For the pilots - Circular Runways?

[Lannis]

Saw a story that a Dutch guy (they don't have a lot of spare land over there) has come up with the idea of circular runways for airports, with the terminals in the center.

A banked circle about 2.1 miles long (so less than a mile in diameter).   

Airliners in calm weather could approach from any direction for noise abatement and ATC.   When it's windy, there wouldn't be any more crab-wise arse-puckering tire-smoking crosswind touchdowns, because you'd just come in with a headwind.

I'm trying to figure out why this wouldn't be the greatest idea since sliced bread.   Of course, I've never landed an airplane on a straight runway, so that's why I'm asking.   

But if guys can land a KLM 747 on St. Maarten's, or plonk a Navy C-2 down on a carrier deck in a storm, they're bound to be able to adapt to this?

Lannis

[Penderic]

Will they land counter clockwise in Australia?

[kirby1923]

In a word no!

How can you land or Take Off or even taxi in a bank?

But its funny.

That is like the lady that asked me one time "if you can't land and have to wait for awhile, do you just stop?"
If you land in a circle you would theoretically start with a head wind for a short time then a crosswind then a tailwind...it boggles the mind!!

A COD aircraft landing on a boat uses arresting gear and you have to pick up one of 4 wires to stop. This is for lack of a better way to put it a Slam Dunk type of landing that an airliner could not possibly survive more than a couple of times if that plus the passengers would probably file suit!!

There are really too many technical problems with this idea and would it would take allot of verbiage and to explain.
The landing zone is usually 1000'to 1500 feet down the runway and with a circular runway of 2.1 miles the aircraft would have to be in a bank angle large enough to drag the wing tips to maintain a touch down within the confines of the runway...oops #1
Then touching down at around 230 fps for a wide body aircraft you would use a bunch of available runway while trying to brake and use reverse thrust to decellerate while in a pretty sever turn,(only about 3500 feet in dia for the circle)...#2 (only have 11000 feet or so of runway and at touch down about 2500 feet to 3500 feet is already behind you and that would be in ideal conditions with a dry runway.

I could go on about the sight picture of lining up on a runway and etc. but I think you will get the picture without all that.

Actually I can see how this might sound feasible to a non aviator!
Ya gotta love it!!

:-)

[Sasquatch Jim]

 No, Aussie race courses run clockwise so their landing probably will too.  After all, they put their sidecars on the wrong side of the bike too.

[oldbike54]

 Kirby , I had those same thoughts , but not being an expert ...

 Guessing the taking off part would be a complete nightmare also .

 Dusty

[twowings]

All they have to do is install some banking a la Daytona and...problem solved! 

[kirby1923]

Kirby , I had those same thoughts , but not being an expert ...

 Guessing the taking off part would be a complete nightmare also .

 Dusty

Yes totally impossible!!!

[oldbike54]

Yes totally impossible!!!

 Might be time to unlock some of that alien technology stored by our gubmint . Anti-grav anyone ?

 Dusty

[kirby1923]

Our little civilization is not ready for anti gravity!

:-)

[oldbike54]

Our little civilization is not ready for anti gravity!

:-)

 Some of us are 

 Dusty

[Rough Edge racing]

 Another opinion, many years ago....http://papers.sae.org/660283/

[Shorty]

A good West Virginnie pilot could do it. Just hold the beer.

[normzone]

Don't think so small - address those issues by making the circular runway so large that using any piece of it meets the requirements of the aircraft.

If the landing zone requires 1500 feet and you want to be able to come at it from 360 degrees, all you need is a runway 102 miles in circumference. Put the facilities in the center and you'd only have to taxi for sixteen miles.

Do I need to do all the work around here? I come here to get away from that challenge during business hours.

[sib]

Don't think so small - address those issues by making the circular runway so large that using any piece of it meets the requirements of the aircraft.

Well, it seems to me that all runways are circular in the sense that they follow the curvature of the earth.  Now someone more knowledgeable is going to say I'm wrong.

[kirby1923]

Another opinion, many years ago....http://papers.sae.org/660283/

I suppose one would have to know their definition of a "circular" runway.

[kirby1923]

Well, it seems to me that all runways are circular in the sense that they follow the curvature of the earth.  Now someone more knowledgeable is going to say I'm wrong.

I believe to qualify as a circle the runway would have to meet at both ends. 25.000 miles or so...no?

[oldbike54]

I believe to qualify as a circle the runway would have to meet at both ends. 25.000 miles or so...no?

 Yeah , but we know all of you carrier jockeys are a bit , er , bent 

 Dusty

[Chuck in Indiana]

Here's all you need. Just scale it up a little. Yeah, I've landed there. 

Bunker Hill Outlying Field #8 / Naval Outlying Field 11713 /

Converse Airport (1I8), Converse, IN

40.57, -85.89 (North of Indianapolis, IN)

A 7/24/42 land acquisition map of “Auxiliary Landing Field #8” (National Archives, courtesy of Brian Rehwinkel).



This airfield was evidently constructed during WW2 as one of the 26 satellite airfields for Bunker Hill NAS

(which later became Grissom ARB), located a few miles to the northwest.

The date of construction of the airfield has not been determined.

No airfield at Converse was listed in the 1935 Air Pilots Register (courtesy of Michael Banks).



According to Brian Rehwinkel, this “site was leased for use as an outlying field for NAS Bunker Hill in mid 1942.

The site consisted of approximately 250 acres.”



The earliest depiction which has been located of Outlying Field 11713

was a 7/24/42 land acquisition map of “Auxiliary Landing Field #8” (National Archives, courtesy of Brian Rehwinkel).

It depicted the field as a concrete octagon, measuring a maximum of 1,800' across, with no buildings.

This would appear to be the ideal airport layout -

permitting landings in any direction - never a crosswind!



According to a January 1944 Navy memo, the concrete mat, with an 1,800’ all-way landing surface,

was added in the fall of 1943 at a cost of $492,546.



According to Brian Rehwinkel, “This was a rather unusual procedure for an Outlying Field

because the Navy made substantial improvements on land it did not own.

During WWII, the Navy generally owned the Outlying Fields

where substantial improvements were made such as concrete or asphalt surfaces.

For the many grass outlying fields, the Navy would simply lease the land & cancel the lease at the end of the war.”

[swooshdave]

Well, it seems to me that all runways are circular in the sense that they follow the curvature of the earth.  Now someone more knowledgeable is going to say I'm wrong.

If the earth wasn't flat you'd be correct. 

[sib]

If the earth wasn't flat you'd be correct. 

I stand corrected.

[kirby1923]

Here's all you need. Just scale it up a little. Yeah, I've landed there. 

Bunker Hill Outlying Field #8 / Naval Outlying Field 11713 /

Converse Airport (1I8), Converse, IN

40.57, -85.89 (North of Indianapolis, IN)

A 7/24/42 land acquisition map of “Auxiliary Landing Field #8” (National Archives, courtesy of Brian Rehwinkel).



This airfield was evidently constructed during WW2 as one of the 26 satellite airfields for Bunker Hill NAS

(which later became Grissom ARB), located a few miles to the northwest.

The date of construction of the airfield has not been determined.

No airfield at Converse was listed in the 1935 Air Pilots Register (courtesy of Michael Banks).



According to Brian Rehwinkel, this “site was leased for use as an outlying field for NAS Bunker Hill in mid 1942.

The site consisted of approximately 250 acres.”



The earliest depiction which has been located of Outlying Field 11713

was a 7/24/42 land acquisition map of “Auxiliary Landing Field #8” (National Archives, courtesy of Brian Rehwinkel).

It depicted the field as a concrete octagon, measuring a maximum of 1,800' across, with no buildings.

This would appear to be the ideal airport layout -

permitting landings in any direction - never a crosswind!



According to a January 1944 Navy memo, the concrete mat, with an 1,800’ all-way landing surface,

was added in the fall of 1943 at a cost of $492,546.



According to Brian Rehwinkel, “This was a rather unusual procedure for an Outlying Field

because the Navy made substantial improvements on land it did not own.

During WWII, the Navy generally owned the Outlying Fields

where substantial improvements were made such as concrete or asphalt surfaces.

For the many grass outlying fields, the Navy would simply lease the land & cancel the lease at the end of the war.”

There are 4 of those around NAS Memphis, we called them "wagon wheels".

Great in the days of the "Yellow Peril", but with landings weights approaching 500,000 lbs for the largest and approach speeds (not to mention TO speeds in the 140 kt+ range, me thinks you would have to scale it up a BUNCH!
:-)

[Chuck in Indiana]

Hey! What's a little extra concrete?  Think about all the jobs it would create..

[kirby1923]

Hey! What's a little extra concrete?  Think about all the jobs it would create..

Just think, we will have come full circle, (couldn't resist), from the days of one big open field to a giant blob of concrete!

Yeah and with all the approach lighting and ILS systems and snow plows up north we could really spread the wealth around...yipeee.

:-)

[charlie b]

FIL was in the Navy when that circular runway thing came up.  They did the study and were actually considering building one as a test, yes, with arresting cables.  He remembered that they nixed it on the basis of cost for all the arresting gear alone.  They figured 6 or 8 sets of cables, and all the expense of maintaining it as well as the field only being good for carrier planes, and the extra wear and tear on the planes vs making conventional landings while on shore.

[Chuck in Indiana]

Well, needless to say, that guy that designed it has never flown an airplane, or I'd like to have some of that stuff he's smokin. <talking while holding breath> "Hey, man.. I just had this *great* idea.." 

[rodekyll]

My offering to the flat earth society v real science is a round earth -- like a donut, with the ocean (there's only one) in the middle.  Now you can land anywhere.


You're welcome.   

[Gliderjohn]

Well now up through WWII many airports and military bases were not AFBs or Airports, they were "Airfields". Basically mowed pastures. You took off or landed which ever way the wind was blowing.
GliderJohn

[Skyguyz]

After 40 years of flying, 30,000 plus hours, 747-Cessnas......


NO!

[Rough Edge racing]

 My land speed racing bikes are run on runways no longer in use...The track at Ohio, now closed, was a fairly new concrete strip 10,000  feet long used for large jet cargo planes...The runway is crowned in the middle for water drainage...And the track has a slight rise to about midway when it slopes back down...
 The track in Limestone Maine is an old Loring SAC airbase...it was used for B-52's and is just over 13000 feet long and appears level...the thought of 200 ton B-52's possibly loaded with nuclear weapons ready to takeoff in a crisis is right out of Dr Strangelove

[Lannis]

Well now up through WWII many airports and military bases were not AFBs or Airports, they were "Airfields". Basically mowed pastures. You took off or landed which ever way the wind was blowing.
GliderJohn

Falwell Airport near me is 2900 feet long, oriented roughly NW-SE, and has a 137 foot drop from one end to the other.   You don't get a "whichever way" on that one, you land up the hill and take off down the hill.   If you tried taking off uphill you'd never get into the air, and if you landed downhill you'd never stop (unless you were in an Alaskan bush Super Cub or something) .... So sometimes you take off "into" a tailwind ....

I figure it might be good practice for one of these unlikely "circular runways"!

Lannis