Akka pod with detachable wings would integrate aviation with public transit

Akka Technologies is developing pods with detachable wings that would integrate aviation and public transit. The AKKA Group is an engineering and technology consulting company with 16000 employees.

The detachable wings would make for vastly more efficient boarding and improve the utilization of the engines and wings.

You go to a local train station and board the train-like tube. This pod takes you straight to the airport. The pod then moves onto the runway where a cockpit and wings are attached to the passenger train before taking off. Upon landing, the fuselage detaches from the wings and rolls out of the airport to local train stations to drop you at a convenient location.

48 thoughts on “Akka pod with detachable wings would integrate aviation with public transit”

  1. That’s great for domestic flights, but for international the passengers will have to go through customs, anyway. Also, I hope the air transport security paradigm improves enough that this kind of solution might be on the table for customs areas like Schengen, though I don’t see that happening in the medium term.

    Reply
  2. That’s great for domestic flights but for international the passengers will have to go through customs anyway. Also I hope the air transport security paradigm improves enough that this kind of solution might be on the table for customs areas like Schengen though I don’t see that happening in the medium term.

    Reply
  3. Achieves nothing. You still have to check everyone and their luggage for weapons explosives and such. Even if there is some loophole, it will be quickly closed, as not checking people endangers everybody. This will just add more weight, use more fuel, and be noncompetitive. And what airport is set up to accommodate this. Compatible? My foot. Someone is throwing away a lot of money. And that is not to say there are not literally dozens of transportation modalities that could not be developed that are genuinely useful, and quite different than what we have, this just is not one of them.

    Reply
  4. The developments, which are in the works are proceeding in the way that is opposite of what this article indicates (toward increased optimization for efficient flight.

    Reply
  5. It probably can’t go into use because this thing that would be used in this scenario as an aircraft could not be optimized for efficient flight and the supposed need for it seems to be based on the assumption that the airports which we must use must always be so far from where we live. There are other concepts and technology developments to look for.

    Reply
  6. Achieves nothing. You still have to check everyone and their luggage for weapons explosives and such. Even if there is some loophole it will be quickly closed as not checking people endangers everybody.This will just add more weight use more fuel and be noncompetitive. And what airport is set up to accommodate this. Compatible? My foot. Someone is throwing away a lot of money.And that is not to say there are not literally dozens of transportation modalities that could not be developed that are genuinely useful and quite different than what we have this just is not one of them.

    Reply
  7. The developments which are in the works are proceeding in the way that is opposite of what this article indicates (toward increased optimization for efficient flight.

    Reply
  8. It probably can’t go into use because this thing that would be used in this scenario as an aircraft could not be optimized for efficient flight and the supposed need for it seems to be based on the assumption that the airports which we must use must always be so far from where we live. There are other concepts and technology developments to look for.

    Reply
  9. Well, if you do the security check before passengers enter into this transport loop, then how can they pose additional security risk from the transfer from ground to air and vice-versa? The system would have to be a closed loop, so that nothing can get in or out during the transfer between ground and air. But gosh – you’d better have really good bathrooms in this pods – because no stops in between means you’ll have problems holding your bladder/bowels.

    Reply
  10. Would that really be FAA certifiable? Suppose your pod suffers damage on the ground portion of the voyage, and then later gets attached to the wings to fly, resulting in some kind of air disaster. The level of safety required for air is different than for ground, due to the greater level of risk. I don’t think you can integrate air ground travel so seamlessly like this – unless these pods go inside the interior of an aircraft, and don’t have to bear any structural or aerodynamic loads.

    Reply
  11. No, I think I see what Mark means. Mute. As in can’t speak. The pilots would be completely separated from the passenger compartment,with no communication possible. So even if hijackers take over and are slowly executing the passengers one by one, the pilots still can’t give in to their demands because they don’t even know about them. It’s the only truly safe method of air transport.

    Reply
  12. Well if you do the security check before passengers enter into this transport loop then how can they pose additional security risk from the transfer from ground to air and vice-versa? The system would have to be a closed loop so that nothing can get in or out during the transfer between ground and air. But gosh – you’d better have really good bathrooms in this pods – because no stops in between means you’ll have problems holding your bladder/bowels.

    Reply
  13. Would that really be FAA certifiable? Suppose your pod suffers damage on the ground portion of the voyage and then later gets attached to the wings to fly resulting in some kind of air disaster. The level of safety required for air is different than for ground due to the greater level of risk. I don’t think you can integrate air ground travel so seamlessly like this – unless these pods go inside the interior of an aircraft and don’t have to bear any structural or aerodynamic loads.

    Reply
  14. No I think I see what Mark means.Mute. As in can’t speak. The pilots would be completely separated from the passenger compartmentwith no communication possible. So even if hijackers take over and are slowly executing the passengers one by one the pilots still can’t give in to their demands because they don’t even know about them.It’s the only truly safe method of air transport.

    Reply
  15. This concept is supposed to be like a packet-switching network replacing fixed circuits. Packets (pods) would be mixed together and then routed according to their specific destination requirements. The question is how well this analogy can hold, and what complications would occur.

    Reply
  16. This concept is supposed to be like a packet-switching network replacing fixed circuits. Packets (pods) would be mixed together and then routed according to their specific destination requirements. The question is how well this analogy can hold and what complications would occur.

    Reply
  17. What possible advantage could that be? If the idea is to speed checks…umm…adding more check lanes at the airport would be a heck of a lot cheaper than building this elaborate system and also adding scanning lanes at all the relevant train stations. Everyone knows where the airport is. Figuring out what train station is boarding for Honolulu, or Albuquerque and how to get to it, is unlikely to be as easy. Also, if you were going to take a train to get to an airport, and then fly somewhere, I would think it would be nice to stretch your legs before boarding the airplane.

    Reply
  18. Total nonsense. These people fail to understand just how integrated the structure systems etc. are on a modern commercial aircraft. This high level of integration is critical for minimizing weight maximizing reliability and reducing manufacturing cost.

    Reply
  19. What possible advantage could that be? If the idea is to speed checks…umm…adding more check lanes at the airport would be a heck of a lot cheaper than building this elaborate system and also adding scanning lanes at all the relevant train stations.Everyone knows where the airport is. Figuring out what train station is boarding for Honolulu or Albuquerque and how to get to it is unlikely to be as easy. Also if you were going to take a train to get to an airport and then fly somewhere I would think it would be nice to stretch your legs before boarding the airplane.

    Reply
  20. Total nonsense. These people fail to understand just how integrated the structure, systems, etc. are on a modern commercial aircraft. This high level of integration is critical for minimizing weight, maximizing reliability, and reducing manufacturing cost.

    Reply
  21. There are valid reasons this will not fly or be profitable. The is an alternative concept that has had no reason suggested that it will not fly and be profitable. See concordlift.com for professional paper and artist illustrations.

    Reply
  22. There are valid reasons this will not fly or be profitable. The is an alternative concept that has had no reason suggested that it will not fly and be profitable. See concordlift.com for professional paper and artist illustrations.

    Reply
  23. There are valid reasons this will not fly or be profitable. The is an alternative concept that has had no reason suggested that it will not fly and be profitable. See concordlift.com for professional paper and artist illustrations.

    Reply
  24. Total nonsense. These people fail to understand just how integrated the structure, systems, etc. are on a modern commercial aircraft. This high level of integration is critical for minimizing weight, maximizing reliability, and reducing manufacturing cost.

    Reply
  25. What possible advantage could that be? If the idea is to speed checks…umm…adding more check lanes at the airport would be a heck of a lot cheaper than building this elaborate system and also adding scanning lanes at all the relevant train stations.

    Everyone knows where the airport is. Figuring out what train station is boarding for Honolulu, or Albuquerque and how to get to it, is unlikely to be as easy.

    Also, if you were going to take a train to get to an airport, and then fly somewhere, I would think it would be nice to stretch your legs before boarding the airplane.

    Reply
  26. This concept is supposed to be like a packet-switching network replacing fixed circuits. Packets (pods) would be mixed together and then routed according to their specific destination requirements. The question is how well this analogy can hold, and what complications would occur.

    Reply
  27. Well, if you do the security check before passengers enter into this transport loop, then how can they pose additional security risk from the transfer from ground to air and vice-versa? The system would have to be a closed loop, so that nothing can get in or out during the transfer between ground and air. But gosh – you’d better have really good bathrooms in this pods – because no stops in between means you’ll have problems holding your bladder/bowels.

    Reply
  28. Would that really be FAA certifiable? Suppose your pod suffers damage on the ground portion of the voyage, and then later gets attached to the wings to fly, resulting in some kind of air disaster. The level of safety required for air is different than for ground, due to the greater level of risk. I don’t think you can integrate air ground travel so seamlessly like this – unless these pods go inside the interior of an aircraft, and don’t have to bear any structural or aerodynamic loads.

    Reply
  29. No, I think I see what Mark means.
    Mute. As in can’t speak. The pilots would be completely separated from the passenger compartment,with no communication possible. So even if hijackers take over and are slowly executing the passengers one by one, the pilots still can’t give in to their demands because they don’t even know about them.
    It’s the only truly safe method of air transport.

    Reply
  30. Achieves nothing. You still have to check everyone and their luggage for weapons explosives and such. Even if there is some loophole, it will be quickly closed, as not checking people endangers everybody.

    This will just add more weight, use more fuel, and be noncompetitive. And what airport is set up to accommodate this. Compatible? My foot.

    Someone is throwing away a lot of money.

    And that is not to say there are not literally dozens of transportation modalities that could not be developed that are genuinely useful, and quite different than what we have, this just is not one of them.

    Reply
  31. It probably can’t go into use because this thing that would be used in this scenario as an aircraft could not be optimized for efficient flight and the supposed need for it seems to be based on the assumption that the airports which we must use must always be so far from where we live. There are other concepts and technology developments to look for.

    Reply
  32. That’s great for domestic flights, but for international the passengers will have to go through customs, anyway. Also, I hope the air transport security paradigm improves enough that this kind of solution might be on the table for customs areas like Schengen, though I don’t see that happening in the medium term.

    Reply

Leave a Comment