Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NoLifeLine
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:40 am

Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:55 am

What do you gut=ys think of the Airlander 10? Can you see a future for modern airships?

Theres a very good interview with the Executive of HAV from Last years RIAT in the article below.

https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2019/01/14/A-new-age-of-airships-is-ready-for-lift-off-as-worlds-longest-aircraft-gets-full-production-go-ahead
 
hrc773
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:34 pm

I think this is very exciting, as it could give us an alternative to common air travel. However, I can't see this replacing anything. The reason most people fly is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. This airship would not be able to compete with jet travel. I would compare this to cruise travel. People don't use cruise ships as a means of transportation; it's basically for the experience itself. IMO, this would remain a novelty; a fun one, thought!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:56 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
I think the Airlander 10 (and further development) can have a future on bulky and heavy shipments that are not super critical that they'd require an An-124, but need faster than sea ship speeds.
Call it the MOSM of freighters: Middle Of Speed Market

Bulky shipments? This would have to be an externally slung load, and that will further reduce the cruising speed.

Heavy shipments? 10,000 kg payload is claimed; that's more like ATR-72 capacity, not An-124

But yeah, I'm hopeful this will fulfill a role.
For instance, it would be great for transatlantic routes, providing it always flew west to east, and maybe caught the jetstream.

Going the other way (London to New York) could be something more like a leisurely cruise....
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:10 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
I think the Airlander 10 (and further development) can have a future on bulky and heavy shipments that are not super critical that they'd require an An-124, but need faster than sea ship speeds.
Call it the MOSM of freighters: Middle Of Speed Market

Bulky shipments? This would have to be an externally slung load, and that will further reduce the cruising speed.

Heavy shipments? 10,000 kg payload is claimed; that's more like ATR-72 capacity, not An-124

But yeah, I'm hopeful this will fulfill a role.
For instance, it would be great for transatlantic routes, providing it always flew west to east, and maybe caught the jetstream.

Going the other way (London to New York) could be something more like a leisurely cruise....

I said Bulky AND heavy; the ATR may be able to take 10,000 kg, but not a single bulky 10,000 kg load.

That's where the Airlander can excel: heavy-ish indivisible load that cannot fit in a traditional small freighter, but for which a specialized shipment (An-124 or even 747F) would be too costly.

As far as externally slung load reducing the cruse speed: the Airlander 10 (at least the prototype) has a cruise speed of 80 kn, so there is very little drag generated by the load itself.
 
NoLifeLine
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:28 pm

I think the most interesting thing he mentions in the video is the fact it can be used as a monitoring platform in place of UAV. One Airliner could stay on mission for weeks at high altitude. The savings for military intelligence would be huge.
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:05 pm

NoLifeLine wrote:
I think the most interesting thing he mentions in the video is the fact it can be used as a monitoring platform in place of UAV. One Airliner could stay on mission for weeks at high altitude. The savings for military intelligence would be huge.


Compare this to something like Zephyr, there is no way it would be cheaper up there for ages with a live crew than the UAV, surely?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:50 pm

NoLifeLine wrote:
What do you gut=ys think of the Airlander 10? Can you see a future for modern airships?

Theres a very good interview with the Executive of HAV from Last years RIAT in the article below.

https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2019/01/14/A-new-age-of-airships-is-ready-for-lift-off-as-worlds-longest-aircraft-gets-full-production-go-ahead


I don't see success because I don't see an economically viable mission.

It cannot act like a heavy lift helicopter because
1) It cannot hover, and must always be getting dynamic lift from forward motion
2) It's costs much more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift. (I assume)
3) Cranes lift much more.

It cannot carry freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

It cannot carry special/bulky freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Economics suck (I assume)
3) Weather is a huge problem. What happens when it's away from it's hanger and unexpected weather approaches. And over the expected lifetime of the aircraft, there will be unexpected weather.

It cannot carry passengers (except site-seers)
1) Way too slow
2) Not safe enough
3) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

Maybe it can carry site-seers. But the certifications for non-experimental passenger carrying would be a problem. Also economics. Who's going to build the needed hanger in Jamaica/Bahamas/Cancun just to test out the economics?
 
ewt340
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:08 pm

I like big butt, so I would be riding this airship if possible.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2733
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Given current helium shortage - which may or may not be resolved - planning on obtaining enough gas for mass production is very brave.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:26 pm

Total waste of time.So it crashes twice and is now ready for production - are you serious?
As above what exactly does it do better?
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:40 pm

kalvado wrote:
Given current helium shortage - which may or may not be resolved - planning on obtaining enough gas for mass production is very brave.


There isn't a helium shortage, its an artificial problem. The US government started selling off the reserve they held, which pushed prices so low that it wasn't economical to capture helium in production. As prices go up, it will make sense to capture it.

As for the Airlander, it's a joke of an airship. Having been an airship pilot in the past, and hearing stories about the LEMV test flight (which the Airlander was prior to being in England), it's nothing short of a miracle the thing flew at all. The entire scheme is just a way to take money from people to get rich quick, which crashing some airships if they ever get built.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
Berevoff
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:19 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:42 pm

I wonder if there's a place for this in tourist areas like national parks, whale watching, wildlife sanctuaries etc.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:04 pm

Berevoff wrote:
I wonder if there's a place for this in tourist areas like national parks, whale watching, wildlife sanctuaries etc.


Wildlife go nuts when an airship flies over, so not likely
From my cold, dead hands
 
RobertPhoenix
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:00 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:09 pm

parapente wrote:
Total waste of time.So it crashes twice and is now ready for production - are you serious?
As above what exactly does it do better?


One obvious answer is "Big things that can't travel by road, that can't be broken into smaller pieces"
 
User avatar
CPHFF
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:03 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:25 pm

I just don't get the purpose. Where is the need/demand for such a contraption?


1. Target Customer?
2. Price?
If it weren't for UAW, Detroit would shine!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:00 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I don't see success because I don't see an economically viable mission.

It cannot act like a heavy lift helicopter because
1) It cannot hover, and must always be getting dynamic lift from forward motion
2) It's costs much more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift. (I assume)
3) Cranes lift much more.

I'm going to limit my response to those three points because your logic amuses me, and I enjoy a challenge. :D

1) Fully loaded with fuel and cargo, it is true it is significantly heavier than air and requires forward motion to generate aerodynamic lift.
However, this could be generating lift by maintaining a static position against a small headwind. It doesn't even matter which direction the wind is coming from.
I note that the engines can thrust vector to a limited extent, generating extra lift, so that's useful too.

Alternatively you could offload most of the fuel (which is a form of ballast) in exchange for straight lifting capacity.
If you are competing against cranes or heavy-lift helicopters, you do not need fuel for 2,400 mile range.
So, pending accurate data from HAV, it might be possible to "hover" in many cases.

2) It costs more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift
Say what? Are you suggesting that cranes just appear out of nowhere? Maybe you can toss some magic beans on the ground and one will magically sprout up. :lol:
Cranes also need to be transported to the lifting location, along busy and congested city streets. Or worse, to remote locations where there are no roads.
This is less of a problem for an Airlander.

3) Cranes lift much more.
Yes, there is no doubt about that, but cranes do have the disadvantage of being rather …. static.
Here is a typical large crane (Prangl 100-tonne 10-axle), but as I'm sure you realise, when the boom is extended, that lifting capacity shrinks to less than 10 tonnes.
In this case it is obviously unable to position itself in the middle of the river, and is therefore required to extend it's boom, only allowing it to lift relatively small bridge sections into position.
Basically, you often need far more crane that you might imagine.
Image
An airlander might be equally able to lift those sections, because it is only lifting vertically.
I accept that positioning those loads accurately might be more of a challenge.

Since you have raised the idea of the Airlander competing against a heavy-lift helicopter; the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane has a similar payload, flies at a similar speed, probably costs just as much as an Airlander, but has fantastically higher operating costs.

Personally I'm not sure this is where an Airlander will find it's niche, but neither is it totally useless in these roles.

Meanwhile I note DiamondFlyer's comments (& others) and agree that I'm not entirely happy about this program yet.
For one thing, I cannot believe it attained (limited) CAA certification. Maybe they know more than us?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Berevoff
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:19 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:12 am

CPHFF wrote:
I just don't get the purpose. Where is the need/demand for such a contraption?


1. Target Customer?
2. Price?


There's is a purpose or demand. This company will fail pretty quickly.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:40 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I don't see success because I don't see an economically viable mission.

It cannot act like a heavy lift helicopter because
1) It cannot hover, and must always be getting dynamic lift from forward motion
2) It's costs much more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift. (I assume)
3) Cranes lift much more.

I'm going to limit my response to those three points because your logic amuses me, and I enjoy a challenge. :D

1) Fully loaded with fuel and cargo, it is true it is significantly heavier than air and requires forward motion to generate aerodynamic lift.
However, this could be generating lift by maintaining a static position against a small headwind. It doesn't even matter which direction the wind is coming from.
I note that the engines can thrust vector to a limited extent, generating extra lift, so that's useful too.


Airlander in their FAQ writes " It can land like a conventional aircraft when heavy and can power itself down onto the ground when
light". That does not sound like it can hover with a large payload, and if you have a small payload why are you using an airship?

I agree a wind might help. But no one will do careful placement in a heavy wind. And you cannot count on wind. I bet many construction managers would be aghast at the constraints.



SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Alternatively you could offload most of the fuel (which is a form of ballast) in exchange for straight lifting capacity.
If you are competing against cranes or heavy-lift helicopters, you do not need fuel for 2,400 mile range.
So, pending accurate data from HAV, it might be possible to "hover" in many cases.

The FAQ says "The Airlander 10 was designed for payloads of up to ten tonnes.". That sounds like with minimal, reasonable fuel, you can lift 10 tons.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
2) It costs more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift
Say what? Are you suggesting that cranes just appear out of nowhere? Maybe you can toss some magic beans on the ground and one will magically sprout up. :lol:
Cranes also need to be transported to the lifting location, along busy and congested city streets. Or worse, to remote locations where there are no roads.
This is less of a problem for an Airlander.

Most large cities have a crane that can lift ten tons. You're not flying it in from another state.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
3) Cranes lift much more.
Yes, there is no doubt about that, but cranes do have the disadvantage of being rather …. static.
Here is a typical large crane (Prangl 100-tonne 10-axle), but as I'm sure you realise, when the boom is extended, that lifting capacity shrinks to less than 10 tonnes.
In this case it is obviously unable to position itself in the middle of the river, and is therefore required to extend it's boom, only allowing it to lift relatively small bridge sections into position.
Basically, you often need far more crane that you might imagine.
Image

This is your best argument. There are places where it's hard to get a crane. Like the middle of a forest. Or some weirdly inaccessible spot. But I don't think there are enough of these jobs to support an airship (not that I have counted them, how could one).

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Since you have raised the idea of the Airlander competing against a heavy-lift helicopter; the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane has a similar payload, flies at a similar speed, probably costs just as much as an Airlander, but has fantastically higher operating costs.


That's kind of my point. If you're competing against heavy lift helicopters, you lose. There are only a few of these, and their economics is based on the fact that the military already paid to design, develop, and build them. All you have to do is buy a used one, and run it (which costs less that starting from scratch).
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:53 pm

I'm enjoying this debate immensely, even though we are taking the Airlander to the extremes of it's performance envelope.
kitplane01 wrote:
Airlander in their FAQ writes " It can land like a conventional aircraft when heavy and can power itself down onto the ground when
light". That does not sound like it can hover with a large payload, and if you have a small payload why are you using an airship?
I believe we need to define "large" and "small" payloads before writing this off.
kitplane01 wrote:
The FAQ says "The Airlander 10 was designed for payloads of up to ten tonnes.". That sounds like with minimal, reasonable fuel, you can lift 10 tons.
Yeah, I read that too, and it is ambiguous. It could just as easily mean that an Airlander can carry 10 tonnes for 2,400 miles i.e. with a full load of fuel. We must both be careful not to interpret data to suit our agenda.
Wikipedia wrote:
Northrop also said the LEMV could be used as a cargo aircraft, claiming that it had enough buoyancy to haul 7 tonnes (7,000 kg; 15,000 lb) of cargo 3,900 km (2,400 mi) at 50 km/h (30 mph). {Now that does sound like a maximum fuel load - Shaky}
According to HAV, the design would allow operators to choose among trade-offs between endurance and cargo capacity, carrying up to a maximum of 14,000 kg (30,000 lb) of cargo.
HAV's "10 tonnes" appears to be a middle of the road figure.
My interpretation is that you can swap up to 7 tonnes of fuel for 7 tonnes of (additional) cargo.
If that is correct, I also see a situation where you can reduce the fuel, and also limit the payload to a maximum of (say) 8,000 kg, allowing you the luxury of needing zero or negligible aerodynamic lift. aka "hover".

Remember; you often need a 100 ton crane to lift just an 8 tonne load, so this is still a significant amount.

