Circular runways for airports?

[Larry Dighera]

Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.021-circular-runways-for-airports.html
A CIRCULAR runway for airports is being considered by the US navy, and
the idea was recently tested in principle at General Motors' proving
ground. It is thought to promise some advantages but to be more
expensive than providing similar operational capacity in the normal
way. One particular advantage is that it would save one-third of the
space occupied by a conventional airport of equal capacity.

The idea is to match the circumference to the landing speeds of the
aircraft that would use it, assuming that each aeroplane would need to
be sure of one sixth of the circumference. This would mean that for
big jet aircraft, a circular runway of rather more than 60,000 feet in
circumference would be required.

Taking the usual first-class runway width of 300 feet, an aeroplane,
touching down on the outside edge and aiming just to miss the inner
edge, would have a run of 4860 feet before it approached the outer
edge again. In that distance, thrust reversers and brakes would have
been applied and the speed reduced perhaps sufficiently to use the
nose wheel gently to steer the craft back onto another tangential
course for the next mile of its run.

As an alternative, the runway could be made wider. In that event cost
would rise steeply. A 10,000-foot runway 300 feet wide costs little
under £1 million. The need to devise new landing techniques and to
retrain pilots is acknowledged in official references to this study,
but emphasis is laid on the "unlimited runway" and on the
"minimisation of crosswind factor" by enabling take-offs and landings
to be made in any direction.

This might reduce the number of aircraft that could use the runway at
the same time. Only when crosswind was not of serious strength could
the runway be used by six aircraft simultaneously and the claim that
it would conduce to high traffic density be justified.




*

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/2418c2bd3c645f2a?dmode=source

[Doug[_1_]]

This isn't by any chance being studied with GOVERNMENT money is it?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>under £1 million. The need to devise new landing techniques and to
>retrain pilots is acknowledged in official references to this study,
>but emphasis is laid on the "unlimited runway" and on the

Does this mean that Convair is going back into the airplane business?

(If you get the joke, you're showing your age.)

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
So I was reading Twelfth Night ... and would you believe that the I LOVE YOU
hoax is the exact same trick Shakespeare uses to point out what an arrogant,
self-absorbed fool Malvolio is? -- Julia McKinnell

[Kev]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:

Or as good as taking off from a treadmill ? :-) ;-)

So why not use a treadmill for landing as well. Then you'd just need
an "airport" the length of an airplane. Mount the treadmill on a
pivot, and you could always land/take off into the wind, too.

Of course, you could always use the aircraft carrier method of stopping
landing planes.... just mount all the passenger seats backwards to
absorb the shock.

Kev

[Kev]

Kev wrote:
> Or as good as taking off from a treadmill ? :-) ;-)
>
> So why not use a treadmill for landing as well. Then you'd just ...

PS. before people go crazy, yes I know you can't land on a treadmill.
Although I'm sure someone will make a proof the other way ;-)

Kev

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> PS. before people go crazy, yes I know you can't land on a treadmill.
> Although I'm sure someone will make a proof the other way ;-)

Of course you can....probably won't fly the airplane again, but...

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
> >under £1 million. The need to devise new landing techniques and to
> >retrain pilots is acknowledged in official references to this study,
> >but emphasis is laid on the "unlimited runway" and on the

> Does this mean that Convair is going back into the airplane business?
> (If you get the joke, you're showing your age.)

"If they built a runway around the world at the equator, Republic would
build an airplane that would use it." - unknown

[Ron Lee]

This type article (granted 50 years old), gives scientists a bad name.

Ron Lee




Richard Riley > wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:25:06 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:
>>
>
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936623,00.html
>
>Mar. 21, 1955
>Dr. John Gibson Winans, 52, an air-minded professor of physics at the
>University of Wisconsin, was demonstrating last week the first part of
>a pet theory: that airplanes should take off and land in circles, as
>tethered models do.
>
>A straight runway, the professor reasons, is fine if it is long
>enough. But often, even on a very long runway, a faltering engine or
>iced-up wings can dump an airplane in crack-up territory beyond the
>airport fence. A circular runway, on the other hand, is infinitely
>long because an airplane, tethered to its center, can fly around it
>indefinitely. The pilot need not fear "running out of runway." Even if
>his engine dies after the takeoff, his airplane can circle safely to
>the ground again.
>
>Professor Winans heard that the circular take-off had been
>demonstrated as a stunt by Jean Roche in 1938. In 1950 Winans got from
>the Sanders Aviation Co. of Riverdale, Md. the special equipment (a
>hub, spindle and release gear) that Roche used, but his attempts at
>that time to take off in a circle were not a success.
>
>This year he tried again with his new light airplane, an Ercoupe. At
>first he wanted to use frozen Lake Mendota, near Madison, for his
>circular runway, but the city council said no. Last fortnight he set
>up his apparatus on the ice of Lake Kegonsa, a safe distance from
>Madison. The spindle and hub were attached to a steel barrel frozen
>into the ice and guyed solidly. A double strand of woven nylon, 400
>ft. long, led to a quick-release fixture under a wing of the airplane.
>The first four tries were failures. The airplane swept part way round
>the circle and left the ground, but the rope always broke before the
>professor could make a controlled release. The fifth try was
>successful. This week the professor was doing it every time, slinging
>himself into the air and flying off with composure.
>
>Professor Winans hopes to get permission to take passengers up on
>circular takeoffs, which he considers the utmost in safety, but his
>ultimate objective is to land in the circular manner. He has not tried
>it yet.

