New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
The reason why this nonsense annoys me is because so far the Govt has given £6M in grants, on top of goodness knows how much crowd-funding, then there was the £60M that the US spent. Then there are the investors who have spent "some beans". It is such a waste.
If you want to bring along the aerospace industry in the UK then get the Air Cadets some gliders - 60x conventional gliders with support would be around £6M. Much better for the aerospace future of the country when most sensible people can see that this gas-bag folly is going nowhere - to quote Lt Montgomery Scott " You cannae rewrite the laws of physics".
I've seen similar sums wasted on things like Herti in the past. We all knew it wouldn't work for what we wanted it for. Several said so, but we ploughed on blindly and wasted money on something that could never deliver the requirement. This thing will be the same. I'm even hearing the use of the smartphone tagline "we could use it for things that we haven't even thought about yet" - that's a lot of money and effort for something that has failed so many times in the past. The big beasty only carries 50 people for 4 days - it isn't exactly the QE2!!!
In 5 years time the hangars at Cardington will be empty and then some bright spark will say "I know, why don't we build an airship that can fly for 31 days and deliver huge cargo loads accross the globe?". Then the madness will start all over again.
LJ
If you want to bring along the aerospace industry in the UK then get the Air Cadets some gliders - 60x conventional gliders with support would be around £6M. Much better for the aerospace future of the country when most sensible people can see that this gas-bag folly is going nowhere - to quote Lt Montgomery Scott " You cannae rewrite the laws of physics".
I've seen similar sums wasted on things like Herti in the past. We all knew it wouldn't work for what we wanted it for. Several said so, but we ploughed on blindly and wasted money on something that could never deliver the requirement. This thing will be the same. I'm even hearing the use of the smartphone tagline "we could use it for things that we haven't even thought about yet" - that's a lot of money and effort for something that has failed so many times in the past. The big beasty only carries 50 people for 4 days - it isn't exactly the QE2!!!
In 5 years time the hangars at Cardington will be empty and then some bright spark will say "I know, why don't we build an airship that can fly for 31 days and deliver huge cargo loads accross the globe?". Then the madness will start all over again.
LJ
Leon,
Unless I've missed something, I doubt the QE2 can do trips over the Serengeti?
As previously stated there are bigger white elephants out there...this just looks like one at the moment.
How much did MOD recently pay for a few gossamer camera carriers?
And, if you were involved, you'd take a little care with your new baby too and you wouldn't throw it out in manky weather on its first trip. I'm sure you'd want to know how well it taxy's and handles at low speeds before heading for the big stuff too.
Unless I've missed something, I doubt the QE2 can do trips over the Serengeti?
As previously stated there are bigger white elephants out there...this just looks like one at the moment.
How much did MOD recently pay for a few gossamer camera carriers?
And, if you were involved, you'd take a little care with your new baby too and you wouldn't throw it out in manky weather on its first trip. I'm sure you'd want to know how well it taxy's and handles at low speeds before heading for the big stuff too.
The investors, presumably, have not been given the chance to buy gliders for the Air Cadets and might be interested to know how that could possibly be of help to themselves.
Last edited by t43562; 20th Mar 2016 at 20:49. Reason: clarify
Indeed, Rigga. Also, consider this:
http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense-jlens/
JLENS has eaten $2.7 billion - almost 30 times the sum that LJ is mad about - in two decades of accomplishing not very much. Oddly enough, it exists because the Army, in the early 1990s, was given control of "joint" defense against low-altitude targets, chiefly cruise missiles - and promptly killed off a Navy program based on an airship with Cardington genes.
Clearly the Army thought the airship was a waste of time and that a tethered aerostat would be snake-oil-free...
http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense-jlens/
JLENS has eaten $2.7 billion - almost 30 times the sum that LJ is mad about - in two decades of accomplishing not very much. Oddly enough, it exists because the Army, in the early 1990s, was given control of "joint" defense against low-altitude targets, chiefly cruise missiles - and promptly killed off a Navy program based on an airship with Cardington genes.
Clearly the Army thought the airship was a waste of time and that a tethered aerostat would be snake-oil-free...
Leon Jabachjabicz is 100% correct with his assessment of this useless gas bag POS.
The snake oil salesman have successfully extracted funding for this folly - but not another penny should be wasted on this useless device.
The snake oil salesman have successfully extracted funding for this folly - but not another penny should be wasted on this useless device.
Glad you agree with LJ, Beags.
You may be right. On the other hand, a couple of major defense contractors (LockMart and Selex-ES) are investing in hybrid/LTA at the moment, and they may be right for once.
Who knows? Personal view is that it's worth doing a properly run demo (not a run-before-walk project) to find out. And I certainly would advocate having exit ramps long before the $2.7 bn/20 year stage.
You may be right. On the other hand, a couple of major defense contractors (LockMart and Selex-ES) are investing in hybrid/LTA at the moment, and they may be right for once.
Who knows? Personal view is that it's worth doing a properly run demo (not a run-before-walk project) to find out. And I certainly would advocate having exit ramps long before the $2.7 bn/20 year stage.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than hitting on this project, I think I'd be questioning why the 'all weather' Watchkeeper has had to be deployed to sunny climes away from UK weather so that meaningful amounts of training can be carried out.
a tethered aerostat
Many Americans I have had to deal with assume that "aerostat" means "static" and thus the term "tethered aerostat" is tautological.
Then after this confusion, there is then the problematical ( for some) term "dirigible",being blindly assumed to have something to do with "rigidity".
Point-to-point travel? Doubt it.
A gentle amble over the Grand Canyon or the Serengeti, with big picture windows and not a sound to disturb the wildlife or the hikers? Sounds more interesting.
A gentle amble over the Grand Canyon or the Serengeti, with big picture windows and not a sound to disturb the wildlife or the hikers? Sounds more interesting.
Yes, what does the RAeS know when the article was written by this individual:
So effectively he regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers rather than use any professionally gained knowledge or experience as a career aviator or aerospace engineer...
...yeah, what does the RAeS know?
LJ
Txx Rxxxxxxx was hooked on aviation from an early age after being given balsa gliders and plastic model kits at a very early age. Unfortunately reading about Biggles under the covers at night strained his eyesight so he couldn’t be Biggles (along no doubt with other factors).
However he thinks he has got the next best job as an aviation journalist – where he gets to talk to pilots, engineers, airline CEOs, heads of industry and even astronauts across the whole spectrum of aviation, aerospace and space and learn more about this fascinating industry.
Since 2001 he has worked the publications department at the Royal Aeronautical Society, the world’s oldest professional membership organisation for the global aerospace community. In his role as Deputy Editor and now Editor on Aerospace International he covers civil and military aviation, general aviation and space. He also reports on the latest breaking aviation news from the world’s biggest and most exciting aerospace exhibitions and air shows such as Farnborough, Le Bourget, Singapore and Dubai.
As well as Aerospace International magazine, he has also created and writes the Aerospace Insight blog at the Royal Aeronautical Society website. In addition he has also been quoted as an aerospace expert for CNN, BBC and other international media organisations.
His aviation claim to fame is though he never got to fly on the iconic Concorde – he did go Mach 1.5 in the back seat of a MiG-29 over Russia – a flying experience he is still looking to top (offers gladly accepted!).
He is now Editor of Aerospace International, the monthly flagship magazine of the RAeS and blogs at the Aerospace Insight blog on the www.aerosociety.com website. You can find him on Twitter HERE.
However he thinks he has got the next best job as an aviation journalist – where he gets to talk to pilots, engineers, airline CEOs, heads of industry and even astronauts across the whole spectrum of aviation, aerospace and space and learn more about this fascinating industry.
Since 2001 he has worked the publications department at the Royal Aeronautical Society, the world’s oldest professional membership organisation for the global aerospace community. In his role as Deputy Editor and now Editor on Aerospace International he covers civil and military aviation, general aviation and space. He also reports on the latest breaking aviation news from the world’s biggest and most exciting aerospace exhibitions and air shows such as Farnborough, Le Bourget, Singapore and Dubai.
As well as Aerospace International magazine, he has also created and writes the Aerospace Insight blog at the Royal Aeronautical Society website. In addition he has also been quoted as an aerospace expert for CNN, BBC and other international media organisations.
His aviation claim to fame is though he never got to fly on the iconic Concorde – he did go Mach 1.5 in the back seat of a MiG-29 over Russia – a flying experience he is still looking to top (offers gladly accepted!).
He is now Editor of Aerospace International, the monthly flagship magazine of the RAeS and blogs at the Aerospace Insight blog on the www.aerosociety.com website. You can find him on Twitter HERE.
...yeah, what does the RAeS know?
LJ
So maybe the RAES isn't actually an authority on the subject.
If there was no future in it, then it's a possibility that all the big boys at L-M have their business case wrong too then?
I wonder what convinced them to plough millions into reviving their previously buried effort?
If there was no future in it, then it's a possibility that all the big boys at L-M have their business case wrong too then?
I wonder what convinced them to plough millions into reviving their previously buried effort?
I quite like TR, but he's not all that knowledgeable I agree. His recent enthusiastic article about the Edgley Optica didn't so far as I know match the opinions of any Test Pilot who has ever flown it!
It should also be said that RAeS position papers are rare, and carefully vetted - just because somebody has a role in the society does not *usually* mean that they speak for the society in general. TR's opinions are, so far as I can see, his opinions - not the Society's.
G
It should also be said that RAeS position papers are rare, and carefully vetted - just because somebody has a role in the society does not *usually* mean that they speak for the society in general. TR's opinions are, so far as I can see, his opinions - not the Society's.
G
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings Prrune
At the risk of sticking my head in the lions den (and after hearing Beetlejuice three times and having my professional reputation disparaged in public) I thought I would say hello.
You are correct L-J in my background. I do not have an aviation career/engineering background to draw on.
However, after 15 years reporting and writing about aviation and aerospace at the RAeS (and soaking up information like a sponge) what I do have is the ability to find, talk to and most importantly LISTEN to a wide range of pilots, engineers, scientists and other experts far, far cleverer and vastly more qualified than myself.
It is humbling to be able to consult and draw on people with real operational experience or technical skills to help me understand a complex topic in more detail. Then of course, it is a matter of forming a conclusion and adding the occasional personal insight.
I would therefore take objection to 'regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers'. As my article on Airlander makes clear there still remain big obstacles (weather, ground handling etc) and there is a list of failed airship projects (Cargolifter, Blue Devil etc) as long as your arm.
However:
1) They have a fully assembled air vehicle (not a CGI image) ready for flight (and customer demos) - mostly paid for, ironically by Uncle Sam.
2) L-M are now entering this market too. Are they deluded as well?
3) They only need 4-5 orders to be commercially viable, which seems on balance fairly viable. If they get 6, they have beaten Zeppelin NT in numbers built.
3) HAV seen to be taking an approach of 'walking before they run'. They are going after the established aerial sightseeing market (plus government contracts?) first to prove the concept, rather than the far harder aerial cargo idea - which is much more challenging (ground infrastructure etc) to pull off.
So are airships back? The jury is obviously still out until flight trials and customer demos, but you could argue that HAV have at least a fighting chance. As someone else has noted above in this thread, this is absolute peanuts compared to JLENS, so if it doesn't pan out, at least the UK taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for $2bn+.
Genghis - you are also quite correct that this is my opinion and comment alone, not the RAeS's which have to be formally approved.
I note with interest your comments on the Optica. And I restate that I am not a test pilot, nor would claim to be - that was just my simple observations from a short demo flight. However I would take issue with your comment that no test pilots liked it. In fact, in the April edition of AEROSPACE, we have a letter from a distinguished ex de Havilland test pilot who says of the Optica:
"I was impressed. Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation."
The one dissenter?
Finally - if anyone on Prrune does want to respond to articles, or join the debate with informed critiques (not just "your bloody journalist doesn't know anything!") I always welcome contributions for the letters page in AEROSPACE, that help advance the art, science and engineering of flight and contribute to learned debate and discussion under the natural umbrella of the RAeS.
Got article ideas, feedback, or something about aviation you think we should be covering? Drop me a line, DM me, give me a call and help ME be better informed and serve the RAeS better.
At the risk of sticking my head in the lions den (and after hearing Beetlejuice three times and having my professional reputation disparaged in public) I thought I would say hello.
You are correct L-J in my background. I do not have an aviation career/engineering background to draw on.
However, after 15 years reporting and writing about aviation and aerospace at the RAeS (and soaking up information like a sponge) what I do have is the ability to find, talk to and most importantly LISTEN to a wide range of pilots, engineers, scientists and other experts far, far cleverer and vastly more qualified than myself.
It is humbling to be able to consult and draw on people with real operational experience or technical skills to help me understand a complex topic in more detail. Then of course, it is a matter of forming a conclusion and adding the occasional personal insight.
I would therefore take objection to 'regurgitates facts from the snake oil peddlers'. As my article on Airlander makes clear there still remain big obstacles (weather, ground handling etc) and there is a list of failed airship projects (Cargolifter, Blue Devil etc) as long as your arm.
However:
1) They have a fully assembled air vehicle (not a CGI image) ready for flight (and customer demos) - mostly paid for, ironically by Uncle Sam.
2) L-M are now entering this market too. Are they deluded as well?
3) They only need 4-5 orders to be commercially viable, which seems on balance fairly viable. If they get 6, they have beaten Zeppelin NT in numbers built.
3) HAV seen to be taking an approach of 'walking before they run'. They are going after the established aerial sightseeing market (plus government contracts?) first to prove the concept, rather than the far harder aerial cargo idea - which is much more challenging (ground infrastructure etc) to pull off.
So are airships back? The jury is obviously still out until flight trials and customer demos, but you could argue that HAV have at least a fighting chance. As someone else has noted above in this thread, this is absolute peanuts compared to JLENS, so if it doesn't pan out, at least the UK taxpayer is not going to be on the hook for $2bn+.
Genghis - you are also quite correct that this is my opinion and comment alone, not the RAeS's which have to be formally approved.
I note with interest your comments on the Optica. And I restate that I am not a test pilot, nor would claim to be - that was just my simple observations from a short demo flight. However I would take issue with your comment that no test pilots liked it. In fact, in the April edition of AEROSPACE, we have a letter from a distinguished ex de Havilland test pilot who says of the Optica:
"I was impressed. Safe, superb view, stable and quiet. No faults, though I thought the stick force, in rotation a touch high, probably due to tailplane rotation."
The one dissenter?
Finally - if anyone on Prrune does want to respond to articles, or join the debate with informed critiques (not just "your bloody journalist doesn't know anything!") I always welcome contributions for the letters page in AEROSPACE, that help advance the art, science and engineering of flight and contribute to learned debate and discussion under the natural umbrella of the RAeS.
Got article ideas, feedback, or something about aviation you think we should be covering? Drop me a line, DM me, give me a call and help ME be better informed and serve the RAeS better.
