Core77

Flexible Transportation: Clip-Air Modular Airplane Concept is an Awesome Idea

By Rain Noe - June 21, 2013

in Cars

At this week's Paris Air Show, a research team from Switzerland's Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne unveiled their wicked idea for air travel: Break the airplane into pieces. Their Clip-Air concept calls for the wings, engine and cockpit to be one unit, and the cargo it's carrying to be a separate unit that attaches to the bottom.

This is a brilliant idea, for several reasons. One is that airlines could clip a variable number of "capsules" on the bottom depending on how busy the route was. It's well-known that airlines lose money when flights aren't full, and allowing them to clip only as many modules as needed onto the bottom of the plane would save on fuel. It would also lead to less overbooking hassles, which are a direct result of airlines desperately trying to fill flights.

Secondly, those capsules don't need to be filled with passengers. Airlines could partner with FedEx and the like to haul cargo tubes alongside passengers. The capsules could even be used to hold the plane's own fuel, if it ran on a bulky source like hydrogen, for instance.

Thirdly, by decoupling the flying mechanism with the load-hauling part, airlines could reconfigure, maintain, and/or replace one or the other independently.

Take a closer look at the system, and let us know what you think:

o

Favorite This
Q
19

Comment

Comments

Niki Botev

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

YES! And when some "problem" happen will be possible all "tanks" to eject and landing calmly by para!
!Report as spam
Number-cruncher

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Another financial metric is return on capital. In simple form think of revenue per airframe per year (number of passengers, number of flights, revenue per passenger per flight) divided by dollar cost of aircraft purchase, maintenance, and crewing per year. Include as many pods in the calculation as you think is necessary to realise benefits, e.g. having spare pods at each airport for flexibility or passenger experience.
!Report as spam
Number-cruncher

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Thus, this concept has either to prove that those factors don't make the cost per passenger-kilometre so high as to be uncompetitive, or it needs to unlock some other benefit like passenger experience or turn-time improvement which is so great that it outweighs the higher cost.

For freight, a similar analysis applies, except the metric is cost per kilogram-kilometre.
!Report as spam
Number-cruncher

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

As air passenger transport, this idea will succeed or fail based on metrics like flight cost per passenger kilometre, over typical air distances. I suspect that having all these tubes, each with its own structure and walls, will result in more kilograms of aircraft per passenger carried. And, the air gaps between the pods will result in drag, which means more fuel per kilometre.
!Report as spam
Henri

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Good concept, the wing and carriage should probably be the lowest portion, with the pods on top. to cope with the take-off and landing stresses better. I like the proposal for pods to be interchangeable to other transport mediums.
!Report as spam
Parky

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I am just wondering what Gerry Anderson's take on this aeronautical innovation might be. Perhaps Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne are in cohorts with International Rescue. Either way, I think they are onto something special.
!Report as spam
Matt

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The existing technology to use is the moveable nose or tail like those of a giant military plane. Everyone gets seated on a seat deck complete with bathrooms and galleys as though on a ride at Disneyworld in the terminal. People can enter from rear or front or even side entrances so much faster and less stressful. When everyone is set, bags are stowed, belted and checked - just like a regular flight - the seat deck slowly moves forward out of the "fake" fuselage and into / onto the real plane that has already unloaded its existing flight deck. Much easier less stressful than loading the way planes do now. No fiddling with aerodynamics.
!Report as spam
Danny Harkin

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I think these guys did a better job of the same concept....

www.coroflot.com/cmasonholden/Horizon-The-Future-of-Transport

!Report as spam
sthgrau

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

If the pods also travel by rail, then airport imbalances could be rectified in an efficient manner overnight.

It would be interesting if the pods could be loaded and unloaded without the planes having to stop.. Terribly difficult, I am sure, but not impossible.
!Report as spam
Franxou

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

If drag or weight distribution make this unfeasible, why not drop the multi-pod design and just end up with a single pod being towed by a single tractor-plane in the same way as a semi truck pulls a trailer?

If the pod is damaged or need maintenance, they can still use the tractor-plane for another pod, it could make the tractor-plane fly different jobs (cargo, passenger or even charter and scientific flights). If the tractor-plane needs maintenance, just load the pod on another tractor-plane and be gone with it.
The multi-pod looks promising but the part of the idea that separate the tractor from the load could be interesting
!Report as spam
scott

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I could see the drag being a big issue, or a non-issue, depending on how well designed the pods are. As-is they have a big cross-section but if faired well and stay somewhat smooth cigar shapes as shown it wouldn't be the end of the world. As Eric points out, a properly designed BWB could offer more efficiency per-pound or per cubic foot or whichever; but the logistical efficiency of pre-loaded pods being picked up by these 'storks' and flown to another airport and then shuffled into their respective secondary leg carriers, could be a big deal!

Also the parachute recovery idea would be interesting; a craft could easily jettison the pods, deploy drogue chutes, and then deploy a series of mains to allow the craft to land safely.

!Report as spam
Chris

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I'm still surprised that we don't do this with cars. Tractors have attachments - why can't I remove the cab of my car and have a small flatbed when I need it (community or rental, not owned). I've seen small communities/neighbors divvy up the cost of mechanical equipment and share. When items aren't being used, they are losing value. That or give me a car I can grow with like vitsoe shelving.
!Report as spam
Craig Damlo

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I think this is a great idea, because it could allow for airlines to concentrate on branding and passenger experience and leave the actual transportation to specialized companies. Also by splitting cargo and PAX you could make the pods more aerodynamic than a traditional round airplane tube.

It won't work brining people to the center of cities because of airport security rules, but could lead to new "airport centers" that don't have runways but train tracks to more rural areas.

Also it won't help at all with empty planes, because airlines can't leave empty pods behind because they typically need them at the next stop or the morning. It would be to costly to put excess numbers at every location; of course uHaul has figured it out, but the PODS don't seem to be doing very well.
!Report as spam
Victor G Martinez

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Safety can also be improved, if you know the plane is going down you can eject each capsule and land safely with parachutes...
!Report as spam
Joe

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

As much as I enjoy these types of futurist ideas, I wonder about the feasibility of them. in order to fully utilize the concept the airlines would need to stock their inventories with enough pods of the needed type at each airport to get the best use out of the parent airframe. plus, for weight and balance,, each connected pod would need to be of near similar weight. a better idea might be too have airline A fly the airframe, and have the pods owned by a separate shipper. in this way the loading of freight or passengers is handled by a shipper, while the airline simply assumes the role of carrier of the pods. much like a lease semi owner pulling a trailer belonging to another company.
!Report as spam
rb

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

looks like a unicorn to me
!Report as spam
TJ

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

This arrangement could greatly speed up the reload time of firefighting air tankers.
!Report as spam
Eric

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Too high of drag for efficiency. A real blended wing-body design would be superior, even half full.
!Report as spam
Mario

11 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

looks like a good solution. one thing that bothers me is the passenger-pods that are placed outside of the center. turning, which means one wing going up and the other down, will result in people having a rollercoaster-like experience, as they are lifted or dropped several meters.
!Report as spam