Slashdot Mirror


World's Longest Aircraft Gets Full-Production Go-Ahead (bbc.com)

The Airlander 10 -- the world's longest aircraft -- is set to go into full production with the model designed to take its first passengers. "It comes after the prototype Airlander 10 -- a combined plane and airship -- was formally retired following successful final testing," reports the BBC. "As a result, Bedford firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) has been given Production Organization Approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)." From the report: An eyewitness said the aircraft appeared to "break in two" after breaking its moorings and deflating, in November that year, less than 24 hours after completing its sixth successful test flight. The firm was given Design Organization Approval from the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) in October. Stephen McGlennan, HAV's chief executive, said 2018 had been very good, with Easa's backing a "huge highlight." He said the firm had changed its focus last year towards the production of Airlander 10 as a commercial aircraft for customers. "The prototype served its purpose as the world's first full-sized hybrid aircraft, providing us with the data we needed to move forward from prototype to production standard," he said. It is now hoped the full commercial model will take to the skies with its first paying passengers "in the early 2020s." Approval from the CAA and Easa now puts the firm in a "strong position to launch production."

100 comments

  1. I prefer my aircraft never has by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Funny

    DOA approval. /s

  2. Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's 92m long, which may make it the longest currently [soon] in production, but the Zeppelins were 235m long back then.
    Also, would not have hurt to put the length in the summary, would it?

    1. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh, so is the jet engine, rockets, atomic bombs, jerrycans, Fanta (drink) and the Volkswagen Beetle.
      However, you are wrong about the Zeppelin:
      "Zeppelin's notions were first formulated in 1874 and developed in detail in 1893". ... yes, I know you were joking :)

    2. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paging senator McCarthy. Senator McCarthy, please come to the white courtesy phone.

    3. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by mrbester · · Score: 0

      TIL that 1st Century Egyptians, 13th Century Chinese, Secondo Campini and Frank Whittle were Nazis...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBH I just took a few items off this wikipedia list:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_inventions_of_the_Nazi_period

      It does look like you are right on Campini and probably others, but not all the above. e.g., Jerrycan as a concept is old, but Jerrycan as the current used design is of german origin.

    5. Re:Longest *current* aircraft by Sique · · Score: 1

      As none of the Zeppelins exist anymore, it is not just the longest current aircraft, it is indeed the longest aircraft in existance.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Longest *current* aircraft by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but the Airlander 10 is still the world's largest flying bum.

    7. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      TIL that 1st Century Egyptians, 13th Century Chinese, Secondo Campini and Frank Whittle were Nazis...

      Fanta may be the one item actually with origins in Nazi Germany. It was created as a result of the embargo on Germany and Coca-Cola's being prevented from selling syrup to its German division. As a result, the Germans created Fanta from ingredients they had available. After the war, Coca-Cola reclaimed its plant and rights to Fanta; eventually relaunching it in the 50's.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As none of the Zeppelins exist anymore,

      Zeppeliners exists and fly today. Made by the same company that made the old Zeppeliners too. Google "Zeppelin NT" for more data, and where you can book a flight with one of them. They are only 75 meters though, so not the longest aircraft around. Nice trips, although expensive.

    9. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Zeppelin is Nazi tech, verboten. You shouldn't even think about them. Consider this a friendly warning

      The zeppelin's day had been and gone by the time the nazis were in the game.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Zeppelin is Nazi tech, verboten. You shouldn't even think about them. Consider this a friendly warning

      You know Zeppelins were WWI, right?

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Spoken in a Blackadder III voice:

      Baldrick, is that a dirigible in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they were used to bomb London during WW1 but were quickly found to be useless as bombers once air defences got organized.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Longest *current* aircraft by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Zeppelin NT is not made by the same company, that made Zeppelins of the 1920ies and got the name from its founder Count Zeppelin. The company which made the Zeppelin NT was founded as Metallwerk Friedrichshafen GmbH in 1950, and only later renamed into Zeppelin-Metallwerke GmbH.

