I always get a kick out of people getting a kick out of flying those GTA planes like there's something to it. A real detailed flight simulator can be free, easy to learn and a thousand times more fun than the GTA planes. I realize there's more to the game than that, but I have a 30-year-old nephew that spends a lot of time in that game flying them as if it's the ultimate fun in GTA.
Ok, reasons why this is a bad idea. 1. Uneven stresses put on airframes and landing gears. 2. The requirement for all flights to be 100% accurately calculated on their power and weight. Any error would mean taking off too late or too early potentially causing dangerous crosswinds on take off and landing. 3. Unpredictable cross winds and wakes inside of the bowl shape itself. 4. The video mentions that you can have multiple planes taking off and landing at once. A terrible idea as one accident could then potentially lead to a chain reaction. Add unpredictable crosswinds into that and you have a recipe for disaster. 5. This would take up *more* space, not less, as you cannot have any buildings (or trees) in a set distance around the circular design because essentially every direction is the flight path. 6. This is worse for noise pollution, as you can't route flight paths around towns and villages. Otherwise, it looks really cool. Maybe an easier way to improve efficiency would be to create some kind of launch and landing system, similar (but with less severe G-Forces) to an aircraft carrier which could reduce the length of runways required. But that would be very expensive (as would these bowls) and not worth the investment, the research or training to make it work.
Are you aware of how much pressure is being applied to a pressurized aircraft flying at high altitude ? Stress on landing gear isn't much of a problem. I would be much worried about one wing loosing it's abilities to hold the plane before the other one... Because you are spinning faster on the outside and slower in the outside
Its not the pressure but how the load is taken. You're basically subjecting an aircraft to the same sideways forces seen in heavy crosswinds - except it'll happen every flight. Not saying its dangerous as a one off, but its likely going to shorten the time between refits. And yes, you wouldn't want to screw up a landing and bounce, if you start to stall and roll inwards you're pretty much screwed.
But with a single emergency runway you can have really bad crosswind conditions. This is problematic, not only with no wheels, also in bad weather conditions. You often see airplanes fighting with aquaplaning. At high speeds you still have the aerodynamic control, but when it looses efficiency before the wheels gain grip all the plane can do is slide straight on until the speed is low enough for the tires to grip. No big deal on a straight runway, but good luck on a curved one.
The Lord I know, but while the basic idea of circular runway might have some advantages, it also has an incredible amount of dangers and problems. You also have to consider that new technologies don't just have to be possible. They need to make sense in the context they are used in and that includes efficiency and economy. I don't think the circular runway concept will ever "take off".
yup! Not just for approaching/departing but also for runway separation. Can't clear someone for takeoff when there's another plane on the rollout and coming around the circle
Nope, I think you're not realising how big this circle really is. It's over tripple the length of a regular runway and as you decrease in velocity the planes naturally move towards the centre and vice versa. On top of that it prevents crosswinds making it easier for pilots to land in bad conditions and therefore there will be less delays and traffic pile ups in the air.
Tristan Abyasa It would need to be changed but that's a minor problem. Technology is well advanced enough to allow us to alter a landing guidance system.
The Lord Don't you have to change the ils system on every aircraft too? Not to mention that when landing banked, one gear is taking all the load of the aircraft.
It looks quite interesting! I'd certainly like to know the downsides. Surely there'd have to be some reason that nobody else has wanted to do this before. You'd think they would have built one by now.
Euphoric Visigoth it's because landing planes is incredibly difficult on surfaces that require a change of direction. This is especially difficult in planes with large nose cones as the pilot can't see the whole runway beneath him much like driving a car, you can't see the road just before it goes beneath you but you make a good guess based on the front of your car
The runways would need significantly more area to function because driving in a cicular runway would forece the planes to dive slower to stay on the on it befeore reaching the required speed for take off. but they say the can handle more traffic on their runways than airports of simliar size. they will have a minimum area for the idea to work and it will only work for large airports.
The blind spot on nose cones has been addressed on the F35 using the Israeli built helmet which links to cameras on the outside of the plane giving the pilot a 360 degree view.
the problem is that airport would have to build an incomplete circle so people and cars can enter or they would have to make an underground passage and for most airport with more than one terminal it would require a complete redesign costing billions of pounds
Wouldn't this cause uneaven pressure on the tires and the landing gear? The gear on the inner side of the runway would be put to higher strain then the outside one,also it would now have to face lateral forces which would effect how the shock absorbers work (they are made to absorb vertical pressure,not lateral).
Rush B it'd wouldn't it be the opposite side, the gear on the side closest to the high side of the bank would experience the most strain. all the weight is trying to go out towards the high side.
Yes,at the moment of touchdown the outside gear would hit first but once the plane is leveled with the runaway gravity would try to force the plane to tip over towards the inner side of the runaway because its sloped thus putting strain onto the inner wheels. And one more thing that just came to my mind,imagine landing on that runaway on icy conditions,no way in hell would that end well.
That is true at slow speeds, but it neglects centripetal force at a given speed. I found this article that sort of explains it but is a little cryptic. Banking angle and speed would be very important. It's like Nascar, too much speed and you go into the wall. The ice is a good point too! www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/circular%20motion/banked_with_friction.htm
Seems like the aircraft would be more likely to skid off the runway during icy conditions with high lateral G's. Also I would think the bowl shape would likely create its own unpredictable high wind conditions.
It's all about how it's connected so if you only have one way to manage the traffic then you're limited in options. Also think about this, any airport that could benefit from this would be a popular one and the most popular ones are those in major cities. It would do them more harm than good to rebuild their whole infrastructure. There are many good ideas in the world but if it's not convenient enough then it is less likely to succeed. This is why the future promised in the past doesn't happen. Everything that has happened was convenient and widely beneficial.
No. Bad idea. With a circular runway you can land / takeoff anywhere on the runway (depending on the wind). In a hexagonal runway you can't land/takeoff where there is angles. Thus each side has in of the hexagonal has to be a full runway length, making the airport perimeter much larger
Random Guy That Comments on UA-cam videos one circular runway means that until the aircraft is removed, no departures, no landings. Shouldn't be a problem at minor airports but what about something like Dubai or Heathrow.....?
JA if a situation like yours occurred then likely the same procedure as they do now... they will close off that part of the runway just using the rest with flight delays until they remove the plane.
Zauchi But there's only one runway in the renders here. I was assuming that the planes would have to take a full round to acheive airborne speed and their heading (this is one of the purposes of circular runway as per the video).
pentuplemintgum666 There's also the incredible cost of completely demolishing the old airport and then building the new one. And the cost of training all pilots to land on both circular and straight runways.
I'm not even American. "Future moves forward, and those who cant adapt to the new challenges should be thrown aside like the waste of space they are." SO basically you're saying that your lazy, because you want AI to take over everyone's jobs so you can kick back and relax for the rest of your life, yes?
VT Not sure what you're talking about, the United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world. If it's such a great design, why hasn't any military or international airport used it?
VT US companies have done a great job implementing their products, why do you think the US has the largest economy in the world? You're accessing an American made website, using an American made operating system that is powered by hardware made by American companies. Political views aside, it is impossible to deny the military's massive influence throughout history in the research and production of new technology.
***** No. figure 8 better because two planes can land and take off nearly at the same time because there's two straight part. And round part is for planes that are taking off and trying to get to the runway.
How does this REDUCE crosswind problems? From what I can see it guarantees it, as at some stage during your landing you WILL be flying crosswind, and that crosswind will keep changing throughout the procedure.
But then you would need to constantly adjust to the crosswind during the most difficult phase of the landing: the flare. Flaring with a constantly changing crosswind is bad enough - but you now also have to make sure not to strike your wing into the tarmac.
Doak Nation ehm no, that would not be practical, efficient or cheap. For a start, if a wall were thick or strong enough to stand up to high winds, it would block radio transmissions...
