Debt Rattle March 27 2017


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum Debt Rattle March 27 2017

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #33343

    Ray K. Metzker Chicago 1958   • Sharpest Credit Plunge Since 2008 Could Spell Disaster For US Economy (AEP) • Paper Wealth In US Stocks Reaches $
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle March 27 2017]


    I’m sure whatever I post someone will have the exact opposite viewpoint, because it doesn’t really matter what someone writes, someone else always has an opposing viewpoint. It seems like that’s what humankind does now – argue, with little or nothing to show for it because arguing in and of itself without clear action fails to provide results. It’s as if the internet has been a blessing and a curse as every single idea has those for and against it with little if any consensus.


    Hi Ilargi. There’s an article at nycaviation [1] that uses what seems to be valid and informed arguments to show that the circular runway is not practical at all. I’m sad that my first comment at TAE is to show a different opinion but I felt that it was important to bring your attention to it. I’m a loyal reader and in my opinion your reasoning, i.e., Nicole’s and yours, is correct if not accurate. Your use of morality in your reasoning in addition to logic and facts is what leads me to believe so. Please, keep the hard work.

    [1] Why The Circular Runway Concept Would Not Work


    “Circular Runways Proposed For Airport Efficiency”

    I really cannot believe that someone apparently so well-educated can come out with such a brain fart.

    Aircraft takeoff and land into the wind. If your take off air-speed is 260 km/hr and the wind is blowing at 50 km/hr along the runway, this means that going one way your ground speed needs to reach only 210 km/hr whereas the other way (which would never be done) it would need to get to 310 km/hr. Going round in a circle means that you can take off one moment but not the next if there is a strong wind.

    Additionally, the tyres (a weak point on aircraft) would need to handle massive centripetal forces. The undercarriage and tyres would need to be far more complex (as if they are not complex enough already) and heavier. All aircraft would need to be redesigned. As it is, aircraft tyres regularly blow up and that is why there are so many on a large jet. They get very hot and the brakes can glow with heat. Undercarriage fires are regular event.

    IB6403 MAD-MEX aborted take off due to an open cockpit window warning. The brakes were very hot and the firemen were alerted. The fireman had a hard work to do for near an hour. You can see several empty fire extinguishers on the ground. Even they had to use the truck water canyon and the flexible discharge hoses.

    At present, pretty well all large airports have runways that point in different directions. I doubt if they occupy much more land than the circular runways would. Frankly, it would possibly make more sense to go back to flying boats if land were at such a premium.


    The article at nycaviation [1] (see my other comment) says:

    The creator of the circular runway concept even admits that he was “inspired by watching scary crosswind landings on YouTube,” not from any challenge or need that the aviation industry is actually facing.

    And its easy to take it seriously since it comes from someone at the Netherlands Aerospace Centre. So indeed it appears that it was a brain fart.


    bunch of party poopers

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.