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









          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            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









          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            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









          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            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








          • 3




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
















          • 3




            $begingroup$
            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




          $begingroup$
          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

          Ponta tanko

          Image
          Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
          Read more

          Tantalo (mitologio)

          Image
          Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
          Read more

          Erzsébet Schaár

          Image
          Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
          Read more