Living near an airport (on the approach for 5L&R) it isn't much of a problem. I could see how some people would hate it, but unless you are outside talking on the phone or working a drive thru (it was even worse at my job since it was closer to the runway, and planes would constantly fly over) it isn't that bad. I guess because I have lived with the noise all my life and like planes it doesn't bug me, but to tell you the truth I can't hear the planes while indoors.
+Rob Fraser Instead planes coming from 2 directions they will come from X directions raping the ears of everybody surrounding the shitty airport and letting the house prices drop lower than the Bismarck sunk.
If you think landing is tough, try taking off. As you speed up to gain airspeed to gain lift, the increasing bank and inertial forces will push you back against the runway. You could keep going faster and faster and never get enough lift to overcome them. Good luck also calculating where you must enter the runway and how fast you must accelerate to reach the takeoff airspeed precisely when aimed into the wind.
John Kejr Omg, yes, well, they could keep going round until they get up to speed. Then, if the runway was really huge - airplane races, lol, crazed pilots jockying for lead position to take off...lol. Breaking News: Trump and United parter to convert all airports to new standard. Hawhawheheehee. [=D
Also, anyone that has flown a plane will know that when you land it's impossible to turn the plane (at least the small ones I've flown) without going straight for some distance, they need to get rid of the bank and make it large enough that the curve isn't too noticeable, but then it'd be impractically large. Good idea in some aspects, completely stupid in others.
You know it's not banked at greater than 90* right? In fact take off will be much easier because as soon as their speed is great enough (Not velocity as velocity is a vector and therefore constantly changes around a bend) they can use the incline of the runway to take off. This also will shorten flight times as they can optimise what point of the runway they take off from.
Terrible idea... INCREASES the chance of landing in a cross wind Uneven pressures on landing gear Plane manufactures will have to spend millions on changing aircraft to withstand such forces ILS systems won't work (or will have to be completely redesigned) Auto-landing systems won't work Planes can't land on the runway if they have a mechanical fault No markers for landing zones meaning pilots can over shoot the landing Wind will act in unusual ways Harder to land while banking ATC will be '360' times harder Extremely expensive I could go on.......
Why would it increase the chance of cross winds? You can just always fly against the wind, because it's a circle Uneven pressures are avoided thanks to centrifugal forces ILS systems are being tested by this thing Planes can still land the same way they can on normal runways, if they ever have mechanical issues They can invent new circular markers so you know when you are hitting the circle at the right angle "Wind will act in unusual ways" And how exactly do normal runways prevent this from happening? ATC will be easier, because you become more flexible in how the planes fly towards the runway Extremely expensive... same thing goes for normal runways
How can you "always fly against the wind" if your heading is continuously changing during both take off and landing? Can't you see the increasing difficulty of landing having to control both ailerons and rudder, too?
MrBainus You can't "always fly against the wind."..... The runway is circular, so unless the wind is also in a perfect swirl around the airport then there will ALWAYS be a crosswind. Uneven pressures would only be avoided at specific speeds, slower or faster than that speed will result in uneven pressures and forces. As I said, ILS systems are going to have to be completely redesigned running the major risk of failures. If a plane was to land with no nose wheel or any gear then the plane has higher change of rolling or just simply running over the outside of the runway. Those markers would defeat the point of being able to land at any part of the runway, therefore you may as well stick with 3 straight runways. Wind will have to rise and sink over the edges of the runway resulting in higher speeds at the outside edge. The wind will no longer act horizontally to the plane and will result in the outside wing being lifted more by the wind, increasing the rolling moment. ATC will be harder in almost every way. Including development costs and the increased precision needed with these runways, there is no way they will be the same price as normal runways.
Do you know how hard it would be to design and construct this runway from an arhitectural point of view?It would have to be perfectly round,the banking would have to be at the same angle at every part of the runway.That's very hard to acomplish with such huge constructions,also how much dirt would have to be dug or brought in to support the banking? A lot,and it wouldn't come cheap.Getting an eavenly thick layer of asphalt on a banked surface isnt' easy,concrete is even worse (again=more money).It would also take longer to make than a normal runway,guess what that means,more money.So no,no way in hell would this cost the same as a normal runway construction.
if the circle is large enough , the degree change will be minimal within the stopping distance , hence the crosswind component will remain small.The current infrastructure will probably last another 30 years , by which time ILS will be also replaced fully by GPS , ADS-B or something like it (once it tracks the plane the rest is computing power , software and data link to guide it down ) and the design of planes will change in 30 years inevitably .(of course if aviation is still alive by then and does not die like concord did ) . I can see smart surfaces where the runway itself will let the pilot know the available distance to land via its sensors and also a visual indication , which will relieve ATC , so in 30 years there will be circular runways
Just mention the word 'sustainability', 'solar', 'human centric design', and other feelgood buzzwords & they'll be chucking millions in grants at your agency. You can now buy a Mercedes e-class & write it off as a business expense. ;)
An even more amazing thing is this video is on the official BBC youtube channel. What has happened to the British people? First, Brexit and now this shit.
You take off, well try to, but your aircraft is meant to go straight, but your flying in a diagonal direction. You Cannot Generate the lift you need, your plane tips, crashes.
good point, I think when Hesselink explains "centrifugal force" in the video, I think he means that the force of gravity is replaced by "centrifugal force" like at a velodrome. One key thing to remember here, is that the runway wont have as much of a slope towards the center compared to a velodrome, it will only be slightly curved.
Reaching v1 must be the hardest part of this concept. The radius and the angle of the banking used for the runway doesn't piece up in my mind. Anyway, the future belongs the dreamers.
This is an interesting idea, but keep in mind it's obscenely dangerous. It makes emergency operations nearly impossible, no-visibility approaches completely impossible, and creates an almost 100% chance of wingtips and engines striking the ground. Just one of the problems is that even the smallest airplanes are several times wider than cars and would scrape the ground on runways with such a curved surface. Another big problem is that most different aircraft would likely require different types of curved runways to operate, something normal runways to not exhibit as a problem, and would cause further danger if an airplane had to land at an airport it was not originally intending to. That being said, it WOULD be fun in a videogame. But not in real life.
The only problem I see is if one plane crashes there will be no possibility for others to land at all Rest of them are easily dealt with by increasing the radius for some amount, say 4-4.5 km instead of 3.5 which is the radius they test it ATM, and/or thickier runway so there's a "leeway" for adjusting speed/direction after doing the landing or so
I agree that a larger runway would solve some problems, but 4-5 km is defenitely not enough. I estimate needing a radius of 6+ km to account for how aircraft have an incredibly high turning radius when at high speed on the ground. A banked runway would help with that a little, but the more the bank, the more wingstrikes, and the less safety. And yeah, any crash makes it unusable, that's one of the reasons real life airports in busy areas have usually at least 3 runways.
Increasing the radius/diameter means more land needed. Which negates one of the main points of this design... to optimise the use of space. It also means more paving needed, raising construction & maintenence costs. Most conventional runways at big airports are 3-4km long. In fact, straight runways can be placed to work around land constraints (rivers, gullys, settlements, swampy land, etc.). You don't have that freedom with a very large circular design. There's going to be way more costs involved for land acquisition, reclamation, demolition, leveling, etc.
Thx for the info, was wondering the original length of straight runways to begin with, if it's 3-4 Km, then 3.5 in radius might be enough, but having a CR would introduce much secondary problems such as = if one plane crashes or lands improperly that would stop ALL the trafic circulation and things like that So I guess you're right = it's just a "designer's" wet dream having no sense of reality or at least not consulting with real engineering representatives though
Bjorn Stronginthearm this isn't even interesting this is madness What about on rainy days on a slippery runway a huge plane has to land on a side before all it tires can sit That's just written accident all over it
It's safer 😂😂😂 That's the whole point, no more crosswinds on landing and a greater surface area to land on. If you've been on a plane multiple times I can guarantee you've experienced a wobbly landing. This will prevent that.
