USA Army Airship for Afghanistan ISR
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also 10,000 AGL in quite a few parts of the Northern Stan is above FL240. And is close to it in the rest of the country. Add in the better performance with the colder/thiner air and MANPADs envelope will expand.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...maybe because ISR is generally done 'on the quiet...."
because luckily ginormous airships miraculously become invisible above FL240.
"Also 10,000 AGL in quite a few parts of the Northern Stan is above FL240. And is close to it in the rest of the country"
Bollocks
because luckily ginormous airships miraculously become invisible above FL240.
"Also 10,000 AGL in quite a few parts of the Northern Stan is above FL240. And is close to it in the rest of the country"
Bollocks
The whole thing stinks....the Greeners and Radicals would be up in the rafters screaming about biological warfare!
Three weeks of poop and pee has to go somewhere as they certainly could not keep it onboard for the duration.
On second thought.....fill it up with very senior commanders....that way they could see war at second hand and crap on the troops from a really great height!
Three weeks of poop and pee has to go somewhere as they certainly could not keep it onboard for the duration.
On second thought.....fill it up with very senior commanders....that way they could see war at second hand and crap on the troops from a really great height!
Tourist
I suggest you read this:
Furthermore, read this from a post on Boxing Day 2009:
So if you want to support this so-called "Snake Oil" capability then please go ahead - just make sure that it is the British Army that waste their budget on it and not the RAF.
Finally, who would want to join the "Women's Auxilliary Balloon Corps" anyway? ... Hang on? You might have a point...
The B Word
I suggest you read this:
The Hindu Kush reaches a height of 7,492 m (24,580 ft) at Noshaq, Afghanistan's highest peak. Of the ranges extending southwestward from the Hindu Kush, the Foladi peak (Shah Fuladi) of the Baba mountain range (Koh-i-Baba) reaches the greatest height: 5,142 m (16,870 ft). The Safed Koh range, which includes the Tora Bora area, dominates the border area southeast of Kabul. Important passes include the Una i Pass across the Sanglakh Range, and the Salang Pass, connecting Kabul with central and northern Afghanistan, respectively.
The tired old carousel of Lighter-than-air (LTA) continues to revolve, on average once every twenty years or so. Is that an Aereon or a Megalifter? In a poor light a Skyship looks much like a Dynairship. Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them. Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse! The main attraction of LTA lies in the fact that those seeking investment in such crackpot schemes know that investors have no reliable database of what the build or r&d costs for such turkeys ought to be, it's rich picking time for the snake oil salesmen when an air ship project hits town. Luckily, the tired old carousel at DARPA and similar institutions revolves at about the same speed, whenever anybody at such government offices wants a little extra cash for themselves, why not flag up a new "Walrus" or "Skycat"? It like goldfish, a short attention span means you can re-introduce the same nonsense time and again and wait hopefully for the cheques to drop through the letterbox! It is just possible that a conventional blimp of about 100 metres, approximately similar to a "K" class but with advanced glass cockpit and lightweight diesels, could make headway in the coastal surveillance/anti piracy field, but its a small r&d task, no money in it for the speculators you see. I know what I am talking about, invest at your peril! John Wood (Ex Chief Exec and co-founder of Airship Industries)
Finally, who would want to join the "Women's Auxilliary Balloon Corps" anyway? ... Hang on? You might have a point...
The B Word
Last edited by The B Word; 6th Jan 2010 at 13:08.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am all too painfully aware of the terrain levels in Afghanistan. Throughout almost the entire area of British interest, ground level is between 3000-4000 amsl, giving a very pleasant 13000ft viewing platform with a 10000ft buffer from AAA. It should be easy to make the heat signature negligible, thus negating manpads.
You could sit stationary over the centre of Kabul (6000amsl ish) and be in no threat from the surrounding high ground.
"Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them"
Totally specious argument. You can never carry enough wiggly-amps kit, and kit always expands to fill both the weight and power consumption available.
Even if it were true, then it would mean that you just need a smaller airship.
The big advantage you are missing is the ability to sit in exactly the optimum spot for your task.
All the orbiting UAVs etc are only occasionally exactly where the operator would actually like to be. A lot of the time they are blanked by trees, buildings etc.
I do not suggest they are the answer to all problems, but they certainly have advantages in certain scenarios
You could sit stationary over the centre of Kabul (6000amsl ish) and be in no threat from the surrounding high ground.
"Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them"
Totally specious argument. You can never carry enough wiggly-amps kit, and kit always expands to fill both the weight and power consumption available.
Even if it were true, then it would mean that you just need a smaller airship.
The big advantage you are missing is the ability to sit in exactly the optimum spot for your task.
All the orbiting UAVs etc are only occasionally exactly where the operator would actually like to be. A lot of the time they are blanked by trees, buildings etc.
I do not suggest they are the answer to all problems, but they certainly have advantages in certain scenarios
Mate, you've missed the bit saying...
The problem is that airships are "draggy" which means they need lots of "oomph" to move them about - especially at speed. Lots of "oomph" equals lots of fuel and then also the cross-section of the airship means that it is more affected by winds than conventional aircraft. This all adds up, IMHO, that airships may have "the ability to sit in exactly the optimum spot for your task", but only in uber-light winds or still-air.
Finally, the author of the article tried his product doing exactly this - using his airships as "on station assets" for prolonged periods. He couldn't manage the claims that the program initially promised - hence his somewhat negative outlook for airships in this role. In fact, it was trying to achieve this goal that bankrupted his company as they couldn't get it to work.
Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse!
Finally, the author of the article tried his product doing exactly this - using his airships as "on station assets" for prolonged periods. He couldn't manage the claims that the program initially promised - hence his somewhat negative outlook for airships in this role. In fact, it was trying to achieve this goal that bankrupted his company as they couldn't get it to work.
Last edited by The B Word; 7th Jan 2010 at 08:43.
Here is some more info:
THE BATTLE TO BUILD THE NAVY'S BLIMP - NYTimes.com
This was the original article promising all.
Then here is an article describing the efforts in the late 80s:
Airshipsonline : Airships : SkyShip 5000
Finally, here is a quote from another forum:
The link is: Westinghouse Airship Industries SkyShip 5000 and Sentinel 5000
What comes out of it is 60 HOURS between refuels - that is 2.5 days not WEEKS!
The B Word
THE BATTLE TO BUILD THE NAVY'S BLIMP - NYTimes.com
This was the original article promising all.
Then here is an article describing the efforts in the late 80s:
Airshipsonline : Airships : SkyShip 5000
Finally, here is a quote from another forum:
I can add some information...
The U.S. Navy had been interested in LTA technology since the early 1980s. This led to the Patrol Airship Concept Evaluation (PACE) ca. 1983, and some tests of a Skyship 500. In 1985, NAVAIR commissioned design studies for an AEW airship to work with surface action groups. Boeing, Goodyear, and a Westinghouse/Airship Industries team made proposals. These studies were for vehicles running ~3,000,000 cubic feet.
In 1986, the program was redirected toward an Operational Development Model - basically a proof-of-concept vehicle with an E-2 radar suite. Boeing dropped out, Goodyear bid a ZPG-3W with turboprop engines, WAI bid the Sentinel 5000. WAI won. A mockup of the gondola was built at the Weeksville, NC, hangar.
The USN pulled out in 1988, IIRC. Part of the A-12 eating all of Naval Aviation. But DARPA was interested in the airframe as a carrier for low-frequncy radars and pressed on with the program as funding permitted. Development went slowly, and the fire in the Weeksville hangar in 1994 (IIRC) pretty well killed the program off.
The performance numbers are off...the endurance was 60 hours, not 60 days. But it was planned to refuel at sea, making a 30-day patrol practical.
The politics of the program were very interesting. Within the Navy, the problem was that the YEZ-2 did not have a pointy nose or fire belching out the back. Not to mention that it was a direct challenge to the E-2, and a possible challenge to the P-3...and in the platform-centered communities of that era, this was politically very dangerous.
On top of that, WAI made some politically tone-deaf moves. Most of the subcontractors were in the UK...useful for the Airship Industries design team, bad for Congressional support. The Goodyear design might have been more successful, despite being technically outclassed, on that point alone.
The U.S. Navy had been interested in LTA technology since the early 1980s. This led to the Patrol Airship Concept Evaluation (PACE) ca. 1983, and some tests of a Skyship 500. In 1985, NAVAIR commissioned design studies for an AEW airship to work with surface action groups. Boeing, Goodyear, and a Westinghouse/Airship Industries team made proposals. These studies were for vehicles running ~3,000,000 cubic feet.
In 1986, the program was redirected toward an Operational Development Model - basically a proof-of-concept vehicle with an E-2 radar suite. Boeing dropped out, Goodyear bid a ZPG-3W with turboprop engines, WAI bid the Sentinel 5000. WAI won. A mockup of the gondola was built at the Weeksville, NC, hangar.
The USN pulled out in 1988, IIRC. Part of the A-12 eating all of Naval Aviation. But DARPA was interested in the airframe as a carrier for low-frequncy radars and pressed on with the program as funding permitted. Development went slowly, and the fire in the Weeksville hangar in 1994 (IIRC) pretty well killed the program off.
The performance numbers are off...the endurance was 60 hours, not 60 days. But it was planned to refuel at sea, making a 30-day patrol practical.
The politics of the program were very interesting. Within the Navy, the problem was that the YEZ-2 did not have a pointy nose or fire belching out the back. Not to mention that it was a direct challenge to the E-2, and a possible challenge to the P-3...and in the platform-centered communities of that era, this was politically very dangerous.
On top of that, WAI made some politically tone-deaf moves. Most of the subcontractors were in the UK...useful for the Airship Industries design team, bad for Congressional support. The Goodyear design might have been more successful, despite being technically outclassed, on that point alone.
What comes out of it is 60 HOURS between refuels - that is 2.5 days not WEEKS!
The B Word
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks, I'm one of the shareholders, so you can call me nuts if you like but this is not a blimp, it is a heavier than air lifting body shape with VTOL auto take off and land capability. It requires minimal ground crew as its landing gear hover taxies and then uses its bow thruster to turn in its own length.
It does not need masts, ropes, 16 blokes dragging from pillar to post etc etc.
The 80 knot cruise will keep it stationary with a 75 knot wind(at fl240 mind you) and at 20,000 feet it is out of effective range unless you want to start talking radar.
The payload at 20k is 3.5 metric tons for a 3 and a half week sortie. Thats a lot of surveillance and whatever else you want to put on it.
The same chassis also works as an unmanned skytruck at lower altitudes, but this time the payload increases to 20 metric tonnes.
It is effectively a roll on roll off ferry that flies. it uses 80% less fuel than fixed wing yet offers equivalent transport flexibility to a helicopter at a fraction of the risk. You can fill it full of small arms fire holes and it flies just fine, and if it does get shot down, nobody dies. It is in many ways more surviveable than a helicopter.
The 20 tonne version is the initial prototype, but payloads up to 1000 tonnes are possible with 4 day endurance and transatlantic range, cruising at around 8000 feet.
The basic company website is Hybrid Air Vehicles ltd, and we are in direct competition with Lockheed Martin for the contract.
Boeing are trying to develop a similar vehicle.
It does not need masts, ropes, 16 blokes dragging from pillar to post etc etc.
The 80 knot cruise will keep it stationary with a 75 knot wind(at fl240 mind you) and at 20,000 feet it is out of effective range unless you want to start talking radar.
The payload at 20k is 3.5 metric tons for a 3 and a half week sortie. Thats a lot of surveillance and whatever else you want to put on it.
