Airlander retired
Thread Starter
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
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
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
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?
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?
Maybe someone who knows the real facts would care to enlighten us .
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 59
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pettinger93
The original had also ignored the official approval of the production model.
Originally Posted by pettinger93
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.
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.
Last edited by A Squared; 14th Jan 2019 at 21:24.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 59
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
What's the "less than stellar record" snark all about? A minor accident early in testing? Followed by a successful test programme.
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
. 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?
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.
What a miserable, shameful bunch of marvins you pathetic lot are. Disgrace and shame on you all.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 59
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
What a miserable, shameful bunch of marvins you pathetic lot are. Disgrace and shame on you all.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 78
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
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
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
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.
Thread Starter
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..........................
Originally Posted by A Squared
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.
Last edited by Phantom Driver; 15th Jan 2019 at 20:35.
Avoid imitations
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
retired after a long illustrious, and productive career...of looking like a giant butt
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.
Large airships are and will remain a commercial dead end unless someone can figure out a way to address their vulnerability to severe weather.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 59
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: s e england
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just don’t 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)
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)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 78
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pettinger93
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.
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.
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."
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
