Xeque
8th Apr 2004, 16:36
Humour me people, as I am about to bang on, yet again, about a subject most dear to my heart.
ALTERNATIVES TO PRESENT DAY AIRLINE TRAVEL
Why do we do it? Why do we, the one’s who do not have the infinite resources to pay for First or Business Class, subject ourselves to the torment and discomfort of hours spent in seats 20 inches wide and with seat pitches sometimes as little as 27 inches and never more than 32 inches?
Is it really about speed or have we allowed ourselves to be ‘bedazzled’ by advertising. Do we really need to be in Sydney in 22 hours, Bangkok in 13?
The answer in all honesty is, “No!”
Suppose I were to say to you that it was possible to travel from London to Sydney or Melbourne in 3 days (eastbound) or 4 days (return) – actual flight time would be 68 to 70 hours taking into account time zone changes and with stops in (say) Bahrain and Singapore.
Suppose I were to say to you that it was possible to travel from London to New York overnight.
Suppose I were also to say to you that it would cost you no more than the cost of an (undiscounted) Economy Class fare.
And what would you get?
First of all a full size bed in a cabin where you can get a proper night’s sleep or as a cheaper alternative, a 6 foot fully reclined couchette of the type that current First and Business Class passengers pay a fortune for.
Next, a separate area in which to eat Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner at regular meal times sitting on real seats and eating off real tables.
And in between meals, space to walk about, lean on a rail and watch the scenery pass below you at no more than 12,000 feet. In the evening after dinner there would be room to relax in comfort, even to dance!
I know what you’re saying. “This man is mad. What is he waffling on about?”
I’m talking about an airship, that’s what!
A 100-metre long 20-metre diameter airship contains sufficient lift, using helium, to support a shade under 29,000 Kg maximum all up weight.
Don’t believe me? Do the math yourself. If you can’t remember your volume calculations from school days there are plenty of sites on the internet that will do the calculations for you.
One cubic metre of helium will support 1.02 Kg (Hydrogen is much more efficient than Helium). Use that to support a passenger module 30 meters long by 8 meters wide accommodating 30 passengers in 2 berth cabins and 24 in couchettes and 6 crew to man the vessel.
60 people at an average 85 Kilos each totals 5,100 kg. Add a baggage allowance of 30 Kg each and that puts the human ‘cargo’ element at 6,900 Kg, say 7,000 Kg to round it out.
This leaves 22,000 Kg for the weight of the airship itself including propulsion, fuel, food and beverages. With today’s composite building materials, GRP, carbon fibres and the like, that is not an impossibility.
Move the ship using electrically driven ducted fans with power provided by hydrogen powered generators supplemented by solar cells on the upper surfaces of the envelope.
Designed to operate at or below 12,000 feet, there will be no need for pressurisation and the associated overhead in building and maintenance costs that this generates.
My researches indicate that 120 knots is the optimum speed for LTA craft in terms of fuel burn and efficiency. That fits in nicely with my vision of 24 hour (or so) 2,500 to 3000 NM mile sectors.
If, instead of helium, encapsulated hydrogen were used for the lifting medium then the whole thing becomes even more efficient.
Could we make this a real discussion about a viable alternative to what the airlines force upon us? I have deck plans and drawings that I would be happy to send. Contact me on [email protected] and I will be happy to e-mail them to you.
As for supporting data, use the internet. There is a wealth of supportive information out there to prove that what I propose is, indeed, viable and potentially profitable.
I’m not saying that we should do away with conventional, fixed wing aircraft on long haul routes. There will always be the lunatic who “just has to be back in Bahrain by 8am tomorrow” (old BA advert).
Airships could operate to a limited number of strategic hubs worldwide with local airlines providing onward travel. That would be good for everyone.
In the meantime, can you just imagine the pleasure of having a last nightcap in the lounge then going off to your cabin for a good night’s sleep followed by a shower and change of clothing the following morning?
ALTERNATIVES TO PRESENT DAY AIRLINE TRAVEL
Why do we do it? Why do we, the one’s who do not have the infinite resources to pay for First or Business Class, subject ourselves to the torment and discomfort of hours spent in seats 20 inches wide and with seat pitches sometimes as little as 27 inches and never more than 32 inches?
Is it really about speed or have we allowed ourselves to be ‘bedazzled’ by advertising. Do we really need to be in Sydney in 22 hours, Bangkok in 13?
The answer in all honesty is, “No!”
Suppose I were to say to you that it was possible to travel from London to Sydney or Melbourne in 3 days (eastbound) or 4 days (return) – actual flight time would be 68 to 70 hours taking into account time zone changes and with stops in (say) Bahrain and Singapore.
Suppose I were to say to you that it was possible to travel from London to New York overnight.
Suppose I were also to say to you that it would cost you no more than the cost of an (undiscounted) Economy Class fare.
And what would you get?
First of all a full size bed in a cabin where you can get a proper night’s sleep or as a cheaper alternative, a 6 foot fully reclined couchette of the type that current First and Business Class passengers pay a fortune for.
Next, a separate area in which to eat Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner at regular meal times sitting on real seats and eating off real tables.
And in between meals, space to walk about, lean on a rail and watch the scenery pass below you at no more than 12,000 feet. In the evening after dinner there would be room to relax in comfort, even to dance!
I know what you’re saying. “This man is mad. What is he waffling on about?”
I’m talking about an airship, that’s what!
A 100-metre long 20-metre diameter airship contains sufficient lift, using helium, to support a shade under 29,000 Kg maximum all up weight.
Don’t believe me? Do the math yourself. If you can’t remember your volume calculations from school days there are plenty of sites on the internet that will do the calculations for you.
One cubic metre of helium will support 1.02 Kg (Hydrogen is much more efficient than Helium). Use that to support a passenger module 30 meters long by 8 meters wide accommodating 30 passengers in 2 berth cabins and 24 in couchettes and 6 crew to man the vessel.
60 people at an average 85 Kilos each totals 5,100 kg. Add a baggage allowance of 30 Kg each and that puts the human ‘cargo’ element at 6,900 Kg, say 7,000 Kg to round it out.
This leaves 22,000 Kg for the weight of the airship itself including propulsion, fuel, food and beverages. With today’s composite building materials, GRP, carbon fibres and the like, that is not an impossibility.
Move the ship using electrically driven ducted fans with power provided by hydrogen powered generators supplemented by solar cells on the upper surfaces of the envelope.
Designed to operate at or below 12,000 feet, there will be no need for pressurisation and the associated overhead in building and maintenance costs that this generates.
My researches indicate that 120 knots is the optimum speed for LTA craft in terms of fuel burn and efficiency. That fits in nicely with my vision of 24 hour (or so) 2,500 to 3000 NM mile sectors.
If, instead of helium, encapsulated hydrogen were used for the lifting medium then the whole thing becomes even more efficient.
Could we make this a real discussion about a viable alternative to what the airlines force upon us? I have deck plans and drawings that I would be happy to send. Contact me on [email protected] and I will be happy to e-mail them to you.
As for supporting data, use the internet. There is a wealth of supportive information out there to prove that what I propose is, indeed, viable and potentially profitable.
I’m not saying that we should do away with conventional, fixed wing aircraft on long haul routes. There will always be the lunatic who “just has to be back in Bahrain by 8am tomorrow” (old BA advert).
Airships could operate to a limited number of strategic hubs worldwide with local airlines providing onward travel. That would be good for everyone.
In the meantime, can you just imagine the pleasure of having a last nightcap in the lounge then going off to your cabin for a good night’s sleep followed by a shower and change of clothing the following morning?