Circular runways: Engineer defends his proposal - BBC News


Training on crosswind landings.....makes a routine landing on a circular runway😂


I'm not really sure how an imaginative, researched, scientifically proposed idea, or invention of this scale can be so easily disproved or dismissed without an acute understanding of the process required to move forward. A government has decided to stand behind and fund researchers which seems to be a bold statement in itself. It's a small government albeit, but I'm willing to bet its members who have justified spending money on this project are not whimsical or dense individuals. It's not one man or woman, it's many people who tirelessly push to break barriers using technology to alter our collective thoughts and perspectives of what is actually possible. The nature of this matter requires years, if not decades to develop, just as the technology contained in the devices that we hold in hand, far exceed the capabilities of large computers of yesteryears. In truth these expensive highly capable mobile gadgets were once unfathomable to the masses, but not to those who have dedicated their careers, time, and lives to turning fiction into fact. It was and is the credible, competent, unrelenting scientist, engineers, and dreamers who spend the majority of their time dedicated to advancing into the future who make magic happen. I highly doubt we have reached a ceiling, or plateaued when referring to science and aerospace technology development.


Well, good for all those working on it. Short of aircraft carrier cables or giant magnets, this idea entirely sucks. Just look through the posts above, as they explain it far better than I.


I wonder what will happen in touch and gos or rejected takeoff


This sounds like an early April's Fool Joke


cool, a racing track for planes xD


It sounds weird, but maybe it will be ok:-/


14 days to go.......


they should focus more on hover jet technology - not huge airports - to land at smaller spread out airports


Yup, 14 days early......



I generally tend to agree but many times the groups which dream these things up are very focused on making their concept work without looking deeper into the issues surrounding the idea.

The issue today is runway occupancy and capacity. You are not really going to 'gain' with a circular runway as the approach congestion and planning is going to be a nightmare. Don't forget that the majority of difficulties in getting major airports 'fed' with aircraft come from co-ordinating the approaching and departing aircraft. We have very strict departure profiles both vertically and horizontally to avoid TCAS, noise and turbulence incidents. Have the clever people though about how the ATC wizards will co-ordinate departing and arriving traffic where a slightly delayed take off rotation or a slightly delay landing flare will give 10,20 possibly 30 degree departure or arrival heading discrepancy?

No. They assume the aircraft just 'appear' on finals and aren't constrained by airspace, noise or geography.

This has happened many times before including an idea to 'blow' air over the carrier deck to prevent the aircraft carrier having to steam into wind for launch and recovery. The idea was to blow 50-60kts + over the deck for take off and recovery. The scheme got a lot of funding until the bunch of boffins arrived on an actual ship and were asked by the ground handling guys who would trap and secure the landing aircraft in a 50-60kt artificial wind plus another 20kt deck generated wind? The idea was taken no further.

It's a small part in a bigger machine and hasn't been though through back up into the upper atmosphere IMHO.


What an insult to aviation lovers. Do you know how dumb it will look with a enormous plane going around in rapid circles? It's like a dog chasing his tail. Both never work.


Unless they make a new magnetic thing on planes this will never work


I'm neither for or against this project. The emphasis surrounds the idea that there are highly qualified people with hard facts, research analysis in the 21st century, and an intimate view solely directed on an idea so complex that it seems preposterous. I'm not trying to say that any comment made reguarding this subject by any member is wrong or errant. I will say that there is a fair amount of a presumptuous chatter derived from a limited frame of reference.


Kind of seems like some paving company wants to make money to me...


Ok, after around 50 minutes of going through and skim/ reading some of the reports a few things are noticeable:

a) The final report is dated 2014 so we could potentially assume that this was just an idea that took up lots of money to research into... (Also not sure why the BBC is reporting on a 3 year old matter)
b) They specifically state that "optimised aircraft" will be utilised with the landing gear heights increased, thus rendering most current aircraft useless...
c) In regards to take-off, they state its is possible after simulating a 747-100 (they couldn't find necessary data for current gen aircraft) takeoff at MTOW in a program (Flightgear) However, during landing the max lateral speed increases momentarily over 1.2ms^2 (what they deemed dangerous) (I also found the wording very unprofessional here... they say "for a few moments" instead of quoting exactly how long it goes over that limit that they determined)

But in summary, if you do glance over the report, it is evident that overall it is quite biased towards the circular runway idea (no surprises), there is a lack of data clearly presented (indicative of them trying to hide something perhaps? and yes they do give data but it isn't clearly visible in summary) and they do take some simplifications here and there (They use Wikipedia for crying out loud... no professional does that, at least someone could have had the decency to quote what the wiki quotes...)

Now all of this does not mean that I condone the people behind the research, they just had an idea or were asked to further the idea, that's their job. But, just because you're a professional does not mean that you know everything, sometimes you miss out the most obvious


you i also noticed that the dates on the research were quite old and not brand new


If this happened this would be an accident waiting to happen...


I perfectly understand the idea that you feel that any idea that is so outside the normal bounds of perception should gain credence as the idea is something that hasn't been thought of before therefore should have credibility. However, my premise is that in the normal (and perhaps ab-normal) conduct of aviation the idea holds no acceptable grounds. It's not the landing/take off phase that is the issue, that can be trained, it's the uncertainty that is the deciding factor. That unknown cannot nor will not be trained thus remains an unknown. A variable that is, into the future and now, an unacceptable quantity.


I have no dog in this race. I have no formed opinion nor would I claim any part of this idea would or wouldn't work. I only know this very short article provides little to nothing for anyone to form a solid armchair analysis. I do not know if this could work. I do not know if this could not work.