Air to air refueling where the refueling is fast charging lithium batteries and the tanker is formation of drones not KC-135 full of jet fuel.
Probably not the craziest idea ever.
While the "refueling drones" are circling overhead waiting to charge up a transport jet, may as well use them as five mile high wifi access points for internet, and divebomb amazon deliveries. I mean they're up there, may as well make use of them when they aren't charging jets.
Think of the FAA madness WRT flight plans and mandatory minimum "fuel" and alternatives/diverts. The paperwork alone for aerial refueling on plain old passenger service is likely to get weird.
Meanwhile if solar panels get cheap and durable enough, or safe enough in a crash to plow thru, charge the drones off panels laying around the airfield.
In theory you could have 100% solar powered high speed aircraft transportation using this weird system.
Note that you can cross the ocean if you have a dense enough fleet of charger drones. By dense "enough" I have no idea what to say here.
You need enough battery power to get "up there" and to cruise between drone hookups (which might only be a couple seconds if the drone comes along with you, or if you have dual charging ports I guess that means zero...)
Note that every airframe full of people requiring 2 or 3 smaller airframes full of batteries will be an interesting capital cost to work around.
Another stupid idea: use aircraft catapults[1] to reduce the onboard energy requirements. Takeoff seems to be the most energy demanding stage of the flight.
Obviously a drawback is that existing airfields' or airports' runways would have to be retrofitted, but if the fuel and maintenance savings were enough, it might make sense.
There's research going on about that [1], in fact going a step farther by removing the entire undercarriage of the plane. It's safer too -- partially extended landing gear is more dangerous than belly landing because struts and hydraulic systems are a lot more fragile than solid ribs of metal.
Huh...that's actually a great idea. I never thought about it for commercial liners.
I'm sure Boeing or Airbus could create prototype liners and only have a few airports with catapults built into the airstrips. You could save a considerable amount of energy if it's designed correctly. Plus airplane tires have to be replaced very frequently. It could reduce takeoff wear as well.
Better yet, design the battery so that air forms one side of the chemical reaction, with waste products that can be dumped overboard. Oh, wait!
(I'm making a dumb reference to ICE engines here, but actual batteries where air participates in the reaction are a promising area of research that could greatly improve battery energy density.)
Here's a riff on that idea.. Have midair recharging drones fly up to meet the plane along its route. Just like the military uses to extend range, except small and automated.
still the energy/weight ratio is > 60 times worse than gasoline. If you're not going to recharge them, then there's no remaining advantage to batteries
Mechanical simplicity. If your going to use fly by wire it's nice to have stored power to land without losing control in the event of total loss of fuel or massive mechanical failure. Though this is something like 1/10,000th of total energy used in flight it's really important.
