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?













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?










share|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$

















    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?










    share|improve this question









    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.







    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      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?










      share|improve this question









      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.







      $endgroup$




      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









      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









      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




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago









      Daniele Procida

      6,2792257




      6,2792257






      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




      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.





      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.






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






















          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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





















          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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












          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


















          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









          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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


















          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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
















          3












          3








          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









          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          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
















          • 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













          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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
















          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









          $endgroup$









          • 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














          6












          6








          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









          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          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














          • 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










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










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          El tren de la libertad Índice Antecedentes "Porque yo decido" Desarrollo de la...

          Puerta de Hutt Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación15°58′00″S 5°42′00″O /...

          Castillo d'Acher Características Menú de navegación