[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: The-Endless-Runway-01a-TA.jpg (691 KB, 2400x1800)
691 KB
691 KB JPG
Let's lol at retarded aviation concepts
>>
Airbus
>>
>>1239940
Every retarded concept mockup you see nowadays features fields and windmills in the background
>>
>>1239969
It'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.
>>
>>1240003
Nice troll
>>
>>1240003
kek
>>
>>1239969
Hmmmm 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
>>
>>1239940
I'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.
>>
>>1240067
More 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?
>>
>>1240095
That would be runway 00
>>
>>1240067
That 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.
>>
>>1240034
Is ATC job really stressful?
>>
>>1239954
salty
>>
File: yb6gyce1mqq01.jpg (141 KB, 971x565)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>1239940
As an actual pilot, this would never work.
It takes no thought to figure out why that is.
>>
File: ebt-l-2ndtube-12xx-1.jpg (83 KB, 600x350)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>1239969

Dead 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.
>>
File: 1026_kc-airport-aerial.jpg (1.13 MB, 1676x1117)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
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.
>>
>>1240264
Except 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.
>>
>>1240125
It has a high turnover and suicide rate for a reason
>>
>>1240280
t. Mayor Sly James
>>
File deleted.
>>1239940
can someone eggslpain why circle runway won't work?
>>
>>1240312
I guess taking off while cornering doesn't feel great
>>
>>1240312
you have to land against the wind
wind 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
>>1240280
The 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).
>>
File: Vasily_Chernov.png (310 KB, 1200x800)
310 KB
310 KB PNG
>>1240312
Obstacle 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
>>
>>1240282
>suicide rate
Why?
>>
File: 1537028812993.gif (3.46 MB, 377x372)
3.46 MB
3.46 MB GIF
>>1239940
>circular runway
>>
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
>>
File: helicopter-fly.gif (24 KB, 380x330)
24 KB
24 KB GIF
>>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
>>
File: circling wind.jpg (299 KB, 1300x1046)
299 KB
299 KB JPG
>>1240320
>wind doesn't blow in a circle
Wrong.
>>
>>1240561
are Germans born naturally Autistic or do they have to learn it
>>
>>1240591
Kek
>>
>>1240561
I don't understand how he does loop-de-loops without tangling the ropes.
>>
>>1240764
Actualy 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%.
>>
>>1240003
not enough airflow
>>
>>1240841
u got trolled
>>
>>1240841
the 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
>>1240858
ok ok ok

So 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.
>>
>>1240436
It'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.
>>
>>1240860
Mate, 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.
>>
>>1240858
Yeah, 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.
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (17 KB, 480x360)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>1240986
You mean like this?
>>
File: Nobel Price pitch.png (445 KB, 878x354)
445 KB
445 KB PNG
>>1240992
No you fool, the air from the fan needs to flow over the wings.
See this simplified mock-up I attached, dumbass.
>>
File: 249321_big.jpg (1011 KB, 1199x820)
1011 KB
1011 KB JPG
>>1240264
sounds like berlin-tegel airport
>>
File: rtap.jpg (103 KB, 665x569)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>1239940
>>
File: img-00.png (804 KB, 800x530)
804 KB
804 KB PNG
>>
>>1241030
Retarded prediction. Rising fuel costs will bring back ether the ocean liner or zeppelins.
Or possibly atomic aircraft.
>>
>>1241060
Atomic aircraft won't take off. Nuclear power is heavy.
They will invent turboprop again. Slower but cheaper.
>>
File: Tu-95-Bear-RAF.jpg (90 KB, 960x597)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>1240998
So, like this?
>>
>>1240559
>How do you think a helicopter works, Einsteins?

They don't. They are just so ugly that the earth repels them.
>>
>>1239940
Wasn't this part of the Futurama expo?
>>
>>1240347
Don'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!
>>
>>1239940
I don't get what's wrong

t. brainlet
>>
>>1240125
ATC 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
>>
>>1241025
What's this? A runway for ants?
>>
>>1240858
How many dinosaurs would you have to burn to produce that kind of energy
>>
>>1240998
Hi
>>
>>1241110
Isn'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.
>>
>>1241110
Shit. Aviation is full of glorified people.
Glorified bus drivers, glorified crossing guards...
But who are flight attendants?
>>
>>1241122
Glorified whores?
>>
>>1241122
Isn't it obvious? Glorified waiters.
>>
>>1241060
>Or possibly atomic aircraft.
>plane crashes
>mini Chernobyl
>>
>>1241138
Also
>hijack a plane
>fucking nuclear bomb
>>1241124
>>1241123
More like glorified train attendants.
>>
>>1240992
That's rediculous
>>
>>1240986
Ya 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.
>>
>>1241153
and when it gets out of the fan airflow, then what
>>
>>1241160
it flies under it's own power, just 20 ft off the ground. you could launch a jet from a helicopter pad
>>
>>1241160
I 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.
>>
>>1241164
Picturing this post in my head is giving me nightmares.
>>
>>1241171
get on flight sim
find helicopter pad on top of 381 ft tall building
take off during free fall
>>
>>1241139
>fucking nuclear bomb
that's not how reactors work
>>
>>1241213
At least it will leak radioactive water and shit everywhere.
>>
>>1241214
Not if we made it gas cooled.
>>
>>1241063
>turboprop
Already doing that on shorter routes.

Anyway, I'm still hoping for suborbital spaceflights for intercontinental flights.
>>
>>1241067
>>1241117
Stop 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?
>>
>>1241333
I know you're just shitposting but a C-130 legitimately generates almost half of its lift from prop wash over the wings.
>>
>>1240998
why wouldn't this work
>>
>>1241218
Well, 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 everywhere
That'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.
>>
>>1241421
Hydrogen 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 energy
Thx Cadet Obvious plz do your homework.
>>
>>1241421
>>1241458
Oh reactors, see >>1241427. That just means you don't know about gas-cooled reactors and cooling loops in general.
>>
>>1241333
Pulling props are already pushing props from the wing's point of view.
>>
>>1239940
Stabilators
>>
>>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.
>>1241437
Okay, 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 engine
Throws some mass and accelerates.
>Planes
Weird aluminium thing with hydraulics and shit.
>Hydrogen
A gas that is quite explosive.
>>
Felixstowe Porte Baby with a Bristol Scout mounted on the upper wing
>>
>>1240067
No, 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.
>>
>>1241575
The weight of it all should be the same as two engines plus a full load of fuel
>>
>>1241070
That'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.
>>
>>1241607
I dont think so.
>>
>>1241594
What 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.
>>
>>1246280
That's what drop tanks are for
>>
>>1246281
I don't know how well you'd do trying to get a Bristol Scout carrying drop tanks airborn.
>>
>>1241012
I 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~''
>>
>>1240263
What I'd like to know is how the train cars can flex like that.
>>
File: lmh-1.jpg (126 KB, 1280x720)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
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.
>>
>>1246540
It would be cool to have rockets being launched from cargo airships.
>>
>>1241218
gas cooled mean jack shit when an reactor get cracked open due to external force of collision.
>>
>>1239940
"Full service carriers"
>>
>>1241030
I know these aren't that worthwhile economically but they are so fucking gangster.
>>
>>1241030
I want these to be real so bad.
>>
>>1241090
Aircraft suspension is really not cut out for taking turns at high speeds.
>>
>>1246572
Airplanes do have suspension?
>>
>>1246277
>pic related

>>1246586
No they just slam 400 t into the ground with only the tyres to cushion it lol
https://youtu.be/JEJQRXYIg5w?t=45s
>>
File: 1534713958916.jpg (26 KB, 500x500)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>1240263
>The train cars are curving to the shape of the bridge
>>
>>1241090
one moment you have a headwind
the 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 fifties
No they couldn't have. It just doesn't work.
>>
File: NB-36H.jpg (149 KB, 1024x819)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>1247713
Yes 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.
>>
>>1239940
>>
>>1247107
What is that man wearing?
>>
>>1247767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHXgsXF0auQ
>>
>>1247770
I still don't know what hes wearing
>>
>>1249621
Imagine the amount of noise that would be caused by air-cagers. Sounds like we dodged a bullet.
>>
>>1247771
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_%28clothing%29
>>
File: XF-84H.jpg (390 KB, 2100x1500)
390 KB
390 KB JPG
>>1241063

