I believe itās a large building where the train engine goes onto a track and is lifted and spun 180Ā° in order to head back the way it came or another way
That is correct. When I was young there was still one operational in my hometown. Toured it once as a boy scout and saw it in operation. The hotel that replaced it has a round ballroom in a nod to that but of history. But come to think of it, what practice replaced the roundhouse?
God I love the golden age of aviation. We have a problem, so let's solve it. Today they'd just cancel the project or add more computer controls to solve an issue like this.
Nearby windmills are being installed to control the wind direction. Not only is this more cost effective, but they can help blow storms away from the airport. Truly we live in the footure.
No point.
Some aircraft carriers have them because they're not long enough for taking off normally.
Airports have full length runways, so there's no reason to install things to artificially help aircraft which don't need them.
In the lands where the FAA cannot touch, this is probably more common than you think. Though I canāt imagine 2 tabs of acid in a 172 could possibly end well.
Actually most large aircraft carriers have jumps. Only the United States and France have catapult launched aircraft. China will soon too but not yet. I exclude marine expeditionary ships and helicopter carriers. No jumps on those.
France and the US have half the world's aircraft carriers though...well, mostly the US, since France has 1. And the US carriers have WAY more than half the world's combat navala aviation power. So saying 'most large aircraft carriers have jumps' is a bit disingenuous.
The United States has the lion's share of the large aircraft carriers in the world, and none of them have jumps.
46 total in the world. 20 owned by the US. 4 by France. Zero jumps among them. (Yes, this includes helicopter carriers, as they sometimes carry VTOL jets.)
(And by some accounting, there are only 15 of what you *might* call large carriers, and all 15 do not have jumps.)
On top of what others have said, I would like to point out that there are also safety issues with the ramp. If a 737 loses an engine right before V1 (no return speed) and rejects the take off, the last thing you want is to be approaching a ramp that wants to yeet you into the sky.
This is a risk for Navy aircraft as well, but the Navy accepts a higher level of risk than would be appropriate for civil aviation. For one thing, F-35ās donāt carry 200 civilians whose safety takes priority. Navy pilots can eject if things go pear shaped in a hurry. And the nature of Naval aviation is inherently riskier than civil aviation.
Plus, most aircraft carriers donāt have the ski jump ramp. They use steam powered or electromagnetic catapults to yeet planes off the deck. Footage was recently released by the Navy showing the USS John F Kennedy testing her new catapults by launching wheeled carriages that weighed the same as a combat plane into the James River. It was actually quite impressive.
Agree with everything.
Just keep in mind the US is one of the few that donāt use ramps on carriers. Most of the other countries that have carriers do use ramps. They are much smaller than US carriers.
This is trueā¦.but the US also has an insanely huge number of aircraft carriersā¦which tends to skew the wordwide average more towards catobars than to ski jump carriers.
US carriers have catapults and arresting gear, and donāt operate VSTOL aircraft which would benefit from ramps. The new Chinese navy fleet carriers donāt have ramps either.
Ramps take space and weight. Even USN ships they operate VSTOL fighters like the AV8 and the F35B ( LHA assault ships ) donāt have ramps because they also operate tilt rotors and helicopters which need flat deck space.
F35B and AV8 can still do rolling takeoffs which increase payload, from flat decks.
>Navy pilots can eject
So what youāre saying, is we need to equip 737s with passenger ejection seatsā¦.
Iām pretty sure Boeing already has a prototype.
Just here to say that your chosen vocabulary and phrases had me laughing out loud sitting here waiting for my sandwich to be made. Thank you internet stranger
To add, an aircraft carrier is a fixed length and all aircraft will take off in the same place and weigh much the same. At an airport there are lots of different aircraft that use different distances to take off. By necessity the ramp would be at the end of the runway and it would be impossible to guarantee that an aircraft would be at the right speed when it reached the ramp. And different ramps would (probably) be needed for different aircraft because of their weights and take off speed -> additional g loading relating to velocity squared and radius of ramp. And in practical terms the ramp for something like a B777 would be a lot longer and at a lower angle than the one on the carrier, which is a lot of effort for not much gain since youād end up with a runway that wasnāt much different from a normal flat one.
They donāt have them because itās a horrible idea. Very few aircraft are at flying speed when they go off the end of a runway (maybe none). If an aircraft goes off the end of the runway itās because something went wrong, and usually they are trying to stop (aborted takeoff, etc). In that case, do you want them to crash into some stuff or be launched into it?
Additionally, it would screw up opposite direction approaches (aircraft land into wind, and on a carrier they just point it into wind so itās a one way runway). Runways need a certain amount of clear area prior to the landing area so you would have to make aircraft land significantly further down the runway to avoid the ramp.
Because if you have to abort or go long, you'd be launched into the air and crash down, causing even more damage. Also runways are used in both directions and having a wall near the touchdown zone would be an obvious danger. A little extra length is a small problem compared to the many negatives and unnecessary costs of construction.
Using a ramp aka āski-jumpā at commercial or military airports would prove impractical and hazardous for many reasons but here are a few
-A full length runway negates any need for it
-The ramp would restrict that runwayās use to a very limited number of aircraft classes and be extremely hazardous for others. Think 737, 777, C5, etc large body aircraft.
-During flight ops, ski jump carriers typically orient the bow downwind while launching aircraft to maximize lift. Commercial aircraft leverage the same strategy by which direction they takeoff on a runaway.
-Aircraft can touchdown on either side of a runway vs only one side of a āski-jump runwayā (idk what else to call it). Not a great characteristic to have if an inflight emergency is approaching from the wrong side
These are only a few of several reasons I can think of
Ramps aren't a good idea; but if you're concerned about stopping aircraft from plowing into things at the end of a runway, then some airports have EMAS (engineered material arresting system). This is basically special blocks/surface that allows aircraft to slow/stop in a small amount of distance. Quite expensive; the last airport I worked at had them and were quoted around $1,000/square foot to replace.
In the US, commercial service airports adhere to FAA 139 regulations which also have minimum distances objects can be located from runway ends (safety areas, object free zones, part 77 surfaces).
Land runways have the advantage of length. In the episode you watched, I would be more curious as to why they put a fuel depot at the end of a runway vs. alongside the runway. If the plane made it that far without taking off, a longer runway is probably not going to help.
The landing gear of fixed wing Naval aircraft that take off and land on carriers must meet stringent structural specifications (for either ramp or catapult launch carriers).
Commercial jet landing gear has different structural requirements and is not designed for the abrupt additional forces induced when ascending a runway ramp at takeoff speed. Doing so would likely result in failure of the landing gear and/or structural failure in the fuselage.
Lastly, a ramp at one or both ends of a runway would prove to be a catastrophic obstacle to any aircraft landing from the opposite direction and coming up short of the ramp.
Designers have devised a different solution to help prevent commercial aircraft from going past the end of the runway using an array of special tile boxes filled with sand that collapse when a runaway aircraftās landing gear runs over them which decelerates the plane before it goes completely past the runway: [Short FAA video](https://youtu.be/s4pyLQfCb_0?si=pRjlRcLqs4L8KVtF)
Any plane that uses a catapult and a ramp probably also has ejection seats, and automatic wreck cleanup when the mishap aircraft sinks - not really applicable to land bases where you want that runaway overrun if you need it for an aborted takeoff.
Aircraft carriers with the ski jump at the end are inferior to catapult carriers. The jumps greatly reduce the amount of weight the planes hold on take off. It also greatly slows down the launching of planes. Most carriers have two catapults so they can send one than the other.
Runways can be landed on in either direction, depending on the wind. Aircraft carriers are essentially always going into the wind so they only need a runway that goes one way.
Thereās no need to, you have plenty of room on land. Itās not comfortable, airline pilots do a lot to make sure passengers donāt experience g forces. Also the thrust to weight ratios of a fighter is a lot different. If you point it upward itās going to be able to climb probably even from a standstill.
Ok someone needs to understand the difference in runways between aircraft carriers and runways. Most commercial runways are 4k plus. And military aircraft need to land/take off on less than 1k. But we don't use ramps even on USA carriers. They're just unnecessary
Ramps are the cheap option on aircraft carriers, additionally commercial airliners donāt have thrust they can vector downwards and have runways already in the 1000ās of meters.
Airports with a cope slope?
It would have to sit at the far end, which means displaced threshold for landing and aircraft are usually off the ground and departing ground effect long before the end of the runway.
An even better idea would to have catapults at airports.
But there are a couple of problems with your ramp idea.
First, Aircraft carriers, particularly US carriers can always have 30kts of head wind over the deck regardless of the local wind conditions. Airports canāt do that.
Second, if your airliner doesnāt have enough airspeed to fly by the time it gets to the end of the runway, a ramp is not going to do anything other than make the crash worse.
Third, Navy fighters have thrust that exceeds their mass and can accelerate in a vertical climb. Commercial aircraft donāt. Plus navies using jump ramps have aircraft that can takeoff vertically if necessary. Using the ramp reduces the fuel required to get into the air.
Unfortunately the concept only works for aircraft carriers.
The U.S. Navy doesn't utilize ski jumps (pictured) as they and a couple other Navies catapult their aircraft off the decks. The steam (and now electromagnetic) catapult can take an aircraft from 0-150 mph in a matter of 2-3 seconds and by the time it reaches the end of the deck the engines are in full power or afterburner and capable of getting the aircraft to a faster speed much like if it took off from a normal runway on land.
I believe ski jumps typically work best for fixed wing aircraft that are capable of attaining flight at lower speeds than others, eg. Harriers, F-35Bs, etc.
This would never work for any other aircraft type, especially on land. You'd have to make sure that you're always directly into the wind. An aircraft carrier can make sure of that.
Well one good reason is if they ever needed to abort takeoff they'd have a level surface to stop on, rather than a really sharp hill at the end the runway. I can't imagine trying to steer an airplane backwards down a hill would be safe.
It would be cool but isnāt even know if it would work like that, those ramps are made for small jets, not big aircraft like a 747, the ramp would have to be way longer and less steep too, I just donāt think it would be practical
It's cheaper to make a longer runway. Ramp doesn't do anything that longer runway can't do. If the plane plowed into something at the end, it would have done the same thing off the end of a ramp except from 30-40ft up... unless the ramp was large enough for the plane to "drop" off of and use gravity to increase airspeed (which would require a significant height). Thats basically what is happening here, if I understand correctly - the fighter needs just a little more time to get up above stall speed. Ramp lets them get that time in the air, and without drag.
Also it should be noted that many fighters can be propelled by their engines alone and technically be stalled. Which means the position of the jet engine going downward here is letting them "launch". Think about a spaceship for reference: they aren't "flying" in the sense of wings producing lift, as much as they are "balancing" on their gigantic propulsion.
I would think that the sheer weight of a passenger aircraft would have too much downward stress on it when transitioning to flight that the airframe would fail causing a much more violent crash. We donāt use these ramps on US aircraft carriers. The British aircraft engineers design these for their carriers so maybe they can offer a reasonable answer.
Stress, sheer and wind sheer.
your larger commercial craft don't have military budgets to maintain them, and while interesting in theory; there are far too many things that could go wrong with even a 707 hurling towards an incline pitch for takeoff.
During actual combat, a plane that doesn't successfully take off or land is going to be left behind. Theyll try and send behind a recovery unit but going overboard because you couldn't get off enough power is pretty much a death sentence.
We have no need for any of this in the commercial airline industry. We aren't in a hurry. We don't need to be catapulting planes out of the airport because if they can't make the runway they're going to be sinking to the bottom of the ocean in the middle of a warzone.
Just build the runways long enough. We've had the solution for as long as we've had planes.
Wow. Talk about inventing things that are completely unnecessary, add complexity, risk, and are straight up impractical. The Navy has inherent risk in launching airplanes over the ocean, with limited runway. Read up on how airports are designed and why they have space at the end of the runways vs us throwing airplanes into the air just to crash into a neighborhood or something. Why have stairs in a house when you can just catapult yourself up to the 2nd floor and use a ramp?
This would only make sense for a short jungle strip like the cartels use. When youāre not trying to hide your operation, you can just make a longer, and flat, runway for less money
What youāre really asking about, I think, already exists, and itās called EMAS. But, like most things in aviation, itās usually only installed after something has already gone wrong, as with KBUR. (Though Iām sure the two planes [that Iām aware of] that didnāt end up out on Hollywood Way because of it are thankful, no matter the reason it came to be.)
Itās a clever idea. But unfortunately, it really wouldnāt serve a useful purpose at a land airport. On the takeoff roll, if youāre not at 3/4 of your takeoff speed once you reach the halfway point, youāre supposed to abort the takeoff.
It is expensive and unsafe. There are plenty of ways a plane can fail when that front gear hits the slope.
Plus it puts excessive fatigue on the airframe and front suspension.
The only carriers that have ramps, are ones made by manufacturers that donāt know how to make a good aircraft carrier. All the good ones do not have them.
You donāt need a ramp, itās dangerous with little room for error. This is only made for some additional lift which again if you have the right design you donāt need one. It can cause a lot of headaches with improper angle of attack upon take off and would be a nightmare to manage in a commercial airport
Among other things, it will put a tremendous stress on the airframe. It is for that very reason American carriers don't use ski jumps. Only nations that find catapult launchers to launch planes too expensive and/or complicated useski jumps and as a result their planes' landing gear and fuselages take a beating.
There's no need. It's a lot of extra structure that would never be used since a runway is designed to be longer than needed and then you wouldn't as easily be able to land with a giant sloped structure in your way.
Aircraft carrier jump ramps impart significant download on gear and cause a lowering of the takeoff weightā¦.. not factors that are likely to be embraced by commercial aircraft as they are looking for ways to carry more, and not less!
Ratios. Science. Thrust vs weight. These powerhouses are also flung off a ship with essentially what could be called a sling shot. Not sure of the proper term but Iāve seen documentaries and movies where aircraft carriers have that shit
This guy forgot about wind.
Seriously, though. It would work right up until someone needs to crab in. Maybe if they put them past the TOL thresholds, but I can see these causing more accidents than they would prevent.
What are you going to do for landings? Carriers have the ability to point their ship into the wind. Airports donāt have that luxury. Plus, itās not needed. This is used for STOL. Airports generally have enough room for aircraft to land.
1. Carriers lauch lightweight fighter jets that have thrust to weight ratios of over 1:1 and some carriers have catapults to launch them to takeoff speed in less than 500 feet.
2. Airliners are way heavier and would break under the stress of ramp launching
3. No point in doing it. EMAS is much more effective in runway overrun prevention than a ramp.
Why not have the ramp continue for dozens of miles until it reaches 5,000 ft or so and the plane would just sort of fall off at the peak at the desired altitude? Or better yet, once the ramp reaches the desired altitude continue it at a level grade until the desired destination and then ramp back down? /s š
Most runways have a greater or lesser degree of slope. The runway that has higher elevation at the ends and lower in the middle is much preferred by pilots to the opposite. Thatās because it is faster to accelerate going downhill, and if the airplane has to abort the takeoff, itās easier to do it on the final uphill section. Wind direction doesnāt matter. Thatās the āsmilingā runway and itās the opposite for the āfrowningā runway.
The short answer is airports already have the long runways necessary for commercial jet airliners.
The primary source of aircraft carrier sorties are the U.S. Navy's 10 super carriers, and its 9 "Lightning Carriers", or Amphibious Assault Carriers. The super carriers use steam or electromagnetic catapults to launch their aircraft, so they have no ski jumps like this one. The Lightning Carriers launch either F-35B STOVL fighters (the same as the Royal Navy aircraft pictured above), or Harriers, and then Ospreys/helicopters, for which long flight decks are unnecessary.
