AirLander take off then 2nd Flight Mishap

[Obba]

Well, according to the website it's a $50Billion market...
https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/

I just can't fathom how well it can do with headwind or side wind.


The 10 model as seen here will have a bigger brother, the 50 that is supposed to be able to carry 50tons (That's metric Tonnes).
Be nice to see the loading ramps and tie down racks.

Isn't this just a Helium balloon with a few tiny fans for steering?


Flight:
World's largest aircraft the Airlander takes first flight in UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/17/worlds-largest-aircraft-the-airlander-takes-first-flight/)

[Lantern10]

Certainly looked impressive and I imagine on a still day it could be quite useful.
Will it get buyers or make $$ for it's makers, in an ongoing market we will have to wait and see.

[readywhenreaching]

'world's largest aircraft'..
never heared about the Zeppelins ?

[CargoMatatu]

I think they might mean currently! :ugh:

[Less Hair]

Having seen the Cargolifter fail in Germany and the US abandoning this concept any value remains to be proven.

[Heathrow Harry]

impressive engineering but I doubt it'll sell - too weather dependent TBH

[Tourist]

I just can't fathom how well it can do with headwind or side wind.


It will never have a side wind for more than a moment........

If one appears, it will miraculously disappear almost instantly.

Balloons are funny like that.:ok:

[Tourist]

Having seen the Cargolifter fail in Germany and the US abandoning this concept any value remains to be proven.

Yes, if the Germans and US can't manage it, what chance have some Brits got?

Nice attitude.

[cwatters]

I once had a flight in a smaller blimp out of Cardington. The thing that was noticiable was the large number of ground crew needed. I think they may have had free help from a scout group or Air Cadets or the costs would be significant. Presumably this isn't the case with the air lander?

[Less Hair]

Nice attitude. Maybe better think about your's, my friend.

Huge airships failed 100 years ago. This is why we have aeroplanes today.

[Danny42C]

readywhenreaching,

Don't be silly - you can't expect the meeja to remember one war back, never mind two !

[Basil]

Airlander 10 Technical Data
Envelope Volume: 38,000 m³ (1,340,000 ft³)
Overall Dimensions: - length 92 m (302 ft) - width 43.5 m (143 ft) - height 26 m (85 ft)
Endurance: 5 days manned
Altitude: up to 16,000 ft (4,880 m)
Speed: - cruise 80 Knots (148 km/hr) - loiter 20 Knots (37 km/hr)
Total Weight: 20,000 kg (44,100 lbs)
Payload capacity: up to 10,000 kg (22,050 lbs)
Envelope
Helium filled, laminated fabric construction hull. The hull’s aerodynamic shape, an elliptical cross-section allied to a cambered longitudinal shape, provides up to 40% of the vehicle’s lift. The internal diaphragms required to support this shape allow for a limited amount of compartmentalisation further enhancing the fail-safe nature of the vehicle. Multiple ballonets located fore and aft in each of the hulls provide pressure control.
Landing System
Profiled pneumatic tubes / skids on the underside of the two outer hulls provide for multi-surface ground operation including amphibious capability. On the production version skids are ‘sucked-in’ for a clean-in-flight profile.
Power Plant
4 x 325 hp, 4 litre V8 direct injection, turbocharged diesel engines. Two engines mounted forward on the hull and two on the stern of the hull for cruise operation. All four are configured with ducts with blown vanes to allow vectored thrust for take-off/landing/ground handling operation.
Cabin and Payload Capability
Located on centreline; comprises 4 primary areas as follows:
Flight Deck:
1 pilot station and one observer seat. (Two pilot station in production version.)
Large transparencies for excellent all-round visibility.
Cabin:
Passenger and/or Payload area measuring 3.2m x 7.2m x 1.7m. Larger area on production version.
Mid-body:
Centreline payload beam for externally slung loads.
Aft-body:
Fuel tanks and additional payload space


Cruise 80kn and usually going to be pobbling around in winds of 10 - 40kn so somewhere between 1000 and 2900 miles a day; probably mostly about 1500nm/day.
Endurance: 5 days manned. Hmm, FTL?

[Tourist]

Maybe better think about your's, my friend.

Huge airships failed 100 years ago. This is why we have aeroplanes today.

You are quite right.

Everything that failed 100yrs ago is impossible forever.
No amount of advances in materials and propulsion technology will make any difference.

Thank you for clearing that up.:rolleyes:

[Less Hair]

So what are the advantages you see in this technology?
A sigint plattform to loiter around for weeks, maybe. A rich man's helicopter? Not.

[Tourist]

I don't have a clue!

That is zero reason to say it won't have a use though since I, like you, have done zero research on the subject. People with millions to throw around have decided it is worth a punt.

Great. Well done them for trying something different.

The whole of human history is full of "idiots" trying and retrying stupid ideas.
Imagine if the innovators had given up on helicopters after the first ones didn't work.

[Downwind Lander]

Airlander 10 Technical Data
Envelope Volume: 38,000 m³ (1,340,000 ft³)
Overall Dimensions: - length 92 m (302 ft) - width 43.5 m (143 ft) - height 26 m (85 ft)
Endurance: 5 days manned
Altitude: up to 16,000 ft (4,880 m)
Speed: - cruise 80 Knots (148 km/hr) - loiter 20 Knots (37 km/hr)
Total Weight: 20,000 kg (44,100 lbs)
Payload capacity: up to 10,000 kg (22,050 lbs)
Envelope
Helium filled, laminated fabric ...

Do you know what the fully laden fuel consumption is?

I can't see the shipping industry feeling threatened.

From the tech link on their site, they claim lift off the upper aerodynamic shape. But they don't seem to have thought out the lower shape. But if they are claiming this lift to be used for payload, then lift will be proportional to airspeed. i.e. if they decide to "loiter", they will descend.

[bnt]

Well, that's one reason why the thrust is vectored, to allow level flight at different speeds. I expect (though I don't know) that the 20kt loiter speed will come with some downward vectoring.

[oldchina]

Are they going to get someone from the Swiss Railways to ensure it runs on time?

What time? What timetable? How to build a schedule without huge margins for weather delays?

It all sounds too technically minded and not commercially convincing.

Longer than an A380 with half the payload of an A320.

[Interested Passenger]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/18/00/3756FEDE00000578-3745794-image-a-46_1471477294186.jpgit took off and landed without 100 chaps on ropes. it did bounce a bit on landing, but it was the first go :)

it's main advantage seems to be that it doesn't need a runway, like a helicopter, and can carry 10t, unlike a helicopter. and 2 week endurance. which it needs with a 90kt top speed.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Since I've been saying for years that the only use for passenger rail (in most of the US) is to deliver people to the dirigible field, I think I can be counted as something of an LTA skeptic. But with 80 knots in hand, headwinds at AirLander's operating altitudes aren't likely to be a problem; low level winds aloft are usually moderate. And in terms of costs and transit times, headwinds and tailwinds should average out.

One thing to keep in mind is that the earlier failures of LTA were because rigid dirigibles were fragile, and so disaster-prone. Modern design and construction should avoid that, leaving LTA to succeed or fail on economic factors alone; and while AirLander may be too small to carry a payload profitably, dirigibles are the only form of aircraft where the square-cube rule works in their favor.

[Tourist]

They also have a big enough surface area and a low enough power requirement that the modern lightweight solar panels as seen on the solar aircraft that just flew round the world might actually provide a significant proportion of the power requirement.

[Snyggapa]

It's going to make watching "Ice road truckers" a bit boring though.

take off
fly
land
repeat

[Tourist]

I've thought of some uses.

Ultra endurance ISR obviously.

Ultra long range SAR. (mid Atlantic)

Long range/endurance ASW. Potentially extremely quiet and easily fast enough to track a sub in all but the windiest days.

Airborne cruise liner.

I'd pay to see some of the worlds amazing spots from the air. Imagine Machu Pichu from a smooth slow quiet platform...

[750XL]

The AirLander would, in my opinion, be an excellent option for humanitarian aid flights where runways are limited and in short supply.

Imagine how useful an AirLander would've been just after the awful Nepal earthquakes :ok:

[Ian W]

Are they going to get someone from the Swiss Railways to ensure it runs on time?

What time? What timetable? How to build a schedule without huge margins for weather delays?

It all sounds too technically minded and not commercially convincing.

Longer than an A380 with half the payload of an A320.
There is a niche market for these in transporting and delivering/placing loads like say a 10 ton transformer to a remote location and placing it accurately on its 'plinth' . The task would otherwise require remaking roads, long careful low-loader transport then cranes with the site prepared for the cranes. I would think that operations in remote areas could keep a small fleet busy. There may also be a task to deliver offshore windmills to their sites or carrying maintenance crews to offshore windmills and delivering them to the gearbox nacelle by winching them down. There are no shortages of potential tasks.

[Super VC-10]

Biggest cause of failure of the early airships was that they used hydrogen. Modern airships use helium, which is not flammable.

[Interested Passenger]

how it works (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/technical/how-it-works)

60% lift from buoyancy, 40% lift from aerodynamics, +/- 25% from vectored thrust.

I assume that's a very simplified account of what really happens - obviously at take off it can only have a maximum of 85% lift, and climbs, but in the cruise with 100% it has to stay level
and that's without mentioning the 10t of cargo it may or may not have

[Less Hair]

The ground handling is a pain, it needs huge hangars nobody has to safely store it and ops are weather dependant like nobody else's while the cost are high and payloads and speeds are low.

Still not convinced?

[Tourist]

The ground handling is a pain

Compared to what?
Lets compare it to an airliner.
That needs an enormous runway at every single place it ever lands. Lets say for an A380 in excess of a billion £ for an airport.

it needs huge hangars nobody has to safely store it

Well, build them at the places it needs storing?

ops are weather dependant like nobody else's


I will agree with that in part, because he weather problems are different, but not necessarily worse. How many other aircraft can just move out the way of a weather system for a day till it passes?

while the cost are high and payloads and speeds are low.


Far too early to have any chance of making that statement. For many uses, it's average speed to destination of load may be spectacularly faster, and costs may be orders of magnitude cheaper.
Many loads have entire roads built purely for a single cargo.
Entirely dependant on load and destination.

[skridlov]

There is a niche market for these in transporting and delivering/placing loads like say a 10 ton transformer to a remote location and placing it accurately on its 'plinth' . The task would otherwise require remaking roads, long careful low-loader transport then cranes with the site prepared for the cranes. I would think that operations in remote areas could keep a small fleet busy. There may also be a task to deliver offshore windmills to their sites or carrying maintenance crews to offshore windmills and delivering them to the gearbox nacelle by winching them down. There are no shortages of potential tasks.

Sounds to me as though, in order to accomplish these sort of tasks, the craft would require an "auto-hover" capability. Which, for what is effectively a huge sail, would be something of a challenge.

[Tourist]

Not really any different than all the rig support vessels and numerous other ships that have similar tasks. With 4 ducted fans, it should be possible?

[skridlov]

The physics involved is beyond me but the differences in mass and surface area combined with the difference between the media in which these vessels operate would make this something of an over-simplification. wouldn't it?

[G0ULI]

Could be interesting if it got caught in a heavy rain shower while carrying a maximum load? All that surface area carrying a few millimetres of water is going to add tons (tonnes) of extra weight. I assume the designers have factored this into their calculations to give an adequate safety margin of lift.

[G-CPTN]

Presumably, the current trials are without the 10 tonne payload.

How will they compensate for the additional weight

Total weight is quoted to be 20 tonnes - does that include the payload or will it gross at 30 tonnes?

[A Squared]

Biggest cause of failure of the early airships was that they used hydrogen. Modern airships use helium, which is not flammable.

A whole bunch of airship crashed with no fire, or crashed and caught fire as a result of the crash, which is distinctly different than crashing as a result of fire.

[A Squared]

How many other aircraft can just move out the way of a weather system for a day till it passes?

At 80 knots, the Airlander ain’t going to either.

[A Squared]

People with millions to throw around have decided it is worth a punt.

And other people with millions to throw around have already thrown millions at it, and after seeing the results first hand, decided not to throw more millions at it.

The idea that the fact that someone is spending money on it proves it's viable is absurd.

[DaveReidUK]

Total weight is quoted to be 20 tonnes - does that include the payload or will it gross at 30 tonnes?

The 20 tonnes quoted is the all-up (gross) weight i.e. empty weight + fuel + payload.

[Snyggapa]

>The idea that the fact that someone is spending money on it proves it's viable is absurd.

Likewise, the idea that the fact that others have refused to spend more money on it proves that it is not viable, is equally absurd.

[Tourist]

At 80 knots, the Airlander ain’t going to either.

Wow!

Must be windy on your planet, because here on earth ships that can only do 17kts seem to manage to move out the way of most nasty weather systems...:rolleyes:

[Tourist]

And other people with millions to throw around have already thrown millions at it, and after seeing the results first hand, decided not to throw more millions at it.

The idea that the fact that someone is spending money on it proves it's viable is absurd.

I never suggested that it proved anything, but I do know that people who have millions to throw around usually do a bit of research before throwing it, and a variety of them have obviously thought that it is worth a punt.

It is also worth pointing out that the US military did not pull out because they decided it was useless, they pulled out because of cutbacks and part of the selling deal is that they have access to the data accumulated by Airlander. Tat would suggest that they see some potential at the very least.

[Tourist]

The physics involved is beyond me but the differences in mass and surface area combined with the difference between the media in which these vessels operate would make this something of an over-simplification. wouldn't it?

I really don't know, to be honest.

All down to the relative momentum of a ship vs Sea and airship vs air I guess. At least an airship in flight only has to worry about one medium. Ships have two to worry about.

I suppose the airship has to worry about gusts which I guess equates to waves.

I'm thinking these should equate due to the very nature of bouyancy?

[skridlov]

Back in the 80s I manufactured and supplied some video signal processing equipment to Airship Industries for use in that decade's version of the "airship revival". Anyone remember "Airship Industries"?

[TURIN]

I think the Airlander team are made up of a few ex Airship Industries designers and engineers.

[Basil]

Do you know what the fully laden fuel consumption is?
Sorry, don't know.
I lifted that data from their website.

[netstruggler]

Anyone remember "Airship Industries"?


I worked at GEC Marconi's Flight Automation lab in the early 80s and we were contracted to do some flight control work for AI.


To avoid EMC issues on the long exposed cable runs to the control actuators we were looking to use fibre optics.


It turned out that running fibre optics around the outside of a large inflatable balloon introduced its own issues.

[G-CPTN]

I think the Airlander team are made up of a few ex Airship Industries designers and engineers.
The airship designer pool must be little more than a puddle.

[A Squared]

>The idea that the fact that someone is spending money on it proves it's viable is absurd.

Likewise, the idea that the fact that others have refused to spend more money on it proves that it is not viable, is equally absurd.

Unlike tourist, I wasn't offering that as any kind of proof, but as a counterpoint to his silly reasoning.

[G-CPTN]

USS Akron and Macon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier#USS_Akron_and_Macon).

[A Squared]

Wow!

Must be windy on your planet, because here on earth ships that can only do 17kts seem to manage to move out the way of most nasty weather systems...:rolleyes:

Uhhh, yeah sure if a dangerous storm was the same thing in the context of an airship as it is in the context of an ocean-going ship, sure. Thing is it's not. the kind of winds which would be absolutely catastrophic for an airship wouldn't give an oceangoing ship much pause. Yeah, a ship can see a typhoon coming, usually, and chug out of the way, usually. Sometimes they aren't able. I think you're going to find that weather that is going to jeopardize an airship is a lot less severe, and will be a lot more common, and will be a bit harder to predict. Just as a guess, I would say that winds 25 kt gusting to 35 would almost certainly destroy an airship not in a hangar, but airline operations commonly continue is such weather and it would be relatively unremarkable for an ocean-going ship. Never mind that a ship will have fuel reserves measured in weeks at normal cruise which enables waiting out large storms, while a hybrid airship with a load which requires lift in excess of bouyancy will not.

Point being, reasoning that a strategy which is useful for oceangoing ships will also be viable for something so completely different as an airship is fundamentally flawed.

[Piltdown Man]

A truly ridiculous qurstion, but what does an airship's loadsheet look like? Does it come out at zero, or even less? I can understand a trim sheet would be required but what else does an airship need in calculations and operational paperwork?

As for its uses, there are many. Especially as this one appears to be able to accept an under-slung load. That will enabie odd-size cargo to travel point-to-point without special provisions.

PM

[skridlov]

I worked at GEC Marconi's Flight Automation lab in the early 80s and we were contracted to do some flight control work for AI.


To avoid EMC issues on the long exposed cable runs to the control actuators we were looking to use fibre optics.


It turned out that running fibre optics around the outside of a large inflatable balloon introduced its own issues.
That's interesting as I had some problems generating a "certificate of conformity" for my DC powered signal processor, relating to RF emissions. I ended up outsourcing the tests and supplying a certificate that I really didn't fully understand. Luckily AI folded before my hardware had a chance to create problems. Not that it would have of course.

[A Squared]

v It is also worth pointing out that the US military did not pull out because they decided it was useless, they pulled out because of cutbacks and part of the selling deal is that they have access to the data accumulated by Airlander. Tat would suggest that they see some potential at the very least.

Aside from the fact that the US military has at times, funded some spectacular failures, you're desperately attempting to form a conclusion that is ridiculous. To wit: "They didn't cut the program because it wasn't promising, they cut it because htey had budget cuts" as if the two are completely independent of each other.

I'll help you find your way thru your fallacy with a question: When an organization is forced to reduce spending, do they cut the programs showing the most promise, or do they cut those showing the least promise?


Beyond that, I think that you'll find that the military's primary interest in this is as a sigint platform with significant loiter time. I certainly don't dispute that it it may have some advantages in this role. Plying air commerce on a regular basis? Meh.

[Tourist]

Uhhh, yeah sure if a dangerous storm was the same thing in the context of an airship as it is in the context of an ocean-going ship, sure. Thing is it's not. the kind of winds which would be absolutely catastrophic for an airship wouldn't give an oceangoing ship much pause. Yeah, a ship can see a typhoon coming, usually, and chug out of the way, usually. Sometimes they aren't able. I think you're going to find that weather that is going to jeopardize an airship is a lot less severe, and will be a lot more common, and will be a bit harder to predict. Never mind that a ship will have fuel reserves four weeks at normal cruise which enables waiting out large storms, while a hybrid airship with a load which requires lift in excess of bouyancy will not.

Point being, reasoning that a strategy which is useful for oceangoing ships will also be viable for something so completely different as an airship is fundamentally flawed.

My apologies.

I had not given your question adequate consideration, so didn't quite realise how stupid it was.

1. You state that an airship is far more vulnerable to storms than a ship. Do you have any evidence for this?
I have zero knowledge about airships, but a reasonable amount about inflatable structures. What I do know is that that type of structure which is purely maintained by pressure is extraordinarily strong. I can think of no circumstance where a storm could possibly damage the basic shape through shear forces alone.
Unlike an aircraft, for example.
As far as I can see, at altitude, the threat is purely from upset of some kind due to updrafts/downdrafts affecting different parts of the envelope and perhaps rolling/pitching them. The envelope would be fine, but I suspect the contents of the gondola would get messy at that point

The danger comes if it can be forced into the ground by the weather.

2. The fastest hurricane in the record was Emily in 1987, whose maximum speed reached 110.48 km/hr (59.61 kt or 68.65 mph) as it raced over the North Atlantic.

This would seem to suggest that a 90kt blimp could outrun it, yes?

This is what I thought until I had a bit of a think.
Why outrun anything?

What about if you just turned the engines off and drifted with the wind?
How fast does a storm move relative to the wind holding it?
A ship moves relative to the sea. It has to move over the sea to avoid a storm.
An airship need do little more than drift with the wind, as a storm moves with the air mass it is in.
As long as you stay away from the centre patch where local effects might pull you in, you would be fine, just like an aircraft really.

3. An airship with weather radar will have more not less warning of a storm as a function of height.

4. Four weeks to wait out a storm?

That is a hell of a storm! Definitely not visiting your planet. Sounds nasty.
I would think 24hrs at 90kts will give enough radius to avoid the biggest storm on earth.

[Scuffers]

I am struggling to see a genuine practical use for this?

it falls in the same pointless category as the solar plane, all very clever, but ultimately pointless.

[Tourist]

What about the ones I posted earlier?

[Scuffers]

All easier/cheaper/better done by existing aircraft.

combine with it's massive size (and low cargo capacity), vulnerability to wind, lack of speed, fragility, etc. where is the killer application?

if you want to do surveillance, there are already a large selection of drones, all the way up to global Hawk etc.

if you want to air-lift 10 tonnes vertically, there are helicopters/tiltrotors

etc etc etc.

[Tourist]

It appears that the vulnerability and fragility have taken root in the minds on the forum.
Any evidence?

Re the better done by existing, nope.

If, and it is a big if, it can be made to work it has enormous advantages over many other aircraft.

Helicopters are very range/height limited, plus 10t is the prototype. Try 50t.

Global hawk is all very well, but you need an awful lot of them to maintain permanent watch, and do you know how much they cost?!

[Scuffers]

Name me a large airship that has not suffered some catastrophic disaster?

(remember what the sheds at Cardigan were built for?)

Helo wise, how high do you want to go? (and to what end?)
and just how far do you need to fly? (V22 tiltrotor can do 1,000 miles)

Global Hawk has something like a 40 hour on-station time, and a range over halfway round the planet.

Like I said, what's the killer-application?

[G0ULI]

Given that AirLander 10 is effectively a proof of concept model and that much higher lift capacity can be incorporated by simply adding a couple of extra metres in the envelope height, width and length, this experiment will likely invent some completely new applications. A craft with a vertical lift capacity measured in hundreds of tons would certainly be revolutionary.

Don't regard AirLander 10 as a finished product. Think what future development can lead to. DC3 V B747, both great aircraft and both revolutionary, but that is the level of difference that needs to be considered when thinking about AirLander 10 and possible future incarnations of the type.

[FullWings]

I think this and future models are likely to find profitable niches. Taking heavy loads into and out of inaccessible areas is one, especially if those areas are remote. Emergency supply into areas that have suffered disruption of normal routes (earthquakes, floods, etc.) I’d have thought the much lower operating costs would facilitate everyday resupply of goods to remote communities.

Also, compared with helicopters and tilt-rotors, the concept seems inherently much safer. Lots of redundancy in the engine department and if the worst came to the worst, you just drift gently to earth. Even hitting something would probably result in a “boing” rather than a “SMASH!”.

The ratio of useful load to that of structure plus fuel appears a lot better than conventional aircraft.

Don’t discount tourism: when you see what people will pay for a small cabin in a ship that trundles around at sea level, what would they give for ever-unfolding panoramas and being able to circle places then land next to them and go and have a look? With the sort of lifting capability being discussed for the growth versions, you could fit a whole lot of luxury in there as well as a fair number of passengers...

[A Squared]

4. Four weeks to wait out a storm?

That is a hell of a storm! Definitely not visiting your planet. Sounds nasty.
I would think 24hrs at 90kts will give enough radius to avoid the biggest storm on earth.

The four was a typo, I intended to type "for", as in fuel reserves for weeks. Now, that particular typo, (I'm a terrible typist) I noticed as soon as I posted that, and edited it immediately (I've edited that post a couple of times) so the only way you could have included that in my post was to have ignored the edited post and chosen to copy the text with typo unedited from your email notification of the post. Which is a a conscious act of intentional dishonesty, isn't it?

My point was that a ship carries huge fuel reserves, measured in weeks, not hours, and has great reserves over the planned consumption for the trip, so has a great deal of discretion in route modifications and diversion that an aircraft simply doesn't have.

[oldchina]

This blimp will probably contribute as much to advancing air transport as Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards did for global ski jumping.

[Tourist]

The four was a typo, I intended to type "for", as in fuel reserves for weeks. Now, that particular typo, (I'm a terrible typist) I noticed as soon as I posted that, and edited it immediately (I've edited that post a couple of times) so the only way you could have included that in my post was to have ignored the edited post and chosen to copy the text with typo unedited from your email notification of the post. Which is a a conscious act of intentional dishonesty, isn't it?



I don't get email notification. I replied to what you wrote when I saw it. I don't mind you modifying your posts later, but don't expect me to mind read.



My point was that a ship carries huge fuel reserves, measured in weeks, not hours, and has great reserves over the planned consumption for the trip, so has a great deal of discretion in route modifications and diversion that an aircraft simply doesn't have.

I would say that a blimp with a planned endurance of weeks has sufficient, certainly enough compared to normal aircraft that the point is invalid.
How far can an airliner go on reserves? If Airlander can go as far then you are making up problems that don't exist.

[Tourist]

Name me a large airship that has not suffered some catastrophic disaster?


