Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Nrsolis 3388 days ago
Yeah. Not so much.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1357935#p1941...

5 comments

Well that's interesting. They seem to be arguing that the bank angle is super high, causing the planes to pull massive Gs just to land or take off, and that's terrible.

Even if it's true all that means is,

(a) planes achieving takeoff instantly have better than stall speed in the open air and can safely get up and away from the city,

(b) planes landing can come in at any angle, have infinite space to negotiate a decent landing and no specific window to hit as far as retaining enough runway, plus the landing speed is significantly higher than stall speed in free air. That directly improves the controllability of the aircraft.

The guy's right, this would work just fine. Even without a bank and increased G forces, it's not a bad idea, but when you include the reality of the banking increasing takeoff/landing speed over normal stall speed, it becomes a slam dunk. Very good idea anywhere you can afford to build three or more runways in your airport.

Regarding a, how do you figure stall speed is higher? Stall-spin accidents occur precisely because aircraft are in a bank near the ground. They're more common on landing than takeoff because procedure often dictates flying the runway heading until having sufficient speed and altitude to recover.

Regarding b, wind direction is still important. Your airspeed would be constantly in flux when negotiating a landing at a bank since your angle to the wind is constantly changing. This is especially perilous at low speed near the ground due to the risk of spinning.

There may absolutely be benefits to a circular runway, but I see a lot of increased risk around inducing low altitude spins.

A lot of idiots on that forum. "Hey, in just two minutes of casual thinking about this, I've identified a flaw which a professional working on this for years has been unable to see!"

Um, yeah, not so much. The concept may have problems, but that's not how it'll be debunked.

That sounds a lot like a lot of comments on HN honestly.
I'm having trouble recreating the poster's numbers. I'm sure it's my own ignorance, so I'd appreciate some correction.

radius is 3500m velocity is 82m/s

82^2/3500 ~ 1.92

atan(1.92/9.81) ~ 0.19 or 10 degrees of bank.

Where have I gone wrong?

It looks like you used 3500m as the radius when 3500m is the diameter.
Thanks a lot, that's it.
What's so mental. Why is building such a bank unfathomable??
The linked discussion has a lot of speculation and "that's a dumb idea" posts, but no actual debunking.