Airbus Patent Shows Modular, Removable Aircraft Cabins (gizmag.com) 96
Zothecula writes: According to a recently-granted patent, Airbus is exploring the potential of creating a new breed of versatile, modular aircraft that would see detachable passenger cabins slot into a hole in an aeroplane's fuselage. The concept has the potential to revolutionize air travel, while providing significant savings for airlines by reducing the time that planes spend idle on the ground.
Possible use (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible use (Score:4, Informative)
Well, that's one way to make there are no surviving witnesses: Drop a structural part of the airplane with the aerodynamics of a wall at a few hundred miles an hour.
F111 Escape System (Score:2)
This has been done before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
...only to quickly submerge in the frigid ocean waters...
Hey, is that a shark fin?
Re: (Score:1)
** Phugoid [wikipedia.org]: Captain Chelsey (Sully) Sullenberger of US Airways Flight 1549 that water landed in the Hudson said in a Google talk that the automatic protection from phugoid mode implemented in the Airbus A320 prevented him from manually getting all possible lift from the wings at four seconds before water impact, causing the crash to be more violent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
as is the norm now.
Yes but you feel so relieved when your luggage finally reaches the correct destination, a couple of days later.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm now imagining a Rube Goldberg system of belts and rollers that would be used at an airport to move around whole cabins of people to airplane chassis, and giggling.
So how would the airport personnel get away with running a cabin of people underneath the baggage train, like they do with luggage?
Re: (Score:2)
Flying with incompetent pilots [slashdot.org], the cabin may automatically detach, open a bunch of parachutes and land smoothly somewhere. Makes sense.
Yeah, while overflying the Donbas.
Load via nose or tail (Score:2)
The technology already sort of exists. There are cargo planes that can lift up the nose or tail, and then have freight containers loaded. This gets around the air frame structural problem that some have noted.
I envisioned a "passenger" module that would be slid out once the plane landed, and a "pre-loaded" (with passengers) module would be slid in. This avoids the unload/clean/load time of turning around a plane. If it takes 20 minutes to turn-around a plane (which is pretty fast), the module approach could
Re: (Score:2)
It's existed for a long time: here is a photo of the SIV-B booster for Apollo 7 being delivered to the Johnson Space Center [nasa.gov] from the "Super Guppy" cargo craft NASA uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more interesting, this would allow airplanes to be reconfigured quickly. A passenger plane could become a cargo plane in a few minutes just by sliding out the passenger compartment and sliding in a cargo one. They could also have different passenger compartments with different seating configurations, and also compartments that are part passenger part cargo for those legs where the plane would otherwise fly with most of the seats empty. Hopefully benefits like this would get the attention of the airl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packp (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes they did. It's referenced in the f'ing patent.
Which claim do you think is invalid? Idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Thunderbird 2
Even the shape was optimum.
Spoiler alert: 911 like legacy security mean this will NEVER happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Just design it so there is no passage from the cockpit to the passenger area. Let's see somebody hijack that.
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably an app for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can't just replace the jetway with this thing, and then load it into the airframe?
Re: (Score:2)
So an aircraft with swappable modules, according to the patent rules, isn't patentable.
On the other hand, if they aren't trying to patent the concept, but rather their specific mechanism for doing so, that might very well be patentable.
As to 'getting a patent means it's patentable' arguement, we all know that's a farce, after all, when a kid can get a patent for playing on swings by s
Re: (Score:2)
But a patent isn't always just the concept. It depends on how much detail there is. There's clearly going to be a lot of structural issues that need to be solved. If this patent addresses them then it's valid.
Re: (Score:1)
Or the Eagle Transporter [wikipedia.org] from Space:1999
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Thunderbird 2 for that matter. Of course the model makers didn't need to produce something that would actually fly.
Certainly, but in the case of Thunderbird 2, it could fly withthout the cargo section. I am not sure the Airbus concept allow for that? The other thing the diagrams don't seem to deal with is the cargo, which would seem to use a conventional approach. If so, in the current form, I don't seem much benefit to the existing method. It just ends up adding weight.
BTW apparently we weren't the only ones who had that Thunderbird image in our heads: http://www.unilad.co.uk/techno... [unilad.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
or more recently by StarCitizen
https://robertsspaceindustries... [robertsspa...stries.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbird 2 [wikia.com]
Re:They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packpl (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packplane? The patent should not have been granted in the first place.
You really don't understand patents do you? The patent is not the title. The patent is a method for accomplishing the title. If it's a different method for doing it than the Fairchild XC-120 used, then the XC-120 is not prior art.
As an analogy, if I come up with a method for shutting up arrogant morons, and title the patent, "A method for shutting up arrogant morons," it doesn't mean my patent applies to all methods of shutting up arrogant morons, only the method that I specify in the patent. If somebody else comes along with another method of shutting up arrogant morons that is not the method in my patent or one that I have used before, then my method doesn't count as prior art to their patent.
Re:They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packpl (Score:4, Informative)
Except any basic fiscal analysis of airbus's patent will reveal that it won't ever happen. They added 30% to the weight of the aircraft. That weight will lower the number of passengers which will in turn cost more to operate.
With planes going to carbon fiber as aluminum is to heavy adding weight to a plane is useless.
All patents should only be granted to actual products produced within the first 5 years of the patents life.
Re: (Score:2)
If it means that they can carry twice as many first class passengers 30% of the time, then they'll still buy it. Economy class passengers lose airlines money - they're only on the plane to lose them less money than having an empty 3/4 of a plane. First/Business meanwhile actually makes money, but the seating is layed out to make sure it's always full.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They didn't hear of the Fairchild XC-120 Packpl (Score:4, Informative)
So no, Airbus' patent does not try to monopolize the idea of a detachable freight compartment for planes. It tries to cover a certain method how to achieve the detachable freight compartment for planes.
Thunderbirds are go! (Score:4)
Virgil, did you lock the passenger cabin in?
The idea of detachable cabins is obvious (Score:5, Informative)
The idea of detachable cabins is obvious: I've heard it discussed before.
What's distinctly not obvious is how to make it structurally sound and lightweight. The problem with detachable cabins is the attachment/detachment mechanisms introduce weight and both the plane without the cabin and the cabin itself (probably to a lesser extent) both need to be structurally sound, so one is more or less doubling up on the number of structural components.
One also has to get the detach-remove-slot-in-reattach new cabin turnaround significantly faster than what it takes to clean a plane in order to offset the inevitable extra costs. The turnaround time for cleaning short haul planes is already pretty fast.
Long haul planes have a substantially longer turnaround time, so it could help there. However, long haul flights are a bit variable in time, so if you squeeze the expected turnaround time too far, any delays will cascade as there's no buffer. Also, longer turn around times are still a small fraction of the total journey time, so even dropping it to zero wouldn't have a vast increase in the number of flights per day.
Oh and of course there's the extra ground crew needed to operate the attachment/detachment thing, versus extra crew to turnaround the plane faster.
Re: (Score:2)
You know those stasis pods they have in sci-fi films? Airlines should use those. A coffin sized pod where you lie down, put on a mask that feeds in some kind of gas to make you unconscious and then load you in like cargo. 12 hours later you wake up refreshed at your destination.
I'd sign a wavier for that.
Re:The idea of detachable cabins is obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And then you wake up with one of those little TSA notices pinned to your chest: "For security reasons we have had to open your pod and examine your various orifices. Have a nice day!"
Pinned to your chest?
You're an optimist...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Then we wouldn't even have to worry about things like legroom, and carry-on space - it would be an airline's wet dream because they could just stack people like firewood in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"so one is more or less doubling up on the number of structural components."
Probably even more than that. An airliners strength is mainly in the circular shape of its fuselage. Take that away and you've essentially converted it into a flatbed and now you've got a long floppy centre bit thats going to need a fuckton of re-inforcement to make it as strong as a normal aircraft. Until someone can manufacture structural beams out of carbon nanotubes/unobtanium [delete as applicable] which is incredibly strong an
Re: (Score:3)
It's a problem that's already been solved.
http://starbase79.com/images/1999/Eagle5.JPG [starbase79.com]
It will never fly (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict this won't happen. The cost of the system, in weight, complexity, ground support and possibly safety I think will outweigh the benefits for all but a few niche markets, which wouldn't be able to support the massive investment required to bring it to market.
A rather smaller example was that Boeing tried to sell the idea of 777s with folding wing tips, so they could use then-current terminal gates (for which the 777 wingspan was too large.) Nobody took them up on it.
However, I am not an airliner engineer. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's less than 1500 days from today. Absolutely not.
Re: (Score:2)
This won't happen any time in the next 20 years - and certainly not by 2020. It is going to take Boeing the next two years to certify relatively minor changes to the 737 for the MAX program, and thats mainly engine related - designing and certifying a detachable passenger cabin will take much much longer than that, especially as the regulations for it would have to be set before the certification could be completed.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the Airbus A350: First proposed to customers September 2004. Launched Dec 2006 (i.e. Airbus commits to building it.) First flight June 2013. First commercial service Jan 2015. Airliners have long gestation periods. If I'm wrong (which I'd be happy to be) and this idea really does have wings, it still very unlikely to fly before 2030.
Re:It will never fly (Score:5, Informative)
A rather smaller example was that Boeing tried to sell the idea of 777s with folding wing tips, so they could use then-current terminal gates (for which the 777 wingspan was too large.) Nobody took them up on it.
That idea has made a comeback with the 777X series, but with a much better design - the reason it failed before was because it added a lot of weight, as the fold was inboard of the ailerons, meaning that there had to be a complicated system for attaching and detaching the control mechanisms which was heavy. The new design is outboard of the ailerons, meaning its just dumb wing and thus the locking mechanism is a lot lighter.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is not to actually make it . . . the point is to patent it. So if some small, innovative start up actually does build such a critter . . . well, Airbus will demand royalties from them.
Sad, but this is the state of the patent system right now.
Re: It will never fly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine that this will be more than a way of re-balancing the proportions between cargo and passenger aircraft for airlines serving both markets, and that re-balancing would take place over weeks rather than individual flights or days. (And if it takes place over weeks, then flying the plane to a maintenance location to switch modules would be the practice.)
I've no involvement in aviation, other than curiosity (I fly, on average, once every 10 years.) However, the following thoughts do come to
Re: (Score:2)
Lord of the Flies (Score:2)
http://www.answers.com/Q/Plane... [answers.com]
better damn well be open bar. (Score:2)
They'lll probably hire the same guy that designed this as architect [wikipedia.org] for the terminal.
Well, that's the end of upgrades (Score:2)
The main reason they're doing this?
So they can cram even more people in coach. Because if you can swap out the passenger accommodation, everywhere on the plane can be coach.
I'm guessing they're not seeing so much success with their programs like asking people to upgrade to "premium coach" (5cm extra legroom) for $30.
Re: (Score:1)
The main reason they're doing this?
So they can cram even more people in coach. Because if you can swap out the passenger accommodation, everywhere on the plane can be coach.
I'm guessing they're not seeing so much success with their programs like asking people to upgrade to "premium coach" (5cm extra legroom) for $30.
On my flight from Atlanta to Amsterdam back in January(Boing 777-ER), Delta wanted more like $130 for 'premium coach', had it been $30 i might actually have considered it. Now that we got the A380 going to Copenhagen i might be able to try two story cattle class on future trips, no doubt having any kind of blood circulation in your lower extremities will be $150 by then heh
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're trying to reduce turnaround time by decoupling the boarding and unboarding stage from when the airplane has to be on the ground. Basically pre-board passengers into the passenger compartment. When the plane arrives, while you're refueling it you simply swap out passenger compartments. It's what they do with luggage - you put the luggage into big baggage co
Reduce turnaround time still more (Score:2)
The idea could be taken so much further....
rather than landing the plane, just drop the passenger module(s) into a magnetic decelerator (like a railgun, but backwards) at the airport, meanwhile use another cannon to launch the next passenger module (and perhaps a full fuel tank) to dock with the plane. Now the plane never has to decelerate or land, it can be built just to cruise round and round the world at Mach 0.9. No heavy landing gear, much smaller engines,.... Of course the aim and timing on the magn
You lost what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Riiiiight cause losing baggages was not enough of a skill. You're now going to lose passengers,
Hey Dave where does POD4K go.
It goes to tarmac B4
Before what?
Fuck it , i'll just put it here.
Another idea of mine (Score:2)
I had this idea 30 years ago.
The plane I imagined consisted of a cockpit, airfoils, and a 'spine' that ran the length of the plane onto which modular, self-contained passenger or freight modules could be attached. The outer skin of the modules would form the surface of the 'fuselage' for drag reduction. In my design the passengers could board their particular module essentially in the terminal, and with some clever routing information modules could be swapped from plane to plane until their passengers reach
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your 50 million estimate is probably spot-on. I didn't say my idea was unique, just old and obvious (making it not patent-worthy).
THUNDERBIRDS ARE... (Score:2)
How much time? (Score:2)
The whole crux of this invention is to reduce idle time of the plane, proper. But this is poor communication by TFA because it does not mention how much idle time is wasted.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
If they can keep the cost and weight penalty low, this could work. Planes (especially short-haul planes) currently spend a significant percentage of the day loading and unloading. If they can cut that down by simply slotting in pre-loaded passengers and bags, this could speed around turnaround times enough for this to make sense.
Even earlier 'prior art' (Score:2)
can be found in Lord of the Flies by W Golding
We had to read that in school many decades ago
reducing plane idle time (Score:2)
The cow bit? (Score:1)
Finally an article for the guy that keeps saying fill in the blank is for cows...moooo and he didn't comment. How disappointing. Could have mod it funny and I have points!