I’m also guessing that a limiting factor (at least for retrofits) is that there aren’t many parts of the superstructure designed to have that much force applied to them. When you combine that with size of the one in the video above, I’m guessing that the fuel savings are there, but not all that significant. Which means that they may not add up to enough to counteract that capital cost of refitting them and maintaining them. And the cost of specialized training for the crew to deploy and recover them.
3 Likes
I remember seeing a similar concept (kites that make eight figures) for power generation.
The main advantage compared to traditional wind turbines is that it could work at much higher height where wind is stronger and more constant without having to pay for an tall structure.
But as I understood it was proposed but never actually built.
The biggest hurdle was that the operational height was such that it would have required being authorised by flight agency.
1 Like
what a cool idea
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
