Lockheed Flatbed - The Pickup Truck Cargo Plane!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- GET NORD VPN: nordvpn.com/fae
USE COUPON CODE: fae
Cyber Month Deal! Go to nordvpn.com/fae to get a 2-year plan plus 1 additional month with a huge discount.
Discord: / discord
New Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
/ foundandexplained
This is the ultimate cargo plane.
It has no fuselage and can carry huge oversized cargo like an american pickup truck, It was designed to Switch to military operations in a heart beat, and was even able to load nearly 200 passengers - sometimes even not at the gate!
And best yet, it was cheaper than any other equivalent plane of its time.
But this strange concept was never built, and left us scratching our heads why. It's time to meet the Lockheed Flatbed!
The name Lockheed Flatbed is the give-away - this was to be a cargo plane with a flatbed or open cargo section.
Yip, we’re talking an open cargo floor, much like a flatbed road transporter or rail carriage, except this one would be airborne.
So, on this aircraft there’s no actual fuselage as one would normally see on a cargo plane.
According to the Lockheed design, the flatbed or open-air section would be used to haul cargo containers, outside vehicles or machinery. In fact, most of the cargo would be housed in removable modules,
much like the huge containers stacked on the cargo ships that ply the world’s oceans.
Importantly, the Flatbed design also allowed for passengers on board, who would be sat in a removable module. The passenger module could be the same size as the cargo hold area or fairing.
These modules could be uploaded and unloaded as a single unit, whereby they’d slide forward off the bed or deck of the open cargo area onto or from a special-purpose truck.
The aircraft would be designed to sit low to the ground, allowing loading trucks to drive up to the aircraft and push loads onto the cargo deck.
Parallel I-beams would be used as the primary load-carrying structure for the cargo hold, atop which metal sheeting would ensure a smooth walking surface.
As with most cargo aircraft, the Flatbed would have rollers in the cargo hold that would allow loads on pallets to be rolled on and off with ease.
The Lockheed Flatbed was designed to deal with instances of when a plane “masses out” before it “bulks out”.
This essentially refers to when a plane reaches its maximum take-off weight or MTOW before the cargo bay’s volume is at capacity. It is a huge headache for the cargo industry and military alike, which is why Lockheed went full steam ahead with this design.
Importantly, Lockheed’s design could work as both a flying flatbed and a closed cabin, as needed.
Some of the applications proposed included:
Flat bed operations, carrying both outsized civil cargo
And outsized military cargo, such as tanks
As well as unpressurised intermodal containers from trains
Pressurised containers, both outside and inside a cocoon
And as mentioned, passengers.
These passengers could be loaded conventionally at the airport gate, or just the model could be rolled up on a truck, then loaded onto the plane later.
Passengers woul;d have been in a 3 dash 3 layoutout, with 20 seats in first and 160 in coach. Typical of a boeing 737 today.
For airports that lacked ramp facilities, the plane could actually carry its own ramp to unload huge loads, as well protection against storms and sand.
Nevertheless, there were of course adverse aerodynamics to the Lockheed Flatbed design, due to it carrying cargo in the open, since an open section to an aircraft at altitude results in aerodynamic compromise.
But Lockheed estimated that this would be a smaller penalty than having a big, bulky cabin when flying a half-empty aircraft.
Some experts have pointed out that Lockheed’s concept would probably have required specialised loading facilities and equipment, such as loading ramps and loading cranes.
This would have escalated the cost of the Flatbed cargo plane, making it more expensive to operate compared with the more standard way in which other cargo planes,
such as the Hercules, Globemaster and Galaxy, are able to load and off-load their cargo.
Then there is the small matter of cargo integrity, which is industry lingo for making sure that the cargo remains intact whilst in transit.
It’s not a stretch to imagine cargo exposed to the elements at high altitudes may be in constant danger of becoming detached and flying off.
It would seem that very heavy or oddly-shaped components and equipment would be more difficult to maintain fastened down during flight in an open-air configuration.
Let's explore why it was never built.
GET NORDVPN: nordvpn.com/fae
USE COUPON CODE: fae
Cyber Month Deal! Go to nordvpn.com/fae to get a 2-year plan plus 1 additional month with a huge discount.
Hello !!!
Please listen and comment me please!!!?
@Found And Explained
Since the concept included a module for passengers, why couldn't it have had one for cargo as well? For large out-sized loads, there could even be an expanded cargo module similar to the fuselages of the Boeing/NASA "Super Guppy" and the Airbus "Beluga."
@@spaceman081447 so there was a cargo ‘cocoon’ that allowed pressurised cargo much like passengers. As for the expanded like the guppy I’m sure it was on the cards!
How in the hell was this thing conceived in the 80s? This seems like a concept out of the 50s
@@bbrenddon A huge paycheck and copious amounts of cocaine
Finally, we can have James Bond fights on the top of planes
Yes!
007 could've landed a space shuttle on a concept like this.
If Tom Cruise sees this...
Octopussy - 1983. final fight. James bond vs. Gobinda. On top of a plane.
Already happened in Octopussy, except on a smaller plane.
The fact that “this” had engineers considering this and going through technical control by third parties is literally INSANE! 700km/h with a small disturbance and a change of airflow on a bulky cargo and its game over.
There would need to be some sort of adjustable fairing system and the regulations for strapping something like this down would mean that the cargo straps would get more scrutiny in the preflight check than the plane itself.
this looks like xzibit went to lockheed and was like "yo i heard you like pick-up trucks.."
@@AttemptMade friend category F5 tornado is a wind of a 300km/h and they brake apart cast in place buildings. Airplanes go twice then that. You really think my point was about keeping cargo in place?
well, i mean, just put a tarp over the load.....obviously. Aerodynamic AF
"It's a girl my Lord in a flat-bed...Lockheed?!" Doesn't work; lyrically, anyway.
Describing having a couple bulldozers sitting on an airplane as "adverse aerodynamics" has to be the biggest understatement I've seen since British Airways Flight 9's "small problem."
Have you ever been driving on the interstate and some flatbed semi rolls by with a bunch of pallets that were shrink wrapped nice and tight when he left San Diego, but by the time he rolls into, say St. Louis, they are all battered and torn and are starting to tear and come apart. He's trailing about 100 feet of shrink wrap behind him and by this point, the driver doesn't care as he knows it's a loosing battle cuttiing off the ripped off sections.
Yea...
That would be this, but at 35,000 feet.
and going about 300 mph faster lol
0:30 lol
And at 500mph.
Good lord - adverse aerodynamics would be an understatement. My father spent his entire professional life designing and later testing and certifying all manner of aircraft (as well as missiles and spacecraft) and the amount of random flow that could cause catastrophes was high enough in standard platforms when exposed to previously untested load variables (flutter, Gs, ice buildup, downbursts and more) - the idea of all the random flow over EXPOSED CARGO would be literally insane at high speeds.
Literally all I can think of while watching this. I'm only a few minutes in, but I hope it comes up.
I knew it even before seeing it, but it looks cool af .
So it’s a giant flying pickup truck?
And even if that doesn't happened. The huge drag factor of all that exposed cargo would be insane.
Just need to buy a bunch of 75' x 150' blue tarps and a mile of nylon rope, and hope you don't get half across the Atlantic and start to hear "flap flap flap flap flap...."
This aircraft is guaranteed to make your cargo look like they belong in a landfill after one flight!
yeah, and drag would be a huge problem. no fuel economy, top speed would be less than a radial engine craft and it would handle like a brick.
Every load would change the aerodynamics of the plane.
@@Chris_at_Home exactly. it would be a nightmare to fly.
@@lukewarmwater6412 could put some kind of cover on it like they do with trucks.... but i can imagine that covering coming off and smashing one of the tails lol.
I guess it worked with the space shuttle and such but those are meant to be flown.
maybe if they had different modular oversized cargo pods and had it fly with propellers much slower
@@vevenaneathna or just build a fusilage around the cargo space and have a tailgate that lowers and doubles as a ramp.... oh, right. that would just be a herc.
"Is it aerodynamic?"
"No, but who cares?"
"Sir, this is an aeroplane company."
Enclosed cargo aircraft have issues with frozen locks and other cargo deck issues when it's wet and cold out. It can be raining cats and dogs where it's being loaded in a southern region. Then it freezes at altitude and won't thaw when it lands in a cold place such as Alaska in the winter. If enclosed aircraft have such issues I can only imagine the difficulty in an open configuration such as this. Especially flying through adverse weather.
you'd have foot long icicles flying from the back of the cargo, not to mention how thoroughly soaked everything would be
I saw the thumbnail less than a minute ago and I have already thought of a dozen reasons why this is a terrible idea. What the hell were the Lockheed engineers on?
Short haul/low altitude?
As he will probably explain the basic idea is sound. It would greatly reduce the required ground handling equipment and the drag is minimum at the altitude and speeds planned. (Plus a set of lightweight aerodynamic walls and bulkheads were planned if needed along with a pressurized cargo and passenger pod set if needed). What reasons did you come up with, I'd be interested to know
@@randycampbell6307 mainly aerodynamics, specifically that every single flight would need to be calculated for fuel consumption. Also, structural concerns, since removing most of the material from the fuselage would require a ridiculously reinforced floor unless you wanted to fly like Aloha Airlines.
meth probably
Jet fuels maybe
“John?”
“Yeah Billy?”
“You see that flatbed truck?”
“Yeah?”
*“I want that but it’s a plane”*
“Why?”
“Cause it’s the 80s? Why not?”
Cocaine was popular in the 80s too. I think I'm getting a picture of the design meetings behind this patent.
probably best not to listen to the Board member who's mom is also his aunt, has a chin larger than his hand, and drives a gold plated pickup truck
@@MazaAzi If they were true hillbillies then instead of John and Billy it would have been John John and Billy Bob.
Good idea john, pass the cocaine
@@mgabrysSF SNOoooORT (slams tabel) GUYS i have an idear, pickup truck but in the sky
I love that the turbofan location was noted as problem and not that drag increases at velocity squared.
It’s perfect for transporting mattresses, with a lounge and a flat panel tv. I’ve seen someone transporting this load on a freeway, I think the outcome would be just as entertaining falling from the sky.
Cargo: *has not roof covering it *
Rain, heavy turbulence, lightning storm, snow, aerodynamics: *You know the rules and so do I*
Not to mention blazing and freezing temperatures
I thought the same
@@nicholasscott6418 he said aerodynamics..
Lockheed: im beyond rules and physics
Ricktrolled
Since the concept included a module for passengers, why couldn't it have had one for cargo as well? For large out-sized loads, there could even be an expanded cargo module similar to the fuselages of the Boeing/NASA "Super Guppy" and the Airbus "Beluga."
Look at the Boeing Dream lifter. It can fit a complete 787 wing and fuselage sections in its massive body. BUT the cargo area is not pressurized so I dont think you could do a combo of cargo/pax
The idea of different sizes of slip on pods could have saved the whole concept.
@@markfryer9880 except you need to store them somewhere wait for cargo that needs it pick them up, fly to loading destination, and after delivering cargo store again. It might work for inter company transport between facilities, but in commercial use probably not.
Once they figure out how to build “Transformer Structures” this could be a viable concept.
At that point, it's just a normal cargo plane but with a few hundred extra potential points of failure.
Having admired the Beechcraft Bonanza since I was a kid, seeing a V tail on something the size of a 757 makes me smile.
I'd imagine the drag caused by going nearly 1,000km/h blowing against the cargo would make strapping it down nearly impossible. Also, you would have HUGE excess fuel burn, much like what happens when the gear is down.
I sometimes drive my dad's open-top trailer, and I know how much drag I feel when I have things sticking out of it. For an airplane, that would be even worse.
Clever design, but completely unfeasible with the open load concept. As for removable fuselage sections? THAT could work. Would make turnarounds way faster.
"Mum, a massive yellow digger just landed in our back yard, but we can count ourselves lucky, do you remember the neighbours opposite us, their entire house was flattened with them in it!! "
My thoughts.... 'magine a tractor falling from 30,000 feet 😵
They must’ve had one hell of a dealer 😆
This explains the regularly dissapearing trillions of dollars
Grade A Columbia. 😀
I think the idea of having an interchangeable modules that could be preloaded at other facilities and then brought to the airport would actually be a pretty novel concept. Where you could easily switch between passenger module cargo module tanker module etc
Great idea to limit planes to half their usable speed. Pilots get paid more due to longer hours. I like how you drew the plane as tail-heavy, easier to see it crashing on takeoff.
Why use the word you
@@alkeenan7906 What word mean
Someone got carried away in Kerbal Space Program
💀💀
Bad idea, you lose enormous amounts of rigidity without the tubular fuselage. This is what enables the long skinny bodies to survive the abusive weather they do. If it's just that lower have you would need to add a tremendous amount of mass in the form of engineering supports which then detracts from the cargo capacity. In the end you gain nothing, probably deep into the negative. And sticking cargo out in the elements like that, yeah I don't think that tractor is spec'd for 600+ knots at 45,000 in the very cold air. It would land missing all the glass, at best.
Totally agreed on rigidity and this concept adds up a lot of dead weight. A telescopic fuselage would have been a much better design in terms of extended capacity though.
just kidding lol
Same as when you remove the roof of a convertible car - the loss of structural rigity is significant.
The presurized fuselage have to be tubular mainly to handle the pressure.
*Aloha Airlines Flight 243 has entered the chat*
Did somebody say structural rigidity?
@@Poorschedriver There was amazement they made it back as a convertible.
I can't imagine how a legitimate plane company even gave an ounce of energy on such a concept nor let it go public
A pickup truck plane... there's something so American about that and I absolutely love it.
As a truck guy, I approve of this aircraft.
'Murica, let's go Brandon. ;)
Just kidding, Brandon is a halfway decent guy. The aerodynamics are probably awful, but it does look cool, and I am not even a truck guy.
By the way, I don't endorse our former president, or potentially our current one, just making a joke.
As an excavator Guy, I approve of this aircraft.
However windows, mirrors, cameras etc wouldn’t last, but wouldn’t it be cool to load and park over that wing spar.
@Fremen All the presidents and candidates since 2009 are kinda crummy. Obama used drones to destroy innocent civilians (collateral damage), the Clyntons were creepy, the Don was a bit too far off the deep end, and Byden hasn't done anything to change the inflation crisis. We need a 3rd party, one that takes the best bits from the Democrats, and the best bits from the Republicans.
@Fremen You too sir. :)
As an airplane guy I disapprove of this truck.
All I can think about is me chilling in my house when suddenly an apc just smashes into the sidewalk outside.
Can't imagine how un aerodynamic a flat bed plane would be, no wonder why these concepts never made it in real life.
They could make a blimp flat bed
Wait this plane wasn’t a joke??
It’s the most unstable and unaerodynamic plane I’ve seen
Well if you gave the wing more dehydrol at least in the inner section and you lower the engines to wing height with the engine exhaust just on top of the wing to add to wing lift...
Also I think a hinged shell that would expand like an erector set to form a framework for a lightweight skin to act like a lightweight aerodynamic cocoon around the oversized load.
I like how everyone is finding or designing this modular cargo thing… And the Argo RAFT from Star Citizen is given the same open cargo section.
