If I\'m going to go lighter than air I want full buoyancy especially under no power.
25th October, 2011 @ 4:58 a.m. (California Time)
6,000 km at speeds of \"up to\" 120 km/hr? That\'s a flight time of at least 50 hours. I hope the cabin is luxurious, with beds and a kitchen.
I also think there must be faster ways of delivering urgent medical supplies. Parachute from a C130, for instance.
A lot depends on price. If the small version is very much cheaper than a helicopter it may find a market.
25th October, 2011 @ 8:02 a.m. (California Time)
Every time I hear that something is designed for its \"Low Carbon Footprint\" I know it going to be an over-priced piece of junk..
25th October, 2011 @ 10:26 a.m. (California Time)
Still worried about the fact it uses helium instead of hydrogen. Helium isn\'t exactly a limitless resource.
25th October, 2011 @ 11:15 a.m. (California Time)
\"Additionally, the aircraft could also fly when filled with plain old air. This means the aircraft will still be able to fly - and, more importantly, land safely - if there is damage that results in helium loss.\" Direct quote, Do I REALLY have to point out that if you have a hole that lets out the hellium, it would let out the air too??? Brainless.
25th October, 2011 @ 3:37 p.m. (California Time)
thier motto is pretty blunt about why this is so awesome. \"no roads, no fuel, no infrastructure\" . It can fly for 50 hours, with no fuel. doesn\'t need a runway to land. that\'s pretty neat. I can see this being pretty huge , especially for supplying remote communities.
it\'s a Canadian company, there\'s deffinately a market at home for them.
Honestly, just looking at that picture. how much could the materials have cost them for that prototype? looks like it would be affordable to sell as a flippin\' hobby kit. so equisite.
25th October, 2011 @ 6:37 p.m. (California Time)
Don\'t worry about it. The oil will run out before the helium, and massive new stores of the stuff have been discovered recently. Even then, no helium=/= no airships. There are plenty other viable lift gases. Hot air and it\'s more powerful sibling steam, possibly ammonia, and of course a nonflammable Nitrogen/Hydrogen mix.
Please give these people a little credit. First of all, it would take a huge hole in a Nanuk-sized airship to be of immediate danger to it- think midair collision or hitting a flying iceberg. It isn\'t even going to notice a AK-47 unloading into it or SAM passing through it. So it\'s not like it\'s in constant danger from sewing needles. Second, you don\'t know what kind of structure- of any- this will have. For all you know, it\'s a fully rigid Zeppelin. If it was semi-rigid or nonrigid, it would have balonets- air-filled balloons within the balloon- to keep it under very slight pressure so it can fly, and to compensate for altitude. The balonets are constantly inflated by fans.
Not so brainless after all, eh?
25th October, 2011 @ 6:40 p.m. (California Time)
25th October, 2011 @ 6:53 p.m. (California Time)
@Will Sharp: \"Helium isn\'t exactly a limitless resource.\" -- Only the second most common element in the universe.
@kellory: \"if you have a hole that lets out the hellium, it would let out the air too??? Brainless.\" -- Helium is slippery and leaks easily, like hydrogen. Usually a leak is gradual. You carry reserves. But they are finite, so with a compressor, you use plain ole air, which doesn\'t run out. Smart!
@Slowburn: \"If the small version is very much cheaper than a helicopter it may find a market.\" -- There\'s some interesting market studies looking at, for instance, cross-Atlantic freight options that are cheaper than airfreight and faster than sea. It\'s a matter of cost vs time, as you infer.
25th October, 2011 @ 6:54 p.m. (California Time)
I know about helium, gentlemen. It has a smaller molacule and goes right through rubber ballons, that is why the good ones are mylar. You are missing the point. if it will fly with just air, then it does not gain that much lift from the helium. the helium would simply improve it\'s range and fuel efficiency. So a small leak is not a big deal. For it to be a big deal, would require a BIG HOLE! For it to NEED a redundancy system like that it would require a big hole. pumps and compressors add to the overall wieght, ALL THE TIME, not just when needed, So that would cut down on the efficiency of the helium, if it has to be backchecked with pumps or compressors. And a BIG HOLE is just as deadly with air as with helium!
25th October, 2011 @ 8:24 p.m. (California Time)
Actually, the helium is a big deal. It produces 40% more lift. And that goes up with the length exponentially, but the proportion of HTA/LTA lift stays the same, relative capacity goes up. Not to mention the fact that without the square-cube law bonus that Helium provides, a solar powered heavy lifter would be impossible, much less a 700-foot Zeppelin-sized one. What would you fill the empty space with otherwise? The structural drain alone puts it out of the realm possibility without Helium, or some other lift gas. Also, seriously, could I get some reading comprehension out of you? This thing is Solar. Powered. Saying that the Helium just \"improves it\'s range and fuel efficiency\" is therefore doubly wrong.
Furthermore, it\'s nice to see you completely ignored the facts I presented to you. What part of fans being necessary for the operation of the balonets of semirigid and nonrigid airships did you not understand? They\'re already there! You can\'t operate an airship without them unless it\'s a rigid Zeppelin! And they aren\'t even that heavy! Sometimes they don\'t even have fans at all, just scoops behind the engines! The fans are already there to regulate altitude changes and keep the envelope under slight pressure, so why not use them in a major emergency? Like, say, hitting a floating iceberg? But if they were that concerned about flying icebergs and errant helicopters- about the only two things that could bring one of these down- then they would have made it a rigid Zeppelin and avoided using inflation altogether. They didn\'t, so I really don\'t think it matters much to them.
