Be My WINGMAN In War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/foundandexplained Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in battle! Scroll down for more information forms.gle/y7aL6fs73gQRU4B3A - First, get the game War Thunder with a bonus here: playwt.link/foundandexplained - Do the tutorial so you know how to play. - Add your username to this list: forms.gle/LVnSLqJWkReULLSWA and during the live stream, I will pick some random names from the list. - I will be playing every weekend at different times, so everyone will get a go.
Right, it might be seen as a nightmare, but couldn't there be a system similar to nowadays Amazon which distributes the luggage internly to the next "tranship" plane and making sure the weight is balanced enough so as not to interfere the center of mass? Somehow i'm searching for solutions to the flaws.
Even without luggage and cargo the passengers need to be smart and responsive enough to move from plane to plane when prompted. Then you have the issue of feeders being on time. Having traveled a lot I am most sceptical of the passengers.
@@1Ldestiny Not easily cargo/luggage needs to be strapped down during flight, if you look at cargo plane crashes, shifting load due to maneuvering or turbulence can destroy an aircraft.
Yea.. there is a lot of issues. Like fuel consumption. Those aircraft would be really thirsty. And altitude. If they fly high, the feeders need to get up high and waste fuel, if they fly low, they would use more fuel them self. And speed. Airspeed would be limited to about mach 0.7, that is way slower than today. Increasing cost to cost flight time by plenty. What about just building a freaking train
@@TheTuttle99 Currently its between 10 and 20 airliners chrashing every year. Most of those crashes are minor, majority of them with no faitalities at all. The last couple of decades number of faital aircrashes have come down significantly despite number of air miles going up. The 737max debakle is a very special exception since most crashes still are with older planes. Now when the older aircraft prior to modern saftey standard is stated to be phased out (talking about 737 classic and there about) the safty record is getting better in quite a fast rate.
That’s a small hurdle comparatively. As likely as not the airline would limit passengers to no more than two carryon bags which they manage themselves. Anything else would have to go on a cargo flight.
Seems like they could just load all the luggage deliberately, with intent on if and to which plane the bag will be transferred to. Could even make the process in the sky automated so you wouldnt have to have laborers constantly on every plane.
@@botmonmon6089 in theory that would work. In reality An automated system would be a heavy and complex system to cram into a plane. Those changes would mean reducing the number of passengers and increasing maintenance costs. Limiting luggage and making passengers responsible for them is simpler and doesn’t impact capacity. It also simplifies the WxB (weight and balance) calculations.
Given how much pilots have to practice for in-air refueling, this is a very wild concept for _passenger_ transport (there is almost no way this would not end up as anything other than a series of fireballs).
In todays tech it’s possible but full cost. If we can replace the fuel requirements with a more long term solution then the liners can fly for almost 24/7 untill repairs needed.
Transferring passengers might work but luggage transfers would be an absolute nightmare, you'd need Luggage handlers on each plane probably a conveyor system etc to save time..
Gillie Wilmer China has a similar issue, but they solved the travel times with high speed rails. (now the Chinese system has its own issues), its still slower than airtravel but still useabel. However high-speed rails are a money sink. The only reason China could afford it was very low wages and in some cases literal slave labour. America could never afford such a large high-speed rail network with American labour laws.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the Chinese rail system was built for international prestige without looking at economics. Now some lines are closed and it loses money. China Uncensored had a video on this if I remember correctly.
I can relate to the FAA officials headache. This concept looks as realistic and as viable as a Borg cube assimilating feeder aircraft into it. Paper can absorb everything
@@andrewyork3869 check out the ISS. It'll blow your mind. Also the military uses midair refueling It would be very easy for computers to connect them
They need a tanker-feeder variant so the liners can fly continuously until they need servicing. Then the billionaire version so Mr Big Time never has to set foot on the ground. With the range of the feeders, you only need liners going in a circle around the perimeter of the lower 48 and a big X through the middle of the country. The more liners that link up wing to wing, the more efficient flight becomes so they can shut down some engines while linked. The idea of unlinking and rebuilding trains at intersections is efficient too, like a railroad switchyard breaking down trains and sending each car onto a different train going where that particular car needs to go.
While we're going with colossally bad ideas, why not just chuck a nuclear reactor on them so they can "fly forever" or 10 minutes when the first plane crashes into it trying to dock?
I once read a science fiction story with a similar concept. In the story, the huge spanloader liners were too big to land at all but a handful of airports with extra-wide runways. The feeder aircraft were modified 727s and 737s (this was pre-Airbus, I think), and passenger transfer was via seats on tracks that moved them rapidly from the feeder to the main aircraft. And where were the windows? Why, in the leading edge of the wing, of course. Passengers rode inside the wings, complete with shops, restaurants, and lounges. The story revolved around a feeder docking gone awry, with the damaged 727 stuck in the docking port. Thank you for revealing the source of this story. It's a great concept, essentially a flying airport terminal, passengers changing planes in the air. Unfortunately, rather than building a high-speed railroad in the sky, it would probably be easier and cheaper to build a high-speed railroad on the ground. Oh, well.
Transferring passengers from one pressurized plane to another would open all sorts of opportunities for disaster. If you've even seen the wings on a plane flapping in rough weather, then imagine that happening across 3 of these things.
Everyone overlooked one ESSENTIAL thing, which makes this fall apart completely: HOW would you transfer check-in luggages??? Carry-ons are kinda OK - although not easy - to move from airplane to airplane, but your 20-30-40KG luggages which are also in the cargo area? The fact that this was even researched this much is amazing to me...
I think my most W.T.F. moment is when the front of the Feeder aircraft opens during the approach to the Liner aircraft, complete loss of aerodynamic flow across the nose of the aircraft. There is the business of all of that pitch, yaw and roll axes that have to be dead on balls accurate(it's an industry term)before the two craft could dock. But other than these things, there are things wrong with this concept that haven't been imagined yet.
Even if it were feasible to mitigate all of the dangers, how would the luggage have been handled? Could you imagine trying to track down your lost luggage in this system?
Back in the mid '60's I built and flew what was called "The Plank" 1st one was Control Line, .049 and the others were Radio Controlled, .25 - .46. The moment I saw the above plane I thought, Model Airplane to Commercial airplane, just a Tad bigger.
one word....luggage...what are ppl that go into the giant plane gonna do if they have checked luggage and their feeder plane goes off somewhere else/back home? You might say, well it would go on ahead to drop off the luggage, but if its gonna do that, why even bother docking?
@@awildhampter8570 theres barely room for the bag and such you can bring on board now, imagine what is it 2 suitcases you can check, and what if people are bringing pets in checked baggage as well, it would be a nightmare. But as say a businessmans flight of what you carry on board now as max luggage it might have had a chance, minus those other technical challenges.
I would solve this by haveing separate planes for luggage, basically combine regular cargo planes with check-in luggage. There are worse issues with the concept then luggage.
I'm in the first few minutes of the video and already see how dangerous and pointless this entire project was. Getting on a plane, just to transfer onto another plane while in mid-air, just to transfer back to another plane, before landing near your destination. Absolutely ridiculous.
The feeders should also have the ability to refuel the liners to limit ground time and bring in replacement crew to maintain a safe working requirements.
Kind of a cool idea, on top of all the short comings mentioned in the video, moving all the luggage could also be a logistical nightmare as well. You would need extra crew flying on the trains and improper balance of luggage has brought down more than one plane.
Using the railway analogy, there's a couple other less-common railway methodologies this incorporated. The idea of "Slip coaches," which are coaches at the back of the train that passengers for a given stop would board, then the coach would uncouple from the moving train and stop at that station without the rest of the train slowing down. These had brakes but no engine, so they could only stop, couldn't catch up to an already moving train, though I know doing that with self-propelled railcars has been at least suggested. These "feedliners" joining the main aircraft in flight are the aerial version of that. The other concept is trains that start out as one long train but then the train splits apart with the two sections going to different destinations (or vise versa). The main commonality is that trains are modular, allowing modules to be joined or separated as needed - in some relatively uncommon cases even while moving - and this aircraft idea basically tries to take that modularity into the air. The "unlimited Seats" claim carries through as well, as I don't know if there's a theoretical limit to how long a passenger train could be, especially if using distributed locomotives like a freight train. There certainly are practical limits though.
I wonder how they would have transfered the luggage frlm one flying rectangle to the other. 'Sorry, Sir. Your suitcase was transfered to the route to Houston, not Newark'
This concept would be what is done in space, essentially. You got a shuttle, which is a feeder, to a space station, which could be considered a liner as it is constantly moving. When interstellar travel becomes a thing one would be having shuttles fed into a liner that has the fuel for the long-distance travel, and then at various stops shuttles would come and go to exchange passengers.
