Close Menu
    Zukunftsforschung

    50% länger als 747, das 12 -fache seiner Frachtkapazität und für die Landung auf Dirt -Spuren – ein Unternehmen in Colorado entwirft das weltweit größte Flugzeug aller Zeiten, um Windkraftanlagen zu transportieren.


    Wenn Sie alle Schwierigkeiten beim Entwerfen und Aufbau des weltweit größten Flugzeugs aller Zeiten zum Transport von Windkraftanlagen übertrieben haben, klingen Sie möglicherweise über die Spitze, aber dahinter steckt eine solide Logik. Onshore -Windkraftanlagengröße wird durch die Transportoption eingeschränkt, um die Klingen zu liefern – Straßen, Brückengröße usw.

    100-Meter-Klingen-Turbinen können Windenergie 25% billiger machen. Nicht nur das, sondern diese Transportmethode könnte den Bereich der Orte erweitern, an denen sie gebaut werden könnten. Sie würden auch weniger Turbinen brauchen, je größer sie sind.

    Wenn Sie dies für möglicherweise 5-10% der zukünftigen Energieversorgung der Planeten Erde ansprechen, klingt die Idee nicht so lächerlich.

    Wenn wir größere Windturbinen wollen, brauchen wir größere Flugzeuge: Radia baut ein Flugzeug länger als ein Fußballfeld

    50% longer than a 747, 12 times its cargo capacity, & designed to land on dirt tracks – a Colorado company is designing the world's biggest ever airplane to transport wind turbine blades.
    byu/lughnasadh inFuturology

    Share.
    View 16 Comments

    16 Kommentare

    1. agha0013 on

      It’s a ridiculous project from a company that has never designed an aircraft ever before, and is trying to make their first the biggest thing ever built.

      The math they present to justify it is ok at best, but their lack of experience makes this more of a vaporware type project, hoping for investment that likely won’t ever meet their needs.

      I’d be surprised if they ever build a single prototype.

      Their single rendering doesn’t inspire much confidence either. A wing design that seems grossly inefficient for anything longer than very short local flights. a fuselage that will have immense structural challenges.

      oh and despite the talk about how it could land on dirt, it would still require a very long straight and level landing surface that would need to be prepared if they plan on doing a bunch of landings, which would be required at a major wind farm. That runway will be expensive no matter what.

      Then, Trump’s attack on wind farms in general (started with offshore but he wants to end all wind and solar projects) basically deflates any potential demand for such an aircraft, at least in the US.

      I think hybrid airships, of which there are already at least two functioning projects, would be more of a benefit for the job.

    2. Three_hrs_later on

      Anyone have a few hundred million to invest in my new venture? I (or more accurately chatgpt) made a rendering of 4 Sikorski’s stuck together in a quadcopter configuration for this exact same purpose. No runways needed! It will totally work for it’s intended purpose of transferring your money to me.

    3. wwarnout on

      „12 times the cargo capacity“ is somewhat misleading. Most of the parameters used to determine if an aircraft can actually fly are based on weight, not size.

    4. TheRoblock on

      It’s not 12x it’s cargo, but rather volume capacity. 747-8f used 137 ton payload capacity. This thing is at 50 ish.

    6. RDMvb6 on

      Obviously this is a fantasy and there’s like 6 other more feasible ways to make really big wind farms, so what about semi mobile factory equipment that can be trucked in to just fabricate the blades on site?

    8. Stone_leigh on

      Perhaps Airships (blimps/dirigibles) would be a bit more feasible and understood ..that assumes that the blades require unibody construction. In WW2 we had planes that had fold up wings for storage and transport just thinking…

    9. One-Arachnid-2119 on

      „Blades could one day be 3D-printed on-site, which could negate the need for an airplane, but that research is still in early stages,“

      But building a completely new design for an airplane isn’t in early research stages? I think 3D printing them onsite has a better chance of becoming reality.

    10. Dangleboard_Addict on

      Is there any reason we can’t use an airship for this? It’s not as if delivery of wind turbine blades requires high speed

    11. Slow-Recipe7005 on

      …wouldn’t it be easier to ship the turbine blade in pieces and assemble it on-site?

    12. cybercuzco on

      Couldn’t you just build the world’s biggest helicopter to transport them?

    14. 86scirocco on

      All that jet fuel wasted for something that may never generate more energy than it takes to create.

    15. already-taken-wtf on

      What about airships?

      Siemens Gamesa’s 14 blades are 108m long and weigh 65.6 tonnes per blade.

      E.g. Atlas‘ ATLANT cargo airships are unmanned, rigid-body hybrid airships that could carry up to 165 tonnes of cargo with a cruise speed of 120km/h. With the ability to land on hard runways, soil, water, ice, snow, wetlands, and sand…

      https://atlas-lta.com/atlant_cargo_airship/

    16. skyfishgoo on

      only 2 blades?

      most wind turbines have 3 blades

      this is the hot dog and hot dog bun controversy all over again.

    Leave A Reply