In space it would work better since there is no drag in space but micro asteroids and the like will be a problem
The argos cargo is actually secured tho this plane just has everything open to the elements
Because Logistics companies are so used to cargo containers falling off ships (maybe don't stack them so high, sea might get rough?) that they want to see cargo containers fall off planes, too.
@@ronidude it's... secured...
This was designed in the 1970s numbnuts
You got it wrong way around, benefit is that volume is not the limiting factor anymore. Mass is always the limiting factor, also for more conventional cargo planes.
Volume and cross sectional area are pretty damn important when you're traveling at Mach 0.9
The exposed cargo area alone just sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.
Can you imagine a world where fork lifts falling from the sky is “normal”
this is the most KSP cargo plane I've ever seen in my life
I was first thinking this was some Lockheed engineer's KSP craft-file that accidentally got placed in the 'real world idea' folder.
Tweakscale a couple Rapiers up to 3.5m and you got yourself a rockin workhorse for your interplanetary missions!
What the hell was Lockheed thinking. The amount of drag caused by the exposed cargo would've been massive.
I imagine landing without tailstriking would be pretty hard.
Engineering a pressure vessel with a cross-section of a half-circle must be a nightmare. I'm sure the maintenance needed to stay on top of stress cracks of the passenger module would eat up any savings Lockheed thought this plane could achieve.
What pressure vessel?
It wouldn't be pressurised. Of do you mean the passenger module?
Damn. I had a similar idea before (on simplePlanes, but still). Glad to see some actual airspace engineers have "peculiar" ideas too.
But my idea carried 6 IM containers dangling at the bottom.
Eyyy an sp user
Imma make this and make it do psm
@@derlurje1348 Dear gott, are you a Belkan scientist?
@@kingsnakke6888 Boi if you look for my name you will see a psm cargo plane, a psm c130, and a psm jet fighter and if you managed to find it, a psm ultralight that has not been completed
@@kingsnakke6888 yes I am a belkan scientist from ace combat 0
Hail the holy land of belka
@@derlurje1348 Phew, if you were a Belkan scientist from Ace Combat 7 I'd have to call the cops.
The Boeing 737 needs hubcaps on the exposed main gear to have good aerodynamics...
I imagine you can not improve the aero on this thing by much and you would need different optimizations depending on cargo.
It seems like an extremly dumb idea lol
Adam something: “alright, now let’s start by putting this on the ground, and we need to make sure it’s getting to its destination efficiently by designing a complex rail system, and there we have it, I call it the train”
Heavy equipment hauled on this plane on an open deck wouldn't have any glass left on the cab after a flight. The windows arent designed to withstand that high of a wind load especially since some of the windows in heavy equipment is designed to be kicked out by the operator if they roll over and become trapped in the cab.
Once the first window goes they'll all pop out and the sudden change an aerodynamics might crash the plane.
You might get away with a load of high end sports or race cars as they might encounter similar dynamic pressure doing 200+ at sea level but then they're small enough you can put them in an enclosed cargo plane and not worry the aerodynamics getting all wonky.
This plane : exist
Aerodynamics: I'm gonna stop you right there
*wants to exist
RIP, ANTONOV 225 MIRYA
This might be the subject for the flatbed plane but this made me remember the cargo plane
With a removable passenger compartment like that, you could eject the entire capsule if needed and it could have parachutes on it.
Jettison it to save the aircraft?
;)
That adds too much deadweight and reduces space for fuel, but it may work if the plane was designed upside down
On Ryanair the parachutes would be an extra-cost passenger option.
So in case of emergency you would rather have the pilots eject all the passengers into the ocean instead of trying their best to safely land?
Also, the added weight from making it structurally capable of doing that would make this aircraft so heavy that nobody would pay for the fuel consumption. It would probably be cheaper to fly a 747 private aircraft for a handful of passengers than to fly this thing with 200 people onboard...
Epic
When i read Lockheed Flatbed my head went: eastbound and down! loaded up and trucking!
This is what happens when your physics teacher is always telling you “friction is negligible”.
Can you imagine being a passenger in this cargo hold . Loading up and then Being transported to the plane via the tarmac to a separate location. And then trusting that the locking mechanism that holds your cargo hold to the plane actually works right and you don’t go flying off the plane in the air
"ir could also carry a passenger pod for 200 people"
Ryanair: I´m not gonna pay a fortune for just 200 people! I want the module for 3000 people.
Let's be real here, they'll just bolt seats to the flatbed and charge people for oxygen
This would work best as a system. The ability to switch out different cargo holds, essentially the passenger module but wider or taller dimensions, would be best used in large orders. The cargo wouldn't be in the air anymore.
In this way, you could have one model as a base for cargo and passenger flights.
I thought about that too. But when you realised the different cargo holds have to be stored somewhere and it would probably take a lot of trouble to change them, it just be cheaper to have a single, really large cargo hold.
What about making foldable cargo hold walls. Transport them folded when not needed but extend them when big cargo space needed.
Yeah, I spend my days trying to convince the dispatch at my trucking job to send flatdecks to pick up everything over 20'. Yet there I am in a dryvan, dragging the load in through a roll-up door. Cost is everything.
I build things like this in KSP all the time. Yes you can get a pickup truck to space with an orange tank.
the engine-over-wing arrangement almost looks like its a Coanda effect system, the wings basically bend the jet wash downwards to produce extra lift
this would reduce the stall speed of the aircraft, which might be a good thing, especially for un-aerodynamic or non rigid payloads ....
I remember seeing this proposed in the 80s and thought it was a neat idea but I really think it was all the peripheral costs of all the specialised stuff needed to operate it that really did it in. Air bridges were cheaper than a bunch of special bus-like carriers and just a ton of little packages fit into the fuselage shaped containers. It would have been cool to have seen them build a few like the Guppy series at least for big stuff like the tanks but the C5 took care of that anyway. I do think the concept could be revived if the modules were designed to fit standard trucks say for mobile hospitals, DSRV deployment rescue, tv production, emergency housing, and so forth.
That last idea already kinda exists in the form of modules/containers that roll into a cargo aircraft like the C5 (I think they also had some for the C17?) with a command post in it for SAC or a field hospital etc.
In the end this would most likely never work, the added weight of support structure to keep the aircraft from breaking apart in flight due to not having a top fuselage would mean the weight capability would be poor, much worse than a normal cargo aircraft of similar size while the size capabilities are also most likely less than that of normal cargo aircraft of similar size as anything bigger than the normal fuselage would create turbulence around the rudders, making the aircraft uncontrollable in flight.
Fun idea for a videogame but seems in reality this would likely never work or by the time it would work it would need to compromise on the things that would give it a benefit to begin with...
this would only begin to be feasible with a "soft top" canopy to stretch over the cargo, and be stiff enough to maintain something close to regular air flow. In other words... a fuselage 😂😅
I was thinking of an expandable aluminum framework on which a lightweight skin would attach you could use the components to house various size payloads. It would be hinged where it mounted onto the aircraft and open like a clamshell the gap being spanned by additional aluminum girders.
Having the engines on top would be a problem for the passenger version. Most of a jet engine's noise comes out the back. Having the engines underneath the wing means that the wing shields the passengers from most of the noise. They wouldn't get that protection from top-mounted engines.
And wouldnt they also make the wings less effective? Im asking this because on race cars, having the wing hinged from the top increases its efficiency by not disrupting the airflow below it. Therefore generating more downforce.
In my head it would be the other way around on airplanes, no? More smooth airflow on the top = better efficiency at providing lift
@@VictorioLopes Honda did the over -wing engine on their HondaJet
@@hiroshibieren4257 oh thats nice to know, im gonna research that, thanks!
@@VictorioLopes as the engine accelerates the air over the wing, it is beneficial. Generally it is not done, as it makes inspection and maintenance of the engines more difficult. The low wing also means it needs to be more stiff (as if it bends down, the tips are more likely to hit the ground)
How feasible would this "flatbed" concept been on an ekranoplan? The low and slow flight of such a vehicle would mean drag, exposure to ice or turbulence wouldn't be such a problem.
Look at hovercrafts, these have a open cargo area. Anything fast enough to rely on lift from wings benefits (or depends) from an enclosed cargo area.
Even if that thing was viable I imagine most potential customers taking a look at it and going "Nope! I'm going with the other guys' offer"
This maybe the future commercial plane, the passenger cabin can airborne when accident happen.
This plane was made after the physics professor said "Air drag is negligible in this case."
I'd love to see if that Pickup Bird can really fly with exposed cargo. Because I have my doubts about its feasibility.
They could widen the front of the plane and stick the engines inside and outboard that, and put two giant ones on the tail.... And dump the wings completely. Just use the round, almost saucer shaped front as a lifting body. I fact, we could call it the "saucer section" of the plane!
Maybe they could use some kind ducting system from the front of the plane to sort of... Warp the air around the cargo on the back. Like a bubble sorta.. A warped bubble of air...
Man, I should draw this up! Can't believe it's never been thought of before.
...
*cough*
Those stylized patent drawings are fabulous!
It's so incredibly aerodynamic with those flat, angular boxes.
What about using it as a flying aircraft carrier with the flat bed as a runway
Imagine doing a drive-by with tanks on the back. Basically an C130 without the roof
Lockheed Martin gave up on the plane by the mid-80s, which leads me to believe that the plane in 1982 that lost the first class cabin roof was likely what caused Lockheed to reconsider
"Don't worry, it's a submarine" Had me dying.
Flatbed design is foolish. A better idea is to lift the container up from under the plane like a bomber.
Like a CH-54 Skycrane?
Nick shows 747 picture at 4:00 diving in water
Nick at 4:04 = naah it's submarine dunworri
You could yeet passengers one capsule at a time.
I'll forever call this the “airborne mullet”.
“It was cheaper than any other plane of its time”
“It was never built”
Am I crazy?
It's all fun and games until the CoPilot pressed the dismount button to "increase" the fuel efficiency while flying.
The only thing the designers did wrong was making the cargo modules open-air. If they made the rest of the cargo modules in the same manner as the passenger module, they could still get around. If they had to haul oversized cargo that couldn't fit in a cargo module, they would have to travel quite slowly in the air.
I love this new Mustard video
This sums up the difference between engineers and people who actually load the vehicles. Concept vs everyday reality
The aerodynamics of that thing would have sucked
Aerodynamic concerns are such a drag!
@@thegravityfreak99 Oh you sneaky little bi-
wow! usual ritoric question why was it never built? crucial aerodynamics!
Lockheed seems like the only company that makes epic designs during its time, why is that
Imagine all the mattresses they could strap on. Just like on the freeway with those mini vans and the taco'd ones
Even this looks unique, i'm still not impressed. With an open cabin, "cheaper services" are just another Lockheed's Nonsense due to Turbulences in every cargo shapes, which is resulting in Aerodynamic Defficiency and More Drag. I prefer replaceable cabins than exposed cargo concepts
i wonder what the Lockheed engineers been smoking to think up of this.
Well, their military aircraft design is called "Skunk Works" so they smoke on Skunk butt, but probably the commercial designer smoke something else? I don't know
I'm not an engineer in anyways, barely knowing how a plane works. AND YET I immediatly guessed it was a terrible idea. I'm really surprised it went that far!
I'm surprised the CTO greenlit that!
Lockheed: How much pick up you want this plane to be?
1980's America: Yes.
remove the cargo and put passenger cabin on it then it would be a great looking plane but with the cargo it looks weird.