@@thelord5895 No. It will not. It will actually increase problems. Despite all the "scary" crosswind landing videos there are hardly ever any significant incidents due to crosswinds. The approach to the circle maybe be directly into the wind, but soon after landing you are in a crosswind situation. What about takeoffs? Will the takeoff roll start into the wind, or do you plan to hit straight into the wind as the airplane reaches V1?
Landing gear stress. Intense cross-wind. Difficult take off Any nosegear failure and the pilot will have to use differential brakes intensely. any nose gear that fails to deploy = doomed on landing, especially if you can't divert/ wind shift from any direction a plane happens to be taking off could flip the aircraft. Think about it, landing into the wind, the wing of the aircraft better not be over the edge of the rim or the wind bouncing up off the sloped outer edge will accelerate the force upward which will either bring that side of the aircraft up in the air (then turning the plane into the middle of the cricle) or totally flip the plane if strong enough, certainly causing the opposite wing/nacelle to strike the ground. Rudder failure? forget it, you're going over the top, physically impossible to get a 'straight' approach. Makes pilot stress 10x worse given all the potential factors and just plain difficult flying this involves. Amazing they got funding for this.
In all seriousness the circle seems HUGE so it might be very close to going straight, and it has ramp like curve on the sides which may make it easier.
Viper J. Vansaint Objects are directed AWAY from the center due to centrfugal/inertial forces, not towards. This guy in the video says that it will make planes "go slower and towards the center of the runway".
Having common sense and having an engineering brain are not the same thing because I have both and my common sense tells me this would be massively beneficial, however my engineering brain tells me this guy has a lot more problems to solve than just what he stated in the video. The largest of which would be getting it adopted once all problems had been resolved, you can't change an entire system from A to B overnight and overlapping A and B would bring new problems.
I think that instead of having 1 circular runway, we can just make more straight runways so more planes can land and takeoff instead of just 3 at a time.
This'll put high yaw forces on passengers, apply excessive friction on wheels, cause unbalanced shifting on landing airplanes, ILS will be broken, it'll basically ensure you land in a crosswind, and will make airport access and coordination challenging. If two planes crash, or there's a delay here, the whole track will be bottlenecked for hours. Sounds good. Let's build it.
Since we in the insane ivory tower of academic insanity how about a Mobius Loop runway! You'll see! It will work! This guy has never been to Atlanta Airport in the states.
how to get in and out of the airport if there is a strip surrounding the entire airport? how will planes land on the strip if there are 3 planes using it
Mike Hunt how does a few ton piece of metal land and not break the ground below at the high speeds it has? sure you can make them circular but the safety Will be lower and I find it dangerous for the people below the ground do they should work that out too
TheSavageMan if you ever ride the metro, you have way more weight above you (in the form of buildings, clay etc.) versus a tunnel going a few meters under a runway
Mike Hunt well have you ever studied physics or worked in construction? do you understand that there are bases many meters deep for those construction around the tunnel along with this the simple understood concept that mass gets heavier the faster it goes so try to understand that too along with the surface area this weight has construction and designing is not something magical that you just put together and it works
TheSavageMan yeah I don't think a plane is heavier than a megaton skyscraper genius. Airports across the world have underground connections, if YOU do the basic calculations the speed of planes is clearly not a problem, since they already have WORKING airports?
As a commercial pilot and aerospace engineer I see many problems the big ones are landing, restrictions on buildings heights, size, landing aids like ils or vor, etc
Bracken Dong you could have answered this yourself. how do vehicles cross over or under a highway? which one of those answers makes most sense in this case.
magzire - The weight of an average passenger jet combined with the sudden increase of pressure on the asphalt might make the runway collapse into the tunnel along with the plane.
I have no helpful words to say on this concept because I haven't a clue about aviation or aeronautics. No brain, either. However, being on the internet automatically renders me accreditation for posting comments. Given the long standing tradition of crop circles in Europe, it seems like if it's a good idea for the aliens, it'd be very good for us. Naturally, crop fields would need to be planted, and I think the locals should vote on what kind they want. Cheers.
I like the idea of bank angle . Instead of a circle let there be straight lines which at the end become circles. So like a hub and spoke of a wheel. The circular part will enough bank to prevent aircraft shooting off the runway. This is great way to prevent runway overshoots
So where do you park the cars? It seems like they are expecting to have you park in one place, and then take a bus to the airport underground or something. No longer will you be able to drive up to the terminal, or taxis. It seems like at one point the runway will need to be a bridge with an actual road running underneath it for vehicles going to and from tge airport.
James Russell The runway will need a bridge? You know mankind has made simple tunnels before, right? Very easy solution to get your car to the airport to pick people up. Or just have shuttle busses or trains go underneath the runway and pick people up from station there. Keeps the area within the circle for airport vehicles and planes only. Not complicated at all.
Lennart Yeah, that was pretty muvh all mentiined in the OP. I personally don't believe all that will make circular runways worth it. Most likely it would result in more check-ins, and more of a hassle for passengers.
James Russell More check-ins as in: more people? Ofcourse, thats the whole idea. But why on earth would you have to check your luggage in more often? The process doesnt change, only the layout.
when i applied and tested to be an air traffic controller (nope, didn't make the final cut :/ ) one of the guys walking around there was a 30 year atc veteran with aaaaaall the wisdom and so forth and he mentioned this like it was something he heard of and was like "yeah sure, that is absolutely perfect! how hasn't it been done!" and he went on to say not one expert he talked to about it had any real objection to the idea but maybe "it's kinda weird and maybe confusing for pilots at first"
Traditional but innovative Airport Designers will just design an Airport with Three Runways, but at 1.5 km instead of 3km or even 3.5 km. Spreaded them 800 meters apart or even closer. Left, Center, Right ≈ Take-Off, Landing, Take-Off (for busy Departures hour) ≈ Landing, Take-Off, Landing (for busy Arrivals hour). Added with Two Angled Runways to handled places with Extreme Crosswinds. Making a total of 5 Runways.
Even if it is calculated by a computer, if there is one mistake it could send two jumbo jets at a 30% degree angle and could send airplane parts everywhere onto other planes, this is not the best idea IMO.
What's happening when 2 aircrafts are taking off simultaneously, and one have an emergency ? It's not like the second aircraft have tons of options, he's taking off too !!
Two major problems with circular runways that people seem to be overlooking 1. *Bank angle increases load-factor.* This means takeoff and landing speeds will have to be higher than they would be on a conventional runway. 2. *Different aircraft at different speeds will have different turn radii at identical angles of bank.* So if plane A wants to land at a certain speed and plane B wants to land at a different speed they will require different angles of bank to achieve a 3.5km turn. Obviously the runway can't change its angle of bank (or its radius) so I don't understand how it can accommodate both aircraft.
maxulic - The weight of an average passenger jet combined with the sudden increase of pressure on the asphalt might make the runway collapse into the tunnel along with the plane.
Good to see Henk and his team thinking outside the box. Obviously there are many things to consider and new issues will be created with new ideas. Maybe plane design and emergency procedures would have to change a bit. Maybe at the end of the day the cons of a circular run way may out weigh the pros. Either way, we won't know till we try. Often in testing one theory a new solution will appear that would not have been seen without the test of the first. If the crowd says "That's just not the way it's done cause no body does it that way.", chances are you could be heading in the right direction. However it is tough to rely on logic and systematic testing as you have to fail in front of people who laugh at your to tests. This laughter is the biggest barrier for most people trying anything. If you can ignore the laughter and focus on the creation, you are a very small percentage of the population. Keep inventing Henk.
