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.'"

Comments

Deforming body

[Winterblink]

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.

Re:Deforming body

[FooAtWFU]

That sounds like the engineering involved would be rather complicated. Current airship-type designs basically have a light, rigid frame inside to support their envelope. If you're going to make that frame delibrately deformable, you're going to have trouble keeping it from deforming in an undesirable fashion when it's under stresses (such as crosswinds) - there would need to be a lot of engineering behind it, and the frame would probably end up being a lot heavier. Needless to say, for an airship, you generally want to be as lightweight as possible so you can lift cargo instead of just lifting the ship itself.

A rigid airframe is much simpler, cheaper, easier, and sturdier.

Re:Just a Blimp?

[dakirw]

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?

Re:Could it be used for passengers?

[MindStalker]

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.

Hindenburg

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:Hindenburg

[argStyopa]

I don't think it's 'phear of the t3chn0logy' that's stopping adoption of LTA craft. It's practicality. Right now, the LTA craft provide an unattractive compromise between cost/speed.

If you want it there fast, or if it's really lightweight/small, you ship by truck or air.
If you can wait a long time, or if it's really heavy, you ship it by rail/sea/barge.

LTA craft offer the load capacity of air (poor), at the speed of oceanfreight (slow).

What, aside from some very narrow-range applications (heavy lift of non-urgent bulk cargo into rough undeveloped areas) would this be good for?

Re:Hindenburg was flashy, not bad.

[rossifer]

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