"Airlander". Here we go again

[Chronus]

Quote from RSE post no 38:

"True British innovation & I for one will be there when they roll it out in the spring."

Well is it really True British innovation ?

Here is an extract from the Chief Exec`s Report on the Financial Results of Hybrid Air Vehicles Limited for year ended 30 November 2014 .

HAV`s 2014 financial year commenced with the delivery of the disassembled prototype Airlander 10 to its newly rented hangar 1, Cardington Airfield, Bedford. Securing the prototype Airlander 10 from the US government was a major success for the business...

Am wondering where the British innovation part comes from. Did the Brits put it together in the US then had a change of heart and shipped it over to Blighty.

Those interested in what lies behind the whole project, here is the link to the Financial Reports.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...filing-history

[Mechta]

Northrop Grumman (NG) won the LEM-V contract in 2010, they had already asked Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) to design the airframe, engine installation and propulsors, whilst NG did the mission payload, ground control station and overall project management.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_HAV-3:

Northrop Grumman's subcontractors included:

• Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd. in Cranfield, UK (HAV304 platform)
• Warwick Mills in New Ipswich, USA (Fabrics engineering)
• ILC Dover in Kent County, USA (Airship manufacturer and designer)
• Textron subsidiary AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, USA (Makes the US Army’s OneSystem UAV/surveillance aircraft control & information distribution stations); and
• SAIC in McLean, USA.

The envelope was made by an American manufacturer to HAV's design, whilst the final assembly was done in the USA because the customer was there and it didn't make sense for the bits to be going backwards and forwards across the Atlantic.

[rse]

Okay, you say it's not British because it was bought back from the US Army.

Here's my evidence:

Yes, because we gave them the prototype in the first place, specifically bringing the airship expertise in the partnership with Grumman. The US wanted our product, I didn't see our Army offering up the opportunity or budget!

HAV were a little known outsider who won the contract because they were the best. Along came the fiscal cliff and we bought it back for a song including all data and rights because it was our product.

Munk was British, it was his concept. Barnes Wallis before him was British, he designed the R100 and proposed the beermat list of challenges. Airship Industries was British which became HAV, who are based in Cardington. And have built an 'airship' which is mostly British made, excepting a skin which comes from the US due to their expertise in impermeable membranes with NASA spacesuits.

We predominantly make components for other nation's firms (A380 wings anyone?) but not this time. The chief test pilot is a Brit, as are the team. Oh, and it's registered G-PHRG...not N7077A!

I rest my case.

[Herod]

Presumably, with these newer impermeable membranes, they will only have to fill it once, with the occasional top-up. Unlike, say, the R34, which on arrival in America needed 50,000 cubic feet of hydrogen.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Herod

Presumably, with these newer impermeable membranes, they will only have to fill it once, with the occasional top-up. Unlike, say, the R34, which on arrival in America needed 50,000 cubic feet of hydrogen.

IIRC, the R33 class were around 2 million cubic feet, and the later R101 was losing around 50,000 cubic feet per day.

I don't know if your figure is correct but, if anything, that sounds very low.

G

[500 above]

All airships loose helium. It's just to what extent. It's not uncommon to have to 'pump and dump' either, in order to increase the purity. Fresh in, old out.

I know one of the investors and several on the 'shop floor' of this project. I really cannot see it working though, as much as I'd love to as an ex airship pilot.

[212man]

HAV were presenting to us (an Oil company) over 10 years ago, and very much British. Their concept was moving heavy equipment over hostile terrain, as I recall (Arctic etc).

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by PersonFromPorlock

FWIW, I seem to recall an article in a popular technology magazine sometime back in the '60s about a similar tri-hulled dirigible being built in New Jersey(?), whose stated purpose was to distribute Bibles in Africa! Later, the authorities stepped in and charged the promoters with fraud.

You may be thinking of the Aereon. That was a series of hybrid airships built in New Jersey. The author John Mcphee (Coming into the Country) wrote a book about the effort titled "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" It's been so long since I read it, that I don't recall whether there was a tie in to missionary work.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by rse

Okay, you say it's not British because it was bought back from the US Army.

Here's my evidence:

Yes, because we gave them the prototype in the first place, specifically bringing the airship expertise in the partnership with Grumman. The US wanted our product, I didn't see our Army offering up the opportunity or budget!

HAV were a little known outsider who won the contract because they were the best. Along came the fiscal cliff and we bought it back for a song including all data and rights because it was our product.

Munk was British, it was his concept. Barnes Wallis before him was British, he designed the R100 and proposed the beermat list of challenges. Airship Industries was British which became HAV, who are based in Cardington. And have built an 'airship' which is mostly British made, excepting a skin which comes from the US due to their expertise in impermeable membranes with NASA spacesuits.

We predominantly make components for other nation's firms (A380 wings anyone?) but not this time. The chief test pilot is a Brit, as are the team. Oh, and it's registered G-PHRG...not N7077A!

I rest my case.

Whilst the jury is out, it occurs to me to add the Delorean DMC-12 to the list.
Great invention for travel back in time. In that sense somewhat similar to this
HAV balloon. Great for going backwards with the wind in the right direction of course.

[skridlov]

Great British Transport Inventions

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer, in evidence: The Hovercraft.

[skyship007]

The Airlander is a 3 way hybrid, as it combines vectored thrust airship, heavier than air aircraft and helicopter design aspects. So it has great endurance, economy and range, combined with vertical heavy lift operational capabilities AND all of it "Off airport", if required.

The Airlander is much faster and more agile (Usefull in turbulence) than a normal airship. The 100kt short range dash and 50kt normal cruise make it less effected by the winds.

[skyship007]

AND Concorde AND the Harrier jump jet!

[Notthemainline]

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer, in evidence: The Hovercraft.

Wiki says that the US military operate 80 hovercraft as of 2012, with no plans to drop the fleet below 40 in the long term. Yes, it's a specialist vehicle, but by no means a failure.

[enola-gay]

Helium

If nuclear fusion becomes viable for large scale power generation we will have more helium than we know what to do with - apart from filling balloons and airships and talking like a duck

[beamender99]

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST, N.J. -- Aug. 10, 2012 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and Hybrid Air Vehicles Limited announce the successful completion of the first flight of the U.S. Army's Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) in historic Lakehurst, N.J., the birthplace of the nation's storied military airship past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72GPZ3MI2M

[b1lanc]

FWIW, I seem to recall an article in a popular technology magazine sometime back in the '60s about a similar tri-hulled dirigible being built in New Jersey(?), whose stated purpose was to distribute Bibles in Africa! Later, the authorities stepped in and charged the promoters with fraud.

That was probably Aereon Corp and the original intent of the tri-hull was to distribute supplies to Africa. The Navy was not enthusiastic as it had suffered some disastrous accidents from its early warning arsenal (blimp and ocean rigs) around 1960. I don't recall any fraud charges but might have missed it in the news.

But, growing up in the area, there were almost continual attempts to revive a blimp program. Visited Lakehurst NAS on a number of occasions. Getting financial backing was always a problem as there was no interest from the military and commercial applications were, well, of the type you mentioned - hence very limited.