Indoor runway for Dublin Airport?

johndb

I was thinking about the cancellations of flights and delays at Dublin airport and airports in Europe and just thinking there must be an easier way to ensure normal flow of traffic during these freezing and snowy weather conditions. I didn't see anything out there on the web like this so forgive me if it is already done in some other countries. I am just throwing this unusual idea out there to see what people think.

I use the word indoor loosely. What about having a giant polytunnel-like / plastic sheet with a frame structure to cover airport runways and adjacent tracks/roadways at least 20 ft above ground that could electronically be removed (and rolled up for compact storage) and extended on demand (i.e. used during snowy and freezing weather and unused during fine conditions). The cover would obviously catch snow and rain ensuring a clear and dry runway. Planes could land and take off from the runway through openings at either end of the giant plastic tunnels. If most of the track were protected then it might just leave the ends of the tunnel exposed to snow which could be a manageable area by salt and snow plows. I would imagine this solution could be done inexpensively and given the disruption snow has caused this year; would repay itself over time.

The material would need to be strong enough to hold the weight of snow and withstand any strong winds. The design of the plastic roof could allow snow to slide to the sides of the structure to ease the weight. A cheap hard plastic may be more suitable than a loose plastic. It should be possible to create a structure secure enough to withstand any strong winds too. Covering miles of motorway is one thing but when you got a few hundred metres to cover with an airport I imagine it is possible.

Underground heating would probably be ideal although expensive and work would interrupt traffic. It may be dark underneath the tunnel although a transparent material may let some light in, but do you need to see anyway? The runway has lights as do the planes, staff and customers can get on and off via those boarding tunnels.
Another issue is would the pilots need to see the actual runway from the air? Well you could have a basic outline of the runway marked and maybe lights on the roof of the giant polytunnel as a guideline and the computer systems will guide the plane.

This country can set up giant tents every year for a couple of days at music festivals like the Electric Picnic in Stradbally, Co. Laois, surely we could erect similar structures in urgent and practical cases like this. Is this feasible and economical? Is this realistic?
I am not an engineer or pilot etc. Just a civilian looking from the outside in.

highlydebased

Dont think so. At peak times the runway is at full use so it would never be extended. What happens if it pours down snow then?

WalterMitty

aerodynamics.
Cost, (energy /maintenenece)
Time to errect and retract every time an incident happens.
Thats just for starters.

-Chris-

Thread moved to Aviation & Aircraft - A&A Charter now applies.

HavingCrack

Is there anything similar to this in places that see a lot of snow and ice such as Chicago or Moscow??

I've never heard of anything along these lines.

johndb

Neon-Circles wrote: »

What happens if it pours down snow then?

Well as soon as it starts the cover would extend electronically over the runway without interruption of traffic. As the planes only rely on either end for height.

WalterMitty wrote: »

aerodynamics.
Cost, (energy /maintenenece)
Time to errect and retract every time an incident happens.
Thats just for starters.

Aerodynamics: well there would be less wind and air resistence; surely a good thing and calculable for flight computer systems. Maintenance - would be low enough I imagine and could last easily 10 to 20 + years with a good design. Time - well again the quality would be important, should be possible to get it all covered within max 20 mins and at best maybe 5 minutes. If snow did hit the tracks before all covered then it could be removed by usual procedures.

highlydebased

johndb wrote: »

Well as soon as it starts the cover would extend electronically over the runway without interruption of traffic. As the planes only rely on either end for height.

I can tell you from a safety point of view that will never happen. That would also mean the touchdown zone would be covered in snow, so it would be a general waste of time in that case. What if they need to do a go around commanded at 50-100 feet? end up flying into a polytunnel instead.

Atlantic Dawn

Just copy exactly what they do in Helsinki to keep their airport open and we will be fine, no need for reports, action groups, seminars, public information campaigns, task forces, HSE adverts, etc etc etc etc etc...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12042213

johndb

Neon-Circles wrote: »

I can tell you from a safety point of view that will never happen. That would also mean the touchdown zone would be covered in snow, so it would be a general waste of time in that case. What if they need to do a go around commanded at 50-100 feet? end up flying into a polytunnel instead.

Then make the polytunnel 150 m - 200 m in height to allow a plane to fly the whole way through if for some reason it can't land. Although it will make it slower to extend and more expensive though I still think it could be effective.
At most 50 metres of area at both ends would be covered in snow, but this is a much more manageable area for existing equipment and procedures, than what they have now.

As for Finland they must spend loads of money on staff, equipment, chemicals and salt etc. That perhaps a once off investment in a snow cover structure might end up more profitable in the long run.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Corsendonk

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Polytunnel? Have fun with that idea when it lifts off into the air besides that wouldn't it be like a giant wind tunnel blasting directly at the plane?

AfterDusk

Given that every flight has different touchdown and take-off zones, no!

johndb

Corsendonk wrote: »

.... wouldn't it be like a giant wind tunnel blasting directly at the plane?

Yes this would be useful when the winds are blowing behind the plane, giving it more speed, so less energy and thrust needed for take off. Similarly if it was in front of the plane, less energy would be needed to halt the landing plane with the assistence of the wind. Either end of this structure could be quickly opened or closed to harness the wind depending on wind direction and whether the plane is taking off or landing.

ATCO_eidw

im not quite sure you get how take-offs and landings work.....

Fair play for thinking outside the box,but it would never work.....id like to see that pass a safety case!

someday2010

an indoor runway .. wtf :D

not a chance

taking off and landing inside a mushroom tunnel! i can see so many practical problems.

Although the daa is partial to building white elephants so on reflection u mite see one by 2020

Corsendonk

Airships! No need of a runway!

hurleronditch

johndb wrote: »

Yes this would be useful when the winds are blowing behind the plane, giving it more speed, so less energy and thrust needed for take off. Similarly if it was in front of the plane, less energy would be needed to halt the landing plane with the assistence of the wind. Either end of this structure could be quickly opened or closed to harness the wind depending on wind direction and whether the plane is taking off or landing.

Dear Jebus, Im not a pilot nor an engineer nor do i work in anything related to flying, but this idea as a whole is lunacy. All i can think of is d'unbelievables and it would be a lovely little country if you could only roof it.

For a start, a tailwind is not a beneficial thing for a plane taking off. In fact your theory makes the opposite to sense. A plane generates lift by air passing over and under its wings. If their is no wind, say a 737 can take off when it is doing i dunno, 150mph? so that means that the air is passing the wings at 150mph to get enough lift to leave the ground. They take off into the wind for this purpose, so that if the wind is blowing 30mph, the 737 only has to hit 120 ground speed to get off the deck. respectively if you try take off in a tailwind you need to get to 180mph to take off.

Aside from that, can you imagine if there was a cross wind with a 200 high, 2mile long plastic structure????it would have to weight the same as antarctica to stay on the ground. Also if its going to be high enough to allow the planes room for variable landings and takeoffs, it will mean the ends will be so open that all of the snow and rain can just blow straight into the tunnel and destroy the runway.

The solution is better ways of clearing runways, better landing gear and planes perhaps for dealing with bad conditions, better forecasting, better de-icing technology. It isnt putting a marquee over the runway.

muppet01

johndb wrote: »

I was thinking about the cancellations of flights and delays at Dublin airport and airports in Europe and just thinking there must be an easier way to ensure normal flow of traffic during these freezing and snowy weather conditions. I didn't see anything out there on the web like this so forgive me if it is already done in some other countries. I am just throwing this usual idea out there to see what people think.

I use the word indoor loosely. What about having a giant polytunnel-like / plastic sheet with a frame structure to cover airport runways and adjacent tracks/roadways at least 20 ft above ground that could electronically be removed (and rolled up for compact storage) and extended on demand (i.e. used during snowy and freezing weather and unused during fine conditions). The cover would obviously catch snow and rain ensuring a clear and dry runway. Planes could land and take off from the runway through openings at either end of the giant plastic tunnels. If most of the track were protected then it might just leave the ends of the tunnel exposed to snow which could be a manageable area by salt and snow plows. I would imagine this solution could be done inexpensively and given the disruption snow has caused this year; would repay itself over time.

The material would need to be strong enough to hold the weight of snow and withstand any strong winds. The design of the plastic roof could allow snow to slide to the sides of the structure to ease the weight. A cheap hard plastic may be more suitable than a loose plastic. It should be possible to create a structure secure enough to withstand any strong winds too. Covering miles of motorway is one thing but when you got a few hundred metres to cover with an airport I imagine it is possible.

Underground heating would probably be ideal although expensive and work would interrupt traffic. It may be dark underneath the tunnel although a transparent material may let some light in, but do you need to see anyway? The runway has lights as do the planes, staff and customers can get on and off via those boarding tunnels.
Another issue is would the pilots need to see the actual runway from the air? Well you could have a basic outline of the runway marked and maybe lights on the roof of the giant polytunnel as a guideline and the computer systems will guide the plane.

This country can set up giant tents every year for a couple of days at music festivals like the Electric Picnic in Stradbally, Co. Laois, surely we could erect similar structures in urgent and practical cases like this. Is this feasible and economical? Is this realistic?
I am not an engineer or pilot etc. Just a civilian looking from the outside in.

In all fairness...........:o

johndb

Corsendonk wrote: »

Airships! No need of a runway!

No runway? Yes interesting. Just postpone the tunnel idea for a moment.

Here is another alternative to throw at the experts. Suppose you have aircrafts capable of vertical take off like a helicopter, airship /airballoon, harrier jump-jet. Choosing the helicopter route here say the aircraft is equiped with helicopter blades, jet engines (capable of rotation to a vertical and horizontal orientation) and wings. So once it is airbourne after a vertical take off by its helicopter blades to a height of say 400 -500 metres above ground; it starts to use its helicopter blades to make the plane go forward (tilts the craft forward), then over a transition period its jet engines take over this forward motion like a normal plane and blades are contracted undercover mechanically while not in use. Then the helicopter blades are called on again for a vertical landing. Obvious advantage is shorter runway area needed and potentially safer landings.
A passenger version of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey
like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell/Agusta_BA609
Probably will happen in the future, at the moment sounds expensive and still in development.
What about that?

amen

well there would be less wind and air resistenc

yes in in the tunnel but as the plane approaches for landing it will experience wind, crosswinds, turbulence etc
The pilot will have compensated for this using engine power, angle of approach etc.

As the plane enters this wind will disappear affecting the handling of the plane with undesired effects.

We just need to keep the run ways clean like other countries of course this involves spending money....

Obvious advantage is shorter runway area needed and potentially safer landings.

fine for small planes on short hops. A bit different when you trying to build a fuel efficient jet capable of carrying 300+ people several thousand miles.

mayotom

We already have these all over the country, with large concentrations in the monaghan Area....


Just need to take the Mushrooms out and hey presto a new airport...

Johndb, maybe you should go back to Narnia or Hogworths and get another Idea

johndb

mayotom wrote: »

Johndb, maybe you should go back to Narnia or Hogworths and get another Idea

I did, consider the idea of vertical take off planes two threads up.

Soby

hurleronditch wrote: »

Dear Jebus, Im not a pilot nor an engineer nor do i work in anything related to flying, but this idea as a whole is lunacy. All i can think of is d'unbelievables and it would be a lovely little country if you could only roof it.

haha sure why not.Simpons style.but a dome over the whole country

Funfair

A simpler solution would be under ground heating e.g. some sort of heating system under the main runway would clear any ice and possibly light snow

Maybe if they are planning on replacing the tarmac on the runway over the next few years this could be factored in.. but can’t see them digging up a perfectly good runway just to install piping.

I’m sure there is runways somewhere where this is installed. anyone?

Might sound expensive but can't be to much more then the money the Ailines are losing over the last week.

davepatr07

I was thinking airports could use a kind of semi circular cover that comes out automatically from one side of the runway and covers over to the other side (kind of like those covers that go over the chips or pieces of a board game) This would be strong enough to keep the snow out and it would be heated insular material enough to keep the runway free from ice and snow for extended periods but also intervals between landings and takeoffs (Kind of like the wipers of a car) Go back and forward. Maybe I'm thinking too much Thunderbirds here but just a thought.

Manic Moran

someday2010 wrote: »

an indoor runway .. wtf :D

not a chance

Of course it's stupid idea. It'll never happen.

Start.... Programs... Google Earth.

39°5'28"N 127°24'40"E

Oh... wait...


NTM

tricky D

From a structural engineering point of view, the width of runways makes clear spans of 100ish metres very very expensive. To make them able to move, renders the notion impossible. Plastic membrane-type structures don't have anywhere near the required structural integrity. Adding to that, there's the matter of snow loads being very very heavy.

VTOL is very fuel inefficient. Harriers can spend only a very short time in or near that mode. Prop-based VTOL takes a big toll on airframes.

As for underground heating, runways take quite a battering structurally, so the pipes would have to be so far below ground or so thin as to be ineffective.

Given the amount and frequency of snow we and others get makes any such propositions uneconomical.

johndb

Manic Moran wrote: »

...
Start.... Programs... Google Earth.

39°5'28"N 127°24'40"E

Oh... wait...


NTM

Yeah thanks for bringing that up.
http://googlesightseeing.com/2008/05/north-koreas-thunderbird-runways/
See the North Koreans are at it so it must be a good idea!

MrPoker

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course it's stupid idea. It'll never happen.

Start.... Programs... Google Earth.

39°5'28"N 127°24'40"E

Oh... wait...


NTM

Haha them North Koreans are crazy. I wouldn't say aviation safety is paramount there.

Its a mad idea to build an indoor runway. Totally dangerous. The best way forward is to buy more of the right equipment, snowploughs, blowers, de icers and generally have airport staff more prepared for these conditions.

tricky D

Tunnel only wide and safe enough for non yankee imperialist, great nation of Dear Leader planes. Lacks girth:pac:

xflyer

Clever idea, wholly impractical of course. The first aircraft taking off would blow it into a million pieces as it blasted through the top of it. Jetblast is quite strong you know. The ensuing crash and fireball would indeed be spectacular. It simply wouldn't work for all kinds of reasons. But the biggest thing against it is that the Russians haven't tried it. Their solution is cheaper easier and it works. No need for cathedral size tents.

As for the tilt rotor idea, yes they exist but are expensive and slow. Good for short trips but no more.

But keep thinking outside the box. One of the techniques I was taught for creative thinking was to come up with an extreme and impractical idea then step back from it and sometimes you will find the solution.

finbarrk

No harm in thinking about the idea I suppose. But it would end up in the Irish Sea.

cyrusdvirus

xflyer wrote: »

The ensuing crash and fireball would indeed be spectacular.

Well i suppose that'd help get rid of the snow and ice....the affect would be very localised though!!!

In terms of wacky out there ideas, it's a good one. Unfortunately, as the more knowledgeable aeronauts among us here have indicated it wouldn't work due to structural and safety issues.

Go arounds (or aborted landings... see the thread!! ), the sheer weight of snow and ice buildup on the roof, the time it takes to erect the structure.

The VTOL suggestion, again not bad thinking but the fuel load would be compromised. The Harriers preferred a rolling take off, just using the vertical part when coming into land when the weight of the fuel has been mostly used. Helicopters when heavily loaded use running take offs to allow the rotors get enough of a bite into the air and generate lift.

The example provided by Manic is a military airfield. And you might have noticed that the runway is still exposed, it's the hangars, apron, aircraft stands etc that are concealed from us nasty decadent imperialist western powers.

KenHy

Is this really that silly of an Idea? given that this proposed tunnel would be collapsible, It could be used to dramatically decrease the amount of time a runway was closed?

I.e put it up and close the runway when it is snowing, but once it stops take it down and you dont have to keep the runway closed for a few more hours while it's being cleared?

cyrusdvirus

KenHy wrote: »

Is this really that silly of an Idea? given that this proposed tunnel would be collapsible, It could be used to dramatically decrease the amount of time a runway was closed?

I.e put it up and close the runway when it is snowing, but once it stops take it down and you dont have to keep the runway closed for a few more hours while it's being cleared?

How long do you think it would take to put something big enough to cover the length and breadth of a runway? And taxiways? And the apron?
How sturdy would something that's quick to put up be? What about wind while it's being put up? It'd be a dirty great big plaything cos a good stiff breeze, let alone a proper wind.

The roof of some stadium in the us collapsed last week with the weight of all the snow. Admittedly, this roof has apparently given way before. But it is also a permanent structure, which the 'weather bubble/tunnel' being spoken about here would not be.

partyatmygaff

KenHy wrote: »

Is this really that silly of an Idea? given that this proposed tunnel would be collapsible, It could be used to dramatically decrease the amount of time a runway was closed?

I.e put it up and close the runway when it is snowing, but once it stops take it down and you dont have to keep the runway closed for a few more hours while it's being cleared?

It's not a silly idea. It's a completely unfeasible idea.

First of all it would need to be at least 50m high and to be in anyway useful would cover the main taxiways and the runway itself. If you wanted it to be collapsible then you'd need some seriously strong ground supports. Secondly, I doubt many (If any) cheaply available plastics could withstand the thrust of a jet engine or high winds particularly not in massive sheets. The cost of something like that would be almost the same as the cost of a new runway if not even more.

It's just impossible, there's no way to physically shield something as vast as a runway from the elements. A much more realistic solution would be to spray chemical deicer all over the runways and taxiways. It's perfectly viable but for some reason I've never heard of it being done.

Manic Moran

gatecrash wrote: »

The example provided by Manic is a military airfield. And you might have noticed that the runway is still exposed, it's the hangars, apron, aircraft stands etc that are concealed from us nasty decadent imperialist western powers.

Not so. Look again. Unlike most ' underground' air bases which are as you describe, this particular one has a runway which does go right through the mountain. You'll see that to get the full 1800m length, the runway starts sw of the hill in the open, through the mountain, and it emerges again for another couple of hundred meters on theNE side of the mountain.

NTM

Su Campu

Is this April 1st? Is the OP actually thinking it would be acceptable to fly under a polytunnel or have I got it wrong??

Another factor he's forgotten about is that there are acres and acres of apron, taxiways, parking stands, etc that also need to be cleared of snow for an airport to function, not just the runway.

mayotom

KenHy wrote: »

Is this really that silly of an Idea? given that this proposed tunnel would be collapsible, It could be used to dramatically decrease the amount of time a runway was closed?

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

oh and YES

A320-200

Many people dont even seem to be considering the most obvious things.
For example the difference in TODR (Takeoff distance required) for a B738 and a C550. If the "tunnel" ends when a B738 with an average TOW reaches Vr, what happens when the C550 reaches Vr? Will it rotate up through the tunnel? Will it remain on the runway until well past V2?

Not even considering the other many thousands of impossibities going against this idea.

There really must be nothing much else going on in the world if this thread can reach three pages.