Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Windrunner

Sparweb

Aerospace
May 21, 2003
5,131
Check out this behemoth.


It's a "point design" with one clearly stated purpose: to transport wind turbine blades wherever needed.
Has about 7x the enclosed volume of an Antonov 124.
This one ambitious.

Won't it be cheaper to design WT blades to be assembled from 2 or 3 sections in the field?
The only problem this aircraft is meant to solve is delivering long (>100m) WT blades to remote sites.
If trucking is such a problem, then use the solution that's already in use for cranes: split-em in two.
I thought of this immediately as I looked at the marketing photo that shows such a crane in the background.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

That will be an impressive thing if they actually build it.

Splitting a blade into sections introduces an abrupt change in stiffness, which probably creates various aero-elastic problems.

I guess that could be designed around - at the compromise of other stuff.

From a turbine manufacturer's viewpoint, WindRunner would seem attractive. It pushes a problem onto a service provider.

Since delivery is already a purchased service it's just a matter of cost.
 
I would have gone with dirigibles and slings. Properly done they could deliver to any location and they would replace the need for a crane to install the blades.

No need for a landing strip.


Radia says:
Maximum Payload Weight
160,000 lbs / 72,575 kg

Alant 300
Maximal payload, kg
165 000 kg
 
The concept is deeply flawed ... where will they fly this plane from ? (how far from where the blades are being made ? how far from where the turbine is erected ?). Clearly they can't fly from every factory to every erection site !!?? An airship would be a much more practical means of transportation.
 
Ah, so we have to clear a runway sized patch of rainforest in order to install a windfarm. We had to destroy the environment in order to save it.
 
It seems out of proportion, but I suppose that reflects hownit has been designed for a relatively low density oversize payload.

There's at least a couple of airship proposals for this market. Although airships are a little fragile and awkward to handle, that might be acceptable for this niche mission requirement, when compared to the fixed-wing alternative.
 
"Not seen many windfarms in a rain forest."

Welcome to Australia.

1734635781092.png
 
Seems a bit optimistic; 100-m lengths still pose a problem getting to the airport and then getting from the destination airport to wherever the wind farm is.
 
i think they plan to be able to land/takeoff on unimproved "runways"; so those would be located in the wind farm site.
its a crazy big airplane.
 
i think they plan to be able to land/takeoff on unimproved "runways"; so those would be located in the wind farm site.
its a crazy big airplane.
That's half the problem; they still have to get the blades from the factory to an airport. Otherwise, they'd have to build both a factory and an airport together.
 
What if this plane is intended to convince people that heavy-lift blimps or dirigibles aren't such a bad idea after all?
 
What if this plane is intended to convince people that heavy-lift blimps or dirigibles aren't such a bad idea after all?
That would be a crazy expensive way to make the argument though.
 
The lighter than air idea seems ok for the final segment to the installation. Maybe.

LTA craft struggle with wind. Wind turbines are installed in places where it's windy. That seems an application mis-match.

Maybe less well suited for any distance. That still leaves many or the transport problems unsolved.
 
Maybe they can strap the WT blade under the mid-wing of a Stratolaunch.
I say point the round end of the WT blade forward, and suspend it with a trapeze.
No size limits, now the WT blade can be any length.
I'll go tell Branson I've got this great idea.
 
Rotation at take-off and flare for landing might be an obstacle.
 
"Won't it be cheaper to design WT blades to be assembled from 2 or 3 sections in the field?"

LOL, killed the idea in one sentence. Stiffness "jump" at the joining flange is a problem for aeroelasticity, yes, but so are engine mount, flap and aileron segments on aircraft wings - i.e. a solvable problem.
 
Well there appears to be a market for big slow cheap transport aircraft but this doesn't appear to be it. Although more for opening up transport options in the frozen north (or the not so frozen north now days).

Why would you use turbofans for this, you are not going to pressurize it, you don't need overnight delivery 2000 miles away and you want the slowest possible landing speed, ideally something in the range of 50 to 60 knots.

You could just fit an H tail to an A400 and strap to the roof, it worked for the shuttle and various boosters, or if you are going clean sheet something like giant General aviation aircraft (wing loading, power loading) would massively drop the operating costs.
 

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor