Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK

Old 18th Sep 2015, 19:19
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
There is no way that $2k/hr is FULL cost. The support costs of this gas-bag will be huge - you need a lot of real estate and big hangars (like Cardington) to support it and they all add to the full hourly cost.

Ok, 2015 may be wrong, but think that Raven is right about 2016. I just can't see this selling in any great numbers.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 21:21
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 343
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Concord never sold in great numbers, but it was pioneering and a thing of real beauty!
Sky Sports is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 07:00
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
LJ - I don't know where you get "a lot of real estate" from. It needs about twice its own length to get airborne, most of which can be any flat surface. Mooring (using two trailer-mounted pieces of kit) requires a circle of less than 2X the length, which can be flat surface you can drive a truck across.

It's also quiet, removing fixed-wing noise constraints from the operation.

As for hangarage, I don't think that's the plan. The outer layer of the envelope is made from the same stuff they use to protect ocean-yacht sails and the inner layer is carbonfiber fabric.

However, your concerns are understandable. Ground-handling for a large conventional (always negative weight) ship is a pain in the tuckus, which is why Roger Munk switched to the hybrid and added thrust-vectoring and FBL controls, and modern fabrics are a huge factor in terms of strength-to-weight, sustained gas-tightness and climate resistance.

Dies ist ganz nicht Ihr Grossvaters Zeppelin!

Last edited by LowObservable; 19th Sep 2015 at 09:03.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 11:35
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Leaving the gas-bag outside? Good luck with that. I have a bit of knowledge of yacht sails and microlights (like Ikarus C42 and Rans S6) - I wouldn't expect them to last more than a couple of years if I left them exposed to the elements in all weathers.

If you're planning to have your gas-bag 'sucked down' onto a piece of concrete then that suction has to come from somewhere and that will also add to the cost. Also, is this suction going to cope with 40kts+ of wind that's not exactly freak weather these days?

One wonders why the company has bothered with the expense of restoring Cardington if it doesn't need to protect its gas-bags from all weathers?

Oh, and as for Concorde? I think they built 20 and operated 14. I'd be staggered if HAV get a quarter of those sales!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 14:41
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
It's public record that HAV don't own and haven't paid to restore the sheds.

Cardington airship shed site's 592 new homes approved - BBC News
JOE-FBS is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 16:54
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Just had a look at the HAV website and it states:

AIRLANDER 10
The largest aircraft currently flying uses innovative technology to combine the best characteristics of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters with lighter-than-air technology to create a new breed of hyper-efficient aircraft. It can stay airborne for up to five days at a time if manned, and for over 2 weeks unmanned. It will fulfil a wide range of communication, cargo carrying and survey roles in both the military and commercial sectors all with a significantly lower carbon footprint than other forms of air transport.
Following the construction of a second Airlander 10, HAV’s next plan is to begin work on the Airlander 50, a longer and larger version with a potential payload of 60t for heavy lift operations. The Airlander 50 will be able to carry up to six 20-foot containers in its payload module, subject to a maximum weight of 50t. A 20t lift built-in crane is also included as part of the basic specification. It could also be used as a manned surveillance vehicle, carrying a crew of up to 14 people for a period of up to five days. Work on this airship is planned to begin in 2016 with first flights in 2018. - See more at: http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-....8UvZbLMl.dpuf
So the weeks and weeks of manmed surveillance seems to have been cut down to 'up to 5 days'. It has a payload of 10,000kgs and cruises at 80kts (in the North Atlantic Jetstream it will be going backwards on most days!). A C-5B Galaxy cruises at 480kts ground speed and carries 122,000kgs. A C-17 carries 77,000kgs and cruises at 450kts groundspeed. I still can't see any advantage in the cargo role and the ISR role is also questionable when some fixed wing can fly unrefuelled for 12-14hrs and close to 24hrs when air-to-air refuelled - even a venerable AWACS can get close to those figures and normally its the toilet that's the limiting factor! For unmanned surveillance, the latest iteration of Zephyr is looking to fly for over 3 months, which is better than '2 weeks unmanned'. If I had the Airlander in a game of 'Top Trumps' it would be the crap card that everyone wouldn't want! Even the upgraded Airlander 50 can't beat a C-17 in cargo capability.

So quite how the HAV sales team think they're going to sell any of these is beyond me. Maybe 1 or 2 for novelty value in the tourism industry and I reckon that's about it.

For Joe-fbs, so the HAV effort is being sponsored by housing developments then? That's how they can claim $2k/hr then!!!

