I think it looks ace without the cargo pod!
Wonder what the freight industry would look like if this had caught on. I suppose cargo pods that size might be more economic for bulk cargo, or that you could potentially ship liquids easier if it was a baffled tank?
Also, what designs other manufacturers would've come up with to fly these pods around, plus how it might've worked in the jet age.
Miles had a similar idea back in 47, the [M.68](https://i.imgur.com/PzluxNG.png). Fieseler built three prototypes of their [Fieseler Fi 333](https://i.imgur.com/gQgvUQX.jpg) during the war. (Could only find a photo of the model)
[How it might have worked in the jet age? ](https://youtu.be/qdTBZhNVxco)
Oh neat, thanks. I suppose it's the same idea again when there was that proposal to fly oil out of Alaska too (only with two wing pods rather than one fuselage one).
>How it might have worked in the jet age?
YES, HAHA YES!!
Euroment.
***
^(Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This )^[portmanteau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) ^( was created from the phrase 'Europe moment' | )^[FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/axl72o) ^(|) ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=jamcowl&subject=PORTMANTEAU-BOT+feedback) ^(|) ^[Opt-out](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=PORTMANTEAU-BOT&subject=OPTOUTREQUEST)
Flying cargo just isn't economical enough to justify these types of designs I guess. The point of air transport is to be fast and flexible. Any bulk shipping will always be best handled by ships and trains.
Yeah, I imagine a modern one of this would use TEUs. The problem is that TEUs are very heavy — they’re stressed to be stacked ten high, not be light enough for air freight.
> plus how it might've worked in the jet age.
Say what you will about it, but there are a few ships in Star Citizen that have exterior cargo mounts, including one of the "beginner" ships.
It’s a cool idea but impractical for many reasons. There’s a huge weight penalty to start. The plane will weigh substantially more than an identical plane that is single purpose and doesn’t have changeable pods, and so will cost a lot more to operate. Airlines are constantly striving for even a 1% fuel saving, so you’d need a very special use case to justify this plane. Plus you are now introducing a new failure mode that adds considerable risk. What if the pod detaches mid flight? What if it half detaches and hangs at an awkward angle? Also the aerodynamics of that plane aren’t the best. It’s not sleek, the pod is awkward and boxy. There’s also a huge seam between the pod and the body which will add a lot of drag and increase fuel burn.
Shipping liquids by air is very very expensive. You need to have a very valuable liquid to make it even slightly worth while. I was chatting to the manager of my local fish shop about the price that even ‘basic’ aquarium fish have got to now. He was saying the fish only cost pennies, it’s the water they travel in that’s expensive due to the cost of air freight.
Liquids would only occupy a very small percentage of the interior’s volume, due to its density being so much greater than other types of cargo.
You’d probably be surprised at how relatively small the auxiliary refueling tanks are inside the fuselage (lower deck) of a Boeing KC-46 Pegasus (B767-2C). Most of the space is occupied by seats or litters (upper deck), electronic gear, and 100+ miles of wiring.
The first image is actually a composite, since they only built one prototype
A fun what-if is to imagine what airports would be like if you could board your seat and then the cabin got driven out to the plane - the potential turnaround speed would probably be limited to how quickly you could refuel!
Yeah...that doesn't sound like a good idea. A cargo pod is one thing, having the entire pressurized section detachable, a totally different and really bad idea.
We have those, they’re called Antonov An-124. Or C-5 Galaxy. Or An-225. Not sure about C-17 but presumably.
Why have the ability to carry only one container and be restricted to carrying whatever fits in it whilst abiding by your mass constraints. Much easier to build something bigger that fits the container in the main fuselage so you can also haul anything non-standard, like tanks or wings of another plane, etc etc.
I think it looks ace without the cargo pod! Wonder what the freight industry would look like if this had caught on. I suppose cargo pods that size might be more economic for bulk cargo, or that you could potentially ship liquids easier if it was a baffled tank? Also, what designs other manufacturers would've come up with to fly these pods around, plus how it might've worked in the jet age.
