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.'"
BBDs are real?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why not have a deformable body? Flatten it out so it can travel at higher speeds, then whe it slows down, puff it up and it can be more blimpy.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Thanks for the link. From the company's description, this concept has two main advantages - it's heavier than air, using wings and such, so problems with ballasting and the need to release the buoyant gas are reduced or eliminated. The second advantage is that it can supposedly land like an airplane, with wheels, that eliminates docking/landing issues of traditional airships.
However, the concept summary notes that it is designed to take crosswinds of up to 30 knots when unloaded. I'm wondering if that's sufficient - wouldn't that potentially limit the operational use of these airships in poor weather conditions?
From my quick research a 747 gets around 100 miles to the gallon per passenger when completly full. Lets say its 75% full so 75 miles to the gallon. So flying versus driving alone is hugly economical, of course if you pack 4 people into a car it becomes more economical, though the waste of time driving isn't nessesarly worth the savings.
Another thing I don't get about why people don't like dirigibles is the Hindenburg disaster. Every time something comes out about blimps, every Tom, Dick, and Harry screams "Hindenburg." It doesn't make sense that one crash would doom an entire, civilized way to travel. When passenger jets are mentioned, no one screams "Lockerbie" or "9/11" as a reason why we shouldn't fly in airplanes anymore. They just go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make it safer/better. Why are dirigibles held to a different standard? It would be really nice to see people break out of groupthink on this one.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
But seriously, I wonder if they have run the numbers to determine whether this is more efficient than trucking. It doesn't seem impossible when you include the cost of roads, and real estate for roads.
Also, a steady stream of payload-moving craft overhead might even be a workable platform for broadband connectivity. There are already several companies working on using airships as wireless relay platforms, but perhaps the idea would be more economically feasible if the airships are making money in two different ways.
If you look at web site, this point is very clear:the concept is for a heavier than air vehicle that gets 50% of its lift from bouyancy and the other half from its wings.
The chief advantages over a blimp are operational. First, it can be landed without having to provide a ground crew, and doesn't require mooring against crosswinds. Second, since there is no danger of it floating away, it can offload massive cargos without having to take on ballast. Third, since the ship is heavier than air it never becomes too heavy to land becuase it has burned too much fuel. Finally , it can have a narrower cross section than a lighter than air ship of the same lifting capacity reducing drag and increasing speed (120 knot or almost 140MpH).
I expect such ships if ever built will also have a higher operational ceiling than airships of equivalent volume, and certainly would have a greater cargo capacity.
The advantages over planes are less clear. Probably greater endurance and shorter runways for the same cargo capacity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As usual, price(resource), speed, comfort, pick two.
Actually, the real problem with the Hindenberg was the decision to stiffen the outer skin with a paint that was essentially hardened kerosene. As in what we use for modern jet fuel.
Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame. All of the exciting footage showed lots of bright yellow flame from... the burning of the envelope.
It does give a little more lift, but as we all know, it burns.
Two points. First, hydrogen gives twice the lift of helium. A 100% bonus for the same sized envelope. Second, it only burns in the presence of oxygen (or another gaseous oxidizer). If the envelope is made from a nonflammable membrane impermeable to oxygen (any membrane decent at retaining hydrogen is completely impermeable to oxygen), explosions and dramatic flames become vanishingly unlikely.
The Hindenberg had problems, to be sure. IMHO, however, the use of hydrogen wasn't one of them.
Regards,
Ross
So how long a runway will a 300 metres long Dynalifter need to get up to the 90mph required to build up the aerodynamic lift?
Or, to put it differently, if the Dynalifter requires a long, wide and strong runway for takeoff and landing, much of the promised utility of airships goes out the window. In particular there will be no hovering over disaster areas (or military outposts) while dumping hundreds of tonnes of supplies.
Then you might as well buy a couple of Antonov AN-225's from the russians, no? They would be both faster and probably cheaper too.