Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Things That Made You Happy Today

#16
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Talvieno wrote: Not to do with fog, more to do with the fact that all these things are directional and don't work well with a circle. I have no idea how you'd represent a curved glide slope that can take point at any position on the circle, for instance.
Divide it into lanes again or have [many] individual beacons that get turned on/off depending on allocation

"turn into lane 5"

Not fundamentally different from straight runways.
No, I'm saying you'd have to redesign flight equipment (onboard instruments) to match banked glide slopes, as an example.



Conceded on other points. I still think it's a terrible idea.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Things That Made You Happy Today

#18
Dinosawer wrote:The fact that the runway is a circle doesn't mean you have to approach it in a circle...
Exactly. You can approach it in a direct line and start to bank slightly as you get closer to the ring.

And as Cornflakes stated before, the Idea is to separate the round runway into about 5 sections. So, 5 planes can start simultanously.

For landing approaches, you don't even have to land a plane manually today. Some pilots prefer to do it, yes. But today the autopilot is so smart, it could take off, fly to the target and land again. But you have to have the humans on board to do all the checks and to take control in dangerous or really difficult situations.

Also, you could equip planes with a holo display. It would be costly, yes. But you could benefit a lot from this. You could project the runway onto the display, and the pilot could land the plane based on this information even when the main window is covered in opaque foil.

Of course, this is only a concept idea. But it's a good idea. You have to flesh it out more, let the experts do some brain work on it, but in the end, it could really work out. And people that live near airports could hugely benefit from this.

I mean, how did JFK famously put it?
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept (...)"

We did before as impossible stated things in the past, we are doing them right now (fusion power, quantum mechanics research with (previously as impossible stated) instant communication).
I think the idea of a circular runway is just really abstract, and non-aviation experts can't really explain how it should work. I don't consider myself an aviation expert, but I think it will work.


Edit: PS. @Topic: This conversation.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#19
instant communication through quantum channels is still impossible, you still need a classical channel to make sense of the data that gets transferred over the quantum channel.
Its noise, correlated noise, but still noise.

also: why bother with overcoming the challenge of building circular runways? Do they give enough advantages to justify the effort?
Getting to the moon was something explicit you can work towards "get a man there", but what would be the grande objective with the circular runways?
Except shit and giggles
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#20
Cornflakes_91 wrote:instant communication through quantum channels is still impossible, you still need a classical channel to make sense of the data that gets transferred over the quantum channel.
Its noise, correlated noise, but still noise.

also: why bother with overcoming the challenge of building circular runways? Do they give enough advantages to justify the effort?
Getting to the moon was something explicit you can work towards "get a man there", but what would be the grande objective with the circular runways?
Except shit and giggles
Grand objective? More efficient airports? Less noise for the citizens living near an airport? Dunno.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#21
More efficient is to be shown, the additional maintainance and organisational effort combined with the fact that you cant use many approaches to make use of the "only land into the wind" at all times could eat up any theoretical efficiency increase.

And the "less noise" is imo just a definition change instead of actual improvements.
It spreads the noise over larger areas compared to a classical runway airport, potentially making more area undesirable to live under compared to the closely defined corridor of classic airports.

Increase the load in one area and move people out of it, instead of pissing off everyone.
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#23
Scytale wrote:Presumably you wouldn't have to do crosswind landings anymore, so there's that
Yeah, that'd be great in cities like Wellington, but we don't have the land here for it. Hell we don't have the land for a full length runway. :V
They built it in the windiest part of the city, and on reclaimed land too.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
WebGL Spaceships and Trails
<Cuisinart8> apparently without the demon driving him around Silver has the intelligence of a botched lobotomy patient ~ Mar 04 2020
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#25
0111narwhalz wrote:
Scytale wrote:Presumably you wouldn't have to do crosswind landings anymore, so there's that
No, every landing is crosswind. And upwind. And downwind.
Haha~

At the point of nearest approach though you'd think they could choose the upwind side, then go through the other 'winds while rolling
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#27
JanB1 wrote:
Scytale wrote: At the point of nearest approach though you'd think they could choose the upwind side, then go through the other 'winds while rolling
That's...that's not how wind works. :lol:
Isn't it? For any given wind direction, you could always (ATC allowing) choose an upwind approach direction...

You'll be changing direction after you touch down, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as the approach and touchdown.
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#28
I assume fully-automated landing and takeoff would be required to use this kind of airport.

My concern would be with inclement weather, especially snow/ice conditions. Once slipping starts, you will go in a straight line until something stops you. At least a straight runway keeps you on a hard, flat surface for a little while, compared to falling off a circular runway almost immediately.

Have the designers addressed this question?
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#29
Scytale wrote: Isn't it? For any given wind direction, you could always (ATC allowing) choose an upwind approach direction...

You'll be changing direction after you touch down, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as the approach and touchdown.
Yeah, okay. You can fly towards the runway in upwind direction, sure. I thought you meant the crosswinds at landing. Silly me.
Yeah, and by that, you pointed out a huge advantage of the circular runway: no more landings with heavy winds to your side. At least not at approach.


Flatfingers wrote:I assume fully-automated landing and takeoff would be required to use this kind of airport.
Yeah, I too thin the circular runway will heavily rely on computer aided maneuvering/landing.
Flatfingers wrote: My concern would be with inclement weather, especially snow/ice conditions. Once slipping starts, you will go in a straight line until something stops you. At least a straight runway keeps you on a hard, flat surface for a little while, compared to falling off a circular runway almost immediately.

Have the designers addressed this question?
It's tilted. The water will collect at the incline of the circle. And I think, as all runways today already have, this runway too will have small canals that help to prevent the forming of puddles (on flat surfaces) and help the water to spread more evenly and get off the runway faster.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: The Endless Runway

#30
JanB1 wrote:
Scytale wrote: Isn't it? For any given wind direction, you could always (ATC allowing) choose an upwind approach direction...

You'll be changing direction after you touch down, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as the approach and touchdown.
Yeah, okay. You can fly towards the runway in upwind direction, sure. I thought you meant the crosswinds at landing. Silly me.
Yeah, and by that, you pointed out a huge advantage of the circular runway: no more landings with heavy winds to your side. At least not at approach.
Yes, that's what I meant~

Flatfingers wrote: My concern would be with inclement weather, especially snow/ice conditions. Once slipping starts, you will go in a straight line until something stops you. At least a straight runway keeps you on a hard, flat surface for a little while, compared to falling off a circular runway almost immediately.

Have the designers addressed this question?
It's tilted. The water will collect at the incline of the circle. And I think, as all runways today already have, this runway too will have small canals that help to prevent the forming of puddles (on flat surfaces) and help the water to spread more evenly and get off the runway faster.
It's still a problem though. Even with the camber there may be large components of the centripetal force required to keep the plane on the runway that friction may not be able to provide.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron