Odd idea that was epic fail

the Baron

This is tangential, but the discussion about using airships reminds me of the alternate present depicted in the novel "The Two Georges".  It's a crime novel set against a backdrop of an America in 1976, that is still part of the British Empire-the Revolution was avoided through peaceful negotiation.  A detail of that alternate universe is that airships are common, a reliable method of travel and transport.

 

Another airship novel was by a military analyst who usually did not write fiction.  It is not well known.  I forget the title and the author's name.  I will have to see if I can find my copy.

Anyway it is a prediction of WW1, and features both airships and airplane, with the airships being more effective then they turned out to be because of effective fighter escorting.

This is tangential, but the discussion about using airships reminds me of the alternate present depicted in the novel "The Two Georges".  It's a crime novel set against a backdrop of an America in 1976, that is still part of the British Empire-the Revolution was avoided through peaceful negotiation.  A detail of that alternate universe is that airships are common, a reliable method of travel and transport.

CapnMac82

The thing about blimps, zepplins, and aerostats that seems to workagainst them most is the least obvious thing:  Their mass.

A similar condition exists in the hot-air balloon community.  Once you get enough mass to achieve lift, you also have enough mass to be affected by every aspecr of the fluid we call atmosphere.

Which has been the undoing of almost all lighter-than-air craft. 

Non-rigid airships have a bit more "bend" inthem that rigid ones--which is part of the success Goodyear (and Fuji) have had with them.  And, while successful, still, not without mishap.

The trick of the non-rigid craft though is that their cargo lift is limited, since the lift cannot be coupled, rigidly, to the cargo carried.

Goodyear experimented with air-inflated structures, but could never couple those to good airship design--the weight requirements to keep the hull inflated negated its ability to fly.

It's a fascinating area of aviation design, and one ith so many teasing possibilities.  But, right now, with current material science, a bit like ships made of ice--possible, just not enough practical to warrant the construction effort.

 

The saving grace is that the atmospheric perturbations act on the area of the ship, which is a function of the square of the average linear dimension, while the mass is a function of the cube of an average linear dimension.  The result is that as you make a vehicle larger and larger, the viscous forces become less important than the inertial forces.  The biggest supertankers have now reached that point.  It takes a lot of power to get up to cruise speed or to stop.  But once at speed, one can back way off on the power.  There is some slight increase in drag because you must have to use a shilght amount of rudder to offset Corliolis force.

With today's high strength materials and processes, I believe we can now make airships dominated by inertial forces.  I suspect the optimum airship will be a hybrid somewhere between a ridgid and non-ridgid.  There is some framework in blimps.  I can see as hybrid also using some hydrogen for bouyancy and some for propulsion.  I believe the use of massive amounts of hydrogen as a space fuel will help us overcome safety problems.

The thing about blimps, zepplins, and aerostats that seems to workagainst them most is the least obvious thing:  Their mass.

A similar condition exists in the hot-air balloon community.  Once you get enough mass to achieve lift, you also have enough mass to be affected by every aspecr of the fluid we call atmosphere.

Which has been the undoing of almost all lighter-than-air craft. 

Non-rigid airships have a bit more "bend" inthem that rigid ones--which is part of the success Goodyear (and Fuji) have had with them.  And, while successful, still, not without mishap.

The trick of the non-rigid craft though is that their cargo lift is limited, since the lift cannot be coupled, rigidly, to the cargo carried.

Goodyear experimented with air-inflated structures, but could never couple those to good airship design--the weight requirements to keep the hull inflated negated its ability to fly.

It's a fascinating area of aviation design, and one ith so many teasing possibilities.  But, right now, with current material science, a bit like ships made of ice--possible, just not enough practical to warrant the construction effort.

Out here there have been some experiments with balloon logging, but nothing all that widespread.  Helo logging is fairly common in areas that are not condusive go road building, even temporary ones that are recontoured and rehabed after the project is done.  I've seen everything from Hueys to Skycranes with timber suspended underneath.

Expensive, but does less damage to sensitive ground, that in some cases is best left as is.

It looks like the modern way to go is to ditch choppers and mount swiveling ducted fans to cab structure.  Very maneuverable and much simpler.  But these are non-rigid.  Seems like the rigid airship is a thing of the past.

Now that was fascinating! What an incredible idea they had, and too bad they stopped with that one crazy prototype. That idea had some serious potential.

They basically created a heavy lift drone lol.

Very unlucky for the test pilot however. Seems the frame structure was not as study as it should've been. Most likely due to weight concerns I would guess.

Still, what a concept!

GMorrison

I thought the movie The Aeronauts was well done.

Bill, this movie was awesome. I was near holding my breath for fear of them falling. It would be shear terror knowing the balloon could burst at any second.

gregbale

It's one of those weird things: for virtually my entire life, I've seen regular Popular Science-type articles proclaiming the 'return of the dirigible' for everything from industrial cargo applications to 'revolutionary' public transport...but little ever seems to come of it. About the only ones I've personally seen -- other than the always-cool Goodyear blimps -- are some of the ones tested for police surveillance and military early-warning uses.

 

Airships still remain, theoretically, the most efficient way to move goods to any spot on surface of earth.  I think one thing that should be explored is the more widespread use of manufactured homes (no, not trailers, real homes that sit on a foundation).  They could result in cheaper, more affordable homes if we can get the transportation costs low enough.

Wow what a crazy machine.  Sad to see one of the pilots died.  Thanks for sharing this - now go build it :)

Interesting story, tragic too.

I've always been interested in high altitude balloon design as well.

I thought the movie The Aeronauts was well done.

Bill

It's one of those weird things: for virtually my entire life, I've seen regular Popular Science-type articles proclaiming the 'return of the dirigible' for everything from industrial cargo applications to 'revolutionary' public transport...but little ever seems to come of it. About the only ones I've personally seen -- other than the always-cool Goodyear blimps -- are some of the ones tested for police surveillance and military early-warning uses. (We had 2 of the latter floating tethered over suburban Baltimore a few years back...until one embarrassingly crashed, and the program was 'paused' for a re-think.)

Just like the jetpacks we were all promised...I want to see our skies filled with modern zeppelins!