Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aviation startup tests 'sky train' technology in North Texas
Dallas Business Journal via WFAA (DFW) ^ | 10/02/2025 | Seth Bodine

Posted on 10/03/2025 7:08:59 AM PDT by DFG

Planes, trains and automobiles can be seen moving in AllianceTexas in north Fort Worth, but a start-up aviation company says making a "sky train" is starting to come to fruition in the area.

The company, Aerolane, announced its headquarters at Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport in April. During an Oct. 1 event at the airport, a crowd that included Hillwood executives, investors and U.S. Congressman Jake Ellzey saw Aerolane's towed cargo glider technology in action as a plane took off with another plane tethered behind it.

Aerolane, which consists of former executives from Prime Air and BNSF, envisions using gliders to tug cargo as a way to save energy for future customers and make air cargo transportation more efficient.

Now, Aerolane is waiting for certification to implement its technology on a commercial scale. The company is currently going through a series of design approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration to convert existing aircraft into tow gliders. Customers have already signed up for the tow technology, known as the AC0. Watson said Aerolane contracted $300 million with a customer described as a large regional carrier, but would not disclose the name of the company. Watson described the customer as "one of the most important and largest regional carriers that serves the United States, but also flies to and from Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: aviation; freight; gliders; texas

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: DFG

Seems to me that the tow plane might as well haul the cargo and forget the glider.


21 posted on 10/03/2025 12:30:12 PM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (⭐⭐To the Left, the Truth is Right Wing Violence⭐⭐)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

exceptions... not one aviation startup in your list?


22 posted on 10/03/2025 1:11:42 PM PDT by PilotDave (No, really, you just can't make this stuff up!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DFG

,,, in post#1 - the plane that’s doing the towing, what is it? I thought it was a A400M but they have four engines.


23 posted on 10/03/2025 3:03:06 PM PDT by shaggy eel (A long way south of the border.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PilotDave

” not one aviation startup in your list”

Good point. You made me think about that. Embraer in 1969? But it was founded by the Brazilian government, not private venture capital.

Then there are more modern companies which have sucked up huge amounts of venture capital, but it’s too early to tell if they will be successful. Will any of them be around in 5, 10 or 20 years?

Joby Aviation: eVTOL air taxis Raised over $2 billion from investors including Toyota, JetBlue Ventures, and Intel Capital. It achieved FAA certification progress, secured exclusive air taxi rights in Dubai, and went public via SPAC in 2021, marking a major success in urban air mobility.

Boom Supersonic: Developing the Overture supersonic jet, Boom has secured $700+ million from investors like Y Combinator Continuity, United Airlines, and American Airlines. It completed key engine tests, signed LOIs for 130+ aircraft (including with Japan Airlines), and aims for commercial flights by 2029, reviving supersonic travel.

ZeroAvia: Focused on hydrogen-electric propulsion for zero-emission flights, it has raised $120+ million from backers like Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Bill Gates’ fund) and Shell Ventures. In 2020, it successfully flew a retrofitted six-seater plane, and it now has testbed partnerships with Alaska Airlines and the UK government.

Astranis (space-adjacent aviation tech): Building small geostationary satellites for secure global networks, Astranis has raised $500+ million from VCs like Andreessen Horowitz. With five satellites in orbit and a $1 billion+ contract backlog (including U.S. military deals), it exemplifies VC success in orbital aviation infrastructure.

Lilium: An eVTOL developer for regional air mobility, Lilium has raised $1 billion+ from investors including Tencent and Atomico. It conducted piloted test flights and secured €150 million in German government funding, positioning it for European certification by 2026.

LanzaJet: A leader in ethanol-to-”Sustainable Aviation Fuel” (SAF) conversion, LanzaJet has raised $250M+ from investors including Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Bill Gates’ fund), United Airlines Ventures, and Airbus Ventures. It opened the world’s first commercial-scale ethanol-to-SAF plant in Georgia (USA) in 2023, producing 10M gallons annually, and secured offtake deals with Virgin Atlantic and Japan Airlines for flights starting in 2025.

Fulcrum BioEnergy: Specializing in municipal waste-to-SAF via gasification, Fulcrum has secured $100M+ in VC from BP Ventures, United Airlines Ventures, and others. Its Sierra BioFuels Plant in Nevada (capacity: 10M gallons/year) began production in 2024, with long-term contracts from BP and Airbus; it’s on track for 130M gallons/year across multiple facilities by 2030.

Virent (now part of Marathon Petroleum): Focused on bio-based catalytic technology for SAF from plant sugars, Virent raised $50M+ from Cargill Ventures and others before its 2022 acquisition. It achieved ASTM certification for 100% SAF blends and powers commercial flights for Delta and Lufthansa, validating scalability.

Velocys: Developing Fischer-Tropsch synthesis for waste-to-SAF, Velocys went private in 2024 with $40M from Carbon Direct Capital, Lightrock, and others. It licensed tech for a 45M-gallon/year UK plant (Offtake with British Airways) and launched modular microFTL™ tech in June 2025 to cut costs by 20-30%.
Dimensional Energy: Using CO2 and hydrogen to produce SAF via reverse combustion, it has $20M+ from United Airlines Ventures and the Abu Dhabi Investment Office. In 2024, it completed a pilot plant in Texas producing 1,000 gallons/day, with plans for a 100M-gallon facility by 2027 backed by Delta Air Lines offtake.

Avnos: A carbon capture-to-SAF innovator, Avnos raised $28M in 2023 from JetBlue Ventures, Shell Ventures, and Piva Capital. It demonstrated direct air capture integration for SAF production, partnering with Alaska Airlines for testing in 2025.


24 posted on 10/03/2025 3:14:01 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

Good point, though, it might be less sensitive to crosswinds due to being connected the other aircraft.


25 posted on 10/03/2025 4:47:59 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Freud: projection is a defense mechanism of those [Leftists] struggling with inferiority complexes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Me = commercial instructor gliders and power. I see no advantage to this in commercial aviation. The total drag on the engined tow plane transport plus the glider transport would be greater than just creating more wing area on the engined tow plane and more powerful engines for it.

Drag increases fuel burn, weight increases fuel burn which is the most expensive part of commercial aviation. An aircraft is not complete until you have removed everything from the air frame that does not compromise safety and it can still meet its designed specifications. You would be amazed what those engineers do to reduce drag and weight. My dad was involved in a weight reduction program on the DC-10. His team was quite successful and at first the bosses did not believe the numbers. This was in the day of slide rules (that always identified us as Nerds LOL) and computer punch cards. They ran the numbers again and it was correct. The team got a rather handsome bonus.

A commercial aircraft life span is measured in total flight hours and “life cycles” take off and landings and pressurization cycles that stress and de stress the air frame with subsequent metal fatigue. Which killed DeHavilide’s Comet due to crashes, the stupid bastards made square windows and stress points and explosive decompression. If not for this they would have been Boeing and McDonald of commercial aviation.

Say an aircraft will do 35000 life cycles on a Dallas to London flight before the Air frame is at lifetime limits. One pound of extra air frame weight represents 35000 pounds. That represents tens of thousands of dollars in fuel burn over the lifetime of the aircraft.

“Per Wiki, “Flying 135,000 lbs of cargo from Dallas to London on a Boeing 747 would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000 in fuel alone, but this varies significantly with factors like the specific 747 model, real-time fuel prices ($3.00-$6.20 per gallon), the flight path, and prevailing winds. A 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile at cruising speed, consuming roughly 5,000 gallons per hour, with the Dallas-London route being around 4,800 miles. “

PS
I flew JAT from London to Belgrade circa 1975, in a Soviet TU 154. The Soviets understood seat burn mile and weight perfectly. The seats sucked, but they were light weight.


26 posted on 10/03/2025 9:13:33 PM PDT by cpdiii (cane cutter, deckhand, oilfield roughneck, drilling fluid tech, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Me = commercial instructor gliders and power. I see no advantage to this in commercial aviation. The total drag on the engined tow plane transport plus the glider transport would be greater than just creating more wing area on the engined tow plane and more powerful engines for it.

Drag increases fuel burn, weight increases fuel burn which is the most expensive part of commercial aviation. An aircraft is not complete until you have removed everything from the air frame that does not compromise safety and it can still meet its designed specifications. You would be amazed what those engineers do to reduce drag and weight. My dad was involved in a weight reduction program on the DC-10. His team was quite successful and at first the bosses did not believe the numbers. This was in the day of slide rules (that always identified us as Nerds LOL) and computer punch cards. They ran the numbers again and it was correct. The team got a rather handsome bonus.

A commercial aircraft life span is measured in total flight hours and “life cycles” take off and landings and pressurization cycles that stress and de stress the air frame with subsequent metal fatigue. Which killed DeHavilide’s Comet due to crashes, the stupid bastards made square windows and stress points and explosive decompression. If not for this they would have been Boeing and McDonald of commercial aviation.

Say an aircraft will do 35000 life cycles on a Dallas to London flight before the Air frame is at lifetime limits. One pound of extra air frame weight represents 35000 pounds. That represents tens of thousands of dollars in fuel burn over the lifetime of the aircraft.

“Per Wiki, “Flying 135,000 lbs of cargo from Dallas to London on a Boeing 747 would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000 in fuel alone, but this varies significantly with factors like the specific 747 model, real-time fuel prices ($3.00-$6.20 per gallon), the flight path, and prevailing winds. A 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile at cruising speed, consuming roughly 5,000 gallons per hour, with the Dallas-London route being around 4,800 miles. “

PS
I flew JAT from London to Belgrade circa 1975, in a Soviet TU 154. The Soviets understood seat burn mile and weight perfectly. The seats sucked, but they were light weight.


27 posted on 10/03/2025 9:29:55 PM PDT by cpdiii (cane cutter, deckhand, oilfield roughneck, drilling fluid tech, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Me = commercial instructor gliders and power. I see no advantage to this in commercial aviation. The total drag on the engined tow plane transport plus the glider transport would be greater than just creating more wing area on the engined tow plane and more powerful engines for it.

Drag increases fuel burn, weight increases fuel burn which is the most expensive part of commercial aviation. An aircraft is not complete until you have removed everything from the air frame that does not compromise safety and it can still meet its designed specifications. You would be amazed what those engineers do to reduce drag and weight. My dad was involved in a weight reduction program on the DC-10. His team was quite successful and at first the bosses did not believe the numbers. This was in the day of slide rules (that always identified us as Nerds LOL) and computer punch cards. They ran the numbers again and it was correct. The team got a rather handsome bonus.

A commercial aircraft life span is measured in total flight hours and “life cycles” take off and landings and pressurization cycles that stress and de stress the air frame with subsequent metal fatigue. Which killed DeHavilide’s Comet due to crashes, the stupid bastards made square windows and stress points and explosive decompression. If not for this they would have been Boeing and McDonald of commercial aviation.

Say an aircraft will do 35000 life cycles on a Dallas to London flight before the Air frame is at lifetime limits. One pound of extra air frame weight represents 35000 pounds. That represents tens of thousands of dollars in fuel burn over the lifetime of the aircraft.

“Per Wiki, “Flying 135,000 lbs of cargo from Dallas to London on a Boeing 747 would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000 in fuel alone, but this varies significantly with factors like the specific 747 model, real-time fuel prices ($3.00-$6.20 per gallon), the flight path, and prevailing winds. A 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile at cruising speed, consuming roughly 5,000 gallons per hour, with the Dallas-London route being around 4,800 miles. “

PS
I flew JAT from London to Belgrade circa 1975, in a Soviet TU 154. The Soviets understood seat burn mile and weight perfectly. The seats sucked, but they were light weight.


28 posted on 10/03/2025 9:31:50 PM PDT by cpdiii (cane cutter, deckhand, oilfield roughneck, drilling fluid tech, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

Another area of extreme competition is the very high bypass turbines that power our aircraft today. They are marvels of engineering. These manufacturers fight each other for each fraction of a percent of increase fuel economy and cost of such. The end point is how much does it cost for each fraction of a percent in fuel efficiency.

GE, CFM, and ROLLS are the masters of turbine design. They are damn good. We all benefit from their competition.


29 posted on 10/03/2025 9:40:15 PM PDT by cpdiii (cane cutter, deckhand, oilfield roughneck, drilling fluid tech, geologist, pilot, pharmacist, MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson