Slashdot Mirror
Project Envisions Modular Aircraft That Double as Train Cars
cylonlover writes "Air travel today is a nightmare of long drives to crowded airports, long queues that move at a snail's pace, and long, boring waits in identical lobbies drinking overpriced coffee. It would be so much easier and less frustrating if catching a plane were like catching a train. If Switzerland's École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has its way, its Clip-Air project will one day produce modular aircraft that will allow you to board a plane at a London railway station and disembark in the middle of Rome without ever setting foot in an air terminal."
Someone's been watching too much galaxy railways.
Truck to train has been going on for decades. A more feasible approach is to have buses that can be driven on to, or hooked up to trains. It wouldn't cover the kinds of distances planes can, but it would happen a lot sooner.
Which comes first, the lithium-xxx battery that will last 7 days, or the plane-train?
See above.
I don't want railway stations to have airport-level security.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The queues are there for a reason: To create the impression of safety. How are you going to do that if anyone can plant something on the "plane" while it's waiting in a train station? If you go through with this plan, you won't make air travel more convenient, you'll inconvenience train travelers.
This just pushes security out to the edges. It would cost too much to set up airport-level security (theater) checkpoints at each train stop, not to mention monitoring the entire track for unauthorized entry/egress. And it would bring the levels of of misery for train travel up to the standards for air travel rather than making travel more pleasant again.
Nice idea, but not compatible with modern reality.
Coming to a train station near you.
Looks like the passengers in the pods wouldn't be able to get to the cockpit, so they couldn't take over flying the aircraft. So they could blow up the plane, but not fly it into $avatar_of_the_great_satan. So this probably would fly, security-wise.
Without airport terminals where will the passengers take off their shoes, get anally probed and robbed of their cutlery and liquids? How will they lose their luggage?
Somebody obviously hasn't thought this plan through!
What problem does this solve? Now you would just stand in line and wait in a terminal in the city center, instead of at the airport. Who cares. It's still gonna be a boring terminal. The traveltime to the airport is not reduced. The security and check in are not reduced. Flight time is not reduced. But you will get some additional technical checks that can only start after clicking this train onto that plane - which means I am there, waiting.
This just adds more weight to the plane. Makes travel time longer. Also, it means I can stretch my legs even less, as I have to wait for half an hour after landing until I can get up.
Boeing have spent billions on creating plastic airplanes to get more efficient travel. This thing would fly like a brick.
The article focuses on the technical aspects: can it be done. Yes, I'm sure it can be done. But that wouldn't suddenly turn air travel into rail travel.
Think on the differences here for a bit. Air travel security is very tight because of the security risks. As much as some may call it security theater, there are real risks with getting that many people together on an airplane loaded with fuel which can go anywhere. This proposal does nothing to mitigate those security issues, so none of those security precautions common in airports would likely change.
If they could make planes that ran on time like Swiss trains, they might be on to something. Then again, it would be natural for a Swiss engineer to be frustrated with the inefficiencies of air travel and wonder why planes couldn't be more like trains... so that may be where this thinking comes from.
TFA says the idea is to be able to attach multiple modules to a plane, whether they are passengers or cargo, instead of behind a locomotive. It's my understanding that cargo flights have to be carefully balanced with loads strapped in place so they won't shift, whereas that's not a necessity on a train. This would add some complexity to the idea, but would be made more complex by the fact that you would have to know what position that cargo module was going to be in (left/center/right) and properly balance the module against whatever was going to be in the other modules. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's not as simple as bolting a rail car to the underbelly of an airplane.
doesn't the rail station just become the air terminal then? I am under the assumption that the crowded conditions at airports is due to all the people who want to get on a plane. If you get on your plane at a train station, then you will see the same people there.
Seems to me that this would be a much more feasible idea if utilized for freight. We already have RO/RO container ships. Something modualr that could fit on train tracks, truck, ship, and on/within an aircraft fuselage would make international shipping much easier.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Sounds like a "Johnny Canal" - type solution. Sure it's great if you're traveling from London to Rome. But what if your trip is more complicated, and realistic, like Tulsa to Naples. My point is, it will be a rare thing that a traveler will be able to board a "pod" and end up at their destination, without ever leaving their "pod".
Proverbs 21:19
Probably would be easier to just make faster trains.
Or containerized freight. We've sunk about as low as we can.
In the industry, they refer to passengers as SLF (self-loading freight).
Have gnu, will travel.
Unconditioned metal box with no seats, no windows, and no restroom. Oh, well, I guess it couldn't be any worse than flying RyanAir in coach.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why not just have tons more airports, but smaller? Like one airport per 10,000 people. Fewer "mega" airports.
That thing looks about as aerodynamic as the Spruce Goose. We'd better find Balloo if we ever want to see her get off the ground! !
Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
If I remember correctly, there was something like that in one of the classic Tom Swift novels - maybe "Tom Swift and His Sky Train; or, Overland Through the Clouds" (1931). It was actually better - Swift's airship would drop from the sky and grab his train car from the rails while running...
Anyone who got the book can confirm?
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
is that airline ninjas just sneak into your bedroom and anaesthetize you as you sleep. I can then be loaded into a person sized shipping container and be unpacked at the other end - I was always fascinated by those gigantic UPS sorting offices and hate every single f'in aspect of flying.
We already have these things called trains in Europe. A lot of them on a lot of lines, some very, very fast. Last time I checked I could get to almost anywhere interesting in the EU with 2-4 changes (starting in the UK outside London soaks up 2 of them), often faster than the plane. Not sure what problem this solves this side of the pond.
And who wants to be trapped in an aircraft seat for that length of time? Trains are a lot more comfortable, don't trap you in a cramped seat for the duration and those stops at stations can be fun. Especially continental stations with a decent bar, some of the trains also have decent bars ;)
It'll get rid of all that tedious "stretching your legs" you were previously forced to do.
Really, what you want is a layout of chairs on the train that can easily be moved onto a plane's fuselage by a device that needn't fly. You don't want to make the train into a plane, you just want a convenient way to move people and their carryons into the fuselage without making them lift their buttocks an extra time.
note to self: queue = line
haven't seen the word "queue" in a long time. last time i heard when i was reading about database design or something similar. guess the place where i live doesn't use the word queue like in other parts of the world.
The flying boxcar and the flying crane. It would be a twin boom aircraft with a central body like the flying crane, but shorter and without the prop. The roof of the rail car would be shaped like the flash shoe on a camera. You just wheel the rail car under the plane and "clip" it in place. Fore/aft balance would be the tough issue, especially when "dead heading." http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/wwii/09/cmw/images/C119FlyingBoxcar.jpg http://www.minihelicopter.net/CH54Tarhe/CH-54%20Tarhe.jpg
photosMy Photostream
Have we in fact learned nothing from these all in one gadgets we are so enamored with?
Most shout from the rooftops that they can do X number of things, many do but few do X number of things and do them well.
Do you want to travel in a plane that doubles as a train, or do you want to travel by train that doubles as a plane?
I don't know about you but an aircraft has enough moving parts for me already, adding more is just adding something to the mix that could fail.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecr7u-Z1Q3Y
photosMy Photostream
Hey a cool new "feature"! It adds a new dimension to disembarkation.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
From back in march: http://www.judegomila.com/post/46110653945/2013-02-reinventing-airline-industry-open-post-html
no thanks, i prefer my seats to be comfy.
Airlines are just jealous of the relative efficiency and punctuality of rail lines.
It amazes me how much time is taken for just loading and unloading the passengers from a plane. I've always thought it would be great if one whole side of the plane opened up like a gull wing. Then, all of the rows could empty or load in parallel.
Even simpler, how about making the boarding by zones more reasonable? The earliest boarding zones should be in the back and next to the windows.
Or maybe do something about the jackasses that enter through the doors and then put their luggage in the first available bin, instead of putting it over their own heads. It slows everyone down when someone has to put their luggage several rows behind them, so that they're swimming against the current when it's time to unload, just because the early boarders didn't want to carry their luggage an extra 20 feet.
They tried this back in the '60s with helicopters. Didn't work then. The way aircraft are made now and with the emphasis on weight reduction for fuel savings, it'll never fly....
There are already the equivalents of pallets and containers for air freight. Maybe we just need to make a sort of pallet for passenger seating, and transfer it on to the aeroplane, the way air freight containers transfer from trucks to aeroplanes.
Otherwise the aircraft is transporting a lot of weight for no particularly good reason, especially if it turns out the rail gauge at the destination is different.
Just like flying cars, it sounds just swell, until you think about the economics of it.
Plane fuselages need to be as light as possible and able to withstand pressurization cycles.
You can't just go and make them modular, as that takes extra strength in the mating parts, extra strength in the backbone, plus electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic connections. That's going to be hundreds to thousands of extra pounds of weight per module.
No airline is going to be a willing buyer of a module that has that huge a weight and passenger count penalty.
Not to mention the certification costs and hassles for such a module.
I can think of a few advantages of a modular system like this over standard aircraft.
- Could offer faster plane turnaround. Plane never leaves the runway. Drops off sections onto a track, that takes the sections to the terminals. Plane then immediately picks up new sections and leaves.
- Plane sections could be preloaded without the planes being there. Track moves them out to plane liftoff area.
- One plane could cover multiple destinations. Could have three sections, each going to a different city. Plane flies to A and B. Starts by getting sections for A and B, and flies to A. At A, drops off A sections, and gets more B sections, then flies to B. Passengers wouldn't have to change planes so much perhaps.
- Maybe could have fewer airports. In the state of Missouri, KC and St. Louis are pretty close - about 240 miles, or about 1/2 hour travel time by air. What if instead the passengers get preloaded in both cities, then sent to a central location like Columbia (in the middle of the state). Plane picks up a section from KC and one from St. Louis both going to the same destination. Yes I know you could use a standard train for this, but the idea is that it would be seamless. Check in at KC or St. Louis, then get to destination without having to change seats.
- Maybe more secure. If there's no physical doorway between the plane section and the plane itself, the worst a terrorist could do would be to damage one section; i.e., couldn't hijack the plane.
- Maybe better plane disaster recovery. Don't know if it's possible, but maybe a plane section could be fitted with parachutes, where if a plane is going down, it could "eject" the plane sections to fend for themselves, with maybe a drag chute to slow the plane down, then massive chutes to allow the section to land. In this scenario, the structural integrity of the section would be maintained so it could float in the event of a water landing.
I dunno. Very intriguing idea with some possibilities.
Politicians complicate life - logic is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Despite how ridiculous this idea seams and how many technical hurdles it faces, they did do one thing right. Going to a high wing lets them use huge engines that can be far more efficient than little ones. That said, I don't know where they plan to get the engines that can burn these exotic fuels. Are they planning to make their own engines? If so they will quickly find that they can never reach the scale needed to be cost competitive in that market, or the airplane market for that matter.
Rather than making flying as easy as boarding a train the govt would make boarding a train as bad as boarding a plane. The appeal of Amtrak from Boston to points south and west is lower cost and less humiliation.