US Firm To Build World’s Largest Commercial Transport Plane

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

MIflyer

1st Lieutenant
6,232
11,949
May 30, 2011
Cape Canaveral
From American Liberty News:

A U.S.-based energy startup, Radia, has unveiled plans to build the world's largest cargo aircraft, WindRunner.

The 356-foot-long, four-engine jet aircraft is designed to deliver giant wind turbine blades directly to land-based wind farms. This, especially in remote areas currently inaccessible by air.

Current turbine blades are 230 feet long or less, but Radia wants to deploy blades up to 345 feet long. The company says its GigaWind turbines could be two to three times more powerful and two to three times more profitable than those typically deployed today.

The massive new blades will weigh upwards of 80,000 pounds and will be pulled out and installed right from the aircraft via its nose cargo door. Radia has patented a system for loading blades into WindRunner. It will operate on regional hubs where its blades are imported or manufactured.

WindRunner will use "sustainable" aviation fuel (whatever that means) and needs only a simple 6,000 foot packed-dirt or gravel unimproved runway to land on, something no other large commercial aircraft can achieve. This is something that only the U.S. Air Force's gigantic C-5 Galaxy can now accomplish.

It is twice the size of New York's Statue of Liberty, with a cargo bay that's 12 times larger than a Boeing 747-400, WindRunner will be 355 feet long, 123 feet longer than Boeing's Jumbo Jet.

Screenshot 2024-04-04 at 10-49-35 US Firm To Build World’s Largest Commercial Transport Plane ...png
 
Seems like a risky bet to me. Is the market big enough to justify a dedicated aircraft? Perhaps there's a market for other items that "bulk out" a cargo plane before the reach the airframe's weight limits...but I just don't see this succeeding. It takes a LOT of investment to manufacture aircraft and I just don't see this idea being profitable for a VERY long time...and investors typically have short memories.
 
Seems like a risky bet to me. Is the market big enough to justify a dedicated aircraft? Perhaps there's a market for other items that "bulk out" a cargo plane before the reach the airframe's weight limits...but I just don't see this succeeding. It takes a LOT of investment to manufacture aircraft and I just don't see this idea being profitable for a VERY long time...and investors typically have short memories.


Not really much risk at all.

Its being developed for the company that makes the wind turbines so they can ferry the blades. No different than the Boeing Dreamlifter used to ferry parts of the 787 and the Airbus Beluga.
 
Not really much risk at all.

Its being developed for the company that makes the wind turbines so they can ferry the blades. No different than the Boeing Dreamlifter used to ferry parts of the 787 and the Airbus Beluga.
But there is a very significant difference. Boeing & Airbus started from already certified aircraft and modified them. The cost of much of the design had already been incurred. This is a design from a clean sheet of paper / blank computer screen.
 
But there is a very significant difference. Boeing & Airbus started from already certified aircraft and modified them. The cost of much of the design had already been incurred. This is a design from a clean sheet of paper / blank computer screen.

Thats true, but I would assume they already have enough Wind turbine orders to warrant this aircraft.
 
According to Radia, it is more than halfway through its estimated eight-year process to design, build, and certify the mammoth WindRunner.

A company that hasn't, as far as I can tell, ever manufactured anything, is going to build the largest cargo aircraft ever in the next few (4?) years? What could go wrong?
 

A company that hasn't, as far as I can tell, ever manufactured anything, is going to build the largest cargo aircraft ever in the next few (4?) years? What could go wrong?

Yep...I still reckon it's risky, both from the technological and financial perspectives.
 

A company that hasn't, as far as I can tell, ever manufactured anything, is going to build the largest cargo aircraft ever in the next few (4?) years? What could go wrong?

But when you put it that way, yeah, it is a significant risk.
 
The story pre-dates April 1 by at least a couple of weeks. CNN were reporting it on 19 March.

Given that in Britain (and Europe?) many of the wind farms are being put on hilltops or offshore, they won't be getting many orders from this side of the pond. Add in the Green brigade opposing these developments and......

On the other hand --

On my way up to Ft Sill last year, drifing through north Texas, I passed literally 10-12 miles of turbines in fields 3 or 4 miles wide. I understand that there are similar installations up in the panhandle and between Lubbock and Midland-Odessa.

I still think this plane is not a good idea.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand --

On my way up to Ft Sill last year, drifing through north Teksas, I passed literally 10-12 miles of turbines in fields 3 or 4 miles wide. I understand that there are similar installations up in the panhandle and between Lubbock and Midland-Odessa.

I still think this plane is not a good idea.

I'm not sure if its still happening, but at my previous company we were in negotiations to supply off-shore helicopter support for a massive future off-shore wind farm in the Atlantic. I left the company, so I don't know if the farm is still being built.
 
I'm not sure if its still happening, but at my previous company we were in negotiations to supply off-shore helicopter support for a massive future off-shore wind farm in the Atlantic. I left the company, so I don't know if the farm is still being built.

Yeah, I'd think heavy-lift choppers would be more economical.
 
Yeah, I'd think heavy-lift choppers would be more economical.

No, the helicopters were to provide the offshore support. Like flying mechanics out to a turbine needing maintenance.

This proposed aircraft is to transport the blades from the place of manufacture to the location where they will be installed. That could be hundreds or thousands of miles.

A heavy-lift would not be more economical for that… ;)
 
No, the helicopters were to provide the offshore support. Like flying mechanics out to a turbine needing maintenance.

This proposed aircraft is to transport the blades from the place of manufacture to the location where they will be installed. That could be hundreds or thousands of miles.

A heavy-lift would not be more economical for that… ;)

Yeah, I hadn't considered possible ranges.
 
And when the blades need to be replaced, what do you do with them? According to what I have read, there is no way to reclaim the materials in the blades nor is there any other use for them. So they are burying them, a blade landfill.

These blades are not only larger but weigh 80,000 pounds each. Maybe they can bury the removed blades right there where they were removed?

Somebody needs to figure out how to use the old used blades to build a wall along the southern border as well as around Wash DC.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back