Technology

34976 readers

195 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

206

Unpowered cargo gliders on tow ropes promise 65% cheaper air freight (newatlas.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Mrkawfee@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.ml

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it require the same amount of energy to get airborn / propaget as any other powered aircraft? Because, like, physics...

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

More recently, the US Air Mobility Command tried flying one C-17 Globemaster III some 3-6,000 ft (900-1800m) back from another, "surfing" the vortices left in the lead plane's wake – much like ducks flying in formation – and found there were double-digit fuel savings to be gained.

But Texas startup Aerolane says the savings will be much more substantial with purpose-built autonomous cargo gliders connected to the lead plane with a simple tow rope. With no propulsion systems, you save all the weight of engines, motors, fuel or batteries. There'll be no cabin for a pilot, just space for cargo and the autonomous flight control systems that'll run them.

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 3 points 8 months ago

That's while they're in the air. How much extra power will it take to get the whole shebang airborne?

[–] peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de 3 points 8 months ago

It said "cheaper" not "energy efficient".

Wings are easy, jet engines are hard.

Besides, if you can do it with an electrical locomotive on the ground, the energy conversion to electricity of a power plant should be better than the energy conversion of a jet engine from fuel to movement.

So imo, cheaper seems plausible, energy efficient is a maybe.