OK, this is weird. I guess it would work, but it would take up a lot of room, and it would be restricted to aircraft of a certain takeoff and landing speed, due to the fixed bank of it. Unless the bank angle could be varied for different aircraft.
12 thoughts on “Round Runways”
Comments are closed.
With the stated diameter, and either a 747 or Airbus 380 taking off at 180 mph (264 ft/sec), the required bank angle is 20.5 degrees! The only way I can see this working is having the runway “dished,” that is, starting out flat on the inner radius, and gradually ramping up to the maximum bank angle as the radius increases. The width would then have to be very outside diameter would have to be much larger than the inside, to make sure the inside wing tip didn’t contact the runway (though the risk of that in a refused takeoff would be high).
Maybe I’m giving this more thought than the inventor deserves. After all, he has a circle 2.2 miles in diameter, and 6.2 miles in circumference – i.e. pi = 2.81818.
That should have read “The outside diameter would have to be much larger than the inside…” I pasted without cutting.
At that bank angle, you’d be pulling 1.07 G’s before the wheels left the ground. That would eat into both max T/O weight and max landing weight, and you’d have to tighten the turn to peel away from the runway. So the maximum fuel load for something like a 777-200ER would be reduced by 43,000 lbs, or 14%.
But George, they’d gain all that back and more by simply flying straight off the circle and also the bank angle would form a jump.
It seems like a good way to increase confusion and accidents to me… I think this can only work with a lot of automation.
Did you see the other news about the guys who want to do a Mach 2.2 transport airplane located in Denver? Boom I think that’s how the company is called. The whole operation smelled kinda bunk to me but who knows.
ATC is about as archaic and non automated as you can get and that’s why it works. The controllers follow a procedure that is a bucket brigade with a single controller totally responsible for all aircraft in his control. It is perfectly acceptable for a controller to direct traffic into a mountain in a neighboring zone where the controller it is handed off to much then correct the situation.
I caused several days of activity at the Seattle ARTCC (which isn’t in Seattle) when I discovered a single missing data point resulting in a triangle of uncontrolled airspace about 15 miles long, yet this didn’t really adversely affect safety (even though aircraft regularly went through this space) because of how ATC works and relies on that bucket brigade of ATCS.
Note I said under ATCS control. While controllers are each assigned a region of control they actually have control of an aircraft until it’s handed off which is often in another controllers region. Flight strips are printed for every zone in the flight plan. Controllers, except at airports, don’t sit in front of radar screens like you see in the movies. Controller keep a map in their heads and use the flight strips for reference. Although some of this could be automated, it mostly relies on the skill and cooperation of the ATCS.
Also, I don’t know what’s stopping someone from designing a wide body supersonic aircraft. I mean if there are wide Waverider type designs for Mach 5 plus, why would something like that work at Mach 2?
This is an absolutely great idea. Typically an airport for large aircraft have runways in pairs, right and left. Also with cross runways (even with just one pair you have cross taxiways) that create other risks.
With this idea the banking could be gradual on a wider runway with no cross traffic and any 360 vector. Not only would separation be more easily maintained, but as landing traffic slowed it would just move inside to a round taxiway. Takeoff, using the same runway would have the same issues for separation as a straight runway. Except the starting roll would depend on weather direction.
I don’t think there’d be any issue with wingtip clearance or training pilots. It would be a very natural movement for them after just a little experience.
What’s amazing is nobody thought of it earlier. This would make airports much safer.
I see two problems with this
1) It doesnt scale. If you need to double your capacity or add redundancy, you need to build 2 airports rather than adding a parallel runway due to the omnidirectional approach pattern
2) The Popular Mechamics/Popular Science Curse (where new science/tech is highlighted in PS/PM and is never heard from again 🙂
Environmental, socioeconomic, and other impacts for airports (most notably noise) are all based on take-off/landing patterns that can take months or years of negotiation to work out. (See also: O’Hare expansion/realignment plans)
Those patterns have a direct impact on approach paths many, many more miles out from the airport as well. I don’t understand the assertion that a round runway would somehow accommodate a regularly fluctuating ingress/egress pattern based on prevailing wind shifts throughout the day, aside from the overflight concerns.
A heavy has a turn radius of about ten miles but only 180 turns would require that. A round design allows omni-directional takeoff and landing, but doesn’t require it so whatever traffic pattern the local community obligates could still be accommodated.
Stan, what do you mean it doesn’t scale? Just add outer rings or just make the single ring longer/wider. Your 2nd point, well, gotta agree.