Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airships Payload And Power  
User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7290 times:

Hi all, I'd like to know which is the maximum payload of the biggest airship, and its power requirements.


Where there's a will, there's a way
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJHSfan From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 469 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Nice topic - the biggest airship in history or today?

Power requirements must depend on the size and shape of the airship in relation to the most extreme operation conditions and the desired performance - well I think that just about it, so to say.

 idea  BTW: Who will be the first to go mach 1 in an airship?  bouncy   Silly

Yours in realtime
JHSfan



Look at me, I´m riding high, I´m the airbornmaster of the sky...
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7216 times:

Here is some data on the Zeppelin NT, which I believe is the largest airship currently in operation:

http://www.zeppelin-nt.de/pages/E/luftsch_u_zepp.htm

Details on Hindenburg are a bit sketchy. I turned up some data that suggests it had a useful load of up to 112 tons and that it had four 1200hp engines, but other sources dispute those claims.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7181 times:

Thanks a lot, it's just to make an idea. Wow, the Hindenburg could lift 112 tons! That's a lot, more than I thought. But the power is more than I thought, too.  sigh 

What I need is an airship with Hindenburg dimensions, but for less payload. If payload is less, power would be a little less. Not for lift, there is no power need for this, helium (or hidrogen in the Hindenburg) does it, but for propulsion.

Quoting JHSfan (Reply 1):
BTW: Who will be the first to go mach 1 in an airship?

Imagine a 200 m long monster flying at +1200 km/h. That would be an awesome sight! Maybe with some big rockets... Big grin



Where there's a will, there's a way
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6422 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7129 times:

The Hindenburg engine is a beautiful masterpiece of a diesel engine. One example is on display at the Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart, Germany. Really worth a look in case you pass by Stuttgart.

Payload and fuel load is always a tricky thing to manage on an airship. The all up weight must always very nearly match the lifting capability.

For long distance flights (like the Hindenburg) gas has be be released from the balloons inside the main body to compensate for the weight of the burned fuel. Otherwise it would never be able to come down to mother earth again.

When fueled for the next flight new gas had to be added again.

The lifting capability of the Hindenburg was 242.2 tons, and with an empty weight of 130.1 tons it had an available lifting capability of 112.1 tons. But for a trans Atlantic crossing by far the major part of those 112 tons - maybe 100 tons including reserves for unexpected headwind - had to be used for fuel, not payload.

Fuel burn was approximately one ton per hour. That adds up when a flight lasts three days.

Yes, per seat/mile the Hindenburg was far less fuel efficient than the Concorde. Especially when considering the approximately two million cubic feet of hydrogen, which had to be released during such a crossing, as sort of "fuel".

The Hindenburg is still by far the largest flying machine ever made, length almost 900 feet and diameter 135 feet - roughly the same as the wing span of a Boeing 757.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7094 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4):

I didn't know the system of rigid airships to go up and down. What if they released too much, they couldn't lift up again?

I guess nowadays it's easier, since modern blimps have inside balloonets, so they can change their density.



Where there's a will, there's a way
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6422 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7092 times:

Quoting Keta (Reply 5):
What if they released too much, they couldn't lift up again?

Then they would swim.

It was also dangerous to release too little, or too late. Then they would climb too high, the reduced ambient pressure would make the balloons grow in size, and they might be destroyed by rubbing on the inside hull structure.

Yes, also an airship captain had a few things too look after.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Hope it gets in the Air soon www.worldskycat.com

User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7046 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 7):

I live over the road from the Cardington hangers and i remember all the hype about them building that prototype, also did you know that one of the hangers was bought for a measly 1 pound!! but in the contract it said that they have to pay for all renovations and its mandatory.

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7003 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 7):
Hope it gets in the Air soon www.worldskycat.com

Wow looks great! I'd love to see it flying. What I'd love to see is a solar-powered blimb. If an airplane can do it, I guess a blimp would be much easier.



Where there's a will, there's a way
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airships Payload And Power
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Range And Payload posted Sun May 28 2006 12:54:58 by Newagebird
GPU Ground Power Unit - Use When And Where? posted Sat May 27 2006 21:03:46 by JulianUK
NWA And Pratt Power - Love Affair? posted Thu Nov 6 2003 01:39:13 by FlyABR
Who Flies The Trent800 And/or GE90 At Full Power? posted Sun Oct 5 2003 02:09:19 by ConcordeBoy
Increasing Speed And Engine Power @landing? posted Sun May 20 2001 00:28:12 by TurboTristar
Lowest Power Setting And! posted Thu Apr 19 2001 03:58:44 by Bryan Becker
B777-EXT Power And APU posted Sun Mar 18 2001 20:32:01 by FlyerC_B757
MD-80 And AS 261 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 03:13:59 by MissedApproach
Mach 1, Temperature, And Pressure posted Mon Nov 13 2006 08:54:05 by Speedracer1407
Winglets And Ground Effect posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:23:55 by BAe146QT

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format