By Jo Nova
This tells us everything we need to know about modern Western civilization. A blimp with wings.
These pufferfish of the sky could be the ugliest, most absurd planes to take to the troposphere.
They are emblematic of the era we live in. Wind turbines destined to rot in the ocean are so big now they can’t even fit on a truck, so someone is planning a plane specially for them. It will be 100 feet longer than a Jumbo jet but carry no tourists, except the fibreglass kind that torment whales, deafen porpoises and vandalize fine electricity grids. The whole point of these machines is a quest to appease the weather Gods one hundred years from now.
Presumably these will run on fairy dust or fermented tofu.
The Flying white elephants could “hit the sky” in four years
To be clear, all that was announced two weeks ago was that Radia has “plans” to make these aircraft and wants $300 million dollars. Presumably the photos here were made by ChatGPT or equivalent.
Radia’s WindRunner to be the world’s largest aircraft ever built
by Rizwan Choudry, Interesting Engineering
The WindRunner’s colossal dimensions dwarf even the most iconic commercial aircraft. Measuring an astounding 356 feet long, with a height of 79 feet and a wingspan of 261 feet, it outstrips the Boeing 747-8’s length by 106 feet. To put things in perspective, the Windrunner is almost as long as an NFL football field. Its exceptional size translates to a vast carrying capacity of up to 80 tons – twelve times that of the Boeing 747.
Correction: The Business Insider says:
Radia’s plane has a cargo bay volume of 272,000 cubic feet — 12 times that of a Boeing 747-400F …
Let’s not forget the sole aim and purpose of the plane, the factories that make it, and the entire load it carries is to reduce human fossil fuel use.
…
According to Olivia Murray of American Thinker, it will supposedly run on renewable fuel:
Radia promises that this plane will run on “sustainable aviation fuel” instead of traditional jet fuel—but what is SAF exactly? Well, SAF is just a type of “biofuel” that has apparently met certain criteria to be legally-labeled as “sustainable.” So, just as long as you ignore all the cleared forests and prairies to make way for the taxpayer-subsidized corn and soy enterprises to grow the product to make the “fuel,” and you ignore the devastation caused by corporate (mono)agriculture, then maybe you can delude yourself into believing this is a more environmentally-friendly option.
SAF is “sustainable” in the same way that wind turbines are sustainable—you have to ignore the impact on migratory birds, the petroleum-based resins used to manufacture the fiberglass blades, the toxic refrigerants in the turbine house, the petroleum-based lubricants for the machinery, etc., if you’re to believe the lie.
They could always run it on solar power and electric batteries if they don’t mind replacing the battery every three weeks (or maybe every time it flies).
The Windrunner is 127 feet longer than a 747.
The plane will apparently need 6,000 foot runways to take off and land.
Radia hope that onshore turbines will also be delivered to far flung and remote sites where it is hard to deliver wind turbine parts now. (Since those sites are often mountainous and lacking in long international airport runways, who knows, perhaps the blades can be air-dropped?)
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal says they will have to build a new dirt runway for each project.
…
Having waited seven years to reveal their plans they may have missed the renewable bubble by six months. Bad luck eh?
Investors are fleeing after Siemens discovered that instead of being more efficient, the bigger blades were a maintenance nightmare. Even insurance companies are balking at paying for all the cable breaks.
h/t Bally
Dumber than Dumb
160
Coulda had a pickle factory…
60
is fashionable … ish.
Reminiscent of the Bristol freighter
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973809/How-Bristol-Freighter-planes-flew-drivers-cars-France-WWII.html
Daily Mail, but the pix are OK.
Auto
10
It is more like they are trying to emulate the Antonov 225 heavy lift aircraft which was destroyed in Ukraine.
10
They missed April Fools’ day by just 144 hours!
00
3 seconds with Google reveals that a 747 configured for freight can carry 120-130 tons, which is a bit more than the quoted section says, since it’s claiming that 80 tons is 12x what a 747 can do.
170
Presumably they are comparing it to 747s carrying passengers. Maybe they are thinking of posting these blades via US Post?
But you are right, the “Interesting Engineering” article numbers are stupid. The Business Insider says:
Radia’s plane has a cargo bay volume of 272,000 cubic feet — 12 times that of a Boeing 747-400F — and a maximum payload weight capacity of 160,000 lbs, according to the company.