The tunnels will go directly under the runway which will be experiencing an enourmous amount of force from the landing of a freaking plane... sure to collapse
With expensive ventilation systems to remove the exhaust of vehicles stuck in the tunnels during peak season, and fire protection systems in case of a fire. Heck, imagine a large intense fire in a wide tunnel below the runway...
One issue: would have to be a path or train underneath to get into the airport In the center and crossing underneath it could be extremely loud as there's a plane landing right above you
That the EU gave him funding hardly adds legitimacy. The EU fund some seriously crackpot stuff, just like this. There is no problem doing research, but when anyone sees this and thinks its a good idea, physics major or not, it is a sad reflection of how dumb people in general are getting today.
It may work but it has a couple major downsides 1) If a plane is needing to land due to problems with controls and has limited control over the plane the pilot may not be able to turn the plane into the circle and land going in circles. 2) How would the plane take off if its constantly turning, the plane would gain speed very slowly and use a lot of fuel.
the problem with this is expansion becomes more difficult when the runway inevitably becomes too small to handle all the aircraft. you'd have to build an additional runway around this one and possibly rip this one up.
its possible, just that the control tower has to play eurobeat instead of saying "you are cleared for takeoff" so the planes can kansei dorifto into the air much more easily
There's so many things that can go wrong here. 1 crosswinds, since you are constantly changing direction (because it's a bloody circle) it means that at some point on your take off or landing you can have tailwinds, crosswinds, nose winds... Basically it would be a nightmare to calculate the precise entry point on the runway in order to rotate when you have nose winds. 2 it takes quite a lot of space, not only the runway is gigantic but also around it you will need a "clean area" with no obstacles wich means requires even more space 3 how the hell does ILS work on this thing? 4 you can only have one aircraft at a time on the runway because if anything goes wrong you can't have an aircraft taking off or landing just behind you. That's a recipe for disaster. 5 landing with that bank angle will be another nightmare since aircraft were not built to land like that ( and again the wind will make it even worse) 6 the landing gear won't be able to handle the pressure caused by the centrifugal force 7 I just wanted to say that the terminal design on this project is terrible but you can easily change it :) Basically an expensive and utterly useless idea... I'm sorry but it's the harsh truth...
Flight school is gonna be hard as hell in Gta 10!
Hella hard.
Its always easy
I always get a kick out of people getting a kick out of flying those GTA planes like there's something to it. A real detailed flight simulator can be free, easy to learn and a thousand times more fun than the GTA planes. I realize there's more to the game than that, but I have a 30-year-old nephew that spends a lot of time in that game flying them as if it's the ultimate fun in GTA.
I can fly a passenger jet way better than a stunt plane
I think passenger safety comes first consideration.
Ok, reasons why this is a bad idea.
1. Uneven stresses put on airframes and landing gears.
2. The requirement for all flights to be 100% accurately calculated on their power and weight. Any error would mean taking off too late or too early potentially causing dangerous crosswinds on take off and landing.
3. Unpredictable cross winds and wakes inside of the bowl shape itself.
4. The video mentions that you can have multiple planes taking off and landing at once. A terrible idea as one accident could then potentially lead to a chain reaction. Add unpredictable crosswinds into that and you have a recipe for disaster.
5. This would take up *more* space, not less, as you cannot have any buildings (or trees) in a set distance around the circular design because essentially every direction is the flight path.
6. This is worse for noise pollution, as you can't route flight paths around towns and villages.
Otherwise, it looks really cool. Maybe an easier way to improve efficiency would be to create some kind of launch and landing system, similar (but with less severe G-Forces) to an aircraft carrier which could reduce the length of runways required. But that would be very expensive (as would these bowls) and not worth the investment, the research or training to make it work.
How'd people access the center of the airport?
Cool potato Tunnels. It was shown in the illustration 0:13
JPS Rose
one reason. just one.
stress on the landing gear. bearings etc.
they'd have to rebuild every plane in existence.
Are you aware of how much pressure is being applied to a pressurized aircraft flying at high altitude ?
Stress on landing gear isn't much of a problem.
I would be much worried about one wing loosing it's abilities to hold the plane before the other one... Because you are spinning faster on the outside and slower in the outside
Its not the pressure but how the load is taken. You're basically subjecting an aircraft to the same sideways forces seen in heavy crosswinds - except it'll happen every flight. Not saying its dangerous as a one off, but its likely going to shorten the time between refits.
And yes, you wouldn't want to screw up a landing and bounce, if you start to stall and roll inwards you're pretty much screwed.
Landings with no wheels couldn't be landed on these runways, they'd just go straight off as there's no grip on the belly of a plane, or steering.
IngeniousFirefly fair enough
These kind of airports will not replace current airports. Its more like an option for airports thats ned to be build in the future,
But with a single emergency runway you can have really bad crosswind conditions. This is problematic, not only with no wheels, also in bad weather conditions. You often see airplanes fighting with aquaplaning. At high speeds you still have the aerodynamic control, but when it looses efficiency before the wheels gain grip all the plane can do is slide straight on until the speed is low enough for the tires to grip. No big deal on a straight runway, but good luck on a curved one.
If it's an emergency landing it's safer to not use your wheels. Better to scratch the fuselage and live.
+Karuiko not sure about what kin of emergency landing you are talking, but in general it is much safer to have your wheels down.
It will never work. The Brits would be landing in one direction, while the rest of us would land in the other.
Papa Smurf 😂
Papa Smurf and Australians and kiwis and the Irish and South Africans and countless more. The uk isn’t the only place the drives on the left
Lol
India also drives on the left. That is 18.57% of the world's population.
@@tmatt00 u must be fun at parties
ATC: Stop departures and arrivals, there is an unknown vehicle on the runway. (Some random person Tokyo Drifts around the runway over and over)
Flyingboeing787 in a bugatti at 400km/h!
In a sr swapped 240
*dejavu theme intensifies*
When I saw the picture I just wondered how you could enter the airpor
Tunnels
Pat Rick I wondered the same thing
Pat Rick
under passage
A bridge 😏
Anthony C yep a bridge over a runway you should be given the Nobel prize
This man is every pilot's worst nightmare
.....and air traffic controllers, and the new neighborhoods that will be noisy.
this idea can go up my arse
The Lord But it won't help them. Landing on such a runway would be a lot harder thasn a crosswind landing.
The Lord I know, but while the basic idea of circular runway might have some advantages, it also has an incredible amount of dangers and problems. You also have to consider that new technologies don't just have to be possible. They need to make sense in the context they are used in and that includes efficiency and economy.
I don't think the circular runway concept will ever "take off".
I found a vid. of an actual airline pilot talking about it ua-cam.com/video/qvGagqUUpCQ/v-deo.html.
*plot twist*
Every pilot that did the simulator crashed
How's that a plot twist
Will be hard to switch from yoke to gear wheel upon landing. Your talking a split second switch.
I had to watch because I thought it was a joke
lol
lol
lol
lol
Brace yourself for spherical runways... where you just crash into planet earth... it's greener
Wouldn't this be an air traffic control nightmare?! Just wonderin
yup! Not just for approaching/departing but also for runway separation. Can't clear someone for takeoff when there's another plane on the rollout and coming around the circle
Nope, I think you're not realising how big this circle really is. It's over tripple the length of a regular runway and as you decrease in velocity the planes naturally move towards the centre and vice versa.
On top of that it prevents crosswinds making it easier for pilots to land in bad conditions and therefore there will be less delays and traffic pile ups in the air.
The Lord One thing though, how would ils work?
Tristan Abyasa It would need to be changed but that's a minor problem. Technology is well advanced enough to allow us to alter a landing guidance system.
The Lord Don't you have to change the ils system on every aircraft too? Not to mention that when landing banked, one gear is taking all the load of the aircraft.
When not in use, hello Grand Prix!
It looks quite interesting! I'd certainly like to know the downsides. Surely there'd have to be some reason that nobody else has wanted to do this before. You'd think they would have built one by now.
Euphoric Visigoth it's because landing planes is incredibly difficult on surfaces that require a change of direction. This is especially difficult in planes with large nose cones as the pilot can't see the whole runway beneath him much like driving a car, you can't see the road just before it goes beneath you but you make a good guess based on the front of your car
The runways would need significantly more area to function because driving in a cicular runway would forece the planes to dive slower to stay on the on it befeore reaching the required speed for take off.
but they say the can handle more traffic on their runways than airports of simliar size. they will have a minimum area for the idea to work and it will only work for large airports.
The blind spot on nose cones has been addressed on the F35 using the Israeli built helmet which links to cameras on the outside of the plane giving the pilot a 360 degree view.
the problem is that airport would have to build an incomplete circle so people and cars can enter or they would have to make an underground passage and for most airport with more than one terminal it would require a complete redesign costing billions of pounds
Any new concept takes a lot of getting used to but once the step is taken and shown to be feasible acceptance will come quickly.
think a loop d loop runway would be best. like a hot wheels track.
Graeme Elliott agreed
Great idea! You're a genius!
I give you 9/11 for that
What's next, you want the pilots to drift ok the runway to save time on landings and departures?
DÉJA VU
Really worried about crosswinds. Will it affect too much? What if during wet weather and strong winds.
Jose Baranda the rain will flow off the Runway. They can have drains in the middle
I would pay a significant premium to experience that.
I would expect a discount
This is what happens when you legalise drugs...
Drugs are Not allowed in the netherlands.... the punishment is JUST VERY low.
SkakaMJ0lk lol 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🙌🏻
Yeah innovation and evolution
Lol I know what's next warp drive 😜
Yes, he sounds like a user
Wouldn't this cause uneaven pressure on the tires and the landing gear? The gear on the inner side of the runway would be put to higher strain then the outside one,also it would now have to face lateral forces which would effect how the shock absorbers work (they are made to absorb vertical pressure,not lateral).
True but then again if there's one thing aicraft manufacturers don't like to do its adding more weight to their planes.
Rush B it'd wouldn't it be the opposite side, the gear on the side closest to the high side of the bank would experience the most strain. all the weight is trying to go out towards the high side.
IngeniousFirefly that's a retooling of every aircraft too expensive.
Yes,at the moment of touchdown the outside gear would hit first but once the plane is leveled with the runaway gravity would try to force the plane to tip over towards the inner side of the runaway because its sloped thus putting strain onto the inner wheels. And one more thing that just came to my mind,imagine landing on that runaway on icy conditions,no way in hell would that end well.
That is true at slow speeds, but it neglects centripetal force at a given speed. I found this article that sort of explains it but is a little cryptic.
Banking angle and speed would be very important. It's like Nascar, too much speed and you go into the wall.
The ice is a good point too!
www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/circular%20motion/banked_with_friction.htm
Seems like the aircraft would be more likely to skid off the runway during icy conditions with high lateral G's. Also I would think the bowl shape would likely create its own unpredictable high wind conditions.
What about a hexagonal runway. Then it's a cross between circular and straight.
SoL!S Music Official .. I secound that... its feels more logical thsn circular entanglement..
Hexagons, the shape of the future
I was kidding about this until I remembered graphene and its potential
It's all about how it's connected so if you only have one way to manage the traffic then you're limited in options.
Also think about this, any airport that could benefit from this would be a popular one and the most popular ones are those in major cities. It would do them more harm than good to rebuild their whole infrastructure.
There are many good ideas in the world but if it's not convenient enough then it is less likely to succeed. This is why the future promised in the past doesn't happen. Everything that has happened was convenient and widely beneficial.
much better idea, but you might as well have a x's and o's shaped airfield then.
No. Bad idea. With a circular runway you can land / takeoff anywhere on the runway (depending on the wind). In a hexagonal runway you can't land/takeoff where there is angles. Thus each side has in of the hexagonal has to be a full runway length, making the airport perimeter much larger
The idea fails when an aircraft has to do an emergency landing
Random Guy That Comments on UA-cam videos one circular runway means that until the aircraft is removed, no departures, no landings.
Shouldn't be a problem at minor airports but what about something like Dubai or Heathrow.....?
JA if a situation like yours occurred then likely the same procedure as they do now... they will close off that part of the runway just using the rest with flight delays until they remove the plane.
Zauchi But there's only one runway in the renders here. I was assuming that the planes would have to take a full round to acheive airborne speed and their heading (this is one of the purposes of circular runway as per the video).
Inventing circular runways is like putting square wheels on a car
snowgolem609 aviation and more! Weird but exotic
I calculate an uptick in plane crashes, but a million futureyness points.
pentuplemintgum666 There's also the incredible cost of completely demolishing the old airport and then building the new one. And the cost of training all pilots to land on both circular and straight runways.
You can't land a plane with just autopilot.
I'm not even American. "Future moves forward, and those who cant adapt to the new challenges should be thrown aside like the waste of space they are." SO basically you're saying that your lazy, because you want AI to take over everyone's jobs so you can kick back and relax for the rest of your life, yes?
VT Not sure what you're talking about, the United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world. If it's such a great design, why hasn't any military or international airport used it?
VT US companies have done a great job implementing their products, why do you think the US has the largest economy in the world? You're accessing an American made website, using an American made operating system that is powered by hardware made by American companies. Political views aside, it is impossible to deny the military's massive influence throughout history in the research and production of new technology.
Figure 8 runways are the best
Angel Gutierrez that makes way more sense
***** No. figure 8 better because two planes can land and take off nearly at the same time because there's two straight part. And round part is for planes that are taking off and trying to get to the runway.
😃
😃
Make it a mobius strip runaway !!! That is simple as f*ck!
How does this REDUCE crosswind problems? From what I can see it guarantees it, as at some stage during your landing you WILL be flying crosswind, and that crosswind will keep changing throughout the procedure.
But then you would need to constantly adjust to the crosswind during the most difficult phase of the landing: the flare. Flaring with a constantly changing crosswind is bad enough - but you now also have to make sure not to strike your wing into the tarmac.
Maybe they could build a big dome around the airport so there is no wind at all when the planes are landing.
Doak Nation Genius!
Doak Nation ehm no, that would not be practical, efficient or cheap.
For a start, if a wall were thick or strong enough to stand up to high winds, it would block radio transmissions...
CAG2 he was obviously joking.
Its a dumb idea, now instead of only one neighborhood getting aircraft noise all neighborhoods will?
Bill Gates Or we could just build runways in slightly more remote areas in between farms.
I really like how he was like: how awesome is this??? Now everybody can get the same level of noise! Cool, right?
Living near an airport (on the approach for 5L&R) it isn't much of a problem. I could see how some people would hate it, but unless you are outside talking on the phone or working a drive thru (it was even worse at my job since it was closer to the runway, and planes would constantly fly over) it isn't that bad. I guess because I have lived with the noise all my life and like planes it doesn't bug me, but to tell you the truth I can't hear the planes while indoors.
Bill, you will have to explain how you think all neighbourhoods will get engine noise.
+Rob Fraser
Instead planes coming from 2 directions they will come from X directions raping the ears of everybody surrounding the shitty airport and letting the house prices drop lower than the Bismarck sunk.
2:20 if you look closely you can see someone being beat up though that passing planes window.
m e m e s
Glenn Murray they're getting dragged off the plane.
took me 30 seconds to figure it out.
Glenn Murray it’s delta airlines!😂
r3conwoo it’s a joke because it’s delta airlines
If you think landing is tough, try taking off. As you speed up to gain airspeed to gain lift, the increasing bank and inertial forces will push you back against the runway. You could keep going faster and faster and never get enough lift to overcome them.
Good luck also calculating where you must enter the runway and how fast you must accelerate to reach the takeoff airspeed precisely when aimed into the wind.
John Kejr Omg, yes, well, they could keep going round until they get up to speed. Then, if the runway was really huge - airplane races, lol, crazed pilots jockying for lead position to take off...lol. Breaking News: Trump and United parter to convert all airports to new standard. Hawhawheheehee. [=D
good luck to ATC as well. Runway Separation? What's that??
Also, anyone that has flown a plane will know that when you land it's impossible to turn the plane (at least the small ones I've flown) without going straight for some distance, they need to get rid of the bank and make it large enough that the curve isn't too noticeable, but then it'd be impractically large. Good idea in some aspects, completely stupid in others.
Basically what areas of the circle does each plane use for landing and taking off. eg where will one plane takeoff and where will one land?
You know it's not banked at greater than 90* right? In fact take off will be much easier because as soon as their speed is great enough (Not velocity as velocity is a vector and therefore constantly changes around a bend) they can use the incline of the runway to take off. This also will shorten flight times as they can optimise what point of the runway they take off from.
won't emergency landings be much harder?
Emergency landings will certainly be more common.
This will make all landings nearly impossible. it's a stupid idea that provides very little benefit and increases the risk of crashes massively.
My thoughts exactly
@93hickey ... are you a aviation transportation expert?
Physicist who understands aeronautics.
Terrible idea...
INCREASES the chance of landing in a cross wind
Uneven pressures on landing gear
Plane manufactures will have to spend millions on changing aircraft to withstand such forces
ILS systems won't work (or will have to be completely redesigned)
Auto-landing systems won't work
Planes can't land on the runway if they have a mechanical fault
No markers for landing zones meaning pilots can over shoot the landing
Wind will act in unusual ways
Harder to land while banking
ATC will be '360' times harder
Extremely expensive
I could go on.......
Why would it increase the chance of cross winds? You can just always fly against the wind, because it's a circle
Uneven pressures are avoided thanks to centrifugal forces
ILS systems are being tested by this thing
Planes can still land the same way they can on normal runways, if they ever have mechanical issues
They can invent new circular markers so you know when you are hitting the circle at the right angle
"Wind will act in unusual ways" And how exactly do normal runways prevent this from happening?
ATC will be easier, because you become more flexible in how the planes fly towards the runway
Extremely expensive... same thing goes for normal runways
How can you "always fly against the wind" if your heading is continuously changing during both take off and landing?
Can't you see the increasing difficulty of landing having to control both ailerons and rudder, too?
MrBainus
You can't "always fly against the wind."..... The runway is circular, so unless the wind is also in a perfect swirl around the airport then there will ALWAYS be a crosswind.
Uneven pressures would only be avoided at specific speeds, slower or faster than that speed will result in uneven pressures and forces.
As I said, ILS systems are going to have to be completely redesigned running the major risk of failures.
If a plane was to land with no nose wheel or any gear then the plane has higher change of rolling or just simply running over the outside of the runway.
Those markers would defeat the point of being able to land at any part of the runway, therefore you may as well stick with 3 straight runways.
Wind will have to rise and sink over the edges of the runway resulting in higher speeds at the outside edge.
The wind will no longer act horizontally to the plane and will result in the outside wing being lifted more by the wind, increasing the rolling moment.
ATC will be harder in almost every way.
Including development costs and the increased precision needed with these runways, there is no way they will be the same price as normal runways.
Do you know how hard it would be to design and construct this runway from an arhitectural point of view?It would have to be perfectly round,the banking would have to be at the same angle at every part of the runway.That's very hard to acomplish with such huge constructions,also how much dirt would have to be dug or brought in to support the banking? A lot,and it wouldn't come cheap.Getting an eavenly thick layer of asphalt on a banked surface isnt' easy,concrete is even worse (again=more money).It would also take longer to make than a normal runway,guess what that means,more money.So no,no way in hell would this cost the same as a normal runway construction.
if the circle is large enough , the degree change will be minimal within the stopping distance , hence the crosswind component will remain small.The current infrastructure will probably last another 30 years , by which time ILS will be also replaced fully by GPS , ADS-B or something like it (once it tracks the plane the rest is computing power , software and data link to guide it down ) and the design of planes will change in 30 years inevitably .(of course if aviation is still alive by then and does not die like concord did ) . I can see smart surfaces where the runway itself will let the pilot know the available distance to land via its sensors and also a visual indication , which will relieve ATC , so in 30 years there will be circular runways
Tokyo Drift
not exactly
LMAO THE A380 in the beginning has only 4 wheels
Do Square shaped wheels ever take off?
R R They can but it wouldn't be very efficient at all.
just like this runway
The team is working on that too. And also the lead zeppelin.
The amazing thing is that someone is funding this. I have to quit my job and start fishing for funds from gullible politicians.
Just mention the word 'sustainability', 'solar', 'human centric design', and other feelgood buzzwords & they'll be chucking millions in grants at your agency. You can now buy a Mercedes e-class & write it off as a business expense. ;)
An even more amazing thing is this video is on the official BBC youtube channel. What has happened to the British people? First, Brexit and now this shit.
Taking off sideways is how you get a wing strike, followed by a crash.
care to explain in detail?
You take off, well try to, but your aircraft is meant to go straight, but your flying in a diagonal direction. You Cannot Generate the lift you need, your plane tips, crashes.
good point, I think when Hesselink explains "centrifugal force" in the video, I think he means that the force of gravity is replaced by "centrifugal force" like at a velodrome. One key thing to remember here, is that the runway wont have as much of a slope towards the center compared to a velodrome, it will only be slightly curved.
I love to see them try this in Cleveland in February with freezing rain and snow. This is lunacy.
Reaching v1 must be the hardest part of this concept. The radius and the angle of the banking used for the runway doesn't piece up in my mind. Anyway, the future belongs the dreamers.
I can barely land on a straight runway. Imagine landing on a circular one.
This is an interesting idea, but keep in mind it's obscenely dangerous. It makes emergency operations nearly impossible, no-visibility approaches completely impossible, and creates an almost 100% chance of wingtips and engines striking the ground. Just one of the problems is that even the smallest airplanes are several times wider than cars and would scrape the ground on runways with such a curved surface. Another big problem is that most different aircraft would likely require different types of curved runways to operate, something normal runways to not exhibit as a problem, and would cause further danger if an airplane had to land at an airport it was not originally intending to.
That being said, it WOULD be fun in a videogame. But not in real life.
The only problem I see is if one plane crashes there will be no possibility for others to land at all
Rest of them are easily dealt with by increasing the radius for some amount, say 4-4.5 km instead of 3.5 which is the radius they test it ATM, and/or thickier runway so there's a "leeway" for adjusting speed/direction after doing the landing or so
I agree that a larger runway would solve some problems, but 4-5 km is defenitely not enough. I estimate needing a radius of 6+ km to account for how aircraft have an incredibly high turning radius when at high speed on the ground. A banked runway would help with that a little, but the more the bank, the more wingstrikes, and the less safety.
And yeah, any crash makes it unusable, that's one of the reasons real life airports in busy areas have usually at least 3 runways.
Increasing the radius/diameter means more land needed. Which negates one of the main points of this design... to optimise the use of space. It also means more paving needed, raising construction & maintenence costs.
Most conventional runways at big airports are 3-4km long. In fact, straight runways can be placed to work around land constraints (rivers, gullys, settlements, swampy land, etc.). You don't have that freedom with a very large circular design. There's going to be way more costs involved for land acquisition, reclamation, demolition, leveling, etc.
Thx for the info, was wondering the original length of straight runways to begin with, if it's 3-4 Km, then 3.5 in radius might be enough, but having a CR would introduce much secondary problems such as = if one plane crashes or lands improperly that would stop ALL the trafic circulation and things like that
So I guess you're right = it's just a "designer's" wet dream having no sense of reality or at least not consulting with real engineering representatives though
Bjorn Stronginthearm this isn't even interesting this is madness
What about on rainy days on a slippery runway a huge plane has to land on a side before all it tires can sit
That's just written accident all over it
lLS will not work here I guess.
Well, there would have to be at least 12 independent systems, though!
not to mention foggy condition and roll-out
whats an ILS?
+Moai Tiki
If only there were some way of finding out!
lmgtfy.com/?q=ILS
+Moai Tiki
If only there were some way of finding out!
lmgtfy . com/?q=ILS
Where's thunderf00t when you need him?
send him this video.
If you need thunderf00t to debunk this you're too far gone
You know the idea is stupid when it gambles with passengers' lives.
Paw patrol
Thanks
Fhu
Gabriel Kwong the normal planes and run-ways already do that
It's safer 😂😂😂
That's the whole point, no more crosswinds on landing and a greater surface area to land on. If you've been on a plane multiple times I can guarantee you've experienced a wobbly landing. This will prevent that.
@@thelord5895 No. It will not. It will actually increase problems. Despite all the "scary" crosswind landing videos there are hardly ever any significant incidents due to crosswinds. The approach to the circle maybe be directly into the wind, but soon after landing you are in a crosswind situation.
What about takeoffs? Will the takeoff roll start into the wind, or do you plan to hit straight into the wind as the airplane reaches V1?
dude must've been high to think of this
Tike that's called ambition
It is a good idea. What problems do you think it has?
Landing gear stress.
Intense cross-wind.
Difficult take off
Any nosegear failure and the pilot will have to use differential brakes intensely.
any nose gear that fails to deploy = doomed on landing, especially if you can't divert/
wind shift from any direction a plane happens to be taking off could flip the aircraft.
Think about it, landing into the wind, the wing of the aircraft better not be over the edge of the rim or the wind bouncing up off the sloped outer edge will accelerate the force upward which will either bring that side of the aircraft up in the air (then turning the plane into the middle of the cricle) or totally flip the plane if strong enough, certainly causing the opposite wing/nacelle to strike the ground.
Rudder failure? forget it, you're going over the top, physically impossible to get a 'straight' approach.
Makes pilot stress 10x worse given all the potential factors and just plain difficult flying this involves.
Amazing they got funding for this.
Sam well you have to retrain every pilot in the world
That's the problem
What about start off? How would the plane get up in the air with this runway
No no no only land here! No start off! Start off is forbidden! xD
In all seriousness the circle seems HUGE so it might be very close to going straight, and it has ramp like curve on the sides which may make it easier.
the runway will need to be quite large for that
It is 3.5 km. That is pretty large
that will have to be the minium size for the plane to reaced the require speed for take off
He said centrifugal I'm done
that bothered me too lol. like isn't he supposed to be smart or something?
Karan Kakkar why?
Viper J. Vansaint Objects are directed AWAY from the center due to centrfugal/inertial forces, not towards. This guy in the video says that it will make planes "go slower and towards the center of the runway".
Jeffrey 64 you said centrifugal too I'm so done rn
Did you want me to say Centripetal?
That means they will completely have to reconfigure the ILS
Even with reconfiguration, landing with an ILS will most likely be impossible.
airport for cessna then.
360 separate ILS stations! Simple!
1:18 And the sides are BANKED
*Heavy Breathing
'Nascar Fans'
this sound like a lot of BS to me and i'm just a random guy with common sense
Sentinel HDD same
Sentinel HDD There are a lot of these stupid ideas going around. The left has gone flippin crazy. Liberal Art graduates.
Having common sense and having an engineering brain are not the same thing because I have both and my common sense tells me this would be massively beneficial, however my engineering brain tells me this guy has a lot more problems to solve than just what he stated in the video. The largest of which would be getting it adopted once all problems had been resolved, you can't change an entire system from A to B overnight and overlapping A and B would bring new problems.
Well it wont work in countries with winter.
Morten Holsmo every country has winter
DJgamer that's his point lol
Christian Efaw Haha I get it
Morten Holsmo well it's no problem with a roof, so the snow can't get in
MasterFerd Gamen with a roof, how do planes get in and out stupid?
I think that instead of having 1 circular runway, we can just make more straight runways so more planes can land and takeoff instead of just 3 at a time.
Circle has theoretical advantage of whichever way the Wind goes
Wow, this is something I've actually never thought of. Good way to start a regular Thursday, I guess.
Next Idea: Vertical Runways LOLLL
Use gravity for airplanes to take off which takes no fuel! Just the power of gravity =D
You still need to expend lots of energy taking the airplane to the high part of the 'vertical' (ramp) runway.
Sarcasm
I only realised the title is a pun
Adam McKittrick No, me and the guy above did.
Right so what if you take off, coming round the runway and collide with another plane that's landing?
Left engine fails right before V1... what you doin?
This'll put high yaw forces on passengers, apply excessive friction on wheels, cause unbalanced shifting on landing airplanes, ILS will be broken, it'll basically ensure you land in a crosswind, and will make airport access and coordination challenging. If two planes crash, or there's a delay here, the whole track will be bottlenecked for hours. Sounds good. Let's build it.
If the runway is bent it will be a problem. The wings are hanging and scratch the road with the slightest sidewind
Since we in the insane ivory tower of academic insanity how about a Mobius Loop runway! You'll see! It will work! This guy has never been to Atlanta Airport in the states.
BobEckert56 no, it won't work, and will never be made...
Mackenzie Clarke Bruh. No shit. He was making fun of the dude.
how to get in and out of the airport if there is a strip surrounding the entire airport? how will planes land on the strip if there are 3 planes using it
Great idea but one problem, how do passengers enter a circular airport
how do trains go through built up areas?
Mike Hunt how does a few ton piece of metal land and not break the ground below at the high speeds it has? sure you can make them circular but the safety Will be lower and I find it dangerous for the people below the ground do they should work that out too
TheSavageMan if you ever ride the metro, you have way more weight above you (in the form of buildings, clay etc.) versus a tunnel going a few meters under a runway
Mike Hunt well have you ever studied physics or worked in construction? do you understand that there are bases many meters deep for those construction around the tunnel along with this the simple understood concept that mass gets heavier the faster it goes so try to understand that too along with the surface area this weight has construction and designing is not something magical that you just put together and it works
TheSavageMan yeah I don't think a plane is heavier than a megaton skyscraper genius. Airports across the world have underground connections, if YOU do the basic calculations the speed of planes is clearly not a problem, since they already have WORKING airports?
Everytime I see a swissair plane I get a grounding flashback...and start to cry.
Thanks BBC.
As a commercial pilot and aerospace engineer I see many problems the big ones are landing, restrictions on buildings heights, size, landing aids like ils or vor, etc
First of all, how can people get INTO the airport if it's surrounded with runways.
Catapults. The idea is already crazy, so why not go all the way?
Bracken Dong tunnels, easy.
Bracken Dong you could have answered this yourself. how do vehicles cross over or under a highway? which one of those answers makes most sense in this case.
Derp. By plane of course.
magzire - The weight of an average passenger jet combined with the sudden increase of pressure on the asphalt might make the runway collapse into the tunnel along with the plane.
I have no helpful words to say on this concept because I haven't a clue about aviation or aeronautics. No brain, either. However, being on the internet automatically renders me accreditation for posting comments.
Given the long standing tradition of crop circles in Europe, it seems like if it's a good idea for the aliens, it'd be very good for us.
Naturally, crop fields would need to be planted, and I think the locals should vote on what kind they want.
Cheers.
10/10 would tail strike again. Would slide off in icy conduction again.
it was my idea too. I thought for it in 2012. its good beneficial, and solutions of many hurdles which come in the time of take of and landing.
I like the idea of bank angle . Instead of a circle let there be straight lines which at the end become circles. So like a hub and spoke of a wheel. The circular part will enough bank to prevent aircraft shooting off the runway. This is great way to prevent runway overshoots
love to see the person with the idea founder do it first
But how do you get to the airport then? Do we now have to take a subway to get to it? Will this result in more security/luggage checks?
I think the entrance would be underground
So where do you park the cars? It seems like they are expecting to have you park in one place, and then take a bus to the airport underground or something. No longer will you be able to drive up to the terminal, or taxis.
It seems like at one point the runway will need to be a bridge with an actual road running underneath it for vehicles going to and from tge airport.
James Russell The runway will need a bridge? You know mankind has made simple tunnels before, right? Very easy solution to get your car to the airport to pick people up. Or just have shuttle busses or trains go underneath the runway and pick people up from station there. Keeps the area within the circle for airport vehicles and planes only. Not complicated at all.
Lennart Yeah, that was pretty muvh all mentiined in the OP. I personally don't believe all that will make circular runways worth it. Most likely it would result in more check-ins, and more of a hassle for passengers.
James Russell More check-ins as in: more people? Ofcourse, thats the whole idea.
But why on earth would you have to check your luggage in more often? The process doesnt change, only the layout.
Am I the only person who noticed the pun in the title?
Probably
Michael The Awesome! Was looking for this comment
I did
when i applied and tested to be an air traffic controller (nope, didn't make the final cut :/ ) one of the guys walking around there was a 30 year atc veteran with aaaaaall the wisdom and so forth and he mentioned this like it was something he heard of and was like "yeah sure, that is absolutely perfect! how hasn't it been done!" and he went on to say not one expert he talked to about it had any real objection to the idea but maybe "it's kinda weird and maybe confusing for pilots at first"
Traditional but innovative Airport Designers will just design an Airport with Three Runways, but at 1.5 km instead of 3km or even 3.5 km. Spreaded them 800 meters apart or even closer.
Left, Center, Right
≈ Take-Off, Landing, Take-Off (for busy Departures hour)
≈ Landing, Take-Off, Landing (for busy Arrivals hour).
Added with Two Angled Runways to handled places with Extreme Crosswinds. Making a total of 5 Runways.
Wtf was he doing at 0:25
he's high thats why.
Even if it is calculated by a computer, if there is one mistake it could send two jumbo jets at a 30% degree angle and could send airplane parts everywhere onto other planes, this is not the best idea IMO.
This gonna create tornados
What's happening when 2 aircrafts are taking off simultaneously, and one have an emergency ? It's not like the second aircraft have tons of options, he's taking off too !!
Two major problems with circular runways that people seem to be overlooking
1. *Bank angle increases load-factor.*
This means takeoff and landing speeds will have to be higher than they would be on a conventional runway.
2. *Different aircraft at different speeds will have different turn radii at identical angles of bank.*
So if plane A wants to land at a certain speed and plane B wants to land at a different speed they will require different angles of bank to achieve a 3.5km turn. Obviously the runway can't change its angle of bank (or its radius) so I don't understand how it can accommodate both aircraft.
Oh my god there are such uninformed people. This idea is just stupid and impossible, coming from a pilot. Just not viable.
It is not a good idea to be in a turn that close to the ground because if an airplane stalls, there is no room to recover
Heck, even the landing path is not straight, but a curve.
An aircraft wouldn't stall at such a shallow banking.
An aircraft can stall at any bank angle
Here will see Airplane NASCAR...
Another case of a designer that just says, "yeah that should work." Without actually thinking it through or consulting with a single pilot.
You are clear to land runway 36 from any direction. Make a tangent into runway.
Any idea on how people would enter the airport, since there is runway surrounding it?
I have heard that tunnels were a great idea...
maxulic - The weight of an average passenger jet combined with the sudden increase of pressure on the asphalt might make the runway collapse into the tunnel along with the plane.
"a bridge over a runway"
Dumb idea, why add unnecessary stress to the turning mechanisms, brakes and tires.
Looks interesting in theory. But practically is this possible?
if you want to kill people . YES
and what if a plane has a rudder emergency where it can't turn?
Good to see Henk and his team thinking outside the box. Obviously there are many things to consider and new issues will be created with new ideas. Maybe plane design and emergency procedures would have to change a bit. Maybe at the end of the day the cons of a circular run way may out weigh the pros. Either way, we won't know till we try. Often in testing one theory a new solution will appear that would not have been seen without the test of the first.
If the crowd says "That's just not the way it's done cause no body does it that way.", chances are you could be heading in the right direction. However it is tough to rely on logic and systematic testing as you have to fail in front of people who laugh at your to tests. This laughter is the biggest barrier for most people trying anything. If you can ignore the laughter and focus on the creation, you are a very small percentage of the population.
Keep inventing Henk.
How will peopl get to the airport if it is surrounded by the runway?
ThePoker215 I think if they can build a giant circle runway they could figure out how to make a tunnel system that goes to the middle of the airport.
ThePoker215 Costly tunnels
The tunnels will go directly under the runway which will be experiencing an enourmous amount of force from the landing of a freaking plane... sure to collapse
Agamemno Contingency not really
With expensive ventilation systems to remove the exhaust of vehicles stuck in the tunnels during peak season, and fire protection systems in case of a fire. Heck, imagine a large intense fire in a wide tunnel below the runway...
Added wear on tires ?
This idea of circular runways, defies the laws of physics and commonsense.
One issue: would have to be a path or train underneath to get into the airport In the center and crossing underneath it could be extremely loud as there's a plane landing right above you
So to solve the ATC issue you can still have approaches mapped out, and each segment of the circle could be colored to segment the circles.
Pun intended! 😂
Jay Kay Indeed
Jay Kay I'm surprised that the top comments aren't about this hahaha
Im sorry but i dont understand why everyones making fun of this its actually smart...
I know right! Everyone's talking like they are physics teachers, when this guy is getting government funding to test this out..
These people aren't physics teachers, they're pilots and air traffic controllers who it would make the most difference to.
That the EU gave him funding hardly adds legitimacy. The EU fund some seriously crackpot stuff, just like this.
There is no problem doing research, but when anyone sees this and thinks its a good idea, physics major or not, it is a sad reflection of how dumb people in general are getting today.
Naa...It's Stupid.
wolfauu how? Hows it stupid?
It may work but it has a couple major downsides
1) If a plane is needing to land due to problems with controls and has limited control over the plane the pilot may not be able to turn the plane into the circle and land going in circles.
2) How would the plane take off if its constantly turning, the plane would gain speed very slowly and use a lot of fuel.
the problem with this is expansion becomes more difficult when the runway inevitably becomes too small to handle all the aircraft. you'd have to build an additional runway around this one and possibly rip this one up.
instead of circle why not hexagonal or octagonal? that seem to make a lot more sense right?
That start simulation though
its possible, just that the control tower has to play eurobeat instead of saying "you are cleared for takeoff" so the planes can kansei dorifto into the air much more easily
There's so many things that can go wrong here.
1 crosswinds, since you are constantly changing direction (because it's a bloody circle) it means that at some point on your take off or landing you can have tailwinds, crosswinds, nose winds... Basically it would be a nightmare to calculate the precise entry point on the runway in order to rotate when you have nose winds.
2 it takes quite a lot of space, not only the runway is gigantic but also around it you will need a "clean area" with no obstacles wich means requires even more space
3 how the hell does ILS work on this thing?
4 you can only have one aircraft at a time on the runway because if anything goes wrong you can't have an aircraft taking off or landing just behind you. That's a recipe for disaster.
5 landing with that bank angle will be another nightmare since aircraft were not built to land like that ( and again the wind will make it even worse)
6 the landing gear won't be able to handle the pressure caused by the centrifugal force
7 I just wanted to say that the terminal design on this project is terrible but you can easily change it :)
Basically an expensive and utterly useless idea... I'm sorry but it's the harsh truth...
Are we all just gonna ignore the fact that the title was a huge pun?
Planes will start drifting lmfao