LJ

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 19th Sep 2015 at 17:10.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 17:10
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Leaving the gas-bag outside ...
Didn't Cpl Jones have that mod on his Butchers Van
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 17:13
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Yes, Coff, it did. At least Cpl Jones' Butcher's Van stood more chance in a contested environment!



LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 21:36
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
The website is out of date in that respect. The 50 is some way off.

Nobody ever expected "weeks and weeks of manned surveillance". The US Army wanted 21 days unmanned. I am not sure why, particularly with a lot of specialized electronics on board.

And while I claim no special knowledge of North Atlantic weather, the Hindenburg did operate a scheduled passenger service in 1936, with an 85 mph top speed.

And you wouldn't expect them to build it outdoors, would you?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 22:05
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
LO

The Hindenburg took 60-80 hours to cross the Atlantic - that's 3-4 days roughly. I don't believe it was pressurised and so would have sat outside the jetstream. But why would you want spend 3-4 days in a blimp when you can do it almost in as many hours in a fixed wing aircraft?

I remember listening to Gen Dave Deptula state when he was the 'big cheese' of USAF Intel and he explicitly stated he wanted 'weeks and weeks' of ISR and that was what the LEMV was all about. Having been sold their 'snake oil' the US military bailed before wasting another load of dollars; why? Because LEMV was 12,000lbs overweight and rather than being capable of delivering 'weeks' of ISR it was now going to be 'days' - funnily enough it was estimated at just less than 5 days, which is what the Airlander is quoting!

Trans-atlantic services of fixed wing aircraft only really started properly after WWII as the engines were all too unreliable pre-1939. Hence, flying boats that could land on if one of their 'donks' packed in or an airship that could limp on whilst the crew fixed the engine (somewhat bravely in my opinion). We don't need to do that anymore, our gas turbines are reliable and efficient. If you have a look on the internet the cost of the Hindeburg ticket was ~$400 one way which was a sh!t load of money in 1936!

If this was such a good idea then t'Bungling Baron, Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Dassault, Saab, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, etc...etc... would have thrown their weight behind it decades before. Even now, if there was any 'brass' to be made then the big boys would be wading straight in. I tend to agree with the implied lack of faith by the big aerospace companies - the concept is flawed and even if a few end up flying it will end up being a great big expensive folly at the tax-payers' expense.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 23:30
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
You missed LockMart's airship announcement at Paris.

Lockheed Martin Launches Worldwide Hybrid Airship Sales With Hybrid Enterprises · Lockheed Martin

My reference to the Hindenburg was not intended to suggest that the LTA can do everyday air travel, just to suggest that an 80kt machine is not useless in the face of wind.

Ultimately it is cost per hour that will or will not sell LTA for surveillance. For transportation, civil or military, the selling point will be "faster than ship, cheaper than air" along with point-to-point and no transshipment. And speaking of major companies, NorthGrum has talked quietly about large civil cargo LTA in the past couple of years.

Think about picking up 100 tons of the season's latest electronic pet rock from the factory in Guangdong and dropping them off at Walmart's distribution center in Indiana...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 00:23
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
You want 100T of the latest gadgets in 1 delivery? Sure no problem, within 24hrs anywhere in the world - just tell them where you want them...



4,000 miles+ in 1 hop in 10 hours.

I'm sure these folks would love the trade... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indi...tional_Airport

As for cost per hour, that is incorrect when you are so SLOW - as they say in business, time is also money.

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 20th Sep 2015 at 10:43.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 11:39
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
I believe that some of the first interest comes from people who want to build wind turbines in parts of Sweden where the roads to bring in the equipment don't exist. Presumably conventional aircraft would have trouble getting there.
t43562 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 13:32
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Right you are, txxxxx. And not just places with few roads, I should think. Turbine blades for a lot of the U.S. Midwest come across the Atlantic on specialized cargo ships, up the St Lawrence, through Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior and get loaded on outsize road convoys at Duluth.

Wind turbine blades again - Duluth Shipping News | Duluth Shipping News

This is both slow and awesomely expensive and furthermore is ice-blocked for several months per year.

Outsize air freight, meanwhile, is an area where you don't go unless you absolutely have to, because the An-124 operators have over a barrel. Less costly outsize, point-to-point, would sell for certain. Even Airbus' operation hasn't led to a commercial-market follow-on - I suspect that it makes sense for them only because the cost of road convoys in Europe is horrendous.

LJ's jet freight works for high-value items like airplane wings and high-unit-revenue things like FedEx parcels, but there's still a big gap between air and intermodal surface that airplanes have never filled.

And about that DreamLifter: Boeing's cost to build that one aircraft was more than the LEMV program bill, which developed the first of a new type of aircraft, flew it, and also included a complete and new-technology ISR suite.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 19:56
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,076
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
L-J,

I think you have your eyes too far up your own domain!

I don't think that LTA was ever going to replace fast jet freighters who's business is getting some stuff from a VERY long runway to another VERY long runway, very fast. You're comparing a Articulated Lorry to a Canal Boat.

Try this...

What about getting a lot of stuff to an isolated area 'fairly quickly'?

Replacing trains, trucks and boats instead of planes? - And possibly without the use of a long runway or a Station/Siding/Ramp or even a deep enough Port. How about just using a big flat piece of ground, like a farmers field(s), without any paving on it?...or possibly low lying water?

How many of your big jets could attempt that?

And as for the 'blowing them out of the sky' What would a missile hit? What would it burn? What percentage of Lifting Gas would be lost?...if it hit a Lifting Bag.

Even if it hit an engine...so what? it has another three widely spread apart. It's to have diesel engines so that too is no more dangerous than for an conventional airframe.

Get your brain into alternatives not negatives.
Rigga is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 23:09
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
In the military transport regime, you wouldn't get an LTA within range of a hostile SAM or in an area with an active fighter threat, but then nor would you do that with a C-17 or a C-5. You would drop your forces at a point where they could drive forward to where they were needed, at most.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 13:42
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
HAV Filled with helium for the first time in the UK:

Hybrid Air Vehicles - Airlander filled with helium and flying



Airlander, the world’s largest aircraft, reached another milestone in its Return to Flight programme with its first helium fill. On Saturday, 31 October at 10pm, it was floating for the first time at its Hangar in Cardington, Bedfordshire.

The 92 metre-long Airlander was “walked” the entire length of the 248 metre Hangar to get to the front doors of the Hangar. This involved 4 fork lift trucks, one at each corner of the Airlander, each carrying a 2-tonne block of cement with a restraining rope attached moving in unison.

During the months of November and December, the key parts of the Airlander (the engines, fins and Mission Module) will be finalised and integrated onto the Airlander. From early 2016 a series of ground tests will take place inside and outside the Hangar ready for first flight during the first quarter of 2016.

HAV’s Technical Director, Mike Durham said, “Seeing the Airlander come to life and floating was simply breath-taking. This is a key moment for the UK’s aerospace industry in getting this unique aircraft ready for flight.”

Airlanders are low noise, low pollution, and environmentally-friendly. This capability is recognized today, by being selected as one of the showcasing companies at the leading environmental conference, Cleantech. Airlanders have ultra-long endurance, and a point-to-point cargo-carrying capacity. They can take off and land vertically and operate from a range of remote environments including water, desert, ice and fields. Airlander is the global leader in the independently validated $50 billion market for this new green aircraft technology. The company expects that 1,800 new jobs will be created in the UK in the next 5 years.

They are useful for any long endurance tasks such as coastguard duties, military and civil surveillance, filming and academic research. In passenger configuration they are likely to carry 48 passengers in luxury for tourism and pleasure flights, and the Airlander is currently undergoing market testing of an overnight luxury passenger service and a business city-centre to city-centre sleeper service. Airlander will carry up to 10 tonnes of cargo, and fly half way round the world on a single tank of fuel.

Airlander has already secured over £60 million of customer funding, more than £6m of grants and over £12 million of equity funding. Further funding is being raised now ahead of a planned Initial Public Offering on the smaller company’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM). The Airlander is building an order book of commercial and military orders for trials and demonstrations and for aircraft sales.

Airlander is actively seeking sponsors for the aircraft and continue to see many people joining Airlander Club, which has many benefits including getting their name on the hull in time for first flight.
t43562 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 19:02
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
I'm surprised that there has been no comment here about the breakaway OTH radar blimp in the US a couple of days ago. Trailing its mooring lines, and knocking out power lines all over the place!

Sample link >>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...-16s/74747832/

Apologies for sound-track!
MPN11 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 23:39
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post


HAV chase crew?
Surplus is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2015, 00:35
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Canada
Posts: 358
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Just out of genuine interest (not trying to be difficult); what Airworthiness standard is this going to be certified under (FAA/EASA Part/CS 23, 25 etc), and what limitations do you foresee on your AOC (if any)?
Avtur is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.