The same chassis also works as an unmanned skytruck at lower altitudes, but this time the payload increases to 20 metric tonnes.
It is effectively a roll on roll off ferry that flies. it uses 80% less fuel than fixed wing yet offers equivalent transport flexibility to a helicopter at a fraction of the risk. You can fill it full of small arms fire holes and it flies just fine, and if it does get shot down, nobody dies. It is in many ways more surviveable than a helicopter.
The 20 tonne version is the initial prototype, but payloads up to 1000 tonnes are possible with 4 day endurance and transatlantic range, cruising at around 8000 feet.
The basic company website is Hybrid Air Vehicles ltd, and we are in direct competition with Lockheed Martin for the contract.
Boeing are trying to develop a similar vehicle.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: An anger-management clinic.
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all so good I'm amazed that Military haven't been screaming "We Want Some Laboons" since WW2.
I have a faint suspicion that the concept has been examined on a 3-year cycle since 1949, which is precisely why the Women's Balloon Corps was secretly disbanded in 1950.
Basic physics rules - and the laboon is the victim on several counts.
I have a faint suspicion that the concept has been examined on a 3-year cycle since 1949, which is precisely why the Women's Balloon Corps was secretly disbanded in 1950.
Basic physics rules - and the laboon is the victim on several counts.
Aztruck - top tip for you buddy, is don't start your posts with "I'm one of the shareholders". Don't you think you might be indicating a slight financial bias?? 
Had a look at the wind data for Afghanistan from one of my flight planning guides and it shows that the FL240 winds are less than 40kts for only 4 months a year - they are also averages, so there must be days at 75kts+ and days of 10kts or less.
Also had a look at this video from Lockheed Martin, who have built a full-sized air vehicle compared to the small scale model of Hybrid Air Vehicles:
YouTube - Lockheed-Martin "Skunk Works" P791 LTA ACLS dynmicpara
It looks pretty unsteady on its feet doesn't it? Also, because it is "heavier than air" (about 80% is lifted by gas and the rest by aerodynamic lift) take a look at the runway it needs. Also, without propulsion its going to crash like any other "heavier than air" aircraft!
Here is the UK's Hybrid Air Vehicle's website with a video of a model of what they might produce if they manage to get money out of the cash-strapped MoD:
Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd, SkyCat
When you take a look at the company's heritage, it has been trying to peddle the "snake oil" of airships for the past 35 years (Airship Industries via Westinghouse Airships Inc via Advanced Technology Group (ATG) to Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV)). I'm sorry to say, that I believe Mr John Wood; at least he had the sense to call it a day after so many companies have gone into recievership over this continuing debacle.
If you need persistence and want to buy British then let's fork out for satellites. Surrey Satellite Technology are building 14 GALILEO GPS space vehicles for £510M - that's about £36M a copy. Halve the order to cover the launch costs (about £10M per shot), infrastructure and operations and now you're talking!
If we're going to invest in this folly, then please make it another Army folly - just like the Phoenix UAV.
Had a look at the wind data for Afghanistan from one of my flight planning guides and it shows that the FL240 winds are less than 40kts for only 4 months a year - they are also averages, so there must be days at 75kts+ and days of 10kts or less.
Also had a look at this video from Lockheed Martin, who have built a full-sized air vehicle compared to the small scale model of Hybrid Air Vehicles:
YouTube - Lockheed-Martin "Skunk Works" P791 LTA ACLS dynmicpara
It looks pretty unsteady on its feet doesn't it? Also, because it is "heavier than air" (about 80% is lifted by gas and the rest by aerodynamic lift) take a look at the runway it needs. Also, without propulsion its going to crash like any other "heavier than air" aircraft!
Here is the UK's Hybrid Air Vehicle's website with a video of a model of what they might produce if they manage to get money out of the cash-strapped MoD:
Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd, SkyCat
When you take a look at the company's heritage, it has been trying to peddle the "snake oil" of airships for the past 35 years (Airship Industries via Westinghouse Airships Inc via Advanced Technology Group (ATG) to Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV)). I'm sorry to say, that I believe Mr John Wood; at least he had the sense to call it a day after so many companies have gone into recievership over this continuing debacle.
If you need persistence and want to buy British then let's fork out for satellites. Surrey Satellite Technology are building 14 GALILEO GPS space vehicles for £510M - that's about £36M a copy. Halve the order to cover the launch costs (about £10M per shot), infrastructure and operations and now you're talking!
If we're going to invest in this folly, then please make it another Army folly - just like the Phoenix UAV.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that we are operating in areas where the roads are deadly, and the skies distinctly less so, with long and fragile supply routes, the airship could have a role to play.
Being able to move a significant cargo out of range of IED or SMARMS is a good start, though naturally t/o and landing are the times of risk. In comparison to the numbers of people with near misses and injuries in convoys on a daily basis it has a potential selling point. There is little public or political will to endure great numbers of casualties, and the airship offers a potential way to reduce casualty rates.
Being able to move a significant cargo out of range of IED or SMARMS is a good start, though naturally t/o and landing are the times of risk. In comparison to the numbers of people with near misses and injuries in convoys on a daily basis it has a potential selling point. There is little public or political will to endure great numbers of casualties, and the airship offers a potential way to reduce casualty rates.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep, got it in one. The Lockheed ship alluded to with regard to stability problems...erm...far be it from me to say that they dont have it cracked, but a small portakabin in Cardington says that stability and control are well established in the UK vehicle.
Skykitten is actually seen flying in a 30 knot wind as a small scale demonstrator...so you can scale that up accordingly.
It also had an engine failure when demoing its water landing ability to the pentagon and still came through with flying colours.
To restate for the benefit of jokers about gasbags, Hindenburgs, R101 etc
This is a heavier than air hybrid flying machine, combining lighter than air technology, fly by wire and lifting body shape, with the ease of loading of a roro ferry and VTOL take off and landing.
I'm sure a couple wouldnt go amiss hunting pirates with an SBS fast boat aboard........
Skykitten is actually seen flying in a 30 knot wind as a small scale demonstrator...so you can scale that up accordingly.
It also had an engine failure when demoing its water landing ability to the pentagon and still came through with flying colours.
To restate for the benefit of jokers about gasbags, Hindenburgs, R101 etc
This is a heavier than air hybrid flying machine, combining lighter than air technology, fly by wire and lifting body shape, with the ease of loading of a roro ferry and VTOL take off and landing.
I'm sure a couple wouldnt go amiss hunting pirates with an SBS fast boat aboard........
An AC-130 with a 105mm aboard would work just fine for Pirate popping....with no need for rubber boats!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it doesnt crash like any other aircraft. It has a unique and very survivable engine out(although there are 4 of them) scenario, including total power failure at a critical height after a vtol lift off with insufficient altitude to enter a glide. The worlds biggest flying umbrella will deposit itself back on terra firma unharmed.
A C130 with a big cannon ...yep...that would blow up ye pirates, but it couldnt stay on station 24/7 for several days, and couldnt take prisoners, or transfer them to naval vessels. A manned HAV with the appropriate radars at 5000 feet and 100 knots could detect and close/interdict with either its own weaponry or via fast boat launched out of the back at sea level and then recovered.
Or it could phone a friemd.
Dont lets get started on its famine relief /aid applications/evacuation abilities.
Its not all about shooting at things.
A C130 with a big cannon ...yep...that would blow up ye pirates, but it couldnt stay on station 24/7 for several days, and couldnt take prisoners, or transfer them to naval vessels. A manned HAV with the appropriate radars at 5000 feet and 100 knots could detect and close/interdict with either its own weaponry or via fast boat launched out of the back at sea level and then recovered.
Or it could phone a friemd.
