Fuck no, too easy to drag a wing. On takeoff how long it takes depends on the load of fuel and cargo, plus differences in pilots, so that sumbitch might come out at any angle from the circle. There's a damn good reason all the planes landing and all the planes taking off are traveling in the same direction. When another plane crosses your path you can't just lock up the brakes and give them the finger.
Better watch your vector Victor.
So you start the takeoff run into wind but end up with a crosswind as the aircraft becomes airborne?
Not too much of a problem with a 5kt wind but what happens on a day with 30kt winds?
In that instance do you start the take off at a point with a hefty crosswind which will ensure a headwind as the aircraft becomes airborne?
I wonder what sort of approach lighting can be expected.
The current centre line and bars system won't be of any use!
Anyway, it's all been done before.
Popular Science June 1966 P77.I think it's an interesting idea. It's different for sure. If this guy has been studying it for as long as he claims he has, and has done lots of simulations and still seems to think it is a good idea, I think it's worth keeping an open mind about. I assume pilots are good enough that if they can land in a crosswind, they can land with one wing dipped slightly on this thing. After a while, it would be second nature.
Air traffic controllers would have a tougher job. The larger the circle is though, the easier that job would get.
I wonder what his answer would be to a plane coming out of the circle on takeoff on a path that comes close to one landing?
Nice easy bullseye for missiles.......
What's the advantage?
In current state-given all the variables involved in takeoffs/landings, there are still fatality-producing accidents, despite pilot skill levels. Under any circumstance imaginable, adding one more variable will increase the amount of accidents/fatalities. What could we possibly be getting in return?
It's like saying, let's reverse the gas and brake pedals on all new cars--why?? Because there are studies that show it wouldn't be as bad as you think??
Damn you Carruthers, I spend an hour reading that PS link. :lol:
Damn you Carruthers, I spend an hour reading that PS link. :lol:
All part of the service, sir. :)
What's the advantage?
space saving. Land is scarce and at a premium in most European counties, compared to USA & Canada, for example
SEE, another failure of socialism.
Damn you Carruthers, I spend an hour reading that PS link. :lol:
I did too. I wish that magazine was still around in the same strength that it was then. Almost everything they were predicting as new and important actually was.
space saving. Land is scarce and at a premium in most European counties, compared to USA & Canada, for example
Dusseldorf
[YOUTUBE]bMUdXJPUwm8[/YOUTUBE]
Other examples
[YOUTUBE]Dzn4uKXsdBI[/YOUTUBE]
There are dozens more u-tube examples
I'll be waiting for circular aircraft carriers.
Bruce, what are those videos supposed to prove? The argument in favor of the round runway is that you can come in at the best possible angle relative to the wind. These videos show dicey landings where you can't do that. You are showing the problem the round runways claim to solve.
No I'm not, I'm showing how badly big planes react to gusting, changing wind conditions like you get over a fucking bowl. You don't live far from a major airport, go watch them land at night, when you can see 8 or 10 sets of headlights lined up on the glide path coming in to land. Or watch them take off every minute or so. Do you think the pilots or the tower has time to fuck around with changing vectors and landing/take off patterns? Do you know every pilot, from California or Turkmenistan has a map of the airport showing runways, taxiways, traffic patterns and terminals. The only thing that changes is which direction they come in from which the tower will tell them. If the wind changes, it has to be a major increase in speed to bring everything to a halt and change the pattern's direction, stacking up dozens of planes.
This is a fucking ridiculous idea for a decent size commercial airport.
A little aerodrome out in the sticks for small private planes with slow landing speeds with short wings it might work after you get all the pilots to unlearn what they've been doing, and retested by the FAA(in the US). But a small areodrome out in the sticks usually doesn't have a space problem
Operative word in glatt's post: "claim".
A circular runway sounds like a really, really bad idea.