Highlights from the 2014 LA Auto Show

Goodyear replacing its current blimp fleet with zeppelins

By

July 21, 2013

The NT-design takes shape at Goodyear's Wingfoot Lake Hangar in Suffield, Ohio

The NT-design takes shape at Goodyear's Wingfoot Lake Hangar in Suffield, Ohio

Image Gallery (2 images)

The iconic Goodyear blimps are a common sight in the skies over stadiums at sporting events in the US, serving as an aerial billboard and television camera platform to provide aerial views. In 2011, Goodyear announced plans to replace the current fleet of GZ-20 class blimps first introduced in 1969 with three new Zeppelin NT airships. Goodyear says this new design will be longer, faster, and more maneuverable than the current fleet, while also being less expensive to operate.

The new airships models are supplied by German zeppelin manufacturer ZLT Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik, and last week Zeppelin and Goodyear teams at Goodyear's hangar in Suffield, Ohio, installed an envelope over the aluminum and carbon fiber framework of the first airship. This was an important milestone with the zeppelin starting to take on the familiar blimp-like shape as the envelope made of polyester with a DuPont Tedlar film is stretched over each metal truss.

Everything about the NT, (NT stands for "Neue Technologie", which is German for new technology), design is bigger. The current blimp design is 192 ft (58.5 m) long with an envelope volume of 202,700 cu ft (5,735 cu m), while the NT is 246.5 ft (75 m) long with an envelope volume of 297,527 cu ft (8,425 cu m) and the ability to carry nearly 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) more cargo than the current airships in the Goodyear fleet.

Once airborne, this will be the first of a project to build new zeppelin-design airships t...

"It is a fly-by-wire design, with the latest in airship technology," Nancy Ray, director of Global Airship Operations at Goodyear tells Gizmag. What makes the new Goodyear NT more maneuverable are the three vectoring prop engines. "They swivel up and down. In essence, this helps the airship take off and land more like a helicopter, and provide the ability to control its aerial position," explains Ray.

The major difference is the change from a traditional non-rigid blimp to a zeppelin. A blimp is an aerial vehicle that helped coin the term "lighter than air," because there is no rigid framework and it's filled with hydrogen or helium – although only helium is used these days after the flammability of hydrogen was deemed a hazard. In comparison, the Zeppelin NT has a semi-rigid framework to support the helium-filled craft, which allows for a larger payload.

"As we build the new-design NT airships, the current fleet of Goodyear blimps will not be completely out of service until 2017, so as we decommission airships we will keep useable parts as spares," says Ray. The first of the new airships is set to enter service in 2014, with each expected to have a lifespan of 25 years, with progressive maintenance.

Though Ray preferred not to provide specifics as to the cost of the new zeppelins, she says, "It represents a strong investment in Goodyear’s airship program, helping to ensure that Goodyear will remain at the forefront of aerial broadcast coverage and support."

Source: Goodyear

Tags
15 Comments

An NT machine visited San Diego a while back and they are truly unique aircraft. The view from the rear window is fantastic, you can look straight down. They are also very light, I was able to lift it.

Mark A
21st July, 2013 @ 09:32 pm PDT

I was hoping for a fully rigid design.

Slowburn
21st July, 2013 @ 11:19 pm PDT

What a waste of helium.... do people really not know how valuable and limited it is?

Come on, hydrogen is more dangerous, but it's also unlimited and more effective. Surely we can be safer than people in the 30's.

Racqia Dvorak
22nd July, 2013 @ 10:43 am PDT

More dangerous, yes, but not very dangerous. It was not hydrogen that caused the fire, it was a new dope + the surface design. It was a flying bomb. Static electricity collected on the surface provided the "match" that lit it. The explosion was not an accident. It was inevitable. The mistake was in the doping agent covering the surface. It was later used as rocket fuel.

The company discovered their mistake within a few weeks of doing a postmortem, but never released the revelation to avoid a lawsuit.

Don Duncan
22nd July, 2013 @ 01:07 pm PDT

Get more & have a Air Tours Div for income IE have some carry 8 passengers for air tours over city with camera pod below for scanning 360 deg Below gondola module.

IE for newscasting alone.

Stephen N Russell
22nd July, 2013 @ 05:31 pm PDT

This one is the NT, when will the 2000 and the XP be introduced? ;-)

Gregg Eshelman
22nd July, 2013 @ 06:24 pm PDT

I'm just spitballing here, but wouldn't the addition of helium and hydrogen be less flammable/inflammable than pure hydrogen alone? Perhaps some mixture might be arrived at by titration that would allow the lighter combination? Sure would save money. Of course, O2 from the atmosphere is still needed for ignition and oxidation, but mixtures or gaseous alloys, eh? ha, might even have other useful properties. Some combination might even be easier to handle/store.

TogetherinParis
22nd July, 2013 @ 08:09 pm PDT

You guys suggesting don't get it. The FAA specifically forbids the use of hydrogen as a lifting gas in any airship that carries passengers (including crew members). And I wouldn't worry about the "waste" of helium. Airships aren't a major user of helium. One Zeppelin NT uses about 290,000 cubic feet of helium, a fraction of the two billion cubic feet or so produced every year, and they don't vent the helium and deflate the airship after flights.

Gadgeteer
23rd July, 2013 @ 12:51 am PDT

re; Racqia Dvorak

The cost of extracting helium from the atmosphere while higher than extracting it from unpurified natural gas it is not so high as to prohibit filling toy balloons with it.

Slowburn
23rd July, 2013 @ 07:31 pm PDT

I think that is way cool. I am hoping that one day it will lead to a rigid airship and there would be cruise airships like the Hindenberg. It was originally designed to use helium.

I think the joke about 'NT...whats next..XP or Vista?'. I think it is funny.

BigGoofyGuy
24th July, 2013 @ 06:24 am PDT

The so-called rigid 'Hindenburg' type airship is more limited in altitude than this NT design which is also rigid, but from within the envelope. The big difference is in the fact that the Hindenburg's gas was unpressurized in the rather leaky gasbags of that era to reduce that leakage. At pressure altitude, those airships had to vent gas, and at lower altitudes the bags were highly wrinkled and limp. While there were high altitude Zeppelins for WWI, the Hindenburg flew less than half as high as these do in order to maximize lifting capacity. Hindenburg would never have been able to cross the U.S. Rocky Mountains fully laden.

By being able to use the blimp technique of holding form through pressure(because of superior membranes) the structure weight is reduced, and because it does have a framework structure the overall length and placement of engines is improved over pure blimps.

Paul Gracey
24th July, 2013 @ 11:39 am PDT

re; Paul Gracey

The Hindenburg did not venture to high altitudes because luxury passengers do not like having to wear oxygen masks.

Also it was not leaking hydrogen that caused the fire it was a poorly designed doping mix on the fabric skin that was not electrically conductive enough and burned very hot.

Slowburn
24th July, 2013 @ 02:35 pm PDT

The doping substance that was used to cover the Hindenberg is similar to the substance that NASA uses for rocket fuel. IMO, it was a dope that used the wrong kind of dope to dope the fabric.

With todays technology in material and electronics, I think a floating 'cruise line' would be way cool.

BigGoofyGuy
29th July, 2013 @ 11:16 am PDT

Every one of my remote control toys is not only "fly by wire" but is actually "fly by wireless".

Fly by wire isn't such a miracle, I don't know why people even emphasize this any more. Except possibly as a warning. If the servo quits, that's it, there is no mechanical backup so you're going to crash. Except possibly you could send a couple guys to the tail and have them grab control surface rods and manipulate them manually, and the pilot could give them orders via radio, I reckon.

Grunchy
29th July, 2013 @ 11:56 am PDT

well my research has pointed to a inner bag of hydrogen and and outer bag of helium would make a fire or explosion pretty remote. Hyfogen needs oxygen for combustion . This would allow more blimps to be manufactured.

Michael Donovan
16th November, 2013 @ 09:18 pm PST
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our 29,566 articles
Recent popular articles in Aircraft
Comparison Reviews