Radia Windrunner: https://radia.com/windrunner

Well, it’s ugly.

I’d much rather see the An-225 rebuilt.

All this paddling around in the atmospheric mud seems so passé

I see the logic in the design for its sole intended purpose. The wing to fuselage ratio looks odd but the load will be evenly distributed with the massive wind turbine blades so it can’t be very CG sensitive. The blades must be relatively light too. It doesn’t necessarily have to fly high or far so it will do well with a short, fat non swept wing that will give it good low speed lift characteristics for the intended use on temporary runways. I hope they build it.

The straight wing and fuselage will be easy to manufacture with minimal tooling as most of the ribs and bulkheads will be the same size.

I didn't watch the video.

But they are buildilding wind turbine blades, designed to efficiently generate electricity.

And then ship them on a jet airplane, which is one of the least efficient delivery methods possible?

OK.

Too long to fit on a train.

Will allow larger more efficient turbine generators in remote areas that can only be transported by ship now.

Landing on a 6,000.' runway...

Yeah....

No Problems...

And they get funding for this...

A much more efficient way to throw vast sums down the wind energy rat hole.

I’m always interested when aviation is used to solve a problem and this is an interesting idea. But in many ways it a solution in search of a problem. Mobile on-site blade manufacturing makes more sense. Also the whole idea of wind energy as a primary power source for municipalities doesn’t really work. . We have them all over our state and I have two on 45 foot towers powering my home, but I can never count on them to provide power because the wind doesn’t always blow.
Continued use of clean coal and natural gas for power generation while slowly transitioning to more nuclear power generation is the only real solution.

I think Doug Ranz posted this before:

http://www.wallyroberts.com/bt/video.mp4

This guy (co-founder of Greenpeace) gets it...

Dan

One glaring error in video:
“Airplane will be able to carry up to 80 tons and hold 12 times the weight of a 747”
I believe they meant cargo volume vs a 747.

Let’s not even start discussing the statement of reducing power production cost by 35%

Let’s just leave things as- I think new plane designs are very interesting. Will be curious to see if this thing has a future.

Considering it was intended for sites not reachable by sea, and that an airplane requires no continuous infrastructure from point A to point B (unlike rail or highway), it might well be very efficient.

Make a runway near the site and land the plane there.

Seems to me, though, that a lighter than air ship with the blade slung underneath would work best and could even have station keeping and crane facilities to lower the blade onto the turbine without needing the last mile of ground transport. Use sea transport to get it as close as you can, then winch it up and fly it to the site.

If the blades are not that heavy, and the ship is big enough, this could work and it solves both the transport and the crane problems.

Mike C.

Maybe a heavy lift helicopter? No need for an adjacent runway, and no complexity from airship operations. (Which sometimes sound good in theory, but haven't worked out so well in practice over the last 150 years or so).

Maybe, but probably need a new one since the biggest I can find is about 20 tons. I'd guess those blades are about 40 tons each (since the promo video showed two in the plane and claimed 80 ton capability).

Some huge drone like thing with multiple rotors might do it.

This would have more uses than wind farms.

Mike C.