Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Scientist Proposes Circular Runways For Airport Efficiency (curbed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fast Company: While airport terminal architecture has a solid history of style and innovation, rarely is a proposal put forth to utterly redesign the runway. But that's precisely the aim of Henk Hesselink, a Dutch scientist working with the Netherlands Aerospace Center. Dubbed the "endless runway," Hesselink's brainchild is a 360-degree landing strip measuring more than two miles in diameter. Since airplanes would be able to approach and take off from any direction around the proposed circle, they wouldn't have to fight against crosswinds. And three planes would be able to take off or land at the same time. Hesselink's team uses flight simulators and computerized calculations to test the unconventional design, and have determined that round airports would be more efficient than existing layouts. With a central terminal, the airport would only use about a third of the land of the typical airport with the same airplane capacity. And there's an added benefit to those living near airports: Flight paths could be more distributed, and thereby making plane noise more tolerable. BBC produced a video detailing Hesselink's circular runway concept. The concept is fascinating but there are many questions the video does not answer. Phil Derner Jr. from NYC Aviation writes via Business Insider about some of those unanswered questions in his article titled "Why the circular runway concept wouldn't work." The fundamental issues discussed in his report include banked runway issues, curved runway issues, navigation issues, and airspace issues. What do you think of Hesselink's concept? Do you think it is preposterous or shows promise?
I was in a plane on a flight back from France a few months back and even there the cowboy pilot started accellerating before he'd even finished leaving the taxi way to straighten up onto the runway. Net effect? Plane tilting violently and almost tipping.
A circular runway only exacerbates the problem of cowboys like that who think they're in a race car that defies the laws of physics.
I daren't even imagine the carnage on an icy day.
It's not just about that. In a catastrophic situation, there are now centripedal forces at play complicating recovery from a blown tire or engine malfunction, which results in increased danger to passenger life. And speaking of tires, I'm sure the several thousand more landing gear tire changes will offset the time efficiency gained. Airports are not just about efficiency, their product is transportation and safety is a component thereof.
This is great and all during the day and in clear weather, but constantly changing approach vectors means you can't have any approach lights unless you have a ring of lights around the whole ring that extends at least an additional 1000 ft. So your "3km" footprint for the whole airport is now about 5km. Either that or all landings with less than 1 mile visibility would require autoland. You'd also need to have a system that dynamically turns the lights on/off as approach vectors change. You'd also have to completely redesign the airport charts and the approach vector would already have to be known 30-60 minutes out so that the crew can do a landing briefing which might negate the benefits of using a round runway as the winds could shift in that timeframe so you still have crosswind. You'd have to cross the runway for access to hangars, maintenance facilities, cargo warehouses, etc which most likely wouldn't fit inside the ring. Which means you are losing a quarter of your landing space pretty much constantly to allow aircraft to be towed across, cargo to be delivered to/from flights, etc.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Oh boys, where to begin.
The obvious one is to take off and land while turning, but this could be corrected with a few straight runway connected around the circle (Kinda like an "angled" sun shape). I'm actually surprised they didn't propose that instead. Of course, that also mean you'll need a lot more space.
Then there's the air traffic management, it's going to be a pain since all plane that either lift-off or land will use the "same" runway at the same time.
Furthermore, if you want a 3.5 km diameter circle, that mean that you'll need to put a lot of infrastructure "undergound". Highway, parking, car renting etc. That's a lot of digging and a lot of concrete.
Also, I have serious doubt it'll raise the traffic. a 747 need over 2 kilometer for landing and take-off. A 3.5 km diameter mean 11 km circumference. So if you're really efficient, you'll have to shut down like ¼ of the runway. In other word, you'll only be able to run 2 corridor of landing and 2 corridor for lift-off at all time at ~90 angle. And that mean you bring back the problem you have been trying to solve in the first place.
So yeah, a lot of new problems only to solve one that isn't that bad to begin with.
Elok
http://archives.chicagotribune...
On a serious note, you can approximate this by simply paving an entire square mile. I once heard that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was such an airport in WWII, allowing damaged aircraft to land without having to line up for a runway. I don't know if that's true or not (it was a naval air base according to Wikipedia, so it might be), but the idea may be valid.
If you have a location with high winds that approach from many directions, and you have a wide open area, then something along these lines would work. Of course, there aren't going to be many locations where you have those wind conditions and the space, so you could approximate it with several different runways aligned based on the predominant wind conditions. That would work great! And that's pretty much exactly what they do at all major airports.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2...
My local gliding club is a great big grass area. They have six winch points, but can shift the launch point to suit the wind. It also makes emergency landings safer as you have a huge area to aim for. The question isn't "will it work", it's "is paving the area worth it", and I very much doubt it. Take Dallas/Fort Worth for example - it has 7 runways. The total paved area of those runways is about 147 hectares (0.6 sq miles), assuming the average width is 60m.
To fit just a single 4,085m runway in a circle the paved area would have to be 1310 hectares (5.1 sq miles) - an increase of almost 800% on the current paved area. It would be even greater as the circle would need to be bigger to have parallel 4,085m runways. Granted, I'm not including taxiways, but even so I can't see it being economic.
When landing a large commercial airliner, the runway would curve before the nose wheel even touched down (which is where the steering is). The pilot would then need to bank the plan to make the curve. This could cause the wingtips to dig into the ground if banked too much. It might not be fatal, but I bet it would wreck a lot of planes. Which would be EXPENSIVE. Do you think the airlines would go for a concept that would be expensive? I bet they wouldn't.
WTF do PhDs have to do with science? Next thing you'll try and tell me sociologists (spit) with PhDs are scientists too.
Scientists do science (hypothesis, theory, test, publish repeat). Engineers apply science and business. Occasionally doing a little art in between the two sets of constraints. Much more challenging, scientists don't get it, only see the 'applied science' part and think they're experts.
The old school version of a circular runway is a triangle of 3 crossing runways. Somewhat common at military bases.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
From the comments at your link, I don't see any consensus that the idea doesn't work.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."