FeedsZeppelins today and potential alternatives
As many of you may be aware, zeppelins kick ass. Those graceful, beautiful airships of the past and, hopefully, future have floated their way into my heart and are there to stay. Unfortunately, they couldn't really survive the 1930s. However, zeppelin love has continued, and it appears that rising interests might yet again bring around the age of the zeppelin. This blog post profiles two companies that are working on modern airships and the different designs that are out there.
First up is probably the most well known of the modern zeppelin contenders, Zeppelin NT. This is the company that was recently lauded by the BBC. They focus primarily, though not exclusively, on leisure cruises. From the Wikipedia article, which I might as well shamelessly steal rather than reword:
The design currently has a range of some 900 km (500 nautical miles) and reaches top speeds of 125 km/h (70 nautical mph or 78 mph). The standard cruising speed of 70 km/h for tourist flights can be attained using the rear propeller only. Standard operational altitude is 300 m (1000 ft), but up to 2,600 m (8,500 ft) is possible. Their maximum permitted takeoff weight is 10,690 kg, with a payload of 1,900 kg.
The Zeppelin NT is able to take-off and land vertically. Only three helpers are required on the ground.
The Zeppelin NT design is semi-rigid, which means that it has a lot in common with the modern blimp. From my understanding most of the action takes place inside the gondola. The semi-rigid is the last modern design before the hybrid airship and was used by the first airship to go over the North Pole (this was the Norge).
Next up we have the apparently/hopefully defunct WorldSkyCat. The SkyCat ("Sky catamaran") is a hybrid airship. This, too, is very blimp-like, though it is much more aerodynamic. Indeed, it achieves 40% of its buoyancy from its design. However, it loses that 40% of payload and power when it has to ascend/descend vertically - a short runway is required. I don't know if they are still alive, but if they are, they're working on production of a model which has a payload of 220 tons, due out soon, which will be followed by a 1000-ton-payload model. The SkyCat can land and take off from water. Again, the main areas are in the gondola. Hybrid Aircraft is working on basically the same design, as is Lockheed-Martin's Skunkworks.
The SkyCat design is very similar to Skunkwork's P-791. There are a few notable differences; the P-791 uses hover skirts, which is.. well.. just totally awesome. It's also being developed in a large amount of secrecy, so you know it's got to be good. Check out this picture of it.
So, the two main designs are the semi-rigid and the SkyCat. Honestly, I'm not very happy with either of them. The semi-rigid seems to be nothing more than a souped up blimp and the SkyCat has a lot of problems. I propose a return to a hard shell, or at least mostly hard shell, design where the cabins and quarters are actually within the shell and the gondola plays a much smaller role. With today's modern aircraft composites it seems likely, though I fully admit that I have NO Idea what I'm talking about. We're talking a lot of tonnage here. It seems like there's a potential for it to scale nicely - a massive, massive zeppelin, if done right, would have a gigantic helium/hydrogen space. If it wasn't a linear relationship, which seems doable, it would be great. Of course, I'm still a large proponent of the zeppelin-as-hotel concept (and, lately, zeppelin-as-casino).
Thoughts? Recommendations? Fantasies? I'll take 'em all.
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.My understanding is that it was essentially the volatility of hydrogen that killed the Zeppelins. That plus Hitler. Has there been progress on this front?
My only suggestion is that Amory Lovins, co-author of a book called Natural Capitalism among other things, sees part of the future resolution of fuel crises in automobiles coming through building them of light-weight materials (plastics?) he claims to to be stronger than steel.
If he is right, to which I cannot speak, such materials might help out, depending on their engineering and economic characteristics.
Or are these the same as the aviation composites you mention? Well, maybe Lovins is a route into exploring the materials issue anyway.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Hi Chris,
As with most things, it's primarily Hitler's fault. The zeppelin had ceased to be an effective attack unit and the aluminum and such was better used in the war effort when Hitler invaded Poland. Hydrogen, ultimately, had little to do with it; the Hindenburg didn't really destroy the zeppelin industry. People still wanted to fly zeppelins. Hell, most people survived the Hindenburg disaster, and of the people who died, most of those deaths were by falling, not by fire.
And yes, the next generation of airships will surely be made of some sort of carbon composite. There's a good discussion in the comments thread of this post.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Well one of the problems facing modern Zeppelins is that everyone is terrified of using Hydrogen. While it is more dangerous it also can lift a lot more. This is why when you look at the old Zeppelins with their internal steel frame and look at modern alternatives they seem to be too light.
I like the Lockheed design from what I saw here. Unless we go back to Hydrogen then that is the best that can be done.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The hybrid model is definitely very interesting, though it removes some of the more interesting aspects of an airship in my mind. As some skeptic said, it combines the worst problems of an airplane and an airship. I wouldn't go that far, but my ideal airship would have a rigid shell for at least part of it to accommodate passengers, as I mentioned in the blog post. Maybe hydrogen is the only solution to the kind of zeppelins I'm imagining, but I really hope not.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Hi Michael:
You and your readers are on the right track in realizing that helium supported aircraft have an inherent benefit because their primary lift is provided by the static lift (ie. you don’t expend energy to stay in the air) of a lighter-than-air (LTA) gas. You’ve also guessed that comparing the efficiency of a notional new transportation system to that of the 100 year old and very mature airplane transport industry is like being in 1919 and comparing the efficiencies of biplane travel to that provided by existing passenger trains. Modern LTA transport (both cargo and passenger) is possible and can be created to serve REAL needs at cost effective prices. I’ve worked in the LTA industry since 1984 and I can tell you it doesn’t take rocket science to develop a useful LTA transport system that is both friendly to the Earth and to the wallet, but it does require serious minded aviation engineers, and financiers. What’s kept LTA vehicles from entering the mainstream of transportation has been the substantial inertia of how things are already being done, and secondly the wild, utopian dreams of airship romantics. The first group sees no need to drastically change the way their business has been working, and the second don’t believe that the laws of business (supply & demand) apply to them but think they can just dream their way into the glorious and profitable LTA future.