[Peter Dohm]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:25:06 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:
> >
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936623,00.html
>
> Mar. 21, 1955
> Dr. John Gibson Winans, 52, an air-minded professor of physics at the
> University of Wisconsin, was demonstrating last week the first part of
> a pet theory: that airplanes should take off and land in circles, as
> tethered models do.
>
> A straight runway, the professor reasons, is fine if it is long
> enough. But often, even on a very long runway, a faltering engine or
> iced-up wings can dump an airplane in crack-up territory beyond the
> airport fence. A circular runway, on the other hand, is infinitely
> long because an airplane, tethered to its center, can fly around it
> indefinitely. The pilot need not fear "running out of runway." Even if
> his engine dies after the takeoff, his airplane can circle safely to
> the ground again.
>
> Professor Winans heard that the circular take-off had been
> demonstrated as a stunt by Jean Roche in 1938. In 1950 Winans got from
> the Sanders Aviation Co. of Riverdale, Md. the special equipment (a
> hub, spindle and release gear) that Roche used, but his attempts at
> that time to take off in a circle were not a success.
>
> This year he tried again with his new light airplane, an Ercoupe. At
> first he wanted to use frozen Lake Mendota, near Madison, for his
> circular runway, but the city council said no. Last fortnight he set
> up his apparatus on the ice of Lake Kegonsa, a safe distance from
> Madison. The spindle and hub were attached to a steel barrel frozen
> into the ice and guyed solidly. A double strand of woven nylon, 400
> ft. long, led to a quick-release fixture under a wing of the airplane.
> The first four tries were failures. The airplane swept part way round
> the circle and left the ground, but the rope always broke before the
> professor could make a controlled release. The fifth try was
> successful. This week the professor was doing it every time, slinging
> himself into the air and flying off with composure.
>
> Professor Winans hopes to get permission to take passengers up on
> circular takeoffs, which he considers the utmost in safety, but his
> ultimate objective is to land in the circular manner. He has not tried
> it yet.

Please remember to post this again in about 3 1/2 months! ;-)

Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On 25 Dec 2006 13:47:11 -0800, "Kev" > wrote in
om>:

>you could always use the aircraft carrier method of stopping
>landing planes.... just mount all the passenger seats backwards to
>absorb the shock.

Actually, that's a prudent idea. It might require some additional
stowage methods in the galley and cargo hold, but it would seem
preferable to the bend over your seat belt, and wait for the impact
emergency procedure currently in place.

[fcoav8r]

In my back of the woods Dec 28th is the equivalent of "April fool's
day" so I checked the date of the initial post carefully.

BTW this brings to mind that an 8 shaped rwy might be more efficient
and we could still benefit from the use of the Land And Hold Short
clearances :-D

[mad8]

how about an X shaped runway.... oh wait...
fcoav8r wrote:
> In my back of the woods Dec 28th is the equivalent of "April fool's
> day" so I checked the date of the initial post carefully.
>
> BTW this brings to mind that an 8 shaped rwy might be more efficient
> and we could still benefit from the use of the Land And Hold Short
> clearances :-D

[Kev]

Ron Lee wrote:
> This type article (granted 50 years old), gives scientists a bad name.

It reminded me that old ideas do have a way of coming around again,
though.

For example, I read they're considering airplane-parachutes for
airliners again, a la the CAPS setup for Cirrus/Cessna/whatever,
because of an old concept:

It's always been considered impossible to have airliner parachutes
because of the weight, but 70 years ago the chute idea was first
proposed, and back then they had a possible solution: jettison any
extra weight, by blowing off the wings, engines, tail, etc.

Now, I'm thinking about this while driving the other day, and it comes
to mind that the sequence of events is important. For instance, if
you hit the "Save Us" button and the wings are jettisoned *before* the
parachutes are deployed, this requires an immense leap of faith in the
system <big grin>

Kev

[Robert M. Gary]

They correctly pointed out some (but not all) of the cons. Where is the
pro??

-Robert


Larry Dighera wrote:
> Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:
>
>
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.021-circular-runways-for-airports.html
> A CIRCULAR runway for airports is being considered by the US navy, and
> the idea was recently tested in principle at General Motors' proving
> ground. It is thought to promise some advantages but to be more
> expensive than providing similar operational capacity in the normal
> way. One particular advantage is that it would save one-third of the
> space occupied by a conventional airport of equal capacity.
>
> The idea is to match the circumference to the landing speeds of the
> aircraft that would use it, assuming that each aeroplane would need to
> be sure of one sixth of the circumference. This would mean that for
> big jet aircraft, a circular runway of rather more than 60,000 feet in
> circumference would be required.
>
> Taking the usual first-class runway width of 300 feet, an aeroplane,
> touching down on the outside edge and aiming just to miss the inner
> edge, would have a run of 4860 feet before it approached the outer
> edge again. In that distance, thrust reversers and brakes would have
> been applied and the speed reduced perhaps sufficiently to use the
> nose wheel gently to steer the craft back onto another tangential
> course for the next mile of its run.
>
> As an alternative, the runway could be made wider. In that event cost
> would rise steeply. A 10,000-foot runway 300 feet wide costs little
> under £1 million. The need to devise new landing techniques and to
> retrain pilots is acknowledged in official references to this study,
> but emphasis is laid on the "unlimited runway" and on the
> "minimisation of crosswind factor" by enabling take-offs and landings
> to be made in any direction.
>
> This might reduce the number of aircraft that could use the runway at
> the same time. Only when crosswind was not of serious strength could
> the runway be used by six aircraft simultaneously and the claim that
> it would conduce to high traffic density be justified.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/2418c2bd3c645f2a?dmode=source

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Dec 2006 08:47:26 -0800, "Kev" > wrote in
om>:

>It reminded me that old ideas do have a way of coming around again,
>though.
>
>For example, I read they're considering airplane-parachutes for
>airliners again, a la the CAPS setup for Cirrus/Cessna/whatever,
>because of an old concept:

It's an old concept alright:


http://mlsandy.home.tsixroads.com/Corinth_MLSANDY/rt044.html

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, April 16, 1929:

MEMPHIS PILOT FLIES AIRPLANE IN 'CHUTE TEST ON WEST COAST

-----------------

SHIP FLOATS SAFELY DOWN FROM 5,000-FOOT ALTITUDE
MOTOR DEAD, WHEN 60-FOOT PARACHUTE OPENS.
CAPTAIN TURNER NOW STUNT FLIER

-----------------

Capt. Roscoe Turner, once an automobile salesman in Memphis,
later a member of the army air corps in France and after that a
stunt flier headquartering in Memphis, yesterday proved that a
parachute, attached to an airplane, can become the greatest safety
device yet offered to aviation, in a test at Los Angeles.

An inventor, working for more than two years, has at last
designed a 60-foot parachute which can be attached to an airplane
and controlled from the pilot's cockpit. Recently, his plans
perfected and his model 'chute constructed, he went in search of a
pilot who would risk life and limb to test the appliance and
demonstrate its practicability, or its fallibility.

Captain Turner, now a stunt flier at Hollywood, Cal., was
approached. He agreed to make the test and yesterday was set as the
date.

Captain Turner took an airplane which weighs 2,800 pounds,
dead weight, up 5,000 feet. At that altitude he killed his motor,
and as the ship slipped into a spin, pulled the cord that released
the parachute which was attached to the upper wing.

The great spring, holding the chute cords to the plane wind,
took up the snap of the opening of the chute. The plunging ship
righted and floated softly to earth in a field three miles from the
Martin Airport [now KSNA] from which the plane had taken off.

The 'chute. for the first time, had proved its
practicability as a safety factor.

Captain Turner is a native of Corinth, Miss., where his
parents now live. When the United States entered the World War,
Captain Turner enlisted in the aviation section of the army signal
corps and was assigned to the old Driving Park squadron. From there
he went to Park Field and learned to fly.

Soon after he had won his wings and his commission as a
second lieutenant he was ordered to France. He flew in the aviation
schools there and later served with a pursuit squadron at the front.

After the war he returned to Memphis. But selling
automobiles held no attraction for him and he went into aviation as
a business. There were no transport lines for him to turn to in
those days and he started "barnstorming."

As a stunt flier he visited most of the fairs and carnivals
in the south. Then he moved to the west coast and entered the
movies as a stunt flier.

PICTURE- captioned "Pilots Plane in Test"

Capt. Roscoe Turner, former Memphis flier, yesterday piloted a
plane at Los Angeles in a demonstration of practicability of a
parachute for airplanes as a safety device. Since moving from
Memphis Captain Turner has been a stunt flier at Hollywood.

-----------------

[Larry Dighera]

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.021-circular-runways-for-airports.html
>> A CIRCULAR runway ...

On 26 Dec 2006 11:53:03 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in . com>:

>They correctly pointed out some (but not all) of the cons. Where is the
>pro??
>

So you like the idea of underground airports, eh? :-)

The answer to your question seems to be contained in the first
paragraph:

One particular advantage is that it would save one-third of the
space occupied by a conventional airport of equal capacity.