      As the Zeppelin NT is a semi-rigid airship, it is not even a Zeppelin airship from a technical point of view. Count Zeppelin's constructions were rigid airships, and of those, none has survived. The Zeppelin NT has just a famous name attached to it without living up to its legacy.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by pesho · · Score: 1

      Not so. Zeppelins were build with nazi and US support after WW1 and were a major propaganda tool for the nazis.

    15. Re:Longest *current* aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Zeppelin NT has just a famous name attached to it without living up to its legacy.

      So then, just like Windows NT...

    16. Re: Longest *current* aircraft by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Maybe so but they were hardly the dramatic weapons of war they once were. They didn't really fit with the blitzkrieg concept.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  3. But that doesn't really help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our IT janitor is wide, not long

  4. Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought Helium was a finite supply on Earth. Is this a good use for it?

    1. Re:Helium by Rob+Lister · · Score: 2, Informative

      Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant. Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

    2. Re:Helium by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant. Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

      Isn't Helium the second commonest element after Hydrogen?

      Storing it is kinda difficult (for the US Government apparently), but there seems to be a lot of it.

    3. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/africa/helium-discovery-tanzania/index.html

      And there's a finite supply of everything here on Earth. Some things are more finite than others.

    4. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a lot of it in the universe, but not that much (relatively speaking) on earth. And we don't know how to produce more of it economically.

      There's a lot of it under our feet, not too easy to extract. We usually get it as a byproduct of natural gas extraction. Other than that, a lot of it naturally seeps from the rocks up into the atmosphere, but quickly goes up and gets lots into outer space.

      Known reserves will last some 50 to 100 years an current consumption rate (party baloons are not a major factor). After that we need to learn how to extract it from rocks, or perhaps by then we can just swoop it from Jupiter's atmosphere as He3.

    5. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Helium is so difficult to get and it's expensive. It would be so much easier to use hydrogen instead. It's all around and you only need to get water and split it off from oxygen. Easy Peezy. What could possibly go wrong with using Hydrogen. Ask for it by name!

    6. Re:Helium by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Needing more of it would probably increase the supply That 7% is typically ignored, and allowed to escape, because its not economically viable to extract it.

    7. Re:Helium by shortscruffydave · · Score: 4, Funny

      https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/africa/helium-discovery-tanzania/index.html

      And there's a finite supply of everything here on Earth. Some things are more finite than others.

      Except stupidity - there's a limitless supply of that

    8. Re:Helium by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen could easily be viable, these days.

      All we need to do is get rid of religion and all the other mental illnesses that could lead to deliberate attacks on hydrogen-based craft.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Helium by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not sure of that... I think when a single person accumulates enough stupidity, they win a Darwin Award. So it's kind of self-limiting...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because when you eradicate religious belief and mental illness, humans are universally beneficient and altruistic. No properly raised human ever got greedy or envious, or placed his or her own interest ahead of the community's. Atheism and rationality bring out the best in people! Stuff like the GULAG and the Cultural Revolution. Fun times await!

  5. Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by dryriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aviation has been 99% planes-with-wings and helicopters the last few decades. Blimps were used as advertising billboards and PR attractions mostly. So its nice to see an airplane-airship hybrid being tested. Maybe this design has some decent benefits, for air-cargo hauling, leisurely sight-seeing from the air and similar? (Not "putting all your eges in one basket" and so on...)

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aviation has been 99% planes-with-wings and helicopters the last few decades. Blimps were used as advertising billboards and PR attractions mostly. So its nice to see an airplane-airship hybrid being tested. Maybe this design has some decent benefits, for air-cargo hauling, leisurely sight-seeing from the air and similar? (Not "putting all your eges in one basket" and so on...)

      I agree, but much like not using trains for hauling cargo, I expect these won't be used either. Too slow and efficient. For some reason we prefer to waste enormous amounts of resources to ship things faster.

