It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World's largest aircraft crashes on landing during second test run

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I imagine its generally always windy at 20,000ft.


The craft must have some form of station keeping capability's if it can land and maneuver, they obviously require work all the same. Don't know how well the thing would function at altitude. I imagine it would pretty much have to go where the jet stream took it.
edit on 24-8-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Generally, blimps can't handle a lot of wind and won't launch in inclement weather. Because their massive surface area is one huge wind foil, the power and weight of the engines is intentionally kept light to reduce overall gross weight. All that balloon and those little, teeny props.

Fair weather flyers.

article



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Suppose that's a point considering if the craft were to lose power the thing can theoretically float gently to the ground as apposed to in to the ground like a dart.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: odzeandennz

Suppose that's a point considering if the craft were to lose power the thing can theoretically float gently to the ground as apposed to in to the ground like a dart.

It will hit the ground at wind speed. At even a few miles per hour that could be disastrous.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I really find this pointless. is this the 1850s all over again? couldn't have come up with a better way to move cargo? (if that is the true intent).... $25 million seems like a lot of money to float around in a big balloon..



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Last time I saw one of those it was called "Airship" not Aircraft.....



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

So nobody learned from the Hindenburg incident I see.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This may sound like a ridiculous comment but I'm still struggling to see the purpose of this airship/aircraft.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Different gas, different property's. This thing can't explode in the same manner as the Hindenburg so they kind of learned something.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

where did it break up at



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
A lot of places where a vehicle like this would be viable economically is where it is windy, think winter in Alaska, Canada, Siberia.



edit on 26-8-2016 by jellyrev because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: donaldfan353667

It did not break up, just somewhat done a bellyflop. No one was injured and the vehicle sustained only slight damage, apparently to the cockpit area.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall

It goes 95 MPH, not bad for such a big arse



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
SPAM removed by admin
edit on Aug 28th 2016 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You'd think that 80+ years of advancement in Engineering mankind would have figured out how to nail the whole blimp-type craft thing by now.

I realize there are plenty of arguments for the advantages of such a craft, but such things seem so beneath where our tech should be expected to be currently.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JerryDriver

Well it's all window dressing isn't it?
I mean, when Von Braun commented that the space shuttle was obsolete, he wasnt talking about the new HLV rockets, he was talking about the REAL space program.

Blimps are great, hell they have enough surface area (and can fly above clouds) so the solar energy alone would be enough. No More Fossil Fuel, get it?
As a cheap pollution free transport, you can't fault it.
But like i said, it needs some upgrading, maybe add the Coanda effect to the control surfaces & coat the underside with a barium/hafnium mixture & it will easily double the lift, height, & speed.
Oops, probably said too much already.....



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JerryDriver

Well until breakthroughs in postulated technologies such as anti gravity/mass cancellation come about, we pretty much have to work with what we have that being air planes and blimps.

What would you suggest?
edit on 30-8-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: JerryDriver

As long as there are people involved there will be accidents.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Removed Spam

edit on 8/30/2016 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I just made a few suggestions


There's a vast difference between what we have and what the plebs get to see



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join