Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Aircraft Completes Its First Flight (cnn.com)
The world's largest aircraft has finally completed its first flight after months of preparation and years of searching for funding. The Airlander 10 as it's called spent 20 minutes in the air on Wednesday, landing safely at Cardington Airfield north of London. CNNMoney reports: "Part airship, part helicopter, part plane, the 300-foot long aircraft is about 50 feet longer than the world's biggest passenger planes. The Airlander, made by British company Hybrid Air Vehicles, has four engines and no internal structure. It maintains its shape thanks to the pressure of the 38,000 cubic meters of helium inside its hull, which is made from ultralight carbon fiber. The aircraft was originally designed for U.S. military surveillance. But the project was grounded in 2013 because of defense spending cuts. [The team behind the giant blimp-like aircraft] said the aircraft could carry communications equipment or other cargo, undertake search and rescue operations, or do military and commercial survey work. The Airlander can stay airborne for up to five days at a time if manned, and for more than two weeks if unmanned. It can carry up to 10 tons of cargo at a maximum speed of 91 miles per hour. The aircraft doesn't need a runway to take off, meaning it can operate from land, snow, ice, desert and even open water." You can view the historic flight for yourself here (Warning: headphone users beware of loud sound).
"hey, y'all! watch this!"
Helium is a rare element on Earth, despite being common in space. We need to be conserving our helium supplies. Why are we wasting helium on stuff like this?
If it can carry tons of cargo, why the huge difference in time for manned (5 days) and unmanned (2 weeks)? ... Is it perhaps the size of the portapotty needed for the bricks people on that thing will lay during the voyage?
This is not a helicopter (rotary winged aircraft) in any sense. For a technically oriented site this is appalling.
Tropical Islands Resort (Follow the link if you don't see the connection.)
Pretty sure I read that Helium was a precious commodity.
Do we really want a fleet of these things?
Airships of the past were much bigger. The Hindenberg was 803 feet long (245 meters), more than twice the length of this midget.
Paid Q&A/Research
Anyone else look at the first picture of this thing on the Hyrbid air vehicles site and think "Yeah.. I'd hit that". Check the first link, first picture and see for yourself.
Hydrogen is cheaper and more abundant, but because of one minor setback 80 years ago the idea has been senselessly abandoned. Imagine the same principle was applied to other aircraft and we abandoned the whole idea as soon as one thing went wrong. There certainty wouldn't be any aeroplanes or helicopters now. Bizarrely, people consider it normal when an aeroplane crashes and kills hundreds of people, and it's not a problem even when it happens multiple tiles per year, but when there's on incident with a hydrogen airship in which only 35 of the died (out of 127 on board) plus two on the ground, that's apparently cause to give up entirely.
Engineering and design methods have improved considerably in 80 years, and we could now likely make a very safe hydrogen airship, but people have an unfounded fear of the idea. Their fear is based on the fact that hydrogen is flammable, yet they have no problems getting on an aeroplane when the wings are full of jet fuel. In this way hydrogen airships are a lot like nuclear power - some people have a totally irrational fear of them.
when will US posters finally stop using imperial manner and units when posting, translating foreign information into their own old-fashionned sick measurment units ? is it a flying ship or a myriapod ? (300 feets ... !! )
...those that cannot fly.
Is that a good idea? Sure, it saves weight, but if it ever suffers partial deflation in the air there will be a total loss of control preventing them even attempting a crash landing as the aerofoils and props start pointing in random directions.
Hydrogen is cheaper and more abundant, but because of one minor setback 80 years ago the idea has been senselessly abandoned.
You have a very curious definition of "one minor setback".
Imagine the same principle was applied to other aircraft and we abandoned the whole idea as soon as one thing went wrong
The problems with other aircraft had solutions. The problem of using highly flammable hydrogen gas is an irreducible hazard. Helium can work as a substitute but our supply is limited on Earth and getting more will be expensive.
Engineering and design methods have improved considerably in 80 years, and we could now likely make a very safe hydrogen airship, but people have an unfounded fear of the idea.
Really? We've solved the problem of hydrogen gas being highly flammable? When did that happen?
10 tons of cargo at 90 miles an hour? The next gen is going to have a cargo capacity of 50 tons.
A Boeing 747 moves 154 tons of cargo at 570 mph.
An 18 wheeler carries something like 22 tons at about 70 mph.
So can someone explain what the point is? Is it because it uses significantly less fuel than a Boeing or an 18 wheeler? Seems unlikely to replace either as a preferred means of transportation of commercial goods.
As to the military, seems easier to shoot down than a 747, so not sure why its a better option there either.
The lifting capacity goes up on a cube function as the craft gets bigger, but the weight goes up on a square function. With a big enough craft, you can make the hull out of concrete block and let atmospheric pressure hold it in shape (spherical, clearly).
The Blimp from "A view to a kill" way to bring back the 1980s!
We need to develop materials that allow us to create airships using vacuum (even lighter than hydrogen).