Dont lets get started on its famine relief /aid applications/evacuation abilities.
Its not all about shooting at things.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much IR/radar return would an airship present if constructed/coated with suitable materials? To shoot it down, you have to know it's up there, right? Presumably a big ass Goodyear logo wouldn't be giving it away.
One approach could be to base it at a friendly spot in the Gulf, fly it with the jetstream to the Afstan border then drift eastward over Afstan at 70-80kt and recover to either (a) an airstrip in Pakistan from which it can be flown back or more likely (b) a landing platform outside Pakistani territorial waters which could then shuttle it back to the main base. Some of the many container ships clogging up the harbours near Singapore could be refitted for that role (could also serve in the role of pirate bait)
The tricky part would be avoiding an propulsion failure which would cause overflying Pakistan into Indian airspace...
One approach could be to base it at a friendly spot in the Gulf, fly it with the jetstream to the Afstan border then drift eastward over Afstan at 70-80kt and recover to either (a) an airstrip in Pakistan from which it can be flown back or more likely (b) a landing platform outside Pakistani territorial waters which could then shuttle it back to the main base. Some of the many container ships clogging up the harbours near Singapore could be refitted for that role (could also serve in the role of pirate bait)
The tricky part would be avoiding an propulsion failure which would cause overflying Pakistan into Indian airspace...
The anticipated LEMV OTA will be for a five year technology demonstration inclusive of the fabrication of a LEMV airship, integration of payload and ancillary systems, test, and support for five years. The schedule requires performance testing within 18 months followed by additional test and demonstration conducted in Afghanistan over the remaining OTA term.
The basic performance requirements for the LEMV airship include: optionally unmanned; 3 week endurance; 2500 pound payload capability; operating altitude of 20,000 feet above mean sea level, 16 kilowatts of payload power ; multi-intelligence capable; supportable from austere locations; 80 knot dash speed and 20 knot station keep speed.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LM P791 and the HAV Skycat.
Hi chaps,
There are very few designers that understand how to design a hybrid airship that will fly right. The only company that knows how is HAV in cardington. See www.hybridairvehicles.com If you take a look at the video the Skycat it is very stable although the gain setting on the pitch control was a bit high at the time. Now go take a look at the Lockeed Martin P 791 in flight and it is all over the place even on a calm day.
The reason is simple, they have got a serious yaw/roll coupling problem with the design of the fins / aft envelope section and C of G. This is an inherent risk with flat body envelopes unless you really know your LTA designs. It is similar to dutch roll but gets worse as you increase the envelope volume. LM have no clue what they are doing in reality. partly because the designer of the Skycat, Roger Munk did some of their early design work on the fins, but as a result of a breach of contract lawsuit against the old ATG he stopped helping them and although I dont know who is now LMs aerodynamics man, but unfortunately I can tell you he really has got something horribly wrong with the basic design.
Regards
Trevor.
See my company web site: www.airshipblimp.com and please use the contact form on the homepage if required.
There are very few designers that understand how to design a hybrid airship that will fly right. The only company that knows how is HAV in cardington. See www.hybridairvehicles.com If you take a look at the video the Skycat it is very stable although the gain setting on the pitch control was a bit high at the time. Now go take a look at the Lockeed Martin P 791 in flight and it is all over the place even on a calm day.
The reason is simple, they have got a serious yaw/roll coupling problem with the design of the fins / aft envelope section and C of G. This is an inherent risk with flat body envelopes unless you really know your LTA designs. It is similar to dutch roll but gets worse as you increase the envelope volume. LM have no clue what they are doing in reality. partly because the designer of the Skycat, Roger Munk did some of their early design work on the fins, but as a result of a breach of contract lawsuit against the old ATG he stopped helping them and although I dont know who is now LMs aerodynamics man, but unfortunately I can tell you he really has got something horribly wrong with the basic design.
Regards
Trevor.
See my company web site: www.airshipblimp.com and please use the contact form on the homepage if required.