New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm interested.
Why exactly does it upset you?
Lets say you are correct, and that it will all come to nothing.
So what?
Some people have invested a relatively tiny amount of cash that doesn't affect you personally and will at the very least advance some research in new technologies.
What's the big deal?
Compared to money that goes into normal military or aviation advances it is a tiny drop in the ocean, and it just might work which will be great.
Saying "it won't work, look at the historical precedent" misses the fact that all new technologies have some false starts. You cannot ever say that something will never work because it never has.
Being a Luddite is obtuse, but at least the original luddites had the excuse that the new tech was interfering with their jobs.
What is you guys excuse?
Why exactly does it upset you?
Lets say you are correct, and that it will all come to nothing.
So what?
Some people have invested a relatively tiny amount of cash that doesn't affect you personally and will at the very least advance some research in new technologies.
What's the big deal?
Compared to money that goes into normal military or aviation advances it is a tiny drop in the ocean, and it just might work which will be great.
Saying "it won't work, look at the historical precedent" misses the fact that all new technologies have some false starts. You cannot ever say that something will never work because it never has.
Being a Luddite is obtuse, but at least the original luddites had the excuse that the new tech was interfering with their jobs.
What is you guys excuse?
Not really - it's just a website begging fools to fund the stupid gasbag.
What is you guys excuse?
I object to the fact that so much spin and 'economical-with-the-truthisms' surrounds this project. It appears to prey upon those that want to believe and leverages the hard earned cash from these believers. Initially we were told that this project would be able to fly for a month with a significant surveillance payload - this proved wrong on both endurance (which is actually less than a 15% of the expected time on station) and anyone he knew anything about flying or airborne ISTAR knew this was a dumb idea anyway on a number of levels (if I recall correctly one of the capability ISTAR advisors (that ended up working for HAV) a few years was from the land environment, so it's hardly surprising). Then we were told it needs no significant ground support - apart from a massive hangar at Cardington, a mooring post (I saw that the ground had been prepared for this at Cardington when I flew past the other day) and a whole bunch of "Santa's little helpers". The payload is woefully small and it's speed is very slow (with even a moderate 40kt headwind a trains and roadfreight will outrun it). The latest made up task is "won't it be great to take a dozen or so rich tourists on sightseeing/wildlife tours?" - well there is a massive market for that, isn't there? What a waste of money...and it all appears to be based upon apparent lies.
How would I spend the money wasted on this project? I agree that STEM projects in this country are worthwhile investing in. How about investing in General Aviation:
- the Single Seat De Regulated (SSDR) market is one where only small amounts of certification work is needed to see aircraft fly. I'm not talking about aircraft like the 'E-Go' (http://www.e-goaeroplanes.com/wp-con...March-2016.pdf) which is also somewhat doomed due to its high cost, but for a more simple and affordable aircraft.
- how about spending the money on resurgence of youth gliding in the UK? We all know that that the Air Cadets have been let down badly. But generating youth involvement in gliding, or even the lesser certified end of powered flying like microlights/permit aircraft, generates interest that leads to motivated individuals working in that sector.
- finding a certifiable non-cooperative solution to 'sense and avoid' for drones and/or light aircraft might prove more lucrative than a re-invented gas bag?
There are bound to be many other projects with more potential than my 5 minute's of musing; and it certainly isn't a re-invented airship.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon
Most of your suggestions, though worthy, are not in anyway advancing aviation.
Sense and avoid has plenty of money being poured into it by all manner of people with big pockets, so no need to worry on that front.
You may very possibly be quite correct that airships never find a niche, but we all know that often projects succeed in producing new capabilities that were unexpected when the project started.
Even very large well funded projects often have to adjust expectations to meet reality once the real world meets the plan.
People keep mentioning that it would be quicker to transport loads by road or rail. This is undoubtedly true but misses the point. They are talking about transporting large loads to places where road and rail do not exist.
p.s. Have you seen the size of the Cruise liner market?
I wish the project well and don't mind at all that some money is thrown at it by some individuals and that the government has thrown some of my tax money at it. That pains me far less than some of the money they throw at other things.
Most of your suggestions, though worthy, are not in anyway advancing aviation.
Sense and avoid has plenty of money being poured into it by all manner of people with big pockets, so no need to worry on that front.
You may very possibly be quite correct that airships never find a niche, but we all know that often projects succeed in producing new capabilities that were unexpected when the project started.
Even very large well funded projects often have to adjust expectations to meet reality once the real world meets the plan.
People keep mentioning that it would be quicker to transport loads by road or rail. This is undoubtedly true but misses the point. They are talking about transporting large loads to places where road and rail do not exist.
p.s. Have you seen the size of the Cruise liner market?
I wish the project well and don't mind at all that some money is thrown at it by some individuals and that the government has thrown some of my tax money at it. That pains me far less than some of the money they throw at other things.
Why is the money "wasted"?
Investors stump up what they feel is reasonable (no one forces them) as a speculative measure, and in this case it will be seen as a long shot but they've balanced risk against amount invested or they simply wouldn't do it.
The company pays landlords, suppliers and employees for real estate, goods and labour and the money is redistributed into the economy at large. It does not disappear down a drain. It may or may not be spent wisely from some peoples' point of view but it all goes into other businesses be they MoD (Land), DuPont, Textron or Tesco, and they in turn spread it elsewhere. Its called Capitalism and is the basis on which we run our economy. No "waste of money" unless you are an aggrieved investor in which case perhaps you'd have been more comfortable with Premium Bonds. And if the project pays off then big gains get made.
The luddite attitude would never have produced any of the accoutrements of modern life - we'd still be weaving corn-dollies in the dark after a days horse ploughing, wouldn't we?
Investors stump up what they feel is reasonable (no one forces them) as a speculative measure, and in this case it will be seen as a long shot but they've balanced risk against amount invested or they simply wouldn't do it.
The company pays landlords, suppliers and employees for real estate, goods and labour and the money is redistributed into the economy at large. It does not disappear down a drain. It may or may not be spent wisely from some peoples' point of view but it all goes into other businesses be they MoD (Land), DuPont, Textron or Tesco, and they in turn spread it elsewhere. Its called Capitalism and is the basis on which we run our economy. No "waste of money" unless you are an aggrieved investor in which case perhaps you'd have been more comfortable with Premium Bonds. And if the project pays off then big gains get made.
The luddite attitude would never have produced any of the accoutrements of modern life - we'd still be weaving corn-dollies in the dark after a days horse ploughing, wouldn't we?
Well said Wageslave.
Airlander is from a financial investment viewpoint high risk - but it's not bound to fail, and if it doesn't fail offers significant potential opportunities.
This who don't believe in it, only need to not invest in it. Those who do, can.
I know a number of the engineers working on it, and have had reason to study airship technology over the last 20 years - I don't think it's a dead cert to either succeed or fail, but anybody trying to talk it down is just showing their own mean nature, and those supporting it are supporting possible progress. Best of British to the latter - in every sense of the phrase.
As for all the other things that you could do with the money - those can be done as well, by those who would like to spend their money.
G
Airlander is from a financial investment viewpoint high risk - but it's not bound to fail, and if it doesn't fail offers significant potential opportunities.
This who don't believe in it, only need to not invest in it. Those who do, can.
I know a number of the engineers working on it, and have had reason to study airship technology over the last 20 years - I don't think it's a dead cert to either succeed or fail, but anybody trying to talk it down is just showing their own mean nature, and those supporting it are supporting possible progress. Best of British to the latter - in every sense of the phrase.
As for all the other things that you could do with the money - those can be done as well, by those who would like to spend their money.
G
G
I hold a subtly different viewpoint on funding. Money is a finite pot of gold at a specific time - if too many people dive into the finite pot then the amounts get diluted.
Let's look at the Vulcan as an example. If so many people hadn't have sent huge amounts of cash to VTTS then would we have seen funding for Just Jane's return to flight? Or the Typhoon undergoing long term rebuild struggling for funds, or the Beaufighter that has struggled for years to find funding? Would we have seen a full set of flying repkicas for Stow Maries or the return to flight of the Vickers Vimy at Brooklands (that has also struggled for funds to sort out its Belllman Hangar).
