Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jetblastdubai wrote:Where would the glide slope and localizer antennas go? Solve one problem and a new one arises.
Jshank83 wrote:I would imagine if you blew a tire (which would be more likely, but still not common) that you would shoot off the side of it similar to a nascar driver that blows a tire on a turn. Just seems like planes landing gear would all need to be redesigned to work with this setup. It does seem like it would be tough to keep track of what planes are landing/take off where. I am sure it would still have numbered areas though. If one goes long or short does it impede on another plane? The wind thing is great for one plane but what about the other 3 taking off at the same time going totally different directions?
doug_or wrote:Just takeoff and land from treadmills and be done with it.
aerolimani wrote:An interesting aspect of the concept is how the aircraft landing, rounding a banked corner, would be pressed down into the runway by the centrifugal force. This would significantly increase the effectiveness of braking. Less reverse thrust would mean less noise and fuel burn.
hoya wrote:How do you managed missed approaches? Seems like a nightmare for ATC to keep track of so many different planes going in different directions. Also, the banked runways would effectively limit wingspans - yes, gate restrictions exist, but Boeing is introducing a folding wing on the 777s.
Mir wrote:aerolimani wrote:An interesting aspect of the concept is how the aircraft landing, rounding a banked corner, would be pressed down into the runway by the centrifugal force. This would significantly increase the effectiveness of braking. Less reverse thrust would mean less noise and fuel burn.
Idle-only reverse is already a thing at a lot of airports. You wouldn't really be gaining anything.
VirginFlyer wrote:doug_or wrote:Just takeoff and land from treadmills and be done with it.
How many birds will they be able to fit inside the aircraft?
V/F
LupineChemist wrote:
On the interesting side, it would eliminate the whole idea of V1 since there's always more runway.
AirbusCanada wrote:Dutch researchers seem to think it's worth exploring.
Amiga500 wrote:
For 2 points of reference:
(1) Alp D'Huez, one of the most famous climbing stages on the cycling calendar, has an incline of between 9-11%. That is between 4.5 - 6.3 degrees.
(2) The bank angles at the Indy motor speed way are ~9deg.
So this clueless clown is proposing we build runways with bank angles steeper than 3x Alp D'Huez and 2x the Indianapolis speedway banks.
Mental. Utterly mental.
c933103 wrote:hoya wrote:How do you managed missed approaches? Seems like a nightmare for ATC to keep track of so many different planes going in different directions. Also, the banked runways would effectively limit wingspans - yes, gate restrictions exist, but Boeing is introducing a folding wing on the 777s.
Is it possible for missed approach to happen in circular runway? As the runway length shall be infinite...
MesserJ wrote:The standard straight, flat runway just seems a lot safer and more practical to me.
113312 wrote:Whoever came up with this idea has no concept of the physics. Taking off or landing in a bank would increase the stall speed and effective weight vector. While a high banked track works well for high traction four wheeled vehicles designed with negative lift, all of the advantages are lost for an aircraft. The idea of a curved runway dates back many decades to a time when aircraft had to be able to lift off in 1000 feet or less.
dtw2hyd wrote:Looks like multi $Million EU funded study failed to answer some common sense questions.
BerenErchamion wrote:Don't make assumptions about what the people doing the study did or did not think of until you've read the report.