be double-decker runways. You could use the bottom
one for landings, and the top one (starting a bit further along)
for takeoffs. Not much different from a LAHSO when you think
about it.

John

( :-), for the (sadly numerous) irony challenged)

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Apr 2004 14:48:42 GMT, (Hjk40) wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
> >I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's
>
> For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
> during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
> again.
>
>

Larry Dighera > writes:

>For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
>during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
>again.

Hmmm...no more snow removal.

--kyler

John Harper wrote:
>
> I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
> at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
> would be double-decker runways.

That would be a *very* interesting engineering exercise. The ramps at Hartsfield are
6' thick concrete slabs. I don't know how much thicker the runways are. I'm also
certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't supported by
the ground underneath them. Concrete weighs over 3,500 pounds per cubic yard. The
upper runway will be an unsupported clear span several hundred feet wide and about a
mile long. I'm not sure there is any material on Earth that could handle that job. I
think it safe to say that the upper runway wouldn't be concrete, though.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

My suggestion wasn't serious. But since we're pretending to take
it seriously... there are several airports where runways go over
bridges (e.g. CDG). In the case of CDG it's a six-lane highway
underneath. I'd guess you could just replicate that bridge as
required. It may be expensive, but given land prices in urban
areas it might still be economical.

John

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Harper wrote:
> >
> > I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
> > at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
> > would be double-decker runways.
>
> That would be a *very* interesting engineering exercise. The ramps at
Hartsfield are
> 6' thick concrete slabs. I don't know how much thicker the runways are.
I'm also
> certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't
supported by
> the ground underneath them. Concrete weighs over 3,500 pounds per cubic
yard. The
> upper runway will be an unsupported clear span several hundred feet wide
and about a
> mile long. I'm not sure there is any material on Earth that could handle
that job. I
> think it safe to say that the upper runway wouldn't be concrete, though.
>
> George Patterson
> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band
to
> play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come
home
> a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

>double-decker runways.

Not a bad idea. For similar reasons, Colorado double-decked portions
of I-70 west of the Continental Divide.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

>I don't know how much thicker the runways are. I'm also
>certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't supported by
>the ground underneath them.

I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
:) the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
> Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
> :) the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.

That's the thickness of the resurface layer? I worked as a tunnel rat on the
expansion of Hartsfield in the 70's. The ramps were three layers of concrete, each
two feet thick.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

>> I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
>> Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
>> :) the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.
>
>That's the thickness of the resurface layer? I worked as a tunnel rat on the
>expansion of Hartsfield in the 70's. The ramps were three layers of concrete, each
>two feet thick.

As I say, the memory is ten or twelve years old. What a peaceful
summer it was! The KC-135s all flew off to New York state.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Funny how aviation ideas just keep recycling. The circular runway was
reported on in an article in Popular Science in the early 1960s as the
airport of the future, banked turn and all.

Never amounted to much. Thank goodness, if you have ever taken off or
landed on a runway with a curve in it, the idea of using one regularly
is not terribly attractive...plus, given the difference in aircraft
speeds the banking cannot eliminate sideloads on the landing gear
which could make for some interesting gear collapses.

All the best,
Rick

jsmith > wrote in message >...
> Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
> A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
> engine failure and landing on a country road.
> He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
> someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
> The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
> Goodyear's test track.
> A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
> Taladega?
> Daytona?
> (What are the other Super Speedways?)

The tests, it seems, were done on a GM test track with a two-mile
diameter. As the article pointed out, the size of the runway plus the
mind-boggling expense of tunnels to a terminal inside the circle made
the whole thing a non-starter.

On 3 Apr 2004 11:33:43 -0800, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

>Funny how aviation ideas just keep recycling. The circular runway was
>reported on in an article in Popular Science in the early 1960s as the
>airport of the future, banked turn and all.
>
>Never amounted to much. Thank goodness, if you have ever taken off or
>landed on a runway with a curve in it, the idea of using one regularly
>is not terribly attractive...plus, given the difference in aircraft
>speeds the banking cannot eliminate sideloads on the landing gear
>which could make for some interesting gear collapses.
>
>All the best,
>Rick
>
>jsmith > wrote in message >...
>> Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
>> A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
>> engine failure and landing on a country road.
>> He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
>> someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
>> The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
>> Goodyear's test track.
>> A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
>> Taladega?
>> Daytona?
>> (What are the other Super Speedways?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

CD

Many years ago (1920-1930) in a land far away. Bar stories told about
aircraft operating in SA. They would land in a jungle clearing and
when ready forTO would put a stake in the center of the clearing and
tie a rope to it. They then ran the rope out to bird and looped it
around the strut (or something). Pilot held the end of the rope so it
wouldn't come loose and started to accelerate in a circle.
As he got enough speed to lift off he would let go the rope and fly
away.

