|
Post by Sirrob01 on Apr 7, 2012 17:03:26 GMT -9
I'm sure some are aware of this but I've been doing some reading around zeppelins and stumbled across USS Akron (ZRS-4). It seems the Akron was being used to trial some sort of hook on trapeze setup to enable it to launch and retrieve aircraft in flight. The thing that struck me the most was that it was successful: From wiki in the hanger on board Hooking backup it looks very manual but it makes you wonder if the Hindenburg and several other accidents caused by Human error had not occurred, what might have been flying around in WW2. I know we see this stuff as normal in pulp gaming I was just unaware we had got so close IRL and thought some others might also find it interesting
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 7, 2012 17:21:36 GMT -9
I also like to think about what the world would have been like without the Hindenburg disaster.
There was supposed to be a dock for dirigibles on top of the Empire State Building.
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Apr 8, 2012 11:54:06 GMT -9
The science behind the hindenberg is amazing...... it's always been accepted that the hydrogen envelope ignited and caused the disaster, this discredited hydrogen and made the whole concept of lighter than air a no go area. Thing is, on the footage of the R101 and all of the photos of these disasers you can clearly see the flames..... hydrogen burns colourless and fast, if the hydrogen was the problem then the incidents would have been brief, explosive and the flames invisible, the whole thing would have detonated quickly and no way would the superstructure have ignited the way it did (it would have been really hot, but over in a flash). Current thinking is that a static charge ignited the structure of the envelope, which contained aluminium and iron oxide paint, this is basically thermite, I've carried out the thermite experiment loads of times and the flames from the thermite reaction look just like the photos. So, it's really likely that a well designed hydrogen envelope can be safe. It would open up some superb mass transport options, faster than a boat, cheaper than a plane and can dock more or less anywhere. Also, they look awesome. Everything is better with a bit of steampunk.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Apr 8, 2012 17:24:21 GMT -9
Also, of course, helium is nearly as boyant and absolutely non-flamable. It actually smothers flame. Even a 60/40 mix of helium and hydrogen would not burn, and with modern materials like carbon fiber etc. airships could be really efficient. Problem is the mass public can't get over their fear. Statistically, if you compare hours/miles flown airships are still safer than airplanes.
|
|
|
Post by Sirrob01 on Apr 8, 2012 18:41:03 GMT -9
Odd you should say that, the Akron above was helium filled. Both the Akron and her sister ship went down in the ocean. Akron due to being caught in a big storm and hit by a down draft. Yes I to find it interesting that airships were abandoned after a few accidents, but if you look at aircraft at around the same time they were not much better. I think the Hindenburg was to blame for the abandonment due to its crash being filmed and radio broadcast. Theres a company in the Uk looking at trying to bring them back commercially on a large scale but it appears there is not much interest commercially. Fingers crossed maybe one day.
|
|
|
Post by old squirmydad on Apr 8, 2012 19:40:51 GMT -9
Plenty of interest here; www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/15241602/article-Alaska-conference-mulls--cargo-airships-This winter we had a northern city that was cut off from it's winter fuel delivery by early sea-ice pack moving in and a coast guard icebreaker had to be calle din to clear a path for a russian tanker to get the fuel in. HUGE cluster-f@@k; fuel rationing, frozen homes, and highly expensive. Aisrships could have been in and out with no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Sirrob01 on Apr 9, 2012 22:16:28 GMT -9
Now those look very interesting, is that a full 40 foot container or one of the shorter 20s, Not that it really matters. Wonder how they'd go in a hefty head or cross wind, thats a lot of surface area in all dimensions almost a slightly flat cube
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Apr 9, 2012 22:40:48 GMT -9
THey say that as they unload they'll pump in water as ballast... I'd never thought of that, if a helium/hydrogen balloon carrying 1000's of tonnes worth of cargo unloads it would just take off, and you obviously can't just vent hydrogen/helium to compensate as it's too expensive (also, we are running out of helium, so the 'safest' option doesn't seem to be an option at all).
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Apr 10, 2012 2:29:31 GMT -9
I wonder what's a dirigible efficiency... I mean: take one of that big copters, and the "equivalent" (in term of transport capabilty) baloon....Who's the most convenient on the same route, on the long time (so not only fuel consumption, but also maintenance and reliability.... i don't know what kind of weather a baloon can handle).
I suspect that dirigibles could have a low pro/cons ratio....
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Apr 10, 2012 5:26:05 GMT -9
I saw a program on one of the Science channels about blimps, etc, that was talking about the reliability of these devices. A huge part of the maintenance is the almost constant inspections. Not having to use energy to supply lift is a huge benefit, but another benefit is that the structure doesn't get as much stress put on it. Stresses get spread out.
Didn't I see something last year on a company that was wanting to do an IPO for building lighter-than-air craft?
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Apr 10, 2012 7:53:01 GMT -9
Didn't I see something last year on a company that was wanting to do an IPO for building lighter-than-air craft? I think so. One of the primary uses would be logging (Alaska was mentioned, IIRC). Being in SoCal, we frequently see the blimps moving about for sporting events. A zeppelin would be simply awesome in comparison, like a B-52 to a C-47 in size. The whole thing brings to mind Crimson Skies (I hated that British sub with an infinite supply of fighter craft). One of the reasons the Hindenberg used hydrogen was that the US had embargoed helium, preventing its sale to Nazi Germany. There's a great show on either History or Science Channel on the flammability of the skin and structure--scared the beejeezus out of me. For fixed wing aircraft, the USAF experimented with a parasite fighter for the B-36. The fighter was one of the most truly ugly planes to ever fly.
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Apr 10, 2012 8:46:44 GMT -9
The flammable superstructure was a work of deranged genius.... if it had been deliberate you couldn't possibly have come up with a worse combination unless you'd based it on acorns supported by squirrels. They are so much more efficient than anything else in the air and would massively out perform helicopters which are manoevrable but have limited range/load, the maintanance and inspection routine for helicopters is insane, due to the fact that they spend every operational second attempting to dismantle themselves and fall out of the air. There's a german company working on them too. Brilliant for things that currently travel on the ice roads and for things like transporting aid.... you'd get 50 C130s worth of stuff in one trip.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Apr 11, 2012 17:58:58 GMT -9
the alternative to ballast is to compress the gas as you unload. Also they are experimenting with hovercraft landing gear that can be reversed to suck and stick the craft to the ground while it loads and unloads. I so want these things to work. there is a conference every year or so at the University of Manitoba called "Airships to the Arctic" where they keep talking about making living and working in Canada's north more affordable by making delivery of goods cheaper and more reliable. Now they mostly use small bush planes or ice roads, and the latter have been melting too much lately. The planes just can't carry very much.
|
|
|
Post by hobbeskind on May 29, 2012 14:13:34 GMT -9
I do believe that Zeppelin are still used to some extend in Germany
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on May 29, 2012 17:21:18 GMT -9
yes, the Zepplin company is still making them, but the models they are producing are quite small, they are used for diamond prospecting among other things. Big cargo airships are on the drawing boards of a few different companies, but there are none in production (as far as I know, I kind of stopped checking with the big crash in 08 and all the venture capital drying up.)
|
|