    2. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airships are definitely not for fast shipping. Nice for sight-seeing - they can fly low in a nice and quite manner and the low speed is then an advantage. Also nice for tree-top research - they can hover all day using little fuel, and don't disturb the wildlife so much. (Compared to a chopper - the downwind alone would mess up the trees too much)

      For cargo/work they may fill a niche too. Consider building a power line through the wilderness. No road, so the towers and workers have to be flown in. The airship don't use fuel to maintain height, so it may be the cheaper option for lifting stuff.

    3. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      This had (IIRC) a cruise speed of ~125knots, so actually a pretty reasonable speed. It could be used at minimally-prepared facilities, and can transport bulky, out-sized cargo much more efficiently than the AN224 or 747.

      I hope they are successful; it is a cool system.

    4. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the trains going through my town loaded with cargo containers *aren't* hauling cargo?

    5. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to specs, 92mph. With about 5 days worth of fuel on board, so roughly 12,500 miles range. But it still takes you 5 days to get there. It still needs a runway apparently and requires a tether. So why is this boondoggle?

    6. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If it's reasonably priced and faster than a boat then it has a big future.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the shipping industry, it's not so much that trains are slower, it's that the pickup schedule varies. So it only works for companies who have large warehousing capabilities, as most orgs have to get stuff out of the production facility the same day it's produced.

    8. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Trains are being used to haul cargo but trains have the drawback of being stuck on a rail so you can't be flexible with them and loading/unloading costs money too.

      Businesses gravitate towards the cheapest options available overall. For example, if you have a low production volume or small items that need to go to various different places fast, you can't fill a train so trains become costly and ineffective, same with trucks so you may be relying on UPS or your own trucks + flights + trucks. Sure it's expensive and wasteful if you can fill a train, but filling a train is often not an option.

      Economics is difficult but at least capitalism gives you the incentive to find the lowest cost (and subsequently lowest energy) option for your situation.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The reason planes supplanted dirigibles is because cargo capacity isn't how many tons you can carry at once. It's how many tons your vehicle can carry over how many miles in a given period of time. Yeah planes can't carry as much at once. But they're so much faster that a single small plane can haul more cargo further than a big dirigible during a year of operation.

      The variable operating costs of the dirigible would seem to make it cheaper (much less fuel per mile, probably less per ton-mile). But the fixed costs (crew labor, housing and maintenance facilities) end up multiplied by its reduced ton-mile/hour capacity, making it more expensive overall. You'll note that the uses you cited have zero crew labor costs (advertising billboard) or greatly reduced crew labor cost (PR attraction means a flight of just a few hours). That does suggest unmanned autonomous cargo blimps might be economically viable.

    10. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I agree, but much like not using trains for hauling cargo, I expect these won't be used either. Too slow to be

      efficient. For some reason we prefer to waste enormous amounts of resources to ship things faster.

      FTFY.

      If you're paying a pilot to make sure that your cargo doesn't get away, these things would never make sense. With a top speed of 80kts, on four 350Hp engines this thing ain't going anywhere fast, is sucking a lot of fuel doing it. With a payload of only 10 tonnes, it would be more efficient to put it on a truck, and it would get to where it is going faster 75% of the time (there is a 75% chance on any routed flight that winds will be detrimental. IE, you only get a tailwind 25% of the time).

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    11. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      As long as your cargo weighs less that 10 tons. Sure.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    12. Re:Nice To See Some Diversity In Aviation by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The reason planes supplanted dirigibles is because cargo capacity isn't how many tons you can carry at once.

      That was one reason. Another was that the slightest wind made a takeoff or landing a near impossibility. Harnessing those huge sails (and that is what they basically are when they are fighting a wind), required a large contingent of humans. It also required that each one be stored in a hangar even for a short stay. Hangars of that size are a huge capital investment.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  6. What's with all the hyphens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people just pepper hyphens at random into their sentences? If you're going to hyphenate full-production and go-ahead, why not hyphenate longest-aircraft too?

    1. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Do people just pepper hyphens at random into their sentences?

      yes-it makes things more-interesting.

    2. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do people just pepper hyphens at random into their sentences? If you're going to hyphenate full-production and go-ahead, why not hyphenate longest-aircraft too?

      Haven't you ever heard of the Oxford-Hyphen? /s

    3. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Gabest · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just look at the address bar "worlds-longest-aircraft-gets-full-production-go-ahead".

    4. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Do people just pepper hyphens at random into their sentences? If you're going to hyphenate full-production and go-ahead, why not hyphenate longest-aircraft too?

      No, it would be longest air-craft. What, don't you know the Queen's-English?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your knowledge of English grammar is worse than that of a Slashdot editor. Just think about that for a minute, and let it sink in.

    6. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When you hyphenate two words, they become a compound noun. You can also remove that compound noun from the sentence without changing the overall meaning.

      1) The red-coated thug attacked me.

      2) The thug attacked me.

      See, if you write "the red coated thug attacked me", this is ambiguous. Is it a red thug wearing a coat, ie a red coated-thug? So that's the job of the hyphen, to clear up ambiguity.

      So, can you write "World's Longest Aircraft Gets"? Just by itself? No. So there's too many hyphens in there somewhere.

      Prove otherwise.

    7. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This hyphenation is correct. Full-production is compound adjective, and go-ahead is a phrasal noun, and moreover, one that is hyphenated in the OED. "Go ahead" is a verb, "go-ahead" is a noun: "Being granted the go-ahead, this project will go ahead."

      "Longest aircraft" does not need hyphenation is it is not a compound noun. If it were "longest currently-flying aircraft", then, as "currently-flying" is a compound adjective, it gets one. As would "lighter-than-air aircraft".

      Incidentally, "air-craft" (a compound noun, rather than a phrasal noun) would probably have been considered correct back when "craft" was only understood to mean some kind of boat (since naturally, flying machines, are a clearly-impossible affront to nature and clearly impossible), before the word morphed into the modern "aircraft". The progressive merging of hyphenated nouns to the closed form as the noun becomes more commonplace is why we now have "email", rather than "e-mail".

    8. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that the "gets" in the sentence automatically makes "go ahead" a noun, thus the hyphen is redundant. Full production is just two words, not a compound adjective.

    9. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Use the hyphens as a signal to do a "Captain Kirk dramatic pause" and the-sentences read-more interesting.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      No thst us just a work arround for ursl not supporting soaces at the current time, the need to put a full title in the title is another question, what is wrong with an article id instead?

    11. Re:What's with all the hyphens? by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      I don't see these hyphens as random. They serve to make the meaning more exact.

      Consider the difference between "full production aircraft" and "full-production aircraft". The first form could interpreted to mean "a production aircraft that is full (to capacity)". In the second form, there is no ambiguity whether "full" refers to the production or the aircraft.

  7. Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And is as useful for flight as bollocks?

    Good jorb.

    1. Re:Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by Rob+Lister · · Score: 2

      Luxury passenger transport will be a big money maker. Also remote access, advertising, surveillance, communications, yada. It is worthy.

    2. Re:Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Luxury passengers want speed, access to the centers of the megalopolises they live in. The rest is just the long tail.

    3. Re:Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Speed is for transport from A to B. A slow-moving silent airship with big rooms and nice view of what's below is for luxury cruises. Airplanes are densely packed and crowded, in the business section too. Even first class is crowded compared to the salons of a Zeppeliner.

      Why spend 7 hours of your vacation packed in a tin can crossing the atlantic, when you can use two days and have more room than you'll get on a luxury train?

    4. Re:Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure I'd be too comfortable on a luxury train heading across the Atlantic.

    5. Re:Is this the one that looks like buttocks? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I'll spend 7 hours in the tin can so I can spend more time of my vacation actually doing my vacation and not travelling there and back.

  8. I think there could be a niche market by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think there could be a niche market for this, a luxury cruise in the air. I'm not convinced anyone would want to use it for A to B transport though because it is so much slower than traditional aircraft.

    1. Re: I think there could be a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could be a viable alternative to trucking though.

    2. Re: I think there could be a niche market by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      Could be a viable alternative to trucking though.

      If the costs come down enough yes, especially in remote areas with bad roads

    3. Re:I think there could be a niche market by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      If I could do a long haul flight at half the speed but in relative luxury I might be interested.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I think there could be a niche market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind turbine transport. The maximum length blades and tower sections that one can move along the road is a major hurdle determining the maximum size wind turbines. Larger turbines can access higher speed, more reliable high altitude winds. Additionally, ridge lines are not always the most accessible.

      Also, for the correct blimp, one would not necessarily need an additional crane for construction. Now that said, I am not sure that this is the "correct blimp" for this application. It sounds like the blimp uses an airfoil shaped body to generate a substantial portion of the lift (hence the description of a hybrid blimp/aircraft):

      https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/download/Airlander%20Student%20Q&A%20Sheet.pdf

    5. Re: I think there could be a niche market by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      No, not in it's current incarnation. 10 ton payload. 92mph max speed, and that is with four 350Hp engines. With a ceiling of 20k ft, it can't be used in bad weather, and can't even be used if there is more than a slight breeze. 1/4 the payload of a truck. Likely slower than a truck, depending upon the prevailing winds (you only get a tailwind 25% of the time on average). The fuel requirements will be WAY higher than a typical 18 wheeler. I doubt even the racers have 1400Hp under the hood.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:I think there could be a niche market by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      You can, and at full speed. It's called "first class".
      Nobody is suggesting airship travel will be cheap.

  9. just don't call it a dirgible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some still calling this 'weather'? cease fire stand down.. there are mothers & children in every town.. starvation & deception remain as the leading killers of us..

    1. Re:just don't call it a dirgible by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      some still calling this 'weather'? cease fire stand down.. there are mothers & children in every town.. starvation & deception remain as the leading killers of us..

      Leading causes of death US 2017:

              Heart disease: 635,260
              Cancer: 598,038
              Accidents (unintentional injuries): 161,374
              Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 154,596
              Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 142,142
              Alzheimer’s disease: 116,103
              Diabetes: 80,058
              Influenza and pneumonia: 51,537
              Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,046
              Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,965

  10. For US military in Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA military has been funding airship development, in order to have a cheaper way of transporting stuff in Afghanistan, than military transport helicopter. You can transport stuff by truck, but the locals tend to support the Taliban.

    1. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      You can transport stuff by truck, but the locals tend to support the Taliban.

      The rest of your comment was fairly insightful, so it's really too bad you had to ruin it with this horseshit. In surveys something like 90% of Afghans say they are afraid of the Taliban. The majority of Afghans support things like educating and voting rights for women; things which the Taliban vehemently opposes. The idea that "the locals tend to support the Taliban" is just blatant nonsense; the vast majority of them want nothing to do with it.

      The ratio of locals who support the Taliban in Pashtun areas is quite a bit higher, but your statement would be an unfair characterization even of just those areas, let alone of Afghanistan as a whole.

    2. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Thank you -- that's interesting info. Actually, it's really depressing info, as one can see from it that a small minority can control a country/keep a country in a state of war for years.

      Do you have links to any numbers handy?

    3. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wars are almost always waged by small minorities. The number of people who fight in armies is dwarfed by the population that sustains them with food and other logistical support. The Grande Armée under Napoleon reached a million men, but the population of Europe was something like 150 million. Wars tend to be waged by a military class with the leisure to train for war, which implies that they are not themselves productive but rather a larger population is supplying them with the surplus from domestic production, whether through taxes or tribute or raids.

      This was part of the reasoning behind the second amendment to the American constitution: having the populace armed and knowledgable about the use of firearms reduces the chance that a small minority of armed fighters could dominate the populace and constitute itself as a military class. That failed when Americans gave in to the twin institutions of a standing army and domestic police forces.

    4. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Here's an interesting survey, the popular things (like education for women) are the types of things that would get you killed by the Taliban. and there is a big drop in "country going right/wrong" right around the time that President Obama started the draw-down of troops. Mean that - contrary to what you often hear - the Afghans, by and large, prefer to have US troops around rather than Taliban.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      ... Actually, it's really depressing info, as one can see from it that a small minority can control a country/keep a country in a state of war for years.

      Wait.. are you still talking about Afghanistan?

    6. Re: For US military in Afghanistan by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No, he's talking about Ireland.

  11. Focussing on the least interesting aspect by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Yes, it is the longest. I imagine its volume and body width are amongst the highest as well. But the cool thing about this plane is it combines a plane and an airship. It requires very little in the way of runway length, has an absolutely massive cargo bay, has a low carbon footprint, is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport), the ability to fly very slowly, and offers a flight endurance measured in weeks.

    1. Re: Focussing on the least interesting aspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there will be snakes on it!

    2. Re:Focussing on the least interesting aspect by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Given that weight is not as much an issue in these types of aircraft, I suspect that travel will be a whole lot more comfortable. People will be less crammed into a small space.

    3. Re:Focussing on the least interesting aspect by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Weight is a huge issue. The buoyancy of the helium is really the only lifting source they have. It takes a LOT of helium to raise a ton; it's why this airship is rated for just 10 tons of cargo (sadly very little - less than the towing capacity of a Ford F450 pickup truck).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. Tried before with the Piasecki PA97 Helistat by twosat · · Score: 1

    Hope it goes better than the Piasecki PA97 Helistat - A helicopter-blimp hybrid heavy-lift vehicle https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Tried before with the Piasecki PA97 Helistat by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      It is a little different; this solution uses aerodynamic lift during cruise, but you do have some of the same concerns on or close to the ground.

    2. Re:Tried before with the Piasecki PA97 Helistat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That thing looks like a hillbilly's backyard contraption

  13. amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i'm selling all my bitcoins and gold bullian and putting it into inflatable aircraft!

  14. Finite resource by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Isn't Helium the second commonest element after Hydrogen?

    In the universe? Yes. On Earth? No. We're talking about helium accessible to us. I don't think we're about to go mining the Sun for helium. We're not going to run out this minute or anything but we have a finite supply currently available to us. It doesn't help we waste a lot of it on party balloons and other frivolous uses.

    1. Re:Finite resource by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      In about 50 years when fusion power becomes mainstream, we'll have all the helium we need =D

  15. Supply by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Contrary to certain media scare-mongering, helium is fairly abundant.

    We're not going to run out in the next few years if that is what you are talking about. But our supply of readily accessible and economically available helium is limited unless we find new ways to extract more. It's nothing to lose sleep over at the present but it is worth worrying about in the long term. There have been some shortages in recent years but these are more due to supply chain disruptions than anything else.

    Extracted natural gas contains as much as 7% helium.

    That number is only true for a few fields - most have less than that and not all have enough to make it economically worthwhile to extract it. Natural gas reportedly needs to have more than 0.3% helium for it to become profitable to extract it.

  16. How long for a EURO-US pond crossing ? by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Can someone calculate/guesstimate ?

  17. Civilian use cases? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It requires very little in the way of runway length,

    Evidently not true. The LEMV required at least 300 m (1,000 ft) of runway (violating the runway-independent requirement), and a tether point with a 100 m (300 ft) clear flat area around on which to park, which prevented them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.

    has an absolutely massive cargo bay,

    Not true. It can carry 10 tons which might sound like a lot but it isn't. A 747 can carry up to 130 tons in certain configurations.

    has a low carbon footprint,

    Citation needed.

    is reasonably fast (nowhere near as fast as an airliner but faster than most other means of transport),

    It has a cruising speed of 70 knots. That's at best comparable to highways speeds over land. Over water it's not clear why you would prefer this to a large fixed wing aircraft for transporting goods or people.

    the ability to fly very slowly, and offers a flight endurance measured in weeks.

    Pray tell what the civilian use of those capabilities might be? It doesn't dare fly anywhere near a storm just like any other lighter than air craft. It's also not entirely clear who the market for this could be. Originally it was developed for the military for recon and communications and they cancelled the program. I think they're hoping there are civilian uses for it but they are rather vague about the use cases. It's not clear what economic problem this would solve better than the currently available alternatives.

