A West Texas company says it's found a remarkably simple way to slash air cargo costs as much as 65% – by having planes tow autonomous, cargo-carrying gliders behind them, big enough to double, or potentially triple their payload capacity.
I would think that if you take off and land in the same place at the towing plane, then all you’ve invented is “a bigger plane” except with a lot more air resistance.
The idea of dropping off a pod en-route to independently land is nice though. But I would think that yes, you don’t get a free flight so the towing plane has to use a lot more fuel.
But… I’m sure they’ve thought of that…?
If you’re going to drop off an autonomous pod then I’d think it would be a lot more efficient to design the towing plane for that, and have the pod be internal. Then you really could say “open the pod bay doors, HAL” and it would be released to land on its own.
A bigger plane falls victim to the square cube law - as it gets bigger the support structures need to get bigger too. At least that’s my hypothesis, clearly the article didn’t mention this. I’m curious if multiple smaller planes allows each plane to be lighter weight relative to the cargo capacity, with the front plane just sporting an engine overspend to its own size/weight.
Real talk, I could see something like this adding some efficiency, but I can’t imagine these trailers landing at a regular commercial airport without a crew and power to abort the landing and circle back when the landing looks to sketch.
Maybe these slip trailers might land at dedicated/specific landing sites where they have the risk tolerance for an unmanned, potentially uncontrolled super-heavy glider landing, but it’s still high risk to anything on the ground on its flight path should the unmanned glider crash
Cheaper upfront costs. Engines alone are very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. This would increase the capacity for any freight carrier very cheaply.
It would be particularly advantageous for short term increases in freight. People buying gifts at Christmas, natural disasters, medical events like COVID etc.
The alternative would be a second aircraft, that would also need more fuel than a single aircraft.
Interesting idea, but surely the cost savings are largely pushed forward onto the plane towing all the extra weight?
I would think that if you take off and land in the same place at the towing plane, then all you’ve invented is “a bigger plane” except with a lot more air resistance.
The idea of dropping off a pod en-route to independently land is nice though. But I would think that yes, you don’t get a free flight so the towing plane has to use a lot more fuel.
But… I’m sure they’ve thought of that…?
If you’re going to drop off an autonomous pod then I’d think it would be a lot more efficient to design the towing plane for that, and have the pod be internal. Then you really could say “open the pod bay doors, HAL” and it would be released to land on its own.
A bigger plane falls victim to the square cube law - as it gets bigger the support structures need to get bigger too. At least that’s my hypothesis, clearly the article didn’t mention this. I’m curious if multiple smaller planes allows each plane to be lighter weight relative to the cargo capacity, with the front plane just sporting an engine overspend to its own size/weight.
Hey it’s slip coaches all over again!
Real talk, I could see something like this adding some efficiency, but I can’t imagine these trailers landing at a regular commercial airport without a crew and power to abort the landing and circle back when the landing looks to sketch.
Maybe these slip trailers might land at dedicated/specific landing sites where they have the risk tolerance for an unmanned, potentially uncontrolled super-heavy glider landing, but it’s still high risk to anything on the ground on its flight path should the unmanned glider crash
Cheaper upfront costs. Engines alone are very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. This would increase the capacity for any freight carrier very cheaply.
It would be particularly advantageous for short term increases in freight. People buying gifts at Christmas, natural disasters, medical events like COVID etc.
The alternative would be a second aircraft, that would also need more fuel than a single aircraft.
Don’t forget crew/scheduling, engine management systems, structure for engines/loads, etc.
It’s certainly going to use more fuel but presumably less fuel than two separate planes. I really have lots of doubts about towed landings, though.