If not a true story made a good one to tell at the bar.

This not a one April story.

Anyone else heard this story and can confirm it????

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:18:52 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
>You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
>landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
>
>Wu Chia Ba airport in Kunming used this arrangement before the
>Americans arrived toward the end of 1941.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>If not a true story made a good one to tell at the bar

Sounds like DC Comics to me!

Not Scorchy Smith or Smilin' Jack, though. They were too realistic.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Seaplane drivers can accelerate in a circle in order to get out of a small
lake. No rope to a central point is used.

Circular airfields were built to accomodate airships and blimps.
Lakehurst, NJ, where the Hindenberg disaster occured, still has a circular
field. You can see it from normal scheduled airliners traveling from DCA
to BOS as you approach the JFK VOR if you are sitting on the right of the
plane next to a window.



"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> CD
>
> Many years ago (1920-1930) in a land far away. Bar stories told about
> aircraft operating in SA. They would land in a jungle clearing and
> when ready forTO would put a stake in the center of the clearing and
> tie a rope to it. They then ran the rope out to bird and looped it
> around the strut (or something). Pilot held the end of the rope so it
> wouldn't come loose and started to accelerate in a circle.
> As he got enough speed to lift off he would let go the rope and fly
> away.
>
> If not a true story made a good one to tell at the bar.
>
> This not a one April story.
>
> Anyone else heard this story and can confirm it????
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:18:52 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
> >You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
> >landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.
> >
> >Wu Chia Ba airport in Kunming used this arrangement before the
> >Americans arrived toward the end of 1941.
> >
> >all the best -- Dan Ford
> >email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!
> >
> >see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> >and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>

"William W. Plummer" > writes:

>Circular airfields were built to accomodate airships and blimps.
>Lakehurst, NJ, where the Hindenberg disaster occured, still has a circular
>field. You can see it from normal scheduled airliners traveling from DCA
>to BOS as you approach the JFK VOR if you are sitting on the right of the
>plane next to a window.

For those of us who avoid the "airline experience"...
http://mapper.acme.com/?lat=40.036517&long=-74.370611&scale=13&theme=Image&width=3&height=2&dot=Yes
Is that it?

--kyler

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Apr 2004 14:48:42 GMT, (Hjk40) wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
> >I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's
>
> For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
> during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
> again.

Wow, think of the windshear.

Paul (who got 20 knots of it descending below an edge of a
forest last week)

>> For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
>> during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
>> again.

Switzerland in the 1970s (and probably before and since) had
underground hangars built into the mountainside. However, the planes
taxied out of them and onto the highway, which became the runway.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> "William W. Plummer" > writes:
>
> >Circular airfields were built to accomodate airships and blimps.
> >Lakehurst, NJ, where the Hindenberg disaster occured, still has a
circular
> >field. You can see it from normal scheduled airliners traveling from
DCA
> >to BOS as you approach the JFK VOR if you are sitting on the right of the
> >plane next to a window.
>
> For those of us who avoid the "airline experience"...
>
http://mapper.acme.com/?lat=40.036517&long=-74.370611&scale=13&theme=Image&width=3&height=2&dot=Yes
> Is that it?

Yes! Now, for extra points, what are the converging lines. If I remember
correctly there are 3 or 4 sets of 4 lines.

Cub Driver > wrote:

>>> For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
>>> during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
>>> again.
>
>Switzerland in the 1970s (and probably before and since) had
>underground hangars built into the mountainside. However, the planes
>taxied out of them and onto the highway, which became the runway.

I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
technique taking off from one of those roads!

They do have air bases in CH which have regular-old runways.

Rob

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
> in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
> been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
> technique taking off from one of those roads!

Dan is exactly correct. Air & Space Magazine ran a feature about it a few
years ago. The highways used for runways are straight enough, and they have
a removable divider between the lane directions so that the aircraft have
use of the full width of the pavement.

Perhaps they do use short-field techniques, but they do have air bases in
mountain-sides and they do use the highway for the runway.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>> I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
>> in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
>> been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
>> technique taking off from one of those roads!
>
>Dan is exactly correct. Air & Space Magazine ran a feature about it a few
>years ago. The highways used for runways are straight enough, and they have
>a removable divider between the lane directions so that the aircraft have
>use of the full width of the pavement.

Hmm. I'd never have supposed it, riding on those roads. Unless you're
talking about the Schweizerautobahn it doesn't seem to me that any of
the Swiss federal or cantonal roads are wide enough for more than a GA
aircraft. Is the article online someplace?

FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
Frankfurt.

Rob

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Is the article online someplace?

