A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Circular Runway



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 31st 04, 09:58 PM
jsmith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Circular Runway

Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
engine failure and landing on a country road.
He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
Goodyear's test track.
A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
Taladega?
Daytona?
(What are the other Super Speedways?)
  #2  
Old March 31st 04, 10:18 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.

Wu Chia Ba airport in Kunming used this arrangement before the
Americans arrived toward the end of 1941.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #3  
Old March 31st 04, 10:30 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.


Yes, but that's not what he's talking about. What you're describing is an
"all ways" airfield in which aircraft can land and takeoff in any direction,
but with a straight ground run. He's talking about a runway in a circle
where aircraft use a curvilinear ground track.


  #4  
Old March 31st 04, 10:42 PM
John Harper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sounds like an obvious candidate for that wonderful approach
out East with a DME arc right to the MAP...

John

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.


Yes, but that's not what he's talking about. What you're describing is an
"all ways" airfield in which aircraft can land and takeoff in any

direction,
but with a straight ground run. He's talking about a runway in a circle
where aircraft use a curvilinear ground track.




  #5  
Old March 31st 04, 10:47 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.


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.

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 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.

Perhaps this was an April Fool's joke that Air & Space Magazine played on
its readers?

Pete


  #6  
Old April 1st 04, 12:38 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rod Machado has suggested a similar runway for those pilots that don't know
what the rudder pedals are for.

"jsmith" wrote in message ...
Good article in the recent issue of AIR & SPACE.
A USN pilot got the idea for a circular runway after experiencing an
engine failure and landing on a country road.
He proposed the Navy test the idea. He was killed in an accident, but
someone carried the ball got the testing approved.
The tests were satisfactorily completed with Navy jet fighters at
Goodyear's test track.
A 10,000 foot banked oval works at low and high speeds.
Taladega?
Daytona?
(What are the other Super Speedways?)



  #7  
Old April 1st 04, 01:52 AM
jsmith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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?

  #8  
Old April 1st 04, 01:59 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:18:52 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Circular (or at least 360-degree) airfields were common at one time.
You put a stake in the center with a windsock on top. The aircraft
landing simply landed into the wind, wherever it was coming from.


Lindbergh Field in San Diego was the same in the early days.
  #9  
Old April 1st 04, 02:02 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jsmith" wrote in message ...
The theory posited in the article was that one could always land and
takeoff into the wind using a circular runway.


Surely you can see how that theory makes no sense. The airplane would only
be pointed into the wind for a very brief moment during a takeoff or
landing.

The banked track would counter the crosswind component.


Actually, I expect the bank is intended to deal with the bank of the
airplane required to produce the constant radius turn required for landing.
There's no way a banked track would "counter the crosswind component",
especially given that the component would be constantly changing throughout
the takeoff or landing.

But it's even worse than that, since the bank of the track will only match
the bank of a given airplane at a given groundspeed, since the aircraft
needs to maintain a constant radius turn. There will still be some degree
of difference between the bank of the airplane and the bank of the track.

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.")


Not sure what that has to do with this circular runway. After all, a runway
around the world at the equator would still be straight.

Pete


  #10  
Old April 1st 04, 02:02 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:52:35 GMT, jsmith wrote in
Message-Id: :

The banked track would counter the crosswind component.


That would be true 50% of the time.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 117 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Owning 114 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
F15E's trounced by Eurofighters John Cook Military Aviation 193 April 11th 04 03:33 AM
Rwy incursions Hankal Piloting 10 November 16th 03 03:33 AM
Moving violation..NASA form? Nasir Piloting 47 November 5th 03 08:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.