Kdtyjb

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

When did stoichiometry begin to be taught in U.S. high schools?

If Earth is tilted, why is Polaris always above the same spot?

Why does processed meat contain preservatives, while canned fish needs not?

What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `a{b,c}d` (braces)?

Options leqno, reqno for documentclass or exist another option?

Modify locally tikzset

Is it possible to Ready a spell to be cast just before the start of your next turn by having the trigger be an ally's attack?

You look catfish vs You look like a catfish

How deep to place a deadman anchor for a slackline?

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?

Can I get candy for a Pokemon I haven't caught yet?

Help, my Death Star suffers from Kessler syndrome!

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?

Feels like I am getting dragged in office politics

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

Confusion about capacitors

When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?

How can I get precisely a certain cubic cm by changing the following factors?

What's the metal clinking sound at the end of credits in Avengers: Endgame?

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

Is it cheaper to drop cargo drop than to land it?

What criteria make an airport suitable for a technical stop for a large airliner?Why is the Tu-95 so efficient despite having propellers that spin faster than the speed of sound?When are multiple hops more efficient than single leg?How much efficiency gain can be attributed to aircraft handling?Why are commercial propeller aircraft smaller than commercial jet aircraft?Why are ethanol piston engines apparently cheaper to maintain than avgas piston engines?Why aren't larger airliners such as the A380 more efficient than smaller ones?Why does the Zapata Flyboard Air UL consume so much more fuel/hr than the Mosquito Air?Do the four engines of a BAe-146 make it efficient?Are two twin-jet flights more efficient than one quad-jet flight?

1

$begingroup$

Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?

fuel efficiency

share|improve this question

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?

fuel efficiency

share|improve this question

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?

fuel efficiency

share|improve this question

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

edited 6 hours ago

Daniele Procida

6,2792257

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

New contributor

Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 8 hours ago

MuzeMuze

415313

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.

Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.

The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

$begingroup$

Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.

But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.

You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).

And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.

You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
  $endgroup$
  – GdD
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63794%2fis-it-cheaper-to-drop-cargo-drop-than-to-land-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.

Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.

The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.

Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.

The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.

Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.

The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

answered 5 hours ago

GdDGdD

32.7k386136

6

$begingroup$

Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.

But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.

You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).

And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.

You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
  $endgroup$
  – GdD
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

$begingroup$

Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.

But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.

You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).

And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.

You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
  $endgroup$
  – GdD
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
  $endgroup$
  – Jörg W Mittag
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.

But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.

You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).

And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.

You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318

answered 8 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

4,7801318