Slashdot Mirror


Goodyear's New State-of-the-Art Airship Makes Its First Flight

Zothecula (1870348) writes "The Goodyear blimp may have been flying around for almost 90 years, but it still manages to turn heads. On Friday, there was another reason to look beyond nostalgia for the days of the great airships of old as Goodyear unveiled its new state-of-the-art blimp to the media, Goodyear associates and dealers at its Wingfoot Lake hangar in Suffield, Ohio. Built in partnership with the Zeppelin company, the new craft that replaces the 45-year old GZ-20 blimp fleet is not only larger and faster, it isn't even a blimp, but a semi-rigid airship."

66 comments

  1. Kirov Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maneuver props engaged

    1. Re:Kirov Reporting by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the Command and Conquer reference. It made my day.

      --
      This is a boring sig
  2. Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Goodyear blimp may have been flying around for almost 90 years ... the new craft that replaces the 45-year old GZ-20 blimp

    So is it 45 or 90 years?

    1. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the GZ-20s replaced a previous model for a total of 90 years of “the Goodyear blimp” but 45 years of the current model.

    2. Re:Which one is it? by ThatAblaze · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever seen "the rocketeer"?

    3. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's 90 years in blimp years.

    4. Re:Which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the real question is how many lives does a blimp have?

    5. Re:Which one is it? by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I have seen many blimps about the place so this is not amazing news, they are becoming more and more common...but I thought that McDs was behind it?

      Blimps don't live to 90.....heart Disease or diabetes takes them long before then.

      Three Blimps walk into a bar....thank god there wasn't a fire or everybody would have died.

      I am a horrible disgusting "fat shamer".....and I will be here weekends and friday nights folks!

    6. Re:Which one is it? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Of course it is that way. The moron was just being sarcastic ( or is dumb as hell )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  3. Name suggestions? by helixcode123 · · Score: 1

    They haven't named it yet. I'm guessing they won't be going with "Hindenburg II"

    --

    In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.

    1. Re:Name suggestions? by invictusvoyd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ze Hindenburg in spandex . With ze helium

    2. Re:Name suggestions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blimp already flies in colors of Ukraine, though can't claim they haven't yet had a Good Year for some time ...

      Thinking of it, some clever pun with Crimea or Putin would be well suited with above.

    3. Re:Name suggestions? by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ze Hindenburg in spandex . With ze helium

      The Hindenburg was designed for helium, but had to use hydrogen because of an US monopoly of helium in combination with an acute attack of envy which resulted in a boycott. The rest is (well known) history ...

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    4. Re:Name suggestions? by StripedCow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since it is filled with helium, I'd suggest "The Chipmunk".

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    5. Re:Name suggestions? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They haven't named it yet. I'm guessing they won't be going with "Hindenburg II"

      I prefer Hindenburg 2.0

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Ooh by Greyfox · · Score: 0

    I'd sell my granny for a chance to do a skydive out of that thing.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Ooh by invictusvoyd · · Score: 0

      The older versions of that thing included free skydive from a fireball .

    2. Re:Ooh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing says the modern ones can't do that. just need to switch out the Helium for Hydrogen

    3. Re:Ooh by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 1

      The older versions of that thing included free skydive from a fireball .

      Actually, the older version of *this* thing is called Zeppelin NT and flies now for about 20 years all around the Lake Constance region. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    4. Re:Ooh by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      nah .. i'm talkin about hitlers baloons .

    5. Re:Ooh by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So logically this new one would be Zeppelin XP. I predict it will be a more successful, after which we will see Zeppelin Vista, which will use the lighter and more easily available hydrogen. They promise improved security and safety this time.

  5. Enjoy it while it floats by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

    In a few decades, flying a blimp might become a bit difficult.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, if we continue to waste helium like idiots. However, one design for modern airships involves re-compressing the helium to control buoyancy rather than bleeding it off.

      The future of airship transport looks pretty interesting to me:
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      We have less helium for 2 reasons. 1) The US military is hoarding it 2) we are not using as much natural gas (of which helium is a byproduct). If helium becomes important and scarce enough, we CAN make more. There just isn't any point right now.

    3. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Hadlock · · Score: 0

      Explain how you get helium out of natural gas? During the drilling phase? You can't "make" atomic elements...

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by RsG · · Score: 4, Informative

      When underground radioactive elements decay, helium is a byproduct (look up "alpha particle radiation"). Because it's a noble gas and doesn't bond with anything, it seeps its way to the surface, where it escapes into the upper atmosphere. Some helium can instead become trapped by non-porous rock, in underground pockets. Those same pockets sometimes have natural gas deposits.

      So you find a natural gas deposit, tap it, and what comes out as well? Helium. It's not the main product they're after when they go drilling, but it is valuable enough to set aside and sell.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe switch back to hydrogen? It's cheap. Sure, the flamability or explosive issue is there - but we have improved materials now, and a better understanding of how static electricity behaves. Perhaps it can be made safe.

    6. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is little reason not to use the much more plentiful hydrogen, for blimps.

    7. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      Undoubtedly it could be safe. Hydrogen by itself is not flammable. You need to add oxygen or some other oxidizer. Try filling a dumpster-sized plastic bag with hydrogen. Shoot bottle rockets into it. They tend to puncture the plastic and explode inside -- without igniting the hydrogen. In fact it's quite difficult to get the hydrogen to ignite this way. It's only if you get lucky and get a bottle rocket tangled in the plastic and it explodes right at the hydrogen/air boundary that you get the satisfying whumph! of an explosion. And that's only because the flame melts the plastic and enlarges the hole, letting more hydrogen contact the air and creating more heat to melt more plastic... If the skin was made of a tough, non-flammable material the worst you'd get is a jet of flame, not much worse than a simple puncture of the same size.

      The lesson of the Hindenburg shouldn't have been that hydrogen is particularly dangerous. It should have been that coating the skin of your airship with a highly flammable lacquer is a really bad idea.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    8. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Have they solve the problem of Hydrogen leaking rapidly through every thin membrane? Perhaps aluminized mylar would be impermeable? (That's a wild guess. I've done *NO* research. But it *would* be flashy.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by werepants · · Score: 1

      I think the solution in this case is that hydrogen is cheap and plentiful - so you top off as necessary.

    10. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Doomsought · · Score: 1

      We are not running out of Helium in general. We are getting low on a specific isotope of helium that is used in medicine, but its only a trace amount of it that is in your general helium reserves.

    11. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Helium really isn't much better. Tiny tiny atoms. At least hydrogen has the decency to pair up.

    12. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The stuff they make those party balloons with? The ones that invariably leak their helium overnight?

      The material they used on helium should be good enough. It'll need refilling at regular intervals, but hydrogen is fairly cheap, and there's no possibility of running out.

    13. Re:Enjoy it while it floats by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, we have one from when my daughter was born 2 years ago that hasn't lost any at all. Now, this is attached to a stick and hangs out in a vase so it may not have helium in it.

  6. Zeppelin NT by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a Zeppelin NT. One was based in Silicon Valley for several years, but didn't make money after the price of helium doubled. It cost $400 for a sightseeing tour of the Bay Area.

    I've heard a talk by the company CEO, who'd piloted the thing. It handles much better than the classic Goodyear blimp, which he'd also flown. With three steerable props and computer coordination, it's much more controllable during landing. It doesn't require a large ground crew hanging onto ropes to get the thing tied down. That's why Goodyear is going with the NT, even though it's more expensive than their classic blimp. There are videos on Youtube of both types landing.

    If you want to see what it's like to fly one, the open source FlightGear simulator has a good model of the NT, including the mobile docking truck.

    1. Re:Zeppelin NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that tip-off! I'm downloading the open source flight simulator now. I expect it'll be at least as refined as the old MS Flight sim.

    2. Re:Zeppelin NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and I'd imagine that with it being more maneuverable as well as faster they could do with fewer of them than their old blimp fleet and still manage to cover the equivalent number of ... well, let's call them "events"...

  7. Evolution of the GZ-22 Airship by Alan426 · · Score: 1

    Article fails to mention the company's previous attempt at semi-rigid airship design. Goodyear unveiled the GZ-22 with similar fanfare in 1989, then quietly crashed it a few months later.

  8. nitpicking nomenclature by blindseer · · Score: 4, Informative

    This means that the craft is technically no longer a blimp or dirigible because the structure of the envelope is no longer supported entirely by the gas inside.

    Any aircraft that obtains lift from a lighter than air gas is an airship or aerostat. An airship that has the ability to propel itself is a dirigible, one that cannot is a balloon. An airship that contains no rigid support structure for the envelope can be called either a blimp or non-rigid. An airship that has the envelope supported entirely by a solid structure is considered a rigid dirigible or a Zepplin, named after the person that developed that style of craft and the company that bears his name that built them.

    Since these new Goodyear airships are semi-rigid and built by the Zeppelin company I would tend to call this type of airship a Zeppelin. Perhaps my tendency might conflict with others as it might be more correctly be called a semi-rigid dirigible that happened to be made by Zeppelin.

    I agree that these new aircraft are not blimps but they are most certainly dirigibles.

    With that said I'm not going to beat anyone over the head for calling them "blimps", everyone will know generally what they are talking about. I might even call them a blimp just because I've heard people using the words "Goodyear" and "blimp" together for so long that I'd have to be reminded that these new crafts are not blimps.

    What gets crazy is that some airships are not technically lighter than air. They contain gasses in the envelope that is lighter than air but not enough to provide sufficient buoyancy for lifting the entire weight of the craft. They'd technically be still heavier than air and would require the engines running to leave the ground. I don't know if the Goodyear airships are lighter or heavier than air.

    Whatever people want to call them I think these airships are cool. I believe this is a technology that will allow for some very large and heavy lifting aircraft that could compete with many other forms of transport over land, air, or sea.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by Catmeat · · Score: 4, Informative

      They contain gasses in the envelope that is lighter than air but not enough to provide sufficient buoyancy for lifting the entire weight of the craft. They'd technically be still heavier than air and would require the engines running to leave the ground. I don't know if the Goodyear airships are lighter or heavier than air.

      You're right, I believe Zeppelin NTs are several hundred kilos heavy on take-off, when carrying payload and full load of fuel. Though they can be lighter than air when landing with the fuel mostly gone. Of course the other big complication to trimming a dirigible is air conditions, which can change during the flight. Buoyancy increases significantly if an airship flies from warm air into a bank of colder, denser air and the craft will remain buoyant until the helium cools to match the air temperature. In the old days, air

      All this is what makes vectored thrust a fantastically useful thing for an airship pilot. It gives better control and also means the pilot can vector thrust up to land when his/her craft is lighter-than-air. I'd say this is vital for keeping costs down, as it avoids venting helium for landing.

      Although the usefulness of vectored thrust was no lost on the early designers. See this picture of a pre-World War 1 British military blimp with rotatable props.

    2. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Nerd.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      So what is the point? If the gas would of supported a lighter, softer, thinner, cheaper body, why re-enforce it at all?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contemptuous jackass.

    5. Re: nitpicking nomenclature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, replied to wrong post. The above was meant for GP.

    6. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, say it with me...

      "Semi-rigid derigible"

      Say it again!

      Say it three times fast!

      Try to keep a straight face!

    7. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by sjames · · Score: 1

      Support is relative. A strong breeze can make a non-rigid airship 'interesting' to fly.

      Amusing note, I once saw the Budweiser blimp staggering drunkenly in the wind.

    8. Re:nitpicking nomenclature by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --As long as it has Goodyear on it and resembles the old ship, it will always be the Goodyear Blimp. Just like we always refer to the Sears Tower, Marshall Fields, and Wrigley Field. Nostalgia has intertia.

      / ask a Chicagoan

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  9. Oh the humanity! by Media+Archivist · · Score: 1

    Although, to be fair, zeppelin safety has improved tremendously.

    1. Re:Oh the humanity! by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      To be totally fair, the Germans are not the only people that built and crashed large airships. The USA and UK also built huge ships and they all crashed horribly.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Oh the humanity! by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although, to be fair, zeppelin safety has improved tremendously.

      Before WW I, Zeppelins had a spotless safety record, having flown thousands of passengers in hundreds of flights. Only when the military came in did accidents happen. See Wikipedia list of airship accidents

      If the same standards that grounded Zeppelins after the Hindenburg accident had been applied to aircraft, civilian heavier-than-air passenger transportation would never have taken off.

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    3. Re:Oh the humanity! by sjames · · Score: 1

      ...would never have taken off.

      So to speak.

    4. Re:Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About half of the crew and about half of the passengers survived the crash at Lakehurst.

  10. The name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Led Zeppelin Forever!!!!

  11. Airspeed by kervin · · Score: 1

    If the same standards that grounded Zeppelins after the Hindenburg accident had been applied to aircraft, civilian heavier-than-air passenger transportation would never have taken off.

    I suspect the fact that these things traveled about 50 MPH had more to do with their demise than a few high-profile accidents.

  12. good god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..that was a boring article. Here's a better one about semi-rigid airships,

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-an-airship-the-size-of-a-football-field-could-revolutionize-air-travel-180950007/?no-ist

  13. look, a German engineering nazi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    build me a moon rocket, fritzl, and we'll forget about the jew trains.

  14. Any idea what these are running, price-wise? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

    I think with the appropriate paint job, and a larger gondola for cargo, there could be airship pirates in our future! Anyone feel like signing up for a (short) life of adventure and riches?

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  15. I see that the US..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Built in partnership with the Zeppelin company...

    Have failed as usual to do the engineering themselves, and have called in the Germans.

    At least that means the craft will work, like the Saturn V, rather than failing like the Shuttle...