Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lokibob
"It would be a truck, so to speak, that can carry different payloads -- imagery, infrared warning systems, communications and other uses"

I've been intrigued with the idea of Airships for 30 years for use as heavy-lift transport haulers. True, they're much slower than fixed wing aircraft. However, the cost per-mile-per-ton would a fraction of that of a cargo jet, and they could still cover USA to Europe or Asia in a couple of days. Seems like it'd be a great alternative to ship heavy equipment "2nd day air" to Asia at container cargo pricing.

Similarly, Popular Mechanics has had artist drawings some years ago of Airship-passenger liners. What would you choose for a trip to Asia? A nine-to-fifteen hour trip with your head between your knees, or a 36 hour weekend-trip with comfortable beds, fine dinning and entertainment, and a chance to get over the jet lag BEFORE you hit your destination (at half the cost of the plane ticket!). As one who has done the Trans-atlantic and Trans-pacific runs, I can tell you that airships would rule for long distance travel, and probably, would spur new investment in SST technology (because the air carriers would have to economically reduce the travel time to a few hours to beat the airships).

If the DOD does the ground work, I'll bet the air freight companies will be close behind seeking to implement the technology into their industries.

FReegards.. SFS

14 posted on 11/11/2002 7:15:46 PM PST by Steel and Fire and Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Steel and Fire and Stone
And the crew would only be needed for take-off/landing. Once at altitude they could just go auto pilot on GPS airways above commercial traffic. The only glitch would be the pressurization issue. A lot of goods will not react well to small psi @ 70,000'MSL. They will outgas or outflow hydraulicaly at those heights. Bags of potato chips explode at around 15,000' in an unpressurized cabin. Keeping such huge cabins @ 29.92 or even 22.00 would sort of kill the lighter than air effort don't you think?
16 posted on 11/11/2002 7:37:06 PM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone
Did you guys see this one posted this afternoon on FR?
 
From:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-spelican07nov10,0,6601097.story
 

 
Boeing dreaming up new flying machine

By Ken Kaye
Staff Writer
Posted November 10 2002

Imagine a cargo plane so huge it could hold 10 railroad locomotives in its bay, or 35 fully loaded semitrailer trucks, or 1,000 Volskwagen New Beetles.

In other words, picture an ocean-going freighter that flies.

That's what Boeing did when dreaming up the Pelican, a 6 million pound flying machine -- equal to the weight of 7.5 fully loaded 747s.

For now, it's only a drawing board concept and many years from becoming reality. But if the Pelican were built, like the bird, its wing tips would tilt down and it would glide over the water, rather than fly at high altitude.

That would allow it to take advantage of a cushion of air at ground level, known as "ground effect," which would permit it to fly 11,500 miles nonstop and haul up to 1,400 tons in cargo.

"As you can see, it's a pretty massive airplane," said Erik Simonsen, spokesman for Boeing's Phantom Works, the company's research and development arm, which designed the ultra large aircraft.

Massive?

The Pelican would be a flying outlet mall.

To give some idea of its enormity, the Pelican would have 76 wheels dangling down for landing gear, needed to distribute all that weight. Most of today's modern airliners have six to 10 wheels.

Its wings would span 500 feet and cover more than an acre. They would have to fold up a bit for landing and even more for taxiing.

While over the sea, the Pelican would have the most modern radar and navigational equipment to ensure it doesn't ram into an ocean-going ship.

"It would skim across the ocean and detect any obstacles or weather far ahead," Simonsen said.

Although it wouldn't be nearly as efficient at high altitude, the Pelican would be able to fly as high as 20,000 feet.

And although it would be more at home close to the water, it wouldn't be a seaplane; it would be designed to land on runways like at Miami International Airport. It would climb a few thousand feet before reaching land, then slip into the flow of other air traffic and make a normal approach.

"There's still a lot of designing to be done," Simonsen said. "But it's pretty interesting technology."

Chicago-based Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacture, has no target date to build the Pelican, because it has no guarantees that it will have any customers. But it hopes the U.S. Army will buy into the idea and make it a military transport.

In a single hop, it would be able haul 17 Army M-1 tanks, which weigh more than 80 tons apiece. Currently, the U.S. Air Force C-5, the largest U.S. military aircraft, can only carry one of those tanks.

Eventually, it might become available as a commercial cargo hauler, likely to fly only to about a dozen major global cargo centers, such as Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo and Miami.

The plane would be welcome at Miami International Airport, which ranks No.1 in the nation and No. 4 in the world for international freight -- if the airport's runways could accommodate its girth, said MIA Marketing Manager Chris Mangos.

He said the air cargo industry has been using larger freight-hauling aircraft and the Pelican could help increase shipments to Latin America and Europe.

Air cargo companies say it's far too early to even consider purchasing a Pelican, for which not even a preliminary price tag has been established.

However, if FedEx, the largest cargo company in the world, were to buy just one Pelican, it could carry the same amount of cargo as 21 of its jumbo MD-11 jets, which hold up to 65 tons of cargo apiece.

If converted into a commercial airliner, the Pelican would be able to hold about 3,000 passengers. By comparison, when the Airbus A380 starts flying in 2006, it will be the world's largest commercial airliner, able to seat 555 passengers.

But, aviation experts say for insurance reasons, it wouldn't be practical for the Pelican to carry passengers. One accident and that insurance company would be wiped out, said Bill Mellberg, an aviation author.

However it might be used, the Pelican represents some of the most futuristic thinking out of Boeing's Phantom Works, an aviation think tank which has concocted everything from advanced satellite systems to giant military bombers.

All the concepts are designed to be feasible, Simonsen said. But only a few major projects have become reality, so far, because airplanes cannot be developed and built without support from a customer.

Chuck Eastlake, a professor who teaches aircraft design at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, said the concept of a plane like the Pelican flying low over water might be the wave of the future.

"The whole concept of the wing in ground effect is that you can fly with considerably less power than at high altitude," he said.

To some, the plane's boxy design is reminiscent of Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose," a giant wooden seaplane with a wingspan of 320 feet and eight engines. The 150-ton Hughes Flying Boat only flew once, on Nov. 2, 1947, when Hughes lifted it 80 feet off the water near Long Beach, Calif.

For its time, it was a colossus. But the Pelican would make the Goose look like a chick.

The Pelican is more similar to a much earlier and more grandiose idea: In the late 1920s, American theatrical designer Norman Bel Geddes envisioned building an "Ocean Liner of the Sky," a 700-ton airliner that would hold more than 600 passengers and crew.

Like the Pelican, Bel Geddes' flying cruise ship would have flown just over the water, only it would have lumbered along at 90 mph, which would translate to an ocean crossing in about 35 hours. Lindbergh did it in 33 hours.

But the idea behind the Bel Geddes plane was luxury. It would have had four tennis courts, six shuffleboard courts, a stateroom, a solarium, a 200-seat formal dining room, a dance floor, a café and a lounge.

It was never built because for its time it just wasn't feasible.

But if it had been, the Pelican would have dwarfed it, too.

Although it might be hard to believe an aircraft so enormous is being considered, aviation experts note that at one time no one thought a plane as big as the 747 would ever be built.

"Deciding to actually build the thing would be a significant leap in technology," said Eastlake, the aeronautical professor. "It would be way out of the ordinary. It would be something I'd definitely like to go see."
 
The "new" pelican

The Pelican is a 6 million pound flying machine -- equal to the weight of 8.5 fully loaded 747s -- made by Boeing.



18 posted on 11/11/2002 7:56:44 PM PST by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone
If the DOD does the ground work, I'll bet the air freight companies will be close behind seeking to implement the technology into their industries.

I see this "lighter than air" technology as having only niche application - with defense surveilance as being *the* one. We have moved past the 'dream' stage of getting 'something for nothing' in the way of lighter than air craft - the winds and weather are just waaaay to variable for anything like this to be used for serious purposes regularly on any kind of schedule (as it would require it to pass into 'the weather layers' under next to ideal conditions thereby rendering it highly unpredictable and unreliable)!

Need GREAT weight/freight-hauling capability? Then make use of barge, ocean-going freight or train-car transportation ...

20 posted on 11/11/2002 8:31:09 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson