The Commercial Applications of Airships
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
75kts with 90 max is very reasonable. It would be interesting to know anticipated ff in pph with those big turbines, and capacity. The max altitude is only 9000'. My last (been a while) airship had a ceiling of 10000'. We never got near to this, pressure altitude coming in to play (flat ballonets) Around 6000' I think, is the highest we managed, so again 5-6000 is probably realistic.
This bird has a great range, 3225 nm. It could be a useful tool to any oversize freight outfit. let's hope development costs don't kill it.
(I've only got the choice of Keo, Carlsberg or Mythos where I live...
)
This bird has a great range, 3225 nm. It could be a useful tool to any oversize freight outfit. let's hope development costs don't kill it.
(I've only got the choice of Keo, Carlsberg or Mythos where I live...
)
I might be missing something, but why would you go down any route other than neutral buoyancy in flight?
Keep a reserve of liquid Helium (or any other suitable gas) and use it for lift, re-compress to sink. That would allow 100% weight on the wheels. I'm pretty sure that it would still need to tethered though.
Keep a reserve of liquid Helium (or any other suitable gas) and use it for lift, re-compress to sink. That would allow 100% weight on the wheels. I'm pretty sure that it would still need to tethered though.
Equilibrium (neutral buoyancy) would be nice on nine out of ten occasions in an airship. However, an airship is ballasted to achieve a desired landing weight only. There are very few exceptions, such as filming sporting events etc.
There is presently no way of re-compressing helium on board, if it were, it would loose some purity in the transaction and therefore loose lift. Certainly, it would never be (commercially in a normal flight scenario) dumped. The only occasions one would dump helium would be to increase the pressure height attainable (for altitude gain) or in a non normal circumstance. Certainly, it would not be expelled in order to descend normally. Infact, we would sometimes perform a 'pump and dump' procedure to increase purity on a leaky airframe etc (refreshing the helium)
I do agree that some form of trained staff would be required on the ground.
Keo now
There is presently no way of re-compressing helium on board, if it were, it would loose some purity in the transaction and therefore loose lift. Certainly, it would never be (commercially in a normal flight scenario) dumped. The only occasions one would dump helium would be to increase the pressure height attainable (for altitude gain) or in a non normal circumstance. Certainly, it would not be expelled in order to descend normally. Infact, we would sometimes perform a 'pump and dump' procedure to increase purity on a leaky airframe etc (refreshing the helium)
I do agree that some form of trained staff would be required on the ground.
Keo now
I think that I understand your point on re-compressing, but surely it's not necessary to take it back to liquid? Just more dense? Or am I, as often happens, being even more dense than Water?
I also note your point on maintaining purity, but again, I can't see why that's a major problem. Release compressed gas to empty balloons, then suck it in again, no other gas involved. Even allowing for leakage, I can't grasp why this would be anything other than Helium loss?
What I really need to have explained to me (and I've spent quite a while on Wiki) is why you run out of Helium buoyancy at relatively low altitude.
Warm the helium?
So, assuming that I've missed a fundamental property of Helium, why not go back to good old Hydrogen. More than quite a lot available. Does that avoid the property of Helium that I've missed?
And given that the Hindenburg crash was not directly caused by the gas (but as I recall) the cellulose-covered skin (dope) and that modern inerting and monitoring could raise the safety level several fold. Why not re-educate the public? Hydrogen is a touch flammable, but it's not that bad. Apart from wholly electrically powered aircraft (which will mostly be Lithium Polymer equipped (with it's attendant propensity to do hot stuff) I can't think of any 'planes that aren't a flying bomb in the wrong circumstances.
Oh. Gliders. Forgot them.
It seems that beer needs to be mentioned. Written after three NTP Guinnesses.
I also note your point on maintaining purity, but again, I can't see why that's a major problem. Release compressed gas to empty balloons, then suck it in again, no other gas involved. Even allowing for leakage, I can't grasp why this would be anything other than Helium loss?
What I really need to have explained to me (and I've spent quite a while on Wiki) is why you run out of Helium buoyancy at relatively low altitude.
Warm the helium?
So, assuming that I've missed a fundamental property of Helium, why not go back to good old Hydrogen. More than quite a lot available. Does that avoid the property of Helium that I've missed?
And given that the Hindenburg crash was not directly caused by the gas (but as I recall) the cellulose-covered skin (dope) and that modern inerting and monitoring could raise the safety level several fold. Why not re-educate the public? Hydrogen is a touch flammable, but it's not that bad. Apart from wholly electrically powered aircraft (which will mostly be Lithium Polymer equipped (with it's attendant propensity to do hot stuff) I can't think of any 'planes that aren't a flying bomb in the wrong circumstances.
Oh. Gliders. Forgot them.
It seems that beer needs to be mentioned. Written after three NTP Guinnesses.
What I really need to have explained to me (and I've spent quite a while on Wiki) is why you run out of Helium buoyancy at relatively low altitude.
Hi
What you are referring to is pressure height. An airship consists of (amongst others) an envellope containing helium, and a ballonet (or more) containing ambient air. As you climb or as helium heats (superheat) the ballonet contracts due to helium expanding. There comes a height when there is no air in the ballonet. This is pressure height. The only way to climb further is to valve helium. Obviously this comes at the expense static lift.
I believe they are looking at using hydrogen.
Google the 'exploding glider' about ten years ago. Lightning strike on a carbon fibre airframe!
Hi
What you are referring to is pressure height. An airship consists of (amongst others) an envellope containing helium, and a ballonet (or more) containing ambient air. As you climb or as helium heats (superheat) the ballonet contracts due to helium expanding. There comes a height when there is no air in the ballonet. This is pressure height. The only way to climb further is to valve helium. Obviously this comes at the expense static lift.
I believe they are looking at using hydrogen.
Google the 'exploding glider' about ten years ago. Lightning strike on a carbon fibre airframe!
Good. Nearly there. More help needed.
Thought that the ballonets were Helium filled. Air explains a lot.
Still a bit stuck though. When you say 'valve Helium' do you mean dump it or allow more into the balloon/tank (what do you call the bag containing Helium as opposed to the bag containing air - the ballonet?).
Whichever, I still think that I'm missing something about Helium or expansion of gases with reducing pressure.
Carbon structures? Yes, nastily conductive with a glue that quite likes to burn. Carbon yachts are a special interest of mine. One had an internal fire caused by a 12V battery lead shorting. On the other hand, I thought that Boeing had developed a (Copper-based) 'Faraday cage' for the 787 wings etc?
Moved off the Guinness on to a rather nice red.
Thought that the ballonets were Helium filled. Air explains a lot.
Still a bit stuck though. When you say 'valve Helium' do you mean dump it or allow more into the balloon/tank (what do you call the bag containing Helium as opposed to the bag containing air - the ballonet?).
Whichever, I still think that I'm missing something about Helium or expansion of gases with reducing pressure.
Carbon structures? Yes, nastily conductive with a glue that quite likes to burn. Carbon yachts are a special interest of mine. One had an internal fire caused by a 12V battery lead shorting. On the other hand, I thought that Boeing had developed a (Copper-based) 'Faraday cage' for the 787 wings etc?
Moved off the Guinness on to a rather nice red.
Another possibility is to put the lifting gas into gas bags and put these in turn into an air-filled envelope. This is only useful in smaller airships. Of course the gas bags must be partially flat, and the envelope must be pressurised, usually by blowers.
And all this airship stuff always involves some TLC, seven days a week, 365 days a year. One of my former colleagues used to explain it like this: "Airships are like horses. You can put an airplane or a car in the back of a shed and ignore it for a couple weeks or even months, and it will in be almost in the same shape as when you put it in. But an airship or a horse... not so!"
I'm having some Beck's right now.
And all this airship stuff always involves some TLC, seven days a week, 365 days a year. One of my former colleagues used to explain it like this: "Airships are like horses. You can put an airplane or a car in the back of a shed and ignore it for a couple weeks or even months, and it will in be almost in the same shape as when you put it in. But an airship or a horse... not so!"
I'm having some Beck's right now.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... for airship enthusiasts: how long would it take a 60kt-capable airship to reach destination against a 60kt headwind? No prizes offered.
When LTA can be faster than sustained low altitude winds, then they will have a better chance of viability.
They have been using heliostats for logging in the US Pacific Northwest for for more than 20 years. Sikorsky Skycranes, too.
GB
Boguing
Think of an airship as a pint of Guinness. The darker part is akin to the envellope. The cream on top would be the ballonet.
The envellope holds the helium only. The ballonet(s) hold atmospheric air. The two are not connected in as far as transfering air to helium or helium to air. This would be terrible for purity (how 'good' the helium is) and other things. When we valve air from the ballonet, it gets dumped overboard. We would do this perhaps if we were climbing steeply and the envellope pressure is increasing to its upper limits. Valved helium also goes overboard, it is not re-cycled.
As we descend, the airship pressure decreases and we need to maintain this within AFM limits. We do this by letting atmospheric ram-air into the ballonet(s) to increase the pressure hence maintaining the shape of the structure. It's the same on the ground also, on a cold night it is possible for the ballonet(s) to approach their maximum inflation. Helium must be added immediately. This is why the FAA and CAA mandate a 24 hour watch system for ground crew when we don't fly.
A final danger would be valving too much helium in flight. It is theoretically possible to descend to lower heights and have a full ballonet... This means you cannot descend any further under present atmospheric conditions. Hurry up and wait!
To summate:
Climbing? Air is dumped from the ballonet overboard.
Flat ballonet in flight? pressure height. Need further climb? Dump helium overboard.
Descending? Allow air to enter the ballonet via ram-air scoops or fan assisted means.
Twin ballonets can be used like fixed wing elevator trim.
Temperature increases? Helium expands, ballonet vents air.
No ballonet left (pressure height) is not just a flight scenario, it can happen on the mast at the airport.
Greybeard: I've been overtaken by birds, r/c aircraft, shot at by Mongo (easier target than a Busch beer can) you name it... Enjoying my current type's 470 TAS FL 450 crz as a change!
Think of an airship as a pint of Guinness. The darker part is akin to the envellope. The cream on top would be the ballonet.
The envellope holds the helium only. The ballonet(s) hold atmospheric air. The two are not connected in as far as transfering air to helium or helium to air. This would be terrible for purity (how 'good' the helium is) and other things. When we valve air from the ballonet, it gets dumped overboard. We would do this perhaps if we were climbing steeply and the envellope pressure is increasing to its upper limits. Valved helium also goes overboard, it is not re-cycled.
As we descend, the airship pressure decreases and we need to maintain this within AFM limits. We do this by letting atmospheric ram-air into the ballonet(s) to increase the pressure hence maintaining the shape of the structure. It's the same on the ground also, on a cold night it is possible for the ballonet(s) to approach their maximum inflation. Helium must be added immediately. This is why the FAA and CAA mandate a 24 hour watch system for ground crew when we don't fly.
A final danger would be valving too much helium in flight. It is theoretically possible to descend to lower heights and have a full ballonet... This means you cannot descend any further under present atmospheric conditions. Hurry up and wait!
To summate:
Climbing? Air is dumped from the ballonet overboard.
Flat ballonet in flight? pressure height. Need further climb? Dump helium overboard.
Descending? Allow air to enter the ballonet via ram-air scoops or fan assisted means.
Twin ballonets can be used like fixed wing elevator trim.
Temperature increases? Helium expands, ballonet vents air.
No ballonet left (pressure height) is not just a flight scenario, it can happen on the mast at the airport.
Greybeard: I've been overtaken by birds, r/c aircraft, shot at by Mongo (easier target than a Busch beer can) you name it... Enjoying my current type's 470 TAS FL 450 crz as a change!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had any money left I wouldn't invest it in this project.
The idea of carrying high-yield pax à la Orient Express has faded, not enough of them want to go that slow. Now we realise that freight schedule times can't be guaranteed, forget just-in-time delivery.
Furthermore those engines would be a maintenance cost nightmare, imagine the expense of a weeks flying (ONE transatlantic round-trip).
I wonder how many identical blimps would be built, for economy of scale. Sounds like bespoke tailoring. All the development cost to spread over a handful of machines.
Have these guys ever counted beans?
The idea of carrying high-yield pax à la Orient Express has faded, not enough of them want to go that slow. Now we realise that freight schedule times can't be guaranteed, forget just-in-time delivery.
Furthermore those engines would be a maintenance cost nightmare, imagine the expense of a weeks flying (ONE transatlantic round-trip).
I wonder how many identical blimps would be built, for economy of scale. Sounds like bespoke tailoring. All the development cost to spread over a handful of machines.
Have these guys ever counted beans?
First let me say that I've been fascinated with airships since I was a little kid. My memory banks allow me to clearly recall a time when my dad took me to watch the Goodyear blimp arrive and depart from the Carson, CA airship operations facility when I was about five. Seeing the ship being loaded with passengers and and then flown away into the early evening sky inspired my young imagination. To this day I am reminded of those good memories every time I see the blimp making it's occasional low passes down the runway at KSMO. (Santa Monica, CA) The tower, local pilots and patrons of the airport restaurant are most supportive and appreciative of these impromptu visits. In fact had Goodyear been willing to hire me when I applied, I might well have accepted any reasonable offer that paid the bills.
Having said all though, I consider myself to be a realist and make it a point to separate the sentimental from the practical and the historical from the speculative wherever possible when evaluating the various and sundry ideas proposed in aviation. Many of these ideas are just solutions in search of a problem while others are apparently based in some nostalgic desire to bring back the good old days. Even amongst some of the wilder ideas there exists some semblance of practicality though. It just requires some analysis to determine how much.
Flying cars, alternative power airplanes, flying wings and countless other unconventional aircraft have been built and flown, but to what level of commercial success? Zeppelins and large flying boats crossed the great oceans with paying passengers before land planes could do it. The great steam and sailing ships thrived before that. Moving people and cargo around the world has changed allot in 500 years, but with a constant and unrelenting purpose, namely that the mode of transport chosen most effectively satisfies the goals of the chooser. From the days of Queen Isabella to today's global political/economic/industrial complex, little has changed in that regard. Whatever works best for the intersts of the top brass is what will be done. Count on it.
So with that said: The future for commercial utilization of airships seems likely to remain limited to certain specialized applications. Even during the era of the great dirigibles, the performance and operational utility limitations of this mode of transport were well recognized by the aeronautical research establishments along with both the military and commercial leadership of the day. This recognition may be evidenced in part by the accelerated pace of development of the airplane for both military and commercial use throughout the thirties. Military support for airship development flagged following the US Navy's loss of both the Akron and the Macon within a short time period. The Hindenburg disaster was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for the great dirigibles and marked a turning point in both commercial and public support and investment in future airship technology. As laudable as the accomplishments made in airship technology to this point might have been, further development of the concept was effectively overtaken by events and by the rapidly increasing development of the airplane as both a commercial and military mode of transport. And amid looming signs of impending military conflict on the horizon, airplane development activity skyrocketed in the years just prior to WWII. Airships were largely forgotten in regard to future development.
There are a small number of blimps being used commercially these days. They are utilized primarily for advertizing and televised event coverage. People might pay for a ticket to ride on one, but so far this is not widely done. I can see a few potential uses for large airships, the test of their viability is not that a thing can be done, but whether that thing can be done more profitably by using an airship to do it. While their may indeed be a few such uses for large airships, it seems unlikely that that the scale of these uses would justify the necessary monetary investment to achieve a viable end product. In other words, the unit cost would be too high unless the demand were quite substantial. Hundreds maybe. Of course if the US DOD ran the development, they'd probably end up costing more per unit than an F-22 Raptor and Lockheed Martin or Boeing (the only two non-helicopter prime contractors left) would be the only ones calling it a success!
Anyway, I apologize if my cynicism offends, but if I had a dollar for every new "innovative"aircraft scheme that's gained popularity then promptly stripped investors of their treasure in the last 20 years, I could buy a... well... a good meal for two with drinks anyway!
The more memorable among these must include the Eclipse jet, Day jet, Adam aircraft, Javelin jet, Wheeler Express etc. Never mind the travails of those attempting to keep good proven designs like the AA-5 Tiger in production. I won't even get into the current "green" trend, but mark my words, most of these will go bust too. But at least a few people get to make some money for themselves for awhile as a result I guess. Not that we don't need to work on ways to reduce or transition away from reliance on petroleum based energy sources, but too many of the projects I read about in the aviation rags have all the earmarks of being classic boondoggles if government financed or some form of con if seeking investors. Separating the wheat from the chaff requires knowing something of the technology in question.
So while I wish any serious developer of airship technology the best of success in their endeavors, I don't expect to see airships replacing airplanes or helicopters in any significant way. Airships will retain their niche status alongside all the other bits of historical hardware we've adapted or improved for modern day use. The airship is in good company with the likes of horse drawn carriages, vacuum tube audio amplifiers and ocean going sailing ships. In practical terms all technology follows this path eventually. If humanity remains around long enough, aircraft of all descriptions and most of the rest of what we rely on today will be relegated to classification as historical nostalgia too.
Maybe in 500 years or so, a few people belonging to the local aviation historical society will spend some of their spare time flying around in their fully automated hydrogen fusion powered year 2011 vintage airplane replicas wondering what it must have been like back in the bad old days when noisy smelly engines actually burned petroleum distillates and polluted the atmosphere to move people and cargo about the Earth. And highly specialized people called pilots had to actually know how to manually manipulate crude control mechanisms to get anywhere without crashing. Astounding!
westhawk
Having said all though, I consider myself to be a realist and make it a point to separate the sentimental from the practical and the historical from the speculative wherever possible when evaluating the various and sundry ideas proposed in aviation. Many of these ideas are just solutions in search of a problem while others are apparently based in some nostalgic desire to bring back the good old days. Even amongst some of the wilder ideas there exists some semblance of practicality though. It just requires some analysis to determine how much.
Flying cars, alternative power airplanes, flying wings and countless other unconventional aircraft have been built and flown, but to what level of commercial success? Zeppelins and large flying boats crossed the great oceans with paying passengers before land planes could do it. The great steam and sailing ships thrived before that. Moving people and cargo around the world has changed allot in 500 years, but with a constant and unrelenting purpose, namely that the mode of transport chosen most effectively satisfies the goals of the chooser. From the days of Queen Isabella to today's global political/economic/industrial complex, little has changed in that regard. Whatever works best for the intersts of the top brass is what will be done. Count on it.
So with that said: The future for commercial utilization of airships seems likely to remain limited to certain specialized applications. Even during the era of the great dirigibles, the performance and operational utility limitations of this mode of transport were well recognized by the aeronautical research establishments along with both the military and commercial leadership of the day. This recognition may be evidenced in part by the accelerated pace of development of the airplane for both military and commercial use throughout the thirties. Military support for airship development flagged following the US Navy's loss of both the Akron and the Macon within a short time period. The Hindenburg disaster was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for the great dirigibles and marked a turning point in both commercial and public support and investment in future airship technology. As laudable as the accomplishments made in airship technology to this point might have been, further development of the concept was effectively overtaken by events and by the rapidly increasing development of the airplane as both a commercial and military mode of transport. And amid looming signs of impending military conflict on the horizon, airplane development activity skyrocketed in the years just prior to WWII. Airships were largely forgotten in regard to future development.
There are a small number of blimps being used commercially these days. They are utilized primarily for advertizing and televised event coverage. People might pay for a ticket to ride on one, but so far this is not widely done. I can see a few potential uses for large airships, the test of their viability is not that a thing can be done, but whether that thing can be done more profitably by using an airship to do it. While their may indeed be a few such uses for large airships, it seems unlikely that that the scale of these uses would justify the necessary monetary investment to achieve a viable end product. In other words, the unit cost would be too high unless the demand were quite substantial. Hundreds maybe. Of course if the US DOD ran the development, they'd probably end up costing more per unit than an F-22 Raptor and Lockheed Martin or Boeing (the only two non-helicopter prime contractors left) would be the only ones calling it a success!
Anyway, I apologize if my cynicism offends, but if I had a dollar for every new "innovative"aircraft scheme that's gained popularity then promptly stripped investors of their treasure in the last 20 years, I could buy a... well... a good meal for two with drinks anyway!
The more memorable among these must include the Eclipse jet, Day jet, Adam aircraft, Javelin jet, Wheeler Express etc. Never mind the travails of those attempting to keep good proven designs like the AA-5 Tiger in production. I won't even get into the current "green" trend, but mark my words, most of these will go bust too. But at least a few people get to make some money for themselves for awhile as a result I guess. Not that we don't need to work on ways to reduce or transition away from reliance on petroleum based energy sources, but too many of the projects I read about in the aviation rags have all the earmarks of being classic boondoggles if government financed or some form of con if seeking investors. Separating the wheat from the chaff requires knowing something of the technology in question.
So while I wish any serious developer of airship technology the best of success in their endeavors, I don't expect to see airships replacing airplanes or helicopters in any significant way. Airships will retain their niche status alongside all the other bits of historical hardware we've adapted or improved for modern day use. The airship is in good company with the likes of horse drawn carriages, vacuum tube audio amplifiers and ocean going sailing ships. In practical terms all technology follows this path eventually. If humanity remains around long enough, aircraft of all descriptions and most of the rest of what we rely on today will be relegated to classification as historical nostalgia too.
Maybe in 500 years or so, a few people belonging to the local aviation historical society will spend some of their spare time flying around in their fully automated hydrogen fusion powered year 2011 vintage airplane replicas wondering what it must have been like back in the bad old days when noisy smelly engines actually burned petroleum distillates and polluted the atmosphere to move people and cargo about the Earth. And highly specialized people called pilots had to actually know how to manually manipulate crude control mechanisms to get anywhere without crashing. Astounding!
westhawk
westhawk, what an erudite post. I think that you've covered the past completely.
However, after my education last night I have been chatting with an Engineer mate (me Naval Architect, but much the same really).
My take was to use waste heat from the propulsion engines to heat the Helium to gain height, and then use power to cool and compress the Helium, to avoid dumping it. Which is not clever in a Helium poor world. Off the top of my head, I'd thought Hydrogen, lot of it about and could be relatively safely used.
His thought was vacuum. Nothing on Earth weighs less than that. Obviously not possible to get a perfect one, but it's possible to get pretty close. Not that costly to build a light containment?
Thoughts all?
However, after my education last night I have been chatting with an Engineer mate (me Naval Architect, but much the same really).
My take was to use waste heat from the propulsion engines to heat the Helium to gain height, and then use power to cool and compress the Helium, to avoid dumping it. Which is not clever in a Helium poor world. Off the top of my head, I'd thought Hydrogen, lot of it about and could be relatively safely used.
His thought was vacuum. Nothing on Earth weighs less than that. Obviously not possible to get a perfect one, but it's possible to get pretty close. Not that costly to build a light containment?
Thoughts all?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vacuum Sucks
Sorry, couldn't help it...
I doubt if you could make a vacuum container light enough to lift itself..
Now, my idea is fat wings filled hydrogen at low pressure that would be used for both lift and power. Do it right and you could land heavier than takeoff weight.
Did I tell you about my secret supply of Flubber?
GB
I doubt if you could make a vacuum container light enough to lift itself..
Now, my idea is fat wings filled hydrogen at low pressure that would be used for both lift and power. Do it right and you could land heavier than takeoff weight.
Did I tell you about my secret supply of Flubber?
GB
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 48
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why no one has come up with the idea of building some kind of a floating [in the air] hotel/restaurant yet? It could use airship technology, it wouldn't necessarily have to move from place to place - could just be tethered in a particular spot. Gas loss/expansion/contraction issues could be solved by pumping gas along the tethers. Not sure how people would actually get up to/down from it - some kind of cable car along the tethers? Helicopter? It would obviously need to be located in a part of the world where the weather changes in a very predictable way, in case of heavy weather anticipated it could perhaps be hauled down or perhaps set 'free' and would then return to base? If people can build an underwater hotel or one from ice then why not a flying one?
Golf-Sierra
Golf-Sierra
For moving heavy cargo 
For moving people
....
People enjoy going for a sea cruise, stopping every 2-3 days at another port, etc. Boozing it up in the nightclub, unlimited buffet.... etc.
But how many people line up at Southampton or New York to cross the Atlantic versus Heathrow or JFK out of utility?
Let's say it does take 7 days for an airship to cross the Atlantic - you have crew costs for 7 days (I guess you probably need 2 crews on 12 hours on/12 off...?). And entertainment wise it's going to be pretty boring, don't you think?
There are plenty of alternate fuels to keep the combustion engine running, we just don't *need* them yet, as petroleum is still cheap and available. No one is going to support such a slow method for transport - unless perhaps you are postulating the price will be 1/7th that of an aircraft ticket?
- GY
For moving people
....People enjoy going for a sea cruise, stopping every 2-3 days at another port, etc. Boozing it up in the nightclub, unlimited buffet.... etc.
But how many people line up at Southampton or New York to cross the Atlantic versus Heathrow or JFK out of utility?
Let's say it does take 7 days for an airship to cross the Atlantic - you have crew costs for 7 days (I guess you probably need 2 crews on 12 hours on/12 off...?). And entertainment wise it's going to be pretty boring, don't you think?
There are plenty of alternate fuels to keep the combustion engine running, we just don't *need* them yet, as petroleum is still cheap and available. No one is going to support such a slow method for transport - unless perhaps you are postulating the price will be 1/7th that of an aircraft ticket?
- GY
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GY. As per one of my previous posts my research shows that there probably will not be a demand for pax flights across the pond. Flights VFR across interesting terrain or cities is my proposal for this application.
Our company has been looking into airship safaris in Africa. Accommodation on board for four or five day trips. Outside viewing decks when low speed cruising over areas of interest (Vic falls, migrating herds etc). Low environmental impact.
Our company has been looking into airship safaris in Africa. Accommodation on board for four or five day trips. Outside viewing decks when low speed cruising over areas of interest (Vic falls, migrating herds etc). Low environmental impact.