Hey there u/Green____cat, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well now it's not funny it's real introducing you to ishipwheels it's made from titanium and has multi cameras on each side of the ship (so we can track your location) it's a technology from apple and has convenient seating plans so it makes your journey comfortable. Disclaimer:- You have to bring your own chair
Well, actually, can it be so light that it can deploy parachutes?
Like the passenger tank doesn't need to carry fuel or anything else, right? If plane has issues just drop it.
It is a plane that can go by rails.
Maybe if we lay enough of them, they don't even need wings because they can take the cheaper way more regularly in the future, who knows
I have seen this concept talked about before and its an interesting idea but it sounds more like a concept that just can't work with todays technology based on how planes are built and all.
But the idea is that you seperate the cabin part from a plane and the wings/cockpit/engine/etc. That way you can hook a cabin up to a plane to make it a passenger plane, take the passenger cabin away and put a cargo module on and now its a cargo plane, etc.
And in ever more fanciful expansion of the concept is these modules can then be attacked to rail cars, trucks, etc.
It is a riff on the shipping container concept.
Planes can already do this. A commercial jet can be outfitted with seats or with cargo tracks inside. They can be swapped as well. This sounds like a huge amount of unneeded complexity and failure points for minimal gain.
The US Navy tried the whole modular concept with the littoral combat ships of the Freedom and Liberty Class. They thought it would make refits for different missions a breeze.
It was a fucking disaster. A large number of these vessels are already being decommissioned less than halfway through their originally projected service life.
Granted, it wasn’t just the modularity that failed, they had massive problems with the combining gears and maintenance as well.
Why does every techbro train-pod redux sound like a needlessly complex effort for upper-middle class people to avoid sharing the same air as poor people?
"Ah, this will take me straight from my pod-station to the airport without having to go to a terminal!"
The coefficient of friction of a steel wheel rolling on a steel rail is close to zero. The biggest energy losses on a train are air resistance and elevation changes. Guess what planes have. More air resistance and more elevation change.
Air resistance isn't linear, it increases exponentially as speed increases, by a exponent factor of 4. It would still be significant even at altitude. Ask yourself this, can you stand on box car of a train? Can you (assuming you have gear to prevent hypoxia) stand on a jet plane at altitude? Planes will use a lot more fuel to move the same weight and there is no way around that. A freight train can travel 200 kilometers while using just one liter of fuel for every tonne that it is carrying. No way can a plane be anywhere near that efficient. The only way to move cargo with less energy than a train is to move it slowly on a Neopanamax or VLCS boat. Now if we used large cargo dirigibles and traveled slow we'd be having a different conversation, but that isn't a part of the picture.
The *force* of air resistance is proportional to v^2. Since power is force x velocity that means the power loss of drag is proportional to v^(2)*v or v^3. Not sure where they got v^4 from.
Power is v^3, but also a bad way to estimate fuel efficiency. Force or work/energy are more meaningful and better values to look at here and proportional to v^2.
For example, let’s say I double my speed. Drag increases by a factor of 4. Power required to maintain that speed is increased by a factor of 8. But because I am going twice as fast, I get to my destination in half the time. So 1/2 the time at 8x power means 4x fuel consumption.
Or simply, W=F*d
Correct, air resistance increases by the square of the velocity. Absolute air resistance depends on lots of factors that usually require empirical testing to work out, but we can put it into relative terms and say that it increases by the square of the ratio that by which speed increases. If a car's speed doubles (a ratio of 2) then the air resistance on that car increases by 2^2, or four times over what it was previously. Using relative speed change is where increasing by four comes from (rereading I see I wasn't clear about doubling in my previous post). If I use relative speed instead of absolute speed I don't need to know the specific air resistance of an object to understand the effect of increasing the speed. If I increase my car speed from 50 mph to 100 mph the air resistance increases four times. We have something relative without knowing the specifics of the car, whether its a modern aerodynamic car or a 1950's era stepside pickup. The absolute resistance will obviously not be the same if I compare the two, but no matter the design of the car, the resistance quadruples when the speed doubles (there are arguably other drag factors but I'm trying to not complicate this). Now if a train goes 50mph and a plane goes 500 mph we have a increase ratio of 10 and a square of 100. They are different shapes, and like two different cars there are other factors, but at least now we have something intuitive to work without specifically modeling each one, nor is it necessary for a an intuitive explanation. At commercial flight altitude air pressure is about 1/4 of MSL air pressure. So if we flew at the same speed a train travels we'd obviously see lower air resistance. But the air resistance at 500 MPH vs 50 MPH is a hundred times higher, and it's enough that we can see how that even at altitude, air resistance is still many times higher than the train on the ground.
Hope that made sense.
Are you asking for rails vs tires? If so, rails have a lower rolling resistance than tires. An easy way to visualize this is to think of what a flat tire looks like and how it is deformed and flattened on the bottom. As a tire rotates, the tire has to continuously deform to be flat on bottom so you are continuously spending energy to make that happen.
Another aspect, they could start with a train ride from any bigger city, without you having to go throught he hassle of taking a taxi to the next city with an airport et cetera.
And while that train is on the rails, a conductor could do the check in that is required for a plane, which would otherwise take you hours and lots of stress in the airport.
The only real benefit is loading and unloading speed. More of a concern when you're trying to build a "flying pipeline" to carry 8000 barrels a day out of Alaska, hence the 4 cargo pods on the [Boeing RC-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1) that could allow 50 planes, flying 24 hours a day, to turn around quick enough to achieve that goal. Not as much of a concern with today's air logistics system to necessarily be worth the cost.
Trains are called trains because they're being pulled.
Hence a flying train is any airplane that consists of a front element that has an engine that pulls one or more winged elements
This is basically my response to people who want more passenger trains in the US.
More trains is a dumb idea, we just need to improve the cost and process of planes and buses.
The US uses trains for freight which is way more economically efficient system because goods are heavier.
There already tried to work out this type of concept, ultimately it ended up having to be well over engineered to the point it was not viable.
The planes we have now are by far the best were going to get until we have a new technology for the engines and lift.
Anyone who has ever ridden the Shinkansen in Japan knows just how easy long-distance travel can be. It is like a plane, minus almost everything that makes air travel horrible.
I am sad that we cannot have such nice things in the U.S.
So i guess the idea is you are going a longer distance than where your train goes you can get on one "car" and never have to get out for change planes/trains.
I would say just build more rail lines to places but this could be good if you are going to a place that has a well established rail system?
You would still have to get out to do customs and stuff.
I guess the idea is that you board the train closer to home, and get off closer to your destination, and the airport grabs your cart off the tracks and hooks it up to the plane.
Tbh it seems totally unworkable and pointless.
This is the most obvious interaction bait I've seen and if you read the article using the link it's actually even more stupid than you think it is.
It's basically a plane that can turn into a train after the landing to leave the passengers in their local train station. Since you can just get off the plane and take a train like any normal human being I wonder who is the target audience here.
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/technicallythetruth.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1dewstv&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 538,832,142 | **Search Time:** 0.28954s
Hey there u/Green____cat, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, I thought we already had an Air Bus…
Yeah right, and this is Air Train
Next one is an Air Boat
We'll probably reach to Air planes soon, at this pace
We already have Air Ships though
Those already exist, in multiple different variants.
Had an Uncle in the Navy crew one of those.
HALF LIFE 2 REFERENCE?!
So... it's larger as an Air Bus then?
No, this is A-Train
gonna wait for the kinks to be worked out in the mag-lev version
I thought it was just big birds
I thought it was super man.
*"Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's a mthfckn plaaaaaanetrain"*
I have learned it is the twister, and now I even know what it looks like.
Silly rabbit, [C-47 Skytrains already exist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain)
You thought the air *bus* was good, just wait for the air *train*!
It’s pregnant
Yea but imagine having brunch on a flane or a fraine
Do not like brunch, Sam I am. I do not like green eggs and ham.
Is it a plane? Is it a train? No, its a plain
Trane
The fact that trane is pronounced the same as train and plain is pronounced the same as plane makes me want to kill myself
And plane can be a flying thing or what you do to wood
Do you want to kill yourself or kill Youssef ?
T-Pain Wait, no, he's on a boat
The train plane of Spain stays mainly in the plains
The trane plain of spane stais manely in the planes
This is what Kurt Cobain was referring to by "I'm on a plain."
"Rail-riding buses are next!"
Followed closely by street legal boats
Followed by underwater cars
I just had a funny thought of a cruise ship on wheels.
The biggest and onliest land ship ever built!
Well now it's not funny it's real introducing you to ishipwheels it's made from titanium and has multi cameras on each side of the ship (so we can track your location) it's a technology from apple and has convenient seating plans so it makes your journey comfortable. Disclaimer:- You have to bring your own chair
I saw somewhere on Reddit once a post about a street car that used virtual rails or something and I was alien that just a self draining bus.
Quick release... At 34,000ft
Well, actually, can it be so light that it can deploy parachutes? Like the passenger tank doesn't need to carry fuel or anything else, right? If plane has issues just drop it.
Yes that’s the purpose
Well, good luck if the plane has issues ten seconds after liftoff.
It is a plane that can go by rails. Maybe if we lay enough of them, they don't even need wings because they can take the cheaper way more regularly in the future, who knows
I have seen this concept talked about before and its an interesting idea but it sounds more like a concept that just can't work with todays technology based on how planes are built and all. But the idea is that you seperate the cabin part from a plane and the wings/cockpit/engine/etc. That way you can hook a cabin up to a plane to make it a passenger plane, take the passenger cabin away and put a cargo module on and now its a cargo plane, etc. And in ever more fanciful expansion of the concept is these modules can then be attacked to rail cars, trucks, etc. It is a riff on the shipping container concept.
Planes can already do this. A commercial jet can be outfitted with seats or with cargo tracks inside. They can be swapped as well. This sounds like a huge amount of unneeded complexity and failure points for minimal gain. The US Navy tried the whole modular concept with the littoral combat ships of the Freedom and Liberty Class. They thought it would make refits for different missions a breeze. It was a fucking disaster. A large number of these vessels are already being decommissioned less than halfway through their originally projected service life. Granted, it wasn’t just the modularity that failed, they had massive problems with the combining gears and maintenance as well.
Why does every techbro train-pod redux sound like a needlessly complex effort for upper-middle class people to avoid sharing the same air as poor people? "Ah, this will take me straight from my pod-station to the airport without having to go to a terminal!"
But why??? Rails create more friction so in would only use more energy to took off the ground the plaine
Traveling through the air is much less energy efficient, much more expensive than rolling along smooth rails on the ground.
The coefficient of friction of a steel wheel rolling on a steel rail is close to zero. The biggest energy losses on a train are air resistance and elevation changes. Guess what planes have. More air resistance and more elevation change.
Not sure about air resistance, planes fly much higher, thinner air = less resistance
Air resistance isn't linear, it increases exponentially as speed increases, by a exponent factor of 4. It would still be significant even at altitude. Ask yourself this, can you stand on box car of a train? Can you (assuming you have gear to prevent hypoxia) stand on a jet plane at altitude? Planes will use a lot more fuel to move the same weight and there is no way around that. A freight train can travel 200 kilometers while using just one liter of fuel for every tonne that it is carrying. No way can a plane be anywhere near that efficient. The only way to move cargo with less energy than a train is to move it slowly on a Neopanamax or VLCS boat. Now if we used large cargo dirigibles and traveled slow we'd be having a different conversation, but that isn't a part of the picture.
Isn’t air resistance quadratic (a function of v^2 )? Also, an exponent factor of 4 (v^4 ) is different than exponential (cd^v ).
The *force* of air resistance is proportional to v^2. Since power is force x velocity that means the power loss of drag is proportional to v^(2)*v or v^3. Not sure where they got v^4 from.
Power is v^3, but also a bad way to estimate fuel efficiency. Force or work/energy are more meaningful and better values to look at here and proportional to v^2. For example, let’s say I double my speed. Drag increases by a factor of 4. Power required to maintain that speed is increased by a factor of 8. But because I am going twice as fast, I get to my destination in half the time. So 1/2 the time at 8x power means 4x fuel consumption. Or simply, W=F*d
Correct, air resistance increases by the square of the velocity. Absolute air resistance depends on lots of factors that usually require empirical testing to work out, but we can put it into relative terms and say that it increases by the square of the ratio that by which speed increases. If a car's speed doubles (a ratio of 2) then the air resistance on that car increases by 2^2, or four times over what it was previously. Using relative speed change is where increasing by four comes from (rereading I see I wasn't clear about doubling in my previous post). If I use relative speed instead of absolute speed I don't need to know the specific air resistance of an object to understand the effect of increasing the speed. If I increase my car speed from 50 mph to 100 mph the air resistance increases four times. We have something relative without knowing the specifics of the car, whether its a modern aerodynamic car or a 1950's era stepside pickup. The absolute resistance will obviously not be the same if I compare the two, but no matter the design of the car, the resistance quadruples when the speed doubles (there are arguably other drag factors but I'm trying to not complicate this). Now if a train goes 50mph and a plane goes 500 mph we have a increase ratio of 10 and a square of 100. They are different shapes, and like two different cars there are other factors, but at least now we have something intuitive to work without specifically modeling each one, nor is it necessary for a an intuitive explanation. At commercial flight altitude air pressure is about 1/4 of MSL air pressure. So if we flew at the same speed a train travels we'd obviously see lower air resistance. But the air resistance at 500 MPH vs 50 MPH is a hundred times higher, and it's enough that we can see how that even at altitude, air resistance is still many times higher than the train on the ground. Hope that made sense.
Are you asking for rails vs tires? If so, rails have a lower rolling resistance than tires. An easy way to visualize this is to think of what a flat tire looks like and how it is deformed and flattened on the bottom. As a tire rotates, the tire has to continuously deform to be flat on bottom so you are continuously spending energy to make that happen.
Another aspect, they could start with a train ride from any bigger city, without you having to go throught he hassle of taking a taxi to the next city with an airport et cetera. And while that train is on the rails, a conductor could do the check in that is required for a plane, which would otherwise take you hours and lots of stress in the airport.
I’m no expert but that doesn’t like look like it would fly.
Everything can fly if u strap enough thrusters to it
Needs more struts
More boosters, anyone?
Is that Elon Musk's latest innovation?
We'll figure that out when the throttle gets stuck in the full forward position.
[Looks like a 6 year old repost](https://tineye.com/search/1e68e6e05edfd7eded6d86e097c8f0678a09a8cb?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1)
ASTROTRAIN GET US OUT OF HERE!!!
I think a train coming my way is scary enough, so a flying one? No thank you
holy shit they invented a plane, this is groundbreaking technology
The only real benefit is loading and unloading speed. More of a concern when you're trying to build a "flying pipeline" to carry 8000 barrels a day out of Alaska, hence the 4 cargo pods on the [Boeing RC-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1) that could allow 50 planes, flying 24 hours a day, to turn around quick enough to achieve that goal. Not as much of a concern with today's air logistics system to necessarily be worth the cost.
Nosa has a very confused look on his face.
I'm sure they changed their profile photo just for this comment XD
Oh sick a design that separates the saucer like star trek and drops the passengers like a bomb.
"Look at this new version of (vechile)! It is much faster, and easier to handle now and also more modern!" Describes a train
My thoughts exactly
Yep, I'm flying high like a bird in the sky!
maybe its trail is going up.
Plane with leg room 😅
"Hey boss ! I just had a new idea !"
Looks like a pavement waterer.
Plane which can land on rails as well
Trains are called trains because they're being pulled. Hence a flying train is any airplane that consists of a front element that has an engine that pulls one or more winged elements
It's a plain answer
This is basically my response to people who want more passenger trains in the US. More trains is a dumb idea, we just need to improve the cost and process of planes and buses. The US uses trains for freight which is way more economically efficient system because goods are heavier.
This plane looks like the pet from chobits
[No, this](https://youtu.be/GRH5BO-bnDw?si=W03Uaj_erNStohvH)
There already tried to work out this type of concept, ultimately it ended up having to be well over engineered to the point it was not viable. The planes we have now are by far the best were going to get until we have a new technology for the engines and lift.
No its the 69 Flying crypto pod 420
These pricks will literally do anything but build trains.
Anyone who has ever ridden the Shinkansen in Japan knows just how easy long-distance travel can be. It is like a plane, minus almost everything that makes air travel horrible. I am sad that we cannot have such nice things in the U.S.
\*trane
A plane but worse, the precision the pilot would need to land on rails is ridiculous... unless it also lands on a runway, in which case it's just dumb
Saw the image out of the corner of my eye and thought it was Berd
one of the few bits of German I remember from highschool is that train is "zug" and plane is "flugzeug" i.e. "flying train"
Yet another Gadgetbahn strikes again
The whole point of a train is that is links multiple units together. how would that work here?
Well it starts off as a plane then it just becomes a train in the sky
No....it's a train car than can be attached to a plane. It's both.
How about just more trains in North America instead of this shit.
Must be an Exon idea to make trains less efficient.
Techbro try not to reinvent every possible transportation worse challenge Difficulty: Impossible
Nice vertion of a plane if a new one
No, because train is a series of vehicles connected to each other. In a "flying train", plane would serve the role of a locomotive
Gonna be Amazon next day on big items lol
the airplane for look like us.
So i guess the idea is you are going a longer distance than where your train goes you can get on one "car" and never have to get out for change planes/trains. I would say just build more rail lines to places but this could be good if you are going to a place that has a well established rail system? You would still have to get out to do customs and stuff.
This looks like the Dumbo 747.
I’m waiting on zeppelins. With inflatable boats on board just in case anything goes awry.
Leave my girlfriend out of it!
Defeats the value of a train.
It’s pregnant
Abort…abort
Naw, Brazzer's scene.
As long as it is not made by Boeing... I am willing to give it a try.
I guess the idea is that you board the train closer to home, and get off closer to your destination, and the airport grabs your cart off the tracks and hooks it up to the plane. Tbh it seems totally unworkable and pointless.
What nexts a space ship?
This is the most obvious interaction bait I've seen and if you read the article using the link it's actually even more stupid than you think it is. It's basically a plane that can turn into a train after the landing to leave the passengers in their local train station. Since you can just get off the plane and take a train like any normal human being I wonder who is the target audience here.
Stop combining unrelated public transport methods, nothing good will turn out.
Peak of evolution is crab. Peak of engineering is train. How about we combine the two?
Nooooo, they are making the trains float!
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/technicallythetruth. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1dewstv&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 538,832,142 | **Search Time:** 0.28954s
Well, it's like a plane, but can only go along the tracks.
ASTROTRAIN???!!!!!
Flying train? I got a feeling that if they take off and get pretty high, drop the 'train'
More like attachable human transportation pods capable of not killing people on height
Frain
Doesn’t look safe.
Is that a threat...
Yeah, plane won't stand on your way... Unless
Air train takes whole train cars whatever they might haul. Why not shipping barges? Idk
Airbus boutta meet the airtrain now
What's next? Railed planes?