1. Name me an airliner that has never crashed
2. The vast majority of the airships that you are talking about were totally different being both Hydrogen and metal structured.



Helo wise, how high do you want to go? (and to what end?)
and just how far do you need to fly? (V22 tiltrotor can do 1,000 miles)


1. Try hovering hot and high in a helicopter with a 10 ton load in one of the many countries where ground level is higher than the uk.

2.V22 is exactly the sort of niche product you decry airlander for being. Yes it goes fast but it's load is poor and it is uber expensive.


Global Hawk has something like a 40 hour on-station time, and a range over halfway round the planet.

Like I said, what's the killer-application?

Global hawk is as big and expensive and long endurance as you get, yet it carries a tiny payload in comparison, it is much more expensive and the endurance is much shorter.

Don't know about the killer app. Time will tell if there is one.
Nobody ever guesses the killer app in advance of any new technology. That's life.

[A Squared]

This is what I thought until I had a bit of a think.
Why outrun anything?

What about if you just turned the engines off and drifted with the wind?

Ummm, you hit the ground, someplace slightly downwind of where you shut off your engines. I don't think you quite grasp the concept of what they're building here. The fundamental concept of this is that it's not a pure aerostat, but a hybrid, which is completely dependent on forward motion and/or directed thrust to stay airborne. That is *THE* thing which makes it different than blimps which already exist, and have very limited application. The underlying concept here (which you seem to have missed) is that it is claimed to have better lifting capabilities than blimp, is because of lift and thrust. So if you're using it to carry the loads advertised, if you shut off the engines, you come down out of the sky.

Free ballooning would certainly be an option if you were operating empty, but it's hard to make money flying around empty.


I would say that a blimp with a planned endurance of weeks has ...

But it doesn't have a planed endurance of weeks, or even one week, they suggest a loiter time of five days, but that is a max loiter time, not cruise time and not cruise time with a payload. Completely aside from the fuel/payload issue, do you really think that a heavy lift airship will also have provisioned accommodation for the crew for "weeks" ? you're drifting dangerously into Jules Verne fantasy land here.

This aircraft, like all powered aircraft is going to to be fuel and load limited. I think that you are misled by the payload and endurance figures the salesmen are slinging about somewhat carelessly. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're being dishonest, but the claims need to be taken in context. The aircraft I fly has a cruising endurance of 12-13ish hours. It also has a payload capability or about 48,000 lb. However, it does not cruise for 12 hours with a 48,000 lb payload, not even close. Payload would be less than 10,000 lb with a max fuel load. Conversely, cruise endurance with a max payload and reasonable reserves is in the neighborhood of 3 hours.

If you're using this contraption for heavylift operations you're not going be able to free balloon, and you're going to be fuel limited. You can plan on it. So you're not going to simply be able to wander off 10 hours in a new direction when bad weather is approaching, you're going to have to get yourself, and your blimp, and your heavy-lift payload on the ground, and not just on the ground anyplace, but on the ground at a location which has an airship hangar.

[G-CPTN]

What I do know is that that type of structure which is purely maintained by pressure is extraordinarily strong. I can think of no circumstance where a storm could possibly damage the basic shape through shear forces alone.
Unlike an aircraft, for example.
As far as I can see, at altitude, the threat is purely from upset of some kind due to updrafts/downdrafts affecting different parts of the envelope and perhaps rolling/pitching them. The envelope would be fine, but I suspect the contents of the gondola would get messy at that point

The danger comes if it can be forced into the ground by the weather.
During her accident-prone 18-month term of service, the Akron served as an airborne aircraft carrier for launching and recovering F9C Sparrowhawk fighter planes.

Akron was destroyed in a thunderstorm off the coast of New Jersey on the morning of 4 April 1933, killing 73 of her 76 crewmen and passengers.

This accident was the largest loss of life for any known airship crash.

In 1935 Macon was damaged in a storm and lost off California's Big Sur coast, though most of the crew were saved.
From:- USS Akron and Macon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier#USS_Akron_and_Macon).

[A Squared]

Name me a large airship that has not suffered some catastrophic disaster?

(remember what the sheds at Cardigan were built for?)

1. Name me an airliner that has never crashed.

He didn't mean that almost every airship *type* suffered catastrophe, he meant that almost every individual *airframe* suffered catastrophe. That's a significantly different proposition.

[Tourist]

From:- USS Akron and Macon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_aircraft_carrier#USS_Akron_and_Macon).

Why are you linking to stories about ridged airships with metal structures?

What relevance do these have to this discussion?

[Tourist]

Ummm, you hit the ground, someplace slightly downwind of where you shut off your engines. I don't think you quite grasp the concept of what they're building here. The fundamental concept of this is that it's not a pure aerostat, but a hybrid, which is completely dependent on forward motion and/or directed thrust to stay airborne. That is *THE* thing which makes it different than blimps which already exist, and have very limited application. The underlying concept here (which you seem to have missed) is that it is claimed to have better lifting capabilities than blimp, is because of lift and thrust. So if you're using it to carry the loads advertised, if you shut off the engines, you come down out of the sky.

Free ballooning would certainly be an option if you were operating empty, but it's hard to make money flying around empty.


Nice try, but you brought up storms as a disaster scenario which would doom the airlander. Under the extreme circumstances of the 4 week storm that they cannot avoid, ditching the load is a perfectly reasonable response.



But it doesn't have a planed endurance of weeks, or even one week, they suggest a loiter time of five days, but that is a max loiter time, not cruise time and not cruise time with a payload. Completely aside from the fuel/payload issue, do you really think that a heavy lift airship will also have provisioned accommodation for the crew for "weeks" ? you're drifting dangerously into Jules Verne fantasy land here.



Again, you are talking about this as if this is not the sub size prototype. They have made very clear that this is a tech demonstrator.



This aircraft, like all powered aircraft is going to to be fuel and load limited. I think that you are misled by the payload and endurance figures the salesmen are slinging about somewhat carelessly. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're being dishonest, but the claims need to be taken in context. The aircraft I fly has a cruising endurance of 12-13ish hours. It also has a payload capability or about 48,000 lb. However, it does not cruise for 12 hours with a 48,000 lb payload, not even close. Payload would be less than 10,000 lb with a max fuel load. Conversely, cruise endurance with a max payload and reasonable reserves is in the neighborhood of 3 hours.

If you're using this contraption for heavylift operations you're not going be able to free balloon, and you're going to be fuel limited. You can plan on it. So you're not going to simply be able to wander off 10 hours in a new direction when bad weather is approaching, you're going to have to get yourself, and your blimp, and your heavy-lift payload on the ground, and not just on the ground anyplace, but on the ground at a location which has an airship hangar.


Neither of us have any knowledge about the truth or otherwise of their claims re load lifting capability or endurance. This is just speculation on your part.

[A Squared]

1. Try hovering hot and high in a helicopter with a 10 ton load in one of the many countries where ground level is higher than the uk.

I've seen it done daily at 4000-5000 MSL in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. It was hot. And humid.

[G-CPTN]

Why are you linking to stories about ridged airships with metal structures?

What relevance do these have to this discussion?
Probably none - my mistake.

Sorry.

[Tourist]

He didn't mean that almost every airship *type* suffered catastrophe, he meant that almost every individual *airframe* suffered catastrophe. That's a significantly different proposition.
Submarines from that era had a low survival rate too.

Does that mean modern ones cannot be safe?

Passenger aircraft from that era also were not exactly safe either.

You have to compare in context, which will be tricky because there were not many helium filled airship with the shape maintained by gas pressure at the time.

[Tourist]

I've seen it done daily at 4000-5000 MSL in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. It was hot. And humid.

Go on? What load and what helicopter?

50t?

I think not.

10t?

Unless it was an Mi26 I call Bullsh1t.

[A Squared]

Neither of us have any knowledge about the truth or otherwise of their claims re load lifting capability or endurance. This is just speculation on your part.

Trust me, when they say payload is XX tons and endurance is YY hours They do not mean that endurance with a max payload of XX tons is YY hours. You can bet your last paycheck on it. And the figure quoted for endurance is specifically "loiter" time, whihc means only using enough power to counteract whatever wind is present. That certainly is not endurance in cruise at 80 knots.

[A Squared]

Go on? What load and what helicopter?


Unless it was an Mi26 I call Bullsh1t.

Chinooks. 10T conexes. I know how much they weighed because I had flown them to that location in my airplane.

[Julio747]

how it works (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/technical/how-it-works)

60% lift from buoyancy, 40% lift from aerodynamics, +/- 25% from vectored thrust.

I assume that's a very simplified account of what really happens - obviously at take off it can only have a maximum of 85% lift, and climbs, but in the cruise with 100% it has to stay level
and that's without mentioning the 10t of cargo it may or may not have

Only 60% from buoyancy??? Try again....

[Tourist]

Chinooks. 10T conexes. I know how much they weighed because I had flown them to that location in my airplane.

At sea level, yes
Hot and High?

I think not.

[A Squared]

Nice try, but you brought up storms as a disaster scenario which would doom the airlander. Under the extreme circumstances of the 4 week storm that they cannot avoid, ditching the load is a perfectly reasonable response.



Aside from the fact that an internal load is quite likely to be impossible to jettison, if your bad weather contingency plan is to simply drop the load and drift around like a balloon till the weather gets better, you've departed pretty seriously from a discussion of a practical air transport system.

[A Squared]

At sea level, yes
Hot and High?

I think not.


I think so, and I've been involved in aircraft operations doing exactly that.

[Tourist]

No, I was merely trying to point out the error in your "good luck with running away at 80kts" comment by showing that there is in fact no need to run away at all since it will drift with the weather even with no power on.

As it happens, it will be able to be 2000nm away in a day so it should not really be a problem.

[Tourist]

I think so, and I've been involved in aircraft operations doing exactly that.

Boeing: CH-47 Chinook (http://www.boeing.com/defense/ch-47-chinook/)

Nope.

10.8t max.

No way no day does that equate to 10t hot and high HOGE.

[vortexadminman]

I think its mint, great idea and would love to fly it. Considering all the hassle and cost of moving large bits of kit from A to B with road moves, cranes, roads, shipping costs ...... whats a day or two delay due to wind, or even a week. 5 day endurance thats not shabby.... and they have only tested that probably with FTL in mind. Good luck to them I say, we need more people giving something a shot in aviation, because there is enough saying you can't do this because ........

[A Squared]

Boeing: CH-47 Chinook (http://www.boeing.com/defense/ch-47-chinook/)

Nope.

10.8t max.

No way no day does that equate to 10t hot and high HOGE.

I was flying hercs into an airstrip at 5000 ft in the highlands of New GUinea. Normally our loads were taken from the airstrip to the final destination by truck, but a landslide took out the road. For a while, the high priority items were being slung by some Columbia Helicopter Chinooks which were there operating in those oil fields. 20,000 lb was the load limit we were given for the Connexes full of high priority stuff .

I would speculate that Columbia's Chinooks were stripped of everything not strictly necessary for carrying maximum sling loads, and were lighter airframes than a CH-47 in military trim, much as our L-382's are significantly lighter than a Airforce 130H, despite being 15 ft longer. My colleagues who are former AF speak of BOWs for the C-130's almost 10,000 lb heavier than our planes. A similar thing may be in play here. Other than that, I'm done arguing with you about something I've been involved in and have seen first hand and you haven't.

[Mechta]

Name me a large airship that has not suffered some catastrophic disaster?


Since Scuffers asked, how about:

Graf Zeppelin - over a million miles flown in 590 flights, 34,000 passengers carried and a round the world flight which clearly didn't have a suitable shed at each stop.

USS Los Angeles - 4181 hours, 331 flights

R100 - Transatlantic Atlantic out and return crossing

All were built before 1930, and only the USS Los Angeles used helium, so not bad for technology 86 years ago.

Its worth noting the link between the R100 and the Airlander:

One of HAV’s major shareholders is aviation enthusiast and entrepreneur Bruce Dickinson, also well known in non-aerospace circles as the lead singer of rock band Iron Maiden, who outlined the new technology used in Airlander: “Barnes Wallis’ R100 airship of the 1920s was a great design but was limited by the technologies of the day,” he explained. “The construction materials were inadequate, the engines were heavy and inefficient, flight controls were cumbersome, radar didn’t exist and navigation and weather forecasting were still at an early stage of development. In later life, Barnes Wallis wrote a note for Roger Munk, saying: ‘Solve these problems and the airship will become an efficient and viable mode of transport.’ The issues to be tackled were stability and flight control, structures, increased payload, more powerful engines, improved capabilities in poor weather and forecasting and easier ground-handling. Now we have the technology to revisit this fundamentally sound design to make it efficient and make it work.”

Its sad that Roger Munk did not live to see his dream take to Cardington skies, however I'm sure both he and Barnes Wallis would be overjoyed that the result of that conversation is now casting its shadow on those iconic sheds.

[khorton]

It depends on which web site you want to believe. This site (http://www.military.com/equipment/ch-47d-chinook) lists the max sling capacity of a CH-47D as 26,000 lb, or 11.8 tonnes.

[A Squared]

It depends on which web site you want to believe. This site (http://www.military.com/equipment/ch-47d-chinook) lists the max sling capacity of a CH-47D as 26,000 lb, or 11.8 tonnes.

Sure, the thing is you can find a variety of numbers in various places. All we can say got sure is that it's apparent that the Chinook is certainly structurally capable of slinging over 10 tonne. I do know the weights of the conexes we were flying into there, and I'm fairly confident that Tourist wasn't there, flying one of those helicopters so doesn't have a point of reference what those particular airframes were capable of in that operational trim under those conditions. Anyway, the whole branch of the discussion is a bit silly and the bottom line is that there are helicopters capable of carrying a 20 tonne load, and while that capability will decrease with altitude and temperature, so too will the lifting capability of an hybrid airship which depends on aerostatic buoyancy and vectored thrust.

As far as a 50T and 100T version, they're just barely flying the 10T one so those are purely speculative at this point. I am reminded of the Moller sky car, no prototype of which has ever hovered out of ground effect, or off of a tether, but according to the promoter, is just a few years away from being able to cruise 4 people at 267 knots at 36,000 ft. :rolleyes:

When they have built one which actually *does* lift 50t, *then* we can start discussing it's merits.

It's worth noting that neither has this prototype demonstrated the ability to carry a 10 Tonne payload. All it's done is fly around empty for a half hour. So the marketing claims of "up to 10,000 kg" are just that; claims, which have not yet been demonstrated.

[beamender99]

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-maximum-amount-of-weight-a-Chinook-can-lift

Boeing CH-47 Chinook (http://www.helis.com/60s/CH-47_Chinook.php)

The Largest Transport Helicopters in the World - autoevolution (http://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-largest-transport-helicopters-in-the-world-24549.html)

[hunterboy]

There does seem to be a lack of imagination displayed here by some posters. I wonder what some of them would have made of the Internet 20 years ago? Mmm....a useful gadget for geeks, but where are the commercial applications?
Why don't we wait and see where it takes them? And give 'em a pat on the back for trying to be aviation pioneers again. After all, it isn't your money they're wasting is it?

[Heathrow Harry]

The point is the Airlander is another take on a technology that is over 100 years old and which was kicked into the long grass over 80 years ago as a commercial failure with limited technical upside

The Internety was totally new

[Tourist]

My apologies A squared, we may have been having a UK ton vs US ton issue.

20000lbs, just about squeeks in though brave pilot to ditch a 5% thrust margin in the mountains.

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/CH47.jpg (http://s404.photobucket.com/user/Tourist_photos/media/CH47.jpg.html)

Go in at 5000, lets call it 30C, and we need OGE for underslung.

So, what have we discovered?

That later developed and enormously upgraded models of one of the most impressive helicopters ever made can just about hold their own against the first sub scale prototype of a new airship over very short distances?

Not really a strong argument against the airship so far.

You query whether it will meet it's claims.

This is an argument that can be applied to any aircraft before it has been proven.

"Harrier. I don't believe it will hover therefore it will be useless" etc

To claim it is useless and has no killer application because you don't believe that it will achieve it's stated performance is very different from saying that you don't believe that even if it achieves it's stated performance aims it will have an application.

Which is it?
You seem to be pursuing both paths.

[Tourist]

The point is the Airlander is another take on a technology that is over 100 years old and which was kicked into the long grass over 80 years ago as a commercial failure with limited technical upside

The Internety was totally new


What an amazing statement.

Throughout the whole history of mankind, new technologies have been trialled, failed due to materials technology and then revisited later with success.

I am having trouble thinking of any part of the Airlander which will not have benefited from vastly superior materials and technology.

[JOE-FBS]

I have scanned the foregoing pages and they are full of words like guess, think and assume. May I suggest that honourable members do some research as most of their speculations are wrong. I'll provide the link below as a start. There is a huge amount of information out there.

Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Airship resurrection (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/4159/Airship-resurrection)

It is also worth noting that those misty eyed romantics that run Lockheed Martin are also spending money on a similar programme to HAV.

While constantly comparing HAV to the airships of the 1930s makes about as much sense as comparing an A350 to a Ju52, if you must look at history, try looking at the almost forgotten achievements of the US airship service from 1942.

Navy's Lighter-Than-Air Experience Monograph (http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/navys-lighter-than-air-experience-monograph.html)

[Scuffers]

Again,

What's the killer application?

[RAT 5]

Is this craft likely to be suitable for overland transport or more for oceans? For overland I could envisage desert areas and much of Africa, even N/S E/W in Australia. Over oceans sounds good, but often the surface winds can be stronger than its cruise speed. Is it amphibious?
There was a program in UUSR, years ago, for large jet freighters using over-wing engines and wings designed for ground-effect flying. The concept was fuel economy because of the ground effect. It was a flying boat, so coast to coast routes over water. Slowish speed and using ground effect met not so powerful or heavy engines.
I can't remember the max payload, but there were different sizes of craft. Whatever happened to it?

[Super VC-10]

RAT 5 - do you mean the Ekranoplan?

[A Squared]

I can't remember the max payload, but there were different sizes of craft. Whatever happened to it?

Turned out it was kind of a one trick pony which wasn't very useful.

[RatherBeFlying]

Serious tethering is required to avoid venting of expensive helium.

Then ballast must be sourced in said remote location.

Perhaps lay hose to body of water. Weight of hose will reduce payload, so can't go too far.

That or compress helium back into cylinders:confused:

[Carbon Bootprint]

There was a program in UUSR, years ago, for large jet freighters using over-wing engines and wings designed for ground-effect flying. The concept was fuel economy because of the ground effect. It was a flying boat, so coast to coast routes over water. Slowish speed and using ground effect met not so powerful or heavy engines.
I can't remember the max payload, but there were different sizes of craft. Whatever happened to it?It sounds like you're speaking of the Ekranoplan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle). Some are still around, most on a much smaller scale than that of the Caspian Sea Monster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster) which may be the craft you are referring to.

It was basically built as a troop transport, though could have served other purposes. It wasn't that slow at all, as marine vessels go, and during its time of existence it posed a bit of a quandary for the IMO as to how to regulate a +400 km/h vehicle that was intended to co-exist with regular ship traffic.

As to what happened to it, it pretty much ran out of steam when the Soviet Union came down. It probably wasn't that practical or economical or efficient for most purposes (like the Airlander?). Nevertheless, a very fascinating venture (like the Airlander).

[A Squared]

It is also worth noting that those misty eyed romantics that run Lockheed Martin are also spending money on a similar programme to HAV.

Lockheed Martin is investigating more or less stationary surveillance/communications platforms. As I have already stated, I think that airships offer promise for this application. Plying air commerce ... not so much.


While constantly comparing HAV to the airships of the 1930s makes about as much sense as comparing an A350 to a Ju52,

Well, no not really. The JU52 became obsolete because there were better versions of the same technology (fixed wing, heavier than air aircraft) , not because the fundamental technology lacked promise and application compared to other technologies. That's 2 completely different concepts. It's worth noting that if airplane technology had reached a plateau with the JU52, if some technological barrier had prevented refining airplane technology past that point, the JU52 would still be in service, because even in it's crude 1930's form, the airplane it would still offer powerful advantages over other forms of transport available today. The ability to travel well over twice practical sustained driving speed, and do it in a straight line without roads or rails, and over mountains, swamps and water, would still have application, because there's nothing that does what it does. By contrast, the airship fell out of use because other technologies developed which could do almost everything the airship could do, but better and faster.

Point being, there's a world of difference between "That stage of development of that particular technology is obsolete because later refinements of the same technology perform much better" and "That technology became obsolete because other technologies perform much better"

[Tourist]

Serious tethering is required to avoid venting of expensive helium.

Then ballast must be sourced in said remote location.

Perhaps lay hose to body of water. Weight of hose will reduce payload, so can't go too far.

That or compress helium back into cylinders:confused:
If you bothered to read the links that were provided above, that question would be answered.

[Tourist]

Again,

What's the killer application?

Again, like nearly all technology we won't know until after the fact.

Military Fixed wing aircraft were developed for spotting for artillery.

Nobody saw other uses initially.

[OPENDOOR]

Again,

What's the killer application?

How about this?

So what sort of roles could it perform? While operating costs are extremely low, don’t expect the Airlander 10 (or the larger Airlander 50) to replace 300-seat airliners on transatlantic flights. However, there could be useful niches in aerial sightseeing where this slow, stable flying vehicle could find a market. Indeed, while the Airlander is currently powered by four diesels, HAV say it is already looking at swapping the forward engines for electric powered thrusters. The idea here, says the company, would be to use the rear diesels for take-off, then switch to the forward electric engines for cruise. For zero-emission, silent aerial cruises over natural wonders like the Grand Canyon or African Savannah this could be a green way of seeing the planet – and spark off a new environmentally-friendly aerial tourist industry. Further in the future, it is not too difficult to imagine how solar-panels on the top surface, powering electric motors, could make Airlander even more green.

[Scuffers]

Wonderfull!

(no really...)

[evansb]

Lighter-than-air craft, dirigibles, blimps and airships et al, are hardly new technology. In fact they predate fixed wing flight. The steam powered Giffard Dirigible Airship first flew on 24 September, 1852.

The U.S. Army, Navy and Air force, plus Northrop-Grumman, Goodyear, and Fuji know what airships are good at. The question is, and always will be; Is it practical, profitable and relevant?

[TURIN]

Is the Airlander, technically, lighter than air?

[etudiant]

Reading the Zeppelin write-ups, what comes across most clearly is how fragile these leviathans actually were and how safe operations were maintained only by continued heroic effort on part of the crew.
Indeed, prudence above all was the mantra of Hugo Eckener, the guru of post WW1 LTA travel. Whenever it was disregarded, disaster followed. Yet any sort of reliable tourism service mandates that the schedule hold priority. That is a serious conflict imho.


The Airlander promises to materially widen the margin of safety in some aspects, but its reliance on dynamic lift adds new issues. Meanwhile, the old airship problems of wind and precipitation impacts on the hull have not really been addressed, much less resolved.
Color me deeply skeptical.

[evansb]

Airlander lighter than air? Could be.. Hot air is lighter (less dense) than cold air, so is helium and hydrogen, so a static experiment in calm wind conditions would be able to determine if the Airlander could ascend without aid of external power and airfoil effect, thereby becoming lighter than the surrounding air.

Check out the definition of Airship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

[olandese_volante]

Is it practical, profitable and relevant?
Whether we like it or not, it is likely that someday in the not-too-far future we're going to have to cut back on the Jet A-1.
Airships, with their large surface area, are a good candidate for practical solar powered flight. Note that the ceiling of the Airlander (20,000 ft) would allow it to fly well above average cloud cover, allowing mostly unrestricted access to sunlight on a few thousand square meters of solar cells.

[RealUlli]

Whether we like it or not, it is likely that someday in the not-too-far future we're going to have to cut back on the Jet A-1.
Airships, with their large surface area, are a good candidate for practical solar powered flight. Note that the ceiling of the Airlander (20,000 ft) would allow it to fly well above average cloud cover, allowing mostly unrestricted access to sunlight on a few thousand square meters of solar cells.
(SLF - revisiting my ridiculed post in the solar impulse thread)

Actually - the area of the Airlander 10 is nearly 4000 m^2. This, covered in solar cells at 30% efficiency is nearly enough to run its engines at full power. (4x365hp vs. 1200kW of solar power)

I admit, these numbers are over simplified, neither do I have an idea of the mass of that many solar cells, but I suspect a larger Airlander 50 will have more area and more lifting capabilities, so it might be feasible to build a craft whose loiter time is not defined by fuel or FTL but when the crew needs to go on vacation or their tour of duty ends. ;-)

I think there are solar cells out there that sacrifice some efficiency for massive reductions in weight, they might be the right thing for this application. Someone in this thread wrote they're thinking about shutting down half of the engines during cruise - maybe, talking about lighter electric motors, there is a realistic chance that the two usually shut down engines might also be replaced by two electrics plus some batteries?

What do you all think?

[olandese_volante]

What do you all think?
1) 30% efficiency for solar cells in practical applications is a bit of a stretch, I'd settle for half that.
2) Electric motors are lighter than diesels of equal power output, but at least some battery capacity will be required and this adds weight too.
3) First steps might involve hybrid propulsion: use the diesels when you must, use the solar-powered electrics when you can. Diesels could also top-up the batteries if required.

In other news, NASA is currently building a prototype electric fixed-wing aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-57_Maxwell), the goal being to achieve at least one hour of flying time and a range of about 100 miles on batteries alone.

[RealUlli]

In other news, NASA is currently building a prototype electric fixed-wing aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-57_Maxwell), the goal being to achieve at least one hour of flying time and a range of about 100 miles on batteries alone.
(SLF again, slightly drunk at this time of day)

I don't know about the NASA prototype, but I have the nagging feeling this is a solved problem.

An Echo-class aircraft probably can carry the mass of the Tesla power train. I have no exact numbers, but I guess 400kg just batteries and associated electronics. An echo-class GA aircraft usually has an engine in the 150-200 hp range, quite a bit less than the Tesla. I've been told the Tesla can cruise at high power (German Autobahn) for nearly an hour. *thinks* latest battery version @100kWh should deliver nearly 75% power to an Echo-Class aircraft for an hour...

Now, imagine an aircraft as efficient as the SEA Risen (ok, as LSA, it won't nearly carry that battery pack)... maybe the Pipistrel Panthera... (Pipistrel Panthera - Plane & Pilot Magazine (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/pipistrel-panthera/))... it should work.

I don't claim we have electric flight yet, but we're friggin' close...

[Tourist]

watch?v=Xe1g1JrRRkY

[Scuffers]

Current Tesla battery is some 544 kg (85 kWh) without any electronics, cooling, etc.

Solar panels are not zero weight either, and 1+Mw of them is going to make a big dent in the payload capacity.

[Tourist]

Current Tesla battery is some 544 kg (85 kWh) without any electronics, cooling, etc.

Solar panels are not zero weight either, and 1+Mw of them is going to make a big dent in the payload capacity.

A lot of that weight is the frame, in a car the weight is a lower priority.

The solar panels on the aircraft that just flew around the world are pretty light.

The dent in the payload capacity is going to shrink the longer you intend to fly compared to fuel for an engine.

Electric motors are far lighter per watt than IC engines, more reliable and less maintenance.

[compressor stall]

There's not that much helium left in the world. It keeps on floating into outer space as we tract it, and we have not got a pipe to the sun to syphon off some more.

Unless we get the fusion thing sorted to create unlimited energy, the economic lifespan of a craft like this has to be limited from that point alone.

[Tourist]

There's not that much helium left in the world. It keeps on floating into outer space as we tract it, and we have not got a pipe to the sun to syphon off some more.

Unless we get the fusion thing sorted to create unlimited energy, the economic lifespan of a craft like this has to be limited from that point alone.
Factually incorrect.

Oil will run out before helium.

That Dire Helium Shortage? Vastly Inflated | WIRED (http://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-inflated/)

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/winning-helium-hunt-lifts-hopes-element-not-running-out

Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/06/18/were-really-not-about-to-run-out-of-helium-no-please-stop-it-were-not/#5b0b1fc21cf0)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095196-huge-newfound-deposit-of-helium-will-keep-mri-scanners-running/

Helium shortage could be solved by new life-saving discovery | Science | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/helium-shortage-could-be-solved-by-new-life-saving-discovery-a7106906.html)

[Heathrow Harry]

Set a decent price for Helium and you'd be amazed at how much would be available - currently it's mainly a by-product of other activities and is really a pain rather than a profit for the industry concerned

[Scuffers]

A lot of that weight is the frame, in a car the weight is a lower priority.

The solar panels on the aircraft that just flew around the world are pretty light.

The dent in the payload capacity is going to shrink the longer you intend to fly compared to fuel for an engine.

Electric motors are far lighter per watt than IC engines, more reliable and less maintenance.

No matter if it's in a car or a blimp, you still need to physically hold/contain the battery cells, and to make out weight is unimportant to Tesla is laughable.

The plane that went round the world did not have 1+Mw of panels on it, and light as they were, they still weigh something, as will the interconnects, supports, etc.

then we get to the motors, they themselves might be light, they still need to be cooled, that adds significant weight.

then consider just how much electronics/control gear required, it's cooling, weight of wiring, etc etc.

as for reliability, current breed aero engines are hardly unreliable.

I'm not against solar power, just please pick a practical application for it.

[Tourist]

No matter if it's in a car or a blimp, you still need to physically hold/contain the battery cells, and to make out weight is unimportant to Tesla is laughable.


I didn't say unimportant, I said lower priority.
Just like in a sports car the weight of the engine is less important than it is in a light aircraft.
It's a perfectly valid point. In a sportscar rigidity is rather more important than in a soft blimp.
Deliberately misquoting me is rude.


The plane that went round the world did not have 1+Mw of panels on it, and light as they were, they still weigh something, as will the interconnects, supports, etc.


No, it had 66Kw over an area of 269.5 m2 at 135 micron thick. Not exactly heavy duty.
Airlander has more than 3500m2 to play with on top.

To be fair, I doubt that the durability is there yet, but the photovoltaic area of research moves very quickly at the moment.



then we get to the motors, they themselves might be light, they still need to be cooled, that adds significant weight.


Totally depends how they do it. Huge numbers of small motors seem to be the way ahead in current thinking on flying electric aircraft. No cooling required.


then consider just how much electronics/control gear required, it's cooling, weight of wiring, etc etc.


These are problems for any aircraft of any type. To try to suggest that they are somehow worse for an aircraft that gets upwards of 60% of its lift for free is disingenuous.
Due to the lack of load on control surfaces compared to an airliner, all runs can be much lighter.


as for reliability, current breed aero engines are hardly unreliable.


Nope, I didn't say they were. I said less reliable and more maintenance.


I'm not against solar power, just please pick a practical application for it.

I've got to say, that I struggle to find a more obvious application than a long endurance blimp.

[RealUlli]

No matter if it's in a car or a blimp, you still need to physically hold/contain the battery cells, and to make out weight is unimportant to Tesla is laughable.

Actually, I wasn't talking about the blimp, I was talking about the NASA research aircraft.

For a blimp, you probably can get away with much less batteries - It just needs them for takeoff and maybe some climb. On the other hand, that research aircraft has to drive 100kW worth of motors, while the Airlander has >1MW...

No, it had 66Kw over an area of 269.5 m2 at 135 micron thick. Not exactly heavy duty.
Airlander has more than 3500m2 to play with on top.

Thanks for these numbers. I'm also rather sure Solar Impulse had some batteries to keep flying through the night.

According to these numbers, something around 700-800kW should be possible. Of course, the payload will suffer, but I wouldn't be so sure how much, considering fuel also has weight. I wonder at what endurance will be the break-even point where solar becomes better than conventional engines.

[Mechta]

It could be that the Airlander does not need to carry a lot of batteries. If solar cells are just enough to power the front fans, then it can run on these during the day and the diesels at the back at night. Relatively small battery packs at the front motors would be required for power during take off and landing.

The main advantage of electric power is that it allows the ducted fans to operate in any attitude, up to and beyond vertical, which aids getting airborne. if this was required from the current car-derived diesel engines, re-certification may be necessary. Vectoring the fan has got to give more vertical thrust than the current vanes in the prop wash, however good they are.

It is worth noting that the Airlander 10 is intended to lift 10 tons on 1400hp, whereas the Lancaster carrying the Grand Slam bomb needed 4 x 1620 hp to get itself and bomb airborne. How the range of the two compares, at max takeoff weight, would be interesting..

[Scuffers]

It is worth noting that the Airlander 10 is intended to lift 10 tons on 1400hp, whereas the Lancaster carrying the Grand Slam bomb needed 4 x 1620 hp to get itself and bomb airborne. How the range of the two compares, at max takeoff weight, would be interesting..

what a completely pointless comparison...

I can really see it replacing the worlds 747-800F fleet or chinook/skycrane/super-stallions/V22's/etc.

[Tourist]

Skycrane is potentially not an entirely pointless comparison. There could be some overlap.

Interestingly, I don't see anybody suggesting it might replace 747 or V22s except you?

[glad rag]

The point is the Airlander is another take on a technology that is over 100 years old and which was kicked into the long grass over 80 years ago as a commercial failure with limited technical upside



What If daring individuals didn't push the boundaries?



sYmQQn_ZSys


DKqY8sy3nkM

[Scuffers]

What If daring individuals didn't push the boundaries?



sYmQQn_ZSys


DKqY8sy3nkM
Another totally pointless comparison.

or are you going to suggest that the next SpaceX Falcon booster will be solar-powered? (and please don't start go on about ion engines).

Just for clarity, I have no issue with people developing new tech, what I do have a beef with is pie-in-the-sky stupidity that's totally impractical without rewriting the laws of physics.

[Uplinker]

The main advantage of electric power is that it allows the ducted fans to operate in any attitude, up to and beyond vertical, which aids getting airborne. if this was required from the current car-derived diesel engines, re-certification may be necessary. Vectoring the fan has got to give more vertical thrust than the current vanes in the prop wash, however good they are.

The Airship Industries 500 and 600 used Porsche flat 6 engines which drove vectored, ducted fans. The engines were in-board, (in the rear section of the gondola) and each ducted fan swivelled around the drive shaft from its engine. So the engines themselves remained static and fixed.

I flew in one for a BBC outside broadcast where we provided a live top shot of a cricket match at Lords. We stayed right over the pitch for a couple of hours.

[Tourist]

Just for clarity, I have no issue with people developing new tech, what I do have a beef with is pie-in-the-sky stupidity that's totally impractical without rewriting the laws of physics.

The problem is that pretty much all new successes are pie in the sky stupidity until suddenly they aren't.

If that was not the case then science would not move in surges like it does.
One company/man/country does something that everybody else thought was stupid/impossible, and then everybody piles in once it works.

Think iPhone.

Think going to space.

Think aeroplanes.

p.s. Which particular law of physics does airlander conflict with?

p.p.s Can't believe I forgot the jet engine!!! It was "totally unrealistic"

[Scuffers]

The problem is that pretty much all new successes are pie in the sky stupidity until suddenly they aren't.

If that was not the case then science would not move in surges like it does.
One company/man/country does something that everybody else thought was stupid/impossible, and then everybody piles in once it works.

Think iPhone.

Think going to space.

Think aeroplanes.

p.s. Which particular law of physics does airlander conflict with?

p.p.s Can't believe I forgot the jet engine!!! It was "totally unrealistic"
none of them break the laws of physics, they are a product of continual innovation and engineering advancements.

Airships/Blimps/etc are constrained by the density of air, ie, you have to displace X M3 of air for every Y g of lift, and unless you can maintain a vacuum where the displaced air was, your then adding weight of Helium or whatever other element you use to displace the air.

Then we get to using thrust to lift (ala helicopters etc), the amount of power requires is MASSIVE, to then fantasize that this can be powered by solar is just laughable.

Back in the land of reality, this will just end up as yet another one-off white elephant without a genuine application.

[Tourist]

Airships/Blimps/etc are constrained by the density of air, ie, you have to displace X M3 of air for every Y g of lift, and unless you can maintain a vacuum where the displaced air was, your then adding weight of Helium or whatever other element you use to displace the air.



What exactly is your point?
They work.
Helium/hydrogen ballons lift things.
Whether they lift things more usefully than heavier than air aircraft is a valid argument, but I think we can all agree that the basic idea works.
Whether Airlander have done their numbers correctly is another valid question and only time will tell.


Then we get to using thrust to lift (ala helicopters etc), the amount of power requires is MASSIVE, to then fantasize that this can be powered by solar is just laughable.

Back in the land of reality, this will just end up as yet another one-off white elephant without a genuine application.

As far as I'm aware, the idea is that thrust would only be used for lift during the take-off and landing.
Batteries which can be solar charged are in fact excellent at putting out large amounts of stored power in a small amount of time.

At other times thrust would be used for speed which would give aerodynamic lift.
I hope that is a configuration we can agree works?


Back in the land of reality, this will just end up as yet another one-off white elephant without a genuine application.

Time will tell.

Personally I believe that they have a chance.

[oldchina]

Uplinker:

You've just redefined boredom !

"... top shot of a cricket match at Lords. We stayed right over the pitch for a couple of hours"

[G-CPTN]

AFAICT, thrust is required to create forward motion so that the shape can generate 40% of the required lift (buoyancy only provides 60% of the stated lift).
Vectored thrust adds 25%.

How it works (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/technical/how-it-works).

Whether these figures are based on unladen or laden performance I do not know.

So what forward speed is needed to generate the 40% required to stop the aircraft from sinking and what power (and fuel consumption) does that require in still air (with more required against a headwind)?

[Mechta]

The Airship Industries 500 and 600 used Porsche flat 6 engines which drove vectored, ducted fans. The engines were in-board, (in the rear section of the gondola) and each ducted fan swivelled around the drive shaft from its engine. So the engines themselves remained static and fixed.

UPLINKER, you are correct. The gearboxes were Westland Lynx tail rotor gearboxes, and from what I recall reading at the time, they were the most expensive components in the Skyship 500. HAV would probably want to avoid the upfront costs of manufacture and certification of bespoke gearboxes and the hazards of being tied to potential competitors (i.e. helicopter manufacturers) for off the shelf units.

[glad rag]

Another totally pointless comparison.

or are you going to suggest that the next SpaceX Falcon booster will be solar-powered? (and please don't start go on about ion engines).

Just for clarity, I have no issue with people developing new tech, what I do have a beef with is pie-in-the-sky stupidity that's totally impractical without rewriting the laws of physics.

You certainly have a bee in your bonnet, if you cannot see the relevance of my statement ergo old ideas being revitalised with alternative thinking then you have just pigeon-holed yourself.
SpaceX is in the process of revolutionising space travel by out thinking, out engeneering and out performing legacy industries where it counts the most, in the customers wallet.
Airlander is possibly going to do the same, just because there aren't any markets just now doesn't mean there won't be in the future..

[172driver]

OK, so let’s have a look at the potential uses for this thing.

1) tourist trips over remote / noise sensitive areas (Serengeti, Grand Canyon)
Fine, but already exists in the form of hot air balloons. Might work well for extended ‘air cruises’, though. Could be great for that.

2) delivery of relief supplies to conflict / disaster zones.
I have no idea if the hull of Airlander can withstand AK47 bullets, but having worked in aforementioned zones for years, I know that it would make a great target for some crazed kid with an AK. Better rule that one - largely - out.

3) delivery of heavy/outsize equipment to remote locations.
This one might work, although many / most remote locations also experience inclement wx to which this machine seems to be quite vulnerable.

4) military
Sure, there will be some use, but as stated above, the thing appears to be very, very vulnerable.

5) SAR in remote areas (MH370 anyone?)
Could work, although again not so sure about the wx effects

I’m not trying to slag it off, but if you leave the engineering feat aside, the potential uses appear rather limited. Not saying it’s not viable, but I can see this filling a niche in the AN 225 kind of way. We’ll see.

[Tourist]

1) tourist trips over remote / noise sensitive areas (Serengeti, Grand Canyon)
Fine, but already exists in the form of hot air balloons. Might work well for extended ‘air cruises’, though. Could be great for that.


I'm sorry, but the fact that hot air balloons have a limited market in these things suggests a huge market for blimps in this area rather than the opposite.

A hot air balloon is incredibly constrained in it's use. It is impossible to guarantee consistent flights or the ability to visit any particular site on any particular day. You can never know where you are going to land. The weather range is tiny. A blimp is a different proposition.


2) delivery of relief supplies to conflict / disaster zones.
I have no idea if the hull of Airlander can withstand AK47 bullets, but having worked in aforementioned zones for years, I know that it would make a great target for some crazed kid with an AK. Better rule that one - largely - out.


No.
Ruling something out because you have no idea of vulnerability and can't be @rsed to take 1 minute to google it does not make sense.
As it happens, the evidence shows the exact opposite.

https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=evSg-97hIPMC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=are+airships+vulnerable+to+small+arms+fire&source=bl&ots=M1TB6pZhIQ&sig=-CJxh7pfaDdXqUZCd0yiJ10EX38&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaqJ_D89bOAhVLbxQKHffyDFEQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=are%20airships%20vulnerable%20to%20small%20arms%20fire&f=false

Airships are far less vulnerable to small arms fire than normal aircraft, and if electric would be very hard to hit with the classic single digit SAMs which have proliferated.

Added to this, if you fly above 2000ft most of the risk has disappeared anyway.

Lets rule it firmly in.

.
3) delivery of heavy/outsize equipment to remote locations.
This one might work, although many / most remote locations also experience inclement wx to which this machine seems to be quite vulnerable.


Evidence for this claim?


4) military
Sure, there will be some use, but as stated above, the thing appears to be very, very vulnerable.


As discussed above, less vulnerable than other aircraft.



5) SAR in remote areas (MH370 anyone?)
Could work, although again not so sure about the wx effects


Again, not sure because you have idly surmised from a position of zero knowledge is not a reasonable reason to discount. I have never ever even seen a blimp, so have little knowledge of them but I am ex SAR pilot and I can see huge potential if the physics work as advertised.


I’m not trying to slag it off, but if you leave the engineering feat aside, the potential uses appear rather limited. Not saying it’s not viable, but I can see this filling a niche in the AN 225 kind of way. We’ll see.

Yes, we will.

[Scuffers]

You certainly have a bee in your bonnet, if you cannot see the relevance of my statement ergo old ideas being revitalised with alternative thinking then you have just pigeon-holed yourself.
SpaceX is in the process of revolutionising space travel by out thinking, out engeneering and out performing legacy industries where it counts the most, in the customers wallet.
Airlander is possibly going to do the same, just because there aren't any markets just now doesn't mean there won't be in the future..

you're kind of missing the point here, SpaceX have not attempted to re-write the laws of physics.

what they have done is take 50+ year old tech and re-package it, refine it, and most importantly, do it in a way that dramatically cut's the costs thus making the whole space launch business more accessible.

There always is/was an application for space launch services, the more they bring the costs down, and increasing the payloads, the more demand there will be.

To then try and use the same argument for this blimp is laughable, again, where is the killer application crying out for a blimp?

can you see it replacing the EC225's on oil rig transport?

can you see it replacing V22's?

can you see it replacing Skycranes?

about the only use I can envisage is tourist trips, but is there really a market big/rich enough to support this? Helo charters are pretty cheap and much more personal.

[Tourist]

can you see it replacing the EC225's on oil rig transport?

can you see it replacing V22's?

can you see it replacing Skycranes?

about the only use I can envisage is tourist trips, but is there really a market big/rich enough to support this? Helo charters are pretty cheap and much more personal.

EC225s are dead.

Nobody has suggested replacing V22 except you a couple of times.

V22 is incredibly niche and incredibly expensive hence zero civil versions.

Skycrane role maybe.

Helo charters are never going to get cleared into the same areas as a blimp.

[750XL]

2) delivery of relief supplies to conflict / disaster zones.
I have no idea if the hull of Airlander can withstand AK47 bullets, but having worked in aforementioned zones for years, I know that it would make a great target for some crazed kid with an AK. Better rule that one - largely - out.

Not all disaster zones are full of AK47 wielding hooligans. Just look at the size of the UN operation in Africa alone, I can easily see the AirLander fitting in there - For example based at Entebbe, capable of providing relief flights to Sudan, Congo etc where runways are extremely limited and of very poor quality. An AirLander full of aid pondering across Uganda over into Congo would be ideal.

3) delivery of heavy/outsize equipment to remote locations.
This one might work, although many / most remote locations also experience inclement wx to which this machine seems to be quite vulnerable.

Delivery of equipment to remote locations in Africa, oil field in the Middle East, the mines and oil/gas fields of Siberia/Russia. A perfect candidate IMO.

[beamender99]

Delivery of equipment to remote locations in Africa, oil field in the Middle East, the mines and oil/gas fields of Siberia/Russia. A perfect candidate IMO.
I understand that the limited ice road truckers season, already quite short, is getting shorter.
A large part of the rest of the year could be served by Airlander.

Delivery of very large wind farm components to remote locations like the north of Sweden ?

[750XL]

Another aspect of potential AirLander uses that hasn't been touched upon is possible Antarctica supply missions. Granted, weather plays a huge factor here but it could be a viable alternative to the current IL76/757/C130 missions.

[TURIN]

Jesus, Scuffers!
Who p155ed on your chips?
Have you invested in this venture and lost your shirt or are you just wasting everyone's bandwidth? Can you just let it go? We get it, you don't like blimps. Go and play in Jetblast if you want to start a fight but leave the rest of us to enjoy this innovation and speculate on what could be.

Good luck to all at Airlander. I look forward to my cruise over the Serengeti when I retire.

[Scuffers]

Jesus, Scuffers!
Who p155ed on your chips?
Have you invested in this venture and lost your shirt or are you just wasting everyone's bandwidth? Can you just let it go? We get it, you don't like blimps. Go and play in Jetblast if you want to start a fight but leave the rest of us to enjoy this innovation and speculate on what could be.

WOW - Chill out man!

No I have no interest other than watching from the sidelines.

I'll bow out now, but will look back in a few years time to see where it's gone.

[Tourist]

Good luck to all at Airlander. I look forward to my cruise over the Serengeti when I retire.

I'm thinking Machu Pichu, Petra, Ankor Wat......

[172driver]

@Tourist
Added to this, if you fly above 2000ft most of the risk has disappeared anyway.


This one sentence shows your total ignorance. Go back to Wikipedia and learn something, if you can (which I doubt). Won't feed the troll any longer. Bye.

[Tourist]

@Tourist


This one sentence shows your total ignorance. Go back to Wikipedia and learn something, if you can (which I doubt). Won't feed the troll any longer. Bye.
Ok.

I'm a military pilot, with both rotary and fixed wing experience in places where locals occasionally test their bang-sticks in a friendly way towards you.

I was always led to believe that 2000ft kept you safe from small arms fire, but I am sure one of the other ex mil pilots will be along to explain my error soon if you are correct.....


p.s. I love the fact that being resolutely positive towards something can be described as "trolling":rolleyes:

[Scuffers]

Ok.

I'm a military pilot, with both rotary and fixed wing experience in places where locals occasionally test their bang-sticks in a friendly way towards you.

I was always led to believe that 2000ft kept you safe from small arms fire, but I am sure one of the other ex mil pilots will be along to explain my error soon if you are correct.....


p.s. I love the fact that being resolutely positive towards something can be described as "trolling":rolleyes:

really?

Look, I'm sorry to have to pop back up, but even a cursory glance at the subject brings up stuff like this:

"The maximum range of this weapon (specifically the M107 variant) is 4,000 metres (4,400 yd), as quoted in the owner's manual." - Barrett M82

or maybe something more mundane, like an M16 - Maximum firing range 3,600 m (3,937 yd)

Now, sure they can't fire that far straight up, but I am dam sure it will exceed your 2,000Ft and then some.

then we get to Manpads, with several quite capable of hitting targets over 20,000 ft up.

Now, a helo is always going to be vulnerable, but at least it can manoeuvre, what's a blimp going to do? it's a massive target, can't more fast and certainly can't do 'evasive' maneuvers.

[Tourist]

Yawn.................

[Herod]

You wouldn't send Airlander into situations where it's going to get shot at. Conflict zone relief, no. Disaster relief, quite possibly

[Checkboard]

Wednesday 24th August near Caddington. Pilot cabin pushed up into machine on nose down strike and bounce. Two crew seen to walk away.

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/Checkboard/airlander_zpsbwfgtovc.jpg

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/Checkboard/airlander2_zpsdjiunc3t.jpg

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Looks like a wombat but clearly can't burrow like one!
😄

[Crewing Gimp]

Well that's that then! Gutted....

Glad everyone is safe, but must say I was surprised how low it flew on the maiden flight. To hit a phone mast on its second flight can't be a great selling point. :rolleyes:

[Mudman]

Video of the incident here: https://youtu.be/Mg-RPTiVa_Q

Mg-RPTiVa_Q

[Interested Passenger]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-0/p206x206/14111679_10157371064595051_1148076375_n.jpg?oh=ed57dd16414a0 a0e418553a61dcabea7&oe=57BFAB0F

gondola's a gonna by the looks of things. ohh well, at least I saw it fly

[scr1]

Link to BBC news item


Airlander 10: Longest aircraft damaged during flight - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37174417)

[Interested Passenger]

their blurb says it achieves 60% of the lift via buoyancy, 40% aerodynamic, and +/-25% with thrust. Aero lift would have been minimal at that speed, so just not enough lift to lift.

doesn't look promising for 10t loading, if it can't climb when empty. ohh dear

[500 above]

The control inputs looked interesting that low to the ground. Looked to me that the crew were struggling to get the airship down, perhaps it was infact lighter than air at that point. Certainly on smaller airships I've flown, you would power the ship down to the ground crew when statically lighter than air.

A nice sunny day by the looks of it. I wonder if superheat was a factor?

[Andrewgr2]

Thermal activity forecast for today - albeit not too strong. Could that, combined with high air temperatures have been a factor?

[golfbananajam]

From the BBC news website (22 minutes old)

Airlander 10: Longest aircraft damaged during flight

Airlander 10: Longest aircraft damaged during flight - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37174417)

The world's largest aircraft - the Airlander 10 - has been damaged when it took a nosedive during its second test flight.
The 302ft (92m) long aircraft - which is part plane and part airship - was damaged during the flight from Cardington Airfield in Bedfordshire.
The £25m craft is understood to have sustained damage to its cockpit when it hit the ground at about 11:00 BST.

[crablab]

At least they've crash tested it

[Interested Passenger]

they say it didn't hit a telegraph pole

[subsonicsubic]

I've been keeping my mouth shut on the other thread but, sorry. Enough. Lighter than air craft are an aberration belonging in the past where they belong. We have the technology to produce massive aircraft that handle like gliders. We have seen lifting bodies that pierce the atmosphere at many Machs and land on conventional runways. There is a reason why we are legally bound to avoid lighter than air vehicles in flight. That reason is that they are unable to maneuver themselves in a controllable manner. Noble but pointless. WW2 barrage balloons were a magnitude of times more effective and they were little more than enlarged children's toys. "Long range oceanic patrol." Pah. Cargo. The physics just doesn't work. Battlefield observation. Would you really want to sit in a basically uncontrollable airborne vehicle the size of a ship over hostile territory? Pack it up boys. Save your money. Elon Musk can send a payload into space and 5 times out of ten land the rocket vertically back on a bobbing barge.

[Cazalet33]

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/Checkboard/airlander_zpsbwfgtovc.jpg

Bit late on the roundout there, Hoskins.

[Skornogr4phy]

Sounds like someone was hurt by a blimp in the past...

[bnt]

What part of "test flight" is unclear? This looks like a significant deviation from the flight envelope, yet both test pilots walked away, and not only is there no structural damage, fixing the cockpit won't break the bank. I expect them to sort it quickly and get back up there.

[flap15]

Softest "crash" I've ever seen. Looks like lack of experience with a new machine, unfortunate but not a total disaster. T-cut the scratches out, learn why and have another go. Good luck.

[Herod]

I don't know about the control system, but the front fans seem to be almost horizontal. Wouldn't a bit of vertical thrust at that end have solved things?

[TeeGeeZee]

Does anyone know how much range of motion the forward motor gimbals have on the Airlander? Once the nose starts to drop it looks like the "elevators" on the tail fins and the main motor thrust vectoring fins move upwards. At the same time I'd expect to see the forward motors turn vertical to arrest the descent of the nose but they only move by 10 or 20 degrees, meaning the only significant rotational force is coming from the rear of the craft. Also doesn't sound like the motor RPMs really increase until post-impact.

[flap15]

Momentum, Herod. Alas we could all see from the video many seconds from impact what was going to happen. Once the bum (Arse end) was above his ears a very slow motion tumble was happening. There simply was not enough power to overcome the momentum.

[G-CPTN]

Seems like flying is no problem, it's the landing that proved difficult.

[cockpitvisit]

So what happened with the airship after the crash? I understand the flight crew walked away - did the ground crew manage to capture it? Or was it blown away by the wind?

[TeeGeeZee]

So what happened with the airship after the crash? I understand the flight crew walked away - did the ground crew manage to capture it? Or was it blown away by the wind?
Photos on BBC show it attached to a ground tug: Live updates: Airlander 10 damaged during flight - BBC News (http://bbc.in/2bhIkto)

[Scuffers]

Seems like flying is no problem, it's the landing that proved difficult.
History once again repeats itself.

[crablab]

It's a silly idea. How they're going to sell any of them I don't know.
Military - useless because there are things called guns which are good at popping big balloons
Humanitarian - same problem as military use
Niche cargo - takes far too long to go anywhere!

Also, I believe it is rather expensive to buy?

[hoss183]

My theory is that they were celebrating and called for the drinks trolley up front, forgetting the change in CofG ;)

[Capt Scribble]

The engines just look too small for the craft, and I would guess there is no way they can fly it on anything but a calm day. Have to agree with subsonic.. on this one.

[european130]

it reminds my of Thunderbird 4, where "scott tracey" when you need him.... glad both pilots were OK

[G-CPTN]

It's a silly idea. How they're going to sell any of them I don't know.
Military - useless because there are things called guns which are good at popping big balloons

They are now saying that it can still fly after being hit by AK47 fire.
I suppose it depends on how much damage is done.

Apparently, a 'blimp' that broke free in the USA was repeatedly shot at but didn't deflate significantly.

State police are using mere shotguns to deflate the 240-foot-long helium-filled structure, which is expected to take days or even weeks, according to military officials (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295818/Could-weeks-untangle-wayward-military-blimp-Pennsylvania-woodland-state-police-use-shotguns-deflate-it.html).

[beamender99]

At least the crash occurred next to the hangers so recovery should be simpler.
The video shows some ripples in the skin above one of the engines ( where it is glued on.)
So maybe more damage than just the cockpit.

[oceancrosser]

Pitch control seems somewhat insufficient. Were they going to practice touch and goes?

How would that thing behave in 50kt+ winds?

[Tourist]

Pitch control seems somewhat insufficient. Where they going to practice touch and goes?

How would that thing behave in 50kt+ winds?

I would imagine that pitch control would be improved by a 50kt wind? Then you would have elevator control and vectored thrust?

[G-CPTN]

At least the crash occurred next to the hangers so recovery should be simpler.
The video shows some ripples in the skin above one of the engines ( where it is glued on.)
So maybe more damage than just the cockpit.
Those ripples are visible in the undamaged aircraft:- Photograph of Aircraft G-PHRG (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-PHRG&imgname=G-PHRG001&imgtype=jpg)

[TURIN]

The elevators looked like they were deflected down not up. . Odd. Also the fwd fan doesnt seem to be right. Strange.

[exmanman]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-0/p206x206/14111679_10157371064595051_1148076375_n.jpg?oh=ed57dd16414a0 a0e418553a61dcabea7&oe=57BFAB0F

gondola's a gonna by the looks of things. ohh well, at least I saw it fly

It'll buff out ...

[G-CPTN]

This aircraft was said to have had a chequered history in the short time that it was operated by the US Army.
I think we should be told.

[212man]

Ok.

I'm a military pilot, with both rotary and fixed wing experience in places where locals occasionally test their bang-sticks in a friendly way towards you.

I was always led to believe that 2000ft kept you safe from small arms fire, but I am sure one of the other ex mil pilots will be along to explain my error soon if you are correct.....


p.s. I love the fact that being resolutely positive towards something can be described as "trolling":rolleyes:
You may find this gives the answers you are looking for - may need to climb a bit higher!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138220/JSP403_Vol2_Chap02_DLRSC.pdf

[connoisseur]

30C plus around here most of the morning and pm. Heard that the craft did a flyby over Bedford this morning before returning to Cardington

[G0ULI]

Design flaw? Cockpit on the top, landing gear on the bottom, would make things a bit safer for the crew.

[G-CPTN]

http://www.blimpinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/01-Control-car.jpg

[procede]

@cockpitvisit: more like gone with the wind, which is of the era it belongs in.

@G0ULI: And wings instead of a big bag of helium...

[WHBM]

What is novel about this that Goodyear didn't crack long ago ?

[oldchina]

According to the BBC "The company hopes to be building 10 Airlanders a year by 2021".
Ten a year !
In the same year Airbus intends to build over 700 A320s.

[jolihokistix]

"Can land on water, snow and sand..."

(But not on grass?)

[crablab]

Can land on water
I wouldn't want to land on the Atlantic Ocean in it (given the cockpit is about the same level as the landing gear)

[notapilot15]

Is that the best location for flight deck?

[procede]

Ten a year !
That isn't enough to sustain their flight test programme...

[Wageslave]

It does have a computer flying it. I was told by one of their design engineers that it is unstable and flown by a FBW system with synthetic stability. Even so it is apparently a real handful to fly.

I can't understand why the fwd thrusters weren't moved to push the nose up. There was plenty of time yet they remained orientated fore and aft.

[G-CPTN]

I just can't fathom how well it can do with headwind or side wind.


Ani fule kno that a conventional aircraft will be diverted sideways by a side wind (watch those videos of scary landing attempts) though it does have vertical stabilisers and rudders.

AFAICT there is little or no facility for Airlander to apply sidethrust (or does it 'weathercock' and head into the wind)?

How effective could an airship rudder be?

[Cazalet33]

Is that the best location for flight deck?

A rather delicate and sensitive protuberance at the for'ard end of the front bottom of something so buxome?

Where else would you put it?

[G-CPTN]

I can't understand why the fwd thrusters weren't moved to push the nose up. There was plenty of time yet they remained orientated fore and aft.
Maybe the pilots were cowering at the rear of the cabin?

[notapilot15]

Maybe the pilots were cowering at the rear of the cabin?

Trying until last second is not an option when the longest aircraft in the world is selectively pinning you down.

Looks like front ducted propellers were not responding.

[LLuCCiFeR]

Bit late on the roundout there, Hoskins.Hahaha, you beat me to it! :ok:

[edmundronald]

I've heard of a slow motion train crash, but this must be the world's first slow motion plane crash. Maybe the cabin should be relocated to a less vulnerable position?

Paradoxically this shows how safe the design is ...

https://youtu.be/Mg-RPTiVa_Q

[Interested Passenger]

Only 60% from buoyancy??? Try again....

yep, click the link

link (https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/technical/how-it-works)

[Obba]

Wonder if fitting airbags under/around the cockpit would be better for the crews survival (pending obstructing egress)?


As it's a pilots forum, does anybody know the actual pilot, as in airship experience (not putting blame on the pilot)?


One assumes that there's a form of FDR; be interesting to see/hear what was going on.

[etudiant]

Surprised that the pilots had no way to arrest the descent when things were obviously going south.
Is there no ballast on this vehicle?

[oldchina]

The whole dog's breakfast was designed by the apprentice on a Monday morning.

[500 above]

In response to Obba, I know a few people on the team.

The chief test pilot has plenty of relevant experience, as do the others...

CTP is an ex Airship Industries test pilot/instructor. He is also ex BA and Monarch Airbus/B757.

[old freightdog]

Do we really need these things? I still have the Cargolifter fiasco fresh on my mind. A lot of my colleagues lost a lot of money gambeling on that waste of airspace.......

[oldchina]

500 above:
Interesting. Do you know anyone responsible for their business plan?

[500 above]

Oldchina

Not personally, only operational crew.

[email protected] or [email protected] would be you're best bet.

[evansb]

The future of raising millions of pounds/dollars every 5-7 years to invest in the concept of profitable commercial airships is unlimited.

[500 above]

The future of raising millions of pounds/dollars every 5-7 years to invest in the concept of profitable commercial airships is unlimited

It saddens me to say it as an ex airship pilot, but I believe you are correct.

[lomapaseo]

The future of raising millions of pounds/dollars every 5-7 years to invest in the concept of profitable commercial airships is unlimited.

Before you know it they will become the delivery vehicle of choice by the internet product delivery companies with zero shipping costs to the purchaser

when you absolutely must have it sometime next month

[Una Due Tfc]

So commercially cargo wise, you're looking for jobs where fixed wing and road transport or an MI-26 aren't better options? Must be pretty limited....

[G-CPTN]

If you ignore the capital cost (and the development costs) then the running costs of an airship should be lower than a super helo.
Road transport can easily handle the proposed 50 tonnes (though at great expense if it is an indivisible load), and, of course it requires a good quality highway.

There are fixed-wing aircraft capable of carrying 50 tonnes - but these require airport runways (and road transport connections at either end).

So we are left with 'inaccessible' transit locations at a cost possibly less than a super helo.

[evansb]

An all-weather 120-km long two-lane gravel road is presently being built on tundra between the town of Inuvik, Northwest Territories, and the ocean-side village of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. The communities had, at one time, considered year-round LTA airship freight service.

Presently, Inuvik is the northern terminus of the 738-km long Dempster Highway.

During the long Arctic winter, an ice road connected the two communities of Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. During summer, river barge (slow and affordable) and year-round fixed wing and rotary wing air transport (costly and quick) was/is the way to go..
Upon completion of the highway, river barge transport will drop to near zero. The frequency and demand of air transport will be reduced significantly as well..

The relatively flat terrain and low wind speeds of certain areas of Canada's Arctic would appear to be ideal for blimps...

Alas, between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk , the idea of LTA transport has been beaten by mundane fossil-fueled surface transport. Dang!

[parabellum]

If it has a commercial future at all I would suggest it will be in the ad hoc freight charter market. To get a ten ton+ single load from A to B at the moment could take days if not weeks to organise, especially if you have to wait for the Antonov. Transport from manufacturing base to airport, (road?), loading, unloading at destination and transport to required site will be complex and time consuming. An Airlander could probably do such a charter, say Manchester to Toulouse, cheaper and quicker. Is there likely to be a market to sustain a small fleet?

[notapilot15]

I think it is a good idea. May be these will become RVs of the air providing cheap leisure travel.

It is hardly a crash, with few meters of cloth and few sewing machines, it is will back in air in no time.

On a different note, one late vote to remain. Can't wait for John Oliver's take on this.

[A Squared]

If it has a commercial future at all I would suggest it will be in the ad hoc freight charter market. To get a ten ton+ single load from A to B at the moment could take days if not weeks to organise, especially if you have to wait for the Antonov. Transport from manufacturing base to airport, (road?), loading, unloading at destination and transport to required site will be complex and time consuming. An Airlander could probably do such a charter, say Manchester to Toulouse, cheaper and quicker. Is there likely to be a market to sustain a small fleet?

As it so happens, I'm currently on ad-hoc charter duty with an aircraft capable of carrying carrying 20T from Manchester to Toulouse. From where I am currently in Western North America, I could be in Manchester about 14 hours after you sign the contract. Manchester -Tolouse would be about 3 hours. The Airlander would take 48 hours to get the. You did say you were in a hurry, right? There's also a bunch of AN-12's available for charter, which could carry approximately the same load. Chances are good one migtht be closer. If the load is outsize and in the 100t+ range, then there's 26 AN-126's in commercial service and 4 Dreamlifters, to say nothing of the 160 747-400F and ERFs which have the capability of loading long pieces thru the nose door. Your chances of having one of those within a few hours of your location are probably a lot better than having one of a very few Airlanders within practical distance.

Your notion that an Airlander could do ad-hoc charter is rooted in the assumption that there's always going to be (one of the very few) Airlanders conveniently located right next to where the load is, and available for immediate charter. That assumption is unrealistic at best.

[Mechta]

Its a relief to read that the Airlander air and ground crew are all safe and well. 10 tons pushing them into the ground will no doubt be the subject of future nightmares.

Given that the cockpit was the bit that got bent, it is reassuring to see that either by luck or good design the Airlander did not get a mind of its own. As the 2007 Etihad A340 ground running accident in Toulouse demonstrated, loss or damage to the cockpit can make it very difficult to shut engines and other systems down.

A likely outcome of this incident will be an accelerated push for fully vectoring front propulsors, as they currently appear to be limited to a few degrees, with the rest done by the vanes in the propwash. The sideways facing bow thruster on top of the nose, which featured in early artists impressions, is also noticeably missing. Whilst it may not have helped with today's bump, more control in all axis will no doubt be on the test pilot's shopping list.

With regard to applications for Airlanders, moving 33 tons of Airbus A380 wing from Broughton to Toulouse by something other than the current barge/ship/lorry palaver must be a job that is crying out for the Airlander 50.

[A Squared]

I think it is a good idea. May be these will become RVs of the air providing cheap leisure travel.

At $35 million a copy, how many people are in a position to consider that a "cheap" recreational plaything?

[edmundronald]

Suddenly makes zillions of places with no large airport and even no roads accessible by air. Of course, members of this forum all tend to be found near airports.

[A Squared]

Suddenly makes zillions of places with no large airport and even no roads accessible by air.

Can you give me a couple of examples of these places which also have a significant demand for people to go there? ? If there's "zillions" it shouldn't be hard.

[stator vane]

Could be towed behind a pair of chinooks? Or an above water cable bridge across to Europe to help steer it against the winds? Other than that, would only be good on calm clear days and not much of a schedule could ever be planned. Any heavy big money item will have a demanding schedule attached to it.

[Obba]

The Sun and the DM (and we all that if it's in the DM, it must be true!), that it hit a Telegraph pole.


Maybe some cabling caught??

[oldchina]

Mechta:

"moving 33 tons of Airbus A380 wing from Broughton to Toulouse by something other than the
current barge/ship/lorry palaver must be a job that is crying out for the Airlander 50"

Don't shout too loud. Someone will start to ask why the wings are not made in Toulouse.

[wiggy]

Given the current infra structure for the 380 wing move is well established, and given that that there are questions being asked about 380 production rate, production line future etc, I really don't think the 380 wing move is even close to being a " killer app."

[mickjoebill]

The cabin survived this low speed incident. The total weight of the craft without a payload, is 20000kg.
The airship, like a balloon, is unusual in that it can crash and even with cockpit damaged can become airborn and remain so.

So it follows that the cockpit and flight controls should be designed to take a crash and bounce so the crew can regain control.

Is it feasible for the entire gondola to have a similar space built above it where it can be retracted in an emergency?
Spent a day in the Fuji airship over London. Bloomin marvellous!

Mickjoebill

[G-CPTN]

The airship, like a balloon, is unusual in that it can crash and even with cockpit damaged can become airborn and remain so.
The Airlander is stated to be only 60% buoyant (though it is unclear whether that is unladen or laden), so, removing forward motion (which is said to contribute 40%) and thrust from the engines (25%) it would remain 'grounded'.

[dartmoorman]

"Today the prototype Airlander 10 undertook its second test flight and flew for 100 minutes, completing all the planned tasks before returning to Cardington to land. The Airlander experienced a heavy landing and the front of the flight deck has sustained some damage which is currently being assessed. Both pilots and the ground crew are safe and well and the aircraft is secured and stable at its normal mooring location. Hybrid Air Vehicles runs a robust set of procedures for flight test activities and investigation of issues. We will be running through these in the days ahead as we continue the development of the Airlander aircraft. Further updates will follow in due course"

[Andrewgr2]

Whilst I too am sceptical of the economics and practicality of Airlander, I'm not at all sure that carrying cauliflowers, or indeed any sort of perishable goods, is seen as a key target role! The current Airlander 10 seems to be being promoted as a prototype with the Airlander 50, with its 50 ton payload as the more commercially attractive version. Presumably the costs of scaling up would not be that great.

The low speed flight issues demonstrated by the landing 'mishap' must be causing considerable concern for the design team. With considerable lift, and hence control, available by virtue of forward motion the problems of loss of that control when landing must be great. As a glider pilot, I can see that one end of an Airlander could well be in air going up at 500 feet per minute or more whilst the other end is in the matching sink. How you stop such a low density gas bag rotating as a result, I don't know. Someone else can do the sums, but I suspect that it would require far more power than is available from the vectored thrust engines.

[notapilot15]

At $35 million a copy, how many people are in a position to consider that a "cheap" recreational plaything?
Once Nigel perfects flying this balloon, stitching will be outsourced to China. Load 48 rich retirees, set off on a voyage around the world. Have a doctor, FAs with assisted living experience, WiFi to facetime with grand kids and wire transfer facility to send more money to blimp operator. They will be the happiest passengers.

[Xeque]

I think it is lacking vectored thrust towards the rear. The two forward thrusters don't seem to be man enough and the two aft "pushers" might not vector down or up sufficiently to make any difference in a situation like this.

[NorthSouth]

Surely all this was worked out 100 years ago by Zeppelin et al?

[beamender99]

The world's longest aircraft came into contact with "high voltage power cables" before nosediving on landing, an electricity firm has said.
Developers of the Airlander 10 had denied witness reports the airship struck a telegraph pole during its "heavy landing" on Wednesday.
But UK Power Networks said the aircraft had come into contact with one of its power lines.
Hybrid Air Vehicles said a mooring line had been in "contact" with a cable.

Airlander 10: Longest aircraft hit power cable before nosediving - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37184864)

[Scuffers]

Surely all this was worked out 100 years ago by Zeppelin et al?
and yet, people still think it's something new and exciting...

Now it's crashed just like so many of them before, are we not learning?

[finfly1]

The company apparently IMMEDIATELY denied a witness report that it had struck power lines.

Why?

Corporations today really ought to be extremely conscious of how bad their image is becoming due, perhaps in part, to their seemingly limitless willingness to lie instantly about anything.

What could it cost them to say, instead, that they were investigating reports of the beast having struck a power line, rather than having to admit later on that their initial response was incorrect?

[oldchina]

Now it's crashed just like so many of them before, are we not learning?

In a way we are: the A380 made a nearly four hour first flight, a low pass then final approach over Toulouse. And it didn't crash!
The blimp brigade are denying that air transport has moved on.

[cwatters]

Early reports said that it was a mooring cable that struck the power lines. Perhaps the same mooring line got caught on the ground pulling the nose down? It's a potential problem that glider pilots understand.

[minimum clean]

Being a glider pilot, and a winch driver too, I am always aware of hanging cables, from where ever.

To prevent us from new legends, please have a look at the fourth last Photograph in this link:

World?s largest 'bottom' aircraft hits a telegraph pole and suffers cockpit damage | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3756260/Bummed-World-s-largest-25million-aircraft-hits-telegraph-pole-suffers-cockpit-damage-lands-base-just-SEVEN-days-maiden-voyage.html)

It is clearly visible, that a rope or cable is hanging down from near the bow of the Airlander. It hangs down nearly perpendicular. May be not exactly, but by no means with a Tension to the back, which should be, if the cable had stuck in the fence, this way bringing the Airships nose down.

Compared with the video, the photo shows the situation, when the airlander hangs overhead the beginning of the runway, with nearly no speed, and right before it starts to dive.

If the cable is not tightened in this situation, it should, in a mechanical way, not be a factor.

[Feathers McGraw]

It makes sense now, as I drove past the entrance to the track that leads to the old R101 mooring mast position I saw a UK Power Networks vehicle parked there this morning.

Yesterday I saw the Airlander passing across the end of my garden and as it disappeared over the trees towards Cardington Airfield I noticed that it pitched down in a rather aggressive manner. It wasn't until later that I realised that it had made a hard landing, but I immediately thought back to what I had seen and took the view that the nose down attitude started well before the airfield boundary.

I couldn't see any lines hanging from the Airlander but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
The power lines run out to one or two isolated farms between Cotton End and Cardington village.

[G-CPTN]

You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.

[crablab]

You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.

Surely they have baffles like in planes to prevent a similar effect if you suddenly drop a wing?

[am111]

You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.

Surely helium rushing to the front would cause the front to be lighter? Perhaps he accidentally floored the accelerator pushing the helium to the back? :p:}

[Herod]

Applied the brakes BEFORE landing? Surely not.

[fenland787]

According to UK Power Networks there were two causes, the arrester gear failed to hold and the arresting hook had been installed at the wrong end of the airplane. An understandable mistake as neither end is noticeably more pointy?

[Richard J.]

From the Airlander (Hybrid Air Vehicles) website:
Airlander 10 offers a new type of flight, with ground-breaking capabilities. Seems as if they took that last phrase too literally.

Their media statement tonight about hitting the power lines was primarily concerned with saying that "No damage was caused to the aircraft and this did not contribute to the heavy landing." Only as an afterthought did they apologise for the "inconvenience" of causing a power cut to five local residents.

https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news-and-media/news/airlander-media-statement-25th-august-2016

[parabellum]

A Squared - Looks as though you missed my last sentence,


Is there likely to be a market to sustain a small fleet?


Used to fly the -400F, a single object weighing ten tons was never a problem provided it fitted the cargo cabin and didn't exceed floor loading limits.


Given the quoted economics of the Airlander difficult to see how a positioning flight from the states, followed by a revenue flight of three hours, followed by the empty return flight would be cheaper than the Lander and as for time, when the journey from source to airport and destination airport to required final destination of a heavy and awkward load is included would a freighter aircraft be any quicker?

[Chu Chu]

Actually, the helium rushing to the front (and increasing the pressure and density there) would shift the cg forward. This might be partially or wholly offset by increased buoyancy forward, but only if the forward part of the envelope bulged out and increased displacement. I really doubt there'd be a significant effect either way.