Circular runways for airports?

In my back of the woods Dec 28th is the equivalent of "April fool's
day" so I checked the date of the initial post carefully.

BTW this brings to mind that an 8 shaped rwy might be more efficient
and we could still benefit from the use of the Land And Hold Short
clearances :-D

how about an X shaped runway.... oh wait...
fcoav8r wrote:
In my back of the woods Dec 28th is the equivalent of "April fool's
day" so I checked the date of the initial post carefully.

BTW this brings to mind that an 8 shaped rwy might be more efficient
and we could still benefit from the use of the Land And Hold Short
clearances :-D

Ron Lee wrote:
This type article (granted 50 years old), gives scientists a bad name.

It reminded me that old ideas do have a way of coming around again,
though.

For example, I read they're considering airplane-parachutes for
airliners again, a la the CAPS setup for Cirrus/Cessna/whatever,
because of an old concept:

It's always been considered impossible to have airliner parachutes
because of the weight, but 70 years ago the chute idea was first
proposed, and back then they had a possible solution: jettison any
extra weight, by blowing off the wings, engines, tail, etc.

Now, I'm thinking about this while driving the other day, and it comes
to mind that the sequence of events is important. For instance, if
you hit the "Save Us" button and the wings are jettisoned *before* the
parachutes are deployed, this requires an immense leap of faith in the
system big grin

Kev

They correctly pointed out some (but not all) of the cons. Where is the
pro??

-Robert


Larry Dighera wrote:
Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-airports.html
A CIRCULAR runway for airports is being considered by the US navy, and
the idea was recently tested in principle at General Motors' proving
ground. It is thought to promise some advantages but to be more
expensive than providing similar operational capacity in the normal
way. One particular advantage is that it would save one-third of the
space occupied by a conventional airport of equal capacity.

The idea is to match the circumference to the landing speeds of the
aircraft that would use it, assuming that each aeroplane would need to
be sure of one sixth of the circumference. This would mean that for
big jet aircraft, a circular runway of rather more than 60,000 feet in
circumference would be required.

Taking the usual first-class runway width of 300 feet, an aeroplane,
touching down on the outside edge and aiming just to miss the inner
edge, would have a run of 4860 feet before it approached the outer
edge again. In that distance, thrust reversers and brakes would have
been applied and the speed reduced perhaps sufficiently to use the
nose wheel gently to steer the craft back onto another tangential
course for the next mile of its run.

As an alternative, the runway could be made wider. In that event cost
would rise steeply. A 10,000-foot runway 300 feet wide costs little
under £1 million. The need to devise new landing techniques and to
retrain pilots is acknowledged in official references to this study,
but emphasis is laid on the "unlimited runway" and on the
"minimisation of crosswind factor" by enabling take-offs and landings
to be made in any direction.

This might reduce the number of aircraft that could use the runway at
the same time. Only when crosswind was not of serious strength could
the runway be used by six aircraft simultaneously and the claim that
it would conduce to high traffic density be justified.




*

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a?dmode=source

On 26 Dec 2006 08:47:26 -0800, "Kev" wrote in
. com:

It reminded me that old ideas do have a way of coming around again,
though.

For example, I read they're considering airplane-parachutes for
airliners again, a la the CAPS setup for Cirrus/Cessna/whatever,
because of an old concept:

It's an old concept alright:


http://mlsandy.home.tsixroads.com/Co...NDY/rt044.html

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, April 16, 1929:

MEMPHIS PILOT FLIES AIRPLANE IN 'CHUTE TEST ON WEST COAST

-----------------

SHIP FLOATS SAFELY DOWN FROM 5,000-FOOT ALTITUDE
MOTOR DEAD, WHEN 60-FOOT PARACHUTE OPENS.
CAPTAIN TURNER NOW STUNT FLIER

-----------------

Capt. Roscoe Turner, once an automobile salesman in Memphis,
later a member of the army air corps in France and after that a
stunt flier headquartering in Memphis, yesterday proved that a
parachute, attached to an airplane, can become the greatest safety
device yet offered to aviation, in a test at Los Angeles.

An inventor, working for more than two years, has at last
designed a 60-foot parachute which can be attached to an airplane
and controlled from the pilot's cockpit. Recently, his plans
perfected and his model 'chute constructed, he went in search of a
pilot who would risk life and limb to test the appliance and
demonstrate its practicability, or its fallibility.

Captain Turner, now a stunt flier at Hollywood, Cal., was
approached. He agreed to make the test and yesterday was set as the
date.

Captain Turner took an airplane which weighs 2,800 pounds,
dead weight, up 5,000 feet. At that altitude he killed his motor,
and as the ship slipped into a spin, pulled the cord that released
the parachute which was attached to the upper wing.

The great spring, holding the chute cords to the plane wind,
took up the snap of the opening of the chute. The plunging ship
righted and floated softly to earth in a field three miles from the
Martin Airport [now KSNA] from which the plane had taken off.

The 'chute. for the first time, had proved its
practicability as a safety factor.

Captain Turner is a native of Corinth, Miss., where his
parents now live. When the United States entered the World War,
Captain Turner enlisted in the aviation section of the army signal
corps and was assigned to the old Driving Park squadron. From there
he went to Park Field and learned to fly.

Soon after he had won his wings and his commission as a
second lieutenant he was ordered to France. He flew in the aviation
schools there and later served with a pursuit squadron at the front.

After the war he returned to Memphis. But selling
automobiles held no attraction for him and he went into aviation as
a business. There were no transport lines for him to turn to in
those days and he started "barnstorming."

As a stunt flier he visited most of the fairs and carnivals
in the south. Then he moved to the west coast and entered the
movies as a stunt flier.

PICTURE- captioned "Pilots Plane in Test"

Capt. Roscoe Turner, former Memphis flier, yesterday piloted a
plane at Los Angeles in a demonstration of practicability of a
parachute for airplanes as a safety device. Since moving from
Memphis Captain Turner has been a stunt flier at Hollywood.

-----------------

Larry Dighera wrote:
Now here's an idea almost as good as underground airports*:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-airports.html
A CIRCULAR runway ...

On 26 Dec 2006 11:53:03 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in .com:

They correctly pointed out some (but not all) of the cons. Where is the
pro??


So you like the idea of underground airports, eh? :-)

The answer to your question seems to be contained in the first
paragraph:

One particular advantage is that it would save one-third of the
space occupied by a conventional airport of equal capacity.