Airships

Airships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rexrgisformidoni -> Airships (1/25/2009 7:03:10 PM)
Would be a pretty damn cool way to travel.

dcnovice -> RE: Airships (1/25/2009 7:12:20 PM)
Agreed. I wonder if they'll ever make a comeback.

Marc2b -> RE: Airships (1/25/2009 7:12:26 PM)
Yeah... but there is a serious drawback.

dcnovice -> RE: Airships (1/25/2009 7:14:30 PM)
Doesn't helium solve that problem?

Marc2b -> RE: Airships (1/25/2009 7:45:54 PM)
quote: Doesn't helium solve that problem? Beats me. it was meant as a joke.

Aneirin -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 2:35:51 AM)
There is a suggestion that the Hindenburg disaster was actually sabotage though, and we know with all air travel sabotage has disasterous effects whatever the type of air craft. Before the disaster air ships had proved to be a good form of air travel, then beating the cross atlantic travel time that ocean liners could do. Maybe they should come back, I would like to see them back, as with our technology now surely a more efficient and effective air craft can be produced with maybe a saving in engine fuel and there pollution. Saving in aircraft fuel because an air ship does not need thrust to make wings work and give lift. The only problem I do see with them is directional stability, them being big and ' lighter than air', they are subject to wind direction and force. The only solution I see to that is directional engines, engines that move on pivots to act like the rudder of a ship. Can anyone imagine an airship size of old with modern high performance engines, how long would it take to cross the atlantic ? No need for runways, these things can park anywhere and I believe that was the original plan for the empire state building, it's mast on the top being a docking mast for zeppelins. Something fictionally displayed in the most excellent 2004 movie Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow with Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_esbnews_july2000.cfm Many successes start with a dream and it is the ability to dream that moves the human race forward.

JustDarkness -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 4:19:23 AM)
http://www.millenniumairship.com/ http://www.dynalifter.com/

Dnomyar -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 4:33:48 AM)
They use them her during the ball games. They will let you go up in them but only on a theter.

Aneirin -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 5:08:23 AM)
The only trouble with derigible transport if it ever becomes viable is the aviation manufacturers, surely they will try to crush any industry that rivals theirs, no matter how better it is. Crushing via political lobbying as is done with many things that should be but strangely fail.

Dnomyar -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 5:55:50 AM)
I think if it becomes viable a lot of people will use it.

YoursMistress -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 6:58:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin There is a suggestion that the Hindenburg disaster was actually sabotage though, I thought Howard Hughes and the Rocketeer teamed up to bring it down.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102803/ yours

Termyn8or -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 7:06:52 AM)
The main problem is the volume of helium (or vacuum) required for bouyancy is a pretty good size. Parking lots would be a problem, they would have to be stacked up so to speak, tethered to a building or something. There is a practical limit as to how small you can make something like this and still carry anything substantial around. Between just engines and bodies you need to displace a certain mass of air. Perhaps some math wiz will come around and figure it out. The other problem is even with the advantage of less traffic jams and tieups, some people can barely drive cars. Some of them shouldn't be allowed to ride a bicycle. It would solve alot though, bumpy roads, construction zones, they would be pretty much a thing of the past, except for those who can't afford an airship. T

TheHeretic -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 7:09:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin There is a suggestion that the Hindenburg disaster was actually sabotage though, Sort of. The US wouldn't sell the Nazi's enough helium. The problem is wind. That's why the tether at the top of skyscrapers remained a dream, and what makes parking them require massive garages. There has been a long-term series of tests at Edwards AFB on sonic boom reduction. They seem to be making some good progress. I'm looking forward to supersonic commercial travel.

