Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airlander retired

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airlander retired

Old 14th Jan 2019, 16:05
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 519
The original one - "Army Space and Missile Defense Command spokesperson, the cancellation was a result of technical and performance challenges that had been encountered, as well as resource constraints that had come into effect"

The second UK based one crashed on its second flight and was badly damaged again later - an insurance write-off

Not a single major player is interested in buying these things - why? because they don't make economic sense

Rather like large passenger flying boats they had a very important place in aviation history but that time has long passed. No-one builds 4 masted cargo vessels anymore, nor triremes and I use a watch rather than Stonehenge. It's sad in a way but don't confuse romance with modern aviation - you'll only be disappointed......

PS National Pride is a poor basis (on its own) for building things - the UK has quite a record of burning money on projects that never made it economically- Brabazon, Comet, Herald, Concorde, Trident (airliner), VC-10...... even the hovercraft only has limited application
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
Why all the negativity? What's the "less than stellar record" snark all about? A minor accident early in testing? Followed by a successful test programme. Get a life! How many aircraft would we now be without if they'd been dropped for that reason?

That report is highly positive - they've proved the concept and have gained production approval. There's still a long way to go but it's a British success - or are we all so saturated in gloom and self-flagellation that nothing positive can be said about our wonderful country's positive achievements?
"British success" ? Jumping the gun a bit, aren't we ? Putting jingoistic arguments to one side , I ask myself which aircraft has ever been cleared for production after just "6 successful" (?) flights (including one "accident/incident" ; whatever you want to call it ). Or maybe some confused reporting going on here....? ( like MoT granting Brexit ferry contract to a company that has no ferries (yet).

Maybe someone who knows the real facts would care to enlighten us .
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:11
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by pettinger93 View Post
The original had also ignored the official approval of the production model.
No, it didn't ignore that, because that didn't happen. What *did* happen is that CAA awarded HAV " Production Organisation Approval. " What that means is that the CAA has approved HAV's plan for an aircraft manufacturing organization, in terms of the administrative aspects of manufacturing aircraft; quality control, supply chain management, etc. It does not mean that they have been given approval to begin manufacturing type certificated airframes. In part because they have not been awarded a type certificate.

Originally Posted by pettinger93 View Post
The revised article is now much more positive, and makes it clear that the prototype had been deliberately retired, to allow the manufacture of the approved production model.
Again, not true, although I suppose that one might draw that erroneous conclusion from this statement in the BBC article;
Originally Posted by BBC
It also clarifies that Hybrid Air Vehicles has been given the required certification from all air authorities to begin full commercial production of its aircraft.
which is misleading at best. Even HAV, in their glowing press releases does not claim that. They are a long way from being set to begin building production certificated aircraft for delivery to customers.

Last edited by A Squared; 14th Jan 2019 at 21:24.
A Squared is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:57
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
What's the "less than stellar record" snark all about? A minor accident early in testing? Followed by a successful test programme.
I'm not sure a test program with only 6 flights, one of which ended in a crash; a program which was cut artificially short when someone didn't quite get a mooring pin inserted correctly, after which the aircraft destroyed itself in "light winds", could be accurately described as "successful".

Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
. There's still a long way to go but it's a British success - or are we all so saturated in gloom and self-flagellation that nothing positive can be said about our wonderful country's positive achievements?
Well, not really, the thing was designed and built by Northrup Grumman, with the US Defense Department pouring in vast quantities of development money, as only the US DoD can do. ... almost a third of a billion (with a B) USD. Granted, HAV was one of Northrup Grumman's subcontractors, and an important one, and I'm certainly not trying to start a "my country is better than yours" pissing match. I'm just saying that the cast-off from a (very expensive) failed foreign military development program (programme, if you will) is probably not a good candidate as a source of nationalistic pride.
A Squared is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 20:57
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,689
retired after a long illustrious, and productive career...of looking like a giant butt
ironbutt57 is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 22:13
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 259
No wonder this great nation is in such dire straits, when even a modest technical success is so slated by those very people you'd expect to be promoting it.
What a miserable, shameful bunch of marvins you pathetic lot are. Disgrace and shame on you all.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 22:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
What a miserable, shameful bunch of marvins you pathetic lot are. Disgrace and shame on you all.
Well, I suppose that if you can't respond in kind to the factual issues raised, you can always call names. It's a time hono(u)red tradition.
A Squared is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 23:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 74
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
SNIP

Rather like large passenger flying boats they had a very important place in aviation history but that time has long passed. No-one builds 4 masted cargo vessels anymore, nor triremes and I use a watch rather than Stonehenge. It's sad in a way but don't confuse romance with modern aviation - you'll only be disappointed......

PS National Pride is a poor basis (on its own) for building things - the UK has quite a record of burning money on projects that never made it economically- Brabazon, Comet, Herald, Concorde, Trident (airliner), VC-10...... even the hovercraft only has limited application
True, Asturias, but with a difference. Large passenger flying boats were operated successfully by a number of airlines. I don't know of any successful commercial passenger airship operators apart from DELAG, and they were led by Eckener, who seems to have been something of a genius. Then he was kicked out by the Nazis; he might or might not have prevented the Hindenburg disaster, but the only way to avoid the bad weather problems was to be extremely cautious, which would be difficult to do under modern commercial management.

National pride is indeed a poor basis for building things, but it's probably quite a good motivator for extracting investments from people who are suckered by the romance of these things. My father-in-law (who wasn't a mug, in general) invested in Alan Bond's Airship Industries. But I suppose it's long enough ago for most people to have forgotten that fiasco. Like the perennial flying car, the airship turns up repeatedly.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 07:05
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 519
Sad but true Parrot - and it's not just the Brits who get suckered - Italy & France have their own share of nasty things in the cupboard (Mercure anyone? and ALitalia..........................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 20:17
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
Well, I suppose that if you can't respond in kind to the factual issues raised, you can always call names. It's a time hono(u)red tradition.
Well said ; kind of sums up what is wrong with many parts of UK plc these days as the Brexit "debate" (aka, saga ) continues.

Last edited by Phantom Driver; 15th Jan 2019 at 20:35.
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 21:57
  #31 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,110
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
retired after a long illustrious, and productive career...of looking like a giant butt
Ironbutt....You saying you've retired too?
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 23:33
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,263
It's difficult to see any rational business case for Airlander. They've done little to address the Achilles Heel of all large airships - they are highly vulnerable to severe weather and need a large and expensive "safe harbor" that they can retreat to when things turn nasty. This requirement is completely contrary to the stated commercial purpose of providing heavy lift capability in remote locations - where any sort of potential safe harbor is likely to be days away if the weather unexpectedly turns.
Large airships are and will remain a commercial dead end unless someone can figure out a way to address their vulnerability to severe weather.
tdracer is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 00:21
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
It's difficult to see any rational business case for Airlander. They've done little to address the Achilles Heel of all large airships - they are highly vulnerable to severe weather and need a large and expensive "safe harbor" that they can retreat to when things turn nasty. This requirement is completely contrary to the stated commercial purpose of providing heavy lift capability in remote locations - where any sort of potential safe harbor is likely to be days away if the weather unexpectedly turns.
Large airships are and will remain a commercial dead end unless someone can figure out a way to address their vulnerability to severe weather.

Yep, if you scroll though the press releases on their website, you'll see that there is a lot of ink expended on nothing more than the process of getting it out of the hangar to the mooring mast and back in. Practice drills, they've held, techniques they've used. Modifications and improvements of their equipment .... yeah, about that: If getting your aircraft in and out of your home hangar is a newsworthy process, then your plans of operating in remote areas are just silly fantasy.
A Squared is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 10:31
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: s e england
Posts: 72
Most of the complaints on this thread relate to the media reporting (or mis-reporting) the Airlander press release, then blaming the Airlander company for the media mistakes. Agree that the concept might look a bit unlikely and / or uncommercial, but full marks to them for trying something different. Investors in this new project make their own judgement: they take a considered risk, and if it works they will make money. If not, they write it down to experience. 'Nothing ventured. nothing gained'. I can think of a lot of examples of new ideas that were ridiculed at first, then, when they turned out to work, were hailed as a wonderful breakthrough.
pettinger93 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 10:49
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,109
Just donít make the production models look like a giant bum !

Seriously; even if it is commercially viable, (which would surprise me), which company or operator will want to have their name on this thing that looks like a large bottom flying slowly along? Sorry, but it does.

Please at least put a fairing over the front.



(Ironbutt beat me to it)
Uplinker is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 10:50
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 494
Sell some to Levis Jeans maybe?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 21:20
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 74
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by pettinger93 View Post
SNIP
I can think of a lot of examples of new ideas that were ridiculed at first, then, when they turned out to work, were hailed as a wonderful breakthrough.
Thing is, this is not a new idea--it's rather over a hundred years old. Aerostats have to be large and light, which means they are always going to be extremely vulnerable to weather.

I'm not sure there have been all that many transformative ideas that were widely ridiculed at first. There's an error of thinking called "They laughed at Christopher Columbus."
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 12:35
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,689
how limited is something like that when operating around convective weather,....
ironbutt57 is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2019, 17:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 297
New Engines for the Airlander

Collins partners to develop electric propulsion for Airlander 10

  • 30 April, 2019
  • SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
  • BY: Jon Hemmerdinger
  • Boston
Collins Aerospace has partnered with airship maker Hybrid Air Vehicles and the UK’s University of Nottingham to develop a 500kW (650hp) electric propulsion system for the Airlander 10 airship.

The three-year effort, called E-HAV1, focuses on creating an electric system that could ultimately replace two of Airlander 10’s four fuel-burning engines, says Collins motor drive systems engineering director Marc Holme.

Hybrid Air has been working to start production of the Airlander 10 airship, which it markets as both a passenger-carrying aircraft and a heavy lifter.

Airlander 10’s current propulsion system includes four 325hp V8 turbocharged diesel engines, according to Hybrid Air’s specification sheet.

The Airlander electric propulsion project remains in the early study phase, but Collins anticipates building a direct-drive, liquid-cooled electric system that turns at a “fairly low speed” of 1,500-3,000rpm, says Holme.

“Our role within the programme is to push the electric machine forward,” he says. “This fits with Collins electrification strategy.”

Collins, a division of United Technologies, aims to deliver the motor within three years to the University of Nottingham, which is developing the system’s “high-power-dense” converter, Holme says.

The system will be ground tested at Nottingham’s facility, and Bedford, UK-based Hybrid Air will provide higher-level support.

The partners hope their work will create a prototype that can then be produced and fitted to Airlander 10.

“The aim ultimately is [to]… replace the two front propulsion engines, which are gasoline, with electric,” Holme says.



=centerHybrid Air Vehicle's Airlander 10, powered by four gas engines, takes off

=rightHybrid Air Vehicles

The project has won grant funding of more than £1 million ($1.3 million) from a joint UK-government and industry aerospace technology programme.

Hybrid Air describes Airlander 10 as a “hybrid” airship lifted both by the buoyancy of helium and aerodynamic thrust generated by air passing its hull.

The aircraft is capable of hauling 22,000lb (10,000kg) of cargo, cruising at 80kt (148km/h) and staying aloft for five days, according to Hybrid Air’s documents.

Collins executives paint the electric project as reflecting its broader push to advance electric aircraft systems. They note Collins recently announced $50 million investment to build an electric aircraft technology laboratory in Rockford, Illinois called The Grid. Additionally, UTC subsidiary United Technologies Advanced Projects (UTAP) is developing a 1MW electric motor for a Bombardier Dash 8-100 – an effort called Project 804.

The Airlander electric project will receive support from the Grid and benefit from UTAP’s work, says Holme.

For Airlander, Collins faces the challenge of developing a high-power-dense system that requires minimum cooling. Collins must also reduce the weight of cables required to transmit the system’s electric needs, which can be achieved by improving insulation and increasing voltage, says Collins vice-president of engineering for advanced technology Juan de Bedout.

Longtimer is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 03:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,185
So now we need an airtight, light weight flexible solar panel skin.
RatherBeFlying 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.