All Aboard, and then you get loaded onto the plane!!

AndyBoBandy

Airbus are planning detachable modular cabins, so pax can board the cabin, and be seated, before the aircraft even arrives at the gate!!
then when the aircraft arrives at stand, one cabin will be lifted off the plane, while your cabin is then loaded on board, and secured before take off.

All in an effort to reduce turnaround time at gates, and therefore make the airlines more profitable!

Airbus Cabin

diagram of said patent

a step too far? too ambitious?

Bussywussy

Yea and all the extra work connecting it up and testing when it's loaded,not even decent lower deck crew rests out there without being butchered on removal/installation

737max

patent it now even if you don't ever intend to use it. don't give competitors a free hand to innovate.

I can see applicability of containers to the freight market but I don't see how it will work for the passenger market.

In the future you could see (relatively) inexpensive single motor freight drones with containers that will kill the market for pre-owned market for passenger jets which are too old to be passenger jets anymore.

dogmatix

I'm surprised Ryanair did not come up with this idea as part of their annual free publicity stunt - it's just the thing they would propose (remember the pay toilets, standing seats etc...).

AndyBoBandy

dogmatix wrote: »

I'm surprised Ryanair did not come up with this idea as part of their annual free publicity stunt - it's just the thing they would propose (remember the pay toilets, standing seats etc...).

They've been busy elsewhere..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_IHBmHYgfE

dogmatix

Ahh - its not the same sadly. There was real malicious humour behind the old ryanair stunts. And then Mick discovered the commercial advantages of trying/appearing to be nice. You'd almost miss the old Ryanair.

Back on point though - I think airbus might be in a legal battle with Gerry Anderson productions in the future as i'm convinced I saw a similar concept on one of his sci-fi shows back in the 70's - might have been "UFO". But since he is dead now perhaps his 'patent' if there ever was one expired with him.

amen

737max wrote: »

patent it now even if you don't ever intend to use it. don't give competitors a free hand to innovate

Depending on the country Patents generally last 15-20 years and then expire. After that anyone can take the patent and manufacture the item and sell the item.

dogmatix

And it looks like Fairchild beat Airbus by 65 years also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane#/media/File:XC-120_Packplane_composite.jpg

CatFromHue

Somebody's been watching Thunderbirds again:D

Hotblack Desiato

Anything removable adds weight. Weight is bad.

737max wrote: »

In the future you could see (relatively) inexpensive single motor freight drones with containers that will kill the market for pre-owned market for passenger jets which are too old to be passenger jets anymore.

Can these relatively inexpensive single motor freight drones go transatlantic, or Far East to Europe? Thought not!

the_syco

737max wrote: »

In the future you could see (relatively) inexpensive single motor freight drones with containers that will kill the market for pre-owned market for passenger jets which are too old to be passenger jets anymore.

In the future, you'll have pre-owned passenger jets with no crew, and flying with drone technology.

Irish Steve

So, living dangerously, let's take this concept just a little further, thinking of what might need to happen if oil (or an alternative) is not as freely or cheaply available as it is now, (and Global warming is not the only reason why oil might not be so easy to get ) and introduce the possibility of taking a module, complete with passengers and bags, (so that immediately reduces the number of lost bags, and bags to remove because the passenger is missing) and being able to move the module by either road or rail from the airport.

Suddenly, we have a new concept of transportation that might be relevant in the future, where airborne links may be used only where alternatives cannot be used (mainly over long water distances) and road or rail could be used to get the module to and from the runway location. Means (for example) that if an airline didn't want to use airport facilities, they could load a module 50 miles away from the airport, and then take it to the runway and connect it up and go. Same offloading, they could take module and bags to their own remote terminal that's away from the runway for processing. OK, there are some specific security and customs type issues to tease out, but it makes the concept of an Air Bus even more specific.

Same could be done with a rail type link, and the potential for longer distances at high speed is suddenly very thought provoking.

Then there's the possibility of being able to customise the modules for services, and catering, and entertainment, and all manner of other services, depending on the user, and the distances involved. While there are a lot of technical issues that would have to be looked at in detail, it's not quite so strange as it first appears to be.

737max

the_syco wrote: »

In the future, you'll have pre-owned passenger jets with no crew, and flying with drone technology.

The technology change will be disruptive and old planes will be equivalent to horses once cars became commonplace.
Even given away for free there was little market for horses once cars took hold from 1915 onwards.

eviltimeban

All it'll take is for one pod to detach mid-flight, and that'll be the end of that.

737max

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Anything removable adds weight. Weight is bad.



Can these relatively inexpensive single motor freight drones go transatlantic, or Far East to Europe? Thought not!

A plane which doesn't need pilots and isn't carrying human freight can take its own sweet time to traverse a broad stretch of water.
As modern engines are highly durable/reliable the only limit is the amount of fuel in the tanks.
If a fraction of a fraction of a percent don't reach the destination then the manifest is insured against loss.
The major ports of the world are cut out of the game and product is delivered closer to the point of consumption.

737max

eviltimeban wrote: »

All it'll take is for one pod to detach mid-flight, and that'll be the end of that.

We'll just have a man out the front walking and waving a red flag.

AndyBoBandy

eviltimeban wrote: »

All it'll take is for one pod to detach mid-flight, and that'll be the end of that.

Could be a positive safety feature,
Mechanical issue, the plane is going down so the pod detaches and parachutes down to ground/water.

parachutes on large jets was unfeasible due to the massive weight, a pod minus the engines/wings/main fuselage would be a lot lighter.

AndyBoBandy

737max wrote: »

A plane which doesn't need pilots and isn't carrying human freight can take its own sweet time to traverse a broad stretch of water.
As modern engines are highly durable/reliable the only limit is the amount of fuel in the tanks.
If a fraction of a fraction of a percent don't reach the destination then the manifest is insured against loss.
The major ports of the world are cut out of the game and product is delivered closer to the point of consumption.

exactly, a freight drone doesn't need to travel at 500 knots, a steady 120/150 would do, still a lot faster than ships.

737max

Only immediate application I can see is in the military where the military owned and operated plane can be re-tasked to carry both supplies and troops depending on which module is loaded.

AndyBoBandy

737max wrote: »

Only immediate application I can see is in the military where the military owned and operated plane can be re-tasked to carry both supplies and troops depending on which module is loaded.

Thats a good start, as most modern civilian tech has origins in military use.

eviltimeban

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Could be a positive safety feature,
Mechanical issue, the plane is going down so the pod detaches and parachutes down to ground/water.

parachutes on large jets was unfeasible due to the massive weight, a pod minus the engines/wings/main fuselage would be a lot lighter.

Will a parachute work at cruising altitude? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if the pod landed on a school?

AndyBoBandy

eviltimeban wrote: »

Will a parachute work at cruising altitude?

probably not, so you would deploy a drogue to slow the pod down somewhat, then chutes would deploy at about 10,000

eviltimeban wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a bad thing if the pod landed on a school?

probably no worse than a full plane landing on a school.

Lucena

737max wrote: »

A plane which doesn't need pilots and isn't carrying human freight can take its own sweet time to traverse a broad stretch of water.
As modern engines are highly durable/reliable the only limit is the amount of fuel in the tanks.
If a fraction of a fraction of a percent don't reach the destination then the manifest is insured against loss.
The major ports of the world are cut out of the game and product is delivered closer to the point of consumption.

Assuming that it doesn't crash into a built-up area, infrastructure or the like.

donkey balls

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

exactly, a freight drone doesn't need to travel at 500 knots, a steady 120/150 would do, still a lot faster than ships.

Unfortunately with manufacturing and a global supply chains using JIT to cut down on warehousing etc,Everything is about speed and connectivity along with up dating the customer on the whereabouts of their shipments.

AndyBoBandy

Quite a good video of how a type of pod could be used as a safety measure.

https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/642196882588585/