What you're describing is the "Cycler" type of spacecraft. Essentially a space station placed in a highly-elliptical orbit that matches the phases of two planetoids. Earth-Mars is the most popular in fiction. You race up with your small capsule and dock to the station when it's near Earth, then hang out for months on the far-larger station, then fling yourself off again when near Mars. The cycler station just continues on it's own orbit out past Mars, then dives back into the solar system to eventually swing by both planets again in a years-long process.
Sounds like an air Traffic Control nightmare. Don't they have a rule about planes not getting too close to each other in the air? Also imagine if 3 linked planes crashed into a built up area and scythed a wide trail through the buildings therein. We're talking whole blocks on fire let alone the thousand or so dead on board.
Most any concept can be thought to work on paper but in reality I would not want to be any where close to the area or on any of the concept aircraft or any of the guinea pigs needed in the initial aerial test flights. . . .just a death wish waiting to happen, and a astronomical one in size @ that that would cost a lot in lives as well as a huge waste of money and man hours kinda like the titanic of the sky . . . Id rather take my chances in Howard Hughes Spruce Goose float plane . . . At least we know that it would fly and could take off and land in the water!
There was actually a train concept like this, a high speed liner runs contentiously, and feeder train accelerate / decelerate passengers from/to station and transfer passengers while they a connected in parallel.
My biggest thought was how would luggage be handled if I'm jumping from plane to plane to possible another plane before getting on a plane to land. Carry on only?
Okay, whenever a channel that is all about out there aircraft designs puts in the idea that "yeah, this one was a real idea" you know this one is especially out there.
It's a nice concept and an intreging one but.... i think the moment you factor in the luggage handling issues it will fall apart..... Then you have the schedule issues if you gat a dificult or unruly passanger... how do you make them move when you get close to the separation time? bouncers? security? throw them out with a parachute?
Nothing like coming home and finding a video from this incredible channel, fresh out of the oven. By the way, could you talk about some airplane projects that were made here in Argentina? Like the Pulqui 1 and 2. And I even got to read about a hypersonic airplane project, although I'm not sure about that. And many other interesting projects done here in Argentina in those years. After the end of World War II, many Germans fled to this part of the world, where they came up with their own ideas for airplanes, among them were, The Horten Brothers!! In the end, most of the projects came to nothing, because the government had other concerns and few funds were allocated, a pity. I still think it would be very interesting if you talked about these issues and also could show how many countries in this region could be great nations if they wanted to. I still believe that there is still hope if we propose it and we vote well and we strive to improve and expel these jets (word used in Argentina to say to the Thieves). PDST: Greetings from Argentina and good luck!!.
The biggest problem besides the turbulence is not just transferring passengers but their luggage. You would have to have that way quite compartmentalised in order to adequately transfer over so it's not simply a matter of transferring people in their carry-ons but also luggage and any Air Cargo that's carried in the cargo hold because Airlines often haul that as well
Atmospheric phenomenon (eg: turbulence, humidity, density variations, unreliable winds, etc) all make the idea of an Air Train unfeasible. Not to mention the lack of tensile strength / bond strength between the modules.
I am happy to see the older style of video back. I appreciate seeing some weird civilian plane ideas, explained in adequate detail instead of military planes, such as many other channels show them
I do air refueling for a living, getting two aircraft to stabilize 30ft from each other is wild enough. I can't imagine this shenanigans for military operations let alone civil.
I don't care about all the other issues, because there is one that stands out above the rest for me: Imagine that you are on far left of the left wing of the far left plane in a trane of three. Now imagin that the trane turns.
Quite a lot of issues with this. The most obvious for me would be luggage. Having people move between modules seems doable, but handling their luggage midair would be a logistical nightmare. Then there is the fact that people are, generally, stupid. Some would fall asleep and miss the transfer, others would walk to a different module, try doing the complete trip with a cheaper "one stop" ticket, etc. And then you would need to calculate seats for every variation of the route in order to guarantee that, for exemple, the seat left vacant in Chicago for the final stretch to New York is not simultaneously assigned to the passenger coming from Dallas and the one coming from LA.
I think that last bit is already done by people purchasing tickets for seats on all the connecting flights they use. The only way you could possibly have two people assigned to the same seat on the same leg of flight is if they purchased their tickets online at the same time and a database error didn't prevent one ticket purchase from voiding any other ticket purchases for the same seat. Now stupid people insisting that a certain seat is THEIR seat even though their ticket is for a different seat is something no seat reservation system is ever going to prevent.
This also doesn't allow for bad weather and other scheduling delays and cancelations. Checked baggage would either have to be shipped separately or have baggage handlers riding in the cargo compartments of feeder and liner crafts.
