FAQ / Contact

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by eddief on March 19, 2017, 12:12:30 AM »
Oh - and failure of a critical engine at V1 (which one would it be though - rather depends which way we're going around the roundabout!)
2
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by ascot5046 on March 18, 2017, 11:30:50 AM »
Yes, the piece should have been embargoed for release on 1st April
3
Aviation Waffle / Re: Douglas DC4 at North Weald
« Last post by eddief on March 17, 2017, 10:15:49 PM »
Just makes me wish I was fifteen years younger and an AWFUL lot richer.  Such an opportunity for somebody with cash and a passion for gorgeous aircraft...
4
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by eddief on March 17, 2017, 10:13:23 PM »
I spend a lot of my professional career assessing how folk line-up & descend on straight runways.  And this is with fairly stable headwinds & crosswinds (which go out of the door as you start turning at a constant rate).

Whoever thought this up has clearly never flown a real aeroplane...  Absolute 'la-la land' frankly.

Approaches & attempted landings on circular runways would be absolute carnage! (And I think I'm happy to be quoted on that).
5
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by Wizzy on March 17, 2017, 09:53:00 PM »
I would have thought the suggestion that it will avoid being hit by a cross-wind would not be correct!

Depending how far around the circle it is necessary to travel on approach, surely you are guaranteed to encounter a cross-wind, whichever direction the wind is blowing from!  ???
6
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by steve w on March 17, 2017, 07:49:15 PM »
Presumably whoever thought up this idea had forgotten the fundamentals of taking off and landing into wind, never mind how much rudder work this would take...
7
Aviation Waffle / Re: Spotted
« Last post by CLIFFORD on March 17, 2017, 02:02:57 PM »
sounds like you are having fun Sam :)
8
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by PaulH2015 on March 17, 2017, 10:44:57 AM »
Vertical take off requires a huge amount of energy.  I don't know where 'less' noise comes from, more like the same amount but spread over a greater area.  'Greener' seems marginal.  Being able to avoid strong cross-winds would be safer.
9
Aviation Waffle / Re: Spotted
« Last post by Sad Sam on March 16, 2017, 09:08:55 PM »
Last week I listed some of the aircraft in the hangar I'm working in at the moment.

Today a couple of the aircraft down near the back needed to be extracted so we spent the first part of the morning moving twenty or so planes about (the guy who owns the business is ex Fleet Air Arm and has a slightly different view about how to pack a hangar.)

In amongst all the other stuff we moved was one of these things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_VariEze

First time I've ever seen one in the flesh.

Oh and the list of what we moved: 2 Cessna 150, a Tomahawk, A Grob, A Pembroke, A Dornier 27, the Rutan, 2 Yaks, A Jet provost 5, A jet Provost 3, 2 PA 28 a Seneca, 2 Delfin trainers and some other puddle jumper type things.

Never a dull day...
10
Aviation Waffle / Re: Circular Runways
« Last post by ollie impus4 on March 16, 2017, 02:30:15 PM »
I saw this and must confess had much the same thought. Surely better to develop aircraft that can take off vertically... with more than one or two seats mind. ( don't mean the rotary wing jobbies). Then you don't need runways at all. Or with big boosters for very short take offs and retro rockets to slow up on landing. The mind doth wander when you start to see ideas like this being talked about. I think he was serious though! Unlike me.
 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10