© 2024 New Atlas
Aircraft

Crew-less Droneliner may one day slash the cost of airfreight

By Ben Coxworth
October 02, 2023
Crew-less Droneliner may one day slash the cost of airfreight
The twin-engine Droneliner DL350, which is hoped to carry up to 350 tons of cargo in intermodal shipping containers
The twin-engine Droneliner DL350, which is hoped to carry up to 350 tons of cargo in intermodal shipping containers
View 3 Images
The single-engine Droneliner DL200
1/3
The single-engine Droneliner DL200
The Droneliner can be loaded and unloaded via ramps in the front and rear
2/3
The Droneliner can be loaded and unloaded via ramps in the front and rear
The twin-engine Droneliner DL350, which is hoped to carry up to 350 tons of cargo in intermodal shipping containers
3/3
The twin-engine Droneliner DL350, which is hoped to carry up to 350 tons of cargo in intermodal shipping containers
View gallery - 3 images

While airfreight is certainly the fastest method of transporting cargo, it's also by far the most expensive. The Droneliner aircraft could help change that, by doing away with a crew and adopting a more cargo-friendly body shape.

Currently, most cargo aircraft have cylindrical bodies with concave inner walls, just like passenger-carrying airliners.

According to British aerospace startup Droneliner, this means a lot of space is wasted when those aircraft are carrying traditional rectangular loads. Additionally, those loads usually have to be put on and taken off via the side of the plane. And what's more, some cargo space is sacrificed in order to make room for the cockpit and crew.

By contrast, the Droneliner's body is shaped more like a smooth-edged rectangular box, allowing conventional-style 20-ft (6-m) intermodal shipping containers to be rolled on and off via ramps in its wide-opening front and rear ends. It's also remotely piloted, so no allowances have to be made for any onboard crew.

The Droneliner can be loaded and unloaded via ramps in the front and rear
The Droneliner can be loaded and unloaded via ramps in the front and rear

Propulsion is supplied by one or two turbofan engines (depending on the Droneliner model), which could use SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) biofuel or hydrogen. Even when using conventional fuel, the aircraft's hybrid drive system still uses electrical power for taxiing, taking off and landing.

Plans call for two versions of the Droneliner to be made.

The single-engine DL200 will be able to accommodate a total of 36 to 40 containers on two levels, for a maximum cargo weight of 200 tons (181 tonnes). The twin-engine DL350, on the other hand, will carry 70 to 80 containers on three levels, managing up to 350 tons (318 tonnes). Both models should have a range of 6,500 nautical miles (12,038 km).

The single-engine Droneliner DL200
The single-engine Droneliner DL200

Needless to say, things are still largely conceptual at this point. Nonetheless, the company states that use of the Droneliner should reduce the cost of airfreight by over 70%. Additionally, because the cargo-optimized plane will have such a high payload-to-fuel ratio, it should drastically reduce fuel use and carbon emissions.

Interested parties can contact Droneliner via its website.

Source: Droneliner

View gallery - 3 images

Tags

AircraftCargoRemote Control
10 comments
Ben Coxworth
Ben Coxworth
Based out of Edmonton, Canada, Ben Coxworth has been writing for New Atlas since 2009 and is presently Managing Editor for North America. An experienced freelance writer, he previously obtained an English BA from the University of Saskatchewan, then spent over 20 years working in various markets as a television reporter, producer and news videographer. Ben is particularly interested in scientific innovation, human-powered transportation, and the marine environment.

Most Viewed

Load More
10 comments
Towerman
Do they fully rely on autonomous landings and take offs these days or will a ground pilot be stationed at airports to do LOS landings or at least oversee the landings. Autonomous systems as robust as the bestbare these days needs an overwatch and manual override. Things wont go 100% all the time.
McDesign
"Conventional" cargo containers would be stupid heavy for air transport - so I hope "conventional-style" means just same exterior dimensions and hard-points.
MarylandUSA
I worked at a Lockheed factory when it made the C-130H, C-141B, and C-5B. Never thought I'd see a single-engine cargo jet. But no lives are at stake, so why not?
1stClassOPP
I suppose there will be no need to pressurize the plane if no humans aboard?
paul314
The single-engine version is interesting, just because it shows they don't expect to be bound by the usual long-distance rules requiring one dead engine to be survivable.
Adrian Akau
Good idea .
PB
I see issues here. First, a hybrid electrical system for taxi? Oh, come on! The weight of that and batteries is ridiculous. That will never happen. Second, a single engine is great for drag reduction but they are talking a big, very big, aircraft and the required thrust to get that thing airborne will be huge, thus requiring a huge engine which, in turn, is draggy. Third, eliminating a crew is a cost consideration, not a space thing. Airbus is already proposing a single pilot freighter. The avionics and systems require more space than crew, and the systems will still remain, or be larger with autonomous design. Fourth, they are talking over 6,000 miles, meaning Europe and the Pacific to Asia and Australia. Any pilot knows about thrust requirements, fuel burn and endurance --- this concept, as expressed, is preposterous.
Nibblonian
I always thought that the cylindrical shape had structural and/or aerodynamic advantages but if they can do "a smooth-edged rectangular box" shaped fuselage cost effectively, wouldn't that also be good for transporting passengers and their luggage too? (Granted, trains and buses aren't airborne, but they are usually fairly rectangular, so...)
paleochocolate
@Towerman AI can do that shrit
ANTIcarrot
@PB
Large aircraft have Auxuliary Power Units, which supply electrical power while the engines are turned off. This will supply the power needed to taxi the aircraft, and use a tiny fraction of furl that the jet engine(s) woudl need for the same task. This is also a tested idea in the real world. Your first objection is invalid.
In this case removal of the crew also allows for a very simple nose door. The avionics would amount to an enhanced fly by wire system, which is a real concept that has flown on aircraft for decades, and is smaller than the cockpit. Fyour third obejction is invalid.

The cargo capabilities and ranges do seem excessive, and excessive, but that could be a case of optomisation for denser cargo and modern clean sheet designs.
If they do pan out, I can see the USAF being very interested in a plane that can carry 2 or 5 fully loaded and combat ready Abrams tanks.