Is it cheaper to drop cargo drop than to land it?












1












$begingroup$


Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?






fuel efficiency







share|improve this question









New contributor




Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?






    fuel efficiency







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?






      fuel efficiency







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      Is it more fuel efficient to drop cargo onto a run way from the air in route to a final destination than to land and unload it using a more fuel efficient plane?






      fuel efficiency




      fuel efficiency






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago









      Daniele Procida

      6,2792257




      6,2792257






      New contributor




      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 8 hours ago









      MuzeMuze

      415313




      415313




      New contributor




      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Muze is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.



          Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.



          The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago





















          6












          $begingroup$

          Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.



          But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.



          You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).



          And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.



          You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
            $endgroup$
            – GdD
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "528"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63794%2fis-it-cheaper-to-drop-cargo-drop-than-to-land-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.



          Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.



          The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago


















          3












          $begingroup$

          That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.



          Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.



          The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.



          Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.



          The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          That scenario only makes sense if your airplane stays at cruising altitude, although taxi and takeoff does use up fuel it's really the ascent to cruise that takes the most. You aren't really going to be able to drop cargo accurately from cruising altitude, so you'll have descend pretty low, then you'll need to climb out again, and that would suck up lots of fuel and make it much less efficient a method of delivery.



          Add to that the weight and cost of the parachute mechanisms as well as the massive protective packaging the cargo would need to survive the jolt (2-3 Gs when it hits the ground) and the whole thing becomes pretty uneconomical.



          The military only air drops cargo when there's no other alternative, now you know why.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          GdDGdD

          32.7k386136




          32.7k386136








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago
















          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago










          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
          $endgroup$
          – Jörg W Mittag
          4 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          Precision high-altitude drops to within 50-75m using GPS-guided steerable parachutes are a thing..
          $endgroup$
          – Jörg W Mittag
          4 hours ago













          6












          $begingroup$

          Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.



          But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.



          You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).



          And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.



          You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
            $endgroup$
            – GdD
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago
















          6












          $begingroup$

          Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.



          But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.



          You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).



          And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.



          You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
            $endgroup$
            – GdD
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.



          But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.



          You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).



          And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.



          You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Looking purely at operational cost of the aircraft, yes. You save time, burn less fuel, don't have to pay for the landing etc.



          But dropping the cargo makes the cargo more expensive. You have to provide parachutes (and return them after use, inspect them etc). You have to combine cargo into parachute loads. You have to package the cargo for a hard landing, getting pulled over on its side by the parachute after landing etc.



          You have to use an aircraft suited for airborne dropping (i.e. with a tail ramp). Commercial cargo aircraft usually don't have one, so you have to switch to more expensive military aircraft (Hercules, C-17).



          And occasionally a parachute won't work and the cargo will dig a crater.



          You can also go for low-altitude horizontal extraction, but that also has its cost, and entertaining failure modes.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 8 hours ago









          HobbesHobbes

          4,7801318




          4,7801318








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
            $endgroup$
            – GdD
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
            $endgroup$
            – GdD
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            4 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          5 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Good summary, I'd add to this many cargoes can't handle the g forces from landing, even with chutes it's still a few Gs.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          5 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
          $endgroup$
          – Jörg W Mittag
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Note that the OP specified in the question that the plane doing the land-unload-takeoff is more fuel-efficient than the plane doing the drop. So, the question which of the two options im more fuel-efficient cannot be answered other than "it depends on how much more fuel-efficient the other plane is".
          $endgroup$
          – Jörg W Mittag
          4 hours ago










          Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Muze is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63794%2fis-it-cheaper-to-drop-cargo-drop-than-to-land-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          What are all the squawk codes?

          Image
          2 $begingroup$ I love aviation and I love learning new things about it. I was wondering if anyone knew all of the squawk codes and in particular what squawk 7500 means. squawk-codes share | improve this question edited 15 mins ago Jamiec ♦ 14.8k 4 60 91 asked 5 hours ago Zac Callaghan Zac Callaghan 11 2 New contributor Zac Callaghan is a new co
          Read more

          What are differences between VBoxVGA, VMSVGA and VBoxSVGA in VirtualBox?

          Image
          1 VirtualBox 6.0 provides a new setting called Graphics Controller. There are four options to choose from: None VBoxVGA VMSVGA VBoxSVGA In the user manual I have found this information: Graphics Controller: Specifies the graphics adapter type used by the guest VM. Note that you must install the Guest Additions on the guest VM to specify the VBoxSVGA or VMSVGA graphics controller. The following options are available: – VBoxSVGA: The default graphics controller for new VMs that use Linux or Windows 7 or later. This graphics controller improves performance and 3D support when compared to the legacy VBoxVGA option. – VBoxVGA: Use this graphics controller for legacy guest OSes. This is the default graphics controller for Windows versions before Windows 7. – VMSVGA: Use this graphics controller to emul
          Read more

          Hudsonelva

          Image
          Hudson elv Land   USA Område New York Sideelvar Mohawk Lengd 507 km Middelvassføring 606 m³/s Munning Upper New York Bay i Atlanterhavet Elvene Hudson og Mohawk med nedbørsområdet markert med gult. Wikimedia Commons: Hudson River Hudsonelva ( Hudson River ) mohikansk Muh-he-kun-ne-tuk ) er ei elv i USA. Ho renn hovudsakleg gjennom delstaten New York, men markerer også ein del av grensa mellom New York og New Jersey. Hudsonelva har namn etter Henry Hudson, ein engelskmann som utforska elva i 1609. Hudsonelva sett frå Bear Mountain Bridge. Kjelda til elva er Tear-of-the-Clouds-sjøen i Adirondackfjella. Ved Albany renn Mohawk-elva saman med henne, og deretter renn ho nesten rett sørover til ho munnar ut i Atlanterhavet mellom Manhattan i New York og New Jersey. Eriekanalen, som blei opna den 26 oktober 1825, bind saman Hudsonelva og Eriesjøen, slik at byane ved Dei store sjøane fekk vasstilgang til A
          Read more