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?