So I object to the funding to something that has and will fail to deliver. There are so many more better projects to fund with Govt and Crowd funding - how about Reaction Engine's Sabre? Diluting our money on something that has had its day and couldn't be made to work just seems plain dumb...
LJ
I hold a subtly different viewpoint on funding. Money is a finite pot of gold at a specific time - if too many people dive into the finite pot then the amounts get diluted.
Let's look at the Vulcan as an example. If so many people hadn't have sent huge amounts of cash to VTTS then would we have seen funding for Just Jane's return to flight? Or the Typhoon undergoing long term rebuild struggling for funds, or the Beaufighter that has struggled for years to find funding? Would we have seen a full set of flying repkicas for Stow Maries or the return to flight of the Vickers Vimy at Brooklands (that has also struggled for funds to sort out its Belllman Hangar).
So I object to the funding to something that has and will fail to deliver. There are so many more better projects to fund with Govt and Crowd funding - how about Reaction Engine's Sabre? Diluting our money on something that has had its day and couldn't be made to work just seems plain dumb...
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are making assumptions again.
You don't know that it won't work, all you know is that it hasn't yet.
I very much support Sabre, but I won't pretend I would put any money on it working either!
You don't know that it won't work, all you know is that it hasn't yet.
I very much support Sabre, but I won't pretend I would put any money on it working either!
I hold a subtly different viewpoint on funding. Money is a finite pot of gold at a specific time - if too many people dive into the finite pot then the amounts get diluted.
Reaction Engines won't take mine, for one thing, and I have asked them.
Leon .. your argument "appears" persuasive .. but has one major flaw ...
You assume that all the folks who donated to VTTS would have donated to one of your other pet projects if VTTS did not exist. likewise you assume that those donating to this project would donate to something else if it did not exist.
This has been proved not to be the case many times .. people donate to something that takes their fancy/catches their eye/intrigues or interests them .... they do not, in general "go looking" for something to donate to.
This is "proved" for want of a better description by the large amounts that went to VTTS, far more than the "normal" level of donations to such projects.
I accept that SOME folks may have diverted their donations from one of your projects to VTTS, and may do so again to support this project, but to blame the demise of your favourites on the existence of this project is a step too far IMHO
Freedom of choice is the backbone of our society, and folks are free to donate to whatever they wish, or to not donate at all.
You assume that all the folks who donated to VTTS would have donated to one of your other pet projects if VTTS did not exist. likewise you assume that those donating to this project would donate to something else if it did not exist.
This has been proved not to be the case many times .. people donate to something that takes their fancy/catches their eye/intrigues or interests them .... they do not, in general "go looking" for something to donate to.
This is "proved" for want of a better description by the large amounts that went to VTTS, far more than the "normal" level of donations to such projects.
I accept that SOME folks may have diverted their donations from one of your projects to VTTS, and may do so again to support this project, but to blame the demise of your favourites on the existence of this project is a step too far IMHO
Freedom of choice is the backbone of our society, and folks are free to donate to whatever they wish, or to not donate at all.
Yes!
A few years out of date, but this sets the context rather well. I make the crowdsourcing target of HAV about 5% the annual voluntary income of the English National Opera, about 7.5% of the annual income of the southern 7th Day Adventists, around 11% of the income of the Cutty Sark Trust, or about half the income of the Eurovision "Mission to Europe".
Any of us can probably judge in those terms, according to our own prejudices, very happily!
G
A few years out of date, but this sets the context rather well. I make the crowdsourcing target of HAV about 5% the annual voluntary income of the English National Opera, about 7.5% of the annual income of the southern 7th Day Adventists, around 11% of the income of the Cutty Sark Trust, or about half the income of the Eurovision "Mission to Europe".
Any of us can probably judge in those terms, according to our own prejudices, very happily!
G
Leon - you said
I’ve tried to keep out of this discussion, Leon, but really, that is such utter cobblers.
Vulcan didn’t succeed at the expense of all those other worthwhile projects. It succeeded because of an amazing fund-raising organisation that managed to get people to contribute more than £23million because they wanted to. There is nothing to suggest that, without a similar campaign, any of your projects would have succeeded. The nearest comparison is Sally B - and her survival has taken the lifetime’s work of one extraordinary woman. Where are the people like Elly Sallingboe, or VTTS, for the projects you mention?
Speaking personally, there’s nothing I’d love to see more than a Beaufighter flying. My father died in one over the Mediterranean when I was eleven months old.
Equally, I’m extremely fond of the Vimy - I flew with it (and occasionally in it) down to Australia in the 1990s. I suppose it's just possible that both of those will fly again - but only if some groups of people get together and persuade millions of people to give, and keep giving, for those projects. The way VTTS did, so brilliantly, and the way Elly continues to do, equally brilliantly.
airsound
(Vulcan commentator, in case you’re wondering about bias….)
PS Sorry about the thread-drift
Let's look at the Vulcan as an example. If so many people hadn't have sent huge amounts of cash to VTTS then would we have seen funding for Just Jane's return to flight? Or the Typhoon undergoing long term rebuild struggling for funds, or the Beaufighter that has struggled for years to find funding? Would we have seen a full set of flying repkicas for Stow Maries or the return to flight of the Vickers Vimy at Brooklands (that has also struggled for funds to sort out its Belllman Hangar).
Vulcan didn’t succeed at the expense of all those other worthwhile projects. It succeeded because of an amazing fund-raising organisation that managed to get people to contribute more than £23million because they wanted to. There is nothing to suggest that, without a similar campaign, any of your projects would have succeeded. The nearest comparison is Sally B - and her survival has taken the lifetime’s work of one extraordinary woman. Where are the people like Elly Sallingboe, or VTTS, for the projects you mention?
Speaking personally, there’s nothing I’d love to see more than a Beaufighter flying. My father died in one over the Mediterranean when I was eleven months old.
Equally, I’m extremely fond of the Vimy - I flew with it (and occasionally in it) down to Australia in the 1990s. I suppose it's just possible that both of those will fly again - but only if some groups of people get together and persuade millions of people to give, and keep giving, for those projects. The way VTTS did, so brilliantly, and the way Elly continues to do, equally brilliantly.
airsound
(Vulcan commentator, in case you’re wondering about bias….)
PS Sorry about the thread-drift
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit more thread drift re #366 and e-Go: Rxd invitation this evening to attend the hand over of the first production aircraft on 7th June. I had been a volunteer on the programme so invested a bit. Ok the programme was severely delayed by a factory fire, a number of technical issues that took a while to sort but without the huge budget eventually got sorted.
Oh the link to Mil Aviation - The first customer and new CEO are Ex RAF. Quite a few others involved are Ex mil fliers and Engineers.
So Airlander ay be the biggest dimensional terms thing around at the moment. the e-go is quite small and light in comparison. Unfortunately I don't have a slack handful of beer vouchers to buy even a share in one. Both programmes have served a purpose and certainly attracted publicity and given us something to debate the relative merits of.
Now what's happening in Corrie or East Enders.
Oh the link to Mil Aviation - The first customer and new CEO are Ex RAF. Quite a few others involved are Ex mil fliers and Engineers.
So Airlander ay be the biggest dimensional terms thing around at the moment. the e-go is quite small and light in comparison. Unfortunately I don't have a slack handful of beer vouchers to buy even a share in one. Both programmes have served a purpose and certainly attracted publicity and given us something to debate the relative merits of.
Now what's happening in Corrie or East Enders.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, looks like it won't run out of Helium for a little while.....
Helium discovery a 'game-changer' - BBC News
Helium discovery a 'game-changer' - BBC News
Airlander 10: Aircraft leaves hanger for first time
Well, well - it finally sees the light of day...
The world's longest aircraft has been brought out of its hangar for the first time.
The Airlander 10, a plane-airship hybrid, was piloted out of the UK's biggest hangar at Cardington Airfield, Bedfordshire, at 04:00 BST on Saturday.
The 302ft-long (92m) aircraft passed with just a few feet to spare through the hangar doors and was then towed for 30 minutes to its mast site.
The Airlander 10, a plane-airship hybrid, was piloted out of the UK's biggest hangar at Cardington Airfield, Bedfordshire, at 04:00 BST on Saturday.
The 302ft-long (92m) aircraft passed with just a few feet to spare through the hangar doors and was then towed for 30 minutes to its mast site.