Posted on 05/04/2011 4:32:24 PM PDT by AfricanChristian
Ever since the Hindenburg disaster in 1937, airships have been a largely abandoned technology, their continued existence consigned to being a quick shorthand for alternate universes in science fiction. But now, 75 years later, airships might be ready to return.
To be fair to airships, the Hindenburg blew up because its fuel was flammable hydrogen - something its German operators had to use because the US banned the export of helium to the Nazis - and so it's perhaps not the best representative of the technology's abilities. Then again, the Hindenburg was far from the only airship disaster, and the subsequent rise of faster and more reliable airplanes removed any clear need for airships. Now some entrepreneurs are banking on the fact that the time is right for an airship revival.
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
And a bomb.
Low and slow along the Pacific Coast Highway, across the Serengeti, around the Hawaiian Islands, over the Grand Canyon, across the Alps, or through the Inside Passage. Could be a very good way to travel!
Are you familiar with Dynalifter? Any thoughts on its potential?
They could hang a gondola the size of Pittsburgh under Joy Behar and then fill up her big, empty jug-of-a-head with helium and float around the world frightening children.
“Eat your spinach or Joy Behar will swoop down and crush you!”
“No Mommy, No! Make the bad Behar go away!”
That’s assuming the airship has the ability to remove itself from the path of a fast-moving weather system. Not much of a problem for a 500 mph airliner....most airships are not so fast-moving.
Fill ‘er up with hydrogen instead..... :)
What would give you that idea?
I recall one past proposal was a “flying wing” layout ala Jack Northrup's pioneering designs. (Which weren't original to him, BTW, as two German brothers did seminal work on the concept during WW2, with at least one example a pile of parts at USAF’s Wright-Pat museum last time I was there.)
Frankly, from a pilot's standpoint, I don't see the practicality. Basically all that's being accomplished is a reduction in the aircraft's empty weight - which still has to be negative bouyancy with the aircraft defueled and unloaded or you face even greater control/movement hurdles - and to gain this you have to “give up” a lot of wetted area as a aerodynamic drag penalty which increases your power requirements, hence effecting fuel burn, which increases the basic weight, which reduces cargo load. And so it goes......
Alas, in aviation there's no such thing as a “free lunch”. Every aircraft design past, present and future, is a hodgepodge of compromises decided based upon specifications for weight, range, speed, handling characteristics, operating environment and a host of other criteria. “Getting” something means “giving” something somewhere else in the performance envelope. We already have a host of HTA “heavy lifter” designs in production, not to mention some very interesting “Superlift” WIGE point designs sitting in airparks.
Sorry, I don't see the concept as having much practical/economic application. If it did, it would be flying right now. >PS
There is a bright future for the “ Big Gas Bags” look how many have been floating around Washington for years and years.
This is the 74th Anniversary. It happened in 1937.
Thanks
THAT is the Post of the Decade.
I hadn’t considered the self-promotional aspects of “gas-bagging” by our elected officials. >PS
You’re welcome. No biggie.
Heh.. The the ‘Fringe’ alternate universe.
There will always be lackeys and sales people that are forced to live in dirty hotels and travel by winged public buses. For pleasure, I'd much rather ride around in a blimp.
I completely support your right to do what you want.
Hey>> Thanks!!
You’re welcome..LOL.
I remember thinking...I'm never doing this again....lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.