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 5th Apr 2016, 02:21
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,530
Please, LJ, stop for your own sake. Do you really expect HAV employees, or anyone working for a crowdfunded venture, to work for nothing? That's not how these things work. The funding is THERE to pay for the work to be done. You are approaching a1bill levels of obsession.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 06:44
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,903
Err, why? Why should my opinion be surpressed?

Having just looked at the crowdfunding site 'crowd cube' there appears to have been some economies with the truth:

Hybrid Air Vehicles has developed an innovative low-carbon aircraft. Airlander can fly for weeks and take-off from land, water, or ice. The market has been independently validated at $50 billion and the company is supported by the UK Government. This British SME aims to lead the world in ‘lighter than air’ aviation. Join investors including PLC Chairmen, experienced business angels & investment professionals to prepare Airlander for take-off.
https://www.crowdcube.com/investment...vehicles-18450

Many of you have been at pains to state this is not 'lighter than air' aviation. Furthermore, both company brochures state the flying endurance is a number of days and not weeks as stated in crowd sourcing. There is no proof that it can fly from the sea as yet - that might be an aspiration. Where do they believe that $50Bn is coming from?

So, I could 'stop for my own sake' or I could keep pressing for proper answers from people here who seem to be totally enraptured in the romantic idea that large airships have a significant place back in the world of aviation.

As you can probably guess, I don't share that view and countless projects before this have failed demonstrating that this viewpoint is equally as valid.

LJ
Lima Juliet is online now  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 07:48
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,496
At least with Vulcan To The Sky, contributors knew what the aim was - to return a single Vulcan aeroplane to flying display standard for at least 5 years. Which was subsequently achieved.

Whereas this pointless gasbag thing is simply a money pit. There are no known customers, so my bet is that this thing will simply rot away at Cardington after a few flights which will do nothing more than demonstrate its uselessness.
BEagle is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 08:30
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Many of you have been at pains to state this is not 'lighter than air' aviation.
Come on Leon, 'lighter than air' is the term given to this class of aviation and not some cynical attempt by HAV to hoodwink its investors, as you imply (though what advantage they might gain from claiming their vehicle actually is lighter than air, I'm not sure).

Furthermore, both company brochures state the flying endurance is a number of days and not weeks as stated in crowd sourcing.
Well, given as they are currently touting the Airlander as a manned platform for the commercial sector it is something of a moot point whether its endurance can be measured in days or weeks. I guess it will be up to the MoD to assess its true capabilities once they come to evaluate it for military applications, if they do.

There is no proof that it can fly from the sea as yet - that might be an aspiration.
Indeed, but the same can be said for any claim made for any other aircraft that ever flew - nothing is proven until it does it for the first time. Is that a reason to wish for its failure?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 10:39
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,868
Where do they believe that $50Bn is coming from?
I would guess that both HAV and LM have investigated the costs involved in shipping "stuff" from hubs to remote sites. Think ice road truckers but allowing deliveries to continue throughout the year. Remote mining sites in any number of locations.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 10:55
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 631
Just seen this introduced on the Japanese domestic TV news. They seem intrigued. Keeping a weather eye on the HAV?
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 23:01
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,885
LOL! - the 'Not Invented Here' attitude lingers on!
I'm not sure about any $50Bn, but someone in PR will have sexed-up that figure.

I am sure, though, of a need to move cargo about cheaply and steadily, to places that don't have a runway, a railway or a dockyard. Places that are just being built or just don't have a road.

There may also be a need for something to hang around for a while. Perhaps longer but certainly cheaper than the current stuff. Something that doesn't need to be close the the action, but looking from miles away. And any mention of 'military' always brings risks with it.

My point is, we don't know yet if it will work? And even if it does work, will the numbers stand up to make it worth while?

...and I wonder how little money Leon would work for - in any job?

...and I wonder how much Beags would have rubbished the Kestrel/Harrier trials, or maybe the introduction of a new Swing-Wing do-it-all aeroplane?

I'm sure you would have argued against carrying radios on aircraft too.
Rigga is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 00:24
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by LowObservable
...You are approaching a1bill levels of obsession.
Given the vehement nature and extraordinary scale of your post count in the 'F-35 Cancelled?' thread compared to a1bill's, you might want to reconsider the justness of that ad hominem.