The ski jump airport exists.
Check out Falwell Airport outside Lynchburg, VA. This video shows the uphill landing and downhill takeoff. The risk of tailstrike is real.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qaaDCtifEJM
Not the Ramp you are looking forā¦
But Madeira, Portugal is pretty interesting/ close second.
https://s28477.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Madeira_1-984x554.jpg
https://assets.lbc.co.uk/2017/11/madeira-airport-runway-1489506215-herowidev4-0.jpg
Emergency landing braking distance. If it's snows or ices on the ground and the plane has to use that last little bit then you wouldn't want it to be thrown into the air with no power. Beyond the end of the runway there is a emergency crash zone which is usually mud or something that absorbs the momentum from the wheels in case the brakes fail entirely. Takeoff can go bad as well and end up in the emergency braking zone and you wouldn't want to throw a plane into the air that is trying to stop.
Aircraft need to take off and land into the wind. You canāt rotate a runway like you can an aircraft carrier. Ramps are great for takeoff but trying to land into oneā¦.
Most planes don't reach the end of the runway on the ground (Aerosucre). If they do then they've either not done calculations (Aerosucre) or done them wrong
I am not an expert too but I think ramps is for shorter runway on carriers on the water to give a boost to aircraft's launching altitude for wings lift, on the land you got long enough runway to build speed and create lift
I would say that aircraft carriers large as they are can still maneuver 360 degrees so they can adjust for wind direction to make the incline beneficial. Runways are stationary and canāt turn so the ramp could prove to be detrimental in some situations.
All fun and games until winds switch direction.
do what carriers do and turn the whole airport
Funnily enough this is what Zeppelin hangers did
Like an old train engine carousel š
The house I grew up in had rafters made from the old timbers of a turn house!
I bet it could withstand just about anything.
That is just cool.
What is a turn house? Google isnāt providing results
I believe itās a large building where the train engine goes onto a track and is lifted and spun 180Ā° in order to head back the way it came or another way
I believe the section of track in the building turns in most cases. Easier than slinging and lifting a locomotive.
That is correct. When I was young there was still one operational in my hometown. Toured it once as a boy scout and saw it in operation. The hotel that replaced it has a round ballroom in a nod to that but of history. But come to think of it, what practice replaced the roundhouse?
Look up railroad round house
That's because the turning radius on those old engines was horrible.
Give me 40 acres...
That's because blimpin ain't easy.
Got 99 problems and the Hydrogen is definitely one.
Oh fuck... it's not often I'm impressed with a reply like this.
Most underrated comment ever.
God I love the golden age of aviation. We have a problem, so let's solve it. Today they'd just cancel the project or add more computer controls to solve an issue like this.
Stuff is a little more complicated these days than "propeller and flaps strapped to an engine"
The things they engineered with just a slide rule is truly amazing.
That's is such a disservice to Ww2 aircraft. You should hit a museum and ask questions. Engineers back then were incredible
It was an easier kick for translating forward momentum into climbing momentum more easily.
Nearby windmills are being installed to control the wind direction. Not only is this more cost effective, but they can help blow storms away from the airport. Truly we live in the footure.
All the electricity produced by refrigerators and electric cars provide the necessary power to turn the windmills.
Like a thousand acre lazy-Susan.
Turn the field and repaint the numbers. Just like new!
Back when the airport was just a big grassy field and you just pointed the fan into the wind
Make speed for wind over the deck.
Ramp on both ends.
Do what airports do and have like four runways on each carrier
Lol, yes.
... and put the whole airport on the water!
Not the whole airport, just the runways.
No big deal. You can land runway 04 at Courchevel for practice.
Build two runways, checkmate anti-rampers
and then u can kick-flip blunt stall the plane on your massive half pipe as well
Build round runways
Rolling start
That's when you put a rock or several rocks under the runway, everyone knows this... Jeez, what a buzz kill
No point. Some aircraft carriers have them because they're not long enough for taking off normally. Airports have full length runways, so there's no reason to install things to artificially help aircraft which don't need them.
Courchevel would like to say a word
The day that an inanimate runway begins talking to me, I'll probably stop flying.
Welcome to Wonderfalls.
It could happen if you are high enough (hypoxia)
Imagine looking way down at a tiny speck of a runway and it starts a conversation with you.
In the lands where the FAA cannot touch, this is probably more common than you think. Though I canāt imagine 2 tabs of acid in a 172 could possibly end well.
Get lost in the glow of the PAPI as it slowly gets redder and redder.
So would Lukla airport
Technically the whole runwayĀ is a ramp. Gonna need JATO and then some to get up and over the terrain though.
Except you takeoff downhill there
Shorter runways mean smaller airports which means more airports in more locations. Coming soon to a backyard near you...
Actually most large aircraft carriers have jumps. Only the United States and France have catapult launched aircraft. China will soon too but not yet. I exclude marine expeditionary ships and helicopter carriers. No jumps on those.
France and the US have half the world's aircraft carriers though...well, mostly the US, since France has 1. And the US carriers have WAY more than half the world's combat navala aviation power. So saying 'most large aircraft carriers have jumps' is a bit disingenuous.
The United States has the lion's share of the large aircraft carriers in the world, and none of them have jumps. 46 total in the world. 20 owned by the US. 4 by France. Zero jumps among them. (Yes, this includes helicopter carriers, as they sometimes carry VTOL jets.) (And by some accounting, there are only 15 of what you *might* call large carriers, and all 15 do not have jumps.)
On top of what others have said, I would like to point out that there are also safety issues with the ramp. If a 737 loses an engine right before V1 (no return speed) and rejects the take off, the last thing you want is to be approaching a ramp that wants to yeet you into the sky. This is a risk for Navy aircraft as well, but the Navy accepts a higher level of risk than would be appropriate for civil aviation. For one thing, F-35ās donāt carry 200 civilians whose safety takes priority. Navy pilots can eject if things go pear shaped in a hurry. And the nature of Naval aviation is inherently riskier than civil aviation. Plus, most aircraft carriers donāt have the ski jump ramp. They use steam powered or electromagnetic catapults to yeet planes off the deck. Footage was recently released by the Navy showing the USS John F Kennedy testing her new catapults by launching wheeled carriages that weighed the same as a combat plane into the James River. It was actually quite impressive.
Oh wow yes watching these carriages get yeeted is extremely gratifying https://youtu.be/dTzfv6qnZbU?si=7-Zb4FyMla4FqqDT
Wow! It freaking skipped!
I wanted so badly to see a 3-skip
Watched this and all I could think of was wheeeee!
I would like to see this with a ramp. To see the height that they can achieve.
Agree with everything. Just keep in mind the US is one of the few that donāt use ramps on carriers. Most of the other countries that have carriers do use ramps. They are much smaller than US carriers.
This is trueā¦.but the US also has an insanely huge number of aircraft carriersā¦which tends to skew the wordwide average more towards catobars than to ski jump carriers.
US carriers have catapults and arresting gear, and donāt operate VSTOL aircraft which would benefit from ramps. The new Chinese navy fleet carriers donāt have ramps either. Ramps take space and weight. Even USN ships they operate VSTOL fighters like the AV8 and the F35B ( LHA assault ships ) donāt have ramps because they also operate tilt rotors and helicopters which need flat deck space. F35B and AV8 can still do rolling takeoffs which increase payload, from flat decks.
Upvote for yeet usage
>Navy pilots can eject So what youāre saying, is we need to equip 737s with passenger ejection seatsā¦. Iām pretty sure Boeing already has a prototype.
Just here to say that your chosen vocabulary and phrases had me laughing out loud sitting here waiting for my sandwich to be made. Thank you internet stranger
My 1964 Cessna 172F with cruise prop & a O-300-D producing 145 horsepowerā¦when new, would like to discuss this further with you.
You should ask this over at r/shittyaskflying
I had to double check which sub this was posted in lmao.
I did the same lol
Same!! XD
Same!! XD
To add, an aircraft carrier is a fixed length and all aircraft will take off in the same place and weigh much the same. At an airport there are lots of different aircraft that use different distances to take off. By necessity the ramp would be at the end of the runway and it would be impossible to guarantee that an aircraft would be at the right speed when it reached the ramp. And different ramps would (probably) be needed for different aircraft because of their weights and take off speed -> additional g loading relating to velocity squared and radius of ramp. And in practical terms the ramp for something like a B777 would be a lot longer and at a lower angle than the one on the carrier, which is a lot of effort for not much gain since youād end up with a runway that wasnāt much different from a normal flat one.
Airports hate this one trick!
They donāt have them because itās a horrible idea. Very few aircraft are at flying speed when they go off the end of a runway (maybe none). If an aircraft goes off the end of the runway itās because something went wrong, and usually they are trying to stop (aborted takeoff, etc). In that case, do you want them to crash into some stuff or be launched into it? Additionally, it would screw up opposite direction approaches (aircraft land into wind, and on a carrier they just point it into wind so itās a one way runway). Runways need a certain amount of clear area prior to the landing area so you would have to make aircraft land significantly further down the runway to avoid the ramp.
Because if you have to abort or go long, you'd be launched into the air and crash down, causing even more damage. Also runways are used in both directions and having a wall near the touchdown zone would be an obvious danger. A little extra length is a small problem compared to the many negatives and unnecessary costs of construction.
The runway is long enough in a airport to archive V2 ( take off safety speed) no need for a ramp
When Southwest switches to fighter jets they will.
Using a ramp aka āski-jumpā at commercial or military airports would prove impractical and hazardous for many reasons but here are a few -A full length runway negates any need for it -The ramp would restrict that runwayās use to a very limited number of aircraft classes and be extremely hazardous for others. Think 737, 777, C5, etc large body aircraft. -During flight ops, ski jump carriers typically orient the bow downwind while launching aircraft to maximize lift. Commercial aircraft leverage the same strategy by which direction they takeoff on a runaway. -Aircraft can touchdown on either side of a runway vs only one side of a āski-jump runwayā (idk what else to call it). Not a great characteristic to have if an inflight emergency is approaching from the wrong side These are only a few of several reasons I can think of
Ramps aren't a good idea; but if you're concerned about stopping aircraft from plowing into things at the end of a runway, then some airports have EMAS (engineered material arresting system). This is basically special blocks/surface that allows aircraft to slow/stop in a small amount of distance. Quite expensive; the last airport I worked at had them and were quoted around $1,000/square foot to replace. In the US, commercial service airports adhere to FAA 139 regulations which also have minimum distances objects can be located from runway ends (safety areas, object free zones, part 77 surfaces).
Because they have longer runways instead.
Land runways have the advantage of length. In the episode you watched, I would be more curious as to why they put a fuel depot at the end of a runway vs. alongside the runway. If the plane made it that far without taking off, a longer runway is probably not going to help.
When Winter hits and there is freezing rain and other slick surfaces, crews would have a hard time deicing it because of the incline.
The landing gear of fixed wing Naval aircraft that take off and land on carriers must meet stringent structural specifications (for either ramp or catapult launch carriers). Commercial jet landing gear has different structural requirements and is not designed for the abrupt additional forces induced when ascending a runway ramp at takeoff speed. Doing so would likely result in failure of the landing gear and/or structural failure in the fuselage. Lastly, a ramp at one or both ends of a runway would prove to be a catastrophic obstacle to any aircraft landing from the opposite direction and coming up short of the ramp. Designers have devised a different solution to help prevent commercial aircraft from going past the end of the runway using an array of special tile boxes filled with sand that collapse when a runaway aircraftās landing gear runs over them which decelerates the plane before it goes completely past the runway: [Short FAA video](https://youtu.be/s4pyLQfCb_0?si=pRjlRcLqs4L8KVtF)
If you wanna see something pretty radical in terms of design, Google circular runway.
Any plane that uses a catapult and a ramp probably also has ejection seats, and automatic wreck cleanup when the mishap aircraft sinks - not really applicable to land bases where you want that runaway overrun if you need it for an aborted takeoff.
Aircraft carriers with the ski jump at the end are inferior to catapult carriers. The jumps greatly reduce the amount of weight the planes hold on take off. It also greatly slows down the launching of planes. Most carriers have two catapults so they can send one than the other.
Because airports have runways that are long enough.
Because they donāt need them, longer runways
What if we build an airfield that could rotate?
Trees. And power lines. But mostly trees.
r/shittyaskflying
Runways can be landed on in either direction, depending on the wind. Aircraft carriers are essentially always going into the wind so they only need a runway that goes one way.
Makes landing much more interesting - plus running off the runway, which happens occasionally would be much more severe.
Land and sea have different attributes
Plane fat, jet nimble
my physics teacher said it takes more energy to launch off of a ramp that a flat surface
So instead of the plane crashing into the gas storage, itāll just get yeeted over and crash into whateverās beyond that?
Well my guess is that airlines are to big for those ramps so they wouldn't do much and it wouldn't be great if the wind direction changed
lol, imagine how fun would it be? every flight to be a nocker?
youre no expert clearly
How would you land?
planes aren't using all runway to land. Every landing I've seen had the plane touching down at least 30 meters from the begining of the runway.
They also don't use _all_ the runway to take off either. That's why they don't need a ramp. Those runways are long enough.
Thereās no need to, you have plenty of room on land. Itās not comfortable, airline pilots do a lot to make sure passengers donāt experience g forces. Also the thrust to weight ratios of a fighter is a lot different. If you point it upward itās going to be able to climb probably even from a standstill.
There is no need
Some airports do, especially short fields on the edge of a cliff. Otherwise, it's not needed and would not be practical for most planes.
Because it would render it useless for traffic coming the other direction. And besides we're not Chinese
Aircraft carriers always point into the wind. Airports canāt.
Ok someone needs to understand the difference in runways between aircraft carriers and runways. Most commercial runways are 4k plus. And military aircraft need to land/take off on less than 1k. But we don't use ramps even on USA carriers. They're just unnecessary
Ramps are the cheap option on aircraft carriers, additionally commercial airliners donāt have thrust they can vector downwards and have runways already in the 1000ās of meters.
Airports with a cope slope? It would have to sit at the far end, which means displaced threshold for landing and aircraft are usually off the ground and departing ground effect long before the end of the runway.
Wind
An even better idea would to have catapults at airports. But there are a couple of problems with your ramp idea. First, Aircraft carriers, particularly US carriers can always have 30kts of head wind over the deck regardless of the local wind conditions. Airports canāt do that. Second, if your airliner doesnāt have enough airspeed to fly by the time it gets to the end of the runway, a ramp is not going to do anything other than make the crash worse. Third, Navy fighters have thrust that exceeds their mass and can accelerate in a vertical climb. Commercial aircraft donāt. Plus navies using jump ramps have aircraft that can takeoff vertically if necessary. Using the ramp reduces the fuel required to get into the air.
Unfortunately the concept only works for aircraft carriers. The U.S. Navy doesn't utilize ski jumps (pictured) as they and a couple other Navies catapult their aircraft off the decks. The steam (and now electromagnetic) catapult can take an aircraft from 0-150 mph in a matter of 2-3 seconds and by the time it reaches the end of the deck the engines are in full power or afterburner and capable of getting the aircraft to a faster speed much like if it took off from a normal runway on land. I believe ski jumps typically work best for fixed wing aircraft that are capable of attaining flight at lower speeds than others, eg. Harriers, F-35Bs, etc. This would never work for any other aircraft type, especially on land. You'd have to make sure that you're always directly into the wind. An aircraft carrier can make sure of that.
Well one good reason is if they ever needed to abort takeoff they'd have a level surface to stop on, rather than a really sharp hill at the end the runway. I can't imagine trying to steer an airplane backwards down a hill would be safe.
It's a lot harder to do a kickflip with an A380
Uphill slopes increase takeoff distance
It would be cool but isnāt even know if it would work like that, those ramps are made for small jets, not big aircraft like a 747, the ramp would have to be way longer and less steep too, I just donāt think it would be practical
Try stopping a 200 ton plane at like, 280 mph. See how that works out for you and the plane.
It's cheaper to make a longer runway. Ramp doesn't do anything that longer runway can't do. If the plane plowed into something at the end, it would have done the same thing off the end of a ramp except from 30-40ft up... unless the ramp was large enough for the plane to "drop" off of and use gravity to increase airspeed (which would require a significant height). Thats basically what is happening here, if I understand correctly - the fighter needs just a little more time to get up above stall speed. Ramp lets them get that time in the air, and without drag. Also it should be noted that many fighters can be propelled by their engines alone and technically be stalled. Which means the position of the jet engine going downward here is letting them "launch". Think about a spaceship for reference: they aren't "flying" in the sense of wings producing lift, as much as they are "balancing" on their gigantic propulsion.
What's with the AI photo?
random photo with an aircraft carrier ramp I found.
What happens if the plane has to bail, but it still has too much momentum so it can't stop from going over the ramp?
Depends, whatās on the other side of the gas storage?
Because you will still need long runways for landing.
I think we should just install catapult systems at airports like real aircraft carriers doā¦
I feel like itās easier to just not store the gas at the end of the runway, but I like your concept of jumping it with a ramp like hot wheels
That would be quite interesting. Terrifying, but quite interesting, to watch. Would you require all the jets to use the whole runway?
I would think that the sheer weight of a passenger aircraft would have too much downward stress on it when transitioning to flight that the airframe would fail causing a much more violent crash. We donāt use these ramps on US aircraft carriers. The British aircraft engineers design these for their carriers so maybe they can offer a reasonable answer.
Stress, sheer and wind sheer. your larger commercial craft don't have military budgets to maintain them, and while interesting in theory; there are far too many things that could go wrong with even a 707 hurling towards an incline pitch for takeoff.
They do. FLL is one I can name.
Hear me outā¦. Circular runways With rampsā¦
During actual combat, a plane that doesn't successfully take off or land is going to be left behind. Theyll try and send behind a recovery unit but going overboard because you couldn't get off enough power is pretty much a death sentence. We have no need for any of this in the commercial airline industry. We aren't in a hurry. We don't need to be catapulting planes out of the airport because if they can't make the runway they're going to be sinking to the bottom of the ocean in the middle of a warzone. Just build the runways long enough. We've had the solution for as long as we've had planes.
Wow. Talk about inventing things that are completely unnecessary, add complexity, risk, and are straight up impractical. The Navy has inherent risk in launching airplanes over the ocean, with limited runway. Read up on how airports are designed and why they have space at the end of the runways vs us throwing airplanes into the air just to crash into a neighborhood or something. Why have stairs in a house when you can just catapult yourself up to the 2nd floor and use a ramp?
Because ramps cost very big money, and solve very little to no problems.
Itās useless
Flying is more based on airflow under the wing opposed to structural lift
Or, and hear me out, why don't airport's just use catapults like aircraft carriers?
Because physics
Listen here you little shit, physics don't matter!!
This would only make sense for a short jungle strip like the cartels use. When youāre not trying to hide your operation, you can just make a longer, and flat, runway for less money
Because that would be stupid.
1: Runways are long enough 2: Without a Ramp, they can theoretically be used in both directions
Massive stress on airframes? I feel like a military that can afford a carrier has more money to spend per aircraft than a private, for-profit airline.
If you aren't able to take off or stop normally all the ramp does is just launch the plane slightly farther before it crashes anyway.
What youāre really asking about, I think, already exists, and itās called EMAS. But, like most things in aviation, itās usually only installed after something has already gone wrong, as with KBUR. (Though Iām sure the two planes [that Iām aware of] that didnāt end up out on Hollywood Way because of it are thankful, no matter the reason it came to be.)
Different planes, different weights, different take off speeds, wind direction, I could go onā¦..
Itās a clever idea. But unfortunately, it really wouldnāt serve a useful purpose at a land airport. On the takeoff roll, if youāre not at 3/4 of your takeoff speed once you reach the halfway point, youāre supposed to abort the takeoff.
If youāve ever looked straight down the runway, lots of them do have some type of terrain grade.
Ktex?
Cost and no reason to.
It is expensive and unsafe. There are plenty of ways a plane can fail when that front gear hits the slope. Plus it puts excessive fatigue on the airframe and front suspension.
Iām going to guess itās something about thrust to weight ratios.
Trap landings, too.
Screw ski jumps! Letās use catapults like REAL carriers do! Murica!
Telluride does
Because Boeing pilots need space to bail out when their planes do Boeing things.
The concept was proposed and studied as early as 1952, but concrete thinkers at the time dismissed the idea as a nonsensical scheme without meritā¦
The only carriers that have ramps, are ones made by manufacturers that donāt know how to make a good aircraft carrier. All the good ones do not have them. You donāt need a ramp, itās dangerous with little room for error. This is only made for some additional lift which again if you have the right design you donāt need one. It can cause a lot of headaches with improper angle of attack upon take off and would be a nightmare to manage in a commercial airport
Among other things, it will put a tremendous stress on the airframe. It is for that very reason American carriers don't use ski jumps. Only nations that find catapult launchers to launch planes too expensive and/or complicated useski jumps and as a result their planes' landing gear and fuselages take a beating.
So basically aircraft can only take off from one single direction if build a ramp like that.
I believe air craft carriers use a sling shot machine to help the aircraft shoot off the deck. I know Iām not using the correct terminology.
You mean a catapult. Not aircraft carriers with jump ramps. Either you have a catapult or the jump ramp. Never both.
I learned something new.
There's no need. It's a lot of extra structure that would never be used since a runway is designed to be longer than needed and then you wouldn't as easily be able to land with a giant sloped structure in your way.
Un-American
Not enough ground speed
Because itās not needed
Aircraft carrier jump ramps impart significant download on gear and cause a lowering of the takeoff weightā¦.. not factors that are likely to be embraced by commercial aircraft as they are looking for ways to carry more, and not less!
š¤£š¤£š¤£
Ratios. Science. Thrust vs weight. These powerhouses are also flung off a ship with essentially what could be called a sling shot. Not sure of the proper term but Iāve seen documentaries and movies where aircraft carriers have that shit
Well, some sort of do. Like the ones up on perches in the mountains.
This guy forgot about wind. Seriously, though. It would work right up until someone needs to crab in. Maybe if they put them past the TOL thresholds, but I can see these causing more accidents than they would prevent.
Fuck the ramp, letās get airport catapults š
Rescue guys wouldn't have anything to do.
What are you going to do for landings? Carriers have the ability to point their ship into the wind. Airports donāt have that luxury. Plus, itās not needed. This is used for STOL. Airports generally have enough room for aircraft to land.
All fun and games till you have the power-off 180
1. Carriers lauch lightweight fighter jets that have thrust to weight ratios of over 1:1 and some carriers have catapults to launch them to takeoff speed in less than 500 feet. 2. Airliners are way heavier and would break under the stress of ramp launching 3. No point in doing it. EMAS is much more effective in runway overrun prevention than a ramp.
Why not have the ramp continue for dozens of miles until it reaches 5,000 ft or so and the plane would just sort of fall off at the peak at the desired altitude? Or better yet, once the ramp reaches the desired altitude continue it at a level grade until the desired destination and then ramp back down? /s š
What about an electric stair for planes? Or maybe even better an elevator and you can skip the runway at all!
Most runways have a greater or lesser degree of slope. The runway that has higher elevation at the ends and lower in the middle is much preferred by pilots to the opposite. Thatās because it is faster to accelerate going downhill, and if the airplane has to abort the takeoff, itās easier to do it on the final uphill section. Wind direction doesnāt matter. Thatās the āsmilingā runway and itās the opposite for the āfrowningā runway.
Find the Chinese version that's why.
Suspension
Looks like alot of fun.
I suspect Chinese airports might.
lol. Obviously they are too heavy. Surprised anyone needs that explained.
Now imagine when emergency landing, plane does reach the runway, plane skids and crashes into the ramp
The short answer is airports already have the long runways necessary for commercial jet airliners. The primary source of aircraft carrier sorties are the U.S. Navy's 10 super carriers, and its 9 "Lightning Carriers", or Amphibious Assault Carriers. The super carriers use steam or electromagnetic catapults to launch their aircraft, so they have no ski jumps like this one. The Lightning Carriers launch either F-35B STOVL fighters (the same as the Royal Navy aircraft pictured above), or Harriers, and then Ospreys/helicopters, for which long flight decks are unnecessary.
The ski jump airport exists. Check out Falwell Airport outside Lynchburg, VA. This video shows the uphill landing and downhill takeoff. The risk of tailstrike is real. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qaaDCtifEJM
No.
Not the Ramp you are looking forā¦ But Madeira, Portugal is pretty interesting/ close second. https://s28477.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Madeira_1-984x554.jpg https://assets.lbc.co.uk/2017/11/madeira-airport-runway-1489506215-herowidev4-0.jpg
Emergency landing braking distance. If it's snows or ices on the ground and the plane has to use that last little bit then you wouldn't want it to be thrown into the air with no power. Beyond the end of the runway there is a emergency crash zone which is usually mud or something that absorbs the momentum from the wheels in case the brakes fail entirely. Takeoff can go bad as well and end up in the emergency braking zone and you wouldn't want to throw a plane into the air that is trying to stop.
Aircraft need to take off and land into the wind. You canāt rotate a runway like you can an aircraft carrier. Ramps are great for takeoff but trying to land into oneā¦.
Most planes don't reach the end of the runway on the ground (Aerosucre). If they do then they've either not done calculations (Aerosucre) or done them wrong
I am not an expert too but I think ramps is for shorter runway on carriers on the water to give a boost to aircraft's launching altitude for wings lift, on the land you got long enough runway to build speed and create lift
Because then you couldn't use the runway for landing in the opposite direction once the wind has changed.
I would say that aircraft carriers large as they are can still maneuver 360 degrees so they can adjust for wind direction to make the incline beneficial. Runways are stationary and canāt turn so the ramp could prove to be detrimental in some situations.
You ever take off 26L in Hotlana??