World's biggest aircraft moves toward commercial model (airship)

www.cnn.com...

The world's largest aircraft has been retired after six test flights, as its developers prepare to build a new, commercial model to take to the skies in the early 2020s.

The prototype Airlander 10, a hybrid helium airship built by Hybrid Air Vehicles, based in Bedfordshire in central England, measures 300 feet in length -- and has been dubbed the "flying bum" due to its unfortunate shape.

Its "luxury" variant was formally unveiled at the Farnborough Airshow in the UK in July, after a development process that was hit by some high-profile setbacks -- including a crash landing on its second flight.

Hybrid Air Vehicles will now begin work on the production version of the prototype, having secured approved from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

luxury tourist blimp
imagine flying over the arctic
dang, I'd love to be in one of these
any airship fans about?

a reply to: ElGoobero

I remember pics of this before it was flying, glad it worked. From the rear it looks a lot like KK's butt

I've always considered airships and zeppelins to be the most fragile (combustible) butterflies of the aviation industry. They should have at least a couple of decades of intense commercial use, to build a track record of utter dependability and safety before I would ever set foot in one.

originally posted by: 2Faced
I've always considered airships and zeppelins to be the most fragile (combustible) butterflies of the aviation industry.

In the case of Airlander (as per the OP), the gas and fabric are not flammable. Doing a bit of of research as the origins were military, it is said bullets would not cause too much grief, and missiles would just pass through it.

To the OP. I think airships like this have a future commercially, and not just luxury cruising - just got to get it right.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: 2Faced
I've always considered airships and zeppelins to be the most fragile (combustible) butterflies of the aviation industry.

In the case of Airlander (as per the OP), the gas and fabric are not flammable. Doing a bit of of research as the origins were military, it is said bullets would not cause too much grief, and missiles would just pass through it.

To the OP. I think airships like this have a future commercially, and not just luxury cruising - just got to get it right.

Agree but the previous poster has a valid point as we all relate airships to Zeppelin disaster, needs some validation before public will trust them.

However, seeing how many trucks are on the road a container version would be awesome, I just don’t think it will make commercial sense.

I Australia we pay a fortune to ride on luxury trains across the country, (not to replace air routes, to see the country as the sun rises and sets and with your car onboard to drive back) would definitely think this could have a commercial application there, especially if the worst that can happen is a slightly heavy but safe landing from 20 meters.

Trains are the Ghan from Adelaide to Darwin via Alice Springs and the India Pacific from Darwin to Sydney.

I'd go just so I could say got there on a flying bum.

originally posted by: 2Faced
I've always considered airships and zeppelins to be the most fragile (combustible) butterflies of the aviation industry. They should have at least a couple of decades of intense commercial use, to build a track record of utter dependability and safety before I would ever set foot in one.

Hindenburg and many early airships used hydrogen

modern ones use helium, non-flammable.

Goodyear has been flying them for years. US Navy has one or two.
agree, military might be best end user, but if they can space travel commercially (they plan) should be able to airship.

a reply to: 2Faced

You do realize that most of the time there's a football games, baseball game and other sporting events there's a blimp flying above the stadium?

For decades now.

the biggest issue with an airship is it's inherent slow speed. so i'm not sure how it could really compete with other modes of transportation for things like freight.

as for the Hindenburg tragedy that would cause a lot of concern about them being fiery death traps, there is a reason that happened. it was due to the Germans being stuck with using Hydrogen as it's lighter than air gas. because of military embargoes placed upon Germany keeping them from using much safer gases. because of course airships were just like aircraft were used militarily in the first world war (especially by the Germans). so the embargoes on things like the safer gases used in airships in countries like the US were not allowed to be sold to Germany as part of the proscriptions against the German military.

in fact the real reason that airships pretty much died except for novelty airships like the Goodyear blimp was due to them being slower than fixed wing aircraft available even going into the second world war. not to mention that due to the size of airships and the even bigger size (and extreme construction costs) of buildings needed to maintain them and even the sheer amount and cost of the lighter than air gases, made them a rather expensive vehicle to use and maintain. and i don't see how they would be any more economical today. i just don't see airships being useful other than for things like being used as tiny cruise ships, that would cost even more than a cruise on ocean based ships due to their much smaller passenger capacity. just another toy for the rich to play with and of not much real use.

I wouldn't worry so much about fire, but weather is still a big issue. Not so big a deal to cancel a flight when you're a flying billboard. When you're in a commercial freight/passenger service and have to cancel flights for a few days, it'll kill your business unless you have a backup plan to ship them via some other means. Or someone motivated by the prospect of losing all that money decides to fly anyway and there's an accident undermining confidence in the entire concept. Not to mention the occasional unpredicted pop-up storm which is a nuisance for general aviation, but a real safety concern for LTA.

There's a niche market for this commercially, but it'd be a tough sell.

I see them replacing huge cranes for heavy high one off lifts. Make a huge AC unit and deliver it from your factory to high rise roof in one lift. Maybe one on each coast and they could cover the inland of the US. Delivering mining or other heavy equipment to the far north, south, east or west.

originally posted by: mikell
I see them replacing huge cranes for heavy high one off lifts. Make a huge AC unit and deliver it from your factory to high rise roof in one lift. Maybe one on each coast and they could cover the inland of the US. Delivering mining or other heavy equipment to the far north, south, east or west.

I remember reading about a few such projects since the nineties. But none of them has gone anywhere. I guess the demand is simply not there.

a reply to: generik

the biggest issue with an airship is it's inherent slow speed. so i'm not sure how it could really compete with other modes of transportation for things like freight. 

Container ships generally run sub-20 knots (23mph).
Freight trains are generally limited to sub-55mph, lower in towns and cities.
Trucking a bit above that.

If you can get a HAV to cruise at 90mph as planned, travelling as the crow flies instead of road bound, the speed is significantly faster. You lose out to more expensive air freight if speed is your primary concern, but operational costs are potentially lower than other air freight (and you don't need to build/expand roads or rails to a mining or drill site out in the boonies, for example).

The issues are really payload, safety, how resilient your chain is, etc. I can buy space on a 50t boxcar or container car pretty cheap. Same with trucking and ship containers. If this is limited to eleven tons, you'd need unique circumstances to make this pay off. The goal eventually is a larger HAV with the same 50t payload capacity. But its still hard to see where a HAV carrying one container is going to be more economical than operating a train or ship carrying dozens or hundreds. You need a very narrow set of circumstances for this to start making sense.