If it is, you'll find it at http://www.airandspacemagazine.com

They do have tables of contents for all of their back issues, to 1986. The
article I read was sometime in the last ten years for sure. In a quick
look, I noticed that the Feb/Mar 2001 issue has an article called "Don't
Mess With Switzerland", but I don't remember the article well enough to know
whether that's the one that talked about their in-mountain bases. That
article's not online anyway.

I scanned the list of articles they do have online, and didn't see anything
that caught my eye. Your best bet is to browse through the last five or ten
years of issues (there's only six per year, so that's not as daunting as it
sounds :) ) and see if any of the other article titles sound promising. Of
course, it wouldn't hurt to see if a nearby library of yours has the Feb/Mar
2001 issue, in case that article turns out to be the one I'm thinking of.

I might actually still have the Feb/Mar 2001 issue around, so if I get a
chance I'll look for it. But generally, I recycle the magazines every 12 to
18 months, so I probably don't.

Pete

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> >"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
> >> in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me.

> >Dan is exactly correct. Air & Space Magazine ran a feature about it a
few
> >years ago. The highways used for runways are straight enough, and they
have
> >a removable divider between the lane directions so that the aircraft have
> >use of the full width of the pavement.
>
> Unless you're
> talking about the Schweizerautobahn it doesn't seem to me that any of
> the Swiss federal or cantonal roads are wide enough for more than a GA
> aircraft.
>
> FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
> Frankfurt.

Sweden also do it.

Britain has the Harrier so doesn't need to do it! :-) Mind you
it also has plenty of runways.

Paul

>I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
>in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
>been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
>technique taking off from one of those roads!

You didn't look closely enough! The Swiss autobahns were buitl as
runways. They even had (probably still have) pop-up barriers so the
automobile traffic won't get tangled with the jet interceptors.

(Actually, it was on a Swiss bus, coming down from Arolla in 1974,
that I saw the hangar doors. Don't recall where the runway was in that
case, since I wasn't on the autobahn.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

>FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
>Frankfurt.

The U.S. Army used the autobahn as as airports. There's a great photo
of a flock of L-4s lined up on the verge. Evidently when the "airport"
was in operation they simply closed that lane and put all the traffic
on the other one. Americans didn't have much experience with divided
highways in 1945.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

> Feb/Mar 2001 issue has an article called "Don't
>Mess With Switzerland",

I don't think so. The piece you're remembering may even have been a
short "Soundings" or other department, not a feature article.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> >"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
> >> in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
> >> been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
> >> technique taking off from one of those roads!
> >
> >Dan is exactly correct. Air & Space Magazine ran a feature about it a
few
> >years ago. The highways used for runways are straight enough, and they
have
> >a removable divider between the lane directions so that the aircraft have
> >use of the full width of the pavement.
>
> Hmm. I'd never have supposed it, riding on those roads. Unless you're
> talking about the Schweizerautobahn it doesn't seem to me that any of
> the Swiss federal or cantonal roads are wide enough for more than a GA
> aircraft. Is the article online someplace?
>
> FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
> Frankfurt.
An hour and a half west of Frankfurt there is a long, straight road near
Ramstein AB. A retired USAF pilot told me that Hitler used this for an
emergency landing strip.

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
>>in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me. And I've
>>been on 'em, on those Postal Bus routes. It'd be a mighty short-field
>>technique taking off from one of those roads!
>
>You didn't look closely enough! The Swiss autobahns were buitl as
>runways. They even had (probably still have) pop-up barriers so the
>automobile traffic won't get tangled with the jet interceptors.
>
>(Actually, it was on a Swiss bus, coming down from Arolla in 1974,
>that I saw the hangar doors. Don't recall where the runway was in that
>case, since I wasn't on the autobahn.)

Can't find Arolla on my map. Which Canton is it in? I found Airola, in
Ticino, and Arosa, in Graubuenden, two cantons which in spite of my 16
months there, I never managed to visit. I spent most of my time in
Basel.

In any case, I don't doubt it's possible, just that it'd be really
difficult on any road the Swiss build except the Autobahn. And even
then, they'd have to be great pilots in any case to operate in those
mountains...

Rob

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Feb/Mar 2001 issue has an article called "Don't
> >Mess With Switzerland",
>
> I don't think so. The piece you're remembering may even have been a
> short "Soundings" or other department, not a feature article.

Possibly. It definitely had at least one photograph, showing the highway
and entrance to a hangar, but that doesn't rule out it having appeared in a
column. The cover of the Feb/Mar 2001, and even the article's statement
certainly suggest that article is focused on Switzerland's airplanes, rather
than its air force bases.

I *think* the article was before 2001 as well. I simply mentioned that
article as the single article I noticed in my brief search among the back
issue information.

Pete

Rob Perkins wrote:

>>> I dunno about that. There isn't a straight stretch of road or highway
>>> in all the mountainous areas of Switzerland, it seems to me.

There's more about Switzerland than the Alps, you know...

> Can't find Arolla on my map. Which Canton is it in?

Arolla in in the Canton Valais. You go to the town Sion and then follow
a little valley which points to the south, direction Matterhorn. At the
very end of that valley you'll find Arolla. You needn't be too
disappointed if you don't find it on your map, as it's a really really
really small village.

> I spent most of my time in Basel.

That's where I'm living. You worked for the chemistry, I guess?

> In any case, I don't doubt it's possible, just that it'd be really
> difficult on any road the Swiss build except the Autobahn.

Yes, those runways are on the Autobahn. In fact, pieces of the Autobahn
were planned with this in mind. Don't forget that jets meant "Venom" at
that time. Runways of 6000 ft were plenty long enough. Today they fly
F/A 18 and landing on the Autobahn isn't in their plans anymore.

You'll find a short history at
http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/about/history/kriegkalt/freewa.html
(German only).

> And even
> then, they'd have to be great pilots in any case to operate in those
> mountains...

Take a look at http://www.steehouwer.com/ (scroll to the bottom and
choose Swiss Air Force, Axalp). Some of those pictures are impressing.

Stefan

Stefan > wrote:

>There's more about Switzerland than the Alps, you know...

Matter of fact, since I had domiciles in Bern-BE, Itingen-BL,
Zuerich-ZH, and Interlaken-BE, I do know that. Got to wear the
Fascnacht pin for Liestal in 1990 and everything. Basel-Land is one of
my favorite places.

>Arolla in in the Canton Valais. You go to the town Sion and then follow
>a little valley which points to the south, direction Matterhorn. At the
>very end of that valley you'll find Arolla. You needn't be too
>disappointed if you don't find it on your map, as it's a really really
>really small village.

Ah, OK. Well, the only visit I was able to make to Wallis was a train
ride to Zermatt. I've got my old rail map around here someplace...

>That's where I'm living. You worked for the chemistry, I guess?

No, I was a missionary/teacher for a small church in each area where I
lived, in 1989-1990. I met a lot of people that way.

>> In any case, I don't doubt it's possible, just that it'd be really
>> difficult on any road the Swiss build except the Autobahn.
>
>Yes, those runways are on the Autobahn.

OK.

>Take a look at http://www.steehouwer.com/ (scroll to the bottom and
>choose Swiss Air Force, Axalp). Some of those pictures are impressing.

I remember watching a film at the Verkehrshaus in Lucerne, about the
stunt flyers in the Swiss Air Force. I didn't think it was that
impressive until someone pointed out they weren't in fly-by-wire
airplanes. Based on that, they're better than the Navy Blue Angels,
*especially* given the mountains around them.

Rob

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:49:22 GMT, Rob Perkins
> wrote:

>Can't find Arolla on my map. Which Canton is it in? I found Airola, in
>Ticino, and Arosa, in Graubuenden, two cantons which in spite of my 16
>months there, I never managed to visit. I spent most of my time in
>Basel.

It's a dinky town on the Haute (ski) Route from Chamonix to Zermatt.
We got weathered out and had to give up, so took the bus down from the
mountains. It seems to be in Valais, a bit NW of Breuil/Cervinia in
Italy. I think Arolla is the name of a pine tree.

>In any case, I don't doubt it's possible, just that it'd be really
>difficult on any road the Swiss build except the Autobahn. And even
>then, they'd have to be great pilots in any case to operate in those
>mountains...

Evidently they are, to judge by the Air&Space article referenced
earlier :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
> Frankfurt.

The Luftwaffe used numerous sections of the autobahn for runways in WWII. Typically,
they hid the aircraft in forests near the road and pulled out on the highway for
departure. American pilots found many of them by following the German fighters back
home.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:59:06 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

>> FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
>> Frankfurt.
>
>http://www.lostplaces.de/nlp/index.html

Fascinating! Thank you!

(That the removable centerline barriers can still be seen!)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:26:15 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

>>> FWIW, I've heard similar things about a stretch of highway outside of
>>> Frankfurt.
>>
>>http://www.lostplaces.de/nlp/index.html
>
>Fascinating! Thank you!
>
>(That the removable centerline barriers can still be seen!)

AFAIK we (here in Austria) have also some parts of our highway (Autobahn)
built to serve as emergency landing strip for our - uhhmmm - "airforce".

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:26:15 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

(SCNR; have to send this *g*)

>Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org


Little David was in his 4th grade class when the teacher asked the children
what their fathers did for a living.
All the typical answers came up -- fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor,
lawyer, etc.

David was being uncharacteristically quiet, so the teacher asked him about
his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his
clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear.
Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy for
money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him,
"Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said David, "He works for the Kerry Election Campaign,
but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

---> f-up2poster

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html