While it’s gratifying to see so much good discussion on blogs like yours about the potential benefits of LTA transports, what’s needed is a different type of discussion. We need the few LTA engineering and operational experts to be engaged with the investment community AND those who are concerned about climate change. I believe the real motivator for bringing back serious assessments of LTA craft is their ability to provide air transportation with little to no carbon emissions. What I would like to suggest is for the “Blogosphere” to help energize such a discussion. Would it be possible for one of more of the climate change blogs to support some kind of on-line LTA workshop where the right LTA questions and answers could be exchanged between the groups I’ve mentioned? Anybody got a better idea?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Save the Earth from ABOVE the Earth
I want to say very seriously, I have the best Airship on the planet at this time. Saving the planet is the goal !!!
An Airship uses less fuel in a week than a 747 does just taxiing on a runway.
My work will put someone on the Forbes 400 !!!
Given the green trend of late and the necessity to save the planet, my work introduces very practical answers to safe and efficient Air Travel, Package Delivery and Homeland Security. The impact of a perfectly functioning Airship is very far reaching.
This Airship will land on a dime, turn on a dime and have virtually no problem going in and out of a hanger. My ship is impervious to wind up to about 89 miles per hour. The advanced design allows for human safety factors unheard of in aviation history. Advanced materials, hybrid design and control surfaces add to a ship that is elegant, fast and safe. With that said I can design for each of the three main markets, Air Cruises, Package Delivery and Surveillance. Moreover, with a few minor adjustments I can redesign the original ship to match each market's need. There are many more than three areas of business to address, but I will focus on the above three.
Air Cruises: There is no gondola on my ship. I would not put you on the front bumper of my car. I would never put you on the underside of my airship, as is done on a standard airship. The first thing that hits the ground would be you. Now that is very poor design. The passengers on my ship will be well protected and have accoutrements unheard of in present day engineering. Passengers ride inside the ship and yet have access to deck space equivalent to that of a cruise ship on the ocean. State rooms are a standard on my ship - of course - there will be different classes as on airlines and cruise ships. Passengers are not confined to a small and limiting gondola.
Package Delivery: For package delivery this ship is designed differently. There are no passenger rooms, which allows for a cavernous environment for shipping. Fuel economy, speed and time make up the differences in how a future delivery service will be run. No trips to the airport, less trucks and an average speed - even though slower than the competition - will beat them economically and ecologically. Fred Smith creator of the Fed Ex system uses a hub. I too have a system which allows for the fact that airships are not as fast as airplanes. I make up for speed by using a system which drastically limits trips to the airport for both trucks and Airships.
Homeland Security: The French have been utilizing Airship surveillance for years. America has a greater need since 9/11 for cost efficient surveillance. From a standard surveillance blimp to the first fighter attack Airship which can reach up to 225 mph, my ship will demonstrate its superiority in any arena. Whether we use a tethered Airship or a fighter our military will be more efficient and have more endurance to secure our borders.
It's a Natural Evolutionary Process: In the year 2008 we have the engineering ability to create high quality Aircraft that will never fall out of the sky. In the future we will supplant most standard Aircraft and have many of our citizens living on platforms in the sky. Evolutionarily speaking it is the same as the progress from boat to ship to yacht, from car to truck, to mobile homes. With the advent of Nano Solar Cells, advanced wind power generators and advanced battery systems, a new age of airships is at hand. We already have battery powered cars which are faster than a Ferrari and a Lamborghini in a quarter mile. Utilizing the above new technologies we can save energy and severely impact the negative consequences of using fossil fuels. Having Solar Cells, battery power and new control systems of course save weight, provide clean energy and therefore allow our children to breathe easier in the future.
Observing tons of wasted fuel in the airline, cruise and shipping industries we can clearly see waste and pollution far beyond what new technology should have advanced us toward. Let's not forget the Exxon Valdese and other disastrous accidents where fossil fuel was involved. From explosions and fires to spills and unnecessary exploitation, man must learn to use new technological resources.
In the Brazilian rainforest they used and still do use Airships to study the rainforest canopy. They hover, and lower a platform for scientists to live on while studying the ecosystem of the rainforest. These great behemoths (Airships) of the air can also be used to deliver food, medical supplies and power generators to remote locations and third world countries.
I have dedicated a great portion of my life toward the study of Airships and their design. From 3 dimensional AutoCAD designs to spending many years in Libraries and on the internet I have designed a strong and practical evolutionary and revolutionary Airship. Just as other great aviators such as Howard Hughes, the Wright brothers and Glenn H. Curtiss have brought forth timeless and priceless advancements to human life, I am hoping to achieve similar results.
Due to legal and technical reasons I am not at liberty to speak about every aspect of my fully controllable Airship with out divulging great secrets about my Airship's design and flight characteristics. In the event that I am confronted with the opportunity to build my ship and create a new industry, I obviously will divulge the appropriate information to investors and other interested parties.
Nostradome@juno.com http://www.myspace.com/nostradome
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.