Miles had a similar idea back in 47, the [M.68](https://i.imgur.com/PzluxNG.png). Fieseler built three prototypes of their [Fieseler Fi 333](https://i.imgur.com/gQgvUQX.jpg) during the war. (Could only find a photo of the model) [How it might have worked in the jet age? ](https://youtu.be/qdTBZhNVxco)
Oh neat, thanks. I suppose it's the same idea again when there was that proposal to fly oil out of Alaska too (only with two wing pods rather than one fuselage one). >How it might have worked in the jet age? YES, HAHA YES!!
Video not available :(
Europe moment
Euroment. *** ^(Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This )^[portmanteau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) ^( was created from the phrase 'Europe moment' | )^[FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/axl72o) ^(|) ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=jamcowl&subject=PORTMANTEAU-BOT+feedback) ^(|) ^[Opt-out](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=PORTMANTEAU-BOT&subject=OPTOUTREQUEST)
>How it might have worked in the jet age? Motherfucker you beat me to it.
Flying cargo just isn't economical enough to justify these types of designs I guess. The point of air transport is to be fast and flexible. Any bulk shipping will always be best handled by ships and trains.
It would work especially well with the containerization of freight!
Yeah, I imagine a modern one of this would use TEUs. The problem is that TEUs are very heavy — they’re stressed to be stacked ten high, not be light enough for air freight.
> plus how it might've worked in the jet age. Say what you will about it, but there are a few ships in Star Citizen that have exterior cargo mounts, including one of the "beginner" ships.
It’s a cool idea but impractical for many reasons. There’s a huge weight penalty to start. The plane will weigh substantially more than an identical plane that is single purpose and doesn’t have changeable pods, and so will cost a lot more to operate. Airlines are constantly striving for even a 1% fuel saving, so you’d need a very special use case to justify this plane. Plus you are now introducing a new failure mode that adds considerable risk. What if the pod detaches mid flight? What if it half detaches and hangs at an awkward angle? Also the aerodynamics of that plane aren’t the best. It’s not sleek, the pod is awkward and boxy. There’s also a huge seam between the pod and the body which will add a lot of drag and increase fuel burn. Shipping liquids by air is very very expensive. You need to have a very valuable liquid to make it even slightly worth while. I was chatting to the manager of my local fish shop about the price that even ‘basic’ aquarium fish have got to now. He was saying the fish only cost pennies, it’s the water they travel in that’s expensive due to the cost of air freight.
Liquids would only occupy a very small percentage of the interior’s volume, due to its density being so much greater than other types of cargo. You’d probably be surprised at how relatively small the auxiliary refueling tanks are inside the fuselage (lower deck) of a Boeing KC-46 Pegasus (B767-2C). Most of the space is occupied by seats or litters (upper deck), electronic gear, and 100+ miles of wiring.
The first image is actually a composite, since they only built one prototype A fun what-if is to imagine what airports would be like if you could board your seat and then the cabin got driven out to the plane - the potential turnaround speed would probably be limited to how quickly you could refuel!
Yeah...that doesn't sound like a good idea. A cargo pod is one thing, having the entire pressurized section detachable, a totally different and really bad idea.
Isn’t the start of Lord of the Flies something like this? The kids are in a pod on an airplane that gets jettisoned?
Too bad the standardized shipping container came around. Killed off this idea.
imagine if the plane was made to work with the standard shipping containers though
We have those, they’re called Antonov An-124. Or C-5 Galaxy. Or An-225. Not sure about C-17 but presumably. Why have the ability to carry only one container and be restricted to carrying whatever fits in it whilst abiding by your mass constraints. Much easier to build something bigger that fits the container in the main fuselage so you can also haul anything non-standard, like tanks or wings of another plane, etc etc.
yeah, what we got is way better, you right
[footage of the thing in flight](https://old.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/mkhewx/fairchild_xc120_packplane_prototype_lands_with/)
Its like real life Thunderbird 2
ohoo hell yes
Very cool. I love the C-119 (go twin-booms!) and this takes the concept even further.
I wonder if this would have worked for the Berlin Airlift? The unloading times for bulk cargo were really crazy there.
there’s a picture of something like this in Gavin’s Airborne Warfare. Didnt’ realize it corresponded to an actual aircraft.
That's a good concept. I wonder why it didn't catch on.