There are 212 posts alone in which you've mentioned the F-35 by name but a far greater number where you haven't.

Last edited by FODPlod; 6th Apr 2016 at 14:06. Reason: to correct "202" posts to "212" posts.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 00:38
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,530
How long did it take you to count them?



If you read the posts on the other thread you may find that the arguments are a little more complex than "snake-oil salesmen", the winds over AFG, and the track records of previous LTA projects.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 01:19
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by LowObservable
How long did it take you to count them?
Who needs to count when a quick & dirty search (0.04 secs) produces this?


FODPlod is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 02:16
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 468
It would be so nice if these personal duels could go back to the thread where they started, we all have a responsibility not to strike the next blow and the next.
t43562 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 07:43
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,496
Rigga, the P1127, Kestrel and Harrier were all developed to meet a specific NATO requirement. Polymorphic aircraft such as the F-111, F-14, MiG23 and Tornado solved the aerodynamic difficulties of their respective specifications.

However, this worthless gas bag thing is a snake oil salesman's solution to an as yet unspecified problem. It's a crock....
BEagle is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2016, 12:51
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,530
How about a moratorium on the use of "gas bag" and "snake oil"?

Or even a recognition that the hybrid idea (endorsed so far by LM and Selex-ES) might be worth exploring to see if it has value for up-to-200nm maritime patrol and point-to-point, no-roads cargo lift?

After all, even those who love the Harrier and don't think that the F-35B is an air pump peddled by lizard-lube marketeers, or that the V-22 is a worthless windmill touted by reptile-grease vendors, have to confess that many different ways to do those missions were invented and tested along the way.

Most of them failed...

The V/STOL Wheel

... but we didn't know which was going to fail and which was going to succeed until we put something in the air and tested it. And I'll bet you that many of the projects on the Wheel of Misfortune cost a good deal more, adjusted for inflation, than has been spent on hybrid LTA to date.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2016, 14:33
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 242
There is no proof that it can fly from the sea as yet - that might be an aspiration.
The proof of concept large scale model flew from, and landed on water 16 years ago. Google 'SkyCat' to see the pictures and video.

How about a moratorium on the use of "gas bag" and "snake oil"?
Quite agree. These phrases are as old as some peoples views.
Sky Sports is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2016, 23:29
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,885
In one of Leon's posts (346?) he quotes this:
“The Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV), a hybrid air vehicle, is a technology demonstration project administered by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. This project was initially designed to support operational needs in Afghanistan in Spring 2012; it will not provide a capability in the timeframe required. Due to technical and performance challenges, and the limitations imposed by constrained resources, the Army has determined to discontinue the LEMV development effort."

Call me a nit-picker, but it doesn't sound like the US Army failed the LEMV demonstration project cos of technical issues - it looks like they cancelled it due to TIME issues - and, of course, Barrack needed a quick save? I think that changes Leon's 'interpretation' quite a bit!
Rigga is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2016, 10:24
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 315
This doesn't answer all of the questions above and isn't intended to but on Thursday we received the EASA Approved Flight Conditions and on Friday the EASA Permit to Fly (from the CAA). Six months of my life, hundreds of pages of technical reports and many hours of meetings & telephone calls. That's the second new UK aircraft design FC and PtF I have delivered in a year. Oh and the Crowdcube total is now more than a million, only three days left to run on that.
JOE-FBS is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2016, 18:14
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 468
Not as good as hearing it from the "horse's mouth" but:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...airlan-424105/
t43562 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2016, 21:26
  #358 (permalink)  
sir
Basia Arma
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: button moon
Posts: 43


On 12 April the Airlander 10 was officially renamed “Martha Gwyn” by Prince Edward, after the wife of HAV’s chairman, Philip Gwyn.
He named THAT after his wife ? Balls of IRON that man.
sir is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2016, 21:34
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Were you watching some other blimp commercial?

A little late to the party, all I have to add is:

Originally Posted by Sterling Archer
Some broad gets on there with a staticy sweater and Boom! It's "Oh the humanity! Waaaaah!"
Whizz Bang is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2016, 22:55
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 62
Posts: 666
More on this in this months RAeS magazine (front cover and a lengthy article) Hopefully they will get airborne shortly. I just want to say I have seen it fly. It would also be great to see jobs created developing lightweight structures and novel materials.
dragartist is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.