Look at the blue prints of the Boeing 707 and the airports at that time. Compare that to what we have today. The concept is pretty much the same, only bigger and more congested.

 

Here is the question....If you could reform this concept with the latest in technology available today, what would you do?

One could start with airports. Right now most airports are the result of 60 or 70 years of evolution, rather than an efficient design. Airports need to be redesigned to benefit climate and ecology also the health of the users and people who live nearby it. For example, I saw one idea for an airport where the landing runway slopes upwards to the apron, and the take off runway slopes down from the apron. Such a simple idea, yet the saving on fuel and braking is enormous. Ideas like that.

For example, I saw one idea for an airport where the landing runway slopes upwards to the apron, and the take off runway slopes down from the apron. Such a simple idea, yet the saving on fuel and braking is enormous. Ideas like that.

 

There is a reason you don't see this simple idea and that's because it doesn't work. Winds will determine the takeoff direction not slope.

 

Another reason slope is a bad idea is that it would actually make takeoff distance longer because stop distance has to be taken into account if there needs to be a RTO.

 

I think they need use multiple bridges so one goes to the rear and one goes to the front. That way you can board more rows and get out quickly.

 

ADS-B is another step in the right direction and will be able to help us pack more airplanes into the airspace and use direct routes which can cut some flight times significantly.

There is a reason you don't see this simple idea and that's because it doesn't work. Winds will determine the takeoff direction not slope.

 

You seem not to be familiar with this proposal. The apron is on a raised platform with runways sloping up to it from different directions, so it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing. You just change the runway, as you would in a normal airport. The reason why you don't see this simple idea is the same reason why you don't see any other -- because it would be a long term investment and profits are to be found in short term investment.

Show me a diagram of how this works because I may be picturing this differently but anytime you have slopes or uneven ground it poses problems for aircraft.

Here's some information:

 

http://earthwiseint.com/pages/starrport.php

Hello everyone.

In my opinion the technology, by itself, will not fix aviation. What needs to be done is have governments like the EU / read France, stop meddling in the Aviation industry and keep making new rules and regulations that basically destroys aviation.

To fix aviation we need to have France split between Switzerland and Belgium. We can come up with any technology but without having pilots and ability to learn and fly there is no aviation. TV

So the airport of the future would be in the centre of sloping runways going in various directions. This way an aircraft can take-off into the wind and take advantage of the slope to accelerate, also land into the slope to help stop and reduce thrust reversers. Also much shorter taxiways to speed up time to and from the terminal.

 

The airport itself should be much smaller then we have now with much faster turn-arounds. The biggest problem I see today is a 30 minute flight spends around 60 minutes on the ground. This is time wasted.

 

If an aircraft could be turned around in 10 minutes then this is a huge boost to revenue. Probably to do this would require multiple entries to an aircraft (similar to a train or a subway) to board faster. luggage loaded into cargo containers prior to flight and containers loaded into an aircraft using a rapid automation system.

 

The aircraft itself would need to be redesigned to allow multiple entries and faster luggage loading.

 

Two airports right now that are smaller and keep up with demand are Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport and Berlin Tegel. These have small size constraints so it is necessary to have much faster turn around of aircraft.

 

If you look at the 787 and compare it to a 707....it is pretty much the same. Single passenger entry and slow loading cargo doors. not much has changed in the concept of the aircraft other then lighter and more fuel efficient. The biggest inefficiency is what happens on the ground. A 30 minute flight can take 1.5 hours due to constraints on the ground.

Ban helicopters !

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

The problem with the sloping runways are that aircraft are not designed for the gradient. My aircraft which is a STOL aircraft that can fly off airport can only manage a 2% gradient. I imagine larger transport aircraft are even less.

 

Also you have to calculate stopping distance caused by the slope when taking off. This could possibly extend the runway length required beyond that which is normal.

The problem with the sloping runways are that aircraft are not designed for the gradient. My aircraft which is a STOL aircraft that can fly off airport can only manage a 2% gradient. I imagine larger transport aircraft are even less.

 

Also you have to calculate stopping distance caused by the slope when taking off. This could possibly extend the runway length required beyond that which is normal.

 

Probably a few other safety factors with emergency landings. Probably not the best thing to land into a slope in an emergency with an engine failure, etc. The fire crew would have to try and deal with a disaster on a slope as well. Nice concept for fuel savings but probably not feasable.

 

The other area for fuel savings that has been studied has been formation flying. This would have the autopilot lock onto a leading aircraft and follow in a formation about 1/2 mile behind. Similar to migrating geese. This could be something done with millitary transport and intercontinental cargo ops. The leading aircraft has no benefit but the 5 or 6 trailing aircraft will have a fuel savings.

Other things I noticed with those sloping runways and landing towards a building would make it a pain to plan instrument approaches to the runway as well and would most likely have minimums too high to make instrument approaches practical.

Here's a slightly better link:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/starrport/flash.htm

Here's a slightly better link:

 

http://www.usatoday....rport/flash.htm

 

That was in your original link. Do you notice it says a 2-3% grade? The majority of transport category aircraft can't operate on that. Let alone all of the buildings in close proximity to the ends of the runway. The huge use of land space and the amount earth that needs to be moved in order to achieve this slope would also use a lot of carbon and fuel it is trying to save.

 

I've taken a few airport planning classes and it is very difficult to plan anything new that would be revolutionary and be able to save fuel, time and space.

Here's a slightly better link:

 

http://www.usatoday....rport/flash.htm

 

That idea would only work if the wind direction were to remain fairly constant. There's a reason why major airports have multiple runways at different angles after all...

 

Added to that the danger of stopping the departing a/c during a rejected takeoff, and that becomes a prime source for a catastrophe!