    1. Re:Civilian use cases? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Evidently not true. The LEMV required at least 300 m (1,000 ft) of runway (violating the runway-independent requirement), and a tether point with a 100 m (300 ft) clear flat area around on which to park, which prevented them from operating at most large bases and all small bases.

      Lack of runway requirement is something talked about a lot in press releases, so presumably this does not have the same issues as the LEMV.

      Not true. It can carry 10 tons which might sound like a lot but it isn't. A 747 can carry up to 130 tons in certain configurations.

      Massive in terms of volume. 10 tonnes is, at least a usable

      has a low carbon footprint,

      Citation needed.

      It's what the company claims. Even if they're wrong it seems a more interesting thing to talk about than the sodding length, at least.

      It has a cruising speed of 70 knots. That's at best comparable to highways speeds over land. Over water it's not clear why you would prefer this to a large fixed wing aircraft for transporting goods or people.

      80 knots. Which is comparable to a perfectly straight traffic free highway. But most road transport is not on perfectly straight traffic free highways.

      Pray tell what the civilian use of those capabilities might be?

      What is the civilian (or other) use of being 90m long? At least these are features that are interesting, which could conceivably find a use.

    2. Re:Civilian use cases? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      has a low carbon footprint,

      Citation needed.

      The Wikipedia article says it is powered by four 350Hp engines. I don't know what your definition of low is, but 1400Hp to get 80kts just CAN'T be covered by it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  18. Wait a minute... aren't we running out by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    of helium? How are they going to keep these things in the air?

  19. helium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait , weren't they bitching and complaining a few months ago that we(the world) were running out of helium? And now we have a surplus we can dump it into some Hindenburg part Deux. (....and yes I know Hindenburg was using Hydrogen being sarcastic if you didn't get that)

  20. Solution looking for a problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Massive in terms of volume. 10 tonnes is, at least a usable

    Unless you are planning to ship a lot of air, that isn't especially impressive. Frankly it looks like a solution looking for a problem.

    It's what the company claims. Even if they're wrong it seems a more interesting thing to talk about than the sodding length, at least.

    Yeah I'm not really sure why I should care about how long the aircraft is. I care what it can do. In this case the answer seems to be not much if we care about economics.

    80 knots. Which is comparable to a perfectly straight traffic free highway. But most road transport is not on perfectly straight traffic free highways.

    I have news for you. This thing isn't going to get cargo to its destination in a straight line either. Recall that you still need special facilities to load, unload, and in most cases land this aircraft. There are VERY few freight applications where this thing could take what it is hauling straight to its destination without involving intermodal transport. You'll have to land it at an airport in most cases which raises the question what the point of the thing is?

    Let's be frank. It hauls less and is slower than a large fixed wing cargo jet. It's less flexible than a truck. It will be more expensive and carry FAR less than an ocean freighter. It will require special airfields and docking to be compatible with existing infrastructure. It can't land many places other than airports for practical reasons. It's fragile and can't operate in bad weather. It's not clear that it has any meaningful economic advantage for any practical use case. Maybe there is some corner case where it makes sense but so far nobody seems to know of one. Every 10-20 years someone takes a run at making lighter than air aircraft and it always is a failure because it can't compete with existing options on speed, reliability, and/or cost.

    1. Re:Solution looking for a problem by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I think you're being a little too negative.

      The landing area seems like it can be arranged fairly inexpensively. Essentially you need a small car park. As far as directness goes, in the US, there's a solid mass of land and large distances separating factories, but Europe and South West Asia are more densely populated and full of jagged islands and peninsulas, where this allows a direct route and a lot less loading and unloading.

      I do see what you're getting at with it being a solution looking for a problem, but I think there are possible applications. An obvious application would be to shipping Airbus wings - large lightweight components over a distance of a few hundred km. I can imagine quite a few companies could use these on a ferry route, and the infrastructure requirement is far less substantial than a full airport.

  21. Only 19 passengers by tgibson · · Score: 1
  22. meaningless paperwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Issuance of a production certificate is a complete non-event. The important authorization is the "type certificate". That is nowhere in sight. This story is pure noise.