I’d like to see it land in a crosswind.
AVIATION PING!...................
What could go wrong?
should this ever actually get off the ground commercially, the first glider that crashes into a neighborhood will terminate this whole nonsense ...
The main purpose of this start up is to collect investor/government money. Then go bankrupt. Like always...
Oh yeah I see zero problems with any of this.... /s
Seems to me that the tow plane might as well haul the cargo and forget the glider.
,,, in post#1 - the plane that’s doing the towing, what is it? I thought it was a A400M but they have four engines.
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.
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.
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.