Operating giant cargo flying wings from airfields near freight depots

I remember that Boeing looked at designs for colossal spanloader cargo aircraft with wingspans of more than 300 feet in the 1970s, but none ever progressed beyond the design phase, in no small part because the location of the undercarriage in the twin-hull cargo aircraft designations envisaged by Boeing under the Model 759 umbrella designation would not have been compatible with existing runway infrastructure. With the commercial cargo airlines looking to someday shop for a new-technology cargo plane to augment their fleets of 747 freighter versions, it is possible that gigantic airfields covering areas of 100 square foot but without concrete runways could be built in the US in remote, desolate areas near UPS, USPS, and FedEx facilities in those areas. Since a potential 100 square foot airfield near a cargo depot without runways would be more compatible with gigantic cargo flying wings than existing airport infrastructure, is it probably that giant flying wing cargo aircraft with wingspans of more than 300 feet would be more suitable for operations from small airfields without concrete runways situated next to freight logistical centers?

a reply to: Potlatch

Small fields near cargo facilities would be quite the infrastructure and technology investment. You would need the field itself and associated ground services, the permits, the construction, the space, etc... Then you would need the technology. Flying wings or blended body designs would need the R&D, certifications, and more to use them. Plus, you would need a full scale airport to operate from, unless they had some sort of VTOL capability (even more expense!). Not to mention the expense of relocating current operations centers already built in and around airports.

You could argue for a airship, but you still run into the issues of R&D, certifications, etc... Plus, they're just not fast enough. A Boeing 747ERF can carry about 135 tons of cargo around 5000 miles in about ten hours (just ballparking the numbers). An airship, such as the CargoLifter 160 might be able to carry more payload with an estimated 160 tons around 6000 miles, but only at a cruise speed of 55 mph. This means that journey would take over 110 hours! In that same time you could make 5 full round trips in a 747ERF delivering over 675 tons of cargo.

So while they might go with a dual fuselage design akin to the Model 579 or a blended body design in the future, I don't see dedicated facilities being built around current off airport property distribution centers. It's a neat idea, and definitely would have uses on a smaller delivery based scale, but nothing really applicable on the macro scale.

Am I missing something of is 100 square feet larger then I calculate it in my head?

a reply to: Potlatch

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: Potlatch

Small fields near cargo facilities would be quite the infrastructure and technology investment. You would need the field itself and associated ground services, the permits, the construction, the space, etc... Then you would need the technology. Flying wings or blended body designs would need the R&D, certifications, and more to use them. Plus, you would need a full scale airport to operate from, unless they had some sort of VTOL capability (even more expense!). Not to mention the expense of relocating current operations centers already built in and around airports.

You could argue for a airship, but you still run into the issues of R&D, certifications, etc... Plus, they're just not fast enough. A Boeing 747ERF can carry about 135 tons of cargo around 5000 miles in about ten hours (just ballparking the numbers). An airship, such as the CargoLifter 160 might be able to carry more payload with an estimated 160 tons around 6000 miles, but only at a cruise speed of 55 mph. This means that journey would take over 110 hours! In that same time you could make 5 full round trips in a 747ERF delivering over 675 tons of cargo.

So while they might go with a dual fuselage design akin to the Model 579 or a blended body design in the future, I don't see dedicated facilities being built around current off airport property distribution centers. It's a neat idea, and definitely would have uses on a smaller delivery based scale, but nothing really applicable on the macro scale.

You of course are correct but what if they want to go with slower and less pollution rather than quicker and more pollution, isn't that the government mantra these days?

www.aerospacetestinginternational.com...


FWIW here is the passenger cabin

HAV’s airship uses electric propulsion and can trace its origin back to the 1990s. “The Airlander 10 uses helium for lift and only expends energy pushing forward, delivering significant fuel-savings over fixed wing,” says HAV’s chief technical officer, Mike Durham. “The downside is speed. We are happiest below 115mph. But that matters less for air freight. We can move goods at 25% of the cost, but it takes us three times longer.”

The Airlander is 100m (330ft) long, 50m (165ft) wide and 28m (90ft) high. Lightly pressurized helium fills the dual ellipses of its ample rump and acts as a lifting gas. Air-filled ballonets maintain internal pressure as the helium expands and contracts. Once aloft, 500hp diesel engines at its four corners propel the ponderous hybrid in forward flight.

