Slashdot Mirror
New Aircraft is Part Blimp and Part Airplane
An anonymous reader writes "Canton Rep has an interesting article on Ohio entrepreneurs who hope to get their business 'off the ground'. Brian Martin and Robert Rist think they are close to testing a prototype of their patented Dynalifter hybrid. They announced last week that their airship -- part blimp and part airplane -- has been completed, and they hope to conduct a test flight this spring. Martin and Rist hope the Dynalifter will help bring in a new transportation era. They see it as a way to move materials at a lower cost than jets and at a higher speed than ships. From the article: 'They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies. It might have military uses, such as delivering equipment and supplies to sites that might not be easily reachable.'"
After reading the article, it looks like it's just a blimp with more engines, and not really an airplane. The article doesn't provide much info about the speed, range and payload capacity of this "hybrid", so it's hard to say how cost effective it would be.
http://www.cantonrep.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php?I D=261606&r=0&Category=9
Better link/picture of the dynathing - mostly a blimp
http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm
Actually, I thought it was World War I that taught us that blimps weren't effective as combatants (bombers). German Zeppelins burned pretty intensely after getting hit. They were only used for long range ocean recon in WW II, right? The Hindenburg incident probably didn't help much either.
Tell that to Goodyear, Fuji Film, Met Life, and the vast number of other companies that operate them. And don't forget to mention it to ESPN, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, and all the other networks who use them for their sports coverage.
As to WWII, the blimp was used very successfully. To quote: "The United States was the only power to use airships during World War II, and the airships played a small but important role. The Navy used them for minesweeping, search and rescue, photographic reconnaissance, scouting, escorting convoys, and antisubmarine patrols. Airships accompanied many oceangoing ships, both military and civilian. Of the 89,000 ships escorted by airships during the war, not one was lost to enemy action.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Yeah they're a thing of the past, the future is getting into space, oh hang on:
http://www.jpaerospace.com/
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
I think the true meaning to the phrase "Blimps have failed." is that blimps have been replaced by airplanes and helicopters for the things which they were originally designed for. First, I don't see a blimp truly replacing a cargo 747 due to the fact that you can't run a blimp at 600 MPH. Even with engines all over it, they are talking about replacing trucking and not aviation, so they cannot mean moving faster than say 150 MPH.
The reason a blimp can't replace a helicopter is that blimps are much more susceptable to high winds. Any time the winds are too high, the Goodyear blimp stays home, and a helicopter takes its place. The reason for this is simple. wind resistence of a very large sack of bouyant gas is much much larger than a rotating turbine. Now, on clear days with little wind, a blimp would be much much more economical to operate than an airplane or a helicopter.
Ira
(Since I haven't been able to read TFA due to the /. effect, I will have to make a few assumptions...)
Over time many people have tried reintroducing the zeppelin class airship (CargoLifter, Zeppelin NT, etc.). They have mostly failed to come up with a convincing airship design for moving heavy cargo long distances. The problem is not engine power or raw lift capacity, it is ballast.
For an airship to be able to fly, its lifting capability must be higher than the weight of the airship itself and any cargo (d'uh!).
Lift can come from engines (propellers or jets directed downwards), pockets in the airship body filled with Helium and lift created by the body of the airship flowing through the air (liftbody).
Trouble is:
If you use Helium for lift capacity, you have a problem when you unload the cargo. You either have to add X tons of ballast or new cargo, equal to the weight you just unloaded, or reduce lift by venting Helium. At the current price for Helium that is a really, really expensive option.
If you use engine power to provide lift, your fuel costs and logistics of the thing will kill you. Try providing several hundred metric tonnes of lift using conventional engine technology. Hint: A fully loaded Saturn V moon rocket weighs in at around 2,900 metric tonnes. Scale engine power as needed. 1/10th the engine power of a Saturn V is still a very impressive piece of engineering.
If you use the shape of the airship fuselage to provide lift as it is pushed through the air (liftbody technology), you are in trouble at takeoff and during landings. If the airship has a reasonable cruising speed at altitude, then you will be missing enourmous amounts of lift at takeoff. Once in the air, how do you land without reducing your airspeed? Modern airplanes reshapes the airfoil profile of their wings via the use of flaps and slats to balance lift with airspeed.
I have never heard about a satisfying solution to this very serious problems with these so-called heavy lifter next-gen airships. Maybe because there isn't one...?
Methinks someone is fishing for government or corporate funding for a dead-end project.
AC.
Because that's a good way to get the government to pay part of your R&D costs.
I also wonder what would happen if someone shoots at it repeatedly? Would it just pop and fall to the Earth? It must be moving slowly, making it an easy target
Of course...no one in the entire development stream ever thought of an airmachine, at least partially for military use, ever getting shot at.
Not once. They will thank you for reminding them of that possibility. Now they'll have to change the entire design.
The potential for transporting goods seems like its best use, although I don't think the trucking industry/lobby is going to like it very much.
Too bad. Either they can a) suck it up and adapt, or b) build a fleet of their own and compete.
Reminds me of the failed Cargolifter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter. The company intended to build a large Zeppelin for heavy transports to destinations unreachable by ship. It proved to be infeasible. The design had to compromise payload versus ceiling, and had severe operating limitations (e.g., high winds). At the same time, the market (such as oil rigs in remote locations) was too small to support the endeavour.
Speaking of AWACS, I recall an article from The Wall Street Journal a while ago to the effect that some companies were looking at stratospheric blimps as a replacement/supplement to satellites. It's not very windy up there, and launching them is probably a lot easier and cheaper than depending on NASA and friend, and they can be replaced much more readily, as well. A quick Google search on the topic turns up a BBC article as well.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
There is a lot of erroneous information on this /. discussion. Allow me to correct several misconceptions.
;)
1) The concept of a hybrid airship is older than the "Pumpkin Seed". Some of the earliest work was performed by Howard Hughes with his "Mega Lifter" concept. The Dynalifter has several unique twists, most significant of which is its use of "stayed-bridge" architectural concepts that will allow large point load masses.
2) The Dynalifter is not a blimp: it is a hybrid airship. Approximately 48% of its lift is aerostatic (helium) and 52% is aerodynamic. As a result, it takes off and lands like a normal airplane. The heavy freighter design uses 8 engines for take off (3 on each wing, one on each canard wing) and cruises with 2-4 engines engaged.
3) Its cruising speed is 90 knots (max speed is 120 knots) in the current heavy freighter design.
4) It can carry a payload of 320,000 pounds in a detachable cargo bay measuring 150x40x15 feet (volume of 90,000 cubic feet).
5) Range is 3200 nm with a full payload.
6) Aircraft size is 990x168x21 feet.
7) There are many, many possibilities for this airship: both commercial and military.
Please mod this up if you find this informative. Thanks.
-- from someone who knows a lot more than the Canton reporter
No, because it's significantly heavier than air. It can't stay aloft without its wings.
The Aereon company still exists, and is still plugging away on their airship design.
http://www.aereoncorp.com/
The Hindenburg wasn't all that bad. The people who died were mostly the people who jumped. Burning hydrogen rises quickly, keeping the passengers safe despite the inferno.
It's remembered because it's one of the first spectacular disasters caught on film.
And I'll say it again. RTFA! and then RTFWS! http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm Over half the lift comes from the wings. Yes, they look awfully small for the body, that's because the body is filled with helium and as such weighs very little (but is not actually lighter than air). The advantage over LTA transport is that it does not require a groundcrew or sophisticated mechanisms to land. It also has no problem with lift changes due to fuel use over long flights. It is more stable in high winds. Also it can fly faster for a geiven fuel usage because it has less drag. The advantage over conventional airplanes is mainly fuel economy. I imagine that a fleet of these could compete with a fleet of semis based on economy and speed. My 2 bits Merlyn
Still haven't seen TFA, but the pictures at ohio-airships.com show a craft that appears to be a lifting body.
I am not a crackpot.
the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems.
It's a shame that this meme is so widespread in the collective consciouness, because it's very damaging to the airship industry. Hydrogen is a superior lifting gas, it's inexpensive, and there's virtually a limitless supply.
Try to check out an article called "Odorless, Colorless, Blameless" (Air & Space Smithsonian magazine, May 1997, pp14-16) by NASA employee Richard Van Treuren. (Unfortunately this article is no longer available online.) It will convince you that the Hindenburg would have met the same fiery fate, even if it had been filled with helium. The flammable aluminum-based paint that covered the vehicle was to blame.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I don't know a whole lot about airships, but wouldn't a big, rigid balloon hold up to gunfire more effectively than a helicopter packed with sensitive mechanics and electronics? A cloth skin would be easier to patch than a metal one.
It's not like it would pop...if they want maximum bouyancy, they'd keep the envelope's pressure as low as possible; The less mass per volume, the better their numbers.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
1) The cargo bay and the piloting area are not connected or contiguous. The cargo bay is fully detachable and has a volume of 90,000 cubic feet. You can detach the cargo bay very quickly upon landing. Picking up another cargo bay requires ~1 hour to affix.
/. account in the 4 years of reading /.
2) nm refers to Nautical Miles. So the Dynalifter has a range of ~6000 kilometers.
3) This is not the DARPA Walrus program. The Walrus program is currently only doing paper engineering trade studies, and its objective is to design a larger (500 ton payload) aircraft for delivery in 2015 with an enormous R&D budget. The Walrus is an expensive paper vision; Dynalifter is currently buildable with off-the-shelf parts for a fraction of the cost.
4) The Dynalifter does not use a ballast system, since it does not need to. The helium offsets only the weight of the unfueled empty aircraft.
5) I post as AC since I've never bothered to get a
Please mod this up if you find it helpful. Thanks.
And hydrogen does not give twice the lift of Helium, the net lift given by an object in air is given by
(lift given by air)-(weight of the object)
=(volumn of the object)*[(density of air)-(density of the object)]
Although the density of Hydrogen is half of that of Helium, You don't get twice the lift when you replace the latter with the former.