"But no one will do careful placement in a heavy wind. " I think you will find that also goes for ground based cranes.... :lol:

"I bet many construction managers would be aghast at the constraints.". Agreed; an Airlander is better employed on tasks that require slightly less precision.
Or where the alternative options are equally problematic. (The Empire State Building springs to mind...)

kitplane01 wrote:
2)Most large cities have a crane that can lift ten tons. You're not flying it in from another state.

That crane could be on the wrong side of the city, and not everywhere enjoys cities with wide open avenues and a neat grid system. Most of Europe would require moving a large crane at night, with a police escort. It might only be required for one hour of technical lifting, but the crane could be tied up for 24 hours.

You have also chosen to specify the Airlander flying in "from another state" just to make life especially difficult. :roll:
I would position Airlanders just outside of NYC, LA, Chicago and probably a few more major conurbations. If Des Moines, Iowa needs a lift, they are probably out of luck....

kitplane01 wrote:
There are places where it's hard to get a crane. Like the middle of a forest. Or some weirdly inaccessible spot. But I don't think there are enough of these jobs to support an airship (not that I have counted them, how could one).

I know of quite a few wind farms that are weirdly inaccessible.....

Where the Airlander would excel is because it can combine the activity of a crane, with that of transporting the item some distance, over all kinds of obstacles.
Imagine picking up a load from on board a ship two miles offshore, carrying it over water, across a congested city, a small mountain range, and then dropping it within feet of it's destination, half way up a mountainside. It might only be 8,000 kg across 50 miles, but that neatly avoids a whole truckload of problems . (truckload... geddit?)

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Since you have raised the idea of the Airlander competing against a heavy-lift helicopter; the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane has a similar payload, flies at a similar speed, probably costs just as much as an Airlander, but has fantastically higher operating costs.

kitplane01 wrote:
That's kind of my point. If you're competing against heavy lift helicopters, you lose. There are only a few of these, and their economics is based on the fact that the military already paid to design, develop, and build them. All you have to do is buy a used one, and run it (which costs less that starting from scratch).

All you have to do..... :rotfl:
You might need to review that statement; things have changed a bit since 1991.
The US Army retired it's CH-54s in 1991. Wikipedia claims there are currently numerous complete and partial airframes in existence, but if you want one, I suggest you approach Erikson. In 1992 they took over the type certificate from Sikorsky, and since that time have been manufacturing new S-64s, as well as remanufacturing existing CH-54s.
It doesn't say anywhere that either of these options will be cheap.
I will concede that I do not have actual figures, but comparable machines have truly eye-watering $$$costs.


Looking forward to the next instalment from you; keep it coming. :bigthumbsup:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:05 pm

What they have announced it that they don't repair their only prototype.
Do they have any customers or are any more to be built? The first one was inherited ready made from the U.S. Building new will be very expensive even with their new permit.
I don't see any demand for something like this. Who will pay for it?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:43 pm

Noshow wrote:
The first one was inherited ready made from the U.S. Building new will be very expensive even with their new permit.


That's very revisionist...

The airship concept was developed by HAV (SkyCat, ATG, Airship Industries...), including construction and testing of the smaller HAV-3. Only *then* did they win the US Army contract and built the LEMV/Airlander 10 in partnership with Northrup Grumman and others.

So it's always been HAV - with temporary support from the US.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
Noshow
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:58 pm

We have had our bad Cargolifter experience in Germany before. Just hot air - no airship. Maybe this is why I got so sceptic right now.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:02 pm

Hmmmm read the link at thread start properly.Ok they have permission to build a 'proper' version.Doesnt mean they will or whether they have the money.Fairly important I would say.
The article makes it 100% clear that their target market is tourism.Full stop. Not that it can't do other things particularly the big brother '50' (tonnes)just that this is where they think they can make money with the present sized airship.

Well...I suppose I would pay a bit of money for a joy flight.So perhaps.But I doubt we will see it actually happen unless some existing leasure company has already decided it's a good idea - and has the money.
 
EBJ68
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:10 pm

I'm thinking the cruise vacation, in the air, might be a good place to start. Cruise ships appear to be popular still and this is a novel approach to a cruise vacation. It appears the builders see this craft as something like a modern day Graf Zeppelin, though how long it can stay up isn't clear. I also noted from the article a more advanced version is being designed that can carry a load of 50+ tons. I don't see it making a hit as a freighter when people and companies want their goods as fast as they can have them as cheaply as possible. I don't see it as having military applications as it would seem to be a huge target over a combat area or even outside a combat area. Mind you, these are all opinions.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:04 pm

parapente wrote:
Hmmmm read the link at thread start properly.Ok they have permission to build a 'proper' version.Doesnt mean they will or whether they have the money.Fairly important I would say.
The article makes it 100% clear that their target market is tourism.Full stop. Not that it can't do other things particularly the big brother '50' (tonnes)just that this is where they think they can make money with the present sized airship.

Well...I suppose I would pay a bit of money for a joy flight.So perhaps.But I doubt we will see it actually happen unless some existing leasure company has already decided it's a good idea - and has the money.


I think the market has to be rich people tourism.

Good
1) You can position in places of good weather, and build your hanger there.
2) You can cancel a trip for bad weather
3) You only need a small number of rich people. Adventure types who might even tolerate some discomfort for the adventure.

Bad
1) The government will want maximum safety for tourism. More than heavy lift.
2) Any bad incident will make every media outlet. Unlike heavy lift.
3) You need convince investors to invest in a not-sure-thing. No one has done this since the Hindenburg.

But the real problem is the thing is "butt" ugly. Seriously, the ugly will effect the tourism market (but not the heavy lift market).
 
NoLifeLine
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:52 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
NoLifeLine wrote:
What do you gut=ys think of the Airlander 10? Can you see a future for modern airships?

Theres a very good interview with the Executive of HAV from Last years RIAT in the article below.

https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2019/01/14/A-new-age-of-airships-is-ready-for-lift-off-as-worlds-longest-aircraft-gets-full-production-go-ahead


I don't see success because I don't see an economically viable mission.

It cannot act like a heavy lift helicopter because
1) It cannot hover, and must always be getting dynamic lift from forward motion
2) It's costs much more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift. (I assume)
3) Cranes lift much more.

It cannot carry freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

It cannot carry special/bulky freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Economics suck (I assume)
3) Weather is a huge problem. What happens when it's away from it's hanger and unexpected weather approaches. And over the expected lifetime of the aircraft, there will be unexpected weather.

It cannot carry passengers (except site-seers)
1) Way too slow
2) Not safe enough
3) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

Maybe it can carry site-seers. But the certifications for non-experimental passenger carrying would be a problem. Also economics. Who's going to build the needed hanger in Jamaica/Bahamas/Cancun just to test out the economics?


Pretty sure the article and video state that nearly every point you mention is wrong.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:53 am

NoLifeLine wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
NoLifeLine wrote:
What do you gut=ys think of the Airlander 10? Can you see a future for modern airships?

Theres a very good interview with the Executive of HAV from Last years RIAT in the article below.

https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2019/01/14/A-new-age-of-airships-is-ready-for-lift-off-as-worlds-longest-aircraft-gets-full-production-go-ahead


I don't see success because I don't see an economically viable mission.

It cannot act like a heavy lift helicopter because
1) It cannot hover, and must always be getting dynamic lift from forward motion
2) It's costs much more than a crane, especially when you factor in the need to get to the city before the lift. (I assume)
3) Cranes lift much more.

It cannot carry freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

It cannot carry special/bulky freight
1) Doesn't lift enough
2) Economics suck (I assume)
3) Weather is a huge problem. What happens when it's away from it's hanger and unexpected weather approaches. And over the expected lifetime of the aircraft, there will be unexpected weather.

It cannot carry passengers (except site-seers)
1) Way too slow
2) Not safe enough
3) Cannot keep a schedule because it cannot handle weather

Maybe it can carry site-seers. But the certifications for non-experimental passenger carrying would be a problem. Also economics. Who's going to build the needed hanger in Jamaica/Bahamas/Cancun just to test out the economics?


Pretty sure the article and video state that nearly every point you mention is wrong.


Please educate me. Imagine the blimp flying LAX-NYC. Can it go 500 mph? Can it land in 35 mph winds? Is it certified for passengers?
 
NoLifeLine
Topic Author
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm

I dont have to. The COE of the company covers it much more succinctly than I could in the video on the article.

It helps to provide a cogent argument if you actually absorb the information you are commenting on first.
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: Airlander 10 gets full-production go-ahead

Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:27 pm

Are they going for the wind turbine blade transport market? Apparently there is a significant shortage of over-the-road equipment and logistics for shipping 60m+ turbine blades for the next two years.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos