Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If that sort of complexity were viable for commercial aviation, we’d be air-to-air refueling airliners.


Air-to-air is way more difficult than just a tug, though.


Very much disagree. Air to air refueling is done in a very stable manner at cruise altitude. Takeoff is a much more dynamic flight regime where things can go very wrong very quickly.


If that’s the case, why doesn’t the Air Force tug up its fighters? It’d be a huge advantage.


Given a range of options for a similar problem, glider pilots generally opt for tugs, which suggests that complexity is within range of a general-aviation pilot class, let alone a commercially-certified one. But let's take your point as given.

Fighter aircraft are generally built for speed and have (even relative to commercial aviation) often fairly low range. The equivalent to "tugging" would be external jettisonable fuel tanks, and we have seen those in military use since at least WWII. Given the general lack of electric propulsion in military use, that seems reasonable. The other model has been JATO packs applied to both fighter and cargo aircraft (Fat Albert, a C-130 Hercules, is often fitted with these for air-show demos). Not electrical power, but an external boost assist.

For drone craft, there are deployment scenarios in which a large cargo plane drops (electrically-powered) drone swarms. I don't know the extent to which this has been deployed, but again it's similar.

If a military were to adopt tugs, I'd expect them to be applied to drone or cargo missions, either with a drone tug (similar to the cargo-plane model above, but possibly with remotely-piloted / autonomous tugs), or with some capability for lofting a battery pack that could be detached and flown back to the take-off site after contributing to initial take-off and climb. That is complicated, but might fit certain mission profiles, and for a relatively slow long-haul cargo mission might make the cut.

Worth also noting that most EV aviation concepts are for relatively modest cargoes and distances. The more viable range from 2--12 passengers for perhaps 100--200 km at low speeds. I've seen some more ambitious proposals, but they strike me as not especially viable.


Why? Energy density way beyond anything battery, and power headroom way beyond anything designed for frugal transport.

Short haul passenger flights are not about speed but about getting directly to the stopover, without the unpredictability of ground transport. A "powered glider" with separating assist for the climbout could be a great match for that task.

And the tug would obviously not really be a tug, but a winged battery directly attached to the aircraft it supports, with barely enough wing for a controlled return. An electric drop tank. Not exactly unheard of in military aviation (except for the "electric", obviously)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: