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.
Better link/picture of the dynathing - mostly a blimp
http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Default.htm
Good thing the patent has expired on the Zeppelin
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
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
Yes, we're past myths.
"WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
a use for those docking ports at the top of the Empire State Building.
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.
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
"The fools! They should've built it with 7,001 hulls! Oh, when will they learn!"
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.
Oh, it's crashing...oh, four or five hundred kilobytes per second, and it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. There's a white screen, and there's database errors, now, and the browser is crashing to the desktop ...Oh, the humanity, and all the sysadmins screaming around here!"
The idea of hybrid lighter than air lifting and an aerodynamic hull has been around for a while. In his 1963 book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed essayist and journalist John McPhee covers the story the the Aereon, which was an early avitar of the dynalifter. There was a brief resurgence of interest in this aircraft design during the oil crisis in the 1970s. It now seems to be back once again now that oil has risen in price.
One of the things that those pushing this design may not be mentioning is that increasinly helium is both scarse and a strategic resource. Helium is actually "mined" from underground domes where it has been trapped (I assume formed from radioactive decay). If fleets of airships were helilum based, the price of helium would seen rise to the point where the airships were no longer cost effective. The alternative is hydrogen, but as the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems. These issues could be the reason that after over three decades this idea has not caught on.
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.
in a brilliant book called "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed." He writes about an extraordinary variety of subjects, from rustlers to growing orange trees in Florida, although much of his work is about geology. But TDPS was/is entirely about this airframe and its evolution through the '60's and '70's, and includes some great material about flight into known icing conditions, the stuff that dooms small aircraft. blimps and dirigibles can often accumulate eight inches of ice and keep flying. (A small Cessna is screwed if you put on 1/2" of ice, and a jetliner isn't much better.) McPhee also wrote a lot about the quarter-scale and tenth-scale flying models of the hybrid lifting body. It's a fantastic book, and as is usual with McPhee, turns into a book about obsession and human devotion to ideas, rather than just being about the ideas themselves.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
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
2001:
CargoLifter AG based to the South of Berlin in Germany is developing "Lighter-than-Air" systems for logistics and other applications. The Company's first product, the CL 75 AC balloon based system has been in prototype flight test since October 2001.
2002:
For reasons of insolvency the CargoLifter AG Board of Managing Directors today filed an application for the opening of insolvency proceedings on the assets of CargoLifter AG at the Cottbus District Court.
I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it makes sense on some levels, i.e. not having to ship your tons of goods via truck->rail->boat->rail->truck, but I remember reading about the operation mentioned above a few years back. It was no garage business, they had a wealthy shipping magnate with a lot of vertical expertise, a slew of aerospace engineers, and a ton of capital.
The problem, IIRC, was that the infrastructure to handle these things (big hangars) are gone, and real estate is too valuable to go around scooping it up near transportation hubs, where they could be integrated into existing systems. I think they went broke, not because the airships were too costly to build, but there weren't any other facilities to land/unload/service the things, and they had to build those too. The problem is easy to spot when you look at their plans.
Helium is just a place-holder. You make some ships and prove that they work and are cheap, then you replace the helium with hydrogen. It can even be generated from the ship's fuel if there are slow leaks. The hindenberg's shell burned, not the hydrogen. Hydrogen can plenty safe in airships with the right designs... far safer than using thousands of gallons of jet fuel. You aren't going to shoot a hydrogen airship with a handgun (or a rocket for that matter) and have it explode.
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.
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.
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.