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 » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Will circular runways ever take off?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 19th 17, 03:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:32:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Just like with U-line control airplanes! Mine was a P-51D with a Cox 0.049...

Sure made this pilot (more of a crasher) dizzy!


Cox 0.049. Piffle! Flew CL in the 60's with a Fox 0.35. He-man stuff. I cannot tell you how many mixture adjustment screws I broke moving the control the wrong way while inverted. Oops.
Ads
  #12  
Old March 19th 17, 11:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 748
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 6:07:48 AM UTC+3, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:32:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Just like with U-line control airplanes! Mine was a P-51D with a Cox 0.049...

Sure made this pilot (more of a crasher) dizzy!


Cox 0.049. Piffle! Flew CL in the 60's with a Fox 0.35. He-man stuff. I cannot tell you how many mixture adjustment screws I broke moving the control the wrong way while inverted. Oops.


I have no idea what it was that I had as a 10 or 11 year old in '73 or '74. But the story is maybe interesting :-)

I went to school in a small village (Hikurangi). For some reason I was in the newsagent near the school when I noticed a boxed but clearly opened model plane on the shelf. I asked about it and was told that it had been sold twice, but neither buyer had been able to make it run, and it had been returned. I said "I bet I can make it go" and was told "If you can make it go you can have it -- take the engine now and bring it back tomorrow".

Challenge accepted.

I don't remember anything about the plane except it was control line and the engine was a "diesel" (i.e. pure compression ignition, no glow plug to start it) and rather incongruously called a "Merlin" which I knew even then was the name of the engine in a Spitfire.

So a quick google turns up:

http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardfile/merlin.html
http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardf...es/merlins.jpg

And that's definitely it. Mine must have been the "Super Merlin" as it had the plastic fuel tank bolted to the back of the engine.

0.75 cc. I didn't know that then. I guess that's 0.046 in the lingo you guys are talking.

I don't know what the previous customers had been doing, because it took me less than five minutes to get it running, even starting from absolutely zero knowledge about model aircraft engines (though I was already experienced with 2 stroke lawnmowers and chainsaws and motorcycles).

Got to love the modern internet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykvN6vYEiU

I reckon I got it going easier than this guy does! And I didn't have any bench mount .. I just held it by the fuel tank with my spare hand.

So, I took it back to the shop, demonstrated that I could get it going, and the owner gave me the model plane that went with it.

My brother and I had a few hours fun playing with it with nothing serious happening. Until our father asked to try it. "I did a couple of hours in a Harvard when I was in Cadets in 57". Right. Well .. he got about two turns around the circle, then it was straight up, straight down at full power (no choice about that), and a plane smashed to smithereens.

And that was the end of that.
  #13  
Old March 19th 17, 01:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,186
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 04:28:57 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

And that's definitely it. Mine must have been the "Super Merlin" as it
had the plastic fuel tank bolted to the back of the engine.

Nice one. When I wur a lad most of the engines we had were diesels, but
were the older Mills 0.75 and the Milles 1.3 (ccs of course) and mostlyt
went on the front Keilkraft Phantom Mites and Phantoms respectively, easy
to fly and made from sheet balsa.

0.75 cc. I didn't know that then. I guess that's 0.046 in the lingo you
guys are talking.

An .049 engine is just under 0.8cc. Americans have innumerable
competition classes. all based around engine capacity in both 'U-
control' (control line) and free flight, so just as the most popular
engines were the Cox PeeWee and TeeDee .049s, there was also a Cox
TeeDee .051 so you could fly a model in one class with a TD 049 on it,
then replace that with a TD 051 and fly it in the next class up.

TeeDees were the motors to have until Leroy Cox lost his shirt when the
slot car craze imploded, his fantastic machine tools wore out and the
engines got progressively worse. TeeDes were machined from bar stock to
such good tolerances that breaking a new motor in involved bolting it
onto the model, giving it 30 seconds of rich 4-stroke running and then
leaning it out and letting it scream.

I don't know what the previous customers had been doing, because it took
me less than five minutes to get it running, even starting from
absolutely zero knowledge about model aircraft engines (though I was
already experienced with 2 stroke lawnmowers and chainsaws and
motorcycles).

Got to love the modern internet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykvN6vYEiU

Easiest engine to start I ever had was an ED Racer (2.46cc diesel). I
bolted it to the bench, filled the tank, quick squirt in the ports and
flicked it over slowly to get some lube on the bearings - and it started
with that first flick.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
  #14  
Old March 19th 17, 02:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 748
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 4:49:07 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 04:28:57 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

And that's definitely it. Mine must have been the "Super Merlin" as it
had the plastic fuel tank bolted to the back of the engine.

Nice one. When I wur a lad most of the engines we had were diesels, but
were the older Mills 0.75 and the Milles 1.3 (ccs of course) and mostlyt
went on the front Keilkraft Phantom Mites and Phantoms respectively, easy
to fly and made from sheet balsa.

0.75 cc. I didn't know that then. I guess that's 0.046 in the lingo you
guys are talking.

An .049 engine is just under 0.8cc. Americans have innumerable
competition classes. all based around engine capacity in both 'U-
control' (control line) and free flight, so just as the most popular
engines were the Cox PeeWee and TeeDee .049s, there was also a Cox
TeeDee .051 so you could fly a model in one class with a TD 049 on it,
then replace that with a TD 051 and fly it in the next class up.

TeeDees were the motors to have until Leroy Cox lost his shirt when the
slot car craze imploded, his fantastic machine tools wore out and the
engines got progressively worse. TeeDes were machined from bar stock to
such good tolerances that breaking a new motor in involved bolting it
onto the model, giving it 30 seconds of rich 4-stroke running and then
leaning it out and letting it scream.

I don't know what the previous customers had been doing, because it took
me less than five minutes to get it running, even starting from
absolutely zero knowledge about model aircraft engines (though I was
already experienced with 2 stroke lawnmowers and chainsaws and
motorcycles).

Got to love the modern internet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykvN6vYEiU

Easiest engine to start I ever had was an ED Racer (2.46cc diesel). I
bolted it to the bench, filled the tank, quick squirt in the ports and
flicked it over slowly to get some lube on the bearings - and it started
with that first flick.


Young folks now with their LIPOs and ESCs and digital proportional control and digital response curves and control mixing and trim and and and ... don't know what they're missing.

Oh to be a kid now! Well, a kid with money, anyway. I never had that either.
  #15  
Old March 19th 17, 03:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,666
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

Bruce,

Your story made me smile, especially the full power vertical "landing".
Been there, done that...

Cheers,
Dan

On 3/19/2017 5:28 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 6:07:48 AM UTC+3, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:32:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Just like with U-line control airplanes! Mine was a P-51D with a Cox 0.049...

Sure made this pilot (more of a crasher) dizzy!

Cox 0.049. Piffle! Flew CL in the 60's with a Fox 0.35. He-man stuff. I cannot tell you how many mixture adjustment screws I broke moving the control the wrong way while inverted. Oops.

I have no idea what it was that I had as a 10 or 11 year old in '73 or '74. But the story is maybe interesting :-)

I went to school in a small village (Hikurangi). For some reason I was in the newsagent near the school when I noticed a boxed but clearly opened model plane on the shelf. I asked about it and was told that it had been sold twice, but neither buyer had been able to make it run, and it had been returned. I said "I bet I can make it go" and was told "If you can make it go you can have it -- take the engine now and bring it back tomorrow".

Challenge accepted.

I don't remember anything about the plane except it was control line and the engine was a "diesel" (i.e. pure compression ignition, no glow plug to start it) and rather incongruously called a "Merlin" which I knew even then was the name of the engine in a Spitfire.

So a quick google turns up:

http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardfile/merlin.html
http://www.modelenginenews.org/cardf...es/merlins.jpg

And that's definitely it. Mine must have been the "Super Merlin" as it had the plastic fuel tank bolted to the back of the engine.

0.75 cc. I didn't know that then. I guess that's 0.046 in the lingo you guys are talking.

I don't know what the previous customers had been doing, because it took me less than five minutes to get it running, even starting from absolutely zero knowledge about model aircraft engines (though I was already experienced with 2 stroke lawnmowers and chainsaws and motorcycles).

Got to love the modern internet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykvN6vYEiU

I reckon I got it going easier than this guy does! And I didn't have any bench mount .. I just held it by the fuel tank with my spare hand.

So, I took it back to the shop, demonstrated that I could get it going, and the owner gave me the model plane that went with it.

My brother and I had a few hours fun playing with it with nothing serious happening. Until our father asked to try it. "I did a couple of hours in a Harvard when I was in Cadets in 57". Right. Well .. he got about two turns around the circle, then it was straight up, straight down at full power (no choice about that), and a plane smashed to smithereens.

And that was the end of that.


--
Dan, 5J
  #16  
Old March 20th 17, 01:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,666
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

I don't think being a kid these days would equip one with the rich
experiences we had. Imagine carrying a knife to school! When I was a
kid, every boy had a jack knife in his pocket. Some days, at recess, it
would be fun to just whittle on a stick. Funny thing, nobody ever got
stabbed or cut. Imagine having easy access to mercury. What fun it was
to play with! Did you ever run with scissors? Ride a bicycle or horse
without a helmet? Drive 120 mph with no seat belts in the car? Kids
these days have no idea how much they missed! But they do get trophies
just for showing up... My Dad taught me to shoot when I was 8 or 10
years old. Now that I'm 69, I still haven't shot any body. Imagine
that. Maybe I could even now get a world record with or without an
engine (a motor is electric)...

On 3/19/2017 8:11 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 4:49:07 PM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 04:28:57 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

And that's definitely it. Mine must have been the "Super Merlin" as it
had the plastic fuel tank bolted to the back of the engine.

Nice one. When I wur a lad most of the engines we had were diesels, but
were the older Mills 0.75 and the Milles 1.3 (ccs of course) and mostlyt
went on the front Keilkraft Phantom Mites and Phantoms respectively, easy
to fly and made from sheet balsa.

0.75 cc. I didn't know that then. I guess that's 0.046 in the lingo you
guys are talking.

An .049 engine is just under 0.8cc. Americans have innumerable
competition classes. all based around engine capacity in both 'U-
control' (control line) and free flight, so just as the most popular
engines were the Cox PeeWee and TeeDee .049s, there was also a Cox
TeeDee .051 so you could fly a model in one class with a TD 049 on it,
then replace that with a TD 051 and fly it in the next class up.

TeeDees were the motors to have until Leroy Cox lost his shirt when the
slot car craze imploded, his fantastic machine tools wore out and the
engines got progressively worse. TeeDes were machined from bar stock to
such good tolerances that breaking a new motor in involved bolting it
onto the model, giving it 30 seconds of rich 4-stroke running and then
leaning it out and letting it scream.

I don't know what the previous customers had been doing, because it took
me less than five minutes to get it running, even starting from
absolutely zero knowledge about model aircraft engines (though I was
already experienced with 2 stroke lawnmowers and chainsaws and
motorcycles).

Got to love the modern internet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykvN6vYEiU

Easiest engine to start I ever had was an ED Racer (2.46cc diesel). I
bolted it to the bench, filled the tank, quick squirt in the ports and
flicked it over slowly to get some lube on the bearings - and it started
with that first flick.

Young folks now with their LIPOs and ESCs and digital proportional control and digital response curves and control mixing and trim and and and ... don't know what they're missing.

Oh to be a kid now! Well, a kid with money, anyway. I never had that either.


--
Dan, 5J
  #17  
Old March 20th 17, 08:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Gert Bass
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Will circular runways ever take off?


Its a cute concept... But no one has discussed Instrument approaches.


I'd like to see that discussed, too. But I see enormouse safety
potential there - as it is basically an endless runway.

We only need the tight vertical and lateral guidance for precision
approaches BECAUSE of a defined TD point and limited runway length. As
long as you can fly a nice DME arc around that tower you don't even need
vertical guidance as long as you descend slow enough - sooner or later
you will see the runway - and even if you don't you would touch down
maybe a little hard but on the "start" of the runway with all the
distance in the world to remain. Laterally you should still be rather
precise, but then again not really, because if you aren't lined up
perfectly just keep that arc going, correct a bit and you are dead
centerline.

This requires a completely different viewpoint. I would say it
practically eliminates the need for a go-around - because why would you?

I don't see the advantage for wind really, but that's not a big issue in
the first place.
  #18  
Old March 22nd 17, 05:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:18:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I saw this story and it reminded me, has anyone ever tried landing on a curved flat road or something similar to a circular runway?

I supposed the banked sides of this concept help.

