Let's lol at retarded aviation concepts
>>1239940Every retarded concept mockup you see nowadays features fields and windmills in the background
>>1239969It's after the elites cull the global population down to 500 million.
They should make the disc spin so planes can take off vertically. You could have a dozen planes taking off at once.
>>1239969Hmmmm this actually made me think.
>>1239940>Hey you know that notoriously stressful and difficult job of controlling air traffic?>Yeah let's make it a hundred times more stressful and difficult lmao
>>1239940I'm not a pilot, but don't you have to take off into the wind? Also, in a straight line? Did whoever came up with that not have even a basic understanding of aircraft? I'm awestruck.
>>1240067More or less, you can do a slight curvature and you can compensate for crosswind by letting the wing pointing in the wind hang down a little and countering yaw with the rudder.Glider pilots are famous for doing that, since their airbrakes are often weak as fuck and flying with your nose pointing ~30° from your course kills speed rather fast.
cleared to land runway...360?
>>1240095That would be runway 00
>>1240067That was the whole point behind this concept. Some non-flyer watched a bunch of "CRAZY Crosswind Landings!!!!" videos on youtube and came up with the circle runway for the sole purpose of somehow elminating crosswind factor. Dude probably thought he would become a multibillionaire aviation demigod but instead the concept got ridiculed right out the gate and rightly became a joke.
>>1240034Is ATC job really stressful?
>>1239940As an actual pilot, this would never work.It takes no thought to figure out why that is.
>>1239969Dead on. Here's a concept image used to promote a second San Francisco Bay Bridge, notice how the unbranded TGV train, solar panels and windmills are badly photoshopped in to make it seem green. Self-driving cars get four lanes, while the train itself gets stuck on the bridge because it lacks overhead wires.
Kansas City International Airport airport code MCI. Direct international flights to Toronto, Mexico City, Punta Cana, and Reykjavik, Iceland. Built with a unique 3 terminal circular concept that was way too large for the city it serviced. Never became a regional hub like they envisioned. Great surface parking and incredibly convenient curbside dropoff. To pick someone up, you just circle.They are tearing it down because it is allegedly a security risk/too expensive because the airport lacks one main choke point where they can do security theater. They are replacing it with a $2 billion replacement that is inferior in every way except the amount of bathrooms.
>>1240264Except it's not. Those circular terminals are fucking trash on so many levels, including from a flow and service perspective. The new one will be better, and more appropriately sized, in every way.
>>1240125It has a high turnover and suicide rate for a reason
>>1240280t. Mayor Sly James
>>1239940can someone eggslpain why circle runway won't work?
>>1240312I guess taking off while cornering doesn't feel great
>>1240312you have to land against the windwind doesn't blow in a circle, it still blows in one direction, meaning you can only use 2 tiny bits of that runway which are against the wind
>>1240264>>1240280The circular terminals made sense when it was built, right before the era of security checkpoints. It was obsolete very quickly, and it sucks to use b/c essentially every 2 or so gates has its own security checkpoint. You get corralled into a little waiting area and if you want to leave to use the restroom or eat or whatever, you have to leave the secured areas and then go back through security to get to your gate again. The security lines get backed up when everyone shows up at once to go through them and will back out into the concourse because there are only 1 or 2 scanners per gate area. The gate seating can be crowded. If you connect there, you have to go through security unless you luck out and your connection is at the other gate in the same secured area.But before security theater it was great. You parked close to your gate and walked right in. It needed a replacement/overhaul badly for the current era.I will say this, the time I flew out/in of MCI it was clean and seemed well run despite the obvious drawbacks of its design. Another nice thing was if someone was meeting you to pick you up or see you off, they could stand in the concourse right next to the gate (there is a glass partition between them).
>>1240312Obstacle clearance is the big one. You couldn't possibly put something like this in a big city without having ODP's in certain directions that require something stupid like a 2000 ft/NM climb gradient after taking off in order to not slam into a building. I imagine taking off and landing on a banked runway would also be pretty stressful, considering that if you blow a tire or lose an engine, the subsequent loss of directional control could send you over the side a lot easier, and wing strikes would be pretty common; it would definitely require a shit ton of extra training. Instrument approaches would also be a complete wash. An ILS is expensive and there would be no way in hell an airport could maintain 36 of them at once, and if they only have an ILS in each direction the wind is most likely to come from, what's the point of the circular runway in the first place? I'd almost think ATC at a meme airfield would be less stressful, since no company in their right mind would ever send planes there.
EASA ATPL theoretical knowledge syllabus.If you are an European you know what I'm talking about
All of you smart asses who are saying a circular runway wouldn't work obviously didn't take Physics I at uni like I did because then you would know centrifugal force would make the plane go faster take off. How do you think a helicopter works, Einsteins? (circular motion)
Problem solved, retards.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRqihqtzgY
>>1240559> I at uni like I did because then you would know centrifugal force would make the plane go faster take off.Yes, but you don't want it. Planes are not designed to fly sideways. >off. How do you think a helicopter works, Einsteins? (circular motion)Pic related. Giant prop (or how it is called) generating lift, and small prop on tail is something similar to rudder on plane.
>>1240561>approaching runway>deploy harpoon>tower you have control
>>1240320>wind doesn't blow in a circleWrong.
>>1240561are Germans born naturally Autistic or do they have to learn it
>>1240561I don't understand how he does loop-de-loops without tangling the ropes.
>>1240764Actualy not all germans are like this, only about 5-10% are mildly autistic.However most germans in engineering and posting here are from these 5-10%.
>>1240003not enough airflow
>>1240841u got trolled
>>1240841the mains of each plane would be set in chocks so that they would move WITH the disc and simply take off at the proper speed. The way I see it working is the airport would set maybe 2 or 3 dozen jets up at once, and the disc would spin up with the jets fixed to it. At vr-15 or something each jet would go to full static thrust and simply lift off when the disc got them to the proper speed. Obviously SIDs would have to change to enable proper separation but with proper routing this could solve alot of problems associated with weather and delays.
>>1240841>>1240858ok ok okSo the runway moving makes no difference, but what if they put a massive fan in front of the flight deck on an aircraft carrier? Vertical takeoff for every craft.
>>1240436It's a high pressure video game that, in a busy airport, runs you at the edge of your skill all the time. And you can never lose.But some people have fun, like that one lady controller at San Diego who will send incoming aircraft a heading out into the Pacific to see if they're paying attention to atc.
>>1240860Mate, what if they'd put them fans in front of the aircrafts, but attached TO THE AIRCRAFTS?Instantaneous and completely vertical take off for everyone, irregardless of weather or space.Give me the Nobel Price already holy frick.
>>1240858Yeah, but now you have to wait for the disc to spin up, the planes take off, then de-spin, move three new planes on, chock them, spin it up again...Massive amounts of inertia, it's not going to spin up or down quickly at all. Just fuckin' terrible throughput.
>>1240986You mean like this?
>>1240992No you fool, the air from the fan needs to flow over the wings.See this simplified mock-up I attached, dumbass.
>>1240264sounds like berlin-tegel airport
>>1241030Retarded prediction. Rising fuel costs will bring back ether the ocean liner or zeppelins. Or possibly atomic aircraft.
>>1241060Atomic aircraft won't take off. Nuclear power is heavy.They will invent turboprop again. Slower but cheaper.
>>1240998So, like this?
>>1240559>How do you think a helicopter works, Einsteins?They don't. They are just so ugly that the earth repels them.
>>1239940Wasn't this part of the Futurama expo?
>>1240347Don't worry anon, all that grid nav, crp-5 twisting you are doing now will pay off. No Airline or small operator are using ipads anyway, so you are just preparing for the future!
>>1239940I don't get what's wrongt. brainlet
>>1240125ATC is being a glorified crossing guard and all your customers are A-types who think they're Top Gun. Usually it is orderly and calm, but then somebody comes in with an emergency or strange requests that gum everything up.Hey I know you've got to land another airplane on this runway every thirty seconds, but let me go ahead and make a big mess that makes you have to divert everyone for the next fifteen or more minutes
>>1241025What's this? A runway for ants?
>>1240858How many dinosaurs would you have to burn to produce that kind of energy
>>1241110Isn't it part of your job to be able to handle emergencies and abnormal flight schedules like that? If it wasn't then ATC would be completely automated by now. God forbid someone says the dreaded E word when they actually should.
>>1241110Shit. Aviation is full of glorified people.Glorified bus drivers, glorified crossing guards...But who are flight attendants?
>>1241122Isn't it obvious? Glorified waiters.
>>1241060>Or possibly atomic aircraft.>plane crashes>mini Chernobyl
>>1241138Also>hijack a plane>fucking nuclear bomb>>1241124>>1241123More like glorified train attendants.
>>1240986Ya but with an additional fan on the (very short) runway they could add power to any aircraft and it could take off much more quickly.
>>1241153and when it gets out of the fan airflow, then what
>>1241160it flies under it's own power, just 20 ft off the ground. you could launch a jet from a helicopter pad
>>1241160I can't find it, but I saw a vid of a very small airplane taking off in 0 feet due to a strong head wind.
>>1241164Picturing this post in my head is giving me nightmares.
>>1241171get on flight simfind helicopter pad on top of 381 ft tall buildingtake off during free fall
>>1241139>fucking nuclear bombthat's not how reactors work
>>1241213At least it will leak radioactive water and shit everywhere.
>>1241214Not if we made it gas cooled.
>>1241063>turbopropAlready doing that on shorter routes.Anyway, I'm still hoping for suborbital spaceflights for intercontinental flights.
>>1241067>>1241117Stop playing dumb you two."Pushing" props posed in front of the wings (so it "pushes the air to flow over the wings) and not "pulling" props. The plane would still need something to speed it up (another set of props maybe, hence why my mock up graphic included it).Is /n/ the dumbo central of 4chan or what?
>>1241333I know you're just shitposting but a C-130 legitimately generates almost half of its lift from prop wash over the wings.
>>1240998why wouldn't this work
>>1241218Well, radioactive gas will be everywhere.Why there are no planes, that use hydrogen as fuel? Can be generated via solar panel, lightweight, contains a lot of energy. Slightly explosive, but it is not an issue.
>>1241421>radioactive gas will be everywhereThat's not how radiation works. A reactor with a core built solid enough should be able to absorb impact and passively cool itself without releasing any of its internal contents.
>>1241421Hydrogen needs to be store either at cryogenic temperatures or ridiculous pressure to achieve adequate storage density. At 12,000 psi or as a cryogenic liquid hydrogen still takes up 3x the volume of gasoline for the same energy.
>>1241421> radioactive gas Please educate yourself on closed-cycle vs open-cycle nuclear turbojet. > Why there are no planes, that use hydrogen as fuel? Because you don't know about Reaction Engines, or planes and hydrogen? > Lightweight, contains a lot of energyThx Cadet Obvious plz do your homework.
>>1241421>>1241458Oh reactors, see >>1241427. That just means you don't know about gas-cooled reactors and cooling loops in general.
>>1241333Pulling props are already pushing props from the wing's point of view.
>>1241427>A reactor with a core built solid enough should be able to absorb impact and passively cool itself without releasing any of its internal contents.And weight a lot. >>1241437Okay, didn't know that it can't be compressed. I thought it would be like CNG...>>1241458>Please educate yourself on closed-cycle vs open-cycle nuclear turbojet.In case accident reactor might crack, and it will be Fukushima in air. You don't want it. Jet fuel at least doesn't cause cancer. >Because you don't know about Reaction Engines, or planes and hydrogen? >Reaction engineThrows some mass and accelerates. >PlanesWeird aluminium thing with hydraulics and shit.>HydrogenA gas that is quite explosive.
Felixstowe Porte Baby with a Bristol Scout mounted on the upper wing
>>1240067No, and no. Both those thing just make it much easier to take off. There just needs to be enough airflow over the wings to generate the required lift that counteracts the force of gravity.
>>1241575The weight of it all should be the same as two engines plus a full load of fuel
>>1241070That's a design from before jet engines. Back then with props you didn't need long runways typically. So the idea was that you could turn around from the gate, and after receiving clearance, just take straight off with no taxing. However factoring in other landing planes and newer jets killed those old airport deisgns.
>>1241607I dont think so.
>>1241594What was even the idea here.
>>1246277>In the UK, the Felixstowe Porte Baby/Bristol Scout composite flew in May 1916. The idea was to intercept German Zeppelin airships far out to sea, beyond the normal range of a land or shore based craft. The successful first flight was not followed up, due to the ungainliness of the composite in takeoff and its vulnerability in flight. From 1921, a series of types were adapted as carriers for gliders used as aerial targets.I don't really understand how the interceptor idea makes sense though.
>>1246280That's what drop tanks are for
>>1246281I don't know how well you'd do trying to get a Bristol Scout carrying drop tanks airborn.
>>1241012I love Tegel. You're through check-in and security and at the gate in like 10 minutes and when you land it takes like 5 minutes from the plane to the parking lot with taxis. I'll miss it.
>>1240998>``Now this is pod racing~''
>>1240263What I'd like to know is how the train cars can flex like that.
Cargo airships.Neat idea, but it'll never find any investors or really any support.It's too slow to beat road or rail freight, and it's just too awkward to make it viable as some sort of remote area access thing.It's better to just dump the idea, or if necessary, make it some military concept, like some sort of ampibious landing resupply craft.
>>1246540It would be cool to have rockets being launched from cargo airships.
>>1241218gas cooled mean jack shit when an reactor get cracked open due to external force of collision.
>>1239940"Full service carriers"
>>1241030I know these aren't that worthwhile economically but they are so fucking gangster.
>>1241030I want these to be real so bad.
>>1241090Aircraft suspension is really not cut out for taking turns at high speeds.
>>1246572Airplanes do have suspension?
>>1246277>pic related>>1246586No they just slam 400 t into the ground with only the tyres to cushion it lolhttps://youtu.be/JEJQRXYIg5w?t=45s
>>1240263>The train cars are curving to the shape of the bridge
>>1241090one moment you have a headwindthe next you have a tailwind.
>>1241063>Atomic aircraft won't take off. Nuclear power is heavy.'Murica could've hypothetically done it in the fifties, but the costs and benefits were full retard, especially when nuclear subs were so, relatively, easy.
>>1247522>'Murica could've hypothetically done it in the fiftiesNo they couldn't have. It just doesn't work.
>>1247713Yes we could. The Convair NB-36H is proof a reactor could be placed in an aircraft, even if that example didn't power the engines, it definitely could. Then you have something like Project Pluto, while it is a missile and not an aircraft, it's proof nuclear powered ramjet propulsion is possible. It's all very possible, that is, if you don't mind the trail of fallout nuclear engines produce.
>>1247107What is that man wearing?
>>1247770I still don't know what hes wearing
>>1249621Imagine the amount of noise that would be caused by air-cagers. Sounds like we dodged a bullet.
>>1241063Turbo props are still very much alive and kicking and still receiving refinements. They're just relegated to light aircraft and cargo planes. I for one embrace our turboprop overlords and long for a renaissance in supersonic turbo props like the XF-84H. Make tinnitus great again.
>>1250010https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech>On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away. Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run. Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the T40's dual turbine sections, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews. In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.What the actual fuck.
>>1250010Thunderscreech wasn't supersonic, you grapefruit
>>1250220The propeller was.
>>1250020this is like the conventional version of nuclear propulsion. could probably kill people by just flying overhead
>>1241025Why wouldn't this work?
>>1250285>on short final>sudden gusting crosswind>runway 15 just became runway 24>fug go arou->crash
>>1250305What about a rotating cross then?
>>1250328Doesn't really matter, it might only swivel 30 degrees then, and you'd still be screwed. Regardless, if I see my entire runway start moving while I'm on final I'm not going to try to land on it.
>>1250305I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it would _freely_ rotate in the wind. You could mechanically rotate it to match prevailing wind, while aircraft aren't trying to land on it.The more obvious answer is actually building that thing large enough to work for modern aircraft. Plus the whole, you know, planes flying towards a building problem.
>>1250020"Autistic Screeching" - the plane.
>>1250619Biggest problem would be how you would get passenger jets up and down to and from the runway
>>1247522>>1247713The Russians allegedly flew nuclear powered planes but left out heavy but essential shielding. The pilots got the cancer.
>>1241063Also you can fuel turboprops with natural gas, with synthetic fuels or even electric fed by a hydrogen fuel cell with very little impact on the vehicle weight. If aviation survives the era of environmentalism, it'll be through one of these principles.
>>1247761Project Pluto was fucking satanic, prove me wrong
>>1241110Commercial pilot here. You've got one job and it's easy, a fastfood team leader could do it. The shit i have to listen to from these imbalances is just astounding, it's a good job we have to remind these clots how to do their job because if not planes would be colliding constantly.
>>1250834The russians flew a functioning reactor some shielding:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL
>>1240263>the train itself gets stuck on the bridge because it lacks overhead wires.Electric trains don't need overhead wires. That's just the best choice, not the only one.
>>1251047BART runs off the third rail too, mind.
>>1250854>Electric fed turbopropWhat did he mean by this?
>>1251355Electric motor powering the prop with a hydrogen fuel cell providing the charge instead of a traditional battery.
>>1251357Where is the turbo then?
>>1241030Imagine these things using hydrogen fuel in like 60 years when we've figured out how to do that.an airship. Full of hydrogen. Thats never gone wrong
>>1240841use a big circular wind tunnel instead
>>1240320>you have to land against the windThat's stupid. If that was the case, you could only land on a given airport on very specific days of the year, when the wind just happens to coincide with the orientation of the runway.
>>1253995To be fair using hydrogen as fuel instead of for lift means that it'd be pressurized in a special tank rather than consisting of the bulk of the craft
>>1254433If only we could pressurize hydrogen efficiently, or there was a nice durable catalyst to use alcohol in a fuel cell.
>>1254633Biofuels aren't carbon neutral though, that's why they're an utter failure. They require that you replace highly productive, in the biological sense of the term, woodland with low productive intensive agriculture which requires shittons of petroleum-based fertilizers.
>>1254646Any proofs? It looks a bit dodgy.Fertilizers are mostly nitrogen-based, no carbon there. Plants/algae consume carbon from air to grow, almost all carbon in biomass is coming from CO2 in the air. Lye and methanol (or substitutes) are in closed cycle.So, all carbon in the biofuel is coming from the air.
>>1254652>fertilizers are mostly nitrogen-basedHow do you think the transportation and processing of said nitrogen compounds is realized? Modern agriculture is absolutely not carbon-neutral.If you're old enough to post on this board, surely you'll remember how colza production was the hot shit in the mid 00's.https://theconversation.com/biofuels-turn-out-to-be-a-climate-mistake-heres-why-64463>>1254651Algae fuel is great in theory, but for now it's just amateurs producing small quantities at loss. Call me when it's viable.
>>1254663>the tech is being suppressedHow would that even work? There's a bunch of different countries who would benefit greatly from not needing to import as much oil, why would they collaborate to harm themselves?Do you have any evidence at all for that?
>>1254663>>1254665All OECD countries have an enormous interest in such a technology. Why would they try to suppress it at all?
>>1254368No shit. He means you should always try to land on the runway that provides a headwind component, even if it's 30/60/80 degrees off runway heading. The circle runway was designed with the idea of always providing headwind on landing, but that anon said how pointless it is when you'll just end facing away from the wind as you go around the circle.
>>1254678>look at the lies elon propagates about itElon says dumb shit all the time, but he's in no position to suppress anything.>they invest shit tons into solar, wind, and batteries without investing much into alage fuelsBecause Investments in wind, solar and batteries pay themselves off very quickly. Algae is much more speculative.>maybe the corn lobby is to blame as well?? they dont want anyone else producing biofuels?? and the palm oil farmers??How? Again, do you have any evidence at all?>it's speculation but it's also likely and totally reasonableYou're claiming there's vast, international conspiracy to suppress biofuel development. That requires more support than "seems reasonable to me".>if im not mistaken biofuel would be penalized in some of the carbon taxes which is just fucking utter batshitOnly if the power used comes from fossil fuels. Under an ETS it could potentially generate credits.
>>1250861And women in ATC are the fucking worst. Nothings worse than having some overwhelmed cunt get defensive and snippy because her sad woman brain can't into spatial/abstract thinking and attention to detail.
>>1254680>you'll just end facing away from the wind as you go around the circleShould not matter much, as you will be decelerating rapidly. As soon as the nose wheel touches down, wind is not going to be a huge factor anymore.
>>1250855COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
>>1254769back to r/incel with you
>>1250020>Lin Hendrix, one of the Republic test pilots assigned to the program, flew the aircraft once and refused to ever fly it again >Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again".This makes me giggle every time
>>1241030How would this be kept in the air? That looks way too heavy to be buoyant.
>>1259489They either would use the lightest gas, hydrogen, or no gas, pure vacuum, which is the most boyant thing you can fill a ballon with. Only issue is, our atmosphere is too high in pressure to support a vacuum ballon. Mars though, can.
>>1259493>vacuum what the fuck?
>>1259496https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airshipNASA is considering using Vacuum Airships for a future mission to Mars. This vacuum airship will fly through the Martian atmosphere collecting data and also photographing large parts of the Martian surface from much closer than any previous satellite has managed it.Vacuum airships are theoretically possible on earth, however, the main issue here is that the 100kPA air pressure at sea level will crush the vacuum airship, unless it was incredibly strong.
>>1250020>>1250010Are there any actual recordings of how it sounded? Or did it blast all the audio recording equipment to shreds as well?
>>1241333to maximize the effect what you need is semi circular wings, the prop position doesn't matter that much.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMFUWVj1_DQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EGkWyl-9u8Personally despite the drag disadvantage, this concept makes way more sense than the osprey ever did.
>>1250010>Turbo props are still very much alive and kickingthere are no new commercial turboprops and haven't been for years. all they do it make old -8s and ATRs, when production of those stops, which will be soon, the end of turboprop will begin.
>>1259642You really think a tape recording could give you even a glimpse of an idea of how it possibly sounded approximately?
>>1254651You guys DO NOT want your cum bottles exposed to direct sunlight.
>>1259838>approximatelyYes. Very approximately, but still. Or at least a footage of windows cracking and people rolling on the ground in agony clutching their ears would be nice.I imagine it sounded like very fucking loud BRRRRRRRRRT from hell except it never goes out of ammo.
>>1259739> the end of turboprop will begin.Beginning of hybrid-electric turboprop and all-electric propellers.
>>1259866Will it have Prius-like CVT and energy recuperation?
>>1253898probably on the fuelcell, as you can use a fuelcell as combustor/topping cycle for a gas turbine.
>>1259739safran is back to doing open rotor research recently, though it depends on whether you want to count that, in the same way there was ukranian research into ducted turboprops (NOT a turbofan, but literally a retrofitted duct around a turboprop, very wide duct), and in some ways one could say geared turbofans are awfully close to ducted turboprops...
>>1259868Nope. Good electric motors and high design rpm means no CVT needed, Regen on a plane is just not worth it.Will will see innovation in turboshaft engines,, which are turboprop cousins, as generators. Honeywell had a prototype recently of a turboshaft with a compact 1MW generator, for DARPA lightning strike demo. Turboshafts/oversize APU's in tailcones will become a thing, to use exhaust to fill in fuselage wakes for drag reduction while powering distributed propulsion.
>>1259870Then what do you use the forced induction from the turbo for if the motor is electric?
>>1259872I mean Prius CVT which is two motors and planetary gearset
>>1259739Turboprops will never die as long as the military exists.
>>1259886pressurizing the fuelcell, run that fucker hot and hard
>>1239954As a a320 rated I find this post to be offensive, sir. Please check your privilege.
>>1240672>arent these just straight vectors of wind with suction pulling them into a vortex
>>1241012Tegel is one of my favorite airports in the world. So cozy, such awesome a e s t h e t i c s....I'll be really heartbroken when its gone.
>>1241352Literal aerospace engineer. It would work, but how do you get the aircraft out of the airstream of the fan, where it's motionless relative to the fan, and into the free air, where it suddenly has to be moving fast? You can't. You could accelerate the fan down a track and keep the aircraft in the fan stream while it accelerates... but then why not just let the aircraft take off normally?
>>1259739That's because of no new turboprop engine for civil market for years. Seems like new one will be coming soon?
>>1246540Still faster than intercontinental shipping, but the problem is cost
>>1246540Keeling islands, Saint Helena, Bonin Islands, Antarctica, etc. can probably utilize this thing if the cist is right
>>1263883>Airships>AntarcticaAren't the weather conditions awful there?
>>1247761muttistan failed because they are retarded mutts. the soviets were far more successful with nuclear power.
>>1264319Nigger, you keep making this same post in a bunch of threads. Go find a nice quiet place to die.
>>1264313High wind but that's it? Not much rain or such
>>1264357Isn't high wind a problem for airships?
>>1264382Isn't it okay as long as that's not turbulent?
>>1264319So successful, that made most epic fail in human made nuclear
>>1239940>Every airport idea in London's historyHow we used to rule a quarter of the world, I will never fucking know.
I flew out of here a few times in the 90's on charters to beach destinations
>>1240263>A TGV making that turn>A turn like that on a bridgeFuck concept images.
>>1239940This makes a lot of sense. Although you'd have to designate half of it for landing and half for taking off. Then off course you'd have to separate them for safety. But then you may as well straighten them.Whoops. A runway has been born
>>1264422It was fucking retarded that they thought they should only ad a runway at Heathrow OR Gatwick, and not at both.
>>1264681It's fucking retarded that they're not making better use of Stanstead.Gatwick is fucking useless, in a terrible location with terrible transport links for anybody who doesn't live in either South London or Brighton, and may as well just close.
>>1241165Yea the super cubs can pull that off coz they weight literally nothing, and are stripped bare and have tremendously big flaps and slats. An airliner would have no hope, they just aren't designed for STOL
>>1264721>weight literally nothing>literally nothing>literallycringe
>>1264700Stansted's too far away for anyone living south of London.Also, as bad as Gatwick's links are, at least there are trains running to multiple cities. Heathrow is supposed to be the main airport and it only has the National Express buses to connect it to anywhere that isn't London.
>>1264725>Stansted's too far away for anyone living south of London.Gatwick is too far away for anyone living north of London. It's also a massive pain the dick if you live west of London.
>>1264700You are retarded beyond belief. It has express train service to Central London and has BY FAR the easiest path to expansion.
>>1264774>It has express train service to Central LondonSo does Stansted. Except Stanstead is accessible from not-London without having to pass through London. Gatwick is in a terrible location unless you happen to live near Gatwick.>BY FAR the easiest path to expansionApart from the hundreds of thousands of people who live anywhere near Gatwick in one of the most densely populated areas of the UK.
>>1264427Can't wait to get myself a car to go driving on it
>>1240280not to mention a nice little lakedo they rent little boats?
>>1265282Oh yeah, way more people near Gatwick than Heathrow. Get fucking real.
>>1265510Who said anything about Heathrow? Compare the area around Gatwick to the area around Stanstead.
>>1261038>arent these just straight vectors of wind with suction pulling them into a vortexNo. But the scale is a bit big for the curve to be easily noticed by human-scale systems.Try a tornado instead. Those are smaller and go conveniently in a tight circle.
>>1264382Not really if you're not trying to land.
>>1265551The point is that they're building a 3rd runway at Heathrow, where there are an order of magnitude more people in the flight path, rather than at Gatwick where it would have been cheaper, easier, and had less negative impact.
>>1241090You can't actually circle. So basically it needs to be large enough that you can come down, brake in a straight line, reach safe speeds, 2x safety margin, and then slow down and enter the inner airport.Its basically a size issue: And airplanes quickly burn trough 1-2km of runway, or more.So i assume 15-18 degrees of the runway is fine, to get a nice "straight line" to work with.Now, because Pi is Pi, if the circle is around tower(as illustration), and there is 1km to the tower, you have a circle thats 3,14km long. Where 15-18 degrees is 200 meters, which isn't long enough to land or break on.Now, to get 1km of "brake area" before you risk turning: You would quickly need there to be 5km from the tower to the circle. At which point you could just have ignored the circle and just built the runway in regular fashion with those 5km needed to get the circle that large.It basically can't work if you need more than 200-300m to brake, because it will take up too much space.
>>1239940To all the niggers shitting on circle runway, what if the runway was just absurdly large? If you have a full length runway from every direction, then all the problems disappear. And if you're talking about cost, if you eliminate graft and by doing it in a non-leftist state/city/country, then the savings would more than pay for the initial cost. And because the wear is distributed over such a large area, maintenance costs should actually be the same or lower.
>>1267535>To all the niggers shitting on circle runway, what if the runway was just absurdly large?If you have that much space, why not use it to build a non-retarded runway system?
>>1267710Because simplicity is the best engineering solution. It's like how the best solution for accomadating cyclists and light vehicles is a second raised road above normal roads. It protects the real road from weather conditions, the upper road requires minimal cost/strength because it has to accommodate quads and motorcycles at worst, it only improves safety and congestion for all parties involved, the upper road shelters the real road from environmental wear, the upper road doesn't require asphalt and can be left bare, etc.Despite what cucks say, the solution is always more roads, even for airports.
>>1264319Laughs in Chernobyl
>>1241025You'd have to operate it rather like an aircraft carrier. But it needs some provision for lifts to move the planes of the landing deck. Lets face it youd need a pretty tough building to balance the Ark Royal on top.
>>1267535Where could you even build such a massive airfield besides empty flyover country? You'd have to clear out trees and buildings in every direction for obstacle clearance, otherwise the Trouble T section for that airport would be a nightmare, if it was in a big city then most aircraft wouldn't even be able to take off in certain directions negating the point of the circular runway. How would you handle instrument approaches for 36 possible directions of landing? You can't exactly maintain 36 different (and very expensive) ILS's, and VORs can't take you down as low due to the lack of glideslope. Winds tend to be seasonal and stay in relatively the same direction for months at a time, so aircraft wear would occur on the same section of runway, still leading to requiring expensive maintenance and shutting down the most useful strip of concrete.If you worked in aviation you would understand that circular runways are a retarded solution to a non-existent problem.
>>1241025>allahu ackbars into the building (or just flies below glideslope on short final)>entire airfield gets destroyed>takes out 2-3 city blocks as it comes crashing downfug :DD
Armored nuclear power plant on an airship that can suck up water with a tube, release desalinated water with another one, and release electricity through a cable.Can float around the Saharan coastline creating desert metropolises
>>1268390c-can it power an attached locomotive?
>>1261279>implying you will live up to BER opening
>>1240280>TWA's vision for the future of flight which had been pioneered by the TWA Flight Center at JFK Airport in New York City (which also featured cars close to the gates design) proved troublesome almost from the start.>The terminals turned out to be unfriendly to the 747, since passengers spilled out of the gate area into the halls. When security checkpoints were added in the 1970s to stem hijackings, they were difficult and expensive to implement since security checkpoints had to be installed at each gate area rather than at a centralized area.>As a result, passenger services were nonexistent downstream of the security checkpoint in the gate area. No restrooms were available, and shops, restaurants, newsstands, ATMs or any other passenger services were not available without exiting the secure area and being re-screened upon re-entry.>Shortly after the airport opened, TWA asked that the terminals be rebuilt to address these issues. Kansas City, citing the massive cost overruns on a newly built airport to TWA specification, refused, prompting TWA to move its hub to Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport in St. Louis, Missouri.So TWA told MCI to fuck up their airport and then left when the airport refused to undo the fuckup that TWA insisted on. Masterful trolling.
>>1267795>I have no understanding of the economics of infrastructure funding>I know better than any expert and believe we can build our way out of congestion.
>>1264741>Gatwick is too far away for anyone living north of London.ThameslinkApology not requiredI literally exclusively use Gatwick and I live in Birmingham
>>1266714Fucking this. Fuck Heathrow, up the Gatwick.
>>1267795>the solution is always more roadsholy fuck
>>1269859Let's say I have some quantity of water accumulated every unit of time. I want to get rid of this accumulated water. I add a faucet. Water is still accumulating. I add another faucet. Water is still accumulating. Because I have more water in the faucets at a given time, I conclude that the situation worsened because I am a disingenuous faggot.
>>1269906Or you conclude that you should stop adding faucets (traffic) and water flow (travel behavior) changes to accommodate the reality of the situation.
>>1269984Or it just floods and you drown because running away and letting things sort out by themselves always works perfectly
>>1269984kinda weird how the 16/18 lane highways in houston have less traffic than the 4/6/8 lane highways in LA
>>1246540>It's too slow to beat road or rail freightA lot of places have neither good roads or rail lines, so I can see these being perfect for a place like Africa. They just need to stop being too poor to afford them. I think their military role is very viable though. They are a lot faster than ships while not needing airports.
>>1271317>kinda weird how the 16/18 lane highways in houston have less traffic than the 4/6/8 lane highways in LAAs someone who actually lives in Houston I can confirm this is bullshit. I've lived here for 30 years and despite tripling the amount of roads (the sam houston toll way didn't even exist when I was born) traffic has only gotten much, much worse with time. Your "lol just build more roads dude!" model simply does not work.
>>1269906> I am a disingenuous faggot.Yes you are, because in you are comparing a finite resource with an inelastic supply that is unable to adjust to demand to one that is.
>>1267795>simplicity is the best engineering solution. And then you go on suggesting we build elevated paths everywhere when at grade level paths are far simpler. Are you legitimately retarded?
>>1271692More pressure means more pressure drop, the analogy holds.
>>1267795>>1269906>>1271717I'd like to give a standing ovation to anon and his groundbreaking work.
>>1240264> was way too large for the city it serviceddescribes KC in general
>>1241025Why not just build a big round dish and make whatever angle the approach
>>1271862Cost to build and maintain would be ridiculous. Most wear and tear will be in the center and good fucking luck trying to work on that without shutting the whole airfield down. From a pilot/ATC perspective, any kind of significant traffic would be a mess unless everyone's forced to use the same approach corridor, since otherwise planes would be landing all over the place if they were visual. Trying to land visually would also suck since a big ass circle doesn't lend well to visual references. At that point you'd have to ask yourself what exactly you gained by making the disc runway.