Be My WINGMAN In War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/foundandexplained
Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in battle!
Scroll down for more information
forms.gle/y7aL6fs73gQRU4B3A
- First, get the game War Thunder with a bonus here: playwt.link/foundandexplained
- Do the tutorial so you know how to play.
- Add your username to this list: forms.gle/LVnSLqJWkReULLSWA
and during the live stream, I will pick some random names from the list.
- I will be playing every weekend at different times, so everyone will get a go.
Ight
boycott momento
war thunder getting desperate
Please refrain from calling the US, "america". It's offensive to other countries. Thank you.
I love the animations they are so clean!
Aside for the already existing issues , you also have the luggage and cargo handling issues to consider.
I thought the same, this would just add issues and probably end up a nightmare if it even managed to work.
Right, it might be seen as a nightmare, but couldn't there be a system similar to nowadays Amazon which distributes the luggage internly to the next "tranship" plane and making sure the weight is balanced enough so as not to interfere the center of mass? Somehow i'm searching for solutions to the flaws.
Even without luggage and cargo the passengers need to be smart and responsive enough to move from plane to plane when prompted. Then you have the issue of feeders being on time. Having traveled a lot I am most sceptical of the passengers.
@@1Ldestiny Not easily cargo/luggage needs to be strapped down during flight, if you look at cargo plane crashes, shifting load due to maneuvering or turbulence can destroy an aircraft.
Yea.. there is a lot of issues.
Like fuel consumption. Those aircraft would be really thirsty.
And altitude. If they fly high, the feeders need to get up high and waste fuel, if they fly low, they would use more fuel them self.
And speed. Airspeed would be limited to about mach 0.7, that is way slower than today. Increasing cost to cost flight time by plenty.
What about just building a freaking train
I can hear the pilots jokingly yelling "LET'S FORM VOLTRON!!" when trying to dock with the other planes.
first idea that popped into my head was Voltes V
@@archwaldo Same here XD
As a pilot I’m leaning towards a power rangers yell
*AND I'LL FORM....THE HEAD!!!🤖*
CMON TARS!
I love how its always starts with: This aircraft is unlike anything you have ever seen. :)
And usually it is that
And it's usually as if engineers snorted a line or two off a hooker's a** and were like "So, hear me out- what if we...."
He aint wrong, since those were crazy ideas people had (i would expect drugs and alcohol were involved).
And there is usually a good reason for that😂😂
The flying train wreck waiting to happen!
Gotta agree. How many plane crashes happen a year? It would happen, it would just be a matter of time. And it would be horrible
ok it might seem bad, but planes crash like 70-80 a year, but cars crash over 6 million a year.
@@pilotpat Because they basically don't build airplane like this duh
@@pilotpat yeah but the difference is that there's nothing to crash into in the sky... 😅
@@TheTuttle99 Currently its between 10 and 20 airliners chrashing every year. Most of those crashes are minor, majority of them with no faitalities at all.
The last couple of decades number of faital aircrashes have come down significantly despite number of air miles going up.
The 737max debakle is a very special exception since most crashes still are with older planes.
Now when the older aircraft prior to modern saftey standard is stated to be phased out (talking about 737 classic and there about) the safty record is getting better in quite a fast rate.
You didn't even talk about how they would have to transfer all the peoples luggage from plane to plane. That in itself would be a nightmare.
That’s a small hurdle comparatively. As likely as not the airline would limit passengers to no more than two carryon bags which they manage themselves. Anything else would have to go on a cargo flight.
Seems like they could just load all the luggage deliberately, with intent on if and to which plane the bag will be transferred to.
Could even make the process in the sky automated so you wouldnt have to have laborers constantly on every plane.
capsulize passenger compartment like trains and then just automatically feed them thru.
@@botmonmon6089 in theory that would work. In reality An automated system would be a heavy and complex system to cram into a plane. Those changes would mean reducing the number of passengers and increasing maintenance costs. Limiting luggage and making passengers responsible for them is simpler and doesn’t impact capacity. It also simplifies the WxB (weight and balance) calculations.
Just left turn and release
Given how much pilots have to practice for in-air refueling, this is a very wild concept for _passenger_ transport (there is almost no way this would not end up as anything other than a series of fireballs).
Computers would do the converging.
In the late 70's? I don't think so.
In todays tech it’s possible but full cost. If we can replace the fuel requirements with a more long term solution then the liners can fly for almost 24/7 untill repairs needed.
Now what fuel would work though
I something like in-air refueling could be done by a computer, I would think the USAF would do it that way.
Transferring passengers might work but luggage transfers would be an absolute nightmare, you'd need Luggage handlers on each plane probably a conveyor system etc to save time..
Carry on only
Plot twist: all luggage is sent by train.
The lengths America will go to just to avoid having to build good passenger train transport is insane.
It literally doesn't exist. You act like this thing is in full scale production.
A good passenger railway system is basically useless in America unless it’s in a big city. The country is too big and the travel times are too long.
@@gilliewilmer1954apparently you guys had dementia with old US interconnection railway system
Gillie Wilmer China has a similar issue, but they solved the travel times with high speed rails.
(now the Chinese system has its own issues), its still slower than airtravel but still useabel.
However high-speed rails are a money sink. The only reason China could afford it was very low wages and in some cases literal slave labour. America could never afford such a large high-speed rail network with American labour laws.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the Chinese rail system was built for international prestige without looking at economics. Now some lines are closed and it loses money. China Uncensored had a video on this if I remember correctly.
I can relate to the FAA officials headache. This concept looks as realistic and as viable as a Borg cube assimilating feeder aircraft into it. Paper can absorb everything
Toilet paper best used here !
They must've made it a nuclear-powered VTOL flatbed
That would've been the best plane in the world
Yes, nuclear power was considered.
god you might have seen next months video...
@@crankychris2 so what happened why was it not yet implemented.
@@FoundAndExplained Is it going to be about the Lockheed Flatbed? That was such a ridiculous design!
U mean the best Accident to happen in history
These things would be causing mid air collisions SOOOOO often due to “human error”
Honestly even a computer would struggle to constantly make that doc.
@@andrewyork3869 check out the ISS. It'll blow your mind.
Also the military uses midair refueling
It would be very easy for computers to connect them
They need a tanker-feeder variant so the liners can fly continuously until they need servicing. Then the billionaire version so Mr Big Time never has to set foot on the ground. With the range of the feeders, you only need liners going in a circle around the perimeter of the lower 48 and a big X through the middle of the country. The more liners that link up wing to wing, the more efficient flight becomes so they can shut down some engines while linked. The idea of unlinking and rebuilding trains at intersections is efficient too, like a railroad switchyard breaking down trains and sending each car onto a different train going where that particular car needs to go.
While we're going with colossally bad ideas, why not just chuck a nuclear reactor on them so they can "fly forever" or 10 minutes when the first plane crashes into it trying to dock?
you call it a flying train, i call it a flying rectangle
flying plank.
or simply the real flying wing
I mean a train is just a rectangle to its the same thing
And trains are rolling rectangles.
I call it Turbulent Disaster Plane
I once read a science fiction story with a similar concept. In the story, the huge spanloader liners were too big to land at all but a handful of airports with extra-wide runways. The feeder aircraft were modified 727s and 737s (this was pre-Airbus, I think), and passenger transfer was via seats on tracks that moved them rapidly from the feeder to the main aircraft. And where were the windows? Why, in the leading edge of the wing, of course. Passengers rode inside the wings, complete with shops, restaurants, and lounges. The story revolved around a feeder docking gone awry, with the damaged 727 stuck in the docking port.
Thank you for revealing the source of this story. It's a great concept, essentially a flying airport terminal, passengers changing planes in the air. Unfortunately, rather than building a high-speed railroad in the sky, it would probably be easier and cheaper to build a high-speed railroad on the ground. Oh, well.
Transferring passengers from one pressurized plane to another would open all sorts of opportunities for disaster. If you've even seen the wings on a plane flapping in rough weather, then imagine that happening across 3 of these things.
I can see this working if the weather was always perfect. I always love how you show us wild aircraft projects that were actually considered!
there are so many!
Weather at 30,000 feet is constantish.
Everyone overlooked one ESSENTIAL thing, which makes this fall apart completely: HOW would you transfer check-in luggages??? Carry-ons are kinda OK - although not easy - to move from airplane to airplane, but your 20-30-40KG luggages which are also in the cargo area? The fact that this was even researched this much is amazing to me...
They must have had some cargo area that transfers between them
Not to mention turbulence from the leading aircraft 🤣
@@RUclips_user3333 the only way to approach would be to be almost coming up at it before connection is made and then drop off from it
I think my most W.T.F. moment is when the front of the Feeder aircraft opens during the approach to the Liner aircraft, complete loss of aerodynamic flow across the nose of the aircraft. There is the business of all of that pitch, yaw and roll axes that have to be dead on balls accurate(it's an industry term)before the two craft could dock. But other than these things, there are things wrong with this concept that haven't been imagined yet.
Omg i did a futuristic cyberpunk rpg campaign. In the 1990s and despite my players scoffing, I totally used this idea in my narratives hyperlol.
Imagine Delta or Malaysian Airlines flying a plane like that! There’d be a maintenance related accident every week!
How about Spirit airlines?😂
@@krystianzyszczynski4115 And let's not mention Ryanair?
@@tmwarthunder1016 Ryanair is better than any American domestic airline. Europeans don't know how good you have it.
Lion air Indonesia has the best record.
They haven't thought about luggage.
Even if it were feasible to mitigate all of the dangers, how would the luggage have been handled? Could you imagine trying to track down your lost luggage in this system?
9:45 “gusts”
10:00 *LOUD PIANO MUSIC TRANSITION STARTS PLAYING*
How would they transfer the luggage???😂😂
Trueeee
by hand.......maybe luggage will be with passangers?
This is the most Bōsōzoku aircraft design I've ever seen. Especially that Boeing concept.
I would not be surprised to see this in a transportation management game in the near future.
I would, it's unrealistic
Back in the mid '60's I built and flew what was called "The Plank" 1st one was Control Line, .049 and the others were Radio Controlled, .25 - .46. The moment I saw the above plane I thought, Model Airplane to Commercial airplane, just a Tad bigger.
Two or more airplanes coming into contact with each other is called a crash.
On of few things I know about aeronautics is the impossibility of flying near another airplane 's turbulence. This is absurd.
one word....luggage...what are ppl that go into the giant plane gonna do if they have checked luggage and their feeder plane goes off somewhere else/back home? You might say, well it would go on ahead to drop off the luggage, but if its gonna do that, why even bother docking?
I think people would hold their luggage with them
@@awildhampter8570 theres barely room for the bag and such you can bring on board now, imagine what is it 2 suitcases you can check, and what if people are bringing pets in checked baggage as well, it would be a nightmare. But as say a businessmans flight of what you carry on board now as max luggage it might have had a chance, minus those other technical challenges.
@@awildhampter8570 it definitely would shift the center of gravity so badly, you turn this into accident
I would solve this by haveing separate planes for luggage, basically combine regular cargo planes with check-in luggage.
There are worse issues with the concept then luggage.
I'm in the first few minutes of the video and already see how dangerous and pointless this entire project was. Getting on a plane, just to transfer onto another plane while in mid-air, just to transfer back to another plane, before landing near your destination. Absolutely ridiculous.
The feeders should also have the ability to refuel the liners to limit ground time and bring in replacement crew to maintain a safe working requirements.
2:53 Yes! That is exactly what would happen. Utter chaos in the sky. Kinda like the movie Executive Decision.
BUT...Just think of all the lost bags!
If you have ever watched military aircraft trying to link up and refuel in even moderate turbulence then you know why.
It's like flying but with added danger.
Initiating saucer separation!
Kind of a cool idea, on top of all the short comings mentioned in the video, moving all the luggage could also be a logistical nightmare as well. You would need extra crew flying on the trains and improper balance of luggage has brought down more than one plane.
Using the railway analogy, there's a couple other less-common railway methodologies this incorporated. The idea of "Slip coaches," which are coaches at the back of the train that passengers for a given stop would board, then the coach would uncouple from the moving train and stop at that station without the rest of the train slowing down. These had brakes but no engine, so they could only stop, couldn't catch up to an already moving train, though I know doing that with self-propelled railcars has been at least suggested. These "feedliners" joining the main aircraft in flight are the aerial version of that. The other concept is trains that start out as one long train but then the train splits apart with the two sections going to different destinations (or vise versa). The main commonality is that trains are modular, allowing modules to be joined or separated as needed - in some relatively uncommon cases even while moving - and this aircraft idea basically tries to take that modularity into the air. The "unlimited Seats" claim carries through as well, as I don't know if there's a theoretical limit to how long a passenger train could be, especially if using distributed locomotives like a freight train. There certainly are practical limits though.
I wonder how they would have transfered the luggage frlm one flying rectangle to the other.
'Sorry, Sir. Your suitcase was transfered to the route to Houston, not Newark'
Considering that happens frequently already, I'd assume the same or worse.
Ah, an air crash and a train wreck in one package, how efficient of you.
Dang I'm starting to hear a Super Sentai and a 70s or 80s robot anime combine theme by just seeing this planes combine while in air
Ridiculous! To achieve this, one has to assume varying air currents do not exist. They do, and they would tear these aircraft apart!
Let’s simplify this down: there’s a reason everything else in the report exists and this does not and will not.
A flying train already exists. It's called Spirit Airlines, the glorified subway in the sky.
0:59 Dodged a big one there😂🤠
This concept would be what is done in space, essentially. You got a shuttle, which is a feeder, to a space station, which could be considered a liner as it is constantly moving. When interstellar travel becomes a thing one would be having shuttles fed into a liner that has the fuel for the long-distance travel, and then at various stops shuttles would come and go to exchange passengers.
What you're describing is the "Cycler" type of spacecraft. Essentially a space station placed in a highly-elliptical orbit that matches the phases of two planetoids. Earth-Mars is the most popular in fiction. You race up with your small capsule and dock to the station when it's near Earth, then hang out for months on the far-larger station, then fling yourself off again when near Mars. The cycler station just continues on it's own orbit out past Mars, then dives back into the solar system to eventually swing by both planets again in a years-long process.
Only 2:30 in, I'm impressed by the audacity of the idea, but at the same time it strikes me as way, way too complicated--needlessly so...
Without a doubt,the most insane thing ever.Were the designers using hallucinogens?
wait...a flying train? isnt that just a normal plane???
More like a flying bus
@@Noam-Bahar wouldnt that also be a plane?
no, it's Superman!
Nah. Trains are far more comfortable...unless you meant the cattlecars.
@@Noam-Bahar Airbus?
I can’t imagine this actually working but if it did. Could you imagine seeing these in the sky?
Sounds like an air Traffic Control nightmare. Don't they have a rule about planes not getting too close to each other in the air?
Also imagine if 3 linked planes crashed into a built up area and scythed a wide trail through the buildings therein. We're talking whole blocks on fire let alone the thousand or so dead on board.
Most any concept can be thought to work on paper but in reality I would not want to be any where close to the area or on any of the concept aircraft or any of the guinea pigs needed in the initial aerial test flights. . . .just a death wish waiting to happen, and a astronomical one in size @ that that would cost a lot in lives as well as a huge waste of money and man hours kinda like the titanic of the sky . . . Id rather take my chances in Howard Hughes Spruce Goose float plane . . . At least we know that it would fly and could take off and land in the water!
At this rate they should have thinking about the Helicarrier instead
There was actually a train concept like this, a high speed liner runs contentiously, and feeder train accelerate / decelerate passengers from/to station and transfer passengers while they a connected in parallel.
That seems a hell of a lot more doable than doing it with a plane in fairness, still seems needlessly complicated
Cool concept for the drawing board. Considering the difficulty in mid air fueling alone it would be prohibitive.
My biggest thought was how would luggage be handled if I'm jumping from plane to plane to possible another plane before getting on a plane to land. Carry on only?
I would love if we could get citations.
Really cool concept, could've worked maybe if planes were flying slower
Okay, whenever a channel that is all about out there aircraft designs puts in the idea that "yeah, this one was a real idea" you know this one is especially out there.
It's a nice concept and an intreging one but.... i think the moment you factor in the luggage handling issues it will fall apart..... Then you have the schedule issues if you gat a dificult or unruly passanger... how do you make them move when you get close to the separation time? bouncers? security? throw them out with a parachute?
Nothing like coming home and finding a video from this incredible channel, fresh out of the oven.
By the way, could you talk about some airplane projects that were made here in Argentina? Like the Pulqui 1 and 2. And I even got to read about a hypersonic airplane project, although I'm not sure about that.
And many other interesting projects done here in Argentina in those years.
After the end of World War II, many Germans fled to this part of the world, where they came up with their own ideas for airplanes, among them were, The Horten Brothers!! In the end, most of the projects came to nothing, because the government had other concerns and few funds were allocated, a pity.
I still think it would be very interesting if you talked about these issues and also could show how many countries in this region could be great nations if they wanted to.
I still believe that there is still hope if we propose it and we vote well and we strive to improve and expel these jets (word used in Argentina to say to the Thieves).
PDST: Greetings from Argentina and good luck!!.
Thank you for the wonderful comment. Did you see our video on the five engined jet?
I like how he had to confirm in the title that it was a real idea
The amount of people who will scream fake news
Crimson why you saying you famous in the GC? 😂
@@AceOfSpades36 your just jealous found and explained didn’t reply to your comment
No I’m not lol
The biggest problem besides the turbulence is not just transferring passengers but their luggage. You would have to have that way quite compartmentalised in order to adequately transfer over so it's not simply a matter of transferring people in their carry-ons but also luggage and any Air Cargo that's carried in the cargo hold because Airlines often haul that as well
It would be really annoying to have to transfer around inside the aircraft.
I'd live with it if it were cheap, fast and comfortable.. i would view it more like public transit.. kinda like taking trains around europe..
Just imagine the horrific crashes. And where are the emergency exits?!
Atmospheric phenomenon (eg: turbulence, humidity, density variations, unreliable winds, etc) all make the idea of an Air Train unfeasible. Not to mention the lack of tensile strength / bond strength between the modules.
When pilots want to play legos in the sky
It sounds awesome but also sounds very dangerous.
This would've been an accident waiting to happen.
This is how american will literally do anything than come up with proper high-speed passenger rail
I am happy to see the older style of video back. I appreciate seeing some weird civilian plane ideas, explained in adequate detail instead of military planes, such as many other channels show them
Flying train? Isnt that just called an airplane
so, just a normal commercial passenger plane, but with extra steps?
Wow this looking needlessly complicated with SO many new failure points
I don't wanna be the one caught off guard by an emergency decoupling while switching planes
There were lot of drugs back in the 70's I guess. The number of problems this could make is uncountable.
Concept planes are like concept cars, most of them never happen.
Each docking maneuver is by definition a mid-air collision. Absolute insanity!
I can already hear the pilots screaming out "V TOGETHER! LETS, VOLT! IN!" And Voltes v theme loudly playing in this planes speaker
Just imagine a fire starting and all the passengers rushing into the neighbouring plane in fear of getting "detached".
today's sponsor: pain suffering and dev's greadiness
I do air refueling for a living, getting two aircraft to stabilize 30ft from each other is wild enough. I can't imagine this shenanigans for military operations let alone civil.
That’s an accident waiting to happen. So much for separation distances between aircraft…
I don't care about all the other issues, because there is one that stands out above the rest for me: Imagine that you are on far left of the left wing of the far left plane in a trane of three. Now imagin that the trane turns.
Thomas the tank engine be going accross the world again
This might be the worst airplane concept ever to be conceptualised, even as a concept its a complete red flag
Unironically Bat shit insane idea that sounds sick as hell if you look past the OSHA Violations. Damn that's a cool concept.
So many moving parts that it’s 100% guaranteed of causing chaos and disasters over the skies.
Quite a lot of issues with this. The most obvious for me would be luggage. Having people move between modules seems doable, but handling their luggage midair would be a logistical nightmare. Then there is the fact that people are, generally, stupid. Some would fall asleep and miss the transfer, others would walk to a different module, try doing the complete trip with a cheaper "one stop" ticket, etc. And then you would need to calculate seats for every variation of the route in order to guarantee that, for exemple, the seat left vacant in Chicago for the final stretch to New York is not simultaneously assigned to the passenger coming from Dallas and the one coming from LA.
I think that last bit is already done by people purchasing tickets for seats on all the connecting flights they use. The only way you could possibly have two people assigned to the same seat on the same leg of flight is if they purchased their tickets online at the same time and a database error didn't prevent one ticket purchase from voiding any other ticket purchases for the same seat.
Now stupid people insisting that a certain seat is THEIR seat even though their ticket is for a different seat is something no seat reservation system is ever going to prevent.
If you stick enough of these together, you can make people walk from America to Europe!
With how delayed flights are nowadays, these interdepedent liners and feeders could quickly fall apart if one aircraft does not arrive on time
Psychedelics were at play here.
Was this ever tried with trains? Liner leaves A. Picks up feeders at B,C,D...... and arrives at Z without stopping. "Patent pending"
Almost as believable as the Hyperloop 🤣
This also doesn't allow for bad weather and other scheduling delays and cancelations. Checked baggage would either have to be shipped separately or have baggage handlers riding in the cargo compartments of feeder and liner crafts.
If it happened, then I would stop flying. You might be excited, but it filled me with fear.
Just the image of the 'docking' was enough to make me scream. Whether in hysterical laughter or horror, I still don't know.
"Massively flawed" sounds so understated. I think we should breed giant turkeys and ride them in the sky
There are no windows. I could see them using cameras and large monitors in the aircraft. The views would be spectacular!
This took GTA III Skytrain to a whole another Level.
yes, i am sick right now, sorry for the bad voice
It happens it’s chill
Please take care of yourself!
Get Well Soon! You the best ❤️
I didn't notice
@@sop1918 you are too kind
@@FoundAndExplained and you make good videos