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.'"
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
a use for those docking ports at the top of the Empire State Building.
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!"
Airports have multiple runways (and land both ways on one runway) to mitigate the effects of wind. So, for example, when the Santa Ana winds are blowing at LAX, all flights take off on runways 7(L/R) & 8(L/R) instead of 25(R/L) & 26(R/L), so they are going into the wind. When airports are built, the runways are oriented relative to the most common winds in the area, so the crosswind component is relatively small. A 30kt crosswind component is enormous, and found very rarely.
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
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.