I shall update the post. Thank you. It was 12 x the volume, not the weight. I just can’t take this plane seriously. I can’t believe anyone will build it.
320
The Spruce Goose springs to mind and it did fly but not profitably. I heard Greg Combet, that walking cadaver, telling his audience that we would need to spend $200 billion immediately to build the necessary W & S farms to keep Australia going. That sort of money would build at least four nuclear power plants generating up to 10 GW of reliable and cheap power for the next 80 years using a fraction of the materials and not requiring thousands of kilometres of transmission nor the destruction of our farmlands. Combet is in charge of our Sovereign Wealth Fund designed to pay for the retirement benefits of out myriad public serpents and maybe he is investing in renewables and maybe he worries that if nuclear is accepted he will lose our money and his reputation.
Then I heard this morning of a twenty year mega-drought about to descend on us courtesy of climate change. The prediction by the ANU should be taken seriously by our politicians, so seriously that they should be raising funds for dams to try and guarantee the future of food production. Then again they may not believe the ANU that has Will Steffen as resident climate catastrophist. Perhaps they don’t believe anything about climate but just want to be accepted by the cool kids at the UN. Hypocrites.
220
Are you sure this is not a delayed April Fools Joke ?
170
It’s not an April Fool’s joke.
The Left have become parodies of themselves.
They are the joke.
200
In the ‘woke world’ April 1st is the only day you may hear an honest to goodness story among the many inept attempts at the all inclusive non-discriminatory [the alternative meaning of] funny story.
80
I used to say … “sure … when Hell freezes over”.
Now I say … “sure … when the next heterosexual white guy gets nominated for the U.S. Supreme court”.
120
Next Presidential term – although there may be an American civil war before that happens!
10
To our esteemed host: US Post Office? Amazon will ship the blade, but the packing material will require a much bigger plane!
110
as a somebody with 20+ years in aircraft design, i agree nobody will want to build it…..you need somebody to buy enough them to get a ROI and that is not going to happen where airports will have to be redesigned.
The Boeing Sonic Cruiser was a thing for a short time and was dropped because no airlines wanted to buy it. This then came the 787
110
Jo,
They aren’t going to need it.
Isn’t the World Population supposed to “shrink” to 500 million by the time these are ready?
50
Of course it could be built, even though it wouldn’t make sense financially due to ridiculous R&D, build and operational costs. You see, the risks involved would mean that government guarantees/subsidies would be necessary.
Which makes the idea attractive to those vested interests driving the whole AGW scam. If we taxpayers offer them grants that are sufficiently generous and give contracts that absolve them of risk should the thing fail to work, the project could start tomorrow.
Who said Tesla?
20
Runways will have to be specially built for them to take off and land close to where the turbines are being installed because of weight and size . Weapons grade absurd . It will never take off…
160
Old Goat,
“It will never take off…”
If it does it will have nowhere to land.
30
This is absurd.
If these aircraft are to be of any use, i.e. avoiding road transport of giant bird mincer blades, special runways will have to be built adjacent to the sites of the wind plantations.
The runway length required for an aircraft of this size is likely to be more than for a fully loaded 747 or A380, 3km+ , so that will involve even more environmental destruction. And the runway will need to be a permanent fixture because blades will need to be repaired, refurbished or replaced on a regular basis.
150
There goes another large area to build a runway and loading and holding areas, plus all the heavy lifting machinery. Then we have the fuelling, refuelling and maintenance areas, then access areas and roads; sounds like a lot of remote forest or bush land is going to be lost. Wow, talking about destroying the planet to “save” it. The environment seems to be last always when it comes to wind and solar.
150
You people are all wrong!
They could build it out of timber (to avoid fossil-fuel derived aluminium, fibreglass or plastic) and have it take off over water and land on the water to avoid the need for a big runway. Landing on water, it could then discharge wind tower components straight onto the water – great for windfarms on the sea. I think a good name for it would be ‘Spruce Goose’. They could get a man by the name of Mr H. Hughes to build it. He’s built something similar before. This could be a game-changer.
130
These are volume carriers, not tonnage carriers. They would have big wings with plenty of lift, even if slow, so modern engines could get it airborne. Peter touches on other problems.
30
Suss-stainability and those puffriders in the sky…yippi – yi – ay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fhy8o7ufi8&ab_channel=JohnnyCash-Topic
90
People who come up with these designs usually seem to be totally unaware of what has gone before.
In the 1980’s the US military requested a design from Lockheed of an aircraft with a flat bed like a truck to carry cargo externally.
It probably would be quite suitable for this type of job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Flatbed?wprov=sfla1
40
During the late 1960s I was worried that a semi-trailer I was passenger in heading towards Bathurst NSW was going to fly, as it raced downhill with no load on board and around a bend was a bridge with two trucks stopped either side of the road near the bridge alongside one another and the drivers having a chat.
Our truck made it through but both external mirrors collided with mirrors on the parked trucks.
90
They seem to forget about the effects of aerodynamics at flying speeds ?
10
Meanwhile in the real world coal fired power stations are increasingly popular based on cost-benefit analysis to generate reliably and supply affordable for businesses and other consumers electricity needs.
The nuclear nations are competing to become world market leader for supply of Small Modular Reactors and factory made electricity power stations for assembly on site.
In other words the wind and solar era is ending.
160
Solar Wind Era Ending Terminal: SWEET.
Another giant leap (flop) backwards.
Who knew there was money in madness.
BTW, we just suffered the COLDEST March in quite a few decades, according to govt-sponsored climate accountants. Children won’t know what heatwaves were.
210
Similar rear fuselage and tail fins to Germany’s WW2 Luftwaffe Do-17 Flying Pencil. As to the production of the ‘sustainable’ biofuel that powers the WindRunner’s engines I suggest putting the Greens Adam Bandit in charge of production. But wait, our ‘illustrious’ Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will probably mandate a rechargeable Li-Ion version.
60
I am old enough to remember the Bristol Brabazon.
Wiki – …because of the high cost per seat mile compared to the alternatives, the Brabazon did not attract any firm orders, so the aircraft was a commercial failure.
60
The Brabazon, to be built by Bristol, would be powered by eight Bristol Centauruses—at 2,650 horsepower each, the most powerful British piston engine available.
The new jet engines were not as noisy, did not vibrate at all and were far more reliable than piston engines and jet planes could fly much faster.
40
Spruce Goose 2.0?
30
At least the Spruce Goose would have transported something useful, had the project ever been completed and Howard Hughes not insisted on “perfection” in every aspect of its design.
20
A coal, gas, nuclear or real hydro (not SH2) plant can be built without any unusual transport requirements beyond normal access roads with regular size road vehicles.
And such plant produces an inexpensive and reliable product, 24/7.
Remind exactly what the point of these expensive, unreliable windmills was again…?
130
To save the reputations of those who swallowed the lies. Instead of admitting the mistake they double down with our money.
120
It’s not an electric plane then…?
How dare they.
50
Looks like something from the Thunderbirds. A show I used to watch as a kid. International Rescue sounds a bit like “Interesting Engineering”. That show had a lot of puppets (dummies)- so very much like the renewable energy industry.
60
Thunderbirds, the original series only (1965-66), would never have had anything to do with wind power. Most things they used were nuclear powered.
The modern CGI version (2015) however went fully woke and they didn’t drink, smoke, use firearms or nuclear energy.
50
It’s obscene the amount of resources being consumed by wind and solar, for very little energy production (and none of it actually economically useful), but making staggering amounts of money for the Elites at a huge cost to ordinary people.
100
There appear to be no theoretical limits to wind turbine size.
Tip speed should be preferably kept subsonic (they don’t care about noise) and there are material strength and stiffness limits which don’t necessarily scale favourably with size but no obvious defined limit.
Of course, there is the problem of transporting them so we build special runways at the manufacturing site and plantation site and fleets of special aircraft.
So, while people continue to elect governments that directly or indirectly subsidise these idols, there is no stopping them getting even bigger and more intrusive.
50
The massive amount of mineral resources this left-wing loony ruinables energy future is going to use up on building absolutely useless garbage is going to destroy the environment and the Western world, goodluck with that kids, suckers.
111
For all to know.
Mark Lundstrom is the CEO of Radia.
https://radia.com/about – (look at the credentials of the other office holders as well)
And.. he is aligned with the WEF
Also.. he is proud to promote it.
https://ceraweek.com/speakers/mark-lundstrom/
“Under Mark’s leadership, Radia was competitively selected in 2023 by both the World Economic Forum and Endeavor to become an active member of their Global Innovators Community and Global Entrepreneur Community”
OK, Radia wants 300 million.
Imho, 300 million is not enough to design and produce a full size working prototype of the “Windrunner”.
Make of that what you will.
91
This is a company that is intended to go bankrupt after a few years. They have no intention of actually building anything.
90
This is another company that is planning on going bankrupt. A flashy web page and cgi generated images.
They reckon they can build an electric plane that can carry 30 passengers 200 kms and recharge the battery in 30 minutes.
https://heartaerospace.com/about/
Or how about this one? A Sea Glider that flies 10 metres above the water at hundreds of kms/hr. A single seagull would be enough to make it crash. They have built a model that flies, but not one that carries passengers.
https://www.oceanflyer.co.nz/
It is not going to happen.
60
John, your second item is another copy of old Russian technology from the 60s the ‘sea-skimmer’ otherwise the ekranoplan.
10
And our own Malcolm Turnbull is in there as an “advisor.”
30
Wow, Maree. That is interesting. Could you give a reference/link.
thanks in advance.
00
Malcolm Turnbull is one of the key advisors.
I noted this on the company website given in Joanne’s introduction.
I think a good choice with his experience in getting government money.
10
What’s the point of running a giga-plane on biofuel? To my knowledge biofuel emit nearly as much CO2 than conventional fuel… The green crooks are using carbon-free and sustainable interchangeably to brain-engineer their audience that this is the same thing, yet another trick in their propaganda arsenal. BTW, who is funding Radia?
70
The CO2 from fossil fuels is different to the CO2 from “sustainable” fuels as the second type has been blessed by the High Priests of the Climate Cult.
The same with the electrons in the electricity supplied to Canberra from NSW. Only electrons from “Green Energy” sources are allowed to flow across the NSW/ACT border.
Only a “Denier” would question the wisdom of these High Priests.
80
Will they fly on batteries? Asking for a ‘Pollie’…………….
20
They claim this will be flying in 2027.
And yet a basic decision is what engines to use and I can see no reference to that anywhere.
I think the whole thing is a fantasy.
What I am not sure of is the precise way they are going to harvest money for this aircraft.
50
In summary – here’s some cool graphics, can I have $300 million of ‘other peoples money’ please.
90
NO
80
Do these things have huperson pilots?
Will there be enough fully vaccinated non-binary candidates of color to man, I mean person, the flight crews?
I hope the development plans are considering this essential DEI/ESG design requirement.
I mean, what is sustainable with DEI/ESG?
80
Is this 4 days overdue?
30
Anybody else think it is stupid to mount the propellers on the INSIDE of an airplane?
60
Propellors were replaced by turbo jets. Problem: They guzzled fuel.
Not as a replacement but an adjunct, they geared down the turbine shaft and drove a propellor, the propjet. Not as fast as a pure jet but on short haul flights passengers spent more time in the terminals than in the air.
The high-bypass jet was developed where the propellors were driven at turbine speed [that’s changing] but enclosed within the cowling. This improved efficiency greatly.
Rolls Royce and others are proving up the idea of jet turbines driving small radius fans [props?] external of the engine cowl.
Given the above I would be reluctant to call any engineer discussing propellors “stupid”.
31
I think you missed Bozo’s point…
The “propellers” he refered to were those being carried inside for the wind turbines. !
…and that is a dumb idea.
(They could just use a roof rack on an old 747!…..like they did for the space Shuttle trials )
…
30
I read a fascinating new biography of Rudolf Diesel a few months ago. When he perfected his engine, back around 1910, the most astonishing thing about it was that it was entirely non-polluting—according to the book. Steam engines, prior to that, ran on coal and produced lots of horrible black smoke.
It was John D. Rockefeller who made sure that the diesel engine was run on ‘petro-diesel,’ thus making it the polluting engine we think of today. So, there’s been a non-polluting engine on this planet for well over 100 years. If only it was run on the fuel it was designed to run on.
50
Rudolf ran his diesel on peanut oil.
Black smoke is unburnt carbon. Burning peanut oil still produces plant food {CO2} as a bonus just like burning coal.
A typical diesel car emits around 10 times more nitrogen oxides than an equivalent gasoline car.
Diesel engines operate at a higher temperature and pressure than petrol engines.
31
Ealier we had a Guppy as plane now we have a pufferfish. 😀 Nice 😀
40
Flying Wind Turbines!
In May 2013 {Not 1 April}, Google purchased a small start-up company, Makani Power, which specializes in flying wind turbines. Although still far off, flying wind turbines promise increased wind energy production by harnessing the strong winds in the sky. As interest grows in fossil fuel alternatives, more companies are expanding research into these new energy technologies.
Makani Power’s goal is to make wind energy cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The company’s Airborne Wind Turbine utilizes a tethered revolving kite that transmits power back down to the grid. The autonomous AWT resembles a glider and flies like a helicopter, using its on-wing turbines to create both electricity and thrust. These unmanned turbines are comparatively cheap to standard wind turbines and are deployable in wind-rich areas typically unavailable for traditional ground turbines.
https://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-future-of-flying-wind-turbines/
Better tell Chris Bowen – there must be a few Billion of spare taxpayer dollars to fast track development – especially as off-shore wind turbines are running into a head wind for killing too many whales.
40
Greg in NZ
Over the years I have migrated from Canberra to the Gold Coast and now have arrived on the Sunshine Coast to live.
So you think I may need to move even further north?
Graeme Connors (“A little further north each year”) may think so!
10
Thinking differently why not deliver wind turbine blades by airship? These can easily lift 80 tonnes.
Modern technology makes it easier to lift those blades without a newly constructed takeoff and landing sites because the airship can fly to the manufacturing site and hover while the blade is hoisted up. At the other end it can lower the blade directly onto the tower.
The only problem I can see is that the blade would only be delivered when the wind is very slow but that occurs despite what the Green believers think.
on that could any readers help me with times in the last several years when wind didn’t work that well for about 5 or more days?
That is a drop of 30% of average CF. For an article I plan.
20
Sure! Okay! Fine! All well and good!
However, have you ever thought of this the with respect to Offshore Wind Generation?
The whole Offshore Wind ‘thing’ depends upon just one critical thing.
The availability of infrastructure to install them ….. IN the Ocean.
That infrastructure is specialised ships, similar to the one shown in this image.
These very specialised ships specifically designed JUST for offshore wind construction, are (all of them) in very hot demand, and for many years to come, in constant use in and around European Countries installing offshore wind.
Somehow, we (here in Australia) now have to wait our turn, that’s if if if we have firm approved planning already in place, for one of these ships to sail the World’s oceans down here to install these Offshore wind plants, a ship designed for ‘localised’ operations and not Intercontinental Ocean travel, both there and back. I suppose the Wind Plant manufacturers could ‘buy’ one of them, rather than wait in the queue for when a suitable one became available.
However, either way, now think of the added extra cost to get one of them here to Australia.
We could always build one I suppose at one of our shipbuilding Companies.
Oh ….. wait a minute!
Tony.
90
Yes Tony, I knew that – and with the Panama Canal and the Red Sea out of action, it seemed silly to suggest that those (3 types) would have to come around The Cape of Good Hope unless they were brave or foolhardy enough to come by Cape Horn.
Incidentally my grandfather went around Cape Horn on a windjammer when young. There he was standing on the first cross tree on the foremast, said crosstree being 40 foot about the deck. Add the ship’s freeboard and his height about 50+ feet about the waves. He noticed that when the ship rolled he could see the ocean about halfway through the roll, and when in a trough the waves were about the height on the foremast.
When he got down gingerly the Second Mate spoke to him socially for the first time in 2½ months and congratulated him on getting such fine weather on his first trip around the Horn. They would around round in a day even with only one practially furled sail on the foremast. The previous trip he explained had taken 3 days without any sails out and the waves had been higher than the mainmast.
Shortly after that my grandfather became very enthusiastic about steam engines. The second mate (and entire ship) disappeared on a later trip.
10
“Let’s not forget the sole aim and purpose of the plane, the factories that make it, and the entire load it carries is to reduce human fossil fuel use.”
I see you’re in a humorous mood today, Jo. Or maybe you’re extracting the urine? 🙂
20
Just build the nukes. The forget all the green nonsense such as solar panels and windmills except in remote areas, far from the grid. The countryside will look much better and large soaring birds and bats will thank you.
I want Australia to build enough nukes to cope with peak demand. Then, when not needed for the rest of grid demand, use the surplus to desalinate water and pump it inland to drought proof the country.
10