Turbo 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.
>>
>>1250010
https://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.
>>
>>1250010
Thunderscreech wasn't supersonic, you grapefruit
>>
>>1250220
The propeller was.
>>
>>1250020
this is like the conventional version of nuclear propulsion. could probably kill people by just flying overhead
>>
>>1241025
Why wouldn't this work?
>>
>>1250285
>on short final
>sudden gusting crosswind
>runway 15 just became runway 24
>fug go arou-
>crash
>>
>>1250305
What about a rotating cross then?
>>
>>1240003
lol
>>
>>1250328
Doesn'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.
>>
>>1250305
I 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.
>>
File: 1404026857627.gif (496 KB, 500x455)
496 KB
496 KB GIF
>>1246397
>>
>>1250020
"Autistic Screeching" - the plane.
>>
>>1250619
Biggest problem would be how you would get passenger jets up and down to and from the runway
>>
File: 2018-10-28_12.46.36.jpg (291 KB, 800x547)
291 KB
291 KB JPG
>>1250812
>>
>>1247522
>>1247713

The Russians allegedly flew nuclear powered planes but left out heavy but essential shielding. The pilots got the cancer.
>>
>>1241063
Also 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.
>>
File: 1540491334751.png (460 KB, 526x738)
460 KB
460 KB PNG
>>1247761
Project Pluto was fucking satanic, prove me wrong
>>
File: e8a5w9s.gif (1.58 MB, 400x300)
1.58 MB
1.58 MB GIF
>>1241110
Commercial 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.
>>
>>1250834
The 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.
>>
>>1251047
BART runs off the third rail too, mind.
>>
>>1250854
>Electric fed turboprop
What did he mean by this?
>>
>>1251355
Electric motor powering the prop with a hydrogen fuel cell providing the charge instead of a traditional battery.
>>
>>1251357
Where is the turbo then?
>>
>>1241030
Imagine 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
>>
>>1240841
use a big circular wind tunnel instead
>>
>>1240320
>you have to land against the wind
That'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.
>>
>>1253995
To 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
>>
>>1254433
If only we could pressurize hydrogen efficiently, or there was a nice durable catalyst to use alcohol in a fuel cell.
>>
>>1254633
Biofuels 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.
>>
>>1254646
Any 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-based
How 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

>>1254651
Algae 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 suppressed
How 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
>>1254665
All OECD countries have an enormous interest in such a technology. Why would they try to suppress it at all?
>>
>>1254368
No 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 it
Elon 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 fuels
Because 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 reasonable
You'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 batshit
Only if the power used comes from fossil fuels. Under an ETS it could potentially generate credits.
>>
>>1250861
And 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 circle
Should 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.
>>
File: project pluto.jpg (80 KB, 620x450)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>1250855
COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
>>
>>1254769
back 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
>>
File: 1487972459043.jpg (174 KB, 960x655)
174 KB
174 KB JPG
>>1250010
>>
>>1241030
How would this be kept in the air? That looks way too heavy to be buoyant.
>>
>>1259489
They 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?
>>
>>1259496
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship
NASA 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.
>>
File: Screenshot (58).png (106 KB, 266x292)
106 KB
106 KB PNG
guys...
>>
>>1250020
>>1250010
Are there any actual recordings of how it sounded? Or did it blast all the audio recording equipment to shreds as well?
>>
>>1241333
to 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_DQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EGkWyl-9u8

