Amphibious Drone - Global air freight

[Gramp]

The first test would be L.A. to Hawaii.  Lands on water.  Would carry 100 tons.  

http://www.natilus.co/#main

 

[carnej1]

Gramp

The first test would be L.A. to Hawaii.  Lands on water.  Would carry 100 tons.  

http://www.natilus.co/#main

 

 

There are several startups with similiar websites promoting the idea of remotely operated or autnomous cargo aircraft.

Here is another one: http://www.dorsalac.com/

What these sites have in common is that they are looking for investors and none of the companies have actually ever built full size aircraft although some have built scale models .

 I'm not saying cargo drones aren't eventually going to happen but I wouldn't invest a penny with any of the website owners as I suspect the investors will not get their money back.

 Anyone can create a site with cool computer graphics and claim that they will become the next Boeing.

 And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion about the railroad industry..

[RME]

carnej1

There are several startups with similar websites promoting the idea of remotely operated or autonomous cargo aircraft.

Here is another one: http://www.dorsalac.com/

You'd have done better to give the URL for "Biosphere Aerospace LLC", the company with a suspiciously similar residential address that has given Dorsal the 'worldwide rights for developing civilian cargo fixed wing drone aircraft for transporting Intermodal containers.'

http://biosphereaerospace.com/

..."developing innovative cargo platforms with unparalleled efficiency and flexibility that will help tie the world's existing rail and truck infrastructures."  See the rather large list of patents.

One of the interesting ideas here, if I understand 'using existing proven technologies in a new way' correctly, is to tie cargo containers together with load-cell/strain gage equipped twistlock-like fasteners to make 'smart beams' that comprise part of the load-bearing aircraft structure.  There's no technological reason why you couldn't increase the beam strength of the longitudinal members within something like an ISO series 3 container envelope and provide additional locking castings without sacrificing existing 'stack' and ocean transport capability.  Cost-effectiveness, even in military logistics, might be something else entirely...

 

[M636C]

To return to Nautilus, it looks as though these guys are talking about a "Wing in Ground Effect" aircraft, what the Russians call an "Ekranoplan".

In the Soviet era, a number of these things were built. They had a huge lifting capacity because low above the water, lift is increased by the ground effect.

Sadly, drag increases too, and these things were never even tried as commercial transports owing to high fuel costs.

The aircraft illustrated by Nautilus has its wing too far back for balance. A set of smaller forward wings would be required (canards) for stable flight (whether in ground effect or not).

I liked Biosphere's container fitted with the engines and rotors of a Boeing Chinook. Makes for a costly shipping container.... It presumably flies between containers (which are always stacked with clearance for heavy duty helicopters to fly around to pick one up...) I hope the control system is always accurate enough to locate all the container locks first time.

Peter

[RME]

M636C

The aircraft illustrated by Natilus has its wing too far back for balance. A set of smaller forward wings would be required (canards) for stable flight (whether in ground effect or not).

Wing is wrong size, shape, and placement for working in ground effect, too.  My suspicion is that this is not what the company intends its actual planform to be (look at the shots that apparently illustrate a working prototype or test article, which show a more conventional tail and wing arrangement).  I assumed that the 'podded' engines (obviously not turbofans - perhaps electrics with prime movers in the fuselage somewhere?) were placed where they are for the same reasons as on the Martin Mars, to keep them as far as possible out of the spray.

Much more to the point: an aircraft in ground effect, even with more precise differential GPS than typically available over ocean, is NOT likely to survive very long in anything but the best weather conditions.   If that is indeed what Natilus is thinking, it is as silly as the Nathan illustration of drop plugs in Super-Power boilers.  I am not sure how they propose to keep their engines running cost-effectively in this environment; it will be interesting to find out.  Once all that is squared away, we can start the discussions about piracy.

Wish this thread had come up a couple of days earlier -- perhaps a better operational concept for autonomous freight drone operation would be based on the Russian A-57 seaplane, developed by Korolev's mentor.

If you are going to throw money down a hole, you might as well have flight time of 54 minutes anywhere in the world (that representing the longest distance for a half great circle -- might be a little longer net of acceleration, skip-gliding, and terminal approach) and it would certainly make sense to keep people off hypersonic aircraft at all times if possible.  Pulse detonation wave engines have been advanced to the point of fuel-efficient practicality for this, and of course the fuel can be easily derived from natural gas.

And MUCH more fun to put on an eye-candy Web site...