=)
The supply of hydrogen is limited on Earth also but since it's the most abundant element in the universe it isn't a big deal
The supply of hydrogen on earth is effectively unlimited. We have literally oceans of it plus vast amounts of hydrocarbons as well. Compared to the amount of helium available economically to us we have all the hydrogen we are ever likely to need.
Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe... So meh.
Doesn't matter how abundant it is if you can't get it economically.
Would it be at all feasible to cover the top of this thing with thin and semi-flexible solar panels? If Solar Impulse can make it around the planet using just the solar energy hitting its thin little lifting surfaces then surely the surface area of this magnificent flying backside should be able to gather enough energy to shove it across the sky, right?
If you're referring to the Hindenburg...
The Hindenburg was merely the most spectacular airship disaster. It was FAR from the only one.
So, the answer here is to try hydrogen again as a lift gas, not to abandon it due to a minor accident caused by paint.
You seem rather fixated on a single accident. Airships fell out of favor because they routinely blew up, crashed, can't handle bad weather, burned, etc in addition to being economically noncompetitive and comparatively slow. I disagree that the Hindenburg was a "minor accident". Nothing that kills 35 people is a minor accident. If that was the only accident ever then perhaps you would have a point but it wasn't the only accident or even close to it.
Airships fell out of favor for a variety of practical reasons as well. Their power to weight ratio and specific fuel consumption prior to WWII was competitive for long distance operations but since then rigid wing aircraft have surpassed airships for most practical applications.
Could hydrogen be used safely as a lifting gas? I can't categorically say no but you'll have to provide a LOT better evidence than "technology has improved since the Hindenburg". At this time there is no credible reason to believe the safety problems inherent to using hydrogen as a lifting gas have been solved.
For a real Solar Powered Flying Butt experience, put a member of the Butt family on a solar-powered aircraft.
Like two little boys fighting in a sack.
They should totally do a remake of this advertisement.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Thunderbird 2 is go!
It's also the largest flying butt in the air. That's what my kids would say, especially the 6 year old boy.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
This thing could do the NYC-London trip at a comfortable speed in about three days. At top speed, two days. I wonder what the operating costs are. It might be a great way to travel with amenities.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
If a company called Worldwide Aeros Corp gets some funding they won't hold that "largest aircraft" title for long. Until a piece of a military hanger came down on it the demo craft (Aeroscraft) was 600,000 cubic feet (vs about 1.3 Million for the articles craft). The full sized versions they want to build will have CARGO bays of 1.8 Million cubic feet, larger in volume than this entire craft.
So feet is in fact the "correct" units to use here.
A previous version first flew in 2012 from Lakehurst, NJ (the sight of the Hindenburg disaster)(https://youtu.be/w8sGP7iB-5c). The program was cancelled by the Army a year later. The manufacturer took it back to the UK to continue development there. (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2016/05/12/lemv-hybrid-airship-air-vehicles/84270692/). It was a disappointing move by the Army because these large airships or hybrid air vehicles are a perfect airborne radar platform. It's a shame that the Army couldn't partner with another service or agency to jointly fund the program. It's a good thing the manufacturer isn't giving up though. I'm sure the DOD will be back with a large pile of cash once they fully realize their mistake.
It would have value?
Think long and hard about your future employment FBI BurEAU HeaD
the humanity?
I think that Lighter Than Air vehicles have disadvantages that are very well known. The people promoting these are usually True Believers who think those disadvantages don't matter. They are always wrong.
The problem with an LTA vehicle is that it is lighter than air. In order to get any decent lifting capacity you need a light weight, and very large, envelope. A skin to hold the lifting gases in. The LTA envelope means that the cross-sectional area of the LTA vehicle is huge. It helps (a bit) that it is streamlined, but the streamlining only works in the head-on direction. And even in that direction, the thrust generated by the motors on the LTA vehicle can easily be negated by a strong headwind. It's worse with a tailwind, and worst of all in a crosswind.
Take a heavier than air vehicle. The power of the engines is sufficient not only to keep the vehicle in the air, but HTA vehicles can routinely fly in bad weather. In fact many successfully fly through thunderstorms and even hurricanes. If you ever tried that in a LTA vehicle, they would find the deflated envelope and your lifeless body weeks later and hundreds of kilometres away.
Too extreme of an example? How about this then. A commercial blimp flew across the North American continent about 10 years ago. It had to fly across the Rocky Mountains, a daily event of little note in a conventional airplane. The blimp had to wait 3 days for calm air, it could only fly through a mountain pass, it could only be done at a specific time during the morning, and the pilots were on edge the entire crossing, concerned that the weather would change. This wasn't stormy weather you understand, this was ordinary air currents found every day in the Rockies.
Blimps are at the mercy of the winds, and winds are kind of fundamental to flying. And no, a rigid internal structure, fancy buzzwords and "modern technology" changes none of that. LTA vehicles have too big of a cross-sectional area and cannot deal with high winds.
"When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery"
[End Of Line]
Crafty Mc ButtFace?