Termyn8or -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 8:51:46 AM)
Problem there Heretic is that propelling it costs. Even if drag is reduced to a bare minimum, the accel and decel will cost. I didn't say money but money is a factor in fuel cost. However this does seem to go against going green. If they get the drag way down, the flight envelope will skew towards the higher velocities, making it harder to take off. Either more power or longer runways are the choices here. I also think that they will find a limitation on just how big they can build it. Remember no matter what, air has to hold the entire aircraft up. It will not be easy to abate that "splitting" without introducing some drag. Then it's back to either this or that. Good luck to them, let them do it. My wind tunnel's broken. Waiting on parts. (all of them actually). I just don't expect miracles overnight. T

Aneirin -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 9:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin There is a suggestion that the Hindenburg disaster was actually sabotage though, Sort of. The US wouldn't sell the Nazi's enough helium. The problem is wind. That's why the tether at the top of skyscrapers remained a dream, and what makes parking them require massive garages. There has been a long-term series of tests at Edwards AFB on sonic boom reduction. They seem to be making some good progress. I'm looking forward to supersonic commercial travel. We had supersonic commercial travel, Concorde, but it was binned on a lie. And what about the Russian version, Concordski, I know it was a bit iffy, but they had it until most of them crashed.

FRSguy -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 10:51:15 AM)
They are trying to make somewhat of a comeback... there are a couple of American companies that are working on it but more as a sight seeing deal rather than as a form of seriouse transportation.

Marc2b -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 11:08:02 AM)
quote: what about the Russian version, Concordski, [sm=rofl.gif] You did make that up, right?

samboct -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 12:31:45 PM)
Marc- nope- he isn't. The Russian version of the Concorde, the Tu-144 flew first at the Paris Air Show but went in. I don't think they were ever used for commercial travel. I doubt there's going to be much push for supersonic travel till we get this fuel shortage sorted out- supersonic travel is anything but energy efficient. T- airships don't use much energy for decelerating. But as noted by previous posters, what makes the airship impractical for most commercial applications is it's extreme sensitivity to weather conditions- notably wind. They're very tough to handle down near the ground, and lives were lost amongst the ground crew. I don't see that any new technology is going to change that. They are far superior to helicopters as a tourist platform though because they've very quiet (electrics are a possibility) and very stable. It's why they make such good camera platforms, plus they are probably less expensive to operate, being mechanically much simpler. They're also very efficient in terms of fuel usage, since as a previous poster noted, most of the energy goes to drive them forward, not provide lift. (There is some dynamic lift from the shape of the dirigible.) I'd love to go for a ride on a blimp- I've heard it's a ball. Sam

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 1:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or The main problem is the volume of helium (or vacuum) required for bouyancy is a pretty good size. Parking lots would be a problem, they would have to be stacked up so to speak, tethered to a building or something. Vacuum won't work, for glaringly obvious reasons. [8D] quote: There is a practical limit as to how small you can make something like this and still carry anything substantial around. Between just engines and bodies you need to displace a certain mass of air. That's why there's them engineer-types, to figure this stuff out. Displace a mass of air? Love to hear the explanation for this. [:D]

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Airships (1/26/2009 1:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Marc- nope- he isn't. The Russian version of the Concorde, the Tu-144 flew first at the Paris Air Show but went in. I don't think they were ever used for commercial travel. I doubt there's going to be much push for supersonic travel till we get this fuel shortage sorted out- supersonic travel is anything but energy efficient. T- airships don't use much energy for decelerating. But as noted by previous posters, what makes the airship impractical for most commercial applications is it's extreme sensitivity to weather conditions- notably wind. They're very tough to handle down near the ground, and lives were lost amongst the ground crew. I don't see that any new technology is going to change that. They are far superior to helicopters as a tourist platform though because they've very quiet (electrics are a possibility) and very stable. It's why they make such good camera platforms, plus they are probably less expensive to operate, being mechanically much simpler. They're also very efficient in terms of fuel usage, since as a previous poster noted, most of the energy goes to drive them forward, not provide lift. (There is some dynamic lift from the shape of the dirigible.) I'd love to go for a ride on a blimp- I've heard it's a ball. Sam the TU 144 flew commercial in the Soviet Union for about 4 years. Nasa actually owns one for high speed testing, like the "ram jet" engines and such.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875