Why enlarge Heathrow Airport when you can make it smaller?

[Swisaw]

The following letter, I sent out, gives you the basic idea:

I am writing to bring to your attention an innovative idea to help to reduce the costs of running your airport by a large amount and the costs of airlines using it. This is through the application of my concept entitled: “Hydro-Mechanical Battery” or “HMB”. The application of HMB in your airport leads to important implications and environmental advantages. It can reduce braking time and distance of landing of aeroplanes by as much as you want.

Assume you want to reduce braking time and distance on each of your landing runways to one third, 1/3, with the support of HMB. This means now you can land three aeroplanes during the same previous time period when you were landing only one. Wait a minute there are more to it. You are now using only 1/3 of the landing runway and you have 2/3 of it become empty and unused. You can divide this unused part to two 1/3 parts and use each one to land two more aeroplanes like the first 1/3 part.

Theoretically, now you can land nine aeroplanes on the same landing runway during the same time period when you were landing only one. Assuming you needed one flying runway for each landing runway before, now you need 3 flying runway for each 1/3 previous landing runway. You have saved the land needed for 2.67 landing runways. This will help to reduce the size of your airport by almost half. Additionally HMB has a potential to provide your airport with all powers needed. Please see technical details of HMB at this site:

http://www.hmb.thrilling.me.uk

 

[Deleted member 138423]

So in effect, you're creating a STOL aircraft without the short take off? So with these shortened runways, how would the aircraft now take off considering that all commercial aircraft at MTOW need more runway taking off than to land?

 

[Swisaw]

So in effect, you're creating a STOL aircraft without the short take off? So with these shortened runways, how would the aircraft now take off considering that all commercial aircraft at MTOW need more runway taking off than to land?

This has nothing to do with take off. Take off runways stay the same but landing runways get shortened.

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

This has nothing to do with take off. Take off runways stay the same but landing runways get shortened.

I see what you are getting at, this could result in 9 planes landing for every 1 taking off. Could give the tourism industry a good boost as well!

 

[Deleted member 138423]

This has nothing to do with take off. Take off runways stay the same but landing runways get shortened.

No such thing as a take off runway! Most airports have several runways or Gatwick which has the one, and all runways to land or take off on change due to the prevailing wind direction on that day, so you cannot deem one runway to be the landing runway or take off!

 

[Swisaw]

No such thing as a take off runway! Most airports have several runways or Gatwick which has the one, and all runways to land or take off on change due to the prevailing wind direction on that day, so you cannot deem one runway to be the landing runway or take off!

That is obvious, a runway can be used for landing and taking off. But in the case of my idea a landing runway can only be used for landing.

 

[Deleted member 138423]

That is obvious, a runway can be used for landing and taking off. But in the case of my idea a landing runway can only be used for landing.

No airport will take you up on that idea due to the requirement for a runway to be used for both directions.

 

[Subbynet]

I think you just confused the living shizle out of Heathrow middle management.

I hate to tell you my friend, but Tower Bridge had this idea back in 1894. You've just reinvented the accumulator!

 

[MikeJ]

Well, it's better than inventing "gravity".

 

[Subbynet]

Well, it's better than inventing "gravity".

True, nobody buys gravity!

 

[Swisaw]

I think you just confused the living shizle out of Heathrow middle management.

I hate to tell you my friend, but Tower Bridge had this idea back in 1894. You've just reinvented the accumulator!

There is some conceptual similarity between both but technically both are very far from each other. An accumulator is very simple. It is a high tower filled with water, the potential energy of which used to do a job. The advantages of HMB over accumulators is that HMBs are going to be very small compared with accumulators and can be moved from one place to another.

I think accumulators are still used in some parts of the country.

 

I got a better idea close mcdonalds and we would have smaller people,therefore we could get more on each plane.

I suspect the average passenger would be a bit unhappy about having the landing runway any shorter as landing a jumbo with 500 people on board moving at 200mph may require a certain degree of tolerance.

