jkjustjoshing@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 12:20
nextcollapse
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.
ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 12:23
nextcollapse
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.
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
Diplomjodler@feddit.de
on 20 Mar 2024 12:48
collapse
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.
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Mar 2024 20:17
collapse
Obviously their efficiency claims are ‘exaggerated’ as well…
rtxn@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 10:52
nextcollapse
I was completely on-board until the word “autonomous”. The gliders need at least a supervising crew if they are to fly anywhere near populated areas.
toast@retrolemmy.com
on 20 Mar 2024 11:38
nextcollapse
Don’t worry. The good folks at Boeing have assured us that it is all perfectly safe.
Tragically, all engineers who dissented have taken their lives.
ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 12:17
nextcollapse
I imagine a ground based crew would be available to intervene and fly it remotely. With an option for the powered aircraft crew to fly it remotely through a data link in the cable.
Proper sensory redundancy, appropriate control systems and designing for inherent stability should make this very safe.
The problem with the recent Boeing aircraft is modifying the airframe to take larger quieter engineers caused it to be inherently unstable. This type of aircraft should be designed to be inherently stable. However, redesign is expensive so they avoided that. Instead they added a control system to stabilise the aircraft (perfectly acceptable). The problem is they didn’t add redundancy to the sensors the control system relied on, faulty data caused the aircraft to crash. They also skipped training the pilots on how to override this new control system.
All completely avoidable if everything was done right. They got away with not doing everything right because they successfully corrupted the FDA. Other equivalent bodies assumed the FDA wasn’t corrupt and accepted their qualification of the aircraft.
Remove the corruption and penny punching this concept is completely safe. With corruption all aircrafts are liable to be dangerous.
rtxn@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 13:51
nextcollapse
FDA
I don’t think the Food and Drug Administration has much influence over commercial aviation.
Intended or not, software bugs are unavoidable. So are mechanical errors, human errors, administrative errors, and regulatory errors. That is why there should always be a human at the end of this stack of Swiss cheese to notice and plug the holes. Aviation didn’t become the safest-by-numbers method of transportation because it was made to be perfect – accidents happened, and the engineers learned from them to make the next iteration safer. Hopefully Boeing’s current bollocking is another such event.
Before the 737 MAX was grounded, there was at least one incident where the MCAS caused the airplane to trim nose-down, and it was a pilot who noticed that the trim wheel was spinning and physically intervened. I’ve consumed most of the Mayday series and several podcasts on the topic – there were many incidents where loss of life was averted by true human ingenuity. That’s why I always want a human operator, even if only to supervise the machine.
variants@possumpat.io
on 20 Mar 2024 14:49
collapse
Check out black box down if you haven’t, I’ll have to check out mayday
Depending on the region, Mayday might also be called Air Crash Investigations.
Another channel who’s been on the roll lately is Disaster Breakdown. Great video essays with reconstructed footage from a flight simulator. They released an almost two-hour-long video on the 737 MAX just a day ago.
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
on 20 Mar 2024 17:19
collapse
They got away with not doing everything right because they successfully corrupted the FDA. Other equivalent bodies assumed the FDA wasn’t corrupt and accepted their qualification of the aircraft.
I know you meant the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration but it’s hilarious to imagine it was all down to a corruption of the onboard food service that caused these 737 MAX crashes, since the food preparation and storage would be regulated by the Food & Drug Administration
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
on 20 Mar 2024 22:41
collapse
I’d imagine it will be forced into having a pilot and a co-pilot on board. Between not trusting autonomous to be foolproof and imagining that the ALPA union probably demanding it, I can’t imagine they have a choice.
Besides, you think the glider with 10 tons of cargo is going to do well I’m something bad happens to the lead plane? If need be, you’d want a human in that glider to emergency disconnect the tow rope and go land it off in a field or something. It should be able to glide for a very long time. Long enough to talk with ground and set up a good LZ and get emergency services prepped.
Steve@startrek.website
on 20 Mar 2024 12:04
nextcollapse
Like a train
ThermoToaster@exng.meme
on 20 Mar 2024 13:12
nextcollapse
They will do literally anything that’s not on rails to reinvent the train…
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Mar 2024 16:30
collapse
Tbf, the NIMBY fuckwads make it difficult to build new train routes
AeroLemming@lemm.ee
on 20 Mar 2024 17:06
nextcollapse
NIMBY applies to stuff like urban housing development and certain kinds of healthcare clinics. Not wanting loud-ass fucking trains rolling through 24/7 is perfectly reasonable. Too many people don’t care enough about noise pollution.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Mar 2024 19:38
collapse
I live two blocks from a set of active train tracks, the irritating bit isn’t the train itself, it’s the horn. As they pass through downtown and pass the multiple level crossings, they just blare the damn thing.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
on 20 Mar 2024 22:33
nextcollapse
Strange. Trains don’t even have horns in my country as far as I know. At least I have literally never heard one, and I take the train quite often.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
on 22 Mar 2024 14:20
collapse
They all do, here. The6 blow them when coming up to road crossings to give warning that you better not be on the tracks.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Mar 2024 01:32
collapse
So the problem isn’t trains near houses, it’s train crossings near houses where horns are required. Fix the crossings to not require horns and you’re golden.
We have a commuter rail that used to sound its horns all the time, so they fixed the interactions and most if not all intersections no longer require horns.
Often you don’t even need more property. Just utilize existing rail systems. So much unused or barely used rail in this country.
littlewonder@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 13:26
nextcollapse
Whoops, reinvented trains again.
whotookkarl@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 16:06
collapse
More like a trailer, good luck to those pilots in turbulence have you ever tried driving a car with a trailer that catches a strong wind?
I think the real shipping breakthrough most people are looking for is low power neutral buoyancy without having to travel at hundreds of miles per hour.
Steve@startrek.website
on 20 Mar 2024 16:20
nextcollapse
Anti gravity drive wen?
whotookkarl@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 16:26
nextcollapse
Directly measuring gravity waves first happened pretty recently in 2016 using LIGO, there’s a possibility through future observations at different frequencies someone might identify a means of manipulation. When humans first discovered electricity & electromagnetic fields it took awhile before batteries and generators, etc. It’s not guaranteed but isn’t impossible either.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 21:50
collapse
probably never.
szczuroarturo@programming.dev
on 20 Mar 2024 16:21
collapse
Speaking of air cargo. Why exatcly there are no moder zeppelins? They seem like a perfect way to transport cargo
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Mar 2024 19:41
collapse
They’re perfect except for the part where they basically don’t work. They’re not much faster than a seagoing vessel, carry a lot less, are way more expensive, and are basically guaranteed to crash. Intermodal water + rail freight is more practical.
CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net
on 20 Mar 2024 13:33
nextcollapse
Anyone who has read a single NTSB accident report will understand what an insane idea this is.
Don’t worry, in the event of a malfunction you can just detach the cargo, so now you have two apartment building sized things falling from the sky to completely unpredictable random locations squishing anything they land on top of.
mikezane@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 14:23
nextcollapse
“Aerolane believes it shouldn’t be treated much differently by the FAA than regular ol’ recreational gliders. It remains to be seen how the FAA will feel about this.”
This is an absurd statement as it completely omits the automated part of the towed airplane. Witch is the major point of this project.
Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website
on 20 Mar 2024 15:22
nextcollapse
I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with less regulation than current consumer drones/rc planes.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 15:57
nextcollapse
It’s not a new idea at least, other than the self-landing part. I sincerely hope they will have to employ and pay a proper aircrew to be in charge of a gigantic flying vehicle though.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 21:44
collapse
also don’t let Boeing in on the project.
delirious_owl@discuss.online
on 21 Mar 2024 04:07
collapse
Dont let Boeing know you said that, or you may get a “self inflicted” gunshot wound to the head in your car one day
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
on 21 Mar 2024 20:18
collapse
it’s ok I kind of have a death wish.
delirious_owl@discuss.online
on 21 Mar 2024 20:42
collapse
Suicide by Boeing
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee
on 20 Mar 2024 19:45
nextcollapse
take note urban planners: even in the sky, trains work better
DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Mar 2024 21:12
nextcollapse
Wouldn’t it require the same amount of energy to get airborn / propaget as any other powered aircraft? Because, like, physics…
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 21:41
nextcollapse
More recently, the US Air Mobility Command tried flying one C-17 Globemaster III some 3-6,000 ft (900-1800m) back from another, “surfing” the vortices left in the lead plane’s wake – much like ducks flying in formation – and found there were double-digit fuel savings to be gained.
But Texas startup Aerolane says the savings will be much more substantial with purpose-built autonomous cargo gliders connected to the lead plane with a simple tow rope. With no propulsion systems, you save all the weight of engines, motors, fuel or batteries. There’ll be no cabin for a pilot, just space for cargo and the autonomous flight control systems that’ll run them.
TassieTosser@aussie.zone
on 21 Mar 2024 08:29
collapse
That’s while they’re in the air. How much extra power will it take to get the whole shebang airborne?
peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de
on 21 Mar 2024 10:54
collapse
It said “cheaper” not “energy efficient”.
Wings are easy, jet engines are hard.
Besides, if you can do it with an electrical locomotive on the ground, the energy conversion to electricity of a power plant should be better than the energy conversion of a jet engine from fuel to movement.
So imo, cheaper seems plausible, energy efficient is a maybe.
FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world
on 20 Mar 2024 22:40
nextcollapse
This seems cool as hell. I just hope the FAA agrees. Also, landing one of these things seems like it couldn’t be tough, especially in bad conditions. But who knows
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 20 Mar 2024 22:45
nextcollapse
How do they take off? 🤔 Are they towed from the ground too?
These "Aerocarts" will be pulled down the runway by the lead plane just like a recreational glider. They'll lift off more or less together with the lead plane, then stay on the rope throughout the cruise phase of flight, autonomously surfing the lead plane's wake for minimal drag and optimal lift
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 21 Mar 2024 08:13
collapse
Thanks. Missed that part!
delirious_owl@discuss.online
on 21 Mar 2024 04:07
collapse
threaded - newest
Interesting idea, but surely the cost savings are largely pushed forward onto the plane towing all the extra weight?
.
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.
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.
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
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.
Obviously their efficiency claims are ‘exaggerated’ as well…
I was completely on-board until the word “autonomous”. The gliders need at least a supervising crew if they are to fly anywhere near populated areas.
Don’t worry. The good folks at Boeing have assured us that it is all perfectly safe.
Tragically, all engineers who dissented have taken their lives.
I imagine a ground based crew would be available to intervene and fly it remotely. With an option for the powered aircraft crew to fly it remotely through a data link in the cable.
Proper sensory redundancy, appropriate control systems and designing for inherent stability should make this very safe.
The problem with the recent Boeing aircraft is modifying the airframe to take larger quieter engineers caused it to be inherently unstable. This type of aircraft should be designed to be inherently stable. However, redesign is expensive so they avoided that. Instead they added a control system to stabilise the aircraft (perfectly acceptable). The problem is they didn’t add redundancy to the sensors the control system relied on, faulty data caused the aircraft to crash. They also skipped training the pilots on how to override this new control system.
All completely avoidable if everything was done right. They got away with not doing everything right because they successfully corrupted the FDA. Other equivalent bodies assumed the FDA wasn’t corrupt and accepted their qualification of the aircraft.
Remove the corruption and penny punching this concept is completely safe. With corruption all aircrafts are liable to be dangerous.
I don’t think the Food and Drug Administration has much influence over commercial aviation.
Intended or not, software bugs are unavoidable. So are mechanical errors, human errors, administrative errors, and regulatory errors. That is why there should always be a human at the end of this stack of Swiss cheese to notice and plug the holes. Aviation didn’t become the safest-by-numbers method of transportation because it was made to be perfect – accidents happened, and the engineers learned from them to make the next iteration safer. Hopefully Boeing’s current bollocking is another such event.
Before the 737 MAX was grounded, there was at least one incident where the MCAS caused the airplane to trim nose-down, and it was a pilot who noticed that the trim wheel was spinning and physically intervened. I’ve consumed most of the Mayday series and several podcasts on the topic – there were many incidents where loss of life was averted by true human ingenuity. That’s why I always want a human operator, even if only to supervise the machine.
Check out black box down if you haven’t, I’ll have to check out mayday
Depending on the region, Mayday might also be called Air Crash Investigations.
Another channel who’s been on the roll lately is Disaster Breakdown. Great video essays with reconstructed footage from a flight simulator. They released an almost two-hour-long video on the 737 MAX just a day ago.
I know you meant the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration but it’s hilarious to imagine it was all down to a corruption of the onboard food service that caused these 737 MAX crashes, since the food preparation and storage would be regulated by the Food & Drug Administration
I’d imagine it will be forced into having a pilot and a co-pilot on board. Between not trusting autonomous to be foolproof and imagining that the ALPA union probably demanding it, I can’t imagine they have a choice.
Besides, you think the glider with 10 tons of cargo is going to do well I’m something bad happens to the lead plane? If need be, you’d want a human in that glider to emergency disconnect the tow rope and go land it off in a field or something. It should be able to glide for a very long time. Long enough to talk with ground and set up a good LZ and get emergency services prepped.
Like a train
They will do literally anything that’s not on rails to reinvent the train…
Tbf, the NIMBY fuckwads make it difficult to build new train routes
NIMBY applies to stuff like urban housing development and certain kinds of healthcare clinics. Not wanting loud-ass fucking trains rolling through 24/7 is perfectly reasonable. Too many people don’t care enough about noise pollution.
I live two blocks from a set of active train tracks, the irritating bit isn’t the train itself, it’s the horn. As they pass through downtown and pass the multiple level crossings, they just blare the damn thing.
Because they’re required to.
Strange. Trains don’t even have horns in my country as far as I know. At least I have literally never heard one, and I take the train quite often.
They all do, here. The6 blow them when coming up to road crossings to give warning that you better not be on the tracks.
So the problem isn’t trains near houses, it’s train crossings near houses where horns are required. Fix the crossings to not require horns and you’re golden.
We have a commuter rail that used to sound its horns all the time, so they fixed the interactions and most if not all intersections no longer require horns.
The government really needs to grow some balls and get better with this stuff.
Just draw some lines on a map. Offer everyone 1.3x the value of their house (or however much) and take it off them. For the greater good.
Often you don’t even need more property. Just utilize existing rail systems. So much unused or barely used rail in this country.
Whoops, reinvented trains again.
More like a trailer, good luck to those pilots in turbulence have you ever tried driving a car with a trailer that catches a strong wind?
I think the real shipping breakthrough most people are looking for is low power neutral buoyancy without having to travel at hundreds of miles per hour.
Anti gravity drive wen?
Directly measuring gravity waves first happened pretty recently in 2016 using LIGO, there’s a possibility through future observations at different frequencies someone might identify a means of manipulation. When humans first discovered electricity & electromagnetic fields it took awhile before batteries and generators, etc. It’s not guaranteed but isn’t impossible either.
probably never.
Speaking of air cargo. Why exatcly there are no moder zeppelins? They seem like a perfect way to transport cargo
They’re perfect except for the part where they basically don’t work. They’re not much faster than a seagoing vessel, carry a lot less, are way more expensive, and are basically guaranteed to crash. Intermodal water + rail freight is more practical.
Anyone who has read a single NTSB accident report will understand what an insane idea this is.
Elaborate?
You’re towing a bunch of cargo into the crash site.
Imagine miraculously surviving the plane crash only to get twatted by a crate full of dildos from the cargo vehicle.
Go on… 🥵
<img alt="" src="https://imgur.com/QgJUL.gif">
Don’t worry, in the event of a malfunction you can just detach the cargo, so now you have two apartment building sized things falling from the sky to completely unpredictable random locations squishing anything they land on top of.
“Aerolane believes it shouldn’t be treated much differently by the FAA than regular ol’ recreational gliders. It remains to be seen how the FAA will feel about this.”
This is an absurd statement as it completely omits the automated part of the towed airplane. Witch is the major point of this project.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with less regulation than current consumer drones/rc planes.
If Boeing passes the bill, why not these guys
The problem is the first part of your question.
And the weight. A recreational glider weighs about 600kg. They want to build one that carries 3 and later 10 tons.
If a recreational glider crashes into a house, it usually does not cause a lot of damage except to the pilot, see here:
tz.de/…/niedersachsen-segelflugzeug-stuerzt-wohnh…
Now make that thing 20times heavier. There is a reason drones are regulated by weight class.
i bet landing will find more challenges
.
Good luck landing with this
Edit: unless the glider detaches itself and lands separately
Uh oh, here comes the plane train
<img alt="" src="https://feddit.nl/pictrs/image/1a67bb07-0458-4505-937d-6bbcf8160c2e.jpeg">
It’s not a new idea at least, other than the self-landing part. I sincerely hope they will have to employ and pay a proper aircrew to be in charge of a gigantic flying vehicle though.
also don’t let Boeing in on the project.
Dont let Boeing know you said that, or you may get a “self inflicted” gunshot wound to the head in your car one day
it’s ok I kind of have a death wish.
Suicide by Boeing
take note urban planners: even in the sky, trains work better
Wouldn’t it require the same amount of energy to get airborn / propaget as any other powered aircraft? Because, like, physics…
That’s while they’re in the air. How much extra power will it take to get the whole shebang airborne?
It said “cheaper” not “energy efficient”.
Wings are easy, jet engines are hard.
Besides, if you can do it with an electrical locomotive on the ground, the energy conversion to electricity of a power plant should be better than the energy conversion of a jet engine from fuel to movement.
So imo, cheaper seems plausible, energy efficient is a maybe.
This seems cool as hell. I just hope the FAA agrees. Also, landing one of these things seems like it couldn’t be tough, especially in bad conditions. But who knows
How do they take off? 🤔 Are they towed from the ground too?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Thanks. Missed that part!
Now do boats.