April 12, 201214 yr Author That plan also calls for 2 mile long runways on either side of the terminal. That would require 4.5 to 5 miles of airport space. Problem today is with urban spawl, real estate is at a premium. Matthew Kane I'm Dyslexic, what's an error to you is not to me
April 12, 201214 yr 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... Nothing to stop there being multiple runways at different angles. That example in the link shows two parallel runways, but you could have as many as you want at any angle you want. Jason D, using P3Dv5 and DCS Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.6GHz, nVidia GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER, 32GB RAM, Oculus Rift S
April 12, 201214 yr Author Nothing to stop there being multiple runways at different angles. That example in the link shows two parallel runways, but you could have as many as you want at any angle you want. Los Angeles is an airport with 4 runways facing the same direction, however they are placed in such a way to save space. I get the concept and think it is great in the fact that utilizing the basic law of gravity can have a significant savings in energy costs. The real challenge to implement is making it feasible. Real Estate is a problem as this would be larger then current airports. Safety is a problem with emergency landings and runway overruns. The terminal and taxiways are at the end of the runway so the jets would plow into (most likely) taxing aircraft. I like the 'outside of the box' approach to change, but the next stage is implementation (if it can be done) Matthew Kane I'm Dyslexic, what's an error to you is not to me
April 13, 201214 yr Being first and foremost a GA guy I'd simply ban hard surface runways. No tarmac = no big jets = no need for ICAO. All that is left is us enthusiasts having fun in small planes on small fields as it was from the beginning. :Party: Rolf Lindbom
April 13, 201214 yr I'd say that we need to force every aircraft to use GE TF-39-1C engines.... :LMAO:
April 13, 201214 yr Author I'd say that we need to force every aircraft to use GE TF-39-1C engines.... :LMAO: So what was wrong with the JT9D's then??? :LMAO: Matthew Kane I'm Dyslexic, what's an error to you is not to me
April 13, 201214 yr So what was wrong with the JT9D's then??? :LMAO: Because JT8's are so much better fuel pigs! :Pig: All that should be allowed are Darts, Garrets, and JT8's! Chris Miller
April 13, 201214 yr Author Nothing like the 1970's guzzlers, Who ever came up with that hush kit on the 727 :Hypnotized: Nothing beats a noisy guzzler. Matthew Kane I'm Dyslexic, what's an error to you is not to me
Create an account or sign in to comment