Circular Runways

[carusoam]

1) Landing zone would begin at the point directly into the wind..?

2) each take-off would require knowing the take-off run length to adjust your starting point so that you lift off is aligned into the wind.

3) think of all the savings...  brake linings/pads would hardly get used....  accept when LAHSO is being used... 

Best regards,

-a-

[PTK]

It'd give new meaning to the go around that's for sure!

I'd love to see what takeoff and landing speeds would need to be in order to make up for loss of the lift vector! 

And where are these merry-go-rounds going to be built? They'd want to convert existing busy airports I'd assume. Take JFK as an example, where and how is this going to happen? (Hint: it's not!) If crosswinds are really that big a deal wouldn't it be easier to build a couple crosswind runways instead? And since this character in the video cares about being green wouldn't that be much greener as well?

And if the idea is to eliminate crosswind landings how is running in circles going to do that? How is that any better than building a few crosswind runways?

I'm not even going to ask about simultaneous operations!

It's a very stupid idea. End of story.

Oh... I forgot...it's a study. It's thinking outside the box! 

Sometimes we have to accept the fact that things are done the way they're done for very good reasons.

(Mr. Hesselink if you'd care to do your homework you'd learn that this was studied by the US navy back on the 60's. It went nowhere.)

[Bennett]

I'd just think it would be fun for our GA aircraft, although I still like the old Landing Circles of WW l and II. Way back when I was flying a Cessna 150 whose engine was sputtering when I was near the old (huge) military parade grounds at Hunter Liggett. My Walter Mitty thought was that I would just land into the wind no matter what that direction would be - plenty of room anywhere in that huge expanse of pavement. But then I managed to play with the mixture and throttle and get enough power to limp back to a real runway. Every time I fly by that parade ground I think about landing circles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seth]

1 hour ago, Seth said:

Believe it or not, this is not the first Governemnt study or this technique:

During WWII the US Governemnt experimented with a similar runway idea for areas to build a runway where there was not a long enough strip available. 

I will see if I can find more information.

I've always been intrigued by this idea.

-Seth

It was an idea for areas during the pacific hopping campaign where there was not enough land for a runway but enough to put a circular track - it was not meant for heavy bombers but for close fighter and support single engine aircraft.

-Seth

[N201MKTurbo]

29 minutes ago, Bennett said:

I'd just think it would be fun for our GA aircraft, although I still like the old Landing Circles of WW l and II. Way back when I was flying a Cessna 150 whose engine was sputtering when I was near the old (huge) military parade grounds at Hunter Liggett. My Walter Mitty thought was that I would just land into the wind no matter what that direction would be - plenty of room anywhere in that huge expanse of pavement. But then I managed to play with the mixture and throttle and get enough power to limp back to a real runway. Every time I fly by that parade ground I think about landing circles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about circles but our desert is scattered with these from WWII. They are landing pads. 1 mile square asphalt. Land any way you want. This is the only one that is still in tact. KAVQ is built on one, El Tiro Glider port is built on another one. The Army turned one into a Helicopter airport with 4 short runways.

Edited March 19, 2017 by N201MKTurbo

[Seth]

9 minutes ago, Seth said:

It was an idea for areas during the pacific hopping campaign where there was not enough land for a runway but enough to put a circular track - it was not meant for heavy bombers but for close fighter and support single engine aircraft.

-Seth

I was wrong!  It wasn't WWII.  It as 1965 when the Navy tested this technique.

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, Seth said:

I was wrong!  It wasn't WWII.  It as 1965 when the Navy tested this technique.

 

 

Wow, they did it here!

This is what is left of the test track:

 

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Wow, they did it here!

This is what is left of the test track:

 

That's the old GM Proving Grounds. They used it from 1952 until 2009 when they moved their facility to Yuma. I don't think they ever used it for aircraft. 

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Skates97 said:

That's the old GM Proving Grounds. They used it from 1952 until 2009 when they moved their facility to Yuma. I don't think they ever used it for aircraft. 

The article says that's where the test was done, which is pretty interesting.   FWIW, that square of land in the pic with the circle in it is a section, i.e., a mile on each side.

 

[Skates97]

18 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The article says that's where the test was done, which is pretty interesting.   FWIW, that square of land in the pic with the circle in it is a section, i.e., a mile on each side.

 

Ah, just read the article that he posted, didn't realize they had actually tested it there.

[chrisk]

Amazing that money is spent on these sorts of things. And yes, I'd really enjoy trying to land at one.

[N201MKTurbo]

As a side note, about 15 years ago I was at a party and there was a guy who worked at he test track as a test driver. He had worked there for over 35 years. He said that for the last 20 years he refused to do high speed tests on the big circle. He said it was too dangerous. The problem was you would go out there get the car going 150 or so and you would settle in. He said you didn't have to do anything, just sit there and don't move anything. After a few hours you would fall asleep and die.

[Wildhorsesracing]

There was an article in the 90's about sloped runways similar to this where the planes land uphill and take off downhill.  The terminals were under the end of the runways.

Sloped Runways Article

[flyboy0681]

On 3/18/2017 at 10:34 AM, Cyril Gibb said:

This "study" was apparently funded by the EU Gov't at the Netherlands Aerospace Centre.  Truly a profoundly stupid idea.  What a waste of taxpayer money.

That could never happen here!

The world is littered with "stupid" ideas that in the end turned out to be successful (not that circular runways are one of them). One that come to mind was Fred Smith's idea of overnight package delivery. Another is what we now know as the PC . How about Richard Branson buying an airplane and going up against British Airways? How many laughed at Jeff Bezos idea of selling goods through a computer? And how many said to themselves in 2007, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone,  "who in their right mind is going to pay $700 for a phone?".

[1964-M20E]

I don't know I see some positive features

1. you have an infinite runway for your take off roll
2. the impossible run goes away you just keep following the runway no 180 degree turn back
3. left traffic makes the P factor work for you not against you

Of course parallel runways would be a fun challenge.

63Q cleared to land #2 inner circle right traffic watch for wake turbulence Boeing 787 on final to inner circle

43U cleared to take off outer circle left traffic look for landing traffic on inner circle.

SW1049 cleared for takeoff outer circle #2 behind the Mooney circle to 10,000 then Goofy 8 departure.