Personally despite the drag disadvantage, this concept makes way more sense than the osprey ever did.
>>
>>1250010
>Turbo props are still very much alive and kicking
there 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.
>>
>>1259642
You really think a tape recording could give you even a glimpse of an idea of how it possibly sounded approximately?
>>
>>1254651
You guys DO NOT want your cum bottles exposed to direct sunlight.
>>
>>1259838
>approximately
Yes. 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.
>>
>>1259866
Will it have Prius-like CVT and energy recuperation?
>>
>>1253898

probably on the fuelcell, as you can use a fuelcell as combustor/topping cycle for a gas turbine.
>>
>>1259739

safran 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...
>>
>>1259868

Nope. 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.
>>
>>1259870
Then what do you use the forced induction from the turbo for if the motor is electric?
>>
>>1259872
I mean Prius CVT which is two motors and planetary gearset
>>
>>1259739
Turboprops will never die as long as the military exists.
>>
>>1259886

pressurizing the fuelcell, run that fucker hot and hard
>>
>>1239954
As 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
>>
>>1241012
Tegel 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.
>>
>>1241352
Literal 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?
>>
>>1259739
That's because of no new turboprop engine for civil market for years. Seems like new one will be coming soon?
>>
>>1246540
Still faster than intercontinental shipping, but the problem is cost
>>
>>1246540
Keeling islands, Saint Helena, Bonin Islands, Antarctica, etc. can probably utilize this thing if the cist is right
>>
>>1263883
>Airships
>Antarctica
Aren't the weather conditions awful there?
>>
>>1247761
muttistan failed because they are retarded mutts. the soviets were far more successful with nuclear power.
>>
>>1264319
Nigger, you keep making this same post in a bunch of threads. Go find a nice quiet place to die.
>>
>>1264313
High wind but that's it? Not much rain or such
>>
>>1264357
Isn't high wind a problem for airships?
>>
>>1264382
Isn't it okay as long as that's not turbulent?
>>
>>1264319
So successful, that made most epic fail in human made nuclear
>>
File: 1540702854244.png (453 KB, 338x952)
453 KB
453 KB PNG
>>1239940
>Every airport idea in London's history
How we used to rule a quarter of the world, I will never fucking know.
>>
File: Mirabel-International.jpg (505 KB, 1855x917)
505 KB
505 KB JPG
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 bridge
Fuck concept images.
>>
>>1239940
This 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
>>
>>1264422
It was fucking retarded that they thought they should only ad a runway at Heathrow OR Gatwick, and not at both.
>>
>>1264681
It'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.
>>
>>1241165
Yea 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
>literally
cringe
>>
>>1264700

Stansted'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.
>>
>>1264700
You 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 London

So 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 expansion

Apart from the hundreds of thousands of people who live anywhere near Gatwick in one of the most densely populated areas of the UK.
>>
>>1264427
Can't wait to get myself a car to go driving on it
>>
>>1240280
not to mention a nice little lake

do they rent little boats?
>>
File: airports.png (2.91 MB, 1234x904)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB PNG
>>1265282
Oh yeah, way more people near Gatwick than Heathrow. Get fucking real.
>>
>>1265510
Who 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 vortex
No. 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.
>>
>>1264382
Not really if you're not trying to land.
>>
>>1265551
The 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.
>>
>>1241090
You 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.
>>
>>1239940
To 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?
>>
>>1267710
Because 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.
>>
>>1264319
Laughs in Chernobyl
>>
>>1241025
You'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.
>>
>>1267535
Where 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 down

fug :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
>>
>>1268390
c-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.
Thameslink
Apology not required
I literally exclusively use Gatwick and I live in Birmingham
>>
>>1266714
Fucking this. Fuck Heathrow, up the Gatwick.
>>
File: connect 4.png (181 KB, 680x786)
181 KB
181 KB PNG
>>1267795
>the solution is always more roads
holy fuck
>>
>>1269859
Let'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.
>>
>>1269906
Or you conclude that you should stop adding faucets (traffic) and water flow (travel behavior) changes to accommodate the reality of the situation.
>>
>>1269984
Or it just floods and you drown because running away and letting things sort out by themselves always works perfectly
>>
>>1269984
kinda 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 freight
A 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 LA
As 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?
>>
>>1271692
More pressure means more pressure drop, the analogy holds.
>>
>>1267795
>>1269906
>>1271717

I'd like to give a standing ovation to anon and his groundbreaking work.
>>
>>1240264
> was way too large for the city it serviced
describes KC in general
>>
>>1241025
Why not just build a big round dish and make whatever angle the approach
>>
>>1259642
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U
>>
>>1271862
Cost 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.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.