Aeros to develop civilian Walrus Airship

Its a common mis-conception that Hydrogen is extremely unsafe. Its safer than avgas.


For instance.

Plane A has avgas fuel tanks.
Plane B has Hydrogen tanks.


Plane A crashes, the tanks burst, the fuel leaks out, and burns in the wreckage.
Plane B crashes, the tanks burst, the gas evaporates and burns above the wreckage.



Approximately 2/3rds of the passengers survived... that isn't a bad record for a catestrophic failure - compare that to aircraft that have fuel tanks go on fire inflight.


From Wikipedia [OK, I know the source ain't great, but sure]

Most of the crew and passengers survived. Of 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died. Also killed was one member of the ground crew, Navy Linesman Allen Hagaman. Most deaths did not arise from the fire but were suffered by those who leapt from the burning ship. (The lighter-than-air fire burned overhead.) Those passengers who rode the ship on its gentle descent to the ground escaped unharmed. In comparison, almost twice as many perished when the helium-filled USS Akron crashed. [2]

[edit on 10-11-2006 by kilcoo316]

Thought you guys might like this:

World's Largest Commercial Airship
Claiming to be the World's largest commercial airship, 'The Spirit of Dubai' is an impressive 66m long by 22m wide... the size of a Boeing 747.

British-built, and filled to the gills with the lighter-than-air-non-flammable gas helium, the hefty airship took to the skies over London last week on the first leg of an epic 40 day journey across Europe and the Middle East to Dubai.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I saw that on TV last week but didn't realise it was as big as a 747, I just thought it was a pretty standard AD600. Ooops.

I read somewhere that they could replace large helicopters for construction and lift a much heavier load by using water as ballast. Now if they can make them to haul thousands of tons then I think they will be in business big time. Pick up lumber at the mill, Autos at the assembly plant or produce in the field for shipment across the country non stop.

mikell

Actually, I believe they use regular old fashioned Air as a ballast. If you can find the article, I would love to read it...

Also, according to their webpage...

www.aerosml.com...

Our Cargo Aircraft, the Aeros-D-4 and Aeros-D-8, are designed for moving inseparable assemblies that ordinarily could not be transported intact: oil derricks, building frames, bridges, etc. With a cargo capacity up to 1.6 million pounds, these cargo aircraft could change forever, the logistical operations in commercial and military use.

They have already tested a prototype on DARPA's dime, and even though it was canceled, the commercial applications are plainly obvious.

I have to update the cruise speed of the Aeros-ML though, I had thought that it was going to be able to reach a cruising speed of over 50 knots. I was right, but I still undershot it by around 100 knots!

www.aerosml.com...

Design Philosophy

* Pilot Errorless Concept
* Transcontinental Operation
* Ground Crew-Less Operation
* All Weather Operational
* VTOL Performance
* 150 Knots Cruise Speed
* Hangar-Less Maintenance
* Ultra Low Noise Emission

[edit on 15-11-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by sardion2000]

Here's another company set to produce heavy lift blimps:

• Hybrid Aircraft Corporation
• World SkyCat Ltd

The SkyCat-20 has a 16 ton payload and they have plans for a 1000 ton payload capable airship. Currently they have financial problems and this seems to be the main problem with many companies trying to get a leg up in the transportation arena.

Comparison of sizes:



Lockheed-Martin P-791 is rumored to have ripped off the Skycat's design.

There's a market for them and it's just a matter of time before we see blimps other than the those flying over footbal stadiums. Too bad the Hindenburg became such an anathema or we would probably have plenty of them flying around today.

Here's another kind of airship hybrid from a company in Ohio:

The Dynalifter avoids many of these problems [with airships] because it isn’t "lighter-than-air". With a large fraction of its weight carried by aerodynamic lift on the wings and hull, it has a substantial net download when sitting on the ground allowing it to withstand a gusty side wind. It lands like a normal aircraft, decelerating on a runway as its weight is transferred from the wings to the tires.

Dynalifters avoid the operational drawbacks of a traditional airship associated with takeoff, landing, and ground operations. The conventional airship is difficult to handle on the ground. It requires a large number of people to grab lines during landing, or it must use equipment of some sort to "catch" the airship and attach it to a mooring mast. With passengers and fuel removed, the airship experiences excess buoyancy and so must be over-ballasted before unloading. When fuel is burned during flight, it becomes too light to land, requiring either valving off lifting gas or use of an elaborate mechanism to recover water vapor from the engine exhaust.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Regenmacher]

SARDION :

No I was not flame baiting – I was attempting to make you consider the logistics of lighter than air operations

Size , gas bag volume and lift capacity :

At standard temperature and pressure – the density of the gases in question is :

AIR = 1.293 g/L.

Helium = 0.1785 g/L [ calculated 1.1145g / l lift capacity ]

Hydrogen = 0.089 g/L[ calculated 1.204g / l lift capacity ]

This means that to lift one kilogram , we require :

Helium gas : 897.26 L

Hydrogen gas : 830.56 L

To lift one ton [ 1000kg ] :

Helium gas : 897.26 cubic meters

Hydrogen gas : 830.56 cubic meters

So a airship hoping to compete with a road going truck [ 20 tons ] would require :

Hydrogen : 16600 cubic meters , helium : 17940 cubic meters

That gas envelope for hydrogen is 20m * 20m * 40m – and that is charitably ignoring hull mass

That out sizes your Goodyear blimp . by a way .

Now to lift even a paltry 500 tons as a global haul

Hydrogen : 415000 cubic meters , helium : 448500 cubic meters

For helium that’s 50m * 50m * 179m

Again ignoring hull mass

Your lighter than air cargo lifters – may be able to deliver post and cut flowers fast and cheaply – but they will struggle even to compete with aircraft over long haul

And certainly will not compete with maritime shipping or rail

PS - I assumed you implied they would compete with rail when you claimed that “ land locked countries would no longer be land locked “

I will address more points tomorrow .

Your lighter than air cargo lifters – may be able to deliver post and cut flowers fast and cheaply – but they will struggle even to compete with aircraft over long haul

Now I know you have not done your homework. It's not Lighter than Air. I'll only believe you when I see an efficiency rating(Cost of operations per 10000 kilometers) of a Post Panamic-class ship versus the Aeros-ML. So far you have only spewed some chunky truthiness.

Good work on the Density though. Too bad it only applies to Blimps and only sort of applies to Zeppelins as a cost factor. For a fully mature Aeroscraft(say 20 years out), it would not even be a consideration.(as long as they don't overload the craft that is)

[edit on 16-11-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 16-11-2006 by sardion2000]

Can keep up with the latest defense news and funding here:

Blimps & LTA Craft - Defense Industry Daily

Walrus not dead yet, btw:

WALRUS Hunted to Extinction By Congress, DARPA?

DARPA also notes that demonstrations will include flight tests of a Walrus Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) scaled aircraft. This is a fancy way of saying that they plan to flight-test a "significant-scale" lifting airship in 2008 with a payload capability of around 30 tons, about 50% more than a Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules. These risk reduction demonstrations, including the ATD vehicle, are designed to establish a low-risk technology path for proving the Walrus concept and achieving the operating goals."

Lockheed Wins $149.2M Contract for High Altitude Airship

Millions of private industry and military dollars say it's viable technology.



[edit on 16-11-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by sardion2000

Now I know you have not done your homework. It's not Lighter than Air.

of course they are lighter than air , " lighter than air craft" is quite a standard phrase to describe such vehicles

do not believe me google it " lighter than air craft " with the space between air and craft .

as for " vacum = 0 " so freaking what ? how are you going to contain your precious vaccum ???????????

pray tell - how the hell you think that vacum " density " is relevant ??

the pressure vessel capable of suppporting a vacum would weigh far more than any " lift " the vacumm produced

dis you not do the " crush a can " experiment in hi schoool physics ????????

and you claim i have not done my home work , that is priceless