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.
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
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 ... !! )
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?
Yes, most everybody. The Brits are calling it the Big Bum.
You beat me to it. Maybe it will be featured in the remake.
Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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?
One area of potential use has been in the remote regions of Africa for mining purposes. 18 wheelers need roads to be built. 747 can't land there. This guy comes in with 10T of equipment/supplies/people and your costs and time of getting a remote industrial site up and running is greatly reduced.
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.
It's not exactly a cube/square scaling. Because the larger you make it, the larger the tensile loads per square meter, meaning the stronger the envelope needs to be. Without upgrading to a higher tensile envelope, this means increasing thickness.
If you want to view it from a cross-section perspective, tensile strength is measured in pascals - aka newtons per meter squared (cross section). If we're taking a 1-meter slice, it's newtons per ~meter thickness. Pressure is likewise pascals - newtons per meter squared (area). From the same a 2d slice perspective, that's newtons per ~meter (perimeter). The higher the perimter, the higher the number of newtons force. But the number of newtons the envelope can withstand doesn't have perimeter in its divisor, it has thickness in its divisor. So thickness and perimter cross section must increase in accordance.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
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
So can someone explain what the point is?
It targets two major use cases, neither of which can be serviced by a conventional cargo jet or a road vehicle:
1) Ferrying heavy cargo (and possibly people) to or from a land-locked location that lacks a suitable runway or road/rail connection. This is of special interest to the military, but also has civilian applications.
For the military, truck transport through enemy territory is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons - possibly even more dangerous than using an airship, depending on what technology the enemy has access to. An airship may be a big target, but it can also fly high enough that most ground weapons can't even hit it. If it does get hit, a few small holes in the envelope (say, from a machine gun) won't immediately end the mission. A large one is also at least twice as fast as a military ground convoy, and has more tactical options available for avoiding the enemy, since it doesn't need to follow roads.
Truck transport through neutral territory is safe - for the military convoy. It's not safe for the neutral country though, as allowing military convoys to pass their borders may be considered an act of war by the enemy. For this reason, it can be very difficult to get permission from neighbouring countries to use ground transport into a land-locked war zone. Air transport is less problematic (I do not say problem-free) in this regard.
As for conventional cargo jets like the 747 - their survivability probably isn't as much better than an airship as you might think. Big subsonic jets are easy to shoot down for anyone who has access to large 1970s anti-aircraft missiles, like the Sidewinder or the S-300. So, cargo jets won't last long unless the user has air dominance in the area of operations. A lifting-body airship should still be able to fly high enough to keep out of range of small arms like machine guns, and arguably is not that much more vulnerable than a 747 in practice. It would have to stay a bit further from the front lines though, because it cruises low enough to be at risk from short-range stuff like Stinger missiles, and maybe auto cannons.
For any user (whether military or civilian), the advantage of an airship is that it doesn't need a huge, expensive concrete runway at each end of the journey. For the military, taking weeks or months to build such a runway isn't always an option. Even when a suitable runway is available, it could be disabled by the enemy at any time with a few bombs or artillery rounds. For civilian users, there are projects set in remote areas for which the expense and/or environmental impact of installing a city-grade runway is just not worth it. Dirt roads are usually (though not always) an option, but some exceptionally heavy, bulky cargo can't reasonably be moved via a steep, narrow, windy, muddy road.
2) Because airships can stay aloft so much longer before they need to refuel, they are well-suited to loitering over an area to provide a communications relay or an observation platform. This has civilian applications, as well as military. If you only need to cover a relatively small area (hundreds of square kilometres, rather than thousands), they are much cheaper than satellites. The ability to easily relocate them and swap or upgrade the payload makes them more flexible.
Even for military users, their greater vulnerability isn't always a problem: the military is tasked not only with taking enemy territory, but also with patrolling friendly territory. An enemy trying to sneak in cannot shoot down a patrolling airship without revealing his presence.
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
Actually they were both designed by the same guy - Roger Munk.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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
So feet is in fact the "correct" units to use here.
Also worth pointing out, these don't even need crew or pilots.
For loitering missions, that's true. However, for cargo - and especially sky crane - missions, I'm pretty sure that a human crew will be required for many years to come. Safely and quickly handling arbitrary cargo while squeezing as much capacity as possible out of the vehicle is a complex task (both mentally and physically) that can't really be automated yet.
Still, at least for the military, the future 50+ ton capacity models should require far fewer crew members per cargo ton-kilometer than ground convoys, if only because the armed escort can be (mostly) eliminated.
There's a lot to like about them. With modern fabrics, helium leakage is extremely low - and venting generally isn't needed on a hybrid. Speeds are faster because the reduced buoyancy requirements mean a lower cross section. Landing is easier because of easier buoyancy control and, again, a smaller cross section. It's just in general a nice platform concept.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
No. To sum up, it's cube/cube scaling. Volume goes up by r cubed, area goes up by r squared, thickness goes up proportional to r, envelope mass goes up by area times thickness, aka r cubed. So r cubed to r cubed.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
the humanity?
That is, of course, if you don't simply go to stronger fabrics instead. Which is usually the goal rather than increasing fabric thickness. Look to vectran (like this airship is using) - not just incredible strength, but also amazingly low gas permeability, comparable to something like EVOH without the water sensitivity. Also extremely low creep. It is however like a lot of plastics UV sensitive, so it has to be protected. Another option is high tensile fiber-reinforced plastics with a biaxially oriented membrane, like cuben (although for airship applications on Earth, advanced aramids like vectran are probably better)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I think that Lighter Than Air vehicles have disadvantages that are very well known.
The Airlander 10 is actually somewhat heavier than air, and relies upon aerodynamic lift to stay aloft. Does this reduction in surface area and buoyancy, combined with modern technology, improve the concept enough to make it practical? I don't know, but it's already been built so there's no need to guess: just wait and see.
The people promoting these are usually True Believers who think those disadvantages don't matter. They are always wrong.
For the record, I am not a "True Believer", nor am I really trying to promote the airships. But, I do object to the idea that airships are strictly inferior to jets and trucks - they have, in theory, their own niche that cannot really be served by either of those alternatives.
If the resurgence of investment in airships doesn't lead anywhere useful, it will be because the revised designs fail to serve their target niche, not because they are out-competed by two technologies that can't serve the niche at all. The real competition is probably helicopters (despite their awful fuel efficiency) and smaller military cargo planes like the C-130, which can operate from much smaller, cheaper runways than a 747.
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.
The Airlander 10 has a service ceiling about twice that of a typical blimp, and could cross the Rockies safely almost anywhere.
I don't know about the weather restrictions though; that is my biggest concern with airships, as well. But again, they've already started test flights, so they won't be able to hide it for very long if the restrictions are really severe.
"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]
The problem with the Army doing R and D is they are constitutionally limited to a 3 year funding cycle. It often takes longer than that to spec out requirements for bids.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Also, I am not sure what AC is talking about.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...
Just because the Army canceled this program does not mean they have given up on balloon lifted radar installations.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?