25th October, 2011 @ 11:02 p.m. (California Time)
I\'m concerned with the crosswind landing and take/off capabilities.
Looks like it would be flying sideways in a stiff breeze, so if you want to land at a real airport where you can\'t point into the wind...lots of side stresses on the landing gear.
26th October, 2011 @ 12:01 p.m. (California Time)
re; Michael Kruger
that problem has already been solved, just have all the tires point in direction of ground travel like a B-52. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94AcSHpcZbI
26th October, 2011 @ 8:32 p.m. (California Time)
I misunderstood you sir. I believed you meant they had added a complete back-up system, not useing what already existed. By all means , use it if it can prevent a crash, even if you overload the equiptment. The fans can be replaced, the lives can not.
28th October, 2011 @ 4:21 a.m. (California Time)
My gods but there are a lot of negative people here. Let us begin addressing at least some of the statements.
Look at the pictures. The structure is obviously flexible and the top is connected via material to the bottom to hold the shape. This means it probably has multiple chambers with or without small holes between them. If there are chambers a hole even 4 or 5 feet in diameter would not cause the ship to come hurtling to the earth. I would probably cause it to slowly sink down but definitely not at a life threatening speed. Please apply a hole that size to a cargo plane and see the effects. No bullets and even most rockets would have minimal effects.
The vehicle is not mean for combat missions. Yes, I can see the military possibly using it but not for spying. There are MANY more technologies available that are both faster and smaller. If the military were to use it, it would be primarily for cargo purposes. When you consider the fuel usage of the C130H is between 2.5 and 3.5 gallons per mile, then for items that can be sent slower ways such as mail and planned resupply, this vehicle with 0 fuel cost would pay for itself with a few years.
Yes the vehicle would have problems with control in high winds, but I am pretty sure it has the ability to vary its altitude to take advantage of the winds also. Believe it or not winds at different altitudes often are blowing in different directions. Go out and watch the clouds some days when there are several layers of clouds. They move at different speeds and sometimes in directions 90 and even 180 degrees different from each other. Be sure to use a stationary object as a reference point or you might attribute it to different wind speeds. Large \"conventional\" air craft also have problems in high winds. Using parachute drops in high winds is extremely useless and even in low/\"no\" winds can result in items being spread across the countryside.
To maintain proper additional lift from the gas in the vehicle if using normal air all that would be required is some form of heating element. The vehicle is solar powered so that allows for electrical energy.
The article does not give the cost, but it does give the payload. 30 tonnes, that is 33 tons or over 1/2 the payload of a C130H. Its speed is about 1/6 the C130H speed but again for non-emergency cargo transport it is reasonable.
Overall if the price is reasonable, I would consider this an excellent vehicle for private or military cargo transport. For private I would imagine multiple attachments could be provided for various cargo types.
28th October, 2011 @ 9:58 a.m. (California Time)
I agree, there\'s not a lot of knowledge among the layperson about the various advantages and disadvantages of hybrid airships. And not just ignorance, there\'s quite a lot of misplaced hostility towards these aircraft.
Your debunking of these simple myths can be taken one step further, however. In point of fact, although the solar ship isn\'t intended for combat, you imply these aircraft are militarily worthless for spying, which they\'re not. The huge surveillance airships LEMV and Blue Devil mk. ll, among others, are seeing vast growth within the military. Not only are these aircraft- hybrid airships in general- highly resistant to bullets and missiles due to their diaphanous structure, extremely low helium pressure and redundant gas chambers, but they also have airplane blood in them. They can fly like one if need be. That same ability, combined with their vastly reduced size compared to their behemoth brethren, also reduces their vulnerability to the weather.
Also, a heating element would only be able to replace 1/3 of the lift of the lost helium. It\'s unnecessary, because the ship can operate even filled with unheated air, and it\'s incredibly doubtful that even the most catastrophic accident could drain all the gas cells completely of Helium. It is, however, a viable alternative lift gas. It would make it much cheaper, but that\'s only a good idea in the distant future.
By all rights, the price should be one of it\'s greatest advantages. Almost all airships are very low-cost craft, both in initial cost and to operate. They really aren\'t very complex systems- just a gasbag and a cabin with engines. Not the infinity and a half bits that go into an airplane or helicopter.
Lastly, I think this is a very bold design. It accepts a LOT of compromises. Essentially, there are a set of disadvantages that any airship must suffer in varying degrees. How much cargo, if any, is lifted aerodynamically, the frontal drag area, the power, etcetera... They seem to have chosen the wierd combination of an extremely tiny envelope, a huge amount of the craft lifted aerodynamically, a relatively large frontal drag area, tiny lateral drag area, and a very weak, slow powerplant. I think it will work, but not as a first world heavy cargo hauler. It seems very suited towards very long endurance missions. I think the Sea Shepherds would like one.
28th October, 2011 @ 10:42 p.m. (California Time)
This hybrid solar powered airship is a great achievement for a small company with limited funds and I hope they can get enough funding to produce a full size commercial passenger and cargo version. In the long term we need to develop an alternative means of air transport that is greener and more fuel efficient than normal aircraft and the only way of doing that is by developing fuel efficient airships.
Regards JB (Airship & Blimp Consultant)
29th October, 2011 @ 7:04 a.m. (California Time)
Wouldn't this make a dandy, idiot- proof recreational aircraft? Crash speeds would be so low injury would be unlikely.
16th November, 2013 @ 9:45 a.m. (California Time)