“In the airship world, bigger is better,” says Durham. “Doubling our length would create four times the drag, but eight times the gas lift. Starting at a modest size, suited to carrying 100 passengers 186 to 250 miles is
a low risk step. Ultimately, air freight may be our
biggest market.”

a reply to: Dalamax

100 square feet is just 10 feet by 10 feet. Something is very off with the units or understanding of the measurements.

originally posted by: Potlatch
I remember that Boeing looked at designs for colossal spanloader cargo aircraft with wingspans of more than 300 feet in the 1970s, but none ever progressed beyond the design phase, in no small part because the location of the undercarriage in the twin-hull cargo aircraft designations envisaged by Boeing under the Model 759 umbrella designation would not have been compatible with existing runway infrastructure. With the commercial cargo airlines looking to someday shop for a new-technology cargo plane to augment their fleets of 747 freighter versions, it is possible that gigantic airfields covering areas of 100 square foot but without concrete runways could be built in the US in remote, desolate areas near UPS, USPS, and FedEx facilities in those areas. Since a potential 100 square foot airfield near a cargo depot without runways would be more compatible with gigantic cargo flying wings than existing airport infrastructure, is it probably that giant flying wing cargo aircraft with wingspans of more than 300 feet would be more suitable for operations from small airfields without concrete runways situated next to freight logistical centers?

I am digging into the website love these niche forums like this, they really have specific and obscure designs, Hell ill spend hours in here

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Dalamax

100 square feet is just 10 feet by 10 feet. Something is very off with the units or understanding of the measurements.

Sorry, I should have written 100 square miles rather than 100 square feet. Nevertheless, a 100 square mile airfield adjacent to a freight depot would be huge enough to accommodate a hypothetical cargo flying wing with a 300+ foot wingspan and have enough space for freight trucks and other vehicles to load freight into the flying wing, after which the aircraft could taxi and takeoff without the need for a runway.

Ahh! 10 miles a side sounds like a bit more elbow room.

I’d imagine if you could get the gradient right over enough distance you could launch whatever you liked, so long as it was capable of flight.

You could even have a slingshot (if that kind of setup is a possibility with the size aircraft being dealt with) or a magnetic accelerator (if that’s a thing)

I could be getting carried away as I gather the whole idea is to keep the costs as low as possible.

a reply to: Potlatch

a reply to: putnam6

In a world where most of the major nations now have access to same, next, or two day delivery, no one is going to want to wait over four days for items to be delivered. Also, in the case of perishables it would not be an economical timeline. The government can want for all it does, but at the end of the day it's the shareholders that hold the power.

a reply to: Potlatch

I think you overcorrected there. A 100 square mile airport would be absolutely massive!

The largest public airport in the United States, Denver International Airport, is only a bit bigger than 50 square miles. The next largest in the USA, Dallas Fort Worth International, is about half that size even. Hell, even Area 51 was only 60 square miles when it was first opened (it's now closer to 575 square miles).

Also, it isn't as much the wingspan or the ground services that are an issue. The A380, for example, has a wingspan approaching 300 feet. The issue is the weight associated with the aircraft more than anything. The runways and taxiways are just not typically built to withstand the forces involved. Not to say that they couldn't be engineered and built to such specs, but see my previous post about the costs incurred and why they are prohibitive.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: putnam6

In a world where most of the major nations now have access to same, next, or two day delivery, no one is going to want to wait over four days for items to be delivered. Also, in the case of perishables it would not be an economical timeline. The government can want for all it does, but at the end of the day it's the shareholders that hold the power.

a reply to: Potlatch

I think you overcorrected there. A 100 square mile airport would be absolutely massive!

The largest public airport in the United States, Denver International Airport, is only a bit bigger than 50 square miles. The next largest in the USA, Dallas Fort Worth International, is about half that size even. Hell, even Area 51 was only 60 square miles when it was first opened (it's now closer to 575 square miles).

Also, it isn't as much the wingspan or the ground services that are an issue. The A380, for example, has a wingspan approaching 300 feet. The issue is the weight associated with the aircraft more than anything. The runways and taxiways are just not typically built to withstand the forces involved. Not to say that they couldn't be engineered and built to such specs, but see my previous post about the costs incurred and why they are prohibitive.

I should mention that because there is vast swath of desert terrain near Mojave Air and Space Port, a circular 30 square mile airfield lacking concrete runways could be built to the east of the the airport for operations of a 300+ foot wingspan cargo flying wing, and freight depots would be built near that airfield to allow cargo to be loaded into the flying wing. In this way, an 30 square mile airfield to the east of Mojave Air and Space Port designed only for handling the operation of large cargo aircraft could circumvent the challenge of having large commercial airport accommodate traditional airport infrastructure by relying less on airport terminals and more on freight depots near the periphery of the airfield.