> I would assume crosswinds aren't as devastating due to this banking.
You would assume incorrectly. The bank is mostly irrelevant. Crosswinds happen when the direction of motion of the plane is anything other than directly in to the wind. If you're turning, your heading is continually changing, and so the relative wind direction will be continually changing, and so you will necessarily have a crosswind component everywhere except at the one point when you are heading directly into the wind. Even worse, the crosswind component will be continually changing as you turn. This is even worse than it seems. Landing in a crosswind involves a maneuver called "cross-control" where you roll the plane into the wind with the ailerons while simultaneously apply opposite rudder to arrest the resulting turn. It's one of the hardest things to do in an airplane. Getting it right is tricky even when the runway is straight and level and the wind is steady. Trying to do it on a curved banked runway, where the wind is necessary continually shifting as you turn, would be a total nightmare.
> However, I am curious as to why you so adamantly believe that circular banked runways guarantee crosswinds. Is this based on scientific research that have proven this or is this just a guess?
I'm a pilot with over twenty years of experience. But you don't have to be a pilot to see the folly of circular runways. It's simple common sense: if you're turning, you can't be heading directly into the wind the whole time.