Lockheed: Open-air cargo
Lockheed: What are these thunderstorms you talk about?
I remember when Rollo Smethers came up with this. He was our senior aerodynamicist at Lockheed-Georgia in the early 1980's. He had many other ideas as well.
Hi, Phil Swift here with Flex Tape! The super-strong waterproof tape! To show you the power of flex tape, I sawed this passenger airliner in half . . .
For airplane, aerodynamics is number one priority. That flatbed spits aerodynamics on its face.
Still a great idea for current passenger or cargo planes. Park the hull at boarding area, saving space, closer gates and smaller building. Then the best, ready frame can be chosen immediately. Even if a malfunction, pull the hull and swap frames without debarking! The building and gates alone would save billions in energy and size. All saving Trillions in time
If I remember correctly this design was supposed to be used with modules primarily, like shown they would slide on and off the way we load containers from ships to trucks. Using it as an actual flatbed was only for military uses in a pinch, and only for short flights. Like moving some tanks across Iraq, not flying across the ocean. It would pretty much never be used in flat bed configuration, that was just a possibility they used to try and lure in money from the air force.
Like a airplane version of a Chevy El Camino.
"Hey Jimmy, looks like one of the tie-down straps came loose. Better suit up, walk out there, and secure it. Make sure you dress warm and hold on to the deck clamps!"
Looks like it's got the aerodynamics of a brick!!
I’m not scratching my head at this. With the drag that the cargo would create, I’m baffled that any engineer would even consider this.
This reminds me of the time when I moved and tried to strap a mattress to the top of my private jet. I was so optimistic while I was buying the nylon straps at Home Depot.
This eliminates concerns about maximum payload with minimum bulk, or a very bulky if not massive, fragile thing like a pair of wings.
See the Myasishchev VM-T which had a small passenger fuselage (the size of the bomber fuselage, not expanded into a passenger carrier).
It carried cargo containers of varying sizes that could carry large plane or rocket parts or a capsule alike a huge, blunt drop, for heavy but small things like engines or machinery.
This flatbed eliminates the port infrastructure for the VM-T dorsal mounting to a roll-on module for the aeroshell.
The patent sheets show different payload shrouds, but everyone likes the image of a tank sitting there. A tank certainly could survive, and I don't doubt their ability to protect large construction equipment.
There are photographs of wind tunnels models with everything from no payload to shrouds to bulky things, and it handled well enough. Put a shroud around anything odd shaped, and it's fine.
A large part of what stopped it from at least a few being built, is the giggle factor.
"If it looks right, it'll fly right" is a hard and fast rule permitting of few if any exceptions. (therefore the XF-85 Goblin and the Airtruk cannot possibly be good flying, nice handling planes in the air)
As with so many really good planes that didn't get anywhere beyond a test plane (Arup, Nemeth parasol, Facetmobile, etc), the only thing wrong with them and the reason we don't see things like them flying today is that they looked funny.
Nice!! This design should be made!!
I’ve been on lots of C-17 and C-130 flights with the military while they are transporting heavy military vehicles, generators, connexs, and generally large bulky overweight items. Throughout the flight the crew chief will check / tighten the tie down chains at certain intervals and inspect the loads.
With this design you better hope everything stays secure from take off to landing unless they plan to tether up and walk out to inspect while mid flight lol
It took me quite a while to realise this wasn’t just a joke
The cargo would be in sealed containers to avoid aerodynamic instability and buffering, not to mention weather.
If used for passengers, it could be loaded and unloaded quickly, thus assisting with faster turn around.
The passenger compartment would be self sufficient with the aircraft as a backup.
Loading and unloading of passenger and luggage would be separate from the aircraft so that any problems could be circumvented prior to the flight.
If the aircraft is unavailable another could be used since the load can be moved.
The load would still need to be balanced, but the C/G could be compensated by a parcel container.
This is the future.
It would be interesting to see some wind tunnel simulations of this aircraft.