New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Posted not by me, but a well known poster on PPruNe:
This has everything to do with my HAV argument. Did the people that crowdfunded the Ł1/2million have any idea where their money would go? Did they know it might end up lining execs' pockets rather than the naive belief it was helping to fund the thing to fly? Lots of promises, sales pitches and glossy brochures using too much artistic licence - "aerospace hussle" - comes to mind! Or have the HAV team undertaken to spend none of the crowdfunding on wages and only on production materials and/or direct support costs for fuel (without creative accounting to achieve this)?
LJ
I donated once and ever since I have been bombarded with begging letters which I simply bin, they seem to know no bounds as to how low they will stoop to extract Money, it is also one of the few historical civilian aircraft that pays its crew to fly it, didn't mind funding the aircraft considering the amount of people that give their time for free to help keep it airworthy, but to fund the crew..I will pass.
BUT the year it flew to Waddington I think it was, where all the blurb for the show swelled the crowds to see the Vulcan fly, with some people travelling hundreds of miles with their families to see it and having paid to get in to find it was actually in the static as the VOC prior to it arriving knew the Permit to Fly would not be in place. They then left all the unpaid volunteers to face the anger of those that had spent a lot of money to get there, whilst the paid Aircrew, Staff and Dr Fleming stayed well away.... I truly felt for those volunteers and the abuse they got...
I would rather see it reduced to baked bean cans than it see another Ł1 out of my pocket to pay the wages of Fleming and his cronies.
0ct 2009 accounts
Wages and salaries 642,680
Social security. 59,263
Pension costs 2,474
Total 704,714
Average number of employees 17
Highest earning Robert Pleming 72,000
A lot of tin rattling before a penny gets spent on the jet.
For full details see
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...091031_E_C.PDF
BUT the year it flew to Waddington I think it was, where all the blurb for the show swelled the crowds to see the Vulcan fly, with some people travelling hundreds of miles with their families to see it and having paid to get in to find it was actually in the static as the VOC prior to it arriving knew the Permit to Fly would not be in place. They then left all the unpaid volunteers to face the anger of those that had spent a lot of money to get there, whilst the paid Aircrew, Staff and Dr Fleming stayed well away.... I truly felt for those volunteers and the abuse they got...
I would rather see it reduced to baked bean cans than it see another Ł1 out of my pocket to pay the wages of Fleming and his cronies.
0ct 2009 accounts
Wages and salaries 642,680
Social security. 59,263
Pension costs 2,474
Total 704,714
Average number of employees 17
Highest earning Robert Pleming 72,000
A lot of tin rattling before a penny gets spent on the jet.
For full details see
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...091031_E_C.PDF
LJ
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Just seen this introduced on the Japanese domestic TV news. They seem intrigued. Keeping a weather eye on the HAV?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
...You are approaching a1bill levels of obsession.
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 13:06. Reason: to correct "202" posts to "212" posts.
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.
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.
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....
However, this worthless gas bag thing is a snake oil salesman's solution to an as yet unspecified problem. It's a crock....
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.
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.
There is no proof that it can fly from the sea as yet - that might be an aspiration.
How about a moratorium on the use of "gas bag" and "snake oil"?
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!
“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!
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.
On 12 April the Airlander 10 was officially renamed “Martha Gwyn” by Prince Edward, after the wife of HAV’s chairman, Philip Gwyn.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!"