BBC story "Will circular runways ever take off?"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39284294

http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/project/index.php

SAE paper Flight Operations on a Circular Runway
http://papers.sae.org/660283/
Abstract:
Inherent advantages of an infinitely long runway, optimum technical location at the center of the circle, and safety enhancement by increased directional stability during aircraft ground roll generated interest in the circular runway concept. The Bureau of Naval Weapons originated a project to determine, within the realm of aircraft behavior, the feasibility of flight operations from a circular runway.Utilizing an existing circular track at the General Motors Proving Ground near Mesa, Arizona, tests were conducted with a T28, an A1-E, an A4-B, and a C54. It was determined that pilots readily adapt to operations from a circular runway, that aircraft lateral and directional stability is more positive than on a flat runway, that tangential approaches are no more difficult than approaches to a straight runway, and that low visibility approaches are much simpler than to a straight runway. Flight operations from a circular runway are feasible.


Chris


This might be a good idea for auto towing. We have 2800 ft of straight runway at our gliderport. At 780 ft field elevation with a tow vehicle like a V-8 Chevy Suburban or a V-8 pickup truck, we can get a maximum of about 800ft AGL auto towing a 1-26, and maybe 475ft AGL auto towing a 2-33 with two people in it. Except for the problem of the wind causing a portion of the circle to be towing the glider downwind, a circular runway would seem to be a good way to extend the runway length indefinitely, and get more altitude for a given rope length.
  #19  
Old March 22nd 17, 05:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This might be a good idea for auto towing. We have 2800 ft of straight runway at our gliderport. At 780 ft field elevation with a tow vehicle like a V-8 Chevy Suburban or a V-8 pickup truck, we can get a maximum of about 800ft AGL auto towing a 1-26, and maybe 475ft AGL auto towing a 2-33 with two people in it. Except for the problem of the wind causing a portion of the circle to be towing the glider downwind, a circular runway would seem to be a good way to extend the runway length indefinitely, and get more altitude for a given rope length.


I am envisioning the NTSB report now...

  #20  
Old March 22nd 17, 11:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Frank Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,732
Default Will circular runways ever take off?

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 11:24:42 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:18:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I saw this story and it reminded me, has anyone ever tried landing on a curved flat road or something similar to a circular runway?

I supposed the banked sides of this concept help.

BBC story "Will circular runways ever take off?"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39284294

http://www.endlessrunway-project.eu/project/index.php

SAE paper Flight Operations on a Circular Runway
http://papers.sae.org/660283/
Abstract:
Inherent advantages of an infinitely long runway, optimum technical location at the center of the circle, and safety enhancement by increased directional stability during aircraft ground roll generated interest in the circular runway concept. The Bureau of Naval Weapons originated a project to determine, within the realm of aircraft behavior, the feasibility of flight operations from a circular runway.Utilizing an existing circular track at the General Motors Proving Ground near Mesa, Arizona, tests were conducted with a T28, an A1-E, an A4-B, and a C54. It was determined that pilots readily adapt to operations from a circular runway, that aircraft lateral and directional stability is more positive than on a flat runway, that tangential approaches are no more difficult than approaches to a straight runway, and that low visibility approaches are much simpler than to a straight runway. Flight operations from a circular runway are feasible.


Chris


This might be a good idea for auto towing. We have 2800 ft of straight runway at our gliderport. At 780 ft field elevation with a tow vehicle like a V-8 Chevy Suburban or a V-8 pickup truck, we can get a maximum of about 800ft AGL auto towing a 1-26, and maybe 475ft AGL auto towing a 2-33 with two people in it. Except for the problem of the wind causing a portion of the circle to be towing the glider downwind, a circular runway would seem to be a good way to extend the runway length indefinitely, and get more altitude for a given rope length.


Reverse pulley is what you need.
http://www.coloradosoaring.org/think...ey/default.htm
 




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
When are thermals not circular and do thermal helpers assume thatthey are? son_of_flubber Soaring 65 August 20th 13 11:48 PM
Circular runways for airports? Larry Dighera Piloting 15 December 27th 06 12:24 AM
Circular Aircraft Hangar Jeff Home Built 16 October 8th 05 11:44 PM
dedTUNIA: Gegen kreisrunden Haarausfall - Against circular loss of hair - Contre Alopcie Areata Greasy Rider Naval Aviation 0 June 10th 05 12:51 PM
Circular Runway jsmith Piloting 55 April 11th 04 10:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.