Circular Runway

On 02 Apr 2004 14:48:42 GMT, (Hjk40) wrote in
Message-Id: :

I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's

For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
again.

I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
would be double-decker runways. You could use the bottom
one for landings, and the top one (starting a bit further along)
for takeoffs. Not much different from a LAHSO when you think
about it.

John

( :-), for the (sadly numerous) irony challenged)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 02 Apr 2004 14:48:42 GMT, (Hjk40) wrote in
Message-Id: :

I actually remember reading about the circular runway in the early 1960's

For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
again.

Larry Dighera writes:

For security reasons, subterranean runways/airports were proposed
during WW-II. Perhaps the time has come to consider that proposal
again.

Hmmm...no more snow removal.

--kyler

John Harper wrote:

I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
would be double-decker runways.

That would be a *very* interesting engineering exercise. The ramps at Hartsfield are
6' thick concrete slabs. I don't know how much thicker the runways are. I'm also
certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't supported by
the ground underneath them. Concrete weighs over 3,500 pounds per cubic yard. The
upper runway will be an unsupported clear span several hundred feet wide and about a
mile long. I'm not sure there is any material on Earth that could handle that job. I
think it safe to say that the upper runway wouldn't be concrete, though.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

My suggestion wasn't serious. But since we're pretending to take
it seriously... there are several airports where runways go over
bridges (e.g. CDG). In the case of CDG it's a six-lane highway
underneath. I'd guess you could just replicate that bridge as
required. It may be expensive, but given land prices in urban
areas it might still be economical.

John

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


John Harper wrote:

I've often thought that a good way to deal with runway congestion
at places like Heathrow where expansion is just about impossible
would be double-decker runways.

That would be a *very* interesting engineering exercise. The ramps at
Hartsfield are
6' thick concrete slabs. I don't know how much thicker the runways are.
I'm also
certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't
supported by
the ground underneath them. Concrete weighs over 3,500 pounds per cubic
yard. The
upper runway will be an unsupported clear span several hundred feet wide
and about a
mile long. I'm not sure there is any material on Earth that could handle
that job. I
think it safe to say that the upper runway wouldn't be concrete, though.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band
to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come
home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

double-decker runways.

Not a bad idea. For similar reasons, Colorado double-decked portions
of I-70 west of the Continental Divide.

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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

I don't know how much thicker the runways are. I'm also
certain that they would have to be significantly thicker if they weren't supported by
the ground underneath them.

I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.

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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver wrote:

I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.

That's the thickness of the resurface layer? I worked as a tunnel rat on the
expansion of Hartsfield in the 70's. The ramps were three layers of concrete, each
two feet thick.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

I have a vague recollection that when the USAF resurfaced Pease Air
Force Base in Newington NH (just a few years before it was closed down
the surface mentioned was 36 inches of concrete.

That's the thickness of the resurface layer? I worked as a tunnel rat on the
expansion of Hartsfield in the 70's. The ramps were three layers of concrete, each
two feet thick.

As I say, the memory is ten or twelve years old. What a peaceful
summer it was! The KC-135s all flew off to New York state.

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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Funny how aviation ideas just keep recycling. The circular runway was
reported on in an article in Popular Science in the early 1960s as the
airport of the future, banked turn and all.

Never amounted to much. Thank goodness, if you have ever taken off or
landed on a runway with a curve in it, the idea of using one regularly
is not terribly attractive...plus, given the difference in aircraft
speeds the banking cannot eliminate sideloads on the landing gear
which could make for some interesting gear collapses.

All the best,
Rick

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?)