New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
I don't know the P-791's dimensions but it also has a payload of 20 tons. Both companies are apparently working on 50 ton models for a Canadian customer so you may see larger ones if things go well.
Last edited by t43562; 8th Aug 2012 at 17:27.
Well done NG, you've flown a balloon in a similar manner to those that have flown for 100+ years 
Whoopie bloomin' do!
The program will be scrapped inside 2 years when they learn the lessons of all those that have gone before...
iRaven
Whoopie bloomin' do!
The program will be scrapped inside 2 years when they learn the lessons of all those that have gone before...
iRaven
I pity the poor fecker who has to fly that - 3 mins from short finals to touchdown, with no fast-forward button.
Not to mention having to suffer the septic nerds yelling "yeehooo" every ten seconds or so. Have they no dignity?
Not to mention having to suffer the septic nerds yelling "yeehooo" every ten seconds or so. Have they no dignity?
Last edited by Trim Stab; 26th Aug 2012 at 18:50.
I note that they are flying on pretty still days - what's going to happen when it's 20G38kts+ ? 
...hello, is that the scrap man? I have a load of old mecchano that I no longer need...
...hello, is that the scrap man? I have a load of old mecchano that I no longer need...
Are airships back? Our guess - maybe not...
Here is the official US Govt report:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649661.pdf
I hate to say it...
...I F***ing well told you so!
LJ
PS See you back on the forum in 15 years time when some bright spark 'invents' the concept of airships all over again.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649661.pdf
LEMV is a technology demonstration project, expected to develop a hybrid prototype airship for ISR purposes in a forward combat environment. The project was initiated in response to an urgent need request. The Army is supposed to complete system level development and testing within the United States within 18 months after contract award (June 2010) and be ready for transport to Afghanistan for a joint military utility assessment and follow-on demonstration. The required on-station duration time is 21 days at an altitude of 20,000 feet. Pending the results of the joint military utility assessment and other reviews and evaluations, the Army will determine whether or not to pursue a program of record.
According to the program office, the LEMV hybrid airship is scheduled to undergo 33 manned flights totaling approximately 500 hours. The Army successfully launched and recovered LEMV during its first flight in August 2012. The initial date for deployment was January 2012; currently, the deployment date is indefinite. LEMV development is behind schedule 10 months (representing about a 56 percent schedule increase) due to issues with fabric production, getting foreign parts through customs, adverse weather conditions causing the evacuation of work crews, and first time integration and testing issues. Also, LEMV is 12,000 pounds overweight because it has weight issues with sub-systems, such as tailfins, exceeding weight thresholds. According to the program, the increased weight reduces the airship’s estimated on-station endurance at an altitude of 20,000 feet from the required 21 days to 4 to 5 days, representing at least a 76 percent reduction However, current plans, according to program officials, call for operating the airship at 16,000, feet which should enable on-station duration time to be 16 days with minimal impacts to operational effectiveness (other than about a 24 percent reduction to on-station endurance). The biggest risk to program development is the ambitious schedule of 18 months. The Army identified a fiscal year 2012 funding shortfall of $21.3 million resulting from the need for additional engineering and production support to mitigate and resolve technical issues at the LEMV assembly facility.
According to the program office, the LEMV hybrid airship is scheduled to undergo 33 manned flights totaling approximately 500 hours. The Army successfully launched and recovered LEMV during its first flight in August 2012. The initial date for deployment was January 2012; currently, the deployment date is indefinite. LEMV development is behind schedule 10 months (representing about a 56 percent schedule increase) due to issues with fabric production, getting foreign parts through customs, adverse weather conditions causing the evacuation of work crews, and first time integration and testing issues. Also, LEMV is 12,000 pounds overweight because it has weight issues with sub-systems, such as tailfins, exceeding weight thresholds. According to the program, the increased weight reduces the airship’s estimated on-station endurance at an altitude of 20,000 feet from the required 21 days to 4 to 5 days, representing at least a 76 percent reduction However, current plans, according to program officials, call for operating the airship at 16,000, feet which should enable on-station duration time to be 16 days with minimal impacts to operational effectiveness (other than about a 24 percent reduction to on-station endurance). The biggest risk to program development is the ambitious schedule of 18 months. The Army identified a fiscal year 2012 funding shortfall of $21.3 million resulting from the need for additional engineering and production support to mitigate and resolve technical issues at the LEMV assembly facility.
...I F***ing well told you so!
LJ
PS See you back on the forum in 15 years time when some bright spark 'invents' the concept of airships all over again.
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 24th Oct 2012 at 23:33.
Message for Governor Romney:
"Try asking Mr President why he has wasted $Ms on 'experimental' airships - doesn't he know that the nature of conflict has changed? Not only do we not use bayonets and horses anymore - we shouldn't try to use airships as well!!!"
Yup, the snake oil salesmen at Cardington have done it again (at least for another 10 years, anyway).
iRaven
"Try asking Mr President why he has wasted $Ms on 'experimental' airships - doesn't he know that the nature of conflict has changed? Not only do we not use bayonets and horses anymore - we shouldn't try to use airships as well!!!"
Yup, the snake oil salesmen at Cardington have done it again
(at least for another 10 years, anyway).iRaven
The Search of Bigfoot continues.....with the help of a blimp
What caught my eye of the article preview, was they put a pic of the LEMV
Idaho scientist seeks to launch aerial Bigfoot search with blimp - Yahoo! News UK
Idaho scientist seeks to launch aerial Bigfoot search with blimp - Yahoo! News UK
The Search of Bigfoot continues.....with the help of a blimp
What caught my eye of the article preview, was they put a pic of the LEMV
Idaho scientist seeks to launch aerial Bigfoot search with blimp - Yahoo! News UK
Idaho scientist seeks to launch aerial Bigfoot search with blimp - Yahoo! News UK
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Elmo hits the nail on the head with <<In regard to the helium problem: the only airship proposals I can take seriously are ones which don't require helium to be dumped in order to descend and land.>>
The obvious advantage of airships is that the aircraft itself can be neutrally buoyant - needing no power other than a little for trim, altitude change, and modest speed - the catch is the weight of fuel to be consumed in a flight and that anything other than relatively (to the aircraft itself) insignificant payloads are carried - heavy payloads would require a lot of thrust (and therefore fuel) to lift or unload or large adjustment of gas (dumping or compression, both I would suggest impractical).
The Zeppelins carried (correct me if I'm wrong) a small mass of passengers relative to the mass of the airship, from prepared point to prepared point, and used readily available hydrogen. They would be very vulnerable to adverse weather (eg icing R101 - can you imagine de-icing kit for a large airship?).
Moving hundreds of tons to FAFs - I don't think so.
Long range recce (a role with fixed payload) at modest speed - definitely.
Another investor con, I reckon.
The obvious advantage of airships is that the aircraft itself can be neutrally buoyant - needing no power other than a little for trim, altitude change, and modest speed - the catch is the weight of fuel to be consumed in a flight and that anything other than relatively (to the aircraft itself) insignificant payloads are carried - heavy payloads would require a lot of thrust (and therefore fuel) to lift or unload or large adjustment of gas (dumping or compression, both I would suggest impractical).
The Zeppelins carried (correct me if I'm wrong) a small mass of passengers relative to the mass of the airship, from prepared point to prepared point, and used readily available hydrogen. They would be very vulnerable to adverse weather (eg icing R101 - can you imagine de-icing kit for a large airship?).
Moving hundreds of tons to FAFs - I don't think so.
Long range recce (a role with fixed payload) at modest speed - definitely.
Another investor con, I reckon.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
hello, is that the scrap man?
SMDC: "Hello, is that Hybrid Air Vehicles? This is the U.S. Army...yes, those folks who spent $297 million on that balloon thingy. Long story short, we don't need it, so how about you give us $44 million for it?"
HAV: "Hmm, that's a bit steep. How about $301,000?"
SMDC: "Sold."
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 24th Oct 2013 at 03:55.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they say, deals like that come along once in a lifetime.
Those in Australia will remember Alan Bond / Kerry Packer Channel 9 deal
and buy back.
Those in Australia will remember Alan Bond / Kerry Packer Channel 9 deal
and buy back.
I think that's great news because it gives the HAC a chance to develop improvements and demonstrate the vehicle.
Naysayers do like to crow but to me it seems rather like being a music critic who can't compose music. Countless billions have been sunk into a lot of the technologies to get them to work that seem "safe" now but they were not always. Stopped prematurely they might have seemed like a bad idea too.
Naysayers do like to crow but to me it seems rather like being a music critic who can't compose music. Countless billions have been sunk into a lot of the technologies to get them to work that seem "safe" now but they were not always. Stopped prematurely they might have seemed like a bad idea too.
Ballast problems? Worth reminding ourselves of the R101 disaster in 1930.
R101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"We learned quite a bit from the technology," said John Cummings, an Army spokesman. "In the end, it was determined not to pursue it."
Let's hope that this will be the last time that some airship snake oil salesmen promote the idea of their gasbags for military forces.
Perhaps the grunts have also discovered the effect of W/V on TAS? oo-rah...
