Airlander is Go

[Butler Henderson]

Airlander 10 flies at last

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112292

 

Kept on looking out for a big green cargo plane and blue rocket type plane but could not spot them. Assume Brains is happy with this one

[Ozexpatriate]

Kept on looking out for a big green cargo plane and blue rocket type plane but could not spot them. Assume Brains is happy with this one

If they stuck some inflatable green wings and horizontal stabilizer on that thing it would look pretty much like Thunderbird 2.

[russ p]

Impressive though it is I can't help thinking it looks like it was designed in viz comic .

Could be Roger irrelevant and the giant flying arse!

[Kris]

Very impressing bit of engineering, but the award for slowest dullest take off goes too... 

[Guest]

Impressive though it is I can't help thinking it looks like it was designed in viz comic .

Could be Roger irrelevant and the giant flying arse!

 

Arse cheeks indeed. Designed from practicality, no doubt, but hideous nonetheless.

Edit: It even appears to be wearing a thong... Ugh.

 

Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Very interesting, but what is it for? Seems to me to be the aviation equivalent of the Sinclair C5.

 

Twenty years ago, airships were useful for aerial filming/TV but we have drones for that now.

[The Stationmaster]

All rather good fun but where do you put whatever it is supposed to be able to carry?  Maybe Amazon will use it for bulk deliveries?

[pete_mcfarlane]

All rather good fun but where do you put whatever it is supposed to be able to carry?  Maybe Amazon will use it for bulk deliveries?

It can loiter over a target area for several days with quite a large payload (compared to drones), so it's idea for carrying out surveillance and acting as a communications relay in places like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

 

There's also talk of using them to deliver large cargo to remote areas, as the thing has a larger range and payload capability than a helicopter (carrier on deck delivery being one example that's been talked about). 

[PaulRhB]

It's intended as a cheap heavy lift aircraft. The load would be slung underneath, in a container or cradle if necessary, like they do with chinooks. It's relatively slower speed means the load only needs slightly stronger protection from the elements than a truck.

[Joseph_Pestell]

It can loiter over a target area for several days with quite a large payload (compared to drones), so it's idea for carrying out surveillance and acting as a communications relay in places like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

 

There's also talk of using them to deliver large cargo to remote areas, as the thing has a larger range and payload capability than a helicopter (carrier on deck delivery being one example that's been talked about). 

Quite a large target itself.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Quite a large target itself.

Yes, but only if you've got weapons capable of hitting something large at 10,000 feet. Most insurgent groups don't. 

[Guest]

Let's assume it drops its cargo from that height then. If it has to come down, any toddler with a slingshot couldn't fail to score a hit on something that big.

[F-UnitMad]

If they stuck some inflatable green wings and horizontal stabilizer on that thing it would look pretty much like Thunderbird 2.

I bet it can't do 5,000mph, though, which was the quoted top speed of Thunderbird 2.

 

T2 Nerd Mode/off.

[PaulRhB]

Er the military version was dropped, then it was taken up to develop it for civilian use. As a matter of interest even the zeppelins were designed to withstand bullets and they carried patches made from, I think, pigs gut or something that they could seal any holes with quickly. So I should think modern materials and inert helium in several internal pockets make bullets a fairly minor risk anyway.

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, but only if you've got weapons capable of hitting something large at 10,000 feet. Most insurgent groups don't. 

 

I reckon a modern man portable surface to air missile such as an SA-24 could take one out at that altitude ( but not much higher) as it has a fragmentation warhead and would tear the gas bags apart even if they are divided within the main hull. But flying a couple of thousand feet higher only a well armed aircraft or helicopter could do for it

[pete_mcfarlane]

Er the military version was dropped, then it was taken up to develop it for civilian use. 

The Americans cancelled their project that would have used the airship, but apparently the MoD are interested in playing with it. 

[Ozexpatriate]

The Americans cancelled their project that would have used the airship, but apparently the MoD are interested in playing with it. 

The tethered electronics surveillance airship (JLENS) blew away in a storm. Dragging it's tether, it took out power as it descended after being blown for 100 miles or so.

 

Excepting the hydrogen disasters (like the Hindenburg and R101) vulnerability to weather - particularly the pressure variations in storms - is the Achilles heel of all airships. Sister ships USS Macon and USS Akron are good examples. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 Some of the design team at BAC Bristol estimated the required power output for T2's lift, speed and range/endurance performance on the assumption that an airframe to stand the beating would come in at 50% more weight than a regular aluminium airframe. The space shuttle went someway to giving an impression of what it looked like; yet more humungous tankage to sustain the colossal output for the appartent great circle out and home range, plus evident loiter capability. Also, at its Mach 10 cruise at any altitude less than 40,000ft it would be causing ground level disasters faster than it could perform the rescues. Oh, and Tracy island wasn't big enough to park it on...

It's intended as a cheap heavy lift aircraft. The load would be slung underneath, in a container or cradle if necessary, like they do with chinooks. It's relatively slower speed means the load only needs slightly stronger protection from the elements than a truck.

 That low speed and the inevitable poor manoeuvre rate also mean that it goes effectively inoperable in wind speeds exceeding half its maximum airspeed capability for transits, and typically something less than that wind speed if operating in the turbulence at ground level to pick up and drop off loads. The trouble with a denser slung load beneath is that the combined centre of gravity with the float's centre of lift create a pendulum, and you can end up absorbing all the craft's manoeuvre capability to maintain reasonable stability, and have nothing left to control landing safely. Dropping the load becones the only solution, and the capability to do that needs to be well designed to avoid other consequent problems.

 

Lighter than air seems to bubble up in every generation, and falls flat when the long known limitations become apparent in testing. Very limited applications.

[PaulRhB]

If they want cheap then they have to wait for perfect conditions, depends how they can make that balance work and make enough money

[pete_mcfarlane]

Lighter than air seems to bubble up in every generation, and falls flat when the long known limitations become apparent in testing. Very limited applications.

That is very true. Maglev trains and Stirling engines (hot air ones, not GNR or SER locos!) being other bits of technology in the same category. 

[PaulRhB]

Well at least it's a safe aircraft to nosedive in. Learning curve on manoeuvring no doubt but difficult to do it away from prying eyes with this behemoth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37174417

[Horsetan]

....Lighter than air seems to bubble up in every generation, and falls flat when the long known limitations become apparent in testing. Very limited applications.

 

Presumably they won't be using this vessel as the replacement air transport for St. Helena

[The Stationmaster]

In view of today's news perhaps we should add 'oh no it isn't' to the title of this thread 

[PaulRhB]

At least the damage is fairly minor and better to discover this now so they can sort the front manoeuvring. Problem is the media could shaft it from this much like the APT if it hits confidence. Maybe they need a few big airbags to cushion a hard landing

[Butler Henderson]

And now they know how slowly it crashes plenty of scope for emergency procedures to be updated

 

1. Is it out of control

2. If yes, put kettle on....