Would the circular runway concept actually work or is it a pipe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tp0jaKaz7c

Sloped things are more complicated than level things, which begs the following questions:

1. Would it be harder to land on in an emergency?
2. Would it require more maintenance than a normal runway?

Seems like it would require significantly more precise timing to have multiple planse land on the same circular runway instead of several straight ones.
I don't really get why this would be a good idea in the first place, sounds like a stupid meme like solar roadways or hyperloop.

File: shuttle.jpg (860KB, 2554x1748px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 2554x1748px

Rip the wheels.
pains arne't used to that much horiztonal load on the wheels.
it would requre the complete redesign the aerocraft.

>>8765735
Hyperloop is a good idea though

>put big magnets on runway
>use magnets to accelerate/decelerate plane
>???

>>8765754
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

>>8765710
There's nothing preventing it physically but pilots would not want to land on it because they'd have to aim their plane to touch down at a point (the point at which the plane would be moving in line with the circuit and then they can start turning) rather than just aligning the plane to a strip and putting it down.

Pretty terrible idea all around. Also what happens if your airport grows? Hell even if it becomes moderately more trafficked you'd have to make an unfeasible, possibly impossible construction project to add to underground parking and expanding the tunnels to accommodate more traffic

It reduces the margin of error and increases the likelihood of accidents. You have to constantly adjust the rudder to take into account both the changing direction of the runway and the wind. There is probably a bunch of other unforeseen risks too.

If something goes wrong while you are in the air you want everything else to be going right and stay that way, a circular runway adds another complication.

>>8765735
I wouldn't say it is in the same league as solar roadways or hyperloop. It is not a big deal for light maneuverable aircraft built to be reliable and only flown in good weather like trainers, just not for aircraft pushed to engineering limits for economic or performance reasons like jumbo jets.

Air ports are massive wastes of land space now

Anything to reduce their footprint is a good thing.

>>8765798
>Air ports are massive wastes of land space now
Not an issue in most areas.

>Anything to reduce their footprint is a good thing.
It causes more issues than it solves.

>>8765805
Why not put half the runway underground? plane lands and slows down in a tunnel. Land above tunnel is free.

>>8765805
.>Not an issue in most areas.

It's a big issue in every area...
Massive chunks of cities are cut out for air ports
Even outside the city, thats a huge chunk of land that could be farming or other stuff

Whats the issue with landing on a banked circle runway?

File: circular.png (11KB, 681x378px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 681x378px

>>8765817
>Whats the issue with landing on a banked circle runway?
>>8765779
>>8765797

It doesn't even save that much space. In a circular runway, the whole inner area is unusable for anything else. With regular linear straight runways, no cut-off area like that exists.

>>8765811
You know, strangely, that might be the most clever idea I've ever heard.

Imagine you design a tremendously over fucking huge wind tunnel for a plane. At take-off, you rush wind past the plane - thus it would remain stationary until it's thrust is sufficient that you can stop the wind and it would fly forward at the proper thrust.

Conversely, when it lands, you blow wind past it - slowing it down more quickly as the engines reverse (not full reverse you git, just slow down), and if you could generate enough air, causing it to remain roughly stationary as the engines wind down.

>>8765811
>>8765827
Failed landings involve immediately going full thrust in order to get in the air again.
>>8765817
It's really not a big deal. There are much bigger wastes of space like cemeteries

>>8765827
brb, patenting your idea
i'ma be rich

seriously though, why would you bother? aircraft carriers have better solutions. and you don't see them used anywhere else because there is no need.

>>8765825
You can put the airport hub in the middle though

File: airport.png (2MB, 2253x1890px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2253x1890px

>>8765842

File: Talladega.jpg (513KB, 932x620px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 932x620px

>>8765710
I think they should make one and find out. I mean why the fuck not, if they've gone to that much trouble with the math and simulators. They don't even need to make a giant international airport. Just one for smaller craft will work for proof of concept and lay to rest any doubt that it will or won't work.

>>8765725
1: once trained it shouldn't be a problem
2: shouldn't be a problem either

>>8765735
If there is a strong crosswind, all the planes will need to land in the same area to compensate. Thus, lowering the total efficiency of landings, but making all the landings safer.

>>8765742
It is the same as a flat landing. So long as the plane isn't so large that the curvature on the flat section meeting the tilted section doesn't cause a problem. Like a massive jet lands, then tries to taxi off onto the center section and it's tail or wing tips touch the ground at the transition point. Though, that'd take a seriously large plane I'm sure. lol Another concern is the landing gear and center of gravity for he plane on the angle if the plane slows down too much while still on the angled section. It may tip over to one wing on the down side.

Well, they are not landing on Talladega at least. The larger size of the runway circle would make up for much of the problems people are addressing.

>>8765825
Seems like the center is used for literally everything else that isn't the runway. Taxiing, tower, support, etc. You can see that in the OP vid and image.

>>8765827
>>8765811
Sometimes you need to take off immediately when trying to land. Sometimes you don't quite land and have to pull up again. Both situations would cause a crash.

File: koeln-bonn.jpg (243KB, 1104x612px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1104x612px

>>8765842

File: a.jpg (2MB, 2000x1672px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1672px

>>8765825

File: fm.png (2MB, 2253x1890px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2253x1890px

>>8765846

>>8765710
Looks like it could be used for landing, but I'd hate to try and take off on one.

I'm not sure I see significant advantages over the current system, though.

>>8765894
Did you measure both the circumference and area to make sure that you have equivalent runway length plus space for the buildings? Doesn't look like it.

>>8765798
>Anything to reduce their footprint is a good thing.

Unless it has other, negative consequences that outweigh the modest reduction in land use. Several such potential negative consequences have been mentioned.

>>8765710
Physically its very possible but the scale of the circle has to be quite large. And it would require less power to slow it down and more power to speed it up when doing take offs and landings. The most efficient bend would look something like a spiral shell-like shape.

>>8765710
This seem to have been designed by somebody who does not believe in wind. Or understand that an embankment hill is going to create turbulence.

>>8765902
The point is that you don't need equivalent runway length

And in a different layout, those buildings could be packed in better

Automated cars which will happen soon will reinvent the need for parking/dropping off too

>>8765710
Blasphemy. God designed the world as a flat surface, we are not smarter than God, do not make round airports.

>>8765916
>he point is that you don't need equivalent runway length.

You do if you are going to handle equivalent traffic. You might need more, I suspect takeoff is going to use more runway getting up to speed while turning.

>>8765914
Yeah I thought that too.
>don't have to worry about crosswinds
It's like they think that this big open circle has wind tunnel strength airflows that perfectly follow the curvature of the runway

>>8765921
no
Look at any airport
The amount of runway actually in use at any time is a tiny fraction of availible runway

Circular means approaches from multiple directions can be made at once, using the same runway

>>8765928
Unless, you know, wind.

There is also a fairly obvious issue with safety with multiple planes landing along a runway where one will run into another if there is a problem.

File: xxx.jpg (2MB, 2400x1617px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1617px

>>8765902
pretty much
>>8765870
this has the same amount of passengers and it fits, just better optimize billion parking places

>>8765894
Now, if you look at how much of that space is used by the runway you'll realize that that is not the limiting factor of the airport size. So using a circular runway wouldn't solve much. In fact, the circle you drew almost encloses the two runways in the middle.

>>8765710
>Runway needs repairs
>"Sorry, airport is closed today, lol"

>>8765938
Planes aren't doing laps around it like NASCAR
Plus most problems will result in the plane running off the circle

If there is heavy winds then planes can come land facing into the wind or downwind
The problem is always the cross wind

>>8765928
>The amount of runway actually in use at any time is a tiny fraction of availible runway
Why do you think that is....? It's for safety reasons. All the runways are actually in constant use, but a plane must be completely taken off before the next plane can approach the runway.
>>8765949
This

And:
>only way into the airport is via a ridiculous extensive underground tunnel system.
>lateral sliding friction
>altered center of gravity

Bad idea for many reasons.

>>8765954
>Planes aren't doing laps around it like NASCAR

Planes have to be using overlapping sections of runway, or you are not saving any runway length.

>>8765710
We've learned to fly, so yeah, we can learn to fly in a curve as well.

You might want to reformulate that mate?

>>8765965
You can still use the circle even if there is a problem burning plane on one part of it
Because you can choose which angle you approach from.

Saving space isn't a major issue.

>>8765735
/Thread

>>8766005
Saving space is always an issue
Land isn't free, building & guarding & maintaining twice the amount of pavement isn't free

People are too scared in regards to plane safety, it is massively holding us back. A plane gets within a mile of another plane and they start shitting their pants, its absurd.

>>8766063
>dude just have people die so we can save 33% space on runways
retard

>>8766071
How would car traffic work if it was run under the ridiculous standards of aviation

"DUDE YOU ARE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF ME, BACK OFF, JESUS CHRIST WE'RE GONNA CRASH"

Harrison Ford came within like 200 feet of some other plane sitting still, while landing, and apparently thats national news.

>>8765827
>thus it would remain stationary until it's thrust is sufficient that you can stop the wind and it would fly forward at the proper thrust.
No, it wouldn't. It would stall and fall to the ground. Have you ever heard about inertia?

>>8765710
SOLAR
FREAKING
ROADWAYS

>>8765894
Why are you implying space is at a premium anyway?
Airports are built in the sticks anyway.

File: article-2253506-16A8626F000005DC-176_634x427.jpg (101KB, 634x427px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 634x427px

>not launching your planes out of a tunnel in the side of a cliff

This has to be the dumbest idea I've seen in march.

>>8766003
You land at the aspect most suited to current wind and traffic condition, not wherever you fucking like.

>>8766155
Robert Heinlein would be so proud.

>>8766073
You do realize there are good reasons for those safety standards? Ever heard of wake turbulence?
Cars don't affect the road they drive on the way planes affect the air they fly through. And when flying you can't just make an emergency break. Plus accidents are more often deadly.

(Re-post since I didn't know the correct term for wake turbulence.)

File: airport.png (16KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x500px

The runways don't have to be sloped, brainlets.

>>8766673
>>>/pol/

>>8766673
That's a big airport...

>>8765743
Get the fuck off my board Elon REEEEEEEEE

>>8765710
>Enormous Runway
>Can only handle a single takeoff or landing at once.
This is completely pointless.

continuously changing crosswind...

as for the 'examples' did you account for the maximum curvature and bank that the worst case plane would need?
Consider both and your circle might just wind up being significantly larger that current airport designs.

that should probably read minimum curvature.
Not to sure about banking but isn't banking angle dependent on speed? Not all planes land at the same speed.

File: file.png (191KB, 952x696px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 952x696px

>>8766673
that would have to be enormous to work effectively given the distance it takes for a typical airliner to stop/takeoff

>>8765870
>>8765894

How the fuck are you going to get to the terminal if it's surrounded by runway?

>>8767757
Simple search for "airport runway overpass" would answer your question.

File: 737.jpg (197KB, 579x463px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 579x463px

While not impossible, it makes landing a plane much more of a chore and this means less safety (which is a no-go for the FAA). It'd also increase maintence costs, both for the airport (as the bank angle would have to be perfectly maintained) and the airline (in terms of tire replacement). Straight runways are the best practice because they simply don't have these problems and are easier to build and expand in the first place.

Also: if runway length was truly a problem then airlines could just outfit runways with aircraft carried styled catapults and arresting wires. Not only is it proven to reliably work, but there are also training programs for it. However, runway length is rarely a major problem especially as the industry has moved towards smaller and more efficient craft, as opposed to larger and faster craft. The next big step in aviation will be an airliner sized VTOL, not a hypersonic jet needing a massive runway.

File: 44.jpg (139KB, 1283x679px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1283x679px

Runways are not perfectly flat. Look at this picture and tell me how are you going to make circular runways perfectly smooth.

>>8765710
This is quite possibly the stupidest idea I have seen today