Is it cheaper to drop cargo drop than to land it?What criteria make an airport suitable for a technical stop...
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?
$begingroup$
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
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
fuel efficiency
New contributor
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
Daniele Procida
6,2792257
6,2792257
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
MuzeMuze
415313
415313
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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 |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
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
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered 5 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.7k386136
32.7k386136
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 |
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
2
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
$begingroup$
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 |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered 8 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
4,7801318
4,7801318
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 |
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
1
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
$begingroup$
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
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
$begingroup$
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 |
Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown