• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed VLST Very Large Subsonic Transports aircraft

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,019
Reaction score
3,715
Hi,

here is some aircraft and one airship fpr the Lockheed-Martin as VLST Very
Large Subsonic Transports aircraft,notice the Lockheed-Dornier one.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960023624_1996039479.pdf
 

Attachments

  • airship.JPG
    airship.JPG
    44.7 KB · Views: 846
  • Lockheed-Dornier.JPG
    Lockheed-Dornier.JPG
    38.4 KB · Views: 806
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    49.7 KB · Views: 766
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    40.4 KB · Views: 693
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    38.6 KB · Views: 764
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    26.3 KB · Views: 223
  • 5.JPG
    5.JPG
    51.7 KB · Views: 128

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
546
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Cool! ;D I was beginning to think that the Lockheed VLST was a fictitious project because I had only seen a drawing of it in Popular Mechanics magazine. Thank you hesham.
 

Nik

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
410
Reaction score
33
Wow !

Those really are flights of fancy...

Is that a cargo pod slung beneath the 'catamaran' Heracles ??
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
546
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I find it interesting that the drawing depicts the VLST carrying 16 40-foot ISO intermodal freight containers. Do I understand correctly that air freight is not currently shipped in 40-foot ISO intermodal freight containers and needs to be repackaged into smaller containers for transport by air?
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
110
Triton said:
I find it interesting that the drawing depicts the VLST carrying 16 40-foot ISO intermodal freight containers. Do I understand correctly that air freight is not currently shipped in 40-foot ISO intermodal freight containers and needs to be repackaged into smaller containers for transport by air?

The point they may be trying to make is that it is no longer necessary to repack.
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
12
Website
www.io.com
...The more of these HUMONGOUS HONKER AIR TRANSPORTS we come across, the more I get convinced there's a point where the time taken to load/offload the damn things takes far more time than it takes to transverse the distance to the destination *and* back. I wonder if during all these paper studies if anyone actually sat down and did the numbers in this regard? ???
 

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
487
Reaction score
59
You mean those Intermodal Freight Containers like railroads carry? Don't those things weigh several tons apeice? How much would you save by not repacking and carrying these things by air? Maybe we should think outside the box (as it were). Why not pack the airfreight containers, then put them in the intermodal containers for the surface part of the journey?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,887
Reaction score
2,024
There has been a lot of work done on robotic logistical systems, quite a bit of it in the past decade alone, including aircraft loading/unloading systems, that might make these designs more practical from an operations/costs viewpoint.
 

tubtattoo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
There's been quite a few topics on different design studies for outsize cargo/passenger carriers but the one thing that puzzles me is what kind of infrastructure would be needed to support these behemoths.
I am an aviation enthusiast and ex-member of the RAF but my technical knowledge is nowhere near many of you fine people on this site but it does puzzle me. Having seen the An-225 ground manouevring (if you can call it that) how would these giants be accommodated?
Normal runway and taxiways could surely not support them and so if remote cargo specific sites were to be used wouldn't the cost of providing transport links to them and the necessary loading and unloading technologies negate any savings on quantity carried at one time?
I apologise if it is an inane or obvious question but, whilst I would love to see the sky blotted out by machines like these, I'm having difficulty in seeing the practicalities...
... plus the UK doesn't have enough spare space to build an airfield that size ;D
Thanks in advance.
 
Top