P.S have you been involved with the Wacky Racers.:|

 

[leemason]

At Heathrow the landing and take-off runways alternate. Amongst other things this gives residents under each runway a rest from the constant aircraft noise. Under your plan there would be one take-off and one landing runway. This would mean that residents under the assigned take-off runway would get the noise all of the time (aircraft produce much more noise on take-off than landing).

Also the number of aircraft that can take-off or land is not defined by the distance it takes them to stop (well not completely anyway). It if defined by the separation between the aircraft. If this separation is reduced then the safety margin is also reduced. Also separation must be maintained in order that aircraft wash does not damage the following plane. A 747 or A380 can produce enough wash to roll a smaller jet if it gets too close.

Under your plan you would have three aircraft using the same single stretch of runway (albeit different sections of it). They would virtually be running on the same approach track. This is completely unworkable. What if one aircraft had to go around. If that happened when another aircraft was on the same approach track to a different part of the same runway this could lead to disaster.

If you could make aircraft land in a shorter distance they could clear the runway more quickly and this might allow maybe 10%-15% more landings but not the 2-3 times as many landings as you suggest. And as others have mentioned those aircraft still need to take off so you would have to increase the take-off capacity by the same amount.

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

Has anyone actually bothered to read the link in the OP?

It is quite well written, nice illustrations and also VERY amusing

Maybe the OP should have saved this for 1st April.....

 

[Subbynet]

Sorry this isn't just conceptual similar, this is pretty much the exact same thing. I'm struggling to find differences.

Accumulators are still used in loads of places (Pretty much anywhere you find Hydraulic pressure), they're not a historical relic but in actual use in virtually every manufacturing plant all over the country, and in things like Lorries and Tractors. They range from the very big - and old, like in Tower Bridge, to units the size of a Football.

 

Has anyone actually bothered to read the link in the OP?

It is quite well written, nice illustrations and also VERY amusing

Maybe the OP should have saved this for 1st April.....

I did read it well done as said.

Although I was a bit put of by "Ah Mad inventor" in the first line.:|

 

[Swisaw]

At Heathrow the landing and take-off runways alternate. Amongst other things this gives residents under each runway a rest from the constant aircraft noise. Under your plan there would be one take-off and one landing runway. This would mean that residents under the assigned take-off runway would get the noise all of the time (aircraft produce much more noise on take-off than landing).

Also the number of aircraft that can take-off or land is not defined by the distance it takes them to stop (well not completely anyway). It if defined by the separation between the aircraft. If this separation is reduced then the safety margin is also reduced. Also separation must be maintained in order that aircraft wash does not damage the following plane. A 747 or A380 can produce enough wash to roll a smaller jet if it gets too close.

Under your plan you would have three aircraft using the same single stretch of runway (albeit different sections of it). They would virtually be running on the same approach track. This is completely unworkable. What if one aircraft had to go around. If that happened when another aircraft was on the same approach track to a different part of the same runway this could lead to disaster.

If you could make aircraft land in a shorter distance they could clear the runway more quickly and this might allow maybe 10%-15% more landings but not the 2-3 times as many landings as you suggest. And as others have mentioned those aircraft still need to take off so you would have to increase the take-off capacity by the same amount.

The question of noise has solutions. The landing runway doesn't have to be the same length as it is now. For example a new landing runway, supported with HMB, can be made 1/3 of the length of the existing landing runway, in which case landing can take place at both direction in line with wind direction. So you saved 2/3rds of the land and increased landing capacity by three times. That is not bad.

 

[Swisaw]

Sorry this isn't just conceptual similar, this is pretty much the exact same thing. I'm struggling to find differences.

Accumulators are still used in loads of places (Pretty much anywhere you find Hydraulic pressure), they're not a historical relic but in actual use in virtually every manufacturing plant all over the country, and in things like Lorries and Tractors. They range from the very big - and old, like in Tower Bridge, to units the size of a Football.

Vehicle hydraulic systems and HMBs are very different.

 

[Subbynet]

Vehicle hydraulic systems and HMBs are very different.

How is this different from any existing accumulator?

 

[Subbynet]

I've been reading more detail about diagram 7,8 and 9...

The flat rope across the runway idea to reduce breaking distance has surely already been used on Aircraft carriers? The main difference I see is that they no longer capture the power, as when the plane landed it use to pull a massive weight from one end of a ship to the other, which reduced the speed of the plane. You seem to be taking this power and "accumulating" it? ... (you seem to be calling it a charge pump?) then releasing this power to reset the system?

Maybe I've got it wrong but that's what it appears to do...

 

[Swisaw]

I've been reading more detail about diagram 7,8 and 9...

The flat rope across the runway idea to reduce breaking distance has surely already been used on Aircraft carriers? The main difference I see is that they no longer capture the power, as when the plane landed it use to pull a massive weight from one end of a ship to the other, which reduced the speed of the plane. You seem to be taking this power and "accumulating" it? ... (you seem to be calling it a charge pump?) then releasing this power to reset the system?

Maybe I've got it wrong but that's what it appears to do...

Yes, that is what it is. It does three jobs, it reduces landing distance, landing time and accumulates brake energy of the plane. The system uses a small amount of accumulated power to reset itself. The rest of the accumulated power put to use as a free power source.

 

[Subbynet]

Okay I see...

There would be some considerations.. for example most aircraft would need strengthening like aircraft on carriers, and if you need to do that, then this means more weight, which results in less range, and worse fuel economy, and also added maintenance.

All this ultimately drops the service life of the aircraft, and to the customers, will result in higher fares.

Plus unless you have catapults to launch the aircraft, you'll need longer runways to take-off safely, effectively killing the advantages of a shorter runways.

Maybe your idea can be used on aircraft carriers in some form, but for airports I can see quite a few issues to overcome.

 

[Swisaw]

Okay I see...

There would be some considerations.. for example most aircraft would need strengthening like aircraft on carriers, and if you need to do that, then this means more weight, which results in less range, and worse fuel economy, and also added maintenance.

All this ultimately drops the service life of the aircraft, and to the customers, will result in higher fares.

Plus unless you have catapults to launch the aircraft, you'll need longer runways to take-off safely, effectively killing the advantages of a shorter runways.

Maybe your idea can be used on aircraft carriers in some form, but for airports I can see quite a few issues to overcome.

No need for strengthening because the aircraft doesn't face a stress more than the usual taking brake to slow down and stop. In addition to landing time and landing distant reduction and energy accumulation, the system saves a lot of wears and tears on the tyres, which must be very expensive.

The system is only good on landing runways and it has nothing to do with take off runways.

 

[Deleted member 138423]

Tell me this thread is a wind up?

 

[MASSEY]

But what if two planes are landing on the one runway divided into 3 and the pilot is half asleep and lands ontop of the other plane

Surely health and safety will look at your idea and bin it without hesitation?

 

[MikeJ]

No need for strengthening because the aircraft doesn't face a stress more than the usual taking brake to slow down and stop. In addition to landing time and landing distant reduction and energy accumulation, the system saves a lot of wears and tears on the tyres, which must be very expensive.

The system is only good on landing runways and it has nothing to do with take off runways.

If you're trying to stop any object, you need a force. The rate of change of velocity (acceleration) is proportional to the force and mass. F=MA. Newton's second law of motion. If you're going to reduce the distance in which a plane stops, you'll need a greater force.

 

[Deleted member 138423]

However, this might be appropriate in some way to perhaps understand the technicalities;

So, the plane is sat on a massive conveyor belt type arrangement, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. There is no wind.

Can the plane take off?

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

So, the plane is sat on a massive conveyor belt type arrangement, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. There is no wind.

Can the plane take off?

Yes

and

No........

 

[MikeJ]

Well you're half right

 

[Subbynet]

I think I'll have to disagree with you about the stress on the airframe. Aircraft Carriers already use a system like this and they require strengthening, although I will concede regular airports, even with shorter runways, will be longer than a carrier has available, so the stress won't be as high, but I think will be higher than normal.

The military also uses a system like this for short and temporary runways on land.

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

Well you're half right

Both answers are correct (IMO) it really depends on how the answer is explained.
Not trying to be smart, just read this http://www.mathrec.org/old/2010jan/solutions.html

 

[Subbynet]

However, this might be appropriate in some way to perhaps understand the technicalities;

So, the plane is sat on a massive conveyor belt type arrangement, as wide and as long as a runway, and intends to take off. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels at any given time, moving in the opposite direction of rotation. There is no wind.

Can the plane take off?

I think yes, because the wheels are not the driving force to get it up to speed.

 

[Subbynet]

I have a small nitro powered radio control aircraft, and a treadmill haha, I shall try it one day and tell you.

 

[Subbynet]

Right... I've found the answer to that question thanks to Mythbusters.

Yes, the plane will take off just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY

 

If you're trying to stop any object, you need a force. The rate of change of velocity (acceleration) is proportional to the force and mass. F=MA. Newton's second law of motion. If you're going to reduce the distance in which a plane stops, you'll need a greater force.

And some serious seat belts,pilots on aircraft duty experience the maximum deceleration and they are trained for it..

I doubt ones average passenger would survive without injury.

 

[Swisaw]

If you're trying to stop any object, you need a force. The rate of change of velocity (acceleration) is proportional to the force and mass. F=MA. Newton's second law of motion. If you're going to reduce the distance in which a plane stops, you'll need a greater force.

On the basis of a simple common sense, if we reduce the braking distance the braking stress on the body will increase. So if we reduce a usual braking distance by 2/3rd we will have to increase body strength by 2/3. However my system brakes a landing plane by pulling it backward from the back. This has an important advantage over a usual braking system.

The usual braking system has a disadvantage of force multiplication. This force multiplication is equal to body momentum by the distance between the ground under braking wheels to the centre of plane body momentum. So if the centre of body momentum is 10.00 metres high the braking strength must be higher by 10 times.

My braking system eliminates this brake force multiplication. It is some how similar to a barrel when you are pushing it or pulling it to move a load. It is a lot easier to pull the barrel than pushing it. So with the application of my system body strength wouldn't a problem.

 

[Subbynet]

I don't think braking (pulling) from the back makes any difference in this case. You'll still need increased structural strength due to the kinetic energy traveling though the fuselage.

Also planes, well larger ones, tend not to use their disk brakes until they're traveling relatively slowly. The main bulk of braking is done by reverse thrusting and spoilers/air-brakes..

 

[Swisaw]

I don't think braking (pulling) from the back makes any difference in this case. You'll still need increased structural strength due to the kinetic energy traveling though the fuselage.

Also planes, well larger ones, tend not to use their disk brakes until they're traveling relatively slowly. The main bulk of braking is done by reverse thrusting and spoilers/air-brakes..

Reverse thrusting and air brakes don't cause brake stress multiplication. My ground brake system acts almost similarly. In addition to that, my ground brake system reduces the weight of the body because the plane doesn't need a heavy braking system. Usually braking parts of a plane is very heavy. A plane may still need a usual very light braking system for emergencies.

 

[Subbynet]

If I'm honest, I don't know what you mean by "brake stress multiplication". Its not a term I'm familiar with. You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

The plane will need "heavy" braking systems because that's the rules. A plane must be able to bring itself to a standstill without the use of Reverse Thrusting or Air Brakes to be certified to fly. Plus if you make the brakes lighter (smaller), they'll wear out faster.

 

If I'm honest, I don't know what you mean by "brake stress multiplication". Its not a term I'm familiar with. You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

The plane will need "heavy" braking systems because that's the rules. A plane must be able to bring itself to a standstill without the use of Reverse Thrusting or Air Brakes to be certified to fly. Plus if you make the brakes lighter (smaller), they'll wear out faster.

Brakes are already pretty light as they are carbon.

A video of a jumbo braking with worn out brakes.

http://momfy.wordpress.com/2011